Who are the most aggressive Nation?

[Antigone]

The OP does specify nations and not people, but maybe it should be made clear whether we are discussing all history or only the modern era? If we go back far enough most countries have had an aggressive past but are relatively peaceful in the modern era.

 

[Regulus]

That's true, although failed invasions still must be considered acts of aggression. The nuance that Americans thought Canadians would join them against the British is a more important one IMHO than the fact that they failed. That applies in general... Germanic tribes were aggressive, even when they were failures. In fact, Germanic tribes are probably one of the most aggressive peoples ever; even their religion was war-centric. I don't think that carried over significantly enough to the HRE years to warrant Germans being the answer to the question, though, and Germans nowadays are certainly not the most aggressive people.



.

The semantic discussion about the invasion flowed from my remark that the invasion itself was hardly that, meaning that it hardly warranted the term invasion. (especially since it was an obvious failure) It was clearly not intended to mean that the event was not an act of aggression.

 

[Cambrius (The Red)]

At one time Japan was the most aggressive (1930s and WWII). More recently, the United States has been the major aggressor.

 

[sparkey]

At one time Japan was the most aggressive (1930s and WWII). More recently, the United States has been the major aggressor.

Sounds reasonable. I think it would be useful to break this question down by time period. Then, we can have answers like "Goths" for the 6th century, "Mongols" for the 13th century, "Spanish" for the 16th century, etc.

 

[Melusine]

Mexico was the main VICTIM of Spain not the USA. 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.

Spain's agression against the indigenious people of the Americas lasted for over 300 years, where all the gold and silver was taken to Spain, and millions of indigenious people died .

Name one instance when the USA has acted in agression to another country and done what Spain did to Mexico and Latin America? What Gold, land , and silver have we "hauled away" from any country?


Melusine

 

[sparkey]

Mexico was the main VICTIM of Spain not the USA. 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.

Spain's agression against the indigenious people of the Americas lasted for over 300 years, where all the gold and silver was taken to Spain, and millions of indigenious people died .

Name one instance when the USA has acted in agression to another country and done what Spain did to Mexico and Latin America? What Gold, land , and silver have we "hauled away" from any country?


Melusine

I suppose you're referring to Regulus' comment that Mexico was a victim of American aggression. I'm sure that he meant that principally as a reference to the Mexican-American War, in which the US, following a border dispute with Mexico, promptly invaded Mexico and forced them to sell significant amounts of their northern territory. That sounds pretty aggressive to me, regardless of whether or not Spain had been even more aggressive in the past. In fact, the Mexican-American War was known for the US's mistake in using a volunteer army, who had terrible discipline and quickly developed the reputation for--you guessed it--pillaging.

The US is also a bad example of a non-aggressive country as far as treating natives goes.

But, I will grant you that Spain has been even worse in the past, as I have said. The US hasn't been an unusually aggressive country compared to others until recently. But it was never unusually non-aggressive, as far as I can tell.

 

[Melusine]

Spain never paid for Mexico or Latin America . The USA purchased New Mexico, Califorinia, parts of Texas, etc via the Gadsden Pruchase for $15 million dollars in 1853 and then paid an additional $10 million for lands to be used by the railroad.

Mexico by the time of the Mexican American War was land rich and DIRT POOR, they had kicked out Spain and France and their infrastructure was bankrupt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo

The two wars in recent memory that the US stuck their nose where it did not belong was Vietnam and Iraq. But, the US did not occupy nor take anything from those countries. In fact "We The People" have paid and are paying dearly for those two fiascos. Afganistan, could have been taken care of while Bin Ladin was still around there , but we "foolishly, started another mess in Iraq.

The USA as mentioned before, did not start the "aggression" in WWI, and WWII. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor with their "sneak attack, Dec, 7, 1941, then the USA showed it's so called "aggression" (however, that would qualify as self-defense in any military manual).

I would call Germany with Hitler as one of the most aggressive nations in the world and of all time, during especially during war II and before . In fact killing 6 million humans because they were Jews, I would imagine would qualify as perhaps the most aggressive nation in the world.

And it was the Germans as mentioned , who were responsible for WWI too.

The Chinese in ancient and medieval times would most likely be a close match. And the Roman Empire. Russia, is not too far behind in it's past aggressive warlike behavior too.

 

[sparkey]

Spain never paid for Mexico or Latin America . The USA purchased New Mexico, Califorinia, parts of Texas, etc via the Gadsden Pruchase for $15 million dollars in 1853 and then paid an additional $10 million for lands to be used by the railroad.

