Was it wise to demand unconditional surrender in WW2?

[Marc]

I have read that the demand of unconditional surrender greatly assisted German and Japanese propaganda and helped prevent internal dissension since it helped the Axis powers to paint the Allies as intending to impose the harshest possible peace. Was it wise to make the demand? What might have been the consequences of dropping it?

It was being generous
Sorry, we are talking about monster states - as relentlessly fascinating they might seem to some.

 

[Tjakari]

Yep,


on top of that LeMay's also making that point in the context of if he was on the losing side and well yes the winner have way of painting the losers as black as they need to to be. (some paint themselves black by their own actions of course)

Burning people alive is a pretty unambiguous action. I'm not going to get into whether war is okay or not (it's not) but there's a difference between excuses based on context and denying the morality of actions themselves. What happened to those people was bad.

 

[The Ranger]

Unconditional surrender was better then a North Korea like situation existing in Europe with huge military forces needed constantly in case Nazi Germany ever acted up again.

 

[Jack Brisco]

In a word, yes. In two words, hell, yes.

We sit here, nearly 75 years after the end of World War II, and ponder why unconditional surrender was demanded. We live in relative peace. We don't live in countries fighting for their lives or suffering under Axis occupation.

Try looking through those people's eyes. "My son was captured on Bataan." "Our house was destroyed by a German bomb and my mother was killed." "The Germans are sending everyone from our ghetto 'to the east', but we've never heard anything back from those who went before." "My baby girl was tossed into the air and bayoneted by a Japanese soldier". Bet you'd want to make real sure such things would never happen again.

Unconditional surrender was the only way to stop the Nazis and the Japanese. And they were stopped, weren't they. The Germany and Japan of today are free, democratic societies. Germany has done everything possible to make up for the horror of the Nazis. They have taken responsibility. The Japanese, not so much, but it's obvious they have no designs on any other country.

Was it worth it? Better believe it. You wouldn't have wanted to live in a world where Japan, Germany, and Italy were defeated any other way than through unconditional surrender.

 

[gatordad699]

From Wiki:


Tarawa

Of the 3,636 Japanese in the garrison, only one officer and sixteen enlisted men surrendered. Of the 1,200 Korean laborers brought to Tarawa to construct the defenses, only 129 survived.


Saipan

In the end, almost the entire garrison of troops on the island — at least 29,000 — died


Iwo Jima

US

26,040 total casualties

6,821 killed

2 captured but recovered[4]

19,217 wounded[1]

1 escort carriersunk

1 fleet carrierseverely damaged

1 escort carrierlightly damaged

Japanese

17,845–18,375 dead and missing[1]

216 taken prisoner[1]

~3,000 in hiding[5]


Okinawa

US

20,195 dead[6][7][8]

12,520 killed in action[9]

38,000 wounded[10] to 55,162 wounded[6][7][11]

Materiel:

221 Tanks destroyed[12]

12 destroyers sunk

15 amphibious ships sunk

9 other ships sunk

386 ships damaged

763[13]–768[14] aircraft

Japanese Personnel:

From 77,166 killed[15] to 110,000 killed (US estimate)[16]

More than 7,000 captured[16]

Materiel:

1 battleship sunk

1 light cruiser sunk

5 destroyers sunk

9 other warships sunk

1,430 aircraft lost[17]

27 tanks destroyed

743–1,712 artillery pieces, anti-tank guns, and anti-aircraft guns[18]

40,000–150,000 civilians killed out of an est. 300,000[16]


I really don’t think that Japanese resistance in the Pacific could have stiffened much for any reason. They fought to the death. Ask a Pacific vet what he thought about fighting the “Japs” in WWII. My father’s friends hated them so much you couldn’t talk about it in polite conversations.


Let’s say there was no unconditional surrender.


Does the world find out about the death camps?

US and Russia don’t get a jump start on rockets or swept wings.

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle (Not used, but probably tested). As they say, once you know something is possible, the rest is just engineering.

You now have two of the most reviled regimes in history trying to get nukes. Now you’re probably back to the aftermath of WWI again. Nothing settled, countries hating each other, but now with nukes, ICBMs and even better bio and chemical weapons.


Completely agree with Jack Brisco. The world of today is a much better place because the Allied leaders of WWII demanded unconditional surrender from the Germans and Japanese.

