Softening Up

[MajorGeneral2]

Is it just me, or has the Western World "softened up," so to speak? When was the last time someone was conquered? At one time, this happened all the time. There was an invasion somewhere every few years. Since WWII, this has been rare. What is the cause of this decline in Imperialism? Perhaps this is part of why WWII holds so much interest, it was the last major war of conquest.

 

[Flatlander Fox]

Actually it's because in these days, any invader will get nuked.

That's enough deterrant for most countries!

So mankind's improved ability to kill each other has probably saved lives...

 

[Sodak]

Flatlander Fox states it well!

Another (less important) reason is the worldwide acceptance of borders. Most people today are surprized to learn that even just over a century ago, most borders were fuzzily defined agreements (or coercions), if even that precise. Now they are survey-accurate internationally accepted separations. One nation could claim a neighbor's turf as his own, and try to take it.

One prime example is Alsace-Lorraine. Both France and Germany had/have "rightful" claims to it - historical ethnic, linguistic, and economic bonds - When one country got heady, it would take A-L from the other. Now that would be unacceptable in the international community - that patch of land belongs on that side of the line! Now when a winning side conquers land, it is called "occupied territory", e.g. the west bank of palestine. Even tho Israel has controlled it for what, 35? years, it is not accepted by the international community as theirs. 200 years ago, in the same circumstance, nobody would question that it was now a part of Israel.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I would not characterize it as a decline, but rather a lull
For the reasons of deterrence and international pressure, blatant aggression and invasion are somewhat rarer these days.
In terms of the overall society, it can be argued that some aspects of changing morality are akin to "softening". It is not an overall trend, as the disgusting OBL discovered, but it could be improved.

And will be improved, when the Evil Tyranncy takes power.

 

[Case]

Another reason that wars of conquest have died down in the west is that such wars are no longer economically feasible. It costs a lot to sustain large armed forces in the field for long enough to conquer a nation, and the need to maintain armies of occupation for decades would ruin even the biggest economy (the American experiance in Vietnam is a rough example of the difficulties involved in operating in an unfriendly nation for a prolonged period)

When you consider that free trade has opened up access to western resources, conquest isn't a good idea on any level.

 

[Lt.Col. Kilgore]

The whole reason is the U.S., NATO. If there is ever a regional power struggle the U.S. and Nato (U.N.) send in troops to help decide the outcome. If there is a local warlord who looks able enough to annex a lot of land this police group will come in and end his conquest. The reason for this is to ensure that the Western powers remain the main world powers. If there is some nation who looks like it might become a formidable force in the future it gets killed in its infancy and slapped with many restrictions on foreign policy and military policy to ensure it doesn't happen again. This is why the West will remain the main powers for along time to come. The only exceptions are Japan and China(arguable).

 

[History_Buff]

Yes, the whoel U.N. thing makes the world one hell of a boring place. But nobody will ever get nuked. No one will ever stupid enough to do something like that.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by History_Buff
Yes, the whoel U.N. thing makes the world one hell of a boring place. But nobody will ever get nuked. No one will ever stupid enough to do something like that.

I'd bet on stupidity, it's the second strongest force in
history, right after greed.

 

[Richard III]

It's B.C. Gold that did it. Three decades of cross-bred bud cooled the burning embers and made people like, love each other a little bit more.

Once my homeland began heavy exportation of its finest, everything just smoothed out and all of the angry people pulled out their birkenstocks, vented their militaristic urges on a big fatty and went reggae cool man.

Peace, brothers

 

[Magnus]

The answer is women's suffrage. once women attain equal status with men, everybody cools down a bit because men are the force of aggression and women balance that as the force of tranquility (except for a few days a month ). Thus, only in countries where women's rights are negligible (The Middle East, for example) will country's be especially warlike.

 

[God]

I think Europe has had enough of its wars. 2 world wars that basically destrouyed the continent.
Even though its not so evident, IMO Europe is declining. Different areas had different times to dominance.
During the middle ages the ME dominated. Industrial times Europe came big and made empires and wars. Now its America, next maybe China.

 

[MajorGeneral2]

The world has gotten boring, hasn't it? I want somebody to attack someone else and keep the land without interferance from the darned UN! Of course, It depends on who does the conquering. If it's someone like Saddam Hussein, no. But a more "friendly" nation, at least to my one country, sure. I don't think nukes have as much to do with it as it seems. They only deter attacks on nations that have them, and won't always work (how many nations would attack Israel if not for the UN?).

 

[Case]

What's this obsession with the UN?
When it comes to wars, the UN is a paper tiger. The UN can't do much to stop wars begining and it has no permanent military forces to attack agressors.
The only things that the UN can do to prevent wars is to impliment sanctions (which then require national forces to enforce them) and send in peace keepers after the war has ended to keep the waring parties apart (and again, this requires the commitment of national forces).
The UN hasn't fought a war since the Korean War, and seems unlikely to do so in the future.


Basically, wars of agression seem to be a thing of the past in the west because:
a) they're not worth the effort
b) the public in every western country opposes agressive wars

 

[EdwardTking]

Everbody, except very stupid people like Civ 2 players and Osama bin Ladin, knows that wars of conquest have ended; because the Americans, led by their supreme leader King Billy Gates have with the assistance of McDonalds and Coco-Cola, already conquered the world.

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
(how many nations would attack Israel if not for the UN?).

Few, if any. Every country that has thus far tried to invade Israel has had its ass handed to it in a hurry.

 

[Sodak]

Originally posted by EdwardTking
...the Americans, led by their supreme leader King Billy Gates have with the assistance of McDonalds and Coco-Cola, already conquered the world.

It's no coincidence that US foreign policy so often (always?) involves economic threats or coercions... Yes, they have the military to back it up, but the economic influence is bigger, methinks.

 

[Andu Indorin]

"Softening Up" is certainly an odd expression.

But a couple of more factors at work:

The Imperialism of the 19th century was fueled not only by economic aggrandizement, but also imperial and dynastic ambitions; World War I not only demonstrated the dangers of total war among the belligerents of Europe, it also saw the waning of such ambitions.

The rise of Nationalism, which at first worked to fuel imperialist expansion, eventually resulted in the rise of Nationalism throughout the world, making the conquered peoples ever more difficult to rule, and eventually led to the so-called "retreat from Empire" after World War II -- an event which not only circumscribed European power, but also promoted nationalist movements throughout Africa and Asia.

Finally, with the advent of a Bi-Polar International system between the U.S./NATO and the U.S.S.R./Warsaw Pact, both armed with Nuclear Weapons, largely changed the nature of warfare in western civilization from "wars of conquest" to "wars by proxy", i.e., largely fighting for "control" of other nations through factions rather than going head-to-head.

A variety of factors, including those already mentioned above, have been at work to change the nature of warfare since WWII.


(By the way, Flatlander. Speaking of Fort Frozen Tundra, every heard of Thule A.F.B.?)

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

For one thing conquest, permenant or indefinate acquistion of territory by force has been unlawful since the late 1940s.

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Originally posted by Andu Indorin
The rise of Nationalism, which at first worked to fuel imperialist expansion, eventually resulted in the rise of Nationalism throughout the world, making the conquered peoples ever more difficult to rule...

I might add, too, that increased education and freedoms of the press and speech, and media saturation in general, have all contributed to our awareness of ourselves as citizens of a nation and participants in its culture. (Not to mention wealth and private property)

Even the heavy imbalance between US and Canadian media influences in Canada, for example, serves to make Canadians feel more patriotic, if only reactively (the "We're NOT American, damnit!" syndrome). Even as close as we are culturally, there is no way that the Canadian public would ever acquiesce to being American (under physical conquest, of course... it might one day happen by choice, I fear. )

Nope, we're stuck with this map, pretty much. I'd suggest going for either a cultural or spaceship victory, personally.

 

[Supernaut]

Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
The world has gotten boring, hasn't it? I want somebody to attack someone else and keep the land without interferance from the darned UN! Of course, It depends on who does the conquering. If it's someone like Saddam Hussein, no. But a more "friendly" nation, at least to my one country, sure. I don't think nukes have as much to do with it as it seems. They only deter attacks on nations that have them, and won't always work (how many nations would attack Israel if not for the UN?).

Israel _has_ got nukes!!

Also, the US/British/French nukes collectively defended a lot of countries that didn't have nukes for a long time.

But I think the main cause of so much peace has been democracy - wars are generally caused by power mad dictators or oligarchs. When the people who are actually going to have to march off and die get a say in the matter, they tend to calm things down a bit. They will defend themselves, but not be so aggresive. A lot of the disputes between Britain and France over agriculture recently would, in the 19 century, probably have resulted in us shelling Calais, but know we sit down and talk things out.

Also, better travel and communication links have made us less keen to kill each other, because we now know each other. It's much easier to have a war against some 'alien' culture or people about whom you know very little (e.g. Al-qaeda vs. the West - both sides really only know propaganda about each other) than against people who are just like you.

Of course, if they're too much like you then it's really easy - hence so many civil wars!