Those are terrible answers. It's like you just pulled out three cases of violence at random (only the Cultural Revolution is even the least bit comparable to what Duterte is doing) where things happened to get better at some later point under completely unrelated governing and events.
Like saying that giving the other team a 30-point lead is the best way to win a game, and then listing the Atlanta Super Bowl, the Oregon Alamo Bowl, and the Oilers playoff game as your proof. Those were the rare times that a team eventually succeeded DESPITE taking a massive L, not because of it.
#1. Europe's GDPs had to improve at some point because there had been a global depression in the early 1930s that had just started lifting before WW2 started. And the European violence didn't have any of the elements of Duterte's violence - it's not about targeting the poor, it's not about the breakdown of faith in police and government among the people. It is about as unrelated as you can get.
But the improvement obviously wasn't "because" they had taken massive losses, because the USA economy improved better and faster than all of them and they didn't have shyt happen on their soil. In fact, the lack of violence on USA soil is one of the reasons that America became the world's economic superpower in the 1950s.
#2. The Cultural Revolution was a HORRIBLE thing for China. Even the Communist Party had to drop the propaganda game and admitted that straight up in 1981 when they declared that it was "responsible for the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the Party, the country, and the people since the founding of the People's Republic." You seriously going to argue with them? China didn't start improving until Mao died (five years after he had declared an end to the Cultural Revolution) and Deng Xioping started fixing all the horrific mistakes they made. It was Chinese reforms tied up with the opening to the USA that led to improvement, the CR had only set them back.
Cambodia is the obvious example that proves you wrong, because they were doing a similar thing as the Cultural Revolution at the same time and it simply destroyed their country. The thing that changed China was the late-1970s reforms, NOT the late 1960s violence.
#3. Trying to tie violence in Rwanda to improvements in Rwanda is one of the strangest arguments I've seen - I listed that earlier as a counter to your point cause I didn't think anyone would be so ridiculous as to connect the two. Rwanda had 3 months of horrific violence, after which the civil war was won by the people who were being targeted, Kagame took power, and eventually with a huge amount of foreign assistance the country started rebuilding...but it's ridiculous to suggest, "Oh, how about we start killing our own population so that they overthrow us and then the West will assist the survivors and perhaps they'll rebuild the country together."
And again, the obvious counterexample to the point is that the violence in Rwanda led to horrific continuing violence - something like 200,000 people killed in the refugee camps and hundreds of thousands more in the Kagame-sponsored wars in Congo. If violence is what made Rwanda better, then why not Congo, which has now had even worse violence for longer?
And then beyond all those we could list Armenia after the genocide, Germany after WW1, Mexico after the revolution and the purges, USSR after the purges, China after WW2, India/Pakistan after partition violence, Spain under Franco, North Korea after civil war, Bangladesh after the civil war, Northern Ireland under the troubles, Nicaragua after the civil war, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam after the Vietnam War, Cambodia after the purges, Chile under dictatorship, Iraq and Iran after the Iran/Iraq War, Afghanistan after Soviet invasion, Iraq after the Gulf War, Angola after the civil war, Afghanistan after civil war, Iraq after the US invasion, Sierra Leone after the civil wars, Palestine with all the horrific shyt Israel done to it, Indonesia under dictatorship, East Timor under the genocide, Guatemala after war and dictatorship, El Salvador after dictatorship/purges, Liberia after civil war, Bosnia after the genocide, Somalia after societal collapse, Ivory Coast after the coup, Zimbabwe under dictatorship, Columbia and FARC, Afghanistan after US invasion, Uganda after the LRA rebellion, Sudan after civil war, Crimea after Russian devastation...I'm sure I'm missing others.
Right now you have Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, the Muslims in Burma, northern Nigeria, Mexican drug wars, and the Philippines...how you think they gonna go?
You picked a few outliers where something got better years after the violence, but only because completely different people took control and started doing completely different shyt. The improvements were unrelated to the violence and in fact IN SPITE of it, which is why I can give 10 examples of places where shyt stayed bad for decades for every one example you give where shyt improved.
And WW2 or Rwandan genocide aren't even remotely like what Duterte doing right now, so those examples random as hell.
Actual analogies would be El Salvador under military government, Palestine under Israel, Chile under Pinochet, Zimbabwae under Mugabe, or a dozen other scenarios like that. In each one you had violent rulers like Duterte claim they had to use violence in order to control their population. In each one you had the nation's security forces become seen as killers. In each one you just have extended suffering and the collapse of civil society, as violence increasingly becomes seen as the only law.
