Humanities desk
< February 19	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 20

British casualties on the Western Front of World War II

Are there any sources about the losses of Great Britain on the Western Front of World War II? It's just that the number of 40 thousand given in the article looks underestimated Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 08:00, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you ask this already? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 08:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From an article about the Western Front of WWII Western Front (World War II), and 41 thousand killed (11 thousand killed in 1939-1941, and 30 thousand in 1944-1945) sounds somehow strange. Great Britain lost 384 thousand soldiers, did Great Britain lose the remaining 340 thousand in Italy, the Balkans, Africa, the Atlantic and the Pacific Lone Ranger1999 (talk) 17:50, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Ranger1999, it would help if you at least linked to the particular article you mean, so that we can see the context. That particular casualty figure might be mentioned in a fair number of articles.

Have you considered that, between the Dunkirk evacuation and D-Day, relatively few British land forces were fighting on the European Western Front (which did not include Italy). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 10:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Between Dunkirk and D-Day there simply was no Western Front at all. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was the odd Commando raid; presumably agents killed after being dropped into Nazi-occupied countries to help the local Resistance forces would count; and most obviously there was the air battle, including the Battle of Britain, which is why I said "few". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.55.125 (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were no set-piece land battles, but there was Operation Claymore, the Allied occupation of Iceland etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there were thousands of battles during World War II. However, many of them did not occur on the Western Front, among which those that did not include the Allied occupation of Iceland; Iceland not being on the Western Front. However, there are some military operations noted at Western Front (World War II)#1941–1944: Interlude which the OP (or yourself) can peruse at your own leisure. Operation Claymore was not noted there, though that section is not comprehensive, and does point to other articles that may cover it in more detail. --Jayron 32 16:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Dieppe Raid in 1942 (3,600 allied casualties, about 1,000 killed) is probably a better example, but I take your point. Alansplodge (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invasions since WWII

Since WWII, how often has a country invaded another country, unprovoked and with the intent of annexing it or (a large) part of it? There is a List of invasions, but most of those I don't know about and many that I do know about are not for the purpose of annexation, or just a small part, like an island for strategic purposes. Or it is part of an ongoing conflict, with disputed territories (eg the decolonisations after WWII). So a criterium is that the invaded country has to be at least recognised by the UN.
The reason I ask is to ascertain how unique the invasion of Ukraine is. DirkvdM (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does List of wars: 1945–1989 and List of wars: 1990–2002 and List of wars: 2003–present help your research? --Jayron 32 14:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lists of wars are even longer because they include civil wars, which most of them indeed are. Civil wars are more common than invasions, it seems (not surprisingly). DirkvdM (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, and yet, it still provides a good resource for you to begin your own research into the topic, does it not? --Jayron 32 16:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the annexation of Tibet by China is a good example, rather comparable to the invasion of Ukraine, because Tibet declared itself independent after the fall of the Qing dynasty, but I doon't know if this was internationally recognised. DirkvdM (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in the summer of 1990 is a close comparable to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but it's not the only one. See Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Xuxl (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, that's a good one. DirkvdM (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Cyprus is also somewhat similar because it was an internal conflict after British rule ended, in which Turkey intervened. But was it already internationally recognised as one country? DirkvdM (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic of Cyprus was established as an independent state on 16 August 1960 and became a member of the United Nations on 20 September 1960, implying that it was then generally internationally recognized. --Lambiam 23:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I want to know is how uncommon these things have become. It is said that after WWII peace broke out, and apart from independence movements and civil wars this seems to hold true for most parts of the world. DirkvdM (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DirkvdM -- In Europe after 1950, there was basically nothing until the break-up of Yugoslavia. (There were the Soviet interventions in Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968, but they weren't classic invasions)... AnonMoos (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The break-up of Yugoslavia was not the result of another country invading, so that doesn't count. DirkvdM (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One major problem with this question is that there is no definition of "unprovoked and with the intent of annexing it or (a large) part of it." Was China's attack on Vietnam in 1979 unprovoked? Did Russia's 2014 seizure of Crimea comprise the annexing of a large part of Ukraine? Such open-ended questions are not useful. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 21:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I placed 'large' between brackets because that is indeed vague. What I really meant was a seizure of land because of the land itself (or the inhabitants), not just for strategic purposes. But that is still vague, because one has to guess the intentions. The Chinese attack on Vietnam was part of an ongoing conflict (and a bloody complicated one at that) that China had already been involved in. And of course a case of decolonisation (or the aftermath of it). But the seizure of the Crimea does count because it is the size of a small country (although it was also for strategic purposes). DirkvdM (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Green March, Indonesian invasion of East Timor, Nagorno Karabakh, Israeli wars, Kashmir conflict including Pakistan, India and China. --Error (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands War --Error (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those were part of, or the result of decolonisation. All very different situations, but without the (overseas) colonisation of European countries and the wave of decolonisation shortly after the WWII all that woud probably not have happened. The (de)colonisation made all those territories disputed. Unless of course the local population does not object to being a colony, which makes this more complicated.

