What Movies Have You Seen Lately?

Quote: Pacomartin

I am sure that someone will dispute me, but I don't really consider any war since Hitler died one of true conquest.

There was Putin's adventure in Ukraine. And Stalin's objective in WWII was conquest and the creation of a sphere of influence (aka your other point). Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were independent between WWI and WWII. He also took a byte out Finland. But all that did end in WWII.

Also, they failed, but had the various Arab states taken Israel in the 50s-60s, do you believe any of them would have set up an entity such as Palestine, or simply taken over what territory they could agree upon?

Quote:

The dozens of wars seem to be about exerting control or some kind of unification that one country believes is correct.

There was ethnic cleansing, which Hitler also had in mind for all Slavic realms he could take.

But, other than the Middle East and the long-running India-Pakistan conflict, can you name a major war not involving the US since WWII? Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, Afghanistan II (There! Afghanistan I involved the USSR),Iraq. America's even gotten involved, directly or indirectly, in plenty of local and regional conflicts like Lebanon, the Balkans, Syria, Libya, etc.

It's not that the US is incapable of making wars of conquest (ask Mexico, Spain and GB), whether successful or not, but that it hasn't been American policy to do so since WWII (more or less, as one can argue certain ambiguity in Korea).

You know what else has changed massively? About 100 years ago, one side in WWI consisted of empires led by emperors. The Ottoman empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire. While on the Entente side, there were two empires, Britain and Russia, though only one emperor, Tzar Nikolai II Though Britain is nominally a monarchy still, the power resides in the Prime Minister.

But think about it. 100 years ago royalty consisted of more than figureheads and a sideshow in four of the most powerful nations in Europe.

Quote: Pacomartin

I know this sounds kind of naive, but conquest has been such a part of human history that it is difficult to think that it all ended with Hitler.

Oh, I overloaded my train of thought in the previous post.

There's a joke in historical circles that Hitler gave racism a bad name. You can also say he gave conquest a bad name.

With many exceptions, conquests in ancient times were not the brutal affairs the word connotes today. and for many peoples, there was little or no change. Some conquerors were welcome, too. Cyrus the Great conquered Israel, but also released the Jews from captivity in Babylon and let them return to their ancestral lands. he's referred to in the Bible as "Messiah." Alexander's conquest of Egypt was welcomed by the Egyptians, though perhaps only because he kicked the Persians out. Still, Egypt was tranquil and mostly prosperous under the reign of the Ptolemies (though not all of them). Anyway, Alexander was hailed as Pharaoh and recognized as the son of a god.

There were exceptions,a s noted. The Babylonians weren't particularly kind. the Assyrians were downright brutal, relying on terror as a deterrent and a weapon of war. But by and large conquerors at the time were more enlightened, squeezing only so much wealth from their conquests as the new subjects would tolerate (and usually no more than their native rulers had squeezed from them before being conquered). Some, like Cyrus the Great, were rather benevolent and inclusive.

Areas conquered by the Nazis suffered the same totalitarian rule as the German people did, minus any consideration for being German. And that was the Western Europeans they didn't despise. eastern Europe was a slaughter house from day one. the intent was what today we'd call ethnic cleansing, but even more so.

But what puzzles me about the era was how brutal the Japanese were towards conquered peoples, especially in China. Grotesque medical experiments weren't done only by the Nazis. Nor did the Japanese hesitate to torture prisoners or captives.

Quote: Nareed

Nor did the Japanese hesitate to torture prisoners or captives.

Not to make excuses
Horrendous acts
Because
The Japanese did not view prisoners as soldiers in captivity. Too them a real soldier never surrenders. In their eyes, less then human cowards, not honorable

Quote: Nareed

With many exceptions, conquests in ancient times were not the brutal affairs the word connotes today. and for many peoples, there was little or no change.

I'm no expert but the bible related many conquests, at God's alleged command, where they wiped out every man, woman, child, and even animal.

Quote: Nareed

Nor did the Japanese hesitate to torture prisoners or captives.

The Japanese then as now consider all
other races inferior to theirs. It's why
they have almost zero immigration.

I read an article a few weeks ago by
a man who has lived in Japan for
20 years, from NYC. He still has no
real friends there, and there isn't
a day that goes by that he's isn't
reminded to his face that he's of
an inferior race and is lucky they
let him stay as long as they have.
He hates it there, but he makes more
money than he can anywhere else
because he speaks the language,
and Chinese, fluently.

Quote: Evenbob

The Japanese then as now consider all
other races inferior to theirs. It's why
they have almost zero immigration.

I read an article a few weeks ago by
a man who has lived in Japan for
20 years, from NYC. He still has no
real friends there, and there isn't
a day that goes by that he's isn't
reminded to his face that he's of
an inferior race and is lucky they
let him stay as long as they have.
.

I've been to Japan
People have different experiences
I found the Japanese people to be very welcoming and not feeling superior to me or others
I had a blast in Tokyo :-)
Get out and see the world for yourself

Quote: Wizard

It didn't. Consider China's conquering Tibet in 1950. Consider the short-lived Iraqi conquering of Kuwait in 1990.

Tibetan empire in 790.


Both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China have maintained China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet. Similarly Iraq treated Kuwait like an errant province.

I said my comment would be in dispute since the losers of recent wars feel that they were conquered, but the victors usually feel that they had historical justification for control.

The great conquests of the past like the Mongol invasion had no illusion that they had a historical claim to the area. Hitler had no historical claim to Paris or Moscow.

I don't know if Kim Jong-un feels that he has some ancient right to control all of Korea, or is he just trying to protect his current geographical claim? There was a Korean Empire from 1897 to 1910, and perhaps he believes he is the rightful heir to that Empire.

Quote: Pacomartin

Both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China have maintained China's claim to sovereignty over Tibet. Similarly Iraq treated Kuwait like an errant province.

I said my comment would be in dispute since the losers of recent wars feel that they were conquered, but the victors usually feel that they had historical justification for control.

The great conquests of the past like the Mongol invasion had no illusion that they had a historical claim to the area. Hitler had no historical claim to Paris or Moscow.

I don't know if Kim Jong-un feels that he has some ancient right to control all of Korea, or is he just trying to protect his current geographical claim? There was a Korean Empire from 1897 to 1910, and perhaps he believes he is the rightful heir to that Empire.

I would have more respect for China and Iraq if they were honest and just said they were taking advantage of a weaker neighbor because they wanted to steal the land, which is what I think the case really was. However, I still maintain those are counterexamples to your claim that nobody conquers anybody else since WWII.

Quote: Wizard

IHowever, I still maintain those are counterexamples to your claim that nobody conquers anybody else since WWII.

It was in fact conquest, but China and Iraq did not openly proclaim it as such.

In comparison the German concept of Lebensraum ("living space") was in effect from the 1901 to the 1940s was a concept that justified the open conquest of other people's land, the mass murder of those people, and the occupation of their land.

In contrast we have a maxim from the 1990s that "No two countries with McDonalds have ever gone to war" implying that conquest was at odds with the economic globalization of the first world. McDonald's Corp. has restaurants in 119 countries. I don't know if the maxim has actually held up for the last two decades.


My question is " Is conquest in our collective DNA?". Within our lifetime will we see an open aggressive attempt at conquest of another country without any historical claim?


It's a difficult question because there is a lot of history to refer to for historical claims. For instance the Islamic Empire of the 8th century.

Quote: Wizard

I'm no expert but the bible related many conquests, at God's alleged command, where they wiped out every man, woman, child, and even animal.

The Bible needs to be used sparingly and judiciously as a historical source, as it contains much in the way of propaganda, distortions, legends, etc.

Now, as I said, there were exceptions. When Rome defeated Carthage in the Third Punic War, they did massacre much of the population and raze and burned cities to the ground. This was very rare by Roman standards of conquest, though not when it came to rebellion. rebellious provinces were often treated very harshly. Hadrian destroyed much of Jerusalem and expelled all Jews from it. Aurelian razed Palmyra to the ground (and after the Palmyrenes had done so much to keep much of the East in the Empire through the Crisis of the Third Century, too). I think even Alexander, as enlightened a mass conqueror as there ever was, did in a couple of cities in Greece early in his career.

Then, too, you had people like the Assyrians, who used terror, torture and mass destruction as a tool of both war and control.

Also keep in mind wars of conquest could be rather brutal. Taking a walled city is very hard. the preferred method was to lay siege while trying to breach the walls. this could take months or years. In the interim, people inside the cities starved, grew ill from malnutrition, coped with sporadic attacks from outside (catapults were very popular, often launching burning timber, diseased animals, and maybe even diseased human corpses).