[bensabath]

I am reading a book where the commander took it on his own to refuse to negotiate any terms of surrender. The only time I knew of seeking unconditional surrender among civilized nations was during WWII. Given how many lives may be saved on both sides, under what conditions do you think it is justified to push on to unconditional surrender?

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?

[EvonsRorgon]

The Khans, Hannibal (look up the origin of annihilate), Sherman would be starters?

[Optipitle]

I am reading a book where the commander took it on his own to refuse to negotiate any terms of surrender. The only time I knew of seeking unconditional surrender among civilized nations was during WWII. Given how many lives may be saved on both sides, under what conditions do you think it is justified to push on to unconditional surrender?

When your opponent is a unitary nation or state and the negotiation of acceptable terms isn't possible.

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? Hama rules.

Look it up.

[ZX3URrBH]

When your opponent is a unitary nation or state and the negotiation of acceptable terms isn't possible.

What about this? What do you mean "the negotiation of acceptable terms isn't possible?"

[XarokLasa]

What about this? What do you mean "the negotiation of acceptable terms isn't possible?"

Everyone goes to war for a reason.

Those reasons are political.

They want land, or they want resources, or they want concessions or they want to stop or prevent some action or influence, or "something".

So they use force to achieve those aims because, presumably, the other side isn't willing to concede to their demands.

Nobody goes to war just to kill a bunch of people, at least not anymore.

Whatever that "reason" is, I would presume that upon reaching it or having achieved it, the side with those aims would consider the war successful and would cease hostilities. They'd say "we won" and that would be it...except for the crying.

Now, when you say "unconditional" surrender you're implying that the side we're discussing here isn't willing to accept conditions short of achieving that goal.

That might be the intention going into the war, but we all know that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. Mr. Murphy sticks his dick in the pot and starts stirring things up and before you know it initial expectations may have to take a back seat to expedience or pragmatisim.

At that point concessions become, if not acceptable, at least worth consideration.

That's where negotiations come in.

Either the side we're talking about will be abblle to negotiate terms acceptable to itself or it won't.

If it can't, then we're back to square one - unconditional: "We're just going to keep beating on you 'til you concede to our demands".

But if that side can negotiate for those demands, to terms thhat are acceptabe to itself, the war needn't continue - and nobody wants to continue a war unnecessarially because they're expensive in all sorts of ways.

[mussmicky]

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.

[Rounteetepehryn]

I am reading a book where the commander took it on his own to refuse to negotiate any terms of surrender. The only time I knew of seeking unconditional surrender among civilized nations was during WWII. Given how many lives may be saved on both sides, under what conditions do you think it is justified to push on to unconditional surrender?

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?

My father was a navigator on a B-24. He flew 42 missions out of Europe, mostly over Berlin. He survived even though most bombers didn't make it. He thought the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral. He thought we could have beaten the Japs without it. My mother was living in London when they were getting hammered. She thought it was the greatest thing ever. They never agreed on it, and it was difficult to get my Dad to talk about it. I'm going with my Dad on this one.

[attackDoold]

I believe that wars only end when one side acknowledges that it has been beaten.

Germany never really accepted defeat after WW1 Hence WW2 is often thought of as the same war, just with a 20 year ceasefire.

The Palestine/Israeli conflict is another example. The Arabs have never accepted that they lost in 1948, 1967 etc and so are still fighting.

[55TRATTERENRY]

I believe that wars only end when one side acknowledges that it has been beaten.

Germany never really accepted defeat after WW1 Hence WW2 is often thought of as the same war, just with a 20 year ceasefire.

The Palestine/Israeli conflict is another example. The Arabs have never accepted that they lost in 1948, 1967 etc and so are still fighting.

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

[Phoneemer]

Now, when you say "unconditional" surrender you're implying that the side we're discussing here isn't willing to accept conditions short of achieving that goal.

On the contrary, most civilized people and most of history's examples do seek a negotiated end to conflict, e.g., The Treaty of Paris ending the first American War of Independence, The Versailles Treaty ending WWI, the end of the Korean conflict.

As a student of history I learned that Napoleon's invasion of Russia was with this intent. The czar pulled out of Napoleon's "Continental System" to trade with England. As you pointed out, the motivation was economic supremacy not total conquest of the people. Napoleon expected such military pressure would cause the czar to return to the "Continental System." Napoleon did not know the czar was convinced doing so would result in him being overthrown and so could not agree to Napoleon's demands.

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

[seervezex]

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.

[ViagraFeller]

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.

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

[WGRocky]

I am reading a book where the commander took it on his own to refuse to negotiate any terms of surrender. The only time I knew of seeking unconditional surrender among civilized nations was during WWII...

As a student of history I...

You are a student of history my ass.

You gotta long way to go, little Bubba.

All real students of history know that the term "unconditional surrender"
originated with U.S. Grant (not one of your favorites, I realize) at the end
of the Ft. Donelson campaign.

Rebel commander Simon Bolivar Buckner, under siege in an untenable
postion in the fort, tried to stall the surrender negotiations.

Grant would have none of it, and replied:

"No terms except immediate and unconditional surrender can be accepted.
I propose to move immediately upon your works."

So, little Bubba, I hope it dawns on you that what you most need
to be doing to be a real student is to study, rather than abuse yourself
in the heedless exercise of ignorant mouthing off which is taking up
so many of your hours.

[vipbunter]

The Japanese had been trying to surrender since January, the only condition they were asking was that the Emperor be spared.

This does not apply to the military leadership, as you
yourself note below:

Even after the Bomb many Generals wanted to fight on...

Now, who do you think was calling the shots?- the guys
in the striped pants or the military?

