I think we are in danger of getting way off topic now. But I'm going to have to take issue with a couple of points RR.
The Roman invasion of Britain faced continual resistance from the local population for hundreds of years. Queen Boadacea springs to mind to name just one. Why do you think the Romans felt the need to build hundreds of fortified towns and forts up and down the country? Hadrian's wall was built to try prevent these constant uprisings. It was only after a long period of time, when the Roman invaders had largely assimilated into the local population, adopting many of their customs and religious practices, that resistance petered out. Indeed the "Romans" who lived in Britain towards the end of their empire, regarded themselves as primarily British.
As for the Norman invasion, I seem to remember that they had it hard right from the start,(the battle of Hastings!) despite having, as they saw it, a legitimate claim the English crown. Resistance was so widespread and endemic that they had to write the Domesday Book, just to find out what was in front of their eyes, as the locals wouldn't even tell them how many chickens they had!!! Why do you think they felt the need to buld fortified towns and castles the length and breadth of Britain? And again, English resistance only really stopped when the Normans had become so anglicised that they had become indestinguishable from the local population.
Tha allied landings on D day as I remember it, was to relieve Europe from the occupation of Nazi Germany and was hugely welcomed by all the indiginous populations of those countries, who saw it as liberation. With maybe the exception of certain elements in France.
The US occupation of Japan at the end of WW2 was not as a result of an invasion. The US used their atom bombs so as to prevent the need for a costly and bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland. The US merely occupied a defeated land that had already signed a peace agreement with them. And this occupation was primarily aimed at preventing any possibility of the still largely intact and undefeated Japanese army from being re-activated and re starting hostilities. Indeed General MacArthur went to very great lengths to try and prevent the Japanes feeling that they were being occupied by anyone at all!
As for the "occupation" of the South by the North after the Civil War, that would open a whole can of contentious worms which I'm not prepared to go into.
It seems the lessons of history regarding one nation invading and occupying another are very clear. This happens for one of two, sometimes both, reasons. The invasion occurs because either 1: that country feels threatened, or at least pretends to feel threatened, and/or 2: it wants to exploit the raw materials of the invaded country for its own ends.
The invading nation then faces one of two possible results:
it either stays for so long that it largely becomes part of the invaded nation, adopting its customs, religion and language, so that in effect it becomes that nation. It goes native;
or it chooses not to do this, is then seen as an occupation force, and is booted out sooner or later by the locals, probably with the help of someone else.
Lessons that are as valid today as they have always been!! And you are right - justice has absolutely nothing to do with it.
As for the Italians in WW2, just ask yourself how many times they changed sides. Was it three, or four?!! Certainly the Germans did see themselves as occupying Italy towards the end of the war, who by then they regarded as totally unreliable, and their vicious treatment of the local population at that time is very well documented.
Anyway, enough of this. We should be discussing subsimming. Which is much better fun.
The dreddster out.
