To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (52028 ) 10/14/2002 4:41:30 PM From: Bilow Respond to of 281500 Hi blandbutmarvellous; Re: "I haven't noticed a lot of martyrs in Germany, either. " When the Germans marched into Belgium in 1914, they were convinced that the local civilians were likely to execute guerilla operations against them. Their military theory was that the way that you keep civilians in line was using reprisals. German soldiers were told that the civilians would poison the water, so they kept themselves safe by drinking only alcoholic beverages straight from the container. This led to drunken friendly fire incidents. At night, especially, there was no way to be sure that the civilians weren't revolting, so the military concluded that reprisals were needed. They ended up executing about 6000 unarmed, innocent civilians, and burning towns for no real reason. They also attacked Belgium forts behind masses of Belgian citizens used as human shields, and sent hostages back to Germany. In addition, the German forces were largely Protestant, and they became convinced that Catholic priests were responsible for instigating the civilians against them. They executed about 40 priests, and destroyed or severely damaged several churches, including the famous cathedral at Rheims. The resulting propaganda coup for the Allies (who also had the sympathy advantage of being the invaded party) turned world opinion against Germany, and eventually contributed to the US involvement that destroyed Germany. The Allies used the term "martyr" to refer to a lot of the victims. For example:Although the German action was justified according to the rule of war, the shooting of Edith Cavell was a serious blunder. Within days, the heroic nurse became a worldwide martyr, and the Germans were universally described as "murdering monsters." ww1-propaganda-cards.com I'm guessing that the Catholic countries use the term more than the Protestant ones, but it certainly is a term that, at one time, resonated well in our own society. It's very difficult to keep civilians under control without turning a certain percentage of them into "martyrs". The Germans discovered this in their 1870 war with France, and from this unpleasant experience, they concluded that the most humane way to fight was to keep the civilians so terrified that they would not consider raising arms. The French guerillas were called "franc-tiereurs":google.com The result of all this was that the Germans lost the propaganda war, and converted neutrals from neutrality into first leaning towards the Allies and then eventually warring against them. What was militarily efficient was not diplomatically or politically effective. The United States faces a similar problem in Iraq. Our soldiers are already exchanging small weapons fire with shadowy enemies in Kuwait, shooting up the locals, hindering the Kuwaiti authorities from managing investigations, etc., and Kuwait is our best ally in the region. We are at peace, but we are already taking casualties. If we go into Iraq, the locals are going to snipe the hell out of us. We can win the invasion easily enough, but the occupation is going to mean either a steady loss of troops, or we will have to use the same techniques that have proven in the past to pacify angry locals, but that also turn world opinion against us. -- Carl P.S. By the way, when the Germans marched into Belgium, one of the immediate reactions of the local (Belgian) authorities was to confiscate weapons from the citizens so that no one could provoke the Germans. This is the common action of all military occupiers. Iraq is saturated with weaponry, so this could be more difficult than similar situations in other countries.