Who HAVEN'T They Invaded?! Americans React To "Every Country England Has Invaded: Visualized" 

Hahaha brilliant and true

love it lol

Ahh brilliant 😂

Couldn't stop laughing, 🤣😭🤣😅😅😅👍

The replies are VERY British.

Mainly the Navy, we generally had well drilled soldiers, but you need good ships to get them around the world in time for a fight.

😄😄😄

I have an alternate theory: The England football team has in fact been playing international matches for many centuries. Every time the England team lost (which often happened!) the hooligan supporters beat the crap out of the local population and never got around to going home.

US National Anthem is based on a UK drinking song.

@@DerekDerekDerekDerekDerekDerek He's being ironic...

Tbh most of us ended up there from a bar crawl and woke up in basic training 🤣🤣

🤣🤣🤣

I think there's 22 to go for the full set.

Lols😂!!!!!! Great comment! I fckn love these two!!!!👍

Don't feel bad about it I'm sure you'll find something interesting we can use eventually

Why would you apologise for past history These countries where conquered by a greater nation tough

Britain did blockade Brazil for a time in an effort to stop slave traders but you are right. England has the oldest standing alliance with Portugal in the history of the planet.

@@Tolrem-uh2ee We were supposed to blockade it but with only 5 ships initially and increased to 10 later according to a documentary on slavery that I watched the other day so wasn't very effective

@@m4rkscott 'twas exactly effective enough to get them to ban slavery. Which was the objective.

Effective enough for Brazil to sue for peace

They are our oldest allies...went there on the Ark Royal on the way back from the gulf so there could be goodwill meetings

There's a reason why the Dutch backed the Americans...

and the Dutch

@@Hadewijch_ yes... they saw an opportunity

Yeah we had a bigger problem in Europe fighting Napoleon to give the yanks our full attention.

Plus they were British.

I blame the Danes and the Norwegians, especially the Danes. When they came calling in England they rowed across the sea, found a handy river, and kept on going; that's how we learned to navigate. Then they "married" a few local girls and as a result a whole bunch of us - well, pretty much all of us - have Viking blood, and once that stuff gets into your veins all you can do is go wandering. However, if you live on a small island the only places you can wander to will be a) overseas and b) already occupied by other people, which poses a small problem until you point to the guns on your ships being larger than their pea-shooters; at that point they usually say "Oh, oops, please come in." In fact, if you look at those maps again, you'll see that there are only a few large areas of the world we didn't get to. Firstly, as well as the Sahara and Saudi Arabia, there are other great deserts, like the Gobi. I think someone went for a daytrip once, realised there were no large rivers, and went home again. Same goes for the Atacama, where it never rains at all; if there's no rain there's no water, and if there's no water, bang goes having a cuppa. And secondly, we never went where the Portuguese were there already. The English/Portuguese alliance is the oldest and longest in the world so we didn't touch Brazil or the other, mainly small, areas they got to first. It's a global example of honour amongst thieves. 😁

Tru Say,Mi Bredda. Tru Say. We are Warriors,Mi Bredrin. Zeeeennn

Plus Britain is a crappy cold place and they wanted to go somewhere else for a better life

Genetic memory is true

the exact moment i hit dislike

Don't forget, the US sued for peace because they where worried the Brirish would take the US more seriously. Kicked our butt's??? That definitely didn't happen, that's what is taught in US schools

If we had known about the gold and the potential value of oil, it would have been a different story. No need for oil when there are no machines.

not just the French either, Spain and the Netherlands joined in a fair bit too, so basically they needed THREE other European powers to help them beat us...

@@DraconimLt they didnt beat us the army in america was needed in europe

Possibly the greatest understatement of all time lol

😂💯👍🏻

We might have been a bit hard on them at the start, but the countries we controlled or created are now among the richest on the globe.

Barbarians? No mate. Just No.

For Barbarians we didn't do too badly. So many countries have some form of Democracy for example. Shame we can't invade Russia now...

Not to mention the follow up about Operation Chariot.

Iv heard that soldiers who survive war don't even get awarded it as it's now given to soldiers who give their lives to save others

The greatest raid of all time by Jeremy clarkson is the greatest documentary I’ve seen

​@Reece B that's incorrect

@@MrReeceBrennan yeah that’s wrong

No, Texas is 268k square miles, the UK is just under 100k square miles. So the UK would fit into Texas 2.6 times.

Yup, it's the largest group of Humans on the planet.

@@SgtSteel1 it's a shame we wasn't at the Alamo, it would have turned out different hombre!!! 😂 🇬🇧

@@SgtSteel1 - You must be fun at parties.

@@lotuselise4432 I am the life of the party

You missed the word sun 😉

@@redrock425 Did I ;) Thanks

This is technically still true, although now it’s because we have little islands everywhere rather than places like India and Canada.

'The Sun never sets on the British Empire, because even God doesn't trust us with the lights out' ... :- )

The sun never sets and the blood never dries

So close to having the full set.

Don't apologise for me mate ,I wasn't there, wasn't even born till 1961 and we have never colonised anyone jn my life time

@@maxmoore9955 READ IT PROPERLY................he is apologising for Countries we MISSED...............J O K E...

lol

@@maxmoore9955 well said.

Is

Still is

The power of innovation in transport and warfare, good organisation, discipline. The same things that saw the Roman empire be so successful in its day.

that's why we're being destroyed now, revenge I suppose.

@@joycegibbs5267 Same goes for all of europe.

And many just wanted to leave Britain for better climate and a better life. Basically they wanted to get out of Britain. The riff raff stayed behind

Quite a few of these are where we were invited in or where our assets of other territories were attacked or threatened first, or where we threw out other invaders. You could say we did a lot of this map by accident

it was not Britains fault that those nations didn't have a Flag ;)

Toxic britishness

@@jessesleight9631 nothing toxic about winning

Oh the irony...called to India for a cup of tea was it ..after going to Dinner in Ireland, starving 1million scattering another million to the 4 corners many dying on route in the coffin ships...easier then spending rest of lives in servitude ...than back to eat all of India's food too .killing many more millions ....what a fantastic people and soo proud of this..

Yeah after benefitting from it for 200+ years- it's like a rapist wanting credit when they stop the attack and tell their mates to stop now.

@@7lillie no the British just went along with something that was intrenched from the beginning of time, but when they understood it made the world stop the hole world if it was not for the British slavery would still be going on, now its only in black African country's and Arab Muslim ones, yet we are blamed for the start the middle and then end, every one in every country benefited from it yet its only we that are blamed from befitting yet it was the British that sent its navy spent trillion apon trillions in ending it, we in the uk did not Finnish paying for the slave we we freed untill 2015. Yet slavery was there before us by thousands of years even you Americans did not stop it till we made you 200 years after we had ended it as for country out the uk took longer but if you take just two mins to watch it you will see we were fighting wars in eroup napoleon. Many white British men died freeing the black man from slavery did we take part yes for maybe a few years but not the two hundred the British colonys may have for two hundred but they are not British ruled by us yes, but they are not British, are we responsible for American slavery ? Even when we told you to stop you did not own it it was you not the British.

They had to start somewhere. More than 1,600 british sailors lost their lives defending the coast of West Africa to stop other nations slaving. We, as a nation, had to take out a loan to compensate the slavers, which we finished paying back in 2015. By the way slavery was and still is a way of life. We were victims ourselves in the 16th century Barbary pirates raided the coast of Cornwall and kidnapped women to be sold on the middle eastern slave markets for the harems.