 

[NiGHTS]

There's hardly anyone who's really arguing against this, so why bother going on this thread to repeat what everyone else is saying? It's like beating a dead horse at this point. And the op never even responded past the op. So, why not let it die. It's a pointless thing to go on about, and it doesn't even belong here, as it's basically a Chat thread, and I hate to see the (very frequently pointless and long) arguments of that forum leak into here.

 

[XLII]

In a word, yes. In two words, hell, yes.

"Our house was destroyed by a German bomb and my mother was killed."

So? All your other reasons have some merit. But, as has been argued in this thread, that one is...dumb. What about Dresden? What about the german mothers killed by allied bombs? Or is that the "if it happens to germans its a-ok"?

 

[RodentRevolution]

So? All your other reasons have some merit. But, as has been argued in this thread, that one is...dumb. What about Dresden? What about the german mothers killed by allied bombs? Or is that the "if it happens to germans its a-ok"?

What about Dresden? Dresden would never have happened if the German elite had never come up with the pretence they only lost the first time because of a stab in the back by the common people (and the Jews natch, cos it is not a proper conspiracy theory unless you blame the Jews). Further Dresden was hit because it was a major transport hub and concentration point for reserves being deployed against the Soviet advance.

Bringing up Dresden is not merely a classic whataboutism, it is also a classic neo-Nazi whataboutisim. Given the impact of proto-Nazi revisionism on Germany do you really think that is a wise position to hold?

 

[sonofpegasus]

As far as I am aware, No German politician or serving officer was tried for war crimes over the bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, London or any other city where there were civilian casualties, so why do we hold the British Government and the RAF to a higher standard. If hindsight claims that targets like Dresden were unnecessary for the prosecution of the war the that is a different matter. As the last of the WW2 generation die out and more importantly as the 'corporate memory' of the Great war fades into the historical mist the reasoning behind the Allied decision and it's absolute necessity become less obvious to the younger generations.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

So? All your other reasons have some merit. But, as has been argued in this thread, that one is...dumb. What about Dresden? What about the german mothers killed by allied bombs? Or is that the "if it happens to germans its a-ok"?

'The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.'

- Bomber Harris.

 

[DougM]

The Japanese and to a lesser degree the Germans believed that the US and the allies in general were weak and would not put up much of a fight.
The Japanese uses anything and everything as propaganda against the US and the allies. They would have taken any offer of negotiating as a sign that the US was not willing to fight to the end. (Heck that was basically the point of the coop attempt) so actually I think NOT demanding unconditional surrender would extend the way as the troops would believe that if they just fought on a few days longer those soft allies would give up and go home.

And I also think accepting this would have resulted in WW3 with Nukes at some point as both Japan and Germany had demonstrated that they would not honor any treaty they signed.

As for WW1. The blame on that mess is big enough to go around to just about everyone. So the best you can do is decide who is MOST to blame as pretty much everyone had a reason to either start it or let it get started at the time it did.
Germany wanted ware then as it thought it was getting weaker in relation to Russia.
Russia wanted war to get influence in the Balkans
AH thought it would help strengthen them.
France wanted its lost territory back and to punish Germany
England was worried about a Powerful Germany and its navy build up
And on and on and on.
WW1 was the result of everyone having an axe to grind many of them thinking it was now or never. And that if they didn’t fight now then the other side would only get stronger. This was probably because the build up to WW1 was impossible to sustain. And everyone knew they could not keep it up for much onger but no one realized that the other guy was having as much trouble as they were. So most countries figured they were as strong as they ever were going to get but that the other side would keep getting stronger. So better to fight now.

The problem with the treatywas that while it was not really unusually harsh it was being imposed on a country that A) was not invaded during the war and B) that was in extremely bad economic shape and C) had suffered extreme casualties in its young men.
Yes the winners were (except the US) in much the Sam position but they didn’t have the treaty making things worse.
This left Germany in a very bad situation and the average German never having seen an enemy soldier. Then the winners didn’t bother to enforce this. It was perhaps the worse of all worlds.
A devastated (economy) country, a decimated generation a treaty that they could not really afford, a treaty designed to basically keep them weak indefinitely and no one nothing to MAKE them live with it. The results were frankly predictable.
Thus WW2 was NOT going to end that way as the Alies had learned thier lesson

So Unconditional surrender was the only option for the Alies and they did gain propaganda benefits from saying so

 

[Johnrankins]

You just answered your question why the ToV was far worse than the treaty itself implies.

