Re: [OT]How to redefine the word "Unilaterally"

--- Allan Goodall <agoodall@att.net> wrote:

The original statement ecompassed two elements:
Unilatterally which means 1 (count them, 1) European
actor intervening.  Not coalition, UN, allied, et al,
AND sucessful.

> I picked up my copy of Penguin's "Atlas of World
> History", volume two.
> 
> - Russo-Polish War, 1920: war ended with the help of
> French intervention.

Multilat.  French and Poles.

> - Italian invasion of Abyssinia (Ethopia), 1935

Whee. . . Impressive.  One.

> - Spanish Civil War, 1936-39: although the
> International Brigades included
> Britons, French, Americans, Canadians, and others,
> the only "official" support
> came from Germany, Italy, Portugal (all supported
> the rebels), and Russia
> (supported the monarchy).

This was a pan-Euro free for all.  Everyone got
involved either officially or not.

> - Italian occupation of Albania, 1939

I believe I credited that in the thread re: Italian
military ability, but at any rate it falls under the
general heading of "WWII" even if it predated invasion
of Poland by a few months.  Two.

> - Greco-Turkish War, 1920-22.

Don't get me started.[1]  That wasn't an intervention,
it was self-defense.  On the Greek part.

> - Irish "Civil War" 1919-21: conflict between Irish
> nationalists, Irish
> "loyalists" and Britain, resulting in the
> establishment of the Irish Free
> State.

How that's a European nation committing a sucessful
unilatteral intervention, I don't know.  The Brits
lost, the Irish weren't intervening anywhere but their
own back yard.

> - Wars of the "warlords" for Peking in Northern
> China, 1916-26: "Western
> powers" supported the warlords; can't tell if the US
> was among them (I believe
> it was) but definitely involved Europeans.

Western Powers implied multilat operations, unless I'm
mistaken.

> - Britain was involved in China (Shanghai in
> particular), not just Hong Kong,
> during the Nationalist Revolution in 1925-27.

And so were other people.

> - Britain helped put down communist uprising in
> Greece after withdrawal of
> German forces, 1944-45.

Uhhh. . . US got involved in that on the financial and
military aid side. 

> - UN intervention in Cyprus, 1964 (mostly Canadian,
> British, and other UN
> troops).

UN is definitially Multilatteral.

> - 1st Indo-China War, 1946-54: surprised John didn't
> remember _this_ one, it's
> the French involvement in Vietnam.

Unsucessful.

> - French involvement in Algerian struggle for
> liberation, 1954-62

Unsucessful.

> - Burmese Civil War, 1948-54: British troops were
> involved.

I don't recall any details on that one.  So I have to
give it to you.

> - Guerrilla war in Malaya, 1954-57: British troops
> involved in a counter
> insurgency war against Chinese supported partisans.
> SAS participation was well
> documented.

Yup.  Not bad.	That's three.

> - Mau-mau campaigns, Kenya, 1952-1954: nationalist
> partisans/terrorists fought
> against British police and military.

Four.

> - Uprising in Congo, 1959-60: Belgium sent in
> paratroopers to try to quell
> uprising. UN troops stabilized the situation.

Again with the UN.

> - Aden, late 1958-62: I'm not sure when Britain
> pulled out of Aden (now
> Yemen), but British troops were involved in various
> uprisings there in the
> late 1950s. I know as my Dad's regiment was _this_
> close to getting posted
> either to Aden or to Cyprus (ended up posted to
> Germany).

Five.  Three of which are UK (plus Falklands) and 2 of
which are Italy getting froggy during the build-up to
WWII.  

The point still stands.  It's rare, difficult, done by
2 states (one of which was loony-fascist at the time).
 And none since 196-mumble except the Falklands. 
Which even Brits admit couldn't be done again today.

John

[1]No, seriously.  Don't.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!