I'm sure the people in those areas didn't see it as an invasion

I realise you said England above, but it was the Scots who were the driving force of the Empire. You are banging on about Wiliam the conquerer, yet ignoring what made the Empire, what made the Empire was the modern creation of education which was in Scotland at the time. Take people like Thomas Blake Glover who created modern Japan. Scots and Scottish education and inventions made the Empire, not the English and william the conquerer ffs. That was 1000 years too late. 22 signatories to the declaration of independence were Scots and it was based on the declaration of Arbroath, not the Magna Carta

​@@OneTrueScotsmanthey had the thirst but lacked the ability. They joined the English because they blew all their money on a failed empire

@@OneTrueScotsman: What truly made the map red, signifying ownership, annexation, proper influence - and not just flags signifying wars - was the Industrial revolution. That was very much a joint effort, and Scotland's influence was much larger than 8%. Just look up any list of Scottish inventions from that era and on.

@@OneTrueScotsman The Empire had fuck all to do with parliament and representation. It was built on technology, education and modern thinking. The Empire was built on trade and companies that were created at the time, so you mentioning parliamentary percentage is laughable to be honest. The countries Scotland invaded also had nothing to do with it. Scotland on it's own was never gonna dominate. We did need the British Navy at the time to help and we were part of that. However Scotland did make the Empire, history and looking at inventions at the time and looking at key people at the time shows us. There is a great book called how Scots created the modern world

Beat me to it !

Quite right. Gibraltar was originally planned to be a layover stop for drunk teens heading for Spanish beaches. (Not a lot of people know that).

Have you been to America? Lol

@@101steel4 been many times to USA, the trouble with America is they think they speak English 😂😂😂😂😂

@@jimwalker1404 exactly 😁

In the words of Al Murray it was the search for hot and spicy food and Olympic quality athletes.

What a load of romantic hogwash. No prestige or race supremacy my ass

We DID defeat the Gurkhas - that's how they became part of the British Army after the Anglo-Nepalese War. The war was not over Nepal, however, it was over a region of India controlled by Nepal.

@@Kestrel1971 So as I said, we didn't defeat Nepal. The region you speak of was controlled and ceded by Nepal at the end of the war.

It's the altitude, we're much better fighting at sea level. On a huge ship covered in guns preferably.

There were plenty you had to sign a treaty with because you couldn't conquer them although you are right the British Empire did renege on them all once they got the big numbers in to those countries. All people who couldn't wait to get out of old crappy freezing Great Britain and start a new life away from the oppression and class structure in their own country

And probably a couple of videos of Vulcans howling and rolling all over the damn place to supplement that. Amazing aircraft.

Another good one RAF quick alert reaction for modern time

yeah that's a good watch,when he goes up in the plane and the jets arrive either side,tad bit scary to see that at the end of your wings haha

Is that Clarkson the racist bigot? God he'd love doing something like that with his chest pumped out

if you are a student of the British Empire, particularly in India, you can see strong parallels with the administration of the roman empire. We could have kept the empire but it would have taken brutal repression that emperors of the past would have taken as normal business as usual. Universal suffrage in the UK, strong protestantism and the printed press made this impossible. At one point consideration had been made to create in effect a single state by democracising the whole empire. This could have been monumental but the problem with this was firstly the UK would have ended up with minority representation. Secondly it was deemed unworkable due to recognition of massive corruption and tribalism that would undermine democracy, (- born out by looking at what has happeend to a lot of these countries post independance). Thirdly, the economy would have been unbalanced and unworkable, Britain had developed into the workshop of the world due to the industrial revolution and the empires economic purpose was to provide the resources in return for the products. If a majority were resource providers they may see little need in restricting supplies to the UK. The pupose of the empire if one was decided on was the protection of trade and supplies of resoures via military means. In todays global market, military means are only required to resolve temporary upsets

What is the "religion of peace"?

@@jessesleight9631 its a myth it doesnt exist

Wow arrogance and ignorance...living in the Island ..with your flags and bunting ...and matching

@@ko0974 I'm no flag waving little Englander but i see it as all too easy for people that never actually looked in detail at what they are talking about in context of the times to join a bandwagon slinging mud because some lobby groups working for foreign powers are rewriting our history unchallenged.

