How many countries began with war?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim_Baur

Guest
The battle or pre battle in Ukraine made me ask myself this question: how many countries with birthed in war?

Any help?
 
Most of the New World, I’d say, especially the South American countries. Countries that’ve had someone’s land under their control for 3 centuries wouldn’t leave without a fight, no way.
 
How many countries were birthed in war?

All of them.

Just because a group of people have a history that stretches back before the written word, that doesn’t mean that they didn’t take it from someone/something else.
 
Tzimisce said:
How many countries were birthed in war?

All of them.
Click to expand...
this. well almost this. probably most of them. We are human remember and we are fallen and sinful. Warring and conflict is our default.
 
Would be quicker and easier to say: list the ones that were not birthed by war!
 
Jim_Baur said:
Would be quicker and easier to say: list the ones that were not birthed by war!
Click to expand...
You beat me to it.

Maybe Canada, Australia…probably the former Soviet Republics, like Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine…Czechoslovakia split without a war… Modern Israel was kind of created by a political decision. War followed, but I think it was actually created on a map by Britain.
 
on_the_hill said:
You beat me to it.

Maybe Canada, Australia…probably the former Soviet Republics, like Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine…Czechoslovakia split without a war… Modern Israel was kind of created by a political decision. War followed, but I think it was actually created on a map by Britain.
Click to expand...
Does French and Indian War affect your views on Canada? Czechoslovakia only exists because Woodrow Wilson redrew the European map after WWI.
 
Here is, perhaps, another principle. In Biblical times a conquering army would disperse the conquered. In modern terms, they would mix the people of Illinois, with Ohio, Missouri, Kansas and create a mixture in all of the states. The different people would fight among themselves. After World War II, they drew lines around five or six countries and called them Yugoslavia, Iraq and the Soviet Union. Of course, I think the Hapsburg family might have done it first. And when the Italians cause trouble, they sent in the Croatians or the other way round.
 
starshiptrooper said:
Does French and Indian War affect your views on Canada? Czechoslovakia only exists because Woodrow Wilson redrew the European map after WWI.
Click to expand...
Nope. Because Canada wasn’t a country then. It became an independent nation through peaceful constitutional means many years after the French & Indian War.

Czechoslovakia also didn’t create itself through war. When I’m answering this question, I’m thinking of nations that were born from revolution, rebellion, etc. Like the U.S., and the countries of Central and South America.
 
There is one country whose leader was crucified.

For we are citizens of heaven of the promise land.

We have no land but Christ Jesus and Him crucified.
 
on_the_hill said:
Nope. Because Canada wasn’t a country then. It became an independent nation through peaceful constitutional means many years after the French & Indian War.

Czechoslovakia also didn’t create itself through war. When I’m answering this question, I’m thinking of nations that were born from revolution, rebellion, etc. Like the U.S., and the countries of Central and South America.
Click to expand...
Depends on how one approaches the question. There were lots of conflicts in the formation of Canada; mostly with indigenous peoples, but also between the French and the Brits, also with America. There were battles in Australia between the white immigrants and indigenous peoples as well.

The former Czechoslovakia was created out of a war. Not-terribly-homogenous people were put together by the victors in a war against Austria-Hungary. So it, too, was the result of war.

In the broadest sense, there probably aren’t more than a handful of countries that weren’t the product of armed conflict in one way or another.
 
There were never “battles” in Australia between Aborigines and the English…there were conflicts or skirmishes between groups of Aborigines… police troopers…and white settlers…Aborigines didn’t stand much chance armed with spears and on foot against Europeans on horseback armed with pistols and rifles…if anything…sadly… there were “massacres” inflicted on Aborigines.
 
Peebo said:
There were never “battles” in Australia between Aborigines and the English…there were conflicts or skirmishes between groups of Aborigines… police troopers…and white settlers…Aborigines didn’t stand much chance armed with spears and on foot against Europeans on horseback armed with pistols and rifles…if anything…sadly… there were “massacres” inflicted on Aborigines.
Click to expand...
A massacre is still an armed conflict, just a very one-sided one.
 
Spain. The nation (or nations?) was formed through the struggle against the Muslim invaders. Before it was the Visigothic kingdom. The various Spanish crowns developed and were conjoined due to resisting the foreign enemy through 700 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top