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
Sajer’s depiction of professionalism in the Wehrmacht is perhaps the most likely place where mainstream thought concerning war comports with its actual practice. Sajer notes that even in the twilight of World War II when his unit,
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Resistance took a violent appearance in the camp Treblinka when the inmates rose against their oppressors and set fire to Treblinka; however, only abou...
Following the beginning of the Second World War, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany and Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union would start what would become two of the worst genocides in world history. These totalitarian governments would “welcome” people all across Europe into a new domain. A domain in which they would learn, in the utmost tragic manner, the astonishing capabilities that mankind possesses. Nazis and Soviets gradually acquired the ability to wipe millions of people from the face of the Earth. Throughout the war they would continue to kill millions of people, from both their home country and Europe. This was an effort to rid the Earth of people seen as unfit to live in their ideal society. These atrocities often went unacknowledged and forgotten by the rest of the world, leaving little hope for those who suffered. Yet optimism was not completely dead in the hearts of the few and the strong. Reading Man is Wolf to Man: Surviving the Gulag by Janusz Bardach and Survival in Auschwitz by Primo Levi help one capture this vivid sense of resistance toward the brutality of the German concentration and Soviet work camps. Both Bardach and Levi provide a commendable account of their long nightmarish experience including the impact it had on their lives and the lives of others. The willingness to survive was what drove these two men to achieve their goals and prevent their oppressors from achieving theirs. Even after surviving the camps, their mission continued on in hopes of spreading their story and preventing any future occurrence of such tragic events. “To have endurance to survive what left millions dead and millions more shattered in spirit is heroic enough. To gather the strength from that experience for a life devoted to caring for oth...
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
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.
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).
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.
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
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...