The occupation of a country subjects both the people and the invaders to a strange game of mutual suspicion: The occupier acts like a new owner and wants the tenants to behave and pay the rent on time, but those invaded feel violated — they know the country, by right, belongs to them, and while they cannot physically throw the occupiers out, they may well want to resist the invader's terms. Perhaps, if the invader finds the game is not worth the effort, he will leave. Or perhaps he will start killing uncooperative tenants. But the game gives one major advantage to those occupied: They will define the extent to which they are going to cooperate. And the offender, ironically, will have to defend his ill-gotten gains.
The Danish resisters took the offensive against German occupying forces. Through symbolic and cultural protests, they asserted their right to govern their own lives, and that strengthened public morale — which inspired bolder resistance. Through strikes, defiance at work sites, and damage to physical property, nonviolent resisters attacked the economic interests of the invaders. Through underground publishing, an alternate network of communication was established, to subvert the lies of the occupiers' propaganda. By involving so many civilians in strikes, demonstrations, and other forms of opposition, Danish resisters forced the Germans to stop violent reprisals and suspend curfews. They denied the Nazis their prime goal, on which other objectives depended: making the fact of occupation normal.
By definition, a successful military invasion gives the occupier superiority on the ground and in the air, in the ability to use physical force and violence. Despite that, when a military invader loses control of what the people read and believe, of when and if they work, of how they spend their money — when the occupiers are constantly on the defensive, as they try to maintain their position — their ability to command events is detached from their ability to use violence.
War contorts the history of the nations it touches, but it also exhibits the greatness of their peoples. The Danes challenged the most barbaric regime of the modern period and did so not with troops or tanks but with singing, striking, going home to garden, and standing in public squares. Yet the power they brought to bear in resisting the Nazis did not come only from these things. It came first from the essential decision
The atrocities of war can take an “ordinary man” and turn him into a ruthless killer under the right circumstances. This is exactly what Browning argues happened to the “ordinary Germans” of Reserve Police Battalion 101 during the mass murders and deportations during the Final Solution in Poland. Browning argues that a superiority complex was instilled in the German soldiers because of the mass publications of Nazi propaganda and the ideological education provided to German soldiers, both of which were rooted in hatred, racism, and anti-Semitism. Browning provides proof of Nazi propaganda and first-hand witness accounts of commanders disobeying orders and excusing reservists from duties to convince the reader that many of the men contributing to the mass
Resistance took a violent appearance in the camp Treblinka when the inmates rose against their oppressors and set fire to Treblinka; however, only abou...
For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.
War is commonly defined as an armed conflict between two entities, one that dates back to the beginning of mankind’s very existence. During this time many have attempted to explain the complex nature of war, its actors, and its origins. There are two authors in particular who have made critical analysis on the topic of war within the international system, more specifically the nature of balanced power and hegemonic war and the role that perception plays in conflict. Glipin asserts that disequilibrium will result in a hegemonic war due to inferior civilizations striking falling civilizations. Whereas Jervis asserts that misperception is the driving cause of war. I argue that it is not an inferior civilization, but rather different economies
In every tale, heroes fly or destroy buildings, but how many are just human? The unknown poet of describes a Swedish Geat warrior whose extraordinary strength, will and faith lead to his rise and fall as a man who fights monsters. The poet uses symbolism and irony to show that human beings battle for the greater good, if they choose to wage war on evil for fame and country.
Since the beginning of humans, some sort of conflict ahs arisen between them. Every culture has had a different take on war. There is however a general consensus that war is necessary. Those who question war are looked upon as deviants. It was hard and is still difficult to appose war now. Rise Against’s song Hero of War and Wilfred Owen’s Dulce et Decorum Est can be compared through the problems with war, the unnecessary glorification of war, and breaking from what society thinks of war. Through both works of art there is a general consensus on the terror of war.
