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?
Was it wise to demand unconditional surrender in WW2?
- Thread starter Samm
- Start date
Conditional surrender would mean Germany and japan remain as de facto independent states after the war. That was not an option.
Both were to be completely beaten into submission and the allies were largely successfull in this and they didn't much care how much they made both nations suffer. Hell making them suffer was part of the point.
Both were to be completely beaten into submission and the allies were largely successfull in this and they didn't much care how much they made both nations suffer. Hell making them suffer was part of the point.
Dropping it for what? On the Western side were there ever discussions at all?
On the Eastern side thats a bit of an apologist's trope. Even after two A bombs, the complete obliteration of the Japanese fleet, and the obliteration of Japanese forces in Manchuria, the military still tried a coup to stop surrender.
On the Eastern side thats a bit of an apologist's trope. Even after two A bombs, the complete obliteration of the Japanese fleet, and the obliteration of Japanese forces in Manchuria, the military still tried a coup to stop surrender.
Negotiation had repeatedly been made withe nazi government. They repeatedly abrogated the treaties and agreements whenever convenient. By 1939 few heads of state believed anything the German government promised. That continued into 1940, 41, 42.
China had a history of negotiations with Japan, and agreements. Japanese policy was to demand more, and in 1937 they abrogated the earlier treaties and started a new war with China. Chinese attempts to negotiate failed, and US efforts to negotiate in 1941 failed miserably as well. Japan instead expanded its wars invading four other nations as well. When Japan attempted to open peace talks in 1945 their proposals were as if they had won the Pacific war, not on the verge of losing it. They also at the same time attempted to create a alliance with the USSR.
In both cases there was a solid history of duplicity and failure in negotiating with both Japan and Germany.
China had a history of negotiations with Japan, and agreements. Japanese policy was to demand more, and in 1937 they abrogated the earlier treaties and started a new war with China. Chinese attempts to negotiate failed, and US efforts to negotiate in 1941 failed miserably as well. Japan instead expanded its wars invading four other nations as well. When Japan attempted to open peace talks in 1945 their proposals were as if they had won the Pacific war, not on the verge of losing it. They also at the same time attempted to create a alliance with the USSR.
In both cases there was a solid history of duplicity and failure in negotiating with both Japan and Germany.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Unconditional surrender also played well to the Allied propaganda of staying in the war until ultimate victory. Otherwise a messy conditional peace might have followed a 1944 coup in Germany or heavy US losses at Okinawa.
Between Germany & other nations. Previous to 1941 there were many negotiations and treaties. mostly abrogated or broken by Germany. There was a brief attempt by the USSR to seek terms, but the nazi government seems to have ignored it. 1939-1942 the US government tried to discuss a number of routine issues that might reduce tensions between the US and Germany. Those went nowhere.
Plus the peace feelers Japan made included retaining their military, retaining the pre 1937 empire, no withdrawal from China & separate negotiations with the Chinese government, no reparations with the west, no accusations or war crimes. It was as if the people drafting this proposal thought they had won the war.
SsgtC
Banned
As @Orcbuster said, crushing not only the ability but the will to resist was a feature of the unconditional surrender demand, not a bug. To put it bluntly, the allies were sick of everyone's shit by the time that demand was made. To them, there was no other option.
From who and on behalf of who? Post 9/11 conflicts are not against clearly defined nation states and committing genocide on a wide basis would not be acceptable or even effective.
To quote a historian in a documentary called Last Days of the Nazis:
In other words, the Allies wanted to make sure there was no way for the Germans to be in a position to perpetuate aggressive warfare against it's neighbours. That goes double for Japan, since they were at war with China long before the official beginning of World War II. Just do some research on Japan's conditions for surrender. They were almost laughable.
These conditions were designed to trick the Allies into allowing the Japanese to maintain their empire and their military junta. The Allies were in no mood to play nice with the country whose troops killed thousands of Allied servicemen and tortured, starved and executed the POWs taken at Bataan, the Philippines, Hong Kong and Singapore. They wanted Japan defanged, hence the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender under the threat of 'prompt and utter destruction'.
In other words, the Allies wanted to make sure there was no way for the Germans to be in a position to perpetuate aggressive warfare against it's neighbours. That goes double for Japan, since they were at war with China long before the official beginning of World War II. Just do some research on Japan's conditions for surrender. They were almost laughable.
- The position of the Emperor was to be untouched (This was the only one the Allies took seriously, but only so their occupation could run smoothly without having to put up with Japanese insurgents, not to be fair to Japan).
- The Japanese were to be allowed to try their own soldiers for war crimes (The Entente allowed Germany to do that in Leipzig in 1921. The defendants in those trials either got short prison sentences or were let off under the excuse of 'following orders'. The Allies were not going to make that mistake again)
- Japanese troops would withdraw from their pre-1937 conquests. (As if China was going to let the Second Sino-Japanese War slide)
- A small US occupation force would be allowed in Tokyo. (Pretty much a token force, given this is what the Japanese wanted)
These conditions were designed to trick the Allies into allowing the Japanese to maintain their empire and their military junta. The Allies were in no mood to play nice with the country whose troops killed thousands of Allied servicemen and tortured, starved and executed the POWs taken at Bataan, the Philippines, Hong Kong and Singapore. They wanted Japan defanged, hence the Potsdam Declaration demanding unconditional surrender under the threat of 'prompt and utter destruction'.
Khanzeer
Banned
That's debatable that they would not be effective, Turks persians Greeks uzbeks have all defeated colonized and ruled Afghans for centuries so this graveyard of empires myth is modern myopic misreading of history
Similar situation in Iraq
In some parts of the world any kindness or compassion from your opponent is interpreted as weakness and we totally missed that part.Enabling our opponents and uplifting their spirits.
And I don't mean to get more political here so I will not debate this point anymore
Last edited:
I'm simply arguing that commiting genocide like the allies did with the germans and japanese isn't acceptable for the west. It would make Vietnam look reasonable. The internal political upheaval it would cause in the west would be a far greater AH point of interest than any percieved victory in the war on terror.
Given how the German and Japanese people are still around today, they obviously didn't do a very good job.
Seriously? Please look up a definition of Genocide ( as defined in 1945 ) before accusing people of doing it. Genocide is what the Germans/Japanese did, not the allies.
Genocide is not defined as the total extermination of a national, ethnic or religious group. It is simply defined as the targeted killings and displacement of a large part of aforementioned groups, and the allied methods in wwii ( deliberate large population displacement, concentrated bombing of heavily populated civilian targets for the sake of killing said civilians etc) certainly fall under this definition. The memory of and threat of the continuation of said genocides is part of the reason why the german and japanese have largely kept their head down for the past 70 years.
Im not saying the allied efforts get close to what the germans or japanese did but the principle is largely the same. Forced depopulation of ethnic germans from todays poland easily fall under the modern definition of genocide for example.
Last edited:
Apologies, you are correct. I should have been more clear though on the Western Front. I meant, were there negotiation attempts once the war had started? Lets say the period after the invasion of Poland? I don't believe there was anything material, and nothing significant on the Eastern Front once Barbarossa started.
But agreed completely. Germany repeatedly negotiated deals with countries and then broke them, usually announcing breaking the agreement with an artillery barrage and massed air strikes. Japan repeatedly negotiated deals with China then broke them, and was negotiating with the US when it attacked.
yes,like literary every other perpetrator of genocide ever. even the jews are still around,but hardly anyone objects to declaring the nazis a genocidial regime.
anyways the question "did the allies commit genocide as understood today" is very obviously a yes. The population displacements in eastern europe alone qualify for it,without the need to delve