Definition of Conquest

[Raziel]

So i was having a debate with a professor of mine, over short answer essay I wrote on a quiz. The subject being give three examples of conquests and their consequences.

I named Germany WWI, Germany and japan in WWII. The prof, felt they were all wrong and not conquests. Prof's words

Defeat is not the same thing a conquered. In order for it to be conquest, the winning power must physically possess the country for the long term; the conquered party must, in essence, become a colony. That did not happen to Germany in either war.

While I can agree with WWI, I don't see how the Prof can deny the results of WWII. Germany and WWII were smashed, they had no credible government left and retained their independence solely by the Allies whims. Their governments, especially germany's were puppet regimes and became a microcosm of the cold war.

What do you all think? Am I off my rocker, or just not explaining myself well?

[S Carver Orne]

I think you're both right. While I agree with Mister Professor about a sort of domination and colonization aspect as opposed to defeat / winning, your point is valid if expanded upon. For instance, in WWII, I'm sure the Allies could have colonized Germany after defeating them, but that's a concept at best considered ludicrous in the modern era. Maybe you could say the Allies "let" Germany keep their territory? I don't know, it's the best I've got. :lol:

[Edmaster]

You could certainly argue that Germany was conquered post-WWII. Heck, you could talk about how Germany conquered countries like Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland and France (in the short term), and how Germany's over-expansion led to the collapse of its conquered territory. You could talk about the French Resistance, and the resistance that went on in other parts of Europe.

Post-WWII, it would be easiest to look at Eastern Germany (and the other Soviet satellite states), as the argument for a "conquered" nation is a bit more comprehensive there. Western Germany was allowed democratic rule by the Allies, but still had occupational forces stationed along the border during the Cold War.

[Grunthos]

In the classical sense, even the professor is wrong; a war of conquest results in the aggressor taking long-term possession of territory perviously held by others. What happens to the people who were living there, whether they are relocated, subjugated, or annihilated, is of secondary import (excepting to them, maybe).

The bulk of North America was conquered, but was never a colony.

In that guise, the professor was righter but not right.

However, when you look at it from a cultural standpoint, as the professor seems to be doing, then you were righter than he was. Neither German nor Japanese culture is at all like it was before those conflicts; their cultures were greatly changed by the losses. In that respect, Nazism and Japanese Imperialism were utterly conquered and supplanted. Even though the people are still ethnically German and Japanese, still call themselves that, and still speak the same languages, the sense of what made them the aggressive 'conquerors' they at one time were has been eradicated.

[falconclaw]

So i was having a debate with a professor of mine, over short answer essay I wrote on a quiz. The subject being give three examples of conquests and their consequences.

I named Germany WWI, Germany and japan in WWII. The prof, felt they were all wrong and not conquests. Prof's words



While I can agree with WWI, I don't see how the Prof can deny the results of WWII. Germany and WWII were smashed, they had no credible government left and retained their independence solely by the Allies whims. Their governments, especially germany's were puppet regimes and became a microcosm of the cold war.

What do you all think? Am I off my rocker, or just not explaining myself well?

Whether you're right or not, I have to say, you picked some awful examples. Couldn't come up with the conquest of Latin America by Spain and Portugal? British domination of India? Roman Empire? Do you realize that war isn't a 20th century invention?

And neither Japan nor Germany became American colonies. Well, perhaps East Germany became a Soviet colony, but you should have been more specific if that's what you meant.

[falconclaw]

I think you're both right. While I agree with Mister Professor about a sort of domination and colonization aspect as opposed to defeat / winning, your point is valid if expanded upon. For instance, in WWII, I'm sure the Allies could have colonized Germany after defeating them, but that's a concept at best considered ludicrous in the modern era. Maybe you could say the Allies "let" Germany keep their territory? I don't know, it's the best I've got. :lol:

It's not at all ludicrous. Ever heard of the Soviet Union?

[Raziel]

Whether you're right or not, I have to say, you picked some awful examples. Couldn't come up with the conquest of Latin America by Spain and Portugal? British domination of India? Roman Empire? Do you realize that war isn't a 20th century invention?



My choices were a combination of things, at the time of the essay we had just finished covering WWII and the early 1900's and while the test went further back...*shrug* I'm lazy and it was the first thing that popped into my mind :p

The prof is really plucking my nerves with this though. I mean seriously, How can you call Japan anything but conquered? We made them surrender under the guns of battleship ....flying the very same flag that opened Japan to Western trading by threat of force o.0?

To me the message Macarthur was sending is "You are our b***h, be grateful we are using lube. " :roflmao: