[disappointment2]

...The United States did not ask for unconditional surrender from the Germans...

Excuse me? Google "Casablanca conference".

[casinobonuswer]

Excuse me? Google "Casablanca conference".

My bad, I completely blew off that early conference, the one Stalin didn't attend. Churchill and Roosevelt decided on unconditional surrender. I get wrapped up in the aftermath of the war, and the final days of the Doenitz Gov and forgot they did surrender unconditionally. The US was pretty fair at the end, only because they knew they would need a buffer between us and the USSR. good catch, I will be more careful

[vansVoish]

That is a great point. So, given this what are you answers to my 2 questions?

To insist on an unconditional surrender there needs to be circumstances where a negotiated surrender will not be thought of as being beaten. In the old days when wars did not have the massive destructive power of even WW2 weaponry, a war could be negotiated to a conclusion and one side would acknowledge that they had been beaten. Of course that is why there were many wars in Europe that did not end with unconditional surrender throughout history and after a period of time would start up again with a slightly different pretext.

I think that we always had the concept of total war, just not the capacity to carry it out. Many great sieges of history ended with the slaughter or enslavement of the losing population. Now we have the weaponry to destroy the civilization from a great distance. Total war like WW2 is I believe a thing of the past. Any two sides with nuclear weapons can initiate the other which would precipitate a retaliatory strike. MAD worked despite the ridicule that the name garnered.

We now have the concept of limited war. Many of the proxy wars of the Cold War era, Viet Nam, Korea manmy Africian conflicts were essentially between the West (US) and the communists (USSR) but were not allowed to become total wars because of the certainty of mutual assured destruction.

[FelicitaJ]

Jominy argued that total war is the only option, that partial or limited wars were not feasable. You start a war, let the Generals take the football and make the rules. Clauswitz saw it differently, he says war IS politics (albiet politics with a hammer), and that civilian rulers should always control the dynamics of war. The only real rule we usually break is having a CLEAR and stated objective. Geo Bush Sr knew this, the second he met his objectives he stablized the front and withdrew. Jr didn't have this insight, to be fair he probably couldn't fart and chew gum at the same time, Cheney led him into nation building. Oops. Limited war goes back a long time, Princes of Europe used it constantly to gain small advantages over their neighbors, shifting alliances with other kingdoms with each campaign. Sun Tsu commented on it, also(The Art of War). Whether or not to surrender unconditionally or to demand it depends on wether or not the objective can be met, or if the situation is such that any surrender is better than nothing, like Clauswitz said, war IS politics. Incidentally, we teach Clauswitz at West Point.
As for combat againsed civilians, some tactical advantage can be gained in a small theater, but almost always this means the war has already gone so bad that the objective have already been compromised. Nuking Japan was an anomaly of history, vaporizing that many humans instantly had a sobering effect on the Emperor (although more died in the Tokyo fire bombing)-yet he was almost over ruled (read killed) by his generals near the end. The most important lesson learned (or not, as we see in Iraq) is that the objective must be clear, the means to it available, and enough flexability and leadership to push it to completion.

Partial or limited wars are also VERY profitable. Something to think about.

[Trercakaressy]

I do not see the possibility of a negotiated settlement with today's Islamic fascists.

I agree 110% (other than I wouldn't call them fascists).

I actually went back and included the condition that "your opponent is a unitary nation or state" in my initial response because of this very consideration.

You can't wage war on a philosophy because a philosophy resides in peoples' heads.

What you can do is wage war on the nations from which "Islamofascist" philosophies arise and fester, that is to say, wahe war on the heads in which those philosophies reside.

As I also said in my initial post, Hama rules apply.

You can't defeat Islamic terror within, say, Saudi Arabia, without being willing to literaly level Saudi Arabia, even to the extent that you'd turn the place into a big old Pyrex® parking lot.

I think the mistake a lot of people in the West make when approaching the issue of total war (to include the total destruction of cities vis-a-vis carpet bombing and missile attacks) in regard to the Arab/Islamic world is to apply Western standards of philosophy and appropriate/acceptable use of force.

When you look at the Blitz over London you see that total war just hardened British resolve. When you look at the elimination of Hama you see that al-Assad completly eliminated the issue of Islamic extremism in Syria to the extent that it didn't even exist in the aftermath. It's only recently that Islamism has begun regaining a foothold, in large part because Syria is westernizing now to the extent that they've adopted Western values in regard warfare.

If we had gone in to Iraq and kept the peace where peace could be kept and took centers of insurgent gravity (Falujah, Ramadi, al Nas, etc...) under multi-day artillery bombardment to the extent that the only thing left was dust and rubble we would have ended the Iraqi insurgency within a year or two.

Might makes right in the Arab/Muslim world. That's the way it's ALWAYS been.

Again, look at Saudi Arabia. There is no point in that nation's history when it wasn't controled by some form of autocratic regime that kept the "little man" under its boot heel.

Either we need to be willing to step in with a big old boot, or we'd be better served by staying home and not pissing away the lives and money we're wasting there.

[Mypepraipse]

Total war like WW2 is I believe a thing of the past ...
We now have the concept of limited war.

Partial or limited wars are also VERY profitable. Something to think about.

Great point Tom. I think the concept of limited war is tied to the profit of the military industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about, including the profit potential of selling to both sides.

[thargeagsaf]

I think the concept of limited war is tied to the profit of the military industrial complex...

I think it's also tied, as much if not more, to the ubiquitousness of mass media, embeded reporting, Monday morning quarterbacking by civilians, particularly the vocal minority that protests ANY type of war, and the sense in this country (or the West in general) that we have everything we have because wealth grows on trees.

We couldn't wage total war today if we wanted to because the the media would be all over it beaming "atrocities" into every household on earth 24/7, the idiot protesters would be screaming bloody murder at the top of their lungs 24/7, and whatever political party wasn't in power would be pressing the issue to death for their own personal gain 24/7.

Limited warfare, as expensive as it may be, and as profitable for some as it may be, is really the only option.

As I said above, we could very easily have bombed and shelled Iraq into timidity in a matter of months. It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper, would have cost far, far fewer American lives, and we would already be reaping the benefits of owning all that oil.

You really think we passed on all that just so that Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman would make a fortune?

Or maybe it was just because GWB and Erik Prince were good ol' boys...

Come on now.

[VQdeochratis]

Limited warfare, as expensive as it may be, and as profitable for some as it may be, is really the only option.

Hence my thread on Multiculturalism is dead say Cameron. The idea that a less efficient system is the only one we can adopt speaks a lot about the morality of such a culture.

Your points about hysterical claims of atrocities is right on. Do you remember, I think during Bush 41, the mantra of "avoiding the appearance of impropriety?" It is as though we avoid doing the right thing so as to avoid appearing to do the wrong thing. One example on a much less dramatic subject is the simple idea of rejecting Obamacare on the grounds that we are broke. We cannot admit this for two reasons: (1). It makes it seem we don't care about those without insurance; (2). We cannot admit being broke.

[priceyicey]

Hence my thread on Multiculturalism is dead say Cameron. The idea that a less efficient system is the only one we can adopt speaks a lot about the morality of such a culture.

Your points about hysterical claims of atrocities is right on. Do you remember, I think during Bush 41, the mantra of "avoiding the appearance of impropriety?" It is as though we avoid doing the right thing so as to avoid appearing to do the wrong thing. One example on a much less dramatic subject is the simple idea of rejecting Obamacare on the grounds that we are broke. We cannot admit this for two reasons: (1). It makes it seem we don't care about those without insurance; (2). We cannot admit being broke.

Dead in the 10 ring.

We've got a corporate mantra here at work that runs along the same lines: "Doing well by doing good".

Personally, I don't really see an association between the two built out of logical necessity, but there it is.

We're in financial services. We're supposed to do well by any means necessary. Who really cares what the "little guy" thinks. He's not our client, he's not our client base, and he couldn't afford to be even if he wanted to.

But we've still gotta sponsor community awards, and give scholarships to inner-city kids, and all kids of stuff just to keep up the appearance of not being self absorbed, money hungry, turds. Even though that's exactly what the vast majority of us are.

I think business and foreign affairs should both fall firmly in the realm of "I, ME, MINE".

Don't like it? Fuck you.
Wish it were otherwise? Fuck you.
Can't keep pace? Fuck you.

Then again, I'm a borderline misanthrope.

