Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, I do not know about that. The USA told Holland they would not get any Marshall Plan money if they did not decolonialize.
That might be the case, but I doubt that would have made a true impact. Unlike the British who saw the folly in keeping a colony a half world away, Holland was not readily to give up their biggest cash cow. You have to remember that they were still living in the 'colonial' past.
Quote:
You are mistaken. The war in Korea was sparked by the North invading the South.
What I meant was that the Asians finally had proof that you can win your country back by violence.
I mean how do you get a North and a South Korea anyways? Isn't hat the use of the old divide and conquer strategy which is a typical reminder of (European) colonialism? Africa still deals with this same problem once the Europeans gave them back their autonomy.
I mean how do you get a North and a South Korea anyways? Isn't hat the use of the old divide and conquer strategy which is a typical reminder of (European) colonialism? Africa still deals with this same problem once the Europeans gave them back their autonomy.
Exactly the same way you got an East and West Germany. The USSR set up the North and the US set up the South. Nothing to do with Colonialism. Today the South is a democratic, economic powerhouse whilst the North is a diabolical prison state run by a dynasty of madmen. Says it all.
Anyway, we are going way off topic and I respectfully think your arguements too full of holes to be taken seriously. Not a swipe, just an opionion.
True, I do not defend fascism at all. I only appreciate an 'honest' fascist over one who pretends that he is not one.
There is a difference here. While neither the European Powers (and the US in the Phillipines) had any business being colonial masters, their treatment of the natives was not nearly as brutal as the Japanese treatment of those same people was. This is because they were democracies and had higher standards of treatment for people in general. Totalitarian regimes of any flavor - whether they be Communist, NAZI or the Japanese Imperial Army put a very low value on human life in general, placing the importance of the State over the importance of the Individual as one of their foremost principles. This results in much greater levels of brutality and terror directed against everyone in the society. In short, it becomes more of the norm - so is it any surprise then that these types of goverments are the most brutal against those they've conquered? Of course not.
Democracies, by their very nature, tend to be much less brutal than totalitarian governments. Yes, war itself is brutal still, and you'll still find individual acts of brutality occuring during wartime. The big difference is what happens during occupation. Compare the occupation (and the eventual resulting societies) East Germany versus West Germany for example - or the Japanese occupation of their Empire with the American occupation of Japan. America rebuilt both West Germany and Japan and now both are prosperous with higher standards of living. There is NO WAY the Japanese would have done that had they maintained their SE Asia Empire. In the Imperial Japanese Empire, brutality was institutionalized - it was part of the military culture that ran Japan. You'll never find brutality institutionalized in a democracy.
That is the REAL difference.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 01-09-2008 at 09:49 AM..
You'll never find brutality institutionalized in a democracy.
How about child-labour? Voting rights for women? Equal rights for citizens of different races (or other sexual orientation)?
Democracy is not a European (or western) invention, there have been indigenous tribes that had a participatory democracy instead of the representative democracy most of us have now. Granted due to the population size of our modern nations a participatory democracy has largely become be an impossibility.
Quote:
US control of Germany was short-lived and relatively benign. We rebuilt the country and gave control back to the locals.
There is no excuse for taking away someone's autonomy, unless they're criminals or insane.
Originally Posted by LordBalfor How about child-labour? Voting rights for women? Equal rights for citizens of different races (or other sexual orientation)?
Al right, point taken. Let me rephrase "You'll rarely find brutality institutionalized in Democracies - particularly nowadays - but in totalitarian regimes, it's ALWAYS present, always common, and ALWAYS will be."
Somehow I think Tojo, Hitler and Mussolini all met the required criteria.
Agreed.
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And this is not a form of colonialism? Foreign occupiers who tell you what you can and can't do?
Granted due to the population size of our modern nations a participatory democracy has largely become be an impossibility. 