Nagorno Karabakh is a different in that if regarded as a colony it is not overseas. However, there was a breakoff from Russia, so in that sense similar. And it is a case of separationism, so in that sense an internal conflict. DirkvdM (talk) 09:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Falklands were uninhabited prior to their discovery by Europeans. The British case rested on the right of self-determination of the islanders. Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In a way, the Ukraine war is also the result of the colonization of New Russia (formerly part of the Crimean Khanate) by the Russian empire with Slavic, Jewish and Germanic populations. It was earlier colonized by the Golden Horde, Greeks and several nomadic peoples.

Besides, war and invasion were known before European colonization. Often, colonizers just took sides in an existing war. It's a pattern seen since at least the Roman intervention in an Egyptian succession dispute.

--Error (talk) 13:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iran–Iraq War was quite similar to the current Russia–Ukraine war I think, with Iraq seeking the success of separatists friendly to Iraq in the Iranian Khuzestan province, possibly to later annex it. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 13:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do YOU call "Arab empire"?

request for opinion. --Jayron 32 16:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello.

I and @Srnec: had a discussion at Talk:Arab empire#Which ones are called as such. In it, I argued that the Abbasid Caliphate, the Fatimid Caliphate, and the Ayyubid dynasty. My main point is that those three entities are considered by many people, whether it is the academic consensus or not, Arab. Srnec argues it is not the case, that I am the only one who has this common misconception.

So, I ask here: do you call those three entities "Arab empire" or something along those lines? Veverve (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Umayyad Caliphate is in Arab empire, but Caliphate of Córdoba is not. You could argue whether it is an empire or not and how Arab it was.

The caliphate had an ethnically, culturally, and religiously diverse society. A minority of ethnic Muslims of Arab descent occupied the priestly and ruling positions, another Muslim minority were primarily soldiers and muladi converts were found throughout society. Jews comprised about ten percent of the population: little more numerous than the Arabs and about equal in numbers to the Berbers. They were primarily involved in business and intellectual occupations. The Christian minority (Mozarabs) professed by and large the Visigothic rite. The Mozarabs were in a lower strata of society, heavily taxed with few civil rights and culturally influenced by the Muslims. Ethnic Arabs occupied the top of the social hierarchy; Muslims had a higher social standing than Jews, who had a higher social standing than Christians. Christians and Jews were considered dhimmis, required to pay jizya (a protection tax).

There is a template with a list of states:

--Error (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My gut feeling is basically what Srnec says. If someone could provide some sources, that would be great. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions at the top of this page say, among other things, "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate." What I think is not relevant to the purpose of this board. --Jayron 32 16:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alexander the Great

Looking at the map of Alexander's empire I'm left wondering why he didn't conquer Epirus, Cyprus, Bithynia and Pontos, which were a lot closer to Macedonia than India, which he tried to invade. I hope my question doesn't sound too stupid! Thank you!

79.43.89.138 (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we cannot know what was in his mind, the best we can do is guess, which isn't very useful. Maybe those places just weren't interesting enough. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) There was an attempt to conquer Bithynia under general Calas, but that failed. See also Bas of Bithynia and the reference given there. I guess Alexander was just too busy elsewhere to take care of that himself. --Wrongfilter (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolia is mountainous, and some regions aren't too accessible by land. I would guess that Alexander was focused on getting to the main regions of the Persian empire, and didn't care too much about leaving a few enclaves behind that couldn't seriously threaten his connection with Macedonia. AnonMoos (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Ancient_history_of_Cyprus#Hellenistic_period, the Cypriots overthrew Persian control and helped Alexander in his further campaigns. So it seems that Cyprus didn't need conquering. --Amble (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Pontus and Bithynia were not part of the Achaemenid Empire. Alexander's first two goals were unifying the Greek city states and conquering the Achaemenid Empire, the traditional enemies of the Greeks. He probably didn't conquer Epirus because they were his allies; the king of Epirus was Alexander I of Epirus, both his uncle and brother-in-law. --Jayron 32 12:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Anything that wasn't directly relevant to Greece or Persia wasn't relevant to his immediate goals. By the time he had subdued both, he was closer to India than to Epirus, and invading only one of those makes you sound like a mythological figure. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about Laconia? Was it an Alexandrian ally too? There's nothing relevant in Laconia#Ancient history. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Battle of Megalopolis, League of Corinth, Antipater, and Sparta#Hellenistic_and_Roman_Sparta. Sparta allied with the Persians against Alexander, but his general Antipater defeated them, after which Sparta was forced to join the League of Corinth, meaning that they became Alexander's allies and had to support his campaigns, but were in principle still independent. --Amble (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]