FutureTank
Banned Member
Yes, but in case of the French Revolution it was the citizens that were instilling psychological fear in the minds of the governing elite...no invaders.
Do occupations work?
- Thread starter paul1234
- Start date
crusader91
New Member
Well, the chinese soldiers in free china may not know or experience such atrocities and they will most likely be killed if they are taken prisoner by the japanese.You can't expect the chinese not to fight back and wait for the japanese to invade whole of china?
crusader91
New Member
'
I meant that fear is a way to make occupation easier....
This method can also be used in civil conflicts such as state of emergency in countries where citizen also learn not to cause trouble in their country or their soldiers will shoot them.
crusader91
New Member
With regard to the original post, if you are occupying an area with people of different races and cultures from you, either you leave the place or you use fear.The '"hearts and minds" campaign will not be likely to work as you have to be very sensitive to religious taboos or whatever or it wil backfire.Leave only if the place is of no importance such having no natural resources or not being in a strategic location.
However sometimes overly brutal tactics will backfire. During WWII when the Japanese occupied my country Singapore, they clamped down hard on the local Chinese because they provided assistance to China during the Sino-Japanese war. The other races suffered too but were spared the same treatment meted out to the ethnic Chinese which included operation Sook Ching which was a systematic elimination of ethnic Chinese males in Singapore. As a result, most of the resistance against the Japanese during the war came from the local Chinese in the form of communist groups or British trained insurgents. Had the Japanese treated the local Chinese better, they might have viewed them as liberators of British colonial rule rather than oppressors.
Do occupations work? They have in the past if conducted on a large enough scale by an occupier was prepared to stay indefinitely. The key to success seems to be to swamp the indigenous population on a scale that makes it the minority, or to drive it out.
Take the UK as an example. The Scots, Danes, Anglo-Saxons, and Normans all occupied at least part of the country, and their descendants now make up most of the population.
I seem to recall that today’s Greeks are the descendants of the Dorian invaders who overwhelmed the earlier Mycenaeans, and that the current population of Turkey is largely descended from the invaders who ended the rule of the Byzantines. I’m sure that history has many other examples.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
Take the UK as an example. The Scots, Danes, Anglo-Saxons, and Normans all occupied at least part of the country, and their descendants now make up most of the population.
I seem to recall that today’s Greeks are the descendants of the Dorian invaders who overwhelmed the earlier Mycenaeans, and that the current population of Turkey is largely descended from the invaders who ended the rule of the Byzantines. I’m sure that history has many other examples.
Mercurius Cantabrigiensis
Haha.. Those examples are too outdated. The quintessence would be the USA.
I think Yeahwhat is missing my point – it’s the passage of time that ultimately proves if an occupation has been successful. The process may take centuries; indeed it’s not until several centuries have passed that an occupation can be seen as successful. So it’s the old examples that I cited that demonstrate the really successful occupations.
The Normans are an interesting case since rather than swamp the existing populace with newcomers, they chose to decapitate its political and organisational structure. That’s what the Turks tried to do in Greece during the 17th and 18th centuries, but they failed – because they were a different religion to the Greeks, they left the structure of the Greek Orthodox church intact. And that church played a major role in keeping the Greek sense of national identity alive and a major role in the struggle for Greek independence.
The Normans didn’t have this problem. Within a century of their arrival, the church in the English village I know well (to this day a pretty insignificant location) had a Norman priest. In modern terms, I’m sure it constituted a ‘hardship posting’ for the poor fellow! But that’s why the Normans won in England, while the Turks had to leave Greece even after an occupation of more than two centuries.
Currently, a factor that may have help determine the short-term success of an occupation may be the perceived ‘political correctness’ value (in other countries) of demonstrating against it. For example, while Indymedia gives plenty of publicity to protests over many see as the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, it shows little concern for what others see as a Chinese occupation of Tibet. (There are currently seven news items on Indymedia’s current front page concerning Israel and/or the Palestinians; Tibet wasn’t mentioned.)