[VINPELA]

MacArthur had no intention of executing the Emperor, he knew full well that the Japanese people would never assimilate with the westerners and chaos would result, one must understand the "Mandarin" mentality of the populace. He was well ahead of the curve and had already made plans with Truman's knowledge. MacArthur had spent his adult life in the pacific rim and knew their cultures. In the last hours of the war, a desparate effort was made by some Japanese officers to obtain the recording of the Emperors surrender that was to by played on the radio, men were killed, some commited seppuku, and disaster was barely averted, all within the Emperors grounds-that's how close it was. I think it is true that Truman would have dropped the second bomb unless surrender was immediate, his only concern was American lives, hard to understand now, but one must look at it in the reference of the times. If he wanted to show Russia the might of the bomb, there were many other ways to do it, Nagasaki wasn't one of them. If it worked out that way, oh, well. My high school science teacher was the photographer on the B-29 that dropped on Nagasaki (Mr Neitzert), to my knowledge he never talked about it, but he had some photos posted in his class-not many-I understand there were tech problems and he had to shoot freehand out a side port.
Harry Truman was not a devious person, deception plays no part in his decisions. He was also fully aware that Stalin was a sociopath and dealt with him accordingly. If you look at Truman in this manner, his decisions throughout his presidency take on newfounded respect. If you get a chance, watch Gary Sinise (sp?) portrayal of him in the TV miniseries, it followed the book and was as real as possible (not often do I use a movie as a referance, but this one was good)

Interesting post. Can you elaborate on the part in bold?

[loikrso]

If the Allies knew of the Death camps (and most indications are they did, though how much they knew, who and when is controversial) then no terms of surrender were possible. The only punishment that fits the crime of genocide is death and the only argument is who dies. It can be everyone (which seems unjust because that is genocide itself but it has been done, and for much less) or it can be just a few selected leaders, which is what happened after WWII. Nevertheless, Germany had to surrender unconditionally and accept whatever punishmemt was given, that is the only way justice could have been served, though even then it was impossible to actually obtain it.

At the end of WWI Pershing was very disappointed. He wanted to reject the Armistice and push on to Berlin, maintaining that if we let Germany go on what seemed to many the eve of a possible victory we would only have to come back and finish the job later.

Correct.

General Grant wanted and got unconditional surrender as well.

When a nation or group of nations engages in reprehensible evil they deserve to die.

Simple stuff....

[blankostaroe]

The Japanese had been trying to surrender since January, the only condition they were asking was that the Emperor be spared. The lie on that was that the Russians wouldn't send the offers on because they wanted to get in on vivisecting Japan. This was proven wrong only recently. The Russians sent the offers and Truman ignored them. Truman wanted to drop the bomb so as to show the Russians we had it and what it could do.

Even after the Bomb many Generals wanted to fight on, only the entry of Russia ended even their opposition.

After the surrender the Emperor volunteered to be executed if it would spare other Japanese. MacArthur let him go, though we had a version of Nuremberg there too

wow talk about rewritting history
everything you posted was 100% false.
if you actaully studied you would know that the japanese miltary actaully tried to everthrow the emperor to prevent the surrender after the atomic bombs. you would have also known that the japanese wher training the old, the women and children to attack the americans with farm tools so when they where killed and the americans where out of ammo the japanese military would attack and take the weapons. you would also have known that a few years ago they discovered bases (that where dug into mountians) filled with jet powered flying bombs to use against american warships during the invasion.
the envoy you are talking about was only trying to prevent russia from attacking and was not authorized to do anything else.

[HarryMet]

General Grant wanted and got unconditional surrender as well.

When a nation or group of nations engages in reprehensible evil they deserve to die.

Simple stuff....

Deserving to die is not the point of this thread. The point is under what conditions does are unconditional surrender called for when a negotiated surrender can save lives on both sides?

What reprehensible evil did Grant's enemies do other than want to be let alone?

[Gromiaaborn]

Another question has to do with the civilian population. "Limited war" is a relatively new idea. Again using WWII as a basis of comparison, both the Allies and the Axis powers relentlessly bombed civilian populations. Indeed, the only atomic weapons every used in combat was against civilian populations. Under what conditions do you think it is justified to deliberately attack civilian populations?

I think this is a very difficult question. I myself like to think of it on a micro scale first. In what circumstances can I kill a fellow civilian around me? Problem is this still doesn't give me an answer. If I am in a crowded area and am 100% sure that I will kill an innocent person if I fire back at a person that is trying to kill me am I justified in doing so?


My initial thought is that if there is a 100% chance of killing an innocent person, then it can't morally be done.

But you said justified. In the Fog of War I was surprised when McNammara said that it was immoral to drop the bombs. He said it also was immoral not to drop the bombs. So I think at times we have to weight the options, for me it would come down to a reasonable analysis of which one would cause more loss of life.

An example: these drone attacks that kill a large amount of civilians...no in my book. But then depending on the target that no could turn to a yes. Well I obviously need to think more on this.