Who are the most aggressive Nation?

[sparkey]

Well, that was truly sobering. I Hope that I have not across in that manner.
I for one don't want to present the image of an adolescent and I definitely am not into video games. When I describe what I present as attributes of certain groups, I can assure you that their faults do not go unoticed.:shocked:

I usually play as the underdog factions who lost in real life in my video games. So far I've had Macedon win the Macedonian Wars against Rome and Llywelyn ap Gruffydd defeat Edward I of England.

 

[Regulus]

I usually play as the underdog factions who lost in real life in my video games. So far I've had Macedon win the Macedonian Wars against Rome and Llywelyn ap Gruffydd defeat Edward I of England.

Now THAT would be right up my alley. I never got into video games, but I have given a lot of thought to using video to simulate old conflicts and trying to reverse the actual outcome.

A more likely world changing event would have been an Athenian victory at Syracuse. Just try to imagine the sequence of events that would follow from that!

 

[Canek]

Mexico was the main VICTIM of Spain not the USA.

usa STEAL a lot of lands to mexico. the biggest robbery in history.

Today there are an estimated 12 million mostly Mexican illegal aliens in the USA, and the USA did not "truck them in", they have have come on their very own.

all this mexicans are in their ancient home. they are not aliens.

 

[sparkey]

Canek, you're probably in a unique position to judge: who has been more aggressive historically, Spain or the USA? I really feel that signs point to Spain, although the Mexican-American War and some recent actions keep the US from being out of the running entirely.

 

[Canek]

the gringo empire hegemony, abusse and brutality over mexico and latin america is not over. still.

so ask me that question when usa falls... i cross fingers that they end is near.

 

[Spion Stirlitz]

Canek, you're probably in a unique position to judge: who has been more aggressive historically, Spain or the USA? I really feel that signs point to Spain, although the Mexican-American War and some recent actions keep the US from being out of the running entirely.

I do not consider Spain or the USA to be particularly aggressive nations. Or maybe they were in particular periods of history, but not has a constant over centuries.

I think that could also be said from most nations of the Earth.

Actually, if more East Europeans participated in these forums, probably some will say that "nothing parallels the aggression lust of Russia", or something like that. Many times what we see depends on our point of view.

 

[Reinaert]

Hmm.. I think there is a difference between propaganda and history.

A very well known one liner is: "Today's history is yesterday's propaganda!"

I think it's rather senseless to discuss about what nation was most aggressive.
It's more important to know about the reason why.

So, let's take one example...

About WW2

Japan got into trouble when invading China. They needed materials. Why?
What countries were controlling shipping lines and trade then?
At least the USA and Great Britain had a big share of the pie.
The Dutch were in Indonesia, drilling for oil. ***
So when the US did boycott oil supplies into Japan, they were forced to come up with some idea.

And then, there was a book from Hector Bywater.
A British maritime specialist. He knew a lot about naval warfare.
Already published and at least known around 1930.
He wrote the scenario of the attack on Pearl Harbor! *****

The Japanese followed that strategy to get the USA to the negotiating table, but that failed completely.
In fact, the took the bait, and were caught.
The USA could start an all out war to expand their influence in the Pacific area.
The British, French and Dutch out.. And the Japanese of course.

The USA had a perfect plan to strangle Japan.
In the theaters everybody saw the bloody fighting on Iwo Jima. Japan troops getting burned out by flamethrowers.
But, nobody knew about the submarines the USA developed, and that caused havoc on Japanese shipping transports.

So, in fact Japan was a mouse in the claws of a cat.
Japan got the title for " atrocities".
The Big Cat got a title for being a "hero".

---------------
*** So the Japs attacked Dutch Indonesia for oil.

***** There are texts available of a case before a court, where the later President of Indonesia, Sukarno even mentions these facts! He warned the Dutch for an oncoming Japanese invasion, but he was accused of spreading rumors!!! True idiots those Dutch colonialists!

 

[Mzungu mchagga]

Let me reiterate my defense of the Germans. As Mzungu touched upon, there was a large stretch of time spanning the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern periods in which Germany (well, the HRE) was nowhere near the most aggressive nation. It's true that a primary reason they weren't so aggressive was because they were fighting amongst themselves most of the time, but something has to be said for having the largest concentration of armored knights in Europe (IIRC), but rarely deploying them for conquest. After all, both the states and Emperor made up the HRE government, and because a large component of it (the states) were invested in expanding within, rather than outside, of the borders, it's also possible to say that a large component of the HRE government was disinterested in being aggressive outside its borders. So, I'm not so eager to label Germany as the most aggressive nation ever. But all said, with the World Wars and all, they're certainly up there.

