Sorry but there are examples of two countries that spring to mind immediately, Korea and Belgium who haven't been in much position to piss off its neighbors yet got royally screwed anyway.
Korea before the Cold War years was a very isolated country which hardly had anything in the way of foreign policy. But in the face of China and Japan, it recieved many wars and invasions leading up to the Japanese colonization of Korea.
Belgium, though it did things in Africa, didn't do anything to "piss off" other Europeans. In fact it tried so hard to declare neutrality in the crazy world of rising Europe. And look what happened to THEM.
What did these two countries have in common? Inadequate military. We could bend over and make peace and love like hippies in a grass field orgy and STILL get attacked and colonized.

my point was society doesn't need a military to defend it. countries do, dictators need one to stay in power. but society is an evolving thing....it's how people live, their customs & way of life. the military can do very little to protect a society...nor can invading army do much about how a particular society behaves....short of killing everybody off

Japanese colonization of Korea started in the 1890s, rotc. That was just a tad bit earlier than the Cold War.

the military can do very little to protect a society...nor can invading army do much about how a particular society behaves

Well I think the fact that we aren't all speaking German and shouting "Seig Heil!" answers that first part pretty well as for the second part, I suggest you contact the Afghanis. The Taliban systematicly did everything they could to detroy the Afghani culture and largely succeeded. Sacred relics, artwork, and even huge 150 ft tall Buddhas all destroyed. They most certainly controlled how the society behaved as well.

Do you read?

In Plato's "The Republic" the thing that concerns Plato in making a luxurious city is how to adequately defend it. If one person has a lot of wealth and his neighbor does not, his neighbor is inclined to kill him and take it. Therefore you need an army to defend your society if it is to be healthy from another society. What is so hard to understand about that basic human concept?

The Nationalists losing in the Chinese civil war led to the wiping out of many Chinese traditions due to Mao's cultural revolution. Good thing the madness was stopped from within before it managed to do the whole country and now the Chinese have refound pride in their millenia old culture.
Koreans who lived in Eastern Russia are now scattered throughout other places of the former USSR (mostly Kazakhstan) and have lost their Korean heritage. Obviously Joe Stalin's work.
It isn't always the case, but often the country is the shell that protects the nation (the culture, way of life etc.). Lose one, and you very well could lose the other, the speed in which it happens depending on the brutality of the conquerer. After all, that is the point of defending one's country right? Once you lost your sovreignty, you are subject to the conquerer's laws... which are based on his customs, traditions etc.
Now of the conquerer is generous and allows autonomy and respects the pre-existing culture then the conquered have lucked out.
Another case of cultures being wiped out would be in Indonesia. Way back when it wasn't Indonsia yet, it was a primarily Hindu and Buddhist region. Their culture was very different from the Islam dominated society Indonesia is today. Not all of Islam's spread into the area was peaceful.
Also, India's northern regions which are also quite Muslim used to be primarily Buddhist. Buddhism was wiped out by Islam in a series of wars and now, Buddhism practically doesn't exist in India anymore.
I can go on and on and on.

I am just guessing here but my interpretation of this is that a strong society will survive despite external conditions, ie most of "occupied europe" carried on as normal despite being occupied and once the occupation was over it pretty much went back to normal.

I think there is a general misunderstanding between the terms society and culture in this discussion.

What's a society but a body of people who share a common culture?
Plus though many of the people in the occupied territories were able to live on "normal," certainly the Jews couldn't. And if the war ended, who knows what awaited these people living rather normal lives under occupation.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am just guessing here but my interpretation of this is that a strong society will survive despite external conditions, ie most of "occupied europe" carried on as normal despite being occupied and once the occupation was over it pretty much went back to normal.

I think there is a general misunderstanding between the terms society and culture in this discussion.

bang on the money,

Plus though many of the people in the occupied territories were able to live on "normal," certainly the Jews couldn't. And if the war ended, who knows what awaited these people living rather normal lives under occupation.

No, that's bang on the money.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

What's a society but a body of people who share a common culture?

Thats somewhat inaccurate it is the sign of a strong society that it can accept multiple cultures that have little if anything in common (invariably forming a single mixed culture).

Originally Posted by Charge_7

No, that's bang on the money.

Umm indeed it is a good example of a weakness in society which pretty much validates Chewies statement.