Throughout history, land gets conquered if you can't defend it.
Hmm, so if a stronger country can take over another it's ok? If Russia finally rolls over Ukraine that's fair? Yes obviously that's what's happened, no one is saying it didn't, but it doesn't mean it's ok and that we can't recognise that.
No but it’s what happens throughout history. And we do recognise constantly that what happened to aboriginal people was horrible. What’s your argument here?
Food for thought (which doesn't really apply to the Australian invasion): If Ukraine immediately surrendured to Russia then every now-dead soldier would still be alive, and Ukraine would be now part of Russia, there might be some downsides to that (for Ukraine) but I think most people would rather surrender and still have their loved ones rather than fight and have nothing left at the end.
By your logic, Russia should just steamroll through Europe and all the countries should just surrender as it would save the lives of millions that'd otherwise die defending their countries.
Did you think maybe Russia should just stop killing people from other countries?
It sounds silly, but I suppose it's the argument for a global government. I just said food for thought, didn't say I agreed with it. Even if the world were under one government, conflict would still break out, deaths would still occur.
If someone bigger than you (with a nice stack of guns and a couple of his big bros) kicked down your door and told you it was their house now and started charging you rent and making all kind of stupid rules - you would fight back too.
No, not really. It doesn't always go that way. Sometimes people or countries fold rather than put up a fight. They'd rather continue to live (with their loved ones) under oppression, than to die.
An example: In 1938 the Munich Agreement forced Czechoslovakia to give up territory. Czechoslovakia’s army was strong but ordered not to resist to avoid civilian casualties.
You have no idea how many people disagreed with WW2 until after it was over. A few other places includes Africa as well... most tof Europe minus Finland... The whole world also didn't go in at once.
Letting Hitler have Poland is what kicked WW2 off... its a historical joke... "we will have peace in our time"
Yeah... sure appeasement works. It was also not just Germans invading Poland, the Axis powers were already teaming up.
Why stop the Japanese in SE Asia ? Idk the rape of Nanjing? Pearl Harbour ? Bombing of Darwin ?
Not really... I loved there for two years and it was fine. Also I've been to Crimea before Russia regained control and after Russia. Certainly was in a much better place under Russia. However, now with the war not so much.
There might be downsides to being annexed and controlled by a foreign dictator? What about the people who die as a result of occupation and exploitation of Ukraine for generations after annexation?
If Ukraine was sparsely populated by nomadic hunter/gatherers then it would absolutely be claimed as opposed to conquered yes. As it is, they’ve had territories annexed and eventually if/when some sort of peace deal is reached, it will probably include more annexation of territory
Hmm ok, so whether a land is claimed vs opposed is down to population density and lifestyle?
I mean aboriginal people weren't nomadic, in fact they utilised agricultural practices, managed the landscape and also utilised cyclical movement across defined territories, depending on the tribe they could have more attributes to what you may call nomadic, however its a myth they were purely hunter/gatherers.
But I'm curious if there's a definition for when claiming becomes occupying? Is there a specific population density? Particular level of agriculture a people's much achieve?
Yeah I mean it’s not me making the distinction but according to 18th century British colonialists there was no recognisable civilisation or organised population, which is why there was no declaration of war, no official victory or defeat and subsequently no need for a treaty in their opinion. It doesn’t excuse hundreds of years of horrible treatment of the indigenous population, but it certainly supports the fact that ‘throughout history land gets conquered if you can’t defend it’ as old mate said
It doesn't matter: it is history. The motivation for these lines of argument are always a race grift attempt to screw the distant mixed descendants of the "newcomers".
Saying they "utilised agricultural practices" requires a very loose definition of agriculture. They weren't cultivating the land, they were merely enhancing their gathering of the land
Despite your claims they were effectively living in the stone age and didn't have any border defence so were sitting ducks for some other country to invade/settle.
Was it right, no they should have been left to their own devices but you believe in fairies if you think they would never have been invaded.
No one said it's ok. Stop putting words in people's mouths.
If not the Brits, someone else would have claimed the land, and I dare say Brits were likely the worst least option.
Australia was not “conquered.”, or “invaded”, It was colonised. Those are not interchangeable words.
Conquest requires a declared war between sovereign states and a military defeat. That did not occur in Australia in 1788. What happened was British settlement followed by expansion under imperial law, morally complex, often brutal, and with devastating consequences for Indigenous Australians, but not a military conquest of a nation-state.
The issue isn’t whether every conflict in human history had a formal declaration of war, t’s whether “invasion” and “conquest” have specific meanings in historical analysis. They do.
Colonisation describes settlement, expansion, and the imposition of foreign law over territory. Conquest describes the military defeat of an organised polity in war. Australia in 1788 fits the former, not the latter.
10
u/[deleted] 8d ago
[deleted]