M. Bréqs wrote:
Interesting; you're saying that Germany and Japan's initial aggression was a critically necessary factor in facilitating their eventual surrender?
No, that because they were the aggressors in the war, their defeat carried the weight of total subjugation with the feeling of having deserved their fate. Their initial aggression was a necessary factor in their democratic rebirths.
However, I think that in Germany's case, there is a "national guilt" over what happened; but that doesn't exist to nearly the same extent in Japan.......
.........So, the question is this; What exactly was it about their aggression that lead to the eventual peace? I don't think that it aggression is actually a factor in the subsequent pacifism or docility of the society, as the dichotomy of Germany and Japan shows.
Though Japan had definitely a brutality in China, and ethnic cleansing did happen to a degree, it simply was not at the level of the systematic abuse of the jewish people. Not to mention homosexuals, gypsies, political dissidents, the elderly, mentally, and physically handicapped.
The german guilt after WWII definitely wouldn't have been half as intense if it hadn't been for the nazis doing this. Plus, though it's been argued that the atomic bomb was the reason for japanese surrender etc. it still stands as the most horrific act of annihilation in any war. Not maybe for actual numbers, but for sheer impact. That I think could explain why japan doesn't share Germany's level of guilty conscience.
None of that really has anything to do with the point about aggression leading to a subsequent burden of guilt in surrender. Ireland simply wasn't the aggressor when England conquered, and subsequently the sheer level of crushing victory meant nothing, people remembered for hundreds of years, and eventually threw them out of 3/4 of the country.
History shows again and again that a country that is conquered and handed a puppet ruler will eventually revert to some sort of religious dogmatic ethnic tribalism..... Afghanistan maybe? I'm just not convinced yet that we have any real interest in stabilizing the area. Hopefully I'm wrong, but if Iraq is any example.....
I would say that peace in Ireland is far to young to be able to say that they have conceded to a peaceful resolution. I think we agree on that; and the Irish were never defeated as soundly as I suggest we should strive to defeat our enemies today. The Irish were occupied, but never dominated.
I would say handing all property over to scottish immigrants, and making it virtually illegal to own a business if you were irish is pretty much total dominance wouldn't you? I mean seriously? what more do you want?
The fact is if people don't feel they are treated fairly by the occupier, they rebel. I just don't think modern warfare can be fought without acknowledging that historically people of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds never have successfully occupied a nation in the long run, at some point the natives must be either exterminated, (USA) or they regain control. (south america)
Now of course it can be argued that plenty of the ruling class in south america are of spanish decent, but the system of Spanish rule is gone.
One thing that keeps getting ignored here in these discussions is the little issue of the possibility that Iraq for instance might just be better served if it was divided into at least two countries. I simply don't see how any sunni could expect anything but the absolute worst treatment from the shiite faction in Iraq, yet we simply don't really acknowledge this.......
