Was wondering what praxeology has to say about foreign occupations. Specifically in terms of how involved the conquering country gets in its occupation, and what affect that would have on the outcome. When I mean involved I mean directly involved as opposed to appointing puppets and ruling from a distance. Would this have any affect at all? For some reason I am inclined to think that if a foreign invaded is directly controlling an area with its own troops on the ground, they are going to treat the people more harshly than if that same regime had simply turned some of the locals into allies/puppets and more or less let them run things as long as they collected taxes for the central power. I would also think that under direct rule, the occupied people would be more likely to revolt, because they would 'feel' more enslaved. What has history shown?
For some reason I am inclined to think that if a foreign invaded is directly controlling an area with its own troops on the ground, they are going to treat the people more harshly than if that same regime had simply turned some of the locals into allies/puppets and more or less let them run things as long as they collected taxes for the central power. I would also think that under direct rule, the occupied people would be more likely to revolt, because they would 'feel' more enslaved. What has history shown?
Harsh treatment of occupied territories is: necessitated by policy of material exploitation, a consequence of an escalating reaction to resistance that is an attempt at defeating it, or a consequence of violent transformation of society according to ideological goals.
A satelite government is not going to materialy exploit its territory for the benefit of the colonial metropola. Due to its greater understanding of local realities and more means of fighting back it is - everything else being equal - going to be less likely to fall back upon policies of collective reprisals to combat the resistance. However a local government is more likely to be motivated for the violent transformation of society, or for the maintanence of the status quo that requires high levels of force to maintain. Note the Nationalists in Northern feared the local Unionists (their hypothetical holding power over them) more than London. The Algerians feared Pied-Noirs more than Paris. The Sunnis in Iraq came to fear the Shia more than the Americans. The blacks in South Africa and Rhodesia feared the white settlers more than London.
I would also think that under direct rule, the occupied people would be more likely to revolt, because they would 'feel' more enslaved.
On one hand yes. On the other you increase the chances of a civil war within the war of resistance to the ocupation. As far as total violence levels are concerned it isn't a valid rule of thumb, particularly where we are talking about populations that are in some way heterogeneous.
how do you think this impacted the outcomes of the various Nazi controlled areas in WWII? Didn't Hitler originally only want Germans on the ground, but then had to resort to recruiting amongst the locals?
Do you think the heterogeneity of Gallicia (consisting of Poles, Jews, and Ukraines) contributed to it being particularly harsh during WWII?