# Humanities & Anthropology > History & Civilisations >  Who are the most aggressive Nation?

## edao

Who are the most aggressive Nation?
Which country has started the most number of wars?

Do you think Europeans more agressive than other racial groups?

----------


## Canek

in one word: yes. 

the two WW started in europe. 
europeans have colonized and spread brutality through all the world.
the crusades and the "holy wars".
and then you have the united states of america (which is basically a product or europe after all) no need to talk about the wars started by this country.

i know that europe have given many good thinks to the world too, of course.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

Well these are two different questions: Which is the most aggressive nation and which is the most aggressive racial group?

Are Europeans more aggressive than others? I would say no! They just had the better weapons! Or can anyone prove there haven't been any wars and massacres outside of Europe? In the end probably yes, but not because there haven't been any, but because they havn't been recorded to that degree due to unimportance for world change.
If it comes to nations I would say yes! But only periodically and not for all history through. Sorry, but this reminds me very much of the question whether there is an "aggressive gene" some populations carry around among themselves.

----------


## LeBrok

WW3? When did it happen?

----------


## Antigone

I think that aggressiveness and greed are basic flaws in all humans. 

I doubt very much that Europeans have created more wars in history than anyone else but because Europe was wealthier and more technologically advanced, with better weapons and better shipping they were able to travel further and fight on a larger scale.

----------


## LeBrok

Good points Antigone.
Look at animal kingdom, there are wars everywhere you look. Resources are always limited, that's the problem for life on earth. Eat or be eaten.




> I think that aggressiveness and greed are basic flaws in all humans.


Well, these were the useful traits when we were hunter gatherers. Very important when protecting your group, and hunting territory against other tribes.

Now we want to create one group/happy global village, so these traits are becoming a nuisance. Educating youths help a lot, but it is a constant fight against nature, these traits are hardwired to the brain too.

----------


## edao

I suppose aggression is a natural part of competitiveness.

Can you be competitive without being aggressive?

I think it's safe to say Europeans / North Americans have been the most competitive nations in the world be it war, economics, even sport.

----------


## Antigone

> Good points Antigone.
> Look at animal kingdom, there are wars everywhere you look. Resources are always limited, that's the problem for life on earth. Eat or be eaten.
> Well, these were the useful traits when we were hunter gatherers. Very important when protecting your group, and hunting territory against other tribes.Now we want to create one group/happy global village, so these traits are becoming a nuisance. Educating youths help a lot, but it is a constant fight against nature, these traits are hardwired to the brain too.


Yes, I think so too LeBrok. And if, for some reason, the veneer of civilised society and christian charity (or whatever religious edicts) were taken away tomorrow, we'd be back to the survival of the fitest in no time at all. That instinct is always there, beneath the surface.

----------


## Regulus

> United States? they always joining most of the wars, like WW2, WW3, irak invations, etc


 
I would imagine that you have no idea of how much influence the isolationists in the US had, especially in WW1.(or how many there were)

----------


## sparkey

> I would imagine that you have no idea of how much influence the isolationists in the US had, especially in WW1.(or how many there were)


The US was reluctant to join WWII until up to Pearl Harbor, and interest in WWI was limited due to the isolationism that you mention. Yet, we do have a history of aggression.

----------


## Regulus

> The US was reluctant to join WWII until up to Pearl Harbor, and interest in WWI was limited due to the isolationism that you mention. Yet, we do have a history of aggression.


 
Your first statement was correct.

The second statement would be correct if we were compared to, say Switzerland, but not by itself.

----------


## Regulus

Unless of course you intend to ignore completely any and all complicated factors that slowly drag a country into a conflict and simply deem all conflicts as examples of aggression.

----------


## sparkey

> Unless of course you intend to ignore completely any and all complicated factors that slowly drag a country into a conflict and simply deem all conflicts as examples of aggression.


Of course not. I don't think the US is the correct answer to the question presented here. I think Spain has been more aggressive historically, for example. Switzerland is a rare European example of a particularly non-aggressive country; there are only a few other European countries that are like that, like Estonia. So there are plenty of countries that can be placed as more aggressive than the US, at least when you look at the history as a whole.

