Occupation of a state surrounding conflict begs a single question -- why? There may be a single, compelling reason or a cocktail of motives -- deny resources to an enemy, prevent the state from entering the conflict against the occupier, resource exploitation, annexation or an ideological approach in the forms of religious and ethnic animosity. Benvenisti states in his book on international occupation law that, "occupation is not necessarily the outcome of actual fighting: it could be the result of a threat to use force that prompted the threatened government to concede effective control...occupation could be established through an armistice agreementit could also be the product of a peace agreement. No matter the reason or vehicle, a minimum of tacit or grudging cooperation of the population seems to be a universal requirement in order to achieve a stable occupation. Indeed, acknowledgement of status by the occupied is the most important indication that occupiers will respect "laws" of occupation. It can be argued that Germany's ideological approach was ultimately self-defeating -- a policy calling for extermination of entire peoples will most certainly ramp up resistance, causing far greater harm than return on occupation investment. If the Axis had implemented sound occupation policy toward Greece, perhaps the ensuing human tragedy, economic downfall and political collapse would have been replaced by a grudging acceptance with sustained services to Italy and the Third Reich. In contrast, the U.S. post-war occupation of Germany provides some successful examples of occupation policy which helps formulate a guide for successful occupation.
