War

Forums: History, War, Love, Destruction, World
Email this Topic • Print this Page

so, based off many of the wars and such in human history, the only man who ever successfully built an empire that loved him was Cyrus the great the Persian emperor, so why hasn't any conquering country over the last thousand years tried to conquer a land and then build up the people to love them and want to be apart of them instead of just being 3rd class citizens barely above slaves? and going by that does anyone agree with me that if lets say in ww2 if germany had instead of spreading hate for them in conquered countrys had helped them and made them feel improved by joining germany that maybe it would be different? or even when japan invaded china and destroyed everything in their path, what im getting at here, is does anyone think with me that if a group instead of destroying and enslaving, started to empower conquered peoples and improve their lives that they would be able to grow without being hindered by rebels or atleast as much in the way of resistance?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 1,289 • Replies: 5

No top replies

@HoundOfGod,

Quote:

group instead of destroying and enslaving, started to empower conquered peoples and improve their lives that they would be able to grow without being hindered by rebels or atleast as much in the way of resistance?

Not that simple there been empires that was very easy going as far as allowing the local people their own leaders/rulers and religions and so on that still have problems with revolts.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I kind of suspect that if you are going to oppress a population, you need to either crush them or get out.

1 Reply

As BillRM said, it's not that simple. The US is pretty well hated wherever we happen to have a military presence. And we haven't even conquered those countries nor tried to interfere with their governments or tried to change their cultural values or traditions or anything like that. People just don't like to have a foreign power on their soil, no matter how benevolent that power might be.

0 Replies

lol, Gadaffi fired all Libya's oil wealth back into Libya.
Free gas and electricity, 18 cents a gallon of petrol, free healthcare and education - govt-funded if only accessible abroad, interest-free loans, 50% govt subsidy on NEW vehicle purchases, a home and 50k dollars to all newlyweds.
But, due to an attempt to trade in gold ( not petrodollar ), mediarised as a tyrannic dictator and swiftly removed.

He promised to house every single Libyan b4 his own family - his dad died in a tent.

He was revered by his own people and demonised by the (elite-owned) western media.

So, if you do everything for your nation and propel it to 98% literacy, make it debt-free, communaly stable and prosperous for all....... You are fucked over and removed.

Why?
Because spreading ACTUAL currency prevents the spread of the fictitious kind. Smile

0 Replies

@roger,

Quote:

I kind of suspect that if you are going to oppress a population, you need to either crush them or get out.

It not that simple as there is a lot of benefits to belonging to a large and powerful empire that both the rulers and the people are likely to be aware of.

Whole kingdoms for example placed themselves under Rome rule and protections in an almost voluntary manner.

See the Pergamum Kingdom as an example of this as well

Of course if they then rebel they might get a few of their populations centers put to the sword as an example to others thinking of doing the same thing.

0 Replies

War

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know