The brains and brawn of SAS were Irish

@@ko0974 The SAS was set up by the Scottish David Stirling before Paddy Mayne took over after Stirling was captured and became a pow.

Next question re those brave colonists 'kicking our butts' all by themselves... ever wondered why pretty much every town in the US has a street named Lafayette? 😉😋

Spain 1898 springs to mind.

@@chrismackett9044 Touché 🤣 I stand corrected. Apart from that one in a Quarter Millenium though? 😉

While you are basically correct, I must note that the French officially declared war in 1779, though in truth had been _de facto_ heavily supportive of the American cause in a rather underhanded way for a while longer. Saratoga convinced them to get their hands and boots dirty themselves. They were nominally signatories of the Treaty of Paris 1763, in which France did cede many territories to Britain, in the defeat of France. It was something which the French Monarchy was not very happy about to say the least. Ironically, King Louis XV was almost singularly disinterested in the Americas, as he and his wife were _far_ more interested and concerned with events on the mainland of continental Europe, especially to the East of France (where powerful enemies of the French were fighting them actively on different war fronts) The British were clearly not on good terms with the French after such a massive scale of conflict that doubled British national debt during the Seven Years War. The absolute very last thing they wanted, was another globe-spanning war which required them to thinly spread their forces and spend exorbitant amounts of money to keep it going. And yet, that is basically what happened, as the French (and Spanish) got heavily-involved. As you say, the Dutch, too (often overlooked or dismissed, though very easily one of the most powerful naval forces of the late 18th century; and while the British and Dutch did clash here and there, the majority of the problem the Dutch presented, was forcing Britain to allocate more ships and crews elsewhere, _in case_ the Dutch decided to be cheeky over here or over there etc) Another very regularly overlooked faction fighting the British, were the Mysoreans of the Sultanate of Mysore. The fact that Tipu Sultan had at his disposal, something in the order of 50,000-60,000 warriors, pointed at British lines in what is now Southern India, is not exactly something which should be overlooked. Nor the fact, that the French and British both had lots of native sepoys and both fought with naval elements in serious naval battles, just as they already had in India for years, in the again, largely forgotten Carnatic Wars. Un-ironically the last direct engagement/action of the timeline of the various interwoven conflicts, ending in 1783, was the Siege of Cuddalore. In what is now India. This capped off the Second Anglo-Mysore War (as part of the various conflicts the British were engaged in simultaneously around the world) It was an inconclusive siege, largely because the news of the peace treaty and cessation of hostilities had been brought to light) only just arrived (the Treaty of Paris 1783, which was largely _unkind_ to the British at their expense, much the opposite of the Treaty of Paris 1763) The Treaty of Aranjuez 1779 between France and Spain, planned for greater military cooperation between the two members of the House of Bourbon Dynasty, of Absolute Royalists; against Britain, having difficulties dealing with what was, in truth, a British affair of a British civil war. Royalist France and Spain gave not one hoot about American 'liberty'. That was all just a crock of BS. They really just wanted revenge, pure and simple. And all else was vanity and lies. The very fact that Royalist France directly became bankrupted in that exertion and ordeal, for the sake of getting their own back against Britain, should show us all just how spiteful the French Monarchy truly was. It would basically begin the countdown to it's own destruction out of it's own venomous hatred for the British - and ironically enough, the French people themselves would rise up and destroy the French Monarchy a decade or so after the American War of Independence. Kind of a gigantic backfire. Sure, plenty of French people were already sick of their corrupt system and horrible absolute monarchy, though there were _plenty more_ totally loyal to that faction, never forget that. It will often be downplayed now with some classic, salty French historical revisionism sprinkled on it, though in truth, a huge number of French loyalists would have been around during the American War of Independence. Lafayette may not have been so inclined, true enough, though he was a young lad and looked up to George Washington (a literal former British officer) as a father figure. It went far beyond just a matter of being inspired by his colleague. It was like he was the son Washington never had, in no uncertain terms. French Royalist propaganda against the British was, like the Spanish equivalent, so intense in that time, that it persisted even beyond the destruction of the French monarchy itself. The French Revolutionaries and Republicans were more than happy to continue their toxic hostility towards the British. Again, the British will often get blamed for that (just a form of historical gaslighting that goes on constantly it really is mental) as though the French were innocent cherubs with absolutely nothing wrong with their own attitudes to the British. The French had been rivals with the English for centuries, and then, as now, it was common to default to Anglophobia. For instance, if a French President is about to go into an election campaign season, he'll typically leave the French capital and tour coastal towns and drum up anti-British rhetoric about fishing rights (even though French ships have literally been given _far_ too much leeway in British territorial waters, by EU policies in the recent past, and allowed to basically - in my view, F the EU - steal British fish stocks and scallops too btw) France even threatened to sadistically cut off Jersey's power supplies over this issue. France can often resort to just wheeling out the Anglophobic political diatribe if they think it will win votes - then guess what the President or other senior politician does? They return to Paris, continuing to pretend they care about the French fishermen after riling them up to win their votes. Classic French political behaviour. And that is _modern France_ of the Fifth French Republic (yes, their fifth) and modern France of NATO membership, fellow founding member of NATO status, allegedly allied, Entente Cordiale historically allied France. Now imagine what Royalist France was saying about the British (and sure, we gave it _right back_ for sure, as so we should have in my view) What is often forgotten is that the French were on the cusp of trying to strong-arm half of Europe in the time of Louis XIV 'the Sun King', and persistent resilience and defiance by England/Britain, put a huge dampener on the ferocity of France expansionism in the early 18th century. The likes of the 1st Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill (Winston's ancestor), denied the French full-hegemonic dominion of Europe, and defended the members of the Grand Alliance against the French Royalists and their allies. The French had great generals and so did England and it's allies. There were many severely overlooked and oft now forgotten battles, which made sure France's power was checked on the mainland. And naturally, the French never really forgave us for it. Point being, that England/Britain went from a popular hero of Europe standing up to the big bully, France, and helping many allies, to being painted as a villain by France (successfully) for decades, with French hypocrisy hitting as yet unseen levels. Then, by the Napoleonic Wars, Britain was the hero again bankrolling begging European factions desperate for capital to stay in the fight. Britain was the provider. Britain was grand-daddy lend lease in the Napoleonic Wars and Coalitions. Yes, the coalitions kept failing (5 out of 7 times) though it was British investment - again basically doubling British national debt at that time, on top of already high national debt because of numerous other wars - but the end result was to defeat Napoleon (twice, strategically in the last two coalitions) and to stop that iteration of a highly autocratic and tyrannical France. Revisionists and Napoleon lovers are basically determined to try and pretend he wasn't as bad as 'British propaganda said', but then they go quiet when you mention how Napoleonic Paris went from having ~64 newspapers to 4 regime controlled ones. Funny that, eh? Britain was routinely going to get vilified by first France, then Russia, then Germany. To the point that by the Boer Wars, the French and Germans twisted a lot of public opinion against Britain on the continent, calling the British 'brutes'. Sound familiar? Sound a bit like the Franco-German narratives coming out of the EU against Brexit Britain? Well that is because they are familiar for a good reason; because the very same Anglophobia has been entrenched in Europe for centuries but nobody can usually be bothered to acknowledge it. It's apparently 'alright if they do it'.

P.S - The USA technically invaded Canada 10 times in that war, across 3 years of campaigns, in three main campaign seasons. All failed. Largely due to British allies like the Canadiens/Canadians (depending on whether Francophone or Anglophone) and the First Nations League of Tribes like the Iroquois. Britain had

So why did Britain send armies there to fight if they weren't interested?

