[OT]How to redefine the word "Unilaterally"

3 posts ยท Mar 11 2002 to Mar 11 2002

From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:33:15 -0800 (PST)

Subject: 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

Multilat. French and Poles.

> - Italian invasion of Abyssinia (Ethopia), 1935

Whee... Impressive. One.

> - Spanish Civil War, 1936-39: although the

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

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

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

> - Britain was involved in China (Shanghai in

And so were other people.

> - Britain helped put down communist uprising in

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

> - UN intervention in Cyprus, 1964 (mostly Canadian,

UN is definitially Multilatteral.

> - 1st Indo-China War, 1946-54: surprised John didn't

Unsucessful.

> - French involvement in Algerian struggle for

Unsucessful.

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

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

Yup. Not bad. That's three.

> - Mau-mau campaigns, Kenya, 1952-1954: nationalist

Four.

> - Uprising in Congo, 1959-60: Belgium sent in

Again with the UN.

> - Aden, late 1958-62: I'm not sure when Britain

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.

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:54:37 -0600

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

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:33:15 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The point still stands. It's rare, difficult, done by

I was just listing what I came across. I should have put a preamble on it,
stating that these were the military actions I found involving European
states.

From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@a...>

Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:58:22 -0600

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

On Mon, 11 Mar 2002 15:33:15 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The point still stands. It's rare, difficult, done by

Oops... sent it too soon.

I was just listing what I came across. I should have put a preamble on it,
stating that these were the military actions I found involving European
states.

And I missed the "successful" qualifier.

I should have also included a bunch of others that included US participation,
just to be complete, including the involvement with the White Russians, but
then again, that was unsuccessful, too.