This thread has long drifted from the question originally posed – “With democratic government and our more civilised (we hope) view on the world, is occupation of another country a viable strategy anymore?” However, the journey has been a fascinating one.
Mercurius Catabrigiensis
The Normans are an interesting case since rather than swamp the existing populace with newcomers, they chose to decapitate its political and organisational structure. That’s what the Turks tried to do in Greece during the 17th and 18th centuries, but they failed – because they were a different religion to the Greeks, they left the structure of the Greek Orthodox church intact. And that church played a major role in keeping the Greek sense of national identity alive and a major role in the struggle for Greek independence.
The Normans didn’t have this problem. Within a century of their arrival, the church in the English village I know well (to this day a pretty insignificant location) had a Norman priest. In modern terms, I’m sure it constituted a ‘hardship posting’ for the poor fellow! But that’s why the Normans won in England, while the Turks had to leave Greece even after an occupation of more than two centuries.
Currently, a factor that may have help determine the short-term success of an occupation may be the perceived ‘political correctness’ value (in other countries) of demonstrating against it. For example, while Indymedia gives plenty of publicity to protests over many see as the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian land, it shows little concern for what others see as a Chinese occupation of Tibet. (There are currently seven news items on Indymedia’s current front page concerning Israel and/or the Palestinians; Tibet wasn’t mentioned.)
This thread has long drifted from the question originally posed – “With democratic government and our more civilised (we hope) view on the world, is occupation of another country a viable strategy anymore?” However, the journey has been a fascinating one.
Mercurius Catabrigiensis
CARTHAGExRULES
New Member
I think occupations do work but the U.S.A in iraq screwed it up at the beggining.there was just to much publicity and all they had to much warning. If we had just ahnialated them in a war it wouldn't have mattered as much but we didn't. also i don't think they dealt w/ the ressistance in iraq. They should either beef up the occupation or just make it a bit less obvious. if they occupied underneath it might be easier to take out all those terrorist groups.You can never get rid of terrorism but if the u.s. made the right moves they might be able to stop it in the middle east for a while, long enough for iraq and them to get back on their feet and be able to deal w/ the terrorists themself so we don't have to.
Dalregementet
New Member
Success
Sweden has been quite sucessful in occupying other countries. Focusing on hearts and minds in an early phase, quickly adopt, to a certain degree, to local habits/culture. For example, Sweden has never experienced an uprising in Finland, the Baltic countries or in Germany (after peace treaties have been signed). The exeption is the former danish provinces Skåne, Halland and Blekinge in the 17th century where a guerilla type movement existed. Sweden handled that by "moving people", danes out, to other parts of Sweden and Swedes in. This in combination a with a tight administration of the conquered areas, moving out danish priests etc and when resistance occured usage of extreme violence and very painful executions.
The parting of Sweden and Norway was in a sense an "uprising" but more "civil obedience" and Norway got their independence without bloodshed.
All this has put Sweden in a good situation with it´s neighbourds , since no neighbouring contry has any real "hard feelings" against Sweden, due to that the occupation was seen as a stable time with law and order.
Sweden has been quite sucessful in occupying other countries. Focusing on hearts and minds in an early phase, quickly adopt, to a certain degree, to local habits/culture. For example, Sweden has never experienced an uprising in Finland, the Baltic countries or in Germany (after peace treaties have been signed). The exeption is the former danish provinces Skåne, Halland and Blekinge in the 17th century where a guerilla type movement existed. Sweden handled that by "moving people", danes out, to other parts of Sweden and Swedes in. This in combination a with a tight administration of the conquered areas, moving out danish priests etc and when resistance occured usage of extreme violence and very painful executions.
The parting of Sweden and Norway was in a sense an "uprising" but more "civil obedience" and Norway got their independence without bloodshed.
All this has put Sweden in a good situation with it´s neighbourds , since no neighbouring contry has any real "hard feelings" against Sweden, due to that the occupation was seen as a stable time with law and order.