Probably, a lot of the perception of the US as being uniquely aggressive comes from the fact that we have been at the forefront of a lot of recent major wars, including starting the Iraq War. But before that, the US was not going around starting wars, typically.

However, it's an important qualifying point that the US does not have a clean slate... far from it. We've taken over lots of land from natives, we've started a little empire, and we've even invaded Canada. So, the US isn't uniquely passive, either.

----------


## Antigone

I don't think it could be said that the USA or Britian and it's allies were the aggressors in either WWI or II, Britain was drawn into both wars because of treaties signed with other countries and the USA later joined in aid of the British Empire. They were forced into a defensive position from the beginning because of the aggression of others.

----------


## Regulus

> Of course not. I don't think the US is the correct answer to the question presented here. I think Spain has been more aggressive historically, for example. Switzerland is a rare European example of a particularly non-aggressive country; there are only a few other European countries that are like that, like Estonia. So there are plenty of countries that can be placed as more aggressive than the US, at least when you look at the history as a whole.
> 
> , either.


 
I do try to frame my posts in light of the thread/questions. In the case of my first post it was clearly to answer the apparent use of involvement in the world wars to cite an example of aggression.

I, like many of us here, like to think of myself as not only well steeped in the details of my country's history, but as a realist who is willing to see where it went wrong, just like we must do with our own lives.

The main victim of the US would have had to be Mexico, although the entire story there is very complicated also.

The 'invasion' of Canada, while very true, was hardly that in reality.

----------


## sparkey

> I do try to frame my posts in light of the thread/questions. In the case of my first post it was clearly to answer the apparent use of involvement in the world wars to cite an example of aggression.


Yeah... I think you have been responding like I was disagreeing with you more than I actually was. I was hoping to explore a different aspect of the question of whether or not the US is/was aggressive, not to refute you directly. I totally agree that the World Wars are bad examples regarding US aggression. If anything, they are good examples of German aggression.




> The 'invasion' of Canada, while very true, was hardly that in reality.


How would you go about describing its nuances? Sure, it was intended primarily for tactical reasons, but it was definitely an aggressive invasion, no?

I'm not sure I can make up my mind with regard to the question, especially because it's so variable. I mean, I had brought up Spain earlier, but Spain has had periods of general non-aggression, including right now. Japan is another example of a country that has a huge disparity between its most aggressive and least aggressive periods (although their aggressive period serves as a good refutation to the idea that Europeans are uniquely aggressive). The British (esp. English) are an intriguing possibility, but it's hard to forget that they weren't really the aggressors in the World Wars, as Antigone mentions.

How about the Goths? Is that too far back?  :Laughing:

----------


## Carlitos

If we did the opposite question, what is the most peaceful nation or people?, certainly found ourselves the answer therefore to the question proposed here is also a response.

----------


## Regulus

> Yeah... I think you have been responding like I was disagreeing with you more than I actually was. I was hoping to explore a different aspect of the question of whether or not the US is/was aggressive, not to refute you directly. I totally agree that the World Wars are bad examples regarding US aggression. If anything, they are good examples of German aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> How would you go about describing its nuances? Sure, it was intended primarily for tactical reasons, but it was definitely an aggressive invasion, no?
> 
> I'm not sure I can make up my mind with regard to the question, especially because it's so variable. I mean, I had brought up Spain earlier, but Spain has had periods of general non-aggression, including right now. Japan is another example of a country that has a huge disparity between its most aggressive and least aggressive periods (although their aggressive period serves as a good refutation to the idea that Europeans are uniquely aggressive). The British (esp. English) are an intriguing possibility, but it's hard to forget that they weren't really the aggressors in the World Wars, as Antigone mentions.
> 
> How about the Goths? Is that too far back?


I probably did jump to conclusions. For that I apologize.
I was sort of on guard since out brief flurry the other week when I questioned the self-identity of another. In that case, I had been long aware that the person's political tastes were far removed from that of the people about whom he was professing kinship of blood and lifestyle.
Much to my chagrin, I wound up explaining a position that really was between that member and me.
I would ask that, prior to responding to such posts that are clearly in response to another, give the whole picture a minute before responding to mine.