Some nitpicking: You're conflating the Gadsden Purchase with the Mexican Cession. The Gadsden Purchase was pretty much just for Tucson, and a stretch of desert around it, that is, it was the (entirely voluntary) railroad purchase. We're not talking about that, we're talking about the Mexican Cession, which was done under terms dictated by the US.

The two wars in recent memory that the US stuck their nose where it did not belong was Vietnam and Iraq. But, the US did not occupy nor take anything from those countries. In fact "We The People" have paid and are paying dearly for those two fiascos. Afganistan, could have been taken care of while Bin Ladin was still around there , but we "foolishly, started another mess in Iraq.

"Did not occupy" is stretching it. We've certainly occupied Iraq. But you're right that the motive was to clean up and get out, for stability's sake, rather than any kind of conquest. But conquest isn't common enough nowadays to make it easy to think of any nation that is currently less aggressive than the US. Can you think of any countries that have been more aggressive than the US within the past 15 years?

I would call Germany with Hitler as one of the most aggressive nations in the world and of all time, during especially during war II and before . In fact killing 6 million humans because they were Jews, I would imagine would qualify as perhaps the most aggressive nation in the world.

WWII saw a couple of particularly aggressive nations, with Nazi Germany and Japan. Perhaps the most aggressive ever, yes.

Russia, is not too far behind in it's past aggressive warlike behavior too.

Russia, when? USSR years? They were aggressive, but not as much as some of the others whose objectives were primarily conquest. The USSR was more interested in the spread of communism.

 

[Mzungu mchagga]

lol

I didn't dare to mention it in my first post, as I am talking about my very own country, but yes I do think too that summed up Germany would be the most aggressive nation in world history...

Not only that the wars we fought and our persecutions of people were priceless in cruelty and inhumanity, but there is also a saying that if we didn't notoriously try to conquer the world, it was simply because we couldn't due to disunity and quarrels among ourselves.

If it wasn't about conquering the Roman Empire, crusades in the Middle East, genocide of Slavs during the east colonization, endless wars and aggressions against our neighbours in France, Austria, all baltic and central European states, colonization overseas, massacre with first introduction of concentration camps in Namibia (or then South-West Africa), starting the first World War, starting a second World War with a genocide in which over 50 million people were massacred,
then it was about internal quarrels like the Thirty Year's War (during which two thirds of the German population got killed), or simply other disunity.

So it wasn't really a surprise to us that many people in the world hold their breath when the two German states united in 1990, because that would have been a premiere in World History that all of Germany would be united WITHOUT starting to mobilize a huge army for conquering purposes.

Some asked me in another thread why I wasn't proud of being a German. Well, just look at it's history! Nevertheless, I DO feel proud of belonging to a very special generation of Germans!

 

[Eireannach]

lol

I didn't dare to mention it in my first post, as I am talking about my very own country, but yes I do think too that summed up Germany would be the most aggressive nation in world history...

Not only that the wars we fought and our persecutions of people were priceless in cruelty and inhumanity, but there is also a saying that if we didn't notoriously try to conquer the world, it was simply because we couldn't due to disunity and quarrels among ourselves.

If it wasn't about conquering the Roman Empire, crusades in the Middle East, genocide of Slavs during the east colonization, endless wars and aggressions against our neighbours in France, Austria, all baltic and central European states, colonization overseas, massacre with first introduction of concentration camps in Namibia (or then South-West Africa), starting the first World War, starting a second World War with a genocide in which over 50 million people were massacred,
then it was about internal quarrels like the Thirty Year's War (during which two thirds of the German population got killed), or simply other disunity.

So it wasn't really a surprise to us that many people in the world hold their breath when the two German states united in 1990, because that would have been a premiere in World History that all of Germany would be united WITHOUT starting to mobilize a huge army for conquering purposes.

Some asked me in another thread why I wasn't proud of being a German. Well, just look at it's history! Nevertheless, I DO feel proud of belonging to a very special generation of Germans!

Leaving aside all the moral and ethical issues around WW2, would you not be proud of the fact that it took the combined might of the USSR,USA,UK,France plus various other allies to defeat the Wehrmacht. As a fighting force it was something to be proud of (leaving aside atrocites etc.)

 

[Regulus]

Leaving aside all the moral and ethical issues around WW2, would you not be proud of the fact that it took the combined might of the USSR,USA,UK,France plus various other allies to defeat the Wehrmacht. As a fighting force it was something to be proud of (leaving aside atrocites etc.)

It was very courageous to expose yourself like that.

It is true that their organization, tactics, training, discipline, and resolve were of a very high caliber. All of those countries, including the US, paid dearly in lives for every piece of ground they took.

 

[Mzungu mchagga]

Leaving aside all the moral and ethical issues around WW2, would you not be proud of the fact that it took the combined might of the USSR,USA,UK,France plus various other allies to defeat the Wehrmacht. As a fighting force it was something to be proud of (leaving aside atrocites etc.)