@@craigkennett6226 they were, but at some point they realized that losing 13 colonies was not nearly as important as dealing with france, dutch, and spain

@@czarson6694 But they lost the war. You make it sound like they withdrew but they didn't so what are you on about

Who was invaded by even smaller Denmark. At least twice, counting the major ones.

@@herrbonk3635 Wasn't just Denmark, get your facts right first.

@@ChrisCrossClash Both the Jutes (that gave name to today's Jylland) and the Angles came from Denmark. The Saxons that also invaded the Britons lived just south of these tribes.

@@herrbonk3635 Northern Germany get it right, we ain't Danes so don't try and take any credit that Brits are Danish.

@@ChrisCrossClash Credit? The English (not British) *are* indeed Danish, to a very high degree. This is not only due to these migrations but also to the Danelaw some 400 years later. The Danes invaded the British isles pretty independently of any other tribes in both the 400s and 700/800s.

They also spelled eye ran wrong.

Like WasSington and NicaraguE....lol

I'm seeing IRAK used more and more these days, even on maps on the news

Greece was mentiomed

@@marksavage1108ah fair enough, you’re right, rewatching I see he briefly mentions the UK owning a couple of outlying islands for a short time, without colouring Greece or adding a flag.

There are a few countries that we virtually owned via UK companies and banks making loans and investments, so not included here. The mention of british invasions of other countries to recover debt aludes to this. The ones where we didnt need to do this are not mentioned in the video. I think a biggy was Argentina. I suppose if it did, you could probably, on this basis, show a lot of the West and Africa as being owned by China. Our claim in Antarctica is also not mentioned.

For 'United Kingdom' see England. The "Irish" parliament that signed the Act of Union was open only to Anglican males, so only Anglican males qualified to be an MP and only Anglican males at this time qualified to vote. If you weren't Anglican, you didn't count. Kind of like how the Catholic Church is said to have replaced the Roman Empire I suppose. Empire's a brutal thing, look at Russia. It's practice in England not to teach of their own historic brutalities, which has the effect that you don't fully understand the animosities of those on the receiving end. On the opposite side of that, schools in Northern Ireland do not teach much Irish history for fear of influencing extremism. What people do learn, they learn at home. We can read about what really caused the famine or the scorched earth tactics used in the 1640s and how that affected remote homesteads but, luckily for stability, most people have no interest in that. @Theotherside Does territorial claim in Antarctica amount to anything? That's not a jibe, but an honest question.

@@Al_Ellisande Yes empire is a brutal thing, I don't disagree with anything in particular but brutality was not because of empire, its just the way ordinary people were treated by default then. With reference to Ireland, the catholic church was always promoting revolt, King James had actively promoted Irish officers to undermine Protestant govt so catholic dis-enfranchisement was the only solution that would create a loyal working govt. It didn't really disadvantage as many Catholics with ambition that would have been held back just changed religion to suit Indians will point to the massacre at Amritsar but this was due to an arrogant act of an individual not empire policy. This would happen and will continue to happen under any rule. Similar act happened at Peterloo but no-one would blame Empire. The Irish famine is an easy mark for Irish Nationalists to pin a flag to but at the same time a million English died of starvation every year probably also due to the corn laws but it is not paraded as an act of empire. Massacres and famines have always happened and continued to happen after independence

@@redf7209 I'm not getting into a tit-for-tat argument, that's not what this is about. However, to address the gaps in what is taught: the Irish famine came about during a time of large abundances of food-produce creating vast amounts of wealth for the land-owners, many of whom resided in England. Yet the people who actually farmed the land were dependent on one single crop - which itself originated in the Americas. There are questions here you don't have the answers to because you're not taught that those questions are there to be answered. This is all I'm saying. "This is the way things were done" and "it was a natural phenomenon" are absolute certainties created to maintain a source of national pride rather than to allow questioning and a possible crumbling of said national pride.

