Vatican City. San Marino. Vanuatu. Palau. Lichtenstein. Costa Rica.
Also gotta remember: Some countries are less than 50 years old. Like South Sudan is only 17 years old at this point. They may not have had enemies or conflicts in the short period of time they existed.
You sure about including the Vatican in that list? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States
The country of Vatican City has never been to war.
Brings up the question as to where OP draws the line. If a country was established after a violent revolution, would that count if that newly established country has not yet gone to war or would the war for their independence have ruined that? Or in this case, the influence of the church getting other countries to fight.
Not sure what you’re talking about, I was not saying the Papal States were influencing other countries to fight, they were doing the fighting. The Pope was the head of state, sure they have a new name now, but the power structures and traditions have a straight line between the Papal States and current day Vatican City.
I am saying exactly what you just reiterated. The church was the main influence, but Vatican City wasn’t a country.
Meh IMO a country created out of the ashes of the Papal States with the same power structures is functionally the same country. But you are correct, Vatican City has not fought any wars after signing the deal with Mussolini that officially ended the Papal States.
Costa Rica doesn’t have an army. They spent that money on the environment.
No, it’s like college football: when you get a new country you have to choose a rival. If you don’t, then it defaults to France.
Ok I’ll bite Washington State Basketball Huskies
Of course, there are many countries in the world with not much history of engaging in conflict at all. Many of them are very small or located in places that have no strategic or economic value to anyone.
The first country I thought of is Liechtenstein.
Lichtenstein seems pretty chill, but I don’t know much about their history
Well, if you outsource your military to the Swiss …
The House of Liechtenstein has been involved in a lot of history though.
I’ve always associated Switzerland with consistent neutrality, but someone with more historical knowledge may correct me on that.
They’re militarily neutral but their banks are super corrupt and stocked with fascist. So much nazi plundered wealth went into Switzerland and never came out. You read that right cheeseholes, Switzerland is a beautiful, well run country and the corruption of UBS alone will collapse Davos into a black hole.
@[email protected] defend your home. A history lesson has been requested
Their mercenaries were famous throughout Europe and the dependency of the great European powers on those mercenaries led to Switzerland being left mostly in peace.
That’s what I’ve read, but I’d love to be corrected.
I personally think it’s geography. The Irish, Scots and Germans were important sources of mercenaries and that didn’t stop anybody from attacking them.
Also Switzerland fought quite some wars throughout history against great powers like France and Austria too.
That makes a lot of sense and seems the most obvious answer.
Davos is in Switzerland btw. So of your country has a problem with the WEF, and corporate corruption in general, Switzerland is to blame. Palentir has recently bought some media companies in Switzerland as well.
Iran hasn’t started a war or participated in an offensive war in modern times (since before the US existed).
The one where Iraq invaded Iran?
That one?
Though hasn’t Iran also provided funding and aide to known international terrorist organizations? Like you know, what the USA does for the “freedom fighters” and such?
I don’t think this answers your question, but this might interest you if you haven’t heard of it before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinelese
It’s an island with a tribe of people who have no contact with the rest of the world.
It definitely does not answer their question, as the Sentinelese seem to consider everyone and everything that comes near them an enemy. Given how colonialism usually plays out and how contemptible other people are in general, I can’t say I particularly blame them.
“That comes near them” is a crucial qualifier. If you leave them alone, they leave you alone.
The Shire.
Unless you have read the books…
I have.
Canada? We’ve been in a bunch of fights but haven’t picked them ourselves. Consider the bloody battle for Han Island as an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War
Canada was an open participant in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, and a clandestine participant in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which kinda sounds like picking a fight to me.
I don’t have an answer for Afghanistan. We suck. Iraq? My understanding is that we wouldn’t go without a UN resolution which was not forthcoming. We have officers posted in other countries for various exchanges and they fought with their host countries. So we had a few hundred people there in various roles. I don’t know about the clandestine participant.
Hasn’t Canada had to answer for various war crimes?
We have. Notably during the World Wars. But we didn’t instigate those conflicts. We managed to avoid Viet Nam. We were involved in Korea but that was following a UN resolution.
The Inuit might have something to say. The children found in the mass graves by churches can’t really speak. Canadians speak English & French. Remind me where England and France are, and what their history is with colonialism.
Imo, if you go back far enough, it is unlikely. No matter how peaceful or charitable a country may be now, they had to lay claim to their land at some point. And making those claims usually meant displacing or conquering someone else.
And making those claims usually meant displacing or conquering someone
That’s not correct. There were fewer people in former times. The world’s population is growing. The differences in numbers are astonishing. Therefore they had much more “free space” then.
When the numbers were far lower they used more area to support people and they all wanted the better places too.
Fun fact. When Captain Vancouver sailed up the strait eventually named Juan de fuca, he spotted an aboriginal group in canoes, painted aggressively and paddling furiously. He passed a village, near what was ripple Rock, occupied by another band, soon thereafter.
On the return trip, that village was occupied by the group he saw in the canoes earlier.
Even before Canada was a country, the people occupying it were displacing others.
Of course, the Clovis people may have something to say about displacement as well.
Ah, the old, “well they were doing it when we got here, we may as well keep doing it” argument.
During WW1, Spain stayed neutral, and then went on to have the “Spanish Flu” named after them. Even though it didn’t originate from there, they were just neutral during the war, and had no quarrels in announcing their deaths, while the countries at war didn’t wonna announce that their soldiers were dying at a high pace.
The Swiss have managed to stay out of wars for a very long time and are famously neutral.
Back in the day, Switzerland was one of Europe’s main sources of armies-for-hire. We see the echoes of that today in the Swiss Guard in Vatican City, for instance.
They did not stay out of war by not being armed, rather the opposite. A mountainous country with a large army would be very difficult to invade in the first place and then very costly to control.
Survival tool. :)
