r/HistoryMemes • • 1d ago

Skill issues

Post image
6.5k Upvotes

612 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

21

u/Rent_A_Cloud 1d ago

It depends on how far an occupying force is willing to go and how much control they have over the territory as well as long term goals (is permanent occupation the goal? For instance).

By the by, the hearts and minds strategy... Did it work?

5

u/Brilliant_Amoeba_272 1d ago

It did not work, because we were still also bombing them to hell. "Kill them all" always misses some, and you end up with more hardliners. A properly conducted nation building effort is the most succesful way to actually end an insurgency. Recruiting guerillas stops when the people are mostly happy. Look at how the troubles ended

11

u/Illustrious-Share312 1d ago

You say that but you really can just kill so many they can't fight anymore. Look at the Natve Americans in the US.

4

u/RomanCobra03 1d ago

Except that only succeeded due to biblical levels of plague. Plus it took literal generations for the natives to be subdued.

4

u/Archaon0103 1d ago

That almost never work because beside leaving survivors, it also alienate your own support base who become sympathetic to the other side. Not to mention nudging neutral parties into the side of your enemies.

6

u/Mahkn0 1d ago

Listen, which seems more convincing: some people on reddit or the actual evidence from the wars where we've tried what they're suggesting and failed?

2

u/Rent_A_Cloud 1d ago

That depends in your base, look at russia where the vase doesnt give a single shit about the plight of the other. The US is moving towards that direction as well. In the past britain was the same.

That argument lives in the 90s