National War Machines to Successfully Conquer Large Countries No Longer Exist

by

During and after World War 2, large areas of the world were conquered and successfully occupied for many years. However, conquering countries and territories has become very rare since 1970.

Cambridge studies and other academic studies observe that territorial conquest declined sharply after 1945 and virtually subsided after 1975. However, using new and more comprehensive data on territorial conquest attempts, a study presents a revised history of conquest after 1945. Unlike attempts to conquer entire states, attempts to conquer parts of states remained far more common than previously recognized. More than conquest declined in frequency, its relationship with war evolved. Challengers attempting conquest before 1945 often initiated a war, then sought to occupy large territories. Today, challengers more often seize small regions, then attempt to avoid war.

The German War machine that conquered most of Europe had about 4 million soldiers. The Soviet War Machine that defeated Germany and then conquered half of Europe had 11-12 million personnel and 60,000 tanks. The Soviets maintained force levels at about 5 million throughout the occupation.

Japan and the United States (and its allies) were the only forces that were able to capture contested islands or major amphibious military operations.

The Soviets were able overwhelm with ten to one to a hundred to one odds in land invasions in Europe. China will not be able to transport an invasion force five to ten times larger than the D-Day invasion onto Taiwan. The air operation alone would be larger than anything done since WW2. The Naval operation would be larger than any since D-day and would be larger than D-day. Taiwan is more populated by orders of magnitude than any successful contested island invasion during WW2.

The US and Israel have been the main air forces involved in sizable air combat after 1970. There as also the Iran-Iraq War and the Indo-Pakistan war. The post-WW2 to 1969 period had the Korean War and the Vietnam war with significant air battles.

In terms of conquered, the invasion of Iraq could be considered last country that was conquered and Russia has annexed Crimea and is now occupying part of Ukraine.

The last unsuccessful annexation would be Kuwait, while the last successful annexation would be South Vietnam.

Here is a list with some from prior to 1970.

India

Hyderabad State
French India
Jammu & Kashmir
Portuguese India (Goa)
Sikkim

Pakistan:

Kashmir

Turkey:

Northern Cyprus

Russia:

Crimea
South Ossetia
Abkhazia

China:

Tibet – Tibet came under the control of the Qing dynasty of China in 1720 after the Qing expelled the forces of the Dzungar Khanate from Tibet. It remained under Qing suzerainty (or protectorate) until 1912. The succeeding Republic of China claimed inheritance of all territories held by the Qing dynasty, including Tibet. 1951 China took Tibet again.

Aksai Chin

Hong Kong

Israel:

West Bank
Gaza
Golan
Lebanon

North Vietnam:

South Vietnam

It should be noted that the Indian and Pakistan war also had the Bangladesh Liberation war and Bangladesh genocide. Members of the Pakistani military and supporting paramilitary forces killed an estimated 300,000 to 3,000,000 people and raped between 200,000 and 400,000 Bangladeshi women in a systematic campaign of genocidal rape. Pakistan’s religious leaders openly supported the crime by labelling Bengali freedom fighters Hindus and Bengali women the booty of war. In fact, more than 80 percent of the Bengali people were Muslims at that time.

7 thoughts on “National War Machines to Successfully Conquer Large Countries No Longer Exist”

  1. in WWII the only way to penetrate armor was a bigger gun or to attach were thermos was weakest. Today we used shaped charges explosives. The explosion compresses and heats metal and then directs the molten metal at one spot on the target. The shipped charge of the javelin missile can penetrate armor almost 30 inches thick. Only WWII battle ships had armor that thick. Tanks and and troop carriers don’t stand a change against a direct hit of a javelin missile that a soldier can carry.

    The same is true of aircraft defenses. In WWII the only way to shoot down an attacking aircraft was to fire explosives in the air with the hope the metal shrapnel would damage or destry the aircraft or fire a gun at the aircraft. Often the aircraft would not be hit. Today we have missiles that fly to the fighter and get close enough that when they explode there is a high probability of damaging or destroying the aircraft.

    In short it has gotten much easier to destry equipment and soldiers from a distance. Meaning the casualties for the attacking force are higher with more equipment losses. S o it is not really a surprise that the poorly trained rus sian army has not been able to hold and gain territory for over a year.

  2. The bigger issue is in whether you want the target country intact and productive -and- the political fall-out from such an action.
    Witness Russia-Ukraine: when Russia’s attempted de-capitation of Kyiv to take Ukraine coup-politically-like failed so spectacularly last year and the resultant gamble lead to a series of dramatic sanctions, international company mass exodus, and a large-scale pariah-type condemnation for all things Russian worldwide — they should have – at that time – made a serious determination of their Bigger Goal. Which should have been the containment of NATO away from the Black Sea and to be a perennial threat to all eastern Bloc-type countries – a reasonable goal for an unreasonable culture clinging to Delusions of Grandeur. This could not ever have been accomplished by land invasion. They shouild have accepted their pariah status for the next decade or so, tactically nuked the dozen major cities near the Black Sea, accepted the land-destroying nature of that action so as to make those lands undesirable, but forever Russian. NATO would not have undertaken a ‘shock and awe’ campaign to eliminate Russian air, missile, and naval throughout the west and south zones of Russia – and we would be at the situation: Ukraine with no chance of NATO or EU membership and a colossal sense of dread for a re-emerging Russia into the latter half of the 21st century — instead of this war of attrition which will only serve to lose Russia Crimea and the west parts of the Sea of Azov in the next 6 to 12 months -and- a serious decimation of their miserable land and air forces, with little ability to post a signfiicant naval force in the Black Sea. For a country that prides itself on being a chess superpower and all the strategic brilliance that implies — a colossal miscalculation. If you’re going to be Evil and Machiavellian, go Big or Go Home.

  3. Demographics are a b*tch, aren’t they? People get old and die and the younger generations forget how to procreate. If there was a way to fix that I am sure the Chinese would have found it by now.

  4. This analysis is confusing.
    The US, for example, did capture and occupied Iraq. It only left because it wasn’t a war of acquisition. China could easily do the same to any number of neighbors. Etc

    • It would be especially difficult for China to land and supply enough forces to occupy Taiwan if Taiwan followed a drone based defensive strategy inspired by the Ukraine War. Drone boats, torpedos, aircraft, missiles by the tens of thousands could be distributed in Taiwan’s mountainous interior where they would be hard to take out. Taiwan has the tech to build them itself. They would serve no purpose on offense but make an invasion too costly to even consider.

    • Any number of neighbors, yes, but not Taiwan. Three reasons – water, the porcupine of Taiwan itself and its main ally – USA.

Comments are closed.