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.

Every nation is capable of aggressive impulses, even modern Germany and Japan, with a suitable application of aggressive nationalism, which is different from normal nationalism. Japan channeled its nationalist spirit into commerce. The rest of Europe is so paranoid about Germany, post-Hitler, that anytime a nationalist pops his head up, he gets beat down(rhetorically).

One thing that could prevent any European nation from going back down this road is the dilution of the native populations. Unlike America, European nationalism is based on the way they percieve their connection to their land. It goes beyond the concept of race, and is almost a familial thing. With the influx of muslim immigrants, and the migration of European labor that the E.U. has facilitated, it's highly unlikely that we'll see anything like the Third Reich or British Empire ever again. Not because they "got it out of their system", but because the thing that makes traditional European nationalism possible has been broken.

Russia is a bit different. They have the same "blood and soil" thing as the rest of Europe, while they are also an ideological empire in the same way that America is, but the opposite, and their aggressive nationalist tendencies come and go in the same way.

Japan is only "commited to international peace and non-agression" because they aren't currently threatened by anyone but N. Korea, and it's good for business. I wouldn't be surprised if Japan and Australia are building up nuclear arsenals in the next 20 years(with American assistance) to form a regional counterweight to China and Indonesia.

I'll try to make this more coherent tomorrow, I'm stoned and tired.

Some nice, well thought out replies on both counts. I'll reply once I have time to properly digest it.

I agree. Although, not on Germany's part . . . who were "beaten in submission" as a result of WWI. In fact, it's the result of WWI that really was the major cause of WWII. After the WWI, Germany went home with the attitude of Well men, we didn't win, but we fought hell of a battle! And then they got slammed with the damage bill. And blah, blah, blah . . .

Anyway, like Billy said though, I think that any country really has the ability to be the aggressor when they don't really have anything, or think don't have anything to fear . . . or if they just feel strongly about their cause. But who are the major aggressors were talking about?

Well, my whole point about aggressive action is that it is by and large not fully justifiable when the situation is critically examined. Britain had nothing to fear from the nations of it's Empire; even America defended itself and became an autonomous nation without taking things further and invading. Germany didn't have any real, concrete justificaton to massacre the Jews either.

In hindsight they didnt. When you run things that may be the way it is, but morality changes with differnt cultures and opinions. They still enslave people in Africa and see it as an ordinary part of thier existence.

The nazis didn't really have it in their plans to exterminate the Jewish people, although they did want them to leave. In fact, during the 30's, they were given this opportunity . . . just leave the country. When they wouldn't, there were of course anti-sementic ordeals. But the biggest one of all, perhaps the start of it really, was "The Night of Shattered Glass," which, as coincidence would have it, was the result of a young, Jewish college student in France who went and killed some German officials in the Germany embassy in France. Of course, the student's reason for doing such a thing was what had happened to his parents in Germany, who were being harrassed by Nazi's.

But, if one really looks at the history between WWI and WWII, one can comprehend why the Nazi's did what they did. I'm not saying it was right, but in my opinion, the allies of WWI should share some of the blame for the creation of the Nazi party. After all, it was they who slammed Germany with the bill, and only Germany.

They wanted to keep them in line because it was the basis of their economy.

We did move in on the territory that England claimed in North America, Native Americans be damned. Then when we were done with England we bought France out, and started moving in on Spain's territory.

Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler's jew obsession was unrelated to his expansion of German territory. He could have easily done one without the other. In Mein Kampf he evaluates the geopolitical situation at the time, and rules out forming an overseas colonial empire because it would have brought him into conflict with England and France, which he didn't want. He decided Eastward expansion was the best choice, on the assumption that the West wouldn't lift a finger in defense of Russia. If England and France hadn't threatened him with war over Poland, he would have smashed Russia easily. Which would have been a good thing. We would have had a cold war with Germany instead of Russia.

None of these replies fully address my point though. The bottom line is that Germany and other nations have in the past found reasons to take aggressive action that are not accepted as being fully legitimate in regards to their need to defend themselves. Yet now these nations have not found these reasons in recent history; why? I could be that they simply feel secure as pointed out earlier but I feel that that simplifies the situation too much.

You use a faulty premise. You consider defense as the only "legitimate" reason for violence. Some people feel that when a culture stops expanding, it is dying. Criticize that all you want, but it animates many people into supporting aggressive wars.

three reasons for war (in my view)

1. social psycosis
2. need
3. ease

3. is the most common Germany WW1 and 2, Rome, Greece, Egypt, The Confederate Army ect These groups at the unset had better tech, training or strategy(leadership) and thus it is was very easy to conquer other nations/win battles.

In todays modern age you dont have the same circumstances there is no ease in dominating a nation (US Korea, Russians Afganistan). There is no need, lets say China decides to attack the United States, how does this help China, it doesnt the country would be worse off Econmicaly then if they had just went on with the status qou. Which leaves Social Psycosis I dont think this requires an example.

There would have to be a pardigm shift to change the world back to empire building through military might. A plague of epic proportions, a cosmic event, some sort of technichal glitch that destroyed machinary possiblities but unlikly. The super powers of the world are trending towards unfication by letting go of nationlism not bolstering it. Does this mean it doesnt exist, no but it is not the same as it once was.

It's not a faulty premise when the need to defend against aggressive action is the core justification given all but universally (and legitimately in the case of both World Wars on the part of the allied nations) for engaging in Warfare in modern history.
Hitler may have used the fear of economic collapse and loss of German Sovereignty to militarize the populace but he was still creating the idea of something that needed to be fought against for the defense of the nation.
A percieved threat can still be "defended" against even if the threat does not actually exist or the energy intended to halt it is not focused properly.
Going back to the example of Hitler; can you imagine how the German people would react today if someone attempted to rise to power under the principles that he advocated? Even if they were under similar duress, do you really think that they would make the same mistake twice?

Absoultly, why do you think we spend billions fixing every place we destroy. That enviroment is perfect for a radical to take over.

There are numerous examples of aggressive warfare that is entirely justified in the eyes of the people who participate in it.

Serbia felt morally justified in expelling the muslim Albanians from their land, as did those Albanians in rebelling to acheive the secession of Kosovo when they became the majority of that population.

The Confederate States of America seceeded peacefully except for expelling Federal garrisons. Was Lincoln justified in using aggressive action against them to preserve the Union?

The entire history of Islam's expansion is aggressive and they consider it their moral duty to do so, as did the Christian Crusaders who invaded and secured the Holy Land.

In the last 50 years there have been numerous potential wars in Asia that were only averted after the threat of violence when one nation, upstream of another, wanted to divert or dam a river. Do you consider that aggressive action?

There is an ongoing conflict in Kashmir. India owns it, but the muslims who live there want to be part of Pakistan. Both sides feel entirely justified in killing the other, and both have a morally arguable case.

I could find more examples if I felt like taking the time to look them up.


You should read Mein Kampf. You wouldn't have said this if you understood his plans for Ukraine.

True, but you're still assuming that the aggressor is always unjustified.

No, but only because they don't want to get their ass kicked again. Under similar duress today they would probably go total isolationist.

Okay, I'll admit that my definition of aggressive action fell outside of my point. Being that a justification is given based on a percieved need to defend oneself from a threat.


I'm not so much as concerned with the justifications as much as I am with why some nations find no justification and currently do not act aggresively on an international scale.

I don't buy that premise. They might legitimately defend themselves and lobby for fair treatment but they wouldn't react with genocide because they know that it doesn't "work".