Last edited:
LebaneseBella
New Member
Look at the Israeli/Palestinian issue today, it doesnt seem like the Palestinians are too happy being occupied. Look at Lebanon when it was illegally occupied by Israel, the outcome of that was the creation of Hezballah. Look at Ireland and the IRA and Kosovo.Hi all, long time lurker, first time poster here so please be nice
What are people's thoughts about occupations, that is, the army of one country occupying another, such as the current US occupation in Iraq?
In ancient times when countries occupied one another, such as when the Romains captured Carthage, they would pretty much flatten the place. People would be massacred, the land was salted (damaging its ability to yield food), and the cities would generally be raised to the ground and the people led off as slaves. It was pretty horrible, but it generally worked - once a city was captured soldiers didn't generally spend the next few years just trying to keep the peace (with some exceptions of course).
With democratic nations today, such a practice would be considered barbaric, and rightly so. But the actual invasion stage of Iraq - the clash between armies - seemed to be over very, very quickly - but we've since been there just trying to hold the peace.
So my question is, with democratic government and our more civilised (we hope) view on the world, is occupation of another country a viable strategy anymore? Do you see this as one of the big lessons we'll learn from Iraq?
Sorry ??
Ireland & the IRA ??
Think you've lost "the plot" of the thread on that one !
That was a political thing, more to do with Religion & Guerrilla warfare than an all out war / Occupation. Personally, I don't think it's really a topic to discuss on here, as we don't want to go down the which side was right / which side was wrong arguement...
Systems Adict
I think its you who dosnt understand. i think he means that the IRA got a lot more serious, organized etc once the British forces occupied ireland....the list go,s on and on....the french resistance, russian partisans of WW2 etc etc....ask your self....what would you do if your country was occupied by a an unwelcome force? How would you feel, if you were an 8 year old boy who didnt understand why his dad ,uncle and brother was killed by that force....long term occupations breed future "resistance, freedom fighters,terrorists" or whatever you want to call them.Sorry ??
Ireland & the IRA ??
Think you've lost "the plot" of the thread on that one !
That was a political thing, more to do with Religion & Guerrilla warfare than an all out war / Occupation. Personally, I don't think it's really a topic to discuss on here, as we don't want to go down the which side was right / which side was wrong arguement...
Systems Adict
The IRA was the one of the latest in a long line of revolutionary groups dedicted to the destruction of British rule in Ireland and the setting up of a Revolutionary Repubilican goverment.
Those groups had there origins in the French revolution. The IRA engaged in Guerrilla warfare as a matter of nessesity, but most of the Revolutionary groups spawned by the French Revolution engaged in open warfare with the British Army and there local auxiliaries. This was in the hope of sparking a more wide spread Rebellion.
The last such event was the easter rising in Dublin in 1916, Central Dublin was flattened, and the Rebels reviled. The Modern IRA was born out of that failure, and they begain a systematic Guerrilla campaign which lead to negotiations and British withdrawal from the 26 southern counties in 1922. The Freestate as it was called remained part of the common wealth until 1948 when it became a full Republic and withdrew.
As an aside, the more radical IRA units wanted to pursue full independence for the whole country, this was rejected by the elected Dail (parliament) and the hard line wing of the IRA took up arms against the Dublin Government. They were defeated in a short civil war (22/23). This was the last time organised violence was used in the south in pursuit of a political goal.
In the north a Prodestent majority Ruled from Belfast, overtly sectarian in its electoral boundaries and employment practices Catholics were second class citizens. This lead to an out break of Civil disobedience by Catholics (in no small part influenced by the civil rights movement in America).
Sectarian rioting broke out and the British Army was deployed to protect Catholic areas. The newly invigorated PIRA (mostly northern units) broke with the offical IRA (mostly Southern) and begin a Guerrilla campaign to eject British forces and set up a All Ireland Republic. Opposed by the majority of the population North and South, as well as by the British and Irish governments this campaign was a failure. During the 1990's and the early part of the Century the IRA disarmed and entered into a power sharing agreement with the Unionist Parties.
