When did keeping land won in war go out of style?

Question

America kept land it won from Mexico in 1848; France got Alcase-Lorraine back from Germany after WWII....but somewhere along the way it was no longer cool to keep the land you won in war like when Iraq beat Kuwait. So when did this change happen?

Answer 1

There is actually a flaw in your examples: Iraq did not keep Kuwait because they were forcibly removed by American troops. They fully intented to keep it, but were unable to do so. France getting Alcase-Lorraine back falls in this same category: France was on the winning side.
Basically, the winning side gets to decide whether they want to keep the land they aquired. China still has Tibet.
Which decision is made goes has a lot to do with local peoples feeling and access to weaponry. Western nations currently believe strongly in self-determination. Britain returned Hong Kong to China. The US turned the Phillipines over to local governance, but not Guam or Puerto Rico. The locals of the Phillipines wanted the self governance, while Puerto Rico and Guam content with US rule. However, for the a country to try to keep land where the locals feel strongly against this currently results in insurgencies.
Northern and Southern Ireland were split over the locals views of the conquering nation (Britain). India and Pakistan are still fighting over Kashmir. Israel is still having probelms in the Gaza strip and Golan Heights; and the US is having trouble in conquered Iraq. Similarly, the Soviet Union broke up because the local peoples wanted their own nations back.
Short answer: modern weaponry allows the local residents to decide whether or not to allow foreign occupation. Also, democratic nations may be under pressure from their own citizenry not to acquire land through conquest, and it is impossible to draw a line indicating when societal values changed.

Answer 2

Well the reason we don't keep the land anymore is because it is cheaper to rent. That is why America has bases in many different countries. After WWII we realized that having the whole country was a waste, plus would cost us lots of money in building, and it is so far away and who wants that. We would have the same problems that England had with it's property. So we learned from their mistake. Instead we can just occupy a country, and set up bases there, we pay rent, but then we make money also by providing american products to those bases that local people buy, also we create jobs and that brings us money in taxes.

Answer 3

Because Pres. George Bush Senior sent in troops to defend Kuwait which at the time was called operation desert storm. So they never actually got ahold of Kuwait completely. Also, it is generally accepted in the world that war and conquest are not good things so especially in an oil rich region like Kuwait, world leaders take an interest in war and violence.

Answer 4

When the reasons for war changed. Many wars before was to GET the land. Now it's more about changing the politics, or controlling natural resources, which doesn't require outright ownership, just influence over the owners.

Answer 5

It did not.

Look at N. Vietnam's invasion and conquest of S. Vietnam in 1975.

Look at Pakistan's attempts to invade and absorb Kashmir.

Look at N. Korea's stated goal of invading and absorbing S. Korea.

Look at China's wars of territorial aggression against Tibet and India.

Look at the Syrian invasion of Lebanon.

Look at the endemic border disputes in Africa.

Look at N. Vietnam's attempted conquest of Cambodia.