@@Al_Ellisande In Engalnd the famine is not taught in any real detail. And I've never relied on what i was taught. The English corn laws guaranteed the price of corn - as you say making the farmers rich. It was grown in England and ireland but the populace in ireland ate potatoes because it was not price controlled. It was unlucky that the weather and blight hit the potatoes. In England the poor suffered and starved too but because of the price of corn being fixed, it lasted over a longer period and gave rise to the anti-cornlaw movement and eventually trade unionism. Irish are not taught this either. Modern economists have argued against providing food aid to famine hit areas because cheap or free food means farmers will not invest in food crops in those areas and prevent the next famine. Right or wrong, this is not very different from what he english government was saying in the 1840s iro irish famine releif. The English government was used to Ireland 'crying wolf' and saw the irish problem as nothing different from the problems of the English population but exagerated. There was little media in those days to correct that point of view convincingly. if it wasnt for the irish diaspora and modern irish nationalism, the famine would have been forgotten about, its just a tool for irish nationalism to throw at the English.

Me too. And I'll never apologise. 👍👍

I worked with a (then) Rhodesian Woman in the Late 1980's just b4 it was about to become Zimbabwe and she told me that Country would collapse from being "The Bread Basket Of Africa" and it did under Robert Mugabe...

@@OneTrueScotsman What a weird thought, you should keep your dark inner beliefs to yourself.

That said, it was a messy period of history. It's not a coincidence that GRR Martin looked to that period of time and the stories that came out of it when he was writing Game of Thrones. Lots of backstabbing and betrayals all round.

Yep, we had Gascony well into the 1200s, much to the King of France's displeasure. Edward I and Philip le Bel played cat and mouse over it.

Norman/Flemish Normans in the south, flemish in the north

Did we not use them to clean stuff instead?

Nah....it was when they tried to tell us grits was food!!!.😉

Hey! You litteraly invited us Dutchies to invade you, remember?

The woke brigade will probably say those white (therefore privileged) peasant farmers deserved it!

Where do you think we got the "invader" DNA from? 😉 With that lot in the mix it's no wonder we did so well, bred for it!

@@redrock425 Tru Say,Mi Bredda. Preach those words,mi bredrin..

Ourselves?

@@sanjulien1 Speak for yourself my old mucka

You did not improve Sweden but I think the vikings paid you a visit and improved you 😀

@@tuijakantola6550 Hey we'll take a bit of Swedish improvement anytime, Ulrikakakakaka

Conveniently forgetting the raid on the Medway. 😂

That and also because we were constantly fighting the French during that period including Napoleon. Hardly a head-to-head battle, they picked a good time to go about it though.

We would happily have accepted your words without the invasion. Borrowing words is what we do best, that's why we have at least five words for everything and the full dictionary takes up a whole shelf.

@@radman8321 fair fair. Sadly Dk is pretty much a sandbank. We were mostly farmers. England was like the promised land for those second and third sons that weren't getting the family farm. And come on, without the invasion there wouldn't be places with names like Cleethorpes, Grimsby or.. mm yeh like I said, fair fair..

We only wanted to stop the French getting their hands on your navy. We asked you to surrender it to british custody temporarily. You refused, Npoleon was coming for it, so we had to forcibly remove it. Because it became a fight, the ships were taken as prizes and you never got them back and Copenhagen was partly destroyed. Should have just let us look after them for a couple of years. Same thing happened to the French in WW2. We had to sink some of their ships because Hitler wanted them and the French refused to let us keep them safe.

Danish DNA is very strong in my wife's and my family ranging from 23% to 38%, so they definitely dipped their wick in the UK. Maybe we should blame the Danes for it all.

Britain has never been invaded since 1066!!! The days of the Viking raiding parties were over!! 🇬🇧