Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron's Rite For this line of discussion, it will be nesscessary to disregard all discussion of the ethical concerns over rather or not individual wars have been right or wrong. What I wish to examine is the possibility that agressive impulses can be satiated on a national level by participation as an aggressor in a major war. Examples of this hypothesis can be seen in many nations, primarily those that participated in WWII under the axis nations of Germany and Japan. After commiting horrendous attrocities under the Third Reich and in Nanking respectively; both of these nations are now thoroughly commited to international peace and non-agression. England was also a colonial power for years; we see the same effect: Even English Comedian Eddie Izzard took note of this, recommending in one of his sketches that Germany and Japan be recruited as a special "Peace Squad."
Do you agree with this hypothesis? If so, how do we explain nations that act as exceptions to this hypothesis? |
Are you saying that Germany and Japan are peaceful now because they somehow got aggression out of thier system in WW2? If thats what youre saying (simplified of course) I would have to disagree and say that they are peaceful because they were beaten into submission and took an unconditional surrender. Thus destroying thier sense of national zealotry. Niether of those countries had ever really been successfully defeated and controlled by a foreign power before. The Romans, sure, but they had minimal success in Germania, and the Kamakaze killed off Kubla Khans forces before they could massacre the Japanese.
Indeed, if your theory were true, the countries like Russia and Cambodia would have been bastions of peace too.