Oh man, you can not do this to me...
What about my reputation in this forum if my answer was 'yes'? etrified:etrified:
To put it this way: it would be something to be proud of if all this evil energy wouldn't have been invested into this mass-rape of humankind, but into something good and productive.

 

[Angela]

lol

I didn't dare to mention it in my first post, as I am talking about my very own country, but yes I do think too that summed up Germany would be the most aggressive nation in world history...

Not only that the wars we fought and our persecutions of people were priceless in cruelty and inhumanity, but there is also a saying that if we didn't notoriously try to conquer the world, it was simply because we couldn't due to disunity and quarrels among ourselves.

If it wasn't about conquering the Roman Empire, crusades in the Middle East, genocide of Slavs during the east colonization, endless wars and aggressions against our neighbours in France, Austria, all baltic and central European states, colonization overseas, massacre with first introduction of concentration camps in Namibia (or then South-West Africa), starting the first World War, starting a second World War with a genocide in which over 50 million people were massacred,
then it was about internal quarrels like the Thirty Year's War (during which two thirds of the German population got killed), or simply other disunity.

So it wasn't really a surprise to us that many people in the world hold their breath when the two German states united in 1990, because that would have been a premiere in World History that all of Germany would be united WITHOUT starting to mobilize a huge army for conquering purposes.

Some asked me in another thread why I wasn't proud of being a German. Well, just look at it's history! Nevertheless, I DO feel proud of belonging to a very special generation of Germans![/QUO

 

[Angela]

Leaving aside all the moral and ethical issues around WW2, would you not be proud of the fact that it took the combined might of the USSR,USA,UK,France plus various other allies to defeat the Wehrmacht. As a fighting force it was something to be proud of (leaving aside atrocites etc.)

I assure you I don't want to start another "war" here, but I don't think the efficiency of the German war machine has ever been in question.

However, I also don't think that you can "lay aside all the moral and ethical issues around WW2". The purpose was always an integral part of the plan.

This thread is about aggression; the actions nations take when they deliberately set out to invade and conquer other nations, often for economic gain. The plans to take over other countries, and I'm not talking only about disputed "German" territories, was always on the drawing boards. They wanted "land to live", and the nice rolling farm land of eastern Europe was perfect for their purposes. We can all imagine what would have happened to the people on the land already.

No country is blameless in these matters. I am certainly not proud of the Italian fascist government's actions in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia. The excuse that other countries had colonial empires and it was now our turn just won't wash.

Am I proud of the inefficiency that plagued those campaigns and the later disastrous and inexcusable invasion of Greece? Of course not, but I understand the reasons-cultural, political, and delusional-that are too complicated to discuss here.

However, I am proud of the fact that Italians aren't particularly good at the mass slaughter of men, women, and children; that they aren't mindless robots who will follow any order, no matter how inhumane; that they won't fight to the last man for a delusional fool of a leader, and an incompetent system that sent them unprepared to fight a war most of them didn't understand, and didn't particularly want to fight. So much so that Italy virtually wound up engaging in a civil war.

None of that has anything to do with personal courage. The bravery they can display for a cause in which they believe was, I think, amply proved by the actions of many brave partisans during that war. The courage of individual Italians in protecting their families and neighbors and in hiding and protecting the majority of the Italian Jewish population is speaks for itself.

BTW, I don't see much courage in the Wehrmacht in Italy engaging in the slaughter of thousands of women and children. Kesselring should have been punished for war crimes.

 

[Angela]

Oh man, you can not do this to me...
What about my reputation in this forum if my answer was 'yes'? etrified:etrified:
To put it this way: it would be something to be proud of if all this evil energy wouldn't have been invested into this mass-rape of humankind, but into something good and productive.

Well, Mzungu, I am not being patronizing when I say that your attitude gives me hope that perhaps Europe as a whole has learned the lessons of history.

Honestly, when I read some adolescent ramblings about Celtic warriors, Roman legionnaires, or those perennial favorites-the Vikings-I do sometimes wonder. Perhaps it's just too much playing with video games.

 

[Angela]

Leaving aside all the moral and ethical issues around WW2, would you not be proud of the fact that it took the combined might of the USSR,USA,UK,France plus various other allies to defeat the Wehrmacht. As a fighting force it was something to be proud of (leaving aside atrocites etc.)

I assure you I don't want to start another "war" here, but I don't think the efficiency of the German war machine has ever been in question.

However, I also don't think that you can "lay aside all the moral and ethical issues around WW2". The purpose was always an integral part of the plan.

