Is there anywhere that has not been at war with Britain?

"Anywhere" would mean "a contemporary country that was part of an empire or state that was at war with the United Kingdom or one of the earlier constituent countries of the British Isles". For "was part of an empire or state" we can say "was claimed by and/or under the control of an empire or state at war with Britain, and someone from there could have conceivably met the British in battle other than as a simple mercenary." Add: Private adventurers and mercenaries should be excluded.

So all of South America counts, as Britain was at war with the Spanish Empire several times. Switzerland counts, as it fought at some times on the French side in the Napoleonic wars. China counts (opium wars). Norway counts, several medieval wars with England and Scotland. Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan count, as there was an Anglo-Indian army fighting there in 1918-9.

Perhaps Mongolia? Anywhere else?

  • 1
    This is amazing. I am told I must edit the question to get it considered. I can't appeal to any authority, as I don't have the privileges. I edit the question. My edits get deleted. Nobody explains anything. What kind of place is this? – user24000 Oct 13 '16 at 21:18
  • 1
    It's on topic, it clearly a history question. It's clear what I'm asking. There is no ambiguity here. I want suggestions as to candidates for regions (defined for convenience as the territory of a modern country) with which any nation residing in the island of Britain has not been in a state of war. Nor is it opinion-based. Either a country was or was not at war with another. This is certainly not a question of opinion, compared with most questions on the site. – user24000 Oct 13 '16 at 21:26
  • 1
    Neither is it too broad under the definition on the help page. This does not require a book, nor does it have multiple competing answers. It asks for a list of a few countries. Neither do the answers need to be long by the standards of most on the site. The question, even as originally posed, is capable of a more concise answer than most on the site. – user24000 Oct 13 '16 at 21:26
  • 1
    Sheesh. Lighten up guys. I'm British. This came out of a light-hearted discussion that we were having at work. History is history, and in the past. You don't have to take personal responsibility for it. I defined "anywhere" as the territory of a modern country, just to prevent excessive nit-picking. The choice is perhaps a little arbitrary, but the question needed some kind of limit. – user24000 Oct 13 '16 at 21:28
  • 1
    Perhaps the question could also be asked of other countries, quite fairly. We chose Britain because we are British. It is not "too broad", as for example, Sweden has never been at war with Greece, Turkey, or Persia/Iran, as far as I know. The question, as asked, is clear, factual, specific, and would benefit from the input of historians and history buffs. Therefore, it meets the requirements as specified in the help page. – user24000 Oct 13 '16 at 21:29


There is nowhere that the British did not touch with war. As a last ditch attempt, I thought perhaps Antarctica would have been spared - as there are no people to fight! But no, the Nazis were there too, and the British bombed them.

Greenland? Nope, part of Denmark. Madagascar? Nope, WWII Campaign. Islands in the Pacific? Nope, colonies everywhere. Central Asia? Nope, part of Russia. Africa? Nope, all colonized by various European powers. I though maybe because Ethiopia wasn't initially colonized, but Nope, that was part of Italy, which the British fought during WWII.

That just leaves the moon and other extra-terrestrial areas.

| improve this answer | |
  • Actually, being colonised by a European power that Britain did not later go to war with would be a way for a territory to be discounted. I mentioned Congo, Mali, Burkina Faso - unless you know otherwise, of course. – user24000 Oct 11 '16 at 12:48
  • @user24000 British in Mali – axsvl77 Oct 11 '16 at 12:55
  • I find it hard to believe that British troops didn't go north from Ghana, and that British never had an incursion into Congo, but I don't have anything yet. – axsvl77 Oct 11 '16 at 13:13
  • Need to look into the Marshal Islands as well a Chad – axsvl77 Oct 11 '16 at 13:15
  • re: Mali. Very good. Very interesting. Not sure that counts, as it was a military action in alliance with the government of the time. And the rebellion was not an alternative government that had de facto control over the country, but a local rebellion loosely allied with other foreign forces. Borderline, but technically not "at war with Mali", although certainly "at war in Mali". – user24000 Oct 11 '16 at 14:10

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.