Remove this ad

#41 [url]

May 24 13 11:00 PM

"@zedeyejoe - How do you judge the strengths and weaknesses of a particular army? In this case you mention the Vietnamese being a vastly inferior force to the US but they won the conflict and united the country. Although, ironically if you ask some Vietnamese today they will say the US won the 'war' because of the huge influence America has on its culture. If you look at casualty reports and in some instances the types of weapons the VC used compared to the US then I would say you might be right but their ability to adapt and use the resources they had forced the US into a prolonged conflict which resulted in the US withdrawing."

Because on the battlefield the Vietnamese could not win - thats why it makes a lousy wargame - but politically the Vietnamese (fighting for their own country) had the determination the keep on going.

Look at Britain, so many of the countries that we conquered round the world eventually gained independence, often with a lot of bloodshed.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

jack

fanatic

Posts: 1,429

#42 [url]

May 25 13 9:59 AM

Look at Britain, so many of the countries that we conquered round the world eventually gained independence, often with a lot of bloodshed.-zedeyejoe

A perfect point. Which in its own way is the 'core' reason, I believe for the "War in Southeast Asia", a.k.a. Vietnam, being  a lost cause before it was begun. Any nation that had or (if they ever) have ideas of colonization should realize at some point, this 'colony' of loyal fellow countrymen, is going to 'grow-up', and like a child, will seek to decide its own future.
This need for self-rule is so deep in our culture as a species, many of you may recall the Sci-Fi series Babylon 5 (like it or not). Here too we saw that after several years as an "Earth Colony", the citizens of the "Mars Colony" demanded their independence from Earth. 


It follows a general pattern: The colony is established, time passes, a new generation or 2 are born into this "new" land. These decendents of former "loyal subjects", no longer see or feel that connection to their home of origin. Its just a far way place told to them by their grandparents in their decling years. For the newer generation, "their" country, i.e., loyalty lies to the land where they were born. Hence, the 'seed' of Rebellion are sown.

IMHO, any nation, during any time past OR future, if they intend to begin a colony, must also be prepared, at some point, to control that colony even to the extent of making it a "Police State", held only by force. And the farther from 'home', the more certain AND stronger this demand for independence is going to become.
The only alternative to this is too acknowledge that evolution of the colony as an independent state, and let them go.  

Just my thoughts here.. sorry to get so far into this. That wasnt the plan.

"You see old friend, I brought more soldiers than you did." 'King Leonidas - 300'

Quote    Reply   
avatar

mrinku

superstar

Posts: 212

#43 [url]

May 25 13 5:11 PM

 Look at Britain, so many of the countries that we conquered round the world eventually gained independence, often with a lot of bloodshed.

-zedeyejoe

I think that that's overstated. Trying hard to think of ANY countries that Britain really conquered outside of the subcontinent. They founded a bunch of colonies - one collection of which fought a war to become independant; the Raj dissolved following civil unrest, and the rest moved from colonial control peacefully. 

A lot of tribal peoples displaced and killed, sure. But Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA are all still run by the former colonials, while South Africa peacefully split with the whites still running the joint. The Boer Wars did not actually result in the Boers winning, either. Hong Kong was effectively a conquest, but was handed over to China rather than becoming independant.

But your comment is pretty valid for India.

Caveat to the above: I'm not belittling the American War of Independance - it's quite likely that without that experience other colonies may have done the same.

Mark Dewis

Quote    Reply   
avatar

mrinku

superstar

Posts: 212

#45 [url]

May 26 13 4:07 PM

Fair enough, especially for Ireland, though Cyprus is a bit of a stretch for "conquered". The were handed administration of that by the Ottomans in 1878 as part of a political deal, only annexing it during WWI when they ended up at war with them.  And I think you'll find the basic problem in Cyprus wasn't (and isn't) the evil British overlords, but the internal division between the Greek and the Turk hardliners. Neither side want independance, but union with their respective motherlands.

Mark Dewis

Quote    Reply   
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help