This thread is about aggression; the actions nations take when they deliberately set out to invade and conquer other nations, often for economic gain. The plans to take over other countries, and I'm not talking only about disputed "German" territories, was always on the drawing boards. They wanted "land to live", and the nice rolling farm land of eastern Europe was perfect for their purposes. We can all imagine what would have happened to the people on the land already.

No country is blameless in these matters. I am certainly not proud of the Italian fascist government's actions in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia. The excuse that other countries had colonial empires and it was now our turn just won't wash.

Am I proud of the inefficiency that plagued those campaigns and the later disastrous and inexcusable invasion of Greece? Of course not, but I understand the reasons-cultural, political, and delusional-that are too complicated to discuss here.

However, I am proud of the fact that Italians aren't particularly good at the mass slaughter of men, women, and children; that they aren't mindless robots who will follow any order, no matter how inhumane; that they won't fight to the last man for a delusional fool of a leader, and an incompetent system that sent them unprepared to fight a war most of them didn't understand, and didn't particularly want to fight. So much so that Italy virtually wound up engaging in a civil war.

None of that has anything to do with personal courage. The bravery they can display for a cause in which they believe was, I think, amply proved by the actions of many brave partisans during that war. The courage of individual Italians in protecting their families and neighbors and in hiding and protecting the majority of the Italian Jewish population is speaks for itself.

BTW, I don't see much courage in the Wehrmacht in Italy engaging in the slaughter of thousands of women and children. Kesselring should have been punished for war crimes.

 

[sparkey]

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.

 

[Angela]

I don't want this thread to degenerate as so many others on this forum have done, so this will be my last post on the subject.

I never said that Germany was the most aggressive country in history, nor would I do so.

However, I don't think some members are at all conversant with the medieval or Renaissance history of Italy, or the Holy Roman Empire for that matter. The conquest of Italy was the goal of the "Holy Roman Empire", which as has been famously said, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire", since earliest medieval times.

I will only give two examples among many. Frederick II was one of the "Holy Roman Emperors" during the Middle Ages. To conquer Italy, he raped and pillaged the length of the Italian peninsula. He also became ruler of Sicily and southern Italy.. Among his accomplishments is the ethnic cleansing of the Muslims in Sicily. Under Charles V, Rome was sacked, pillaged and destroyed, and it's inhabitants slaughtered-an act that was at the time considered unparalleled in history for its barbarity.

Of course, Charles wasn't alone. France may tie for the damage it inflicted on Italy in order to conquer it. Between the two powers, they succeeded in destroying the most prosperous and civilized civilization western Europe had seen since Rome. I think the effects lasted until the beginning of the twentieth century.

 

[sparkey]

I don't want this thread to degenerate as so many others on this forum have done, so this will be my last post on the subject.

I never said that Germany was the most aggressive country in history, nor would I do so.

However, I don't think some members are at all conversant with the medieval or Renaissance history of Italy, or the Holy Roman Empire for that matter. The conquest of Italy was the goal of the "Holy Roman Empire", which as has been famously said, was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire", since earliest medieval times.

I will only give two examples among many. Frederick II was one of the "Holy Roman Emperors" during the Middle Ages. To conquer Italy, he raped and pillaged the length of the Italian peninsula. He also became ruler of Sicily and southern Italy.. Among his accomplishments is the ethnic cleansing of the Muslims in Sicily. Under Charles V, Rome was sacked, pillaged and destroyed, and it's inhabitants slaughtered-an act that was at the time considered unparalleled in history for its barbarity.

Of course, Charles wasn't alone. France may tie for the damage it inflicted on Italy in order to conquer it. Between the two powers, they succeeded in destroying the most prosperous and civilized civilization western Europe had seen since Rome. I think the effects lasted until the beginning of the twentieth century.

The HRE was undoubtedly not peaceful, and they were ideologically set on the idea that their Emperors were the rightful heirs to the throne of Rome. So they sent troops into Italy numerous times. Their intention was unification, not conquest, but I suppose it doesn't really matter--the HRE was aggressive, at times, against certain nations. They also participated in most of the Crusades, which was undoubtedly aggressive. My only point was that they were not the most aggressive of the time, which you seem to agree with.

I'm not sure who the most aggressive nation was during the Late Middle Ages. The Papacy called the crusades, so they could be up there. Or perhaps France... they probably deployed more knights into foreign territory per capita than the HRE. Add the Napoleonic era later on and France looks comparable to Germany in terms of historical aggression.

 

[Regulus]

Honestly, when I read some adolescent ramblings about Celtic warriors, Roman legionnaires, or those perennial favorites-the Vikings-I do sometimes wonder. Perhaps it's just too much playing with video games.

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: