» bartieboySat 26 Mar 2011, 16:20 So we all know some country's that are naturally hostile towards an invading army. Maybe the most famous example is the cold russian winter, but which country's besides Russia?Just to kick the list off,Vietnam (jungle, diseases, famous for its booby-traps)Cambodia (about the same as Vietnam)Switzerland (cold mountains and the tradition of the Swiss to fight in the mountains)Sudan (hot desert and only one waterway that during a long period of history wasnt crossable at all places)Afghanistan (the mountains, hot climate, dry, dust, etc.)Canada (just think about the attempts of the Americans to invade Canada)What can you add to my list? 众所周知有些国家的自然条件对于侵略者而言可以起到天然的免疫作用。恐怕最著名的例子当属俄罗斯苦寒的冬季了，但除了俄罗斯以外，哪个国家最难以征服呢？我列了个候选表：越南(丛林，疫病，还有重重陷阱)柬埔寨(和越南差不多)瑞士(寒冷的群山之国，以及瑞士人善于山地作战的传统)苏丹(到处是干热的沙漠而只有一条河道，长久以来想横穿整个国家都很困难)阿富汗(群山，炎热的气候，干旱，飞砂走石，不胜枚举)加拿大(回想一下当年美国入侵加拿大时的遭遇就好了)大家看看还有哪些漏网之鱼？评论翻译:原创翻译：龙腾网 www.ltaaa.com 翻译：德川宣鉴 转载请注明出处本帖论坛地址：WolfmanSat 26 Mar 2011, 19:13 I think about half of those are due more to hostile natives then anything else. Give me a company of rifleman and I could conquer the crap out of Vietnam or Afghanistan if it wasn't for the hard fighting nature of the locals. Under the idea of 'the natives are going to kill the shit out of us' I'd add:Albania. In the 1460s they ass raped the Ottomans. While defending the castle of Kruje, Gjergj Skanderbeg's 8,000 man army beat 160,000 Turkish troops, who were led by the legendary Sultan Mehmet II. Fast forward to the Cold War, and Albania was one of the only countries to get the USSR to go 'yah, we want none of that, you go ahead and be free'.Finland (and Scandinavia in general). The USSR lost literally hundreds of troops to ONE DUDE WITH A SINGLE RIFLE during their invasion of 1939. Seriously, Simo Hayha killed 705 USSR soldiers in the period of a few months (several of which were snipers sent to kill him). Oh, and he survived getting shot in the face with an exploding round. Name one person more bad ass then him, because you cannot. 说一千道一万我认为充满敌意的当地居民才是你先前提到的那些国家难以征服的最主要原因。如果不考虑与当地土著艰苦持久的战斗，我只需要一个连的兵力就可以荡平那些越南和阿富汗杂碎武装。切记：原住民才是我们最大的威胁。我还想补充几个国家：阿尔巴尼亚。十五世纪六十年代他们曾怒爆奥斯曼土耳其帝国菊花。在保卫克鲁日城堡的战役中，他们的民族英雄斯坎德培率领8000子弟兵痛击了由传奇苏丹穆罕默德二世16万土耳其军队。到了冷战时期，阿尔巴尼亚是唯一一个敢让全苏联感到蛋疼的国家，我们可不希望这样，图样图森破啊。芬兰(也可扩大到整个斯堪的纳维亚地区)。在1939年苏联入侵芬兰的战役中曾有一位芬兰狙击手单枪匹马爆掉了数百苏军将士的脑壳，确切地讲，西蒙·海耶在几个月中共击毙了705名苏军(其中还包括数名被派来干掉他的苏军狙击手)。对了，他还曾被爆炸冲击波正中面门，但却又奇迹般地活下来了！你见过比他还操蛋的家伙么？我是没见过。Smilin' daveFri 24 Jun 2011, 16:28 Disease is a very relative thing though. Some parts of Africa went uncolonised for a long time because of their local climate/risk of disease, but advances in medical science had vastly reduced that threat by the 19th Century. Also while foreigners might struggle with local diseases, neighbouring groups might be in a better position to handle them. 疾病可以说是一个非常相对的因素。在相当长的一段时间里非洲的一些地区之所以没有没殖民化就是因为当地的气候与疾病实在是太致命了，但到了十九世纪随着医学研究的进步这种威胁已经被大大削弱了。远道而来的他乡客可能会被这些疾病所困扰，但来自邻近地区的入侵者或许就有办法克服这些问题了。J OswaldSat 09 Jul 2011, 00:43 I'll go out on a limb and say Switzerland would be the hardest country to conquer, at least in the modern day. Switzerland has the protection of the Alps, and in many places the only way to reach populated areas is by trekking through narrow mountain passes. It would be very easy to defend in such instances, especially given the Swiss Army's modern equipment. The Swiss also have a strong military tradition (despite the fact that they are neutral in most wars), which would make conquest very difficult. 我敢说瑞士绝对是世界上最难征服的国家，至少在当今社会是这样的。瑞士受到阿尔卑斯上的庇护，而且你只有通过徒步穿越狭长的山路才能到达一些著名的旅游景点。这绝对是易守难攻的地势，特别是瑞士军队还装备了现代化武器。此外瑞士还是一个尚武的国家(尽管在大多数战争中他们选择中立)，这也使得征服瑞士变得难于登天。USGrantFri 23 Mar 2012, 20:00 Defiantly Switzerland. Not only does it have dificult terrain, but most of the Swiss people belong to the militia. It is almost impossible to conquer a nation with a very strong militia.显然是瑞士。不仅是地形易守难攻，更可怕的是瑞士几乎全民皆兵。想征服一个由民兵组成的国家？没门~Lensky1917Tue 03 Apr 2012, 19:07 Besides Russia? China. Over 1,000,000,000 pissed off Chinese.除了俄罗斯以外？我选中国。因为你会面对超过十亿个愤怒的中国人。Dante58Wed 04 Apr 2012, 05:44 Greetings All,I agree with Lensky, I wouldn't piss off the Chinese to much. In addition to the land mass, the population is overwhelming!我顶楼上，我可不想把中国人惹毛了。而且他们在领土面积人口数量上都占有压倒性优势！Smilin' daveWed 04 Apr 2012, 23:10 Historically the sheer mass of the Chinese population has not in itself always been that effective in defeating invasions. For example a lot of the old foreign concessions were gained as a result of limited land wars. 楼上的两位，从历史的角度而言中国如果纯粹凭人口优势是不能有效地抵御每一次外来入侵的。例如在一系列有限的局部战争后，外国人在中国建立起了大量的(旧)租界。AarnikotkaThu 26 Apr 2012, 17:12 I think my own country of Australia would be pretty hard, simply because there's no land border with anywhere but Australia, so we'd have pretty good warning of any sea/air invasion. the downside of course is that our country is so big, that it would be hard to defend if we had no warning, or if we were invaded from several sides by an army that outnumbered us.Had the Russians actually bothered to find out about what they were getting into, it's very possible that they could have overrun the Finns, which just goes to show you should make sure your army is trained in winter warfair and that your equipment can deal with the ground you have to cover!My bf is Finnish, and he has told me about the military training he has had to do, simply as a citizen of Finland, and it's insane the amount of training he has had.I think it's a cultural thing as well though, rather than a real need for citizens to be trained in warfair.In spite of Switzerland's rather alarming suicide rate, young men are still allowed to keep their guns once they have completed military training. I actually didn't know that, so got quite a shock to find out that my now ex-husband had a gun in the house. For them, it's much more of a cultural thing, especially considering they haven't actually faught in a war for about 2 centuries.