By and large this has been a success so far.
There you go a brief history of Political violence in Ireland. You may have noticed that the British Occupation was at the root of most violence in the country. Whatever the Political/religious window dressing, the root demand of all the revolutionary groups was the withdrawal of British rule.
Aliph Ahmed
Banned Member
It sure is working for India in Indian Occupied Kashmir.
They have 600,000 armed troops there plus unknown number of other armed security service perssonnal.
Killed atleast 60,000 innocent Kashmiris. Some estimates put the figure as high as 80,000+.
In a broad day light defiance of atleast 4 United Nation Resolutions.
They have 600,000 armed troops there plus unknown number of other armed security service perssonnal.
Killed atleast 60,000 innocent Kashmiris. Some estimates put the figure as high as 80,000+.
In a broad day light defiance of atleast 4 United Nation Resolutions.
Aliph Ahmed
Banned Member
http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/
These are the resolutions that were passed and adopted at UNO vis a vis Kashmir.
Like some other memebers pointed out. Will to stay indefinitely and at any cost is a major plus to have the occuptation work.
India being a shining example win hands down when it comes to occupying !!
These are the resolutions that were passed and adopted at UNO vis a vis Kashmir.
Like some other memebers pointed out. Will to stay indefinitely and at any cost is a major plus to have the occuptation work.
India being a shining example win hands down when it comes to occupying !!
I would suggest that this is one way to do it, but not the only one. An alternative is to convince the population that it is in their best interest to work with the occupying power, rather than fighting against it. I suggest that this is best achieved by a combination of aims.
(1) Make it very obvious that removing the occupation by force of arms is going to be lengthy, costly and highly unlikely.
(2) Offer the occupied population an alternative that is highly desirable, probable, and is the "reward" of peaceful compliance.
(3) Ensure that a clear distinction is made between those who cooperate, and those who do not.
(4) Ensure the protection of anything valued by the population which does not threaten the occupation.
Examples.....
Regardless of how you consider the tactics used in the Boer war, the English managed to convince the Boers that further resistance would cost them more in lives and suffering than any small military successes would justify. In turn, they did eventually allow Boer leaders such as Smuts and Botha to participate in representative politics to an extent that eventually led to the creation of a unified Republic of South Africa. A country in which the defeated Afrikaners dominated the government, and which subsequently became a significant ally of Britain through two world wars.
The occupation of Japan was established on the basis of total military capitulation, but the incentive offered to the population was self-government under a superior system if they complied. Religious customs were not crushed, but protected, giving the resident population one less reason to resist the occupation.
The Malayan Emergency - if we call that an "occupation" was dealt with by separating and concentrating on the small segment of the population giving aid and support to the communists, while offering the peaceful majority the prospect of independence and self-government.
People have not changed so much that these principles have ceased to work.
Peter
Cooch's method is probably what I would go for. However don't think the Boer War was a very good example. The Boers resented the British even more so by rounding up and starving women and children, and salting their lands. However that was a predictable consequence of the fact that the Boers were militarily superior. A better way to make it clear that it is ighly unlikley any resistance will lead to success is simple, plain old military victory. If their car-bombs are defused. Their snipers shot once revealed, arms-cashes captured, and ambushes turn into massacres of insurgents, then you can achieve this without destroying the population's faith in you. However, in some situations (ie Iraq), you cannot win long term, the Americans are losing soldiers in ambushes, M1A2s are being mobility killed. There soldiers have become disillusioned with the army. They have bombed at least one wedding (killed 48 people I think). The insurgents think they can win, and people don't trust them.
My point is that they haven't done so and resistance to US occupation is determined and (relativley) confident in victory. The US could win, but in a way they can't. Confidence in US boots is pretty low as of present, in addition the US gov't seemed sure that the Iraqis wouldn't resist much, and support the Americans as liberators from Saddam's tryanny, instead there are radical Shia and Sunis trying to kill each other without order AND get the Americans out.