Well, you're just emphasising what I've said. When Germans were not conquering other nations, they were busy with slaughtering themselves. The Thirty Years War in which two thirds of the German population got killed is just one example. And if the HRE had the largest density of knights, even though they were not driving them outside of their borders (what they actually did btw, as already mentioned in Italy and Eastern Europe) it was surely not for peaceful reasons. Even from 1949 till 1990 German tanks were pointing at each other.
So after 1945 we Germans were well aware of the problem that on a long range constant of two millennia, AND in absolute brutality as in the Third Reich, Germans HAVE been the most aggressive nation in world history. If you pick every single incident of crimes other nations have done (Conquisition, slave trade, Gulag, Apartheit etc...), there is NOTHING that couldn't again have been topped by some German crime.

In fact it is a problem that puts Germans into an identity crisis still today, as it would suggest that every feature of German culture is part of an ungainly inhuman machinery. It became very unfashionable, especially among young people, to practice anything which could be connected with being 'German', inclusivly sometimes music, cuisine or dressing. The result was almost some sort of complete cultural tabula rasa after 1945, in East Germany even from 1990 on. I would claim, this makes even the US far off richer in tradition and culture than Germany.

We don't have a national holyday in Germany that is in fact 'celebrated', besides the 3. of October (day of unification), which is actually just a day off, nothing more.

We don't have a single song in Germany that EVERY German, young till old, could sing. Including the national anthem. And perhaps besides this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNT0fQnZBOw

I don't know any German about my age who could cook things like Sauerkraut or other traditional German meal. German cuisine is usually frowned upon and only accepted in the case of cheap fast food (like Bratwurst, Schnitzel etc..)

Unlike France for example, there is no serious movement which tries to keep out foreign words out of the German language.

I could continue with this list. It is a fact that German culture has been very aggressive for two millennia, and this has still impact on German thinking today.

 

[sparkey]

I will admit, Mzungu, that you're right on a bunch of accounts there. Germany is probably in the top 5 most aggressive nations of all time if you put its history together even in my opinion, so my defense was lukewarm at best.

Let me approach it from an American perspective now. When viewing history through an American lens, pre-World War I Germany (including the HRE and Prussia) almost never enter into the discussion regarding aggression, unless we're talking about, say, Hessians providing mercenary troops to the British. Germany was simply never an aggressive power in the region like Britain, Spain, and France. So, justified or not, there's a perception here that Germany became aggressive later on. Perhaps that's where my bias comes from to keep them out of my personal #1 spot.

 

[Antigone]

Germany was simply never an aggressive power in the region like Britain, Spain, and France. So, justified or not, there's a perception here that Germany became aggressive later on. Perhaps that's where my bias comes from to keep them out of my personal #1 spot.

Yes, that seems to be the general perception to most outside Germany, and that it was Germany's very competiveness with Empires like those of Britain, Spain and France that lead to it's aggression and expansionist policies.

 

[Maciamo]

If there was a way to assess the aggressiveness of nations, I am sure that this would fluctuate over time. Just look at Germany and Japan. They were the most aggressive European and Asian nations, respectively, from their unification (1870 and 1867) until 1945. Defeat in WWII completely changed the national psyche though, and both became models of pacifism to this day.

 

[Reinaert]

Well.. I think England has been one of the most aggressive nations in the world. Or to be precise, from the Normans on. William the Conquerer changed everything in 1066. Because William originated from France, the English started a 100 year war to conquer France.
It was all about the loot they could get. Nothing else.
From Elisabeth I on, they dominated Europe with their fleets. They built an empire, by using both brute force and propaganda.

 

[Antigone]

Or to be precise, from the Because William originated from France, the English started a 100 year war to conquer France.
It was all about the loot they could get. Nothing else.

Weeell, that is not quite true. Technically, the throne of France had become vacant when the Capetian dynasty ended and Edward III of England not only happened to be the nephew of Charles IV of France but also his closest living relative. So Edward did have a legitimate claim to the throne, but the French aristocracy (understandably) balked at the idea of having an English king.

After the French whipped the English butts and made it plain exactly what they thought of the idea of an English king, the English spent the next century or so trying to regain those lands that they had so stupidly lost in the battle. As it turned out, an expensive excercise in futility but hardly one carried out just for the loot, the provinces did originally and legitimately belong to the English.

 

[Reinaert]

Weeell, that is not quite true. Technically, the throne of France had become vacant when the Capetian dynasty ended and Edward III of England not only happened to be the nephew of Charles IV of France but also his closest living relative. So Edward did have a legitimate claim to the throne, but the French aristocracy (understandably) balked at the idea of having an English king.

After the French whipped the English butts and made it plain exactly what they thought of the idea of an English king, the English spent the next century or so trying to regain those lands that they had so stupidly lost in the battle. As it turned out, an expensive excercise in futility but hardly one carried out just for the loot, the provinces did originally and legitimately belong to the English.

Well, that's the typical English propaganda I mentioned. You fell for it.
I need to say no more.

 

[Mzungu mchagga]

I will admit, Mzungu, that you're right on a bunch of accounts there. Germany is probably in the top 5 most aggressive nations of all time if you put its history together even in my opinion, so my defense was lukewarm at best.

Let me approach it from an American perspective now. When viewing history through an American lens, pre-World War I Germany (including the HRE and Prussia) almost never enter into the discussion regarding aggression, unless we're talking about, say, Hessians providing mercenary troops to the British. Germany was simply never an aggressive power in the region like Britain, Spain, and France. So, justified or not, there's a perception here that Germany became aggressive later on. Perhaps that's where my bias comes from to keep them out of my personal #1 spot.

Well yeah, that is the perception of nations which haven't been affected by previous aggressions. However, Germans showed a lot of presence in Eastern Europe. During the East Colonisation Slavic tribes were either heavily germanized, or got killed if they resisted. The peak of aggression was represented in the Teutonic Order, some sort of continuation of the crusades, in which everyone who resisted the Germans was slaughtered. I guess most people have never heared of the genocide on the baltic Pruzzians (which gave the name to Prussia btw). The whole tribe was literally whiped out and got extinct in one huge mass-murder.

 

[Antigone]

Indeed I did fall for it, as an explanation I find it more plausible than Reinaert's version of propaganda.

 

[Regulus]

Well yeah, that is the perception of nations which haven't been affected by previous aggressions. However, Germans showed a lot of presence in Eastern Europe. During the East Colonisation Slavic tribes were either heavily germanized, or got killed if they resisted. The peak of aggression was represented in the Teutonic Order, some sort of continuation of the crusades, in which everyone who resisted the Germans was slaughtered. I guess most people have never heared of the genocide on the baltic Pruzzians (which gave the name to Prussia btw). The whole tribe was literally whiped out and got extinct in one huge mass-murder.

It is interesting that few people do know much about the campaigns and extinction of the Prussians as a distinct group.
The Teutonic Knights have a unique place in their rankings amongst crusaders. They were invloved in the Levant on a small scale, but their expansion into the last pagan strongholds of Europe was where they made their mark.
Their forces fought in quite difficult environments against fiercely indepedent peoples.
I will avoid discussing details that would bring in a firestorm of people applying labels.

I would add here, though, that the wiping out of the Prussians (original ones) was a sad event that could easily have been avoided.
It was similar to the US and the treatment of Native American groups.

 

[Dagne]

From a Baltic perspective, yes both the Lithuanians and Prussians resisted the colonisation from the Teutonic Knights. We have a lot narratives in national history in romantic perspective about how Lithuanians and also Prussians fought against the Crusaders J
But to be honest that part of the history is not that bad at all. Yes, Prussians got conquered in the 13th century, but the assimilation was slow and natural and Prussians were not slaughtered or removed from their homes. The Prussian language survived until the 17th or 18th century. Some other Baltic tribes, which like Prussians, were not united under their own Kingdoms, got assimilated, too. It is very unfortunate but a rather natural process.
The worst for this part of the world came in the 20th century. During 1947-1949 Stalinists simply arrested and deported the entire ethnic population of the occupied Eastern Prussian territory and repopulated it with other nations from the Soviet Union who had no connection to this land. As researches say, the same faith lay ahead of the Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians, who according to Stalin’s plans were to be fully deported in Siberian Gulags or Kazakhstan plains starting with 1954. Stalin died that year, and we survived as a nation!

 

[Reinaert]

Stalin died in 1953

 

[Mzungu mchagga]

From a Baltic perspective, yes both the Lithuanians and Prussians resisted the colonisation from the Teutonic Knights. We have a lot narratives in national history in romantic perspective about how Lithuanians and also Prussians fought against the Crusaders J
But to be honest that part of the history is not that bad at all. Yes, Prussians got conquered in the 13th century, but the assimilation was slow and natural and Prussians were not slaughtered or removed from their homes. The Prussian language survived until the 17th or 18th century. Some other Baltic tribes, which like Prussians, were not united under their own Kingdoms, got assimilated, too. It is very unfortunate but a rather natural process.
The worst for this part of the world came in the 20th century. During 1947-1949 Stalinists simply arrested and deported the entire ethnic population of the occupied Eastern Prussian territory and repopulated it with other nations from the Soviet Union who had no connection to this land. As researches say, the same faith lay ahead of the Lithuanians, Latvians and Estonians, who according to Stalin’s plans were to be fully deported in Siberian Gulags or Kazakhstan plains starting with 1954. Stalin died that year, and we survived as a nation!

Now that is really interesting! After heaving read this I did some research, and I didn't know that Old Prussians actually still do exist and identify themselves as Prussians. etrified:

Nevertheless, there have been recorded uprisings against the Teutonic Knights, in which an estimated number of about 50% of the population got killed. So the crime remains!