That attitude.

What did you expect? "Yes master, may I please have another?"

When you lose a war you have to expect to be screwed for a while. The Germans didn't treat the French well after the Franco-Prussian war, nor did the British/Prussians/Russians treat the French well, Crown Loyalists weren't treated well by the successful revolutionaries after the ARW. Eventually it passes and you move on.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

When you lose a war you have to expect to be screwed for a while. The Germans didn't treat the French well after the Franco-Prussian war, nor did the British/Prussians/Russians treat the French well, Crown Loyalists weren't treated well by the successful revolutionaries after the ARW. Eventually it passes and you move on.

After the Franco-Prussian war? The French got off quite light and their indemnity was proportional to the one Napoleon imposed on Prussia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War#Prussian_reaction_and_withdrawal
Alsace-Lorraine had been a German province until the French progressively conquered in the 17th-18th centuries, so they didn't even lose territory that was core French, just part of the French historical wars of conquest to achieve their 'natural borders'.
And don't forget the French actually declared war on Prussia first. In no way could it be said that the treaty terms were close to that of the Treaty of Versailles (though that was justified in parts due to the damage the Germans caused in France, just not the way it was done immediately after the war given the state of the German economy and ability to pay) or WW2 unconditional surrender (again justified given what the Nazis and Imperial Japanese government had done).

The Napoleonic wars final was extremely light on France after all the damage that was caused. If anything the 20th Century treaties were historical outliers in terms of their harshness because warfare had become wars of entire peoples, rather than an aristocratic pastime that they had full control over in terms of making peace and treaties without much regard to the feelings of the general public.

The ARW was more in line with the 20th century treaties due to the nature of the conflict making it one of ideology and the entire people, plus internal social conflict rather than a war of empires like the 7 years war.

 

[XLII]

As far as I am aware, No German politician or serving officer was tried for war crimes over the bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam, London or any other city where there were civilian casualties, so why do we hold the British Government and the RAF to a higher standard. If hindsight claims that targets like Dresden were unnecessary for the prosecution of the war the that is a different matter. As the last of the WW2 generation die out and more importantly as the 'corporate memory' of the Great war fades into the historical mist the reasoning behind the Allied decision and it's absolute necessity become less obvious to the younger generations.

There were prosecutions and trials. And most of them (e.g. Dönitz, wo was indicted for USW) fell flat (Nimitz pointing out that they did the same). So no, German officers were indicted for things their WAllied counterpart did and got off scot-free.
As to why the thing is so vitriolic: Because the WAllies made a point of the war being "just" and they being "right" and their actions in the aftermath (which, no matter of correct, violated centuries of precedent) are justified by them being the "good" people. Thats why. Thats why they get held to a higher standard. Also, don't mix up the WAllies and the Entente. The former are one of the very few alliances in history which can make a claim to being the good guys, while the latter are just a bunch of imperialists which didn't want to share with the new kid.

'The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. At Rotterdam, London, Warsaw, and half a hundred other places, they put their rather naive theory into operation. They sowed the wind, and now they are going to reap the whirlwind.'

- Bomber Harris.

You seem to have missed that in the litany of the original quote the only thing I objected to was to put "being bombed" on the same level as the Shoa. The latter is evil. The former is war.

Re Harris: So, was he prosecuted for the various prosecutable things he ordered or condoned? For the ones commanders of the loosing side were prosecuted? Did he get at least sent to Rockall? Demotion? No? Well, good for him. Either there is an objective standard - which I would like, but have no illusions over - or you just say "The strong take, the weak suffer". But please spare me dressing it up as anything else. Which plenty of posters seem to be so fond of.

When you lose a war you have to expect to be screwed for a while. The Germans didn't treat the French well after the Franco-Prussian war, nor did the British/Prussians/Russians treat the French well, Crown Loyalists weren't treated well by the successful revolutionaries after the ARW. Eventually it passes and you move on.

In all of those cases, the moving on was done both by the losers and (more importantly) the victors. Rubbing it in at any opportunity is both unprecedented (e.g. treatment of the French after Napoleon) and unsporting. The latter is the expectation that all civilised nations would fight a war, the loser would be invited to the negotiations to make their case (however strong or weak), there would be some hemming and hawing, the looser would pay and thats that then. The French got that treatment in 1871, and the Germans had every right to expect that treatment in 1917.

