5 ms·

This is true, the question is, what was the difference between the occupation of japan and germany and the occupation of afganistan, iraq or vietnam. The lesson

by somat 4y ago

This is true, the question is, what was the difference between the occupation of japan and germany and the occupation of afganistan, iraq or vietnam. The lesson of the latter is that all it takes is 20 years of low level combat until the occupying country gets tired and leaves. the lesson of the former is that defeated countries can become your greatest allies. As to what leads a nation to choose one path or the other... That is complicated. as a interesting special case consider korea

gpt5 4y ago
FWIW, Vietnam and Iraq can be considered as US allies (or at least "partners").
Spooky23 4y ago
The difference is that the machinery of governance existed and could be operated. Afghanistan and Iraq are weak states dominated by sectarian violence. Vietnam is and was a strong state.
jollybean 4y ago
Japan and Germany were extremely well organized and coherent states before the war. They had both civic and long established cultural basis to rebuild to. 'Afghanistan' is barely a state, it never really was a nation. It's a 'border' around a chaotic gaggle of tribes living in the past. They'll ebb and flow given different kinds of leadership, most of which won't have anything to do with anything happening outside urban limits anyhow. Iraq was a deeply corrupted and broken state, again, difficult to rebuild to, but possible. Absent ethnic tensions it probably would have gone a little bit better, and paradoxically, US forces were more of a stabilizing factor than not. Literally the day that US forces withdrew and US lost it's leverage in Iraqi politics, PM malaki basically launched a kind of political civil war. That scared the Sunnis who 'allowed' ISIL to come in, believing they were a better option than the Shia dominate government, unrestrained from American influence. S. Vietnam was a bit incoherent, but it could have worked fine were the US to have been able to provide security. They did not, largely due to the historical insanity of refusing to attack the North. As Op. Linebacker I and II eventually demonstrated (but way too late), North Vietnam could be handily decimated at will with direct strategic bombing. Were those ops to have happened in 1965 instead of 1972, the war would have had a different outcome. It's unlikely that S. Vietnam would quite look like S. Korea, but it would be more like it. Instead, we have an ultra authoritarian entity that did some vastly horrible things in the past, but which has settled down a bit in subsequent decades. 'Marshall Plan' works where the Marshall Plan can be taken advantage of. The IMF has tried similar things elsewhere after WW2, it didn't work out so well, because, well, Nigeria and Indonesia are not at all like Germany or Japan. Russia has been 'backwards' forever, it's like part of their identity to be 50 years behind everyone but still antagonist about it i.e. aggressors and victims at the same time. I can't see how it will change. Russians will happily exchange their own prosperity to save face to themselves, and live in a kind of delusion of their own making. They will literally lose the war in Ukraine, but believe they have 'won'. They will declare Ukraine 'denazified', have a parade about it, and 50% of the population will fully believe it, the other 50% will know the truth and go about their daily business, unable to really speak publicly about it.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Nigeria and Indonesia are not at all like Germany South Korea has recieved as much ecobomic aid as all of Africa combined in the 20 years after its formation.
- testrun 4y ago
  Agree with most except South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt to the core. And if you don't have the support of the populace there was nothing that the USA could do to make it work (Linebacker or otherwise). You would only prolonged the conflict.
  - qwytw 4y ago
    The South Korean government was corrupt and largely only staid in power because they were willing to commit extreme atrocities (and obviously due to US support). However it still worked out in the end. Not sure Vietnam is that difference, however Korea seems to be much more ethnically and religiously homogenous so that probably played a part.
- Atatator 4y ago
  I wonder - when was the last time you were in Russia to speak so decisively about the country and Russians?
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
maybe the difference is a culture you understand vs a culture you don't. Many observers have said for years that middle east statebuildibg efforts were doomed - we left iraq worse off than we found it
- guelo 4y ago
  Japanese culture was and is very foreign to Americans.
- jollybean 4y ago
  Middle East never had proper states. 100 years ago it was just a bunch of Ottoman administrative divisions. Since then it's been chaos and strong men. Iraq is better off now but maybe not by much. Arguably Kurds should get their own territory.

by somat 4y ago

gpt5 4y ago

FWIW, Vietnam and Iraq can be considered as US allies (or at least "partners").

Spooky23 4y ago

The difference is that the machinery of governance existed and could be operated. Afghanistan and Iraq are weak states dominated by sectarian violence. Vietnam is and was a strong state.

jollybean 4y ago

Japan and Germany were extremely well organized and coherent states before the war. They had both civic and long established cultural basis to rebuild to. 'Afghanistan' is barely a state, it never really was a nation. It's a 'border' around a chaotic gaggle of tribes living in the past. They'll ebb and flow given different kinds of leadership, most of which won't have anything to do with anything happening outside urban limits anyhow. Iraq was a deeply corrupted and broken state, again, difficult to rebuild to, but possible. Absent ethnic tensions it probably would have gone a little bit better, and paradoxically, US forces were more of a stabilizing factor than not. Literally the day that US forces withdrew and US lost it's leverage in Iraqi politics, PM malaki basically launched a kind of political civil war. That scared the Sunnis who 'allowed' ISIL to come in, believing they were a better option than the Shia dominate government, unrestrained from American influence. S. Vietnam was a bit incoherent, but it could have worked fine were the US to have been able to provide security. They did not, largely due to the historical insanity of refusing to attack the North. As Op. Linebacker I and II eventually demonstrated (but way too late), North Vietnam could be handily decimated at will with direct strategic bombing. Were those ops to have happened in 1965 instead of 1972, the war would have had a different outcome. It's unlikely that S. Vietnam would quite look like S. Korea, but it would be more like it. Instead, we have an ultra authoritarian entity that did some vastly horrible things in the past, but which has settled down a bit in subsequent decades. 'Marshall Plan' works where the Marshall Plan can be taken advantage of. The IMF has tried similar things elsewhere after WW2, it didn't work out so well, because, well, Nigeria and Indonesia are not at all like Germany or Japan. Russia has been 'backwards' forever, it's like part of their identity to be 50 years behind everyone but still antagonist about it i.e. aggressors and victims at the same time. I can't see how it will change. Russians will happily exchange their own prosperity to save face to themselves, and live in a kind of delusion of their own making. They will literally lose the war in Ukraine, but believe they have 'won'. They will declare Ukraine 'denazified', have a parade about it, and 50% of the population will fully believe it, the other 50% will know the truth and go about their daily business, unable to really speak publicly about it.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Nigeria and Indonesia are not at all like Germany South Korea has recieved as much ecobomic aid as all of Africa combined in the 20 years after its formation.
testrun 4y ago
Agree with most except South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt to the core. And if you don't have the support of the populace there was nothing that the USA could do to make it work (Linebacker or otherwise). You would only prolonged the conflict.
- qwytw 4y ago
  The South Korean government was corrupt and largely only staid in power because they were willing to commit extreme atrocities (and obviously due to US support). However it still worked out in the end. Not sure Vietnam is that difference, however Korea seems to be much more ethnically and religiously homogenous so that probably played a part.
Atatator 4y ago
I wonder - when was the last time you were in Russia to speak so decisively about the country and Russians?

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

maybe the difference is a culture you understand vs a culture you don't. Many observers have said for years that middle east statebuildibg efforts were doomed - we left iraq worse off than we found it

guelo 4y ago
Japanese culture was and is very foreign to Americans.
jollybean 4y ago
Middle East never had proper states. 100 years ago it was just a bunch of Ottoman administrative divisions. Since then it's been chaos and strong men. Iraq is better off now but maybe not by much. Arguably Kurds should get their own territory.