All throughout time and history people have been at war with each other at one point or another. War can, truthfully, at times be inescapable and considered by some historians as a natural instinct, an instinct that every human being possess. Throughout history mighty empires and governments have collapsed due to the damages inflicted on by a war, yet in spite of this, some have managed to face the odds and make it through, staggering along as if nothing happened. War is a true test of an empire or government’s determination to move forward, adapting using the knowledge and intellect they have acquired to their own advantage. Nevertheless, not all wars lead to fighting by physical means but instead it can lead to fighting mentally by opposing sides. One such example would be the non-traditional Cold War fought between the United States and Soviet Union. The Cold War was a time that caused an immense fear in the lives of many, and inspired novels such as 1984 by George Orwell, Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank, and essays such as “You and the Atomic Bomb” by George Orwell, which are just some of the voices from this terrible time.
This article explores the idea that governments knowingly victimize civilians under war when they feel weakened or defenceless. The article provides two main reasons that states engage in victimization of civilians; desperation or appetite for territorial conquest. The former refers to lowering costs of war on the states part by increasing the enemy’s cost and lowering the enemy’s morale for continuing the battle. The latter refers to a states want for more land to claim, using force and death to get what they want, by subduing or eliminating the enemy. The civilians who are targeted for these purposes are also chosen strategically. Mistreatment of civilians of the enemy occurs when specific values or traditions are seen as barbaric to the
The Germanic tribes were by no means idle people. Not content with the quietness characteristic of daily lives built on routine, “for rest is unwelcome to the race” (Tacitus, Germania), the tribes warred with their neighbors. In most cases, the tribes did not engage in voluntarily combat to gain or defend land or to right some alleged wrong against them; they mostly fought for two reasons. They first believed that it was easier to distinguish one’s self in the uncertainty of war, rather than in the predictability of routine. So war became a way for the barbarians to prove their honor, or sometimes expose their shame, as the abandonment of the shield during combat was “the height of disgrace” (Tacitus, Germania).
Since the unification of Germany in the late 19th century, attitudes of nationalism, Prussian militarism and expansionism saturated German society. As one can clearly see in the writings of the influential German historian, Heinrich von Treitschke, war and territorial expansion were seen as being necessary to the preservation and advancement of German society. He states that, “War is for an afflicted people the only remedy… Those who preach the nonsense about everlasting peace do not understand the life of the Aryan race, the Aryans are before all brave.” The mobilization of the people and resources, for the purpose of making war, were believed to be the means of preservation and advancement of German society. These ultra-nationalistic attitudes and beliefs resulted in widespread German enthusiasm with the coming of war in 1914. As expressed in a German newspaper, The Post, “Another forty years of peace would be a national misfortune for Germany.”
Militarism is a strong confidence of people that their country should have a powerful military force that has the ability and...
Through the information the soldiers were given on the Culture Smart Cards, and with technology like the Phraselator, it is believed that there will be less friction between the soldiers and the civilians who live in these occupied zones. In his essay though, Gusterson warns of the difference between negative and positive modalities. Negative modalities would be killing, torture, and bombings, while a positive modalities would be the Culture Smart Card and Phraselator. Although while just examining the tactics of both modalities and seeing one being ‘good’ while the other is ‘bad’, both are modes of control and dominance, only one relies on respect and
It was the unity of action and the unity of mind that was the ultimate triumph in defying the Germans. It wasn’t each prisoner fighting for his own memory. It was each prisoner fighting for the memories of all prisoners.
Because the leaders and commanders of WWI forever changed the nature of war, it influenced the later Nazi leaders decisions, and forced the next set of Allies to adapt to an entirely new concept of total war as i...
War is defined differently from different perspectives, some may viewed it positively and some may not. Cochrane, 2008 in his book defined war as being a period of organized violence between at least two parties, who may come from transnational, state or sub-state sources. On the other hand, “war” can also be defined as a patriotic act where one seeks the determination to lead their country as well as a sweet act that willing to sacrifice for their country. It can be viewed cruel, inhumane, and at the same time, noble. Ironically, war can make an individual a hero or a criminal.