我想我的祖国澳大利亚也是一个极难征服的国家，因为没有一个国家与澳大利亚拥有共同的陆地边界，所以我们只需提防来自空中以及海上的入侵即可。缺点是我们的国土太大，很难应对偷袭以及多方向大规模的入侵。俄罗斯所需要的担心的其实是弄清来犯之敌是谁，他们极有可能曾蹂躏过芬兰人民，但失败的经验告诉他们当年军队推进的速度实在太慢了，你必须要认识到对手曾经经历过冬季作战的洗礼而你的武器装备也能在其所处的作战环境中发挥作用。我男朋友是一个芬兰人，他曾经向我提及在芬兰每位公民都必须接受军事训练，而且强度大到令你难以想象。我想这应该就是一种文化的传承而非现实所迫，并不是每位公民都需要亲历战火。尽管瑞士拥有惊人的自杀率，年轻人在接受完整套军事训练后仍可合法持有枪械。我先前并不了解这些，所以当发现我的前夫房间内有一把枪时我大惊失色。对于瑞士人而言，这更是一种文化象征，因为事实上，近两个世纪以来瑞士没有参与过任何一场战争。HobboSat 05 May 2012, 19:50 I belief Switzerland is a safe bet for a country that is very difficult to invade. Off topic and on the Finnish military service, I have gotten my letters to attend the service however I will be attending for only half a year (not at all if I manage to get U.S. citizenship). I believe the full year used to be mandatory. Although a chance to return to Finland for a year is so very tempting. 我选瑞士。我还想扯点题外话，谈谈芬兰的兵役制度。我已经收到政府来函要求我回国服兵役，尽管我只需服役半年而已(如果我入了美国籍的话就没这鸟事了)。尽管有机会回到芬兰一整年是一件非常诱人的好事，但这种强制性的兵役还是让人感到不爽。thehistorykidSun 13 May 2012, 16:42 I say China. In August, 1945 the Japanese had one million soldiers in China and they hadn't conquered one-half of the country.我选中国。截止到1945年8月日本在中国投入了一百万军队但是连中国一半的国土都没有打下。ANTARThu 07 Jun 2012, 12:27 I thought I'd mention technological superiority. Britain survived several invasion attempts in relatively recent past from dominant powers such as France, Spain and Germany. Having naval superiority, and gaining air superiority must have helped. I don't mean to open a can of worms about Hitler not really wanting to invade, or invasion being inevitable if it weren't for the Americans. Just that technology must be a factor? 我认为应当考虑一下技术优势。英国能够从邻近的强权诸如法国，西班牙以及德国的入侵中幸存下来，主要仰仗于其海空军优势。在这里我不想死扣当年希特勒究竟是不是真心想入侵英国，抑或如非美国人参战英国就铁定将被征服。我只想明确一下科技的重要性。geomancerSun 10 Jun 2012, 00:56 Switzerland was occupied by French troops in 1798. On the other hand, another mountain country, Nepal, has never been conquered. Nepalese Gurkha troops still serve in the British, Indian, and other armies. 1798年法国军队曾经攻占过瑞士。而另一个山地之国尼泊尔却从未被征服过。尼泊尔廓尔喀族佣兵目前依然在英国，印度以及其他的一些军队中服役。Mutatis MutandisSun 05 Aug 2012, 14:24 One American general of WWII -- unfortunately I forgot his name -- described his achievement as moving his artillery from Normandy to the Elbe. Perhaps that is a bit of hyperbole, but it illustrates the main point: Artillery in all its forms, from trench mortars to heavy guns, always was the main killer and destroyer on the modern battlefield. The small arms held by Swiss men are of significant cultural interest and would have a certain nuisance value to an invader. But a militia with submachine guns would never stop a well-equipped invading army. It could continue to advance, probably suffering minor casualties, while relying on its artillery, armor and air power to crunch the resistance. Yes, the terrain is mountainous, presenting additional difficulties to an invading army, but most Swiss live in the valleys, not in the Alpine mountains. Note that in WWII, the German invaders were not deterred by the spectacular landscapes of Norway or Yugoslavia. Bands of "insurgents" did cause substantial trouble in Yugoslavia, but that did not prevent the occupation of the country. During WWII, the real bottom line was that the services that the Swiss provided to the Germans, in the banking sector, the machine tools trade, and by simply providing a piece of neutral ground, were highly valuable to the III. Reich and made an invasion not only unnecessary but also potentially counterproductive. The German general staff was convinced that it could occupy Switzerland if it wanted to, but it had no wish to do so. 一位二战时期的美国将军-忘了叫啥了-把他的成就描述为将他的火炮从诺曼底开进到了易北河。这听起来或许有些牛皮哄哄了，但却切中了要害：一切规格的火炮，从炮击跑到重机枪，永远是现代战场上的主角。瑞士人把弄的那些小型枪械可以被看做是一种特殊的文化符号并在抵御外敌入侵中起到一定的作用。但民兵和轻武器永远不是装备精良训练有素的入侵者的对手。或许入侵者会为自己的行径付出一点点代价，但却不至于为此停下脚步，而在火炮，装甲车以及空中力量的支援下前进中的阻碍也会被一一荡平。多山的地势的确会为入侵者带来额外的困难，但大多数瑞士人住在村里啊，并不是住在山上。而在二战中，德国纳粹也没有被挪威与南斯拉夫的壮美河山所吓倒。“叛乱分子”团伙曾在南斯拉夫给德军带来了实质性的麻烦，但也没能阻挡住入侵者的步伐。二战期间，德国人给瑞士开出的真正底线是为其提供银行业以及机床贸易上的服务，第三帝国在此条件下保留了这块高附加值的中立地带，因为入侵瑞士不仅毫无意义甚至会适得其反。德国参谋本部确信其可轻易拿下瑞士，但并没有这样做。WillJSat 17 Nov 2012, 17:49 Why has no-one mentioned Japan? They have a similar topogrophy to Switzerland dominated by huge mountains but a hundred times more difficult due it's archipelago array of islands. They are also highly technologically advanced and have a strong military history. Not to mention there psychotic 'BANZAI' mentality. Just look what happened to the Americans when they had to invade them! They had to resort to atomic warfare to defeat them... enough said. 为什么没人提日本啊？和瑞士一样日本也是一个多山的国家而且还被大海所包围，而且岛国属性更加提高了征服它的难度系数。他们科技发达而且拥有辉煌的战绩。且不提那种神经病般的“玉碎”精神，就看看当年美国为了入侵日本所付出的惨痛代价就可以了！不得不说美国人最后只能用原子弹来迫使他们屈服。Smilin' daveSat 17 Nov 2012, 19:49 I suppose it depends on what era of Japan's history you're looking at. For example in the 'first round' the Mongols did a pretty good number on the Japanese, and it was only after a bit of reorganisation and the 'divine wind' that Japan was able to get a better outcome the second time around. Much later, Commodore Perry had no trouble with a bit of gunboat diplomacy against Japan. 我想你的这种想法要归咎于你所选取的日本历史时期。蒙古人在入侵日本时起初战绩非常理想，要不是因为内部不和以及“神风”眷顾日本不会挨过那两次入侵。在此之后，佩里舰长用几艘炮舰就轻易敲开了日本的国门。WillJSun 18 Nov 2012, 07:23 True, I don't think Japan's modern era today would put much of a fight. Their ageing population is so extensive I wouldn't think they have many young men to spare for a war. 的确，我不认为现在的日本有能力承受一场战争。他们的老龄化问题太严重了，我想他们都凑不到足够多的年轻人拉去上战场。