...only the entry of Russia ended even their opposition.

In fact, there was a 2nd bomb, and the announcement of
its use was made at the decisive imperial council meeting
only minutes before announcement that Russia had entred
the war. The military said it still wanted a "last battle" on
Japanese soil after they knew of the 2nd bomb and Russian
entry into the war. Then the Emperor gave the order to
surrender, and the military caved in.

However, the civilians had after Hiroshima and before the
decisive meeting gone behind the scenes to the Empreror
and convinced him to interverne in favor of surrender. That
leads me to believe the 1st bomb was most important.

IMO the bombs and the Russians together gave the peace
party irresistible leverage. The results of the three events
cannot be conclusively disentangled.

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.

What was proved wrong only recently?

There has never been any doubt that the Russians were colluding
on our behalf, if only out of self-interest.

Truman wanted to drop the bomb so as to show the Russians we had it and what it could do.

No, Truman wanted to drop the bomb in order to avoid an Okinawa
"from one end of Japan to the other", or words to that effect. He did
not need to drop it one place or the other to make an impression on
the Russians. And of course use for effect on Japan is is no way
mutually exclusive with use for other effect against Russia.

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

Prevailing opinion I think favors the Emperor's essential innocence.
In any case the Emperor had been spared by prior agreement.

Several Japanese leaders were hanged after a "version" of Nuremberg.

[Hedkffiz]

To get out of the weeds. If I'm not mistaken the question is about unconditional surrender and the ethics of such a thing.

I don’t think it is ethical. Most wars (in my horribly amateur study of history ) are based on resources, i.e. land. Soldiers aren’t serial killers (usually). They want to go home and feed their families, despite all the politics.

Yes, you could argue that some enemies, well, can’t be reasoned with. (like here) To have a whole army of fanatics is rare. They are people, like your own soldiers.

So I’ll take it from the soldier’s level to that of the generals and the politicians. Then things change. And we aren’t talking about military tactics, we are talking about politics.

“Unconditional Surrender” reeks of bad politics and poor leadership. You won. If genocide isn’t your thing, then a heavy handed victory only brings resentment (and those wars that don’t seem to end). To me the bottom line is….Your defeated enemy is either someone who could be a neighbor, or someone who should be killed. It seems only politicians can remove that human element.

[ThekvandoVideo]

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)

[favwebbb]

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)

That was a long time ago. (doesn't negate it) My point is that idea of "unconditional surrender" is bad policy ----today. It's a blanket disregard and disrespect for your fallen enemy. Should these people be welcome? Or should we just f**king kill them all?

[NvrNoNowX]

I am not suggesting we kill them all, I am just saying the situation determines the conditions of surrender, not just now, but always. The United States did not ask for unconditional surrender from the Germans, the Iraqis pretty much came to us with it, the Taliban doesn't have to, they only have to exist in any form to claim some kind of victory, to them, the deaths of thousands is meaningless when the object is religious extremism. Realize also, that the blanket disreguard for ones enemy is often the logical result from an intense war such as WWII, and also to the combatants now in the mideast. To say the US overcame it's hatred so fast and instituted the Marshall Plan in 48 is a glowing acknowledgement to our character.

[doogiehoussi]

To get out of the weeds. If I'm not mistaken the question is about unconditional surrender and the ethics of such a thing.

I don’t think it is ethical. Most wars (in my horribly amateur study of history ) are based on resources, i.e. land. Soldiers aren’t serial killers (usually). They want to go home and feed their families, despite all the politics.

Germany and Japan were ruled by serial killers, didn't you
know that?!

There are types of enemies and circumstances where only
unconditional surrender is apporpriate, and WW2 was a
definitive example, as you will learn if you take the effort
to learn more about it.

Yes, you could argue that some enemies, well, can’t be reasoned with. (like here) To have a whole army of fanatics is rare. They are people, like your own soldiers.

The emotional constitution of the service members does not
necessarily have anything to do with it. What matters is if
they carry out the orders of a fanatical and homicidal leadership.
If they do then they must die, sometimes in large numbers,
before before the leaders can be put out of business.

So I’ll take it from the soldier’s level to that of the generals and the politicians.

What does this mean?

Then things change. And we aren’t talking about military tactics, we are talking about politics.

We are talking about goals. If the goal is to never have to fight
enemy A again then you must start by obtaining enemy A's
unconditional surrender.

“Unconditional Surrender” reeks of bad politics and poor leadership. You won.

It does not, but why do you think it does?

If genocide isn’t your thing, then a heavy handed victory only brings resentment (and those wars that don’t seem to end).

Wrong. Just plain wrong. Get to work reading up on the
post WW2-era.

To me the bottom line is….Your defeated enemy is either someone who could be a neighbor, or someone who should be killed.

We have done a reasonably good job being neighborly, unconditional
surrender or no unconditional surrender.

It seems only politicians can remove that human element.

Sorry, but like it or not politicians we cannot do without
politiicians, and I do not think our record is so awfully bad,
even if it is not close to perfect.

[paralelogram]

That was a long time ago. (doesn't negate it) My point is that idea of "unconditional surrender" is bad policy ----today. It's a blanket disregard and disrespect for your fallen enemy. Should these people be welcome? Or should we just f**king kill them all?

Are you a woman?

Are you aware of the degraded staus of women
under Taliban rule?

What kind of "regard" and "respect" and "welcome"
do you think you owe them? Really now.

I think it is obvious that their depraved fanatacism
is tantamount to incurable mental illness, and the
same goes for their murderous brethren Al Quaeda.
The menace they reperesent is so great that we
should give them no quarter, and should kill them all.
I do hope you are not going to sniffle and wring your
hands too much over such bastards.