About our invasion(s) of the Great White North, I would think it better to avoid the details as we could debate those until the cows come home.
I would prefer to remark that the most well known one, during the war of 1812, was more of a failed invasion than a real one. It was on the strategic side rather than the tactical one since they were confident that the Canadians would join in with them against the British. Military expeditions that are quickly repulsed are normally referred to 'abortive invasions' or something similar in history books. That event was an epic failure and it was over fairly quickly. It's kind of like calling every Germanic incursion into the Roman Empire, no matter how quickly it was sent back across the Rhine, an invasion.

Otherwise, I think that you have been a fine contributor here.

----------


## sparkey

> I probably did jump to conclusions. For that I apologize.
> I was sort of on guard since out brief flurry the other week when I questioned the self-identity of another. In that case, I had been long aware that the person's political tastes were far removed from that of the people about whom he was professing kinship of blood and lifestyle.
> Much to my chagrin, I wound up explaining a position that really was between that member and me.
> I would ask that, prior to responding to such posts that are clearly in response to another, give the whole picture a minute before responding to mine.


Don't think I really want to get into this at the moment, but I still find that I disagree with you on some of that. Maybe this should be taken to PMs if you're interested.




> About our invasion(s) of the Great White North, I would think it better to avoid the details as we could debate those until the cows come home.
> I would prefer to remark that the most well known one, during the war of 1812, was more of a failed invasion than a real one. It was on the strategic side rather than the tactical one since they were confident that the Canadians would join in with them against the British. Military expeditions that are quickly repulsed are normally referred to 'abortive invasions' or something similar in history books. That event was an epic failure and it was over fairly quickly. It's kind of like calling every Germanic incursion into the Roman Empire, no matter how quickly it was sent back across the Rhine, an invasion.


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.




> Otherwise, I think that you have been a fine contributor here.


Thanks.  :Good Job:  I've enjoyed reading your posts since when I was a lurker a little while before I joined.

----------


## sparkey

> If we did the opposite question, what is the most peaceful nation or people?, certainly found ourselves the answer therefore to the question proposed here is also a response.


I think we're going to have to pick, nation or people? Because rarely to peaceful people form nations. The Quakers, for example, are peaceful people, but they long ago found out that petitioning the English government wasn't going to cut it.

As for nations, we've mentioned Switzerland and Estonia, for Switzerland's neutrality and Estonia's peaceful revolution. Any other ideas, perhaps outside of Europe?

----------


## 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_...dalupe_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...  :Laughing: 

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.
> 
> ...


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.)


 :Confused:  :Confused: 

Oh man, you can not do this to me... 
What about my reputation in this forum if my answer was 'yes'?  :Petrified:  :Petrified: 
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

[QUOTE=Mzungu mchagga;370070]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...  :Laughing: 

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'? 
> 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. :Smile:

----------


## 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:

----------


## 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.


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.  :Laughing:

----------


## 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.  :Petrified: 

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!

----------


## Angela

I did take a peek back at this thread. So, so much for promises. :Smile: 

I just want to apologize if I offended any of the posters in this thread. That wasn't my intent. I had just read some other threads, and had even been led by a music site to a horrible sort of nordicist racist site, and I'm afraid my annoyance spilled over here a little.
Present company on this thread was, of course, excepted!

----------


## Regulus

> 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. 
> 
> 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!


 
The extirpation of the Prussians is indeed a sad chapter. It is simliar to what happened in the US to the Natives.
The actions of the Teutonic Knights, although couched in the language of the crusaders, were a prime example of intentional expansion. I will always be willing to admit to all sorts of complicating and mitigating factors, so this should not taken to be an indictment of the Teutonic Order. The order sort of defined itself in the end when the last Headmaster became a Lutheran, dissolved the order, made himself a Duke of the domains, and accepted vassalage under the Polish King.

----------


## Mzungu mchagga

> I did take a peek back at this thread. So, so much for promises.
> 
> I just want to apologize if I offended any of the posters in this thread. That wasn't my intent. I had just read some other threads, and had even been led by a music site to a horrible sort of nordicist racist site, and I'm afraid my annoyance spilled over here a little.
> Present company on this thread was, of course, excepted!


Don't worry! I don't think anybody felt personally offended by you. Take it easy!  :Good Job:

----------