ToV was unprecedented in that it was set long before the major power(s) of the other side arrived. The re-negotiations to which are so often pointed would have gone on before the singing. If you exclude the loser, you signal that they are not worth talking to - a colonial nation. Property to be divided. See the treatment of the Chinese.

That is the attitude I refer to. What did you expect to happen? The Germans to meekly thank them for their punishment and open up the precedent that you could simply do to them whatever you wanted?

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Alsace-Lorraine had been a German province until the French progressively conquered in the 17th-18th centuries, so they didn't even lose territory that was core French, just part of the French historical wars of conquest to achieve their 'natural borders'.

Considering how Germany treated A-L during the time it got control of it, it's no surprise you won't find many Alsatians believing A-L is anything else than core France.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Considering how Germany treated A-L during the time it got control of it, it's no surprise you won't find many Alsatians believing A-L is anything else than core France.

Certainly Germany was not kind in the way the managed the province. As France had done to make sure it was part of France, Germany in reverse did the same, but in a much accelerated fashion and the particular nationalistic zeal that came with the formation of the German Empire. The trend was toward greater autonomy (in 1911 they were given local governance rather than being administered from Berlin) as the German Empire felt the province was becoming more German and without WW1 it would have increased it's independence as a part of the Empire rather than a province that needed to be 'germanized' to cancel out the nearly 2 centuries of French cultural imperialism.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Certainly Germany was not kind in the way the managed the province. As France had done to make sure it was part of France, Germany in reverse did the same, but in a much accelerated fashion and the particular nationalistic zeal that came with the formation of the German Empire. The trend was toward greater autonomy (in 1911 they were given local governance rather than being administered from Berlin) as the German Empire felt the province was becoming more German and without WW1 it would have increased it's independence as a part of the Empire rather than a province that needed to be 'germanized' to cancel out the nearly 2 centuries of French cultural imperialism.

Or you can simply admit that, by then, Alsace-Lorraine had become a core part of France. After all, going all the way back to the 16th century and the HRE could also be used to argue that Luxembourg and parts of Austria, Poland and other places would be German cores. Something very few will agree with you on it: Alsace-Lorraine made its choices a long time ago, and it'd be sad to see people still complaining about it.

 

[XLII]

Or you can simply admit that, by then, Alsace-Lorraine had become a core part of France. After all, going all the way back to the 16th century and the HRE could also be used to argue that Luxembourg and parts of Austria, Poland and other places would be German cores. Something very few will agree with you on it: Alsace-Lorraine made its choices a long time ago, and it'd be sad to see people still complaining about it.

So, you'll admit that "become french" is good and acceptable, while "made german" is bad?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Or you can simply admit that by then, Alsace-Lorraine had become a core part of France.

I don't think a border province really fits the meaning of 'core'. After all Algeria was France's 4th Shore, with more French people there than in all of A-L, but look what happened there. Without WW1 and another generation is would probably be German in culture and language especially once Berlin released it's political grip on the region and the people felt like they weren't occupied. No one likes being treated like an occupied country and facing major change, like being switched from one country to another that speaks a different language and has a different political system than they're used to, so that, rather than a strong sense of French nationalism, was probably more a factor in Alsatian feelings.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

So, you'll admit that "become french" is good and acceptable, while "made german" is bad?

*raises an eyebrow*

You seem to be shifting goalposts in a very impressive fashion. I've lived in Strasbourg for roughly half of my life, and I have yet to see anyone who believes Alsace should be German.

I don't think a border province really fits the meaning of 'core'. After all Algeria was France's 4th Shore, with more French people there than in all of A-L, but look what happened there. Without WW1 and another generation is would probably be German in culture and language especially once Berlin released it's political grip on the region and the people felt like they weren't occupied.

Well, look at what happened in Algeria: people desired independance and fought for it themselves. I have yet to see a desire in Alsace to fight for independance or for joining Germany, but I do see a few German attempts at forcefuly take the place over and mistreat its inhabitants. Please respect the right of people to self-determination, it's a fundamental human right (and, yes, I believe Algeria had the right of becoming independant).

If your only justification is the HRE, you have no justification. ^^