Mutatis MutandisSun 18 Nov 2012, 07:35 Look at what happened on the Pacific islands that the Americans did invade. Many of these had very difficult terrain, often combined with an unhealthy climate (at least for the foreign soldiers of both sides), and complex defensive networks created by the Japanese genius for small field fortifications. In every single case, the defenders were eventually wiped out by the American forces, who used their superiority in numbers, supply, artillery and airpower to pound the opposition to dust. The suffering on all sides, soldiers and civilians alike, was huge. The actual loss rates still favoured the US forces by a wide margin. Io Jima cost the Americans 6000 men, but the Japanese occupation force of 24,000 died almost to the last man. Okinawa, most similar to Japanese home islands, was considered a relevant experience for what an invasion of Japan would produce. The Army and Marines lost 7231 men, and the Navy nearly 5000, mostly to suicide attacks. But of the Japanese force of about 100,000 soldiers (a quarter of them local militia) only 7400 survived. Another 42,000 Japanese dead were civilians, either victims of "collateral damage" or people committing suicide (voluntary or not).That is the reality for an army dependent on small arms (and bamboo spears), with most of its heavy equipment so vulnerable to a superior enemy that its use equates its loss. (At Okinawa the Japanese sacrificed even the battleship Yamato in a suicide attack.) A force that seeks to defend difficult ground tenaciously can inflict painful losses on the attacker, especially if well camouflaged. But the end is still a foregone conclusion. The "psychotic Banzai mentality", it has to be said, often reflected this reality. Suicide attacks were a way for the men and soldiers to find a honorable and quick death, when other options were often death by flamethrower or death by starvation. Of course they were militarily inefficient, but that was not the point.看看美军进攻太平洋上日据岛屿时都发生了什么。许多岛屿拥有险峻的地势，而且常常瘴气缭绕(至少对于双方士兵而言是这样的)，而且日本的小场防御工事天才们依据地势修建了复杂的防御网。但无论是那个岛屿上的工事，最终都被美军所摧毁了，因为美军在数量，补给，火炮以及空中支援上都占据着压倒性优势。无论是士兵还是岛民都付出了巨大的牺牲。而战斗的实际交换比上美军还是占优的。久米岛战役中美军损失了六千兵力，但日军却阵亡了两万四千人，几乎全军覆没。冲绳岛，这个最接近日本本土的岛屿，针对它的战斗将会对攻击日本本土提供实质性的参考意义。此役美国陆军与海军陆战队共损失了7231人，海军牺牲了近五千人，这主要是自杀式袭击所造成的。但却让日本付出了近十万人的代价(四分之一是民兵)，只有7400人生还。另有42000名日本平民丧生，或为战斗中误伤，或为自杀。这就是依赖轻武器(甚至还有竹矛)军队的悲剧，因为在火力强大的敌人面前他们的重武器极易受到攻击，使用简直就意味着被击毁。(冲绳岛战役中日本甚至使用他们的海军旗舰“大和号”进行自杀式袭击。)在坚定地反抗信念的支撑下，弱势的一方可以有力地回击敌人，而在极好的伪装条件下甚至可以给入侵者造成沉重的打击，但结局却是在战争开始的那一刻就已注定的。最后，还不得不提一下那种“病态的玉碎精神”，因为它恰好能够真实地反映出这种无奈的现实。相较于死于饥饿与火焰喷射器的烈焰下，自杀式袭击可为一位战士带来一个光荣而快速的了断。尽管这种袭击效率不佳，但这其实并不重要。日本！完毕征服天朝还是能的，不过之后都被同化了苏联没解体的话 我选苏联 现在我选日本 主要原因除了AV 你实在想不到占领他们能有什么好处。。。。。。 所以他们很安全韩国没有之一没有团灭过的第一个想到的就是俄罗斯其实我不大赞成选毛子因为俄国对拿破仑和希特勒的两场胜利都得到了当时世界上最强大国家的帮助中国最大的问题是有可能和整个西方为敌，就像鸦片战争之后的一系列战争综合起来我还是选美国这地理位置太好原来外国人也害怕超过10亿愤怒的中国人啊我大宇宙国中国打不过的都成了中国，这是无解的。明显是美帝。。。。。。本土唯一一次被攻击还是恐怖分子。。。。- .- 俄罗斯呗“全面征服俄罗斯”对于任何一个非毛子民族来说都是用锤子砸蛋蛋玩一般疼的行为“我们后三年的战略目标是完全控制西伯利亚”玩蛋去吧 吃饱了撑的这还用问？历史已经N次证明了是毛子 韩国没有之一中国被人狂揍了五千年啊，不过你说哪些国家征服过中国我就回答不上来了。 苏联没解体的话 我选苏联 现在我选日本 主要原因除了AV 你实在想不到占领他们能有什么好处。。。。。。 所以他们很安全 中国被人狂揍了五千年啊，不过你说哪些国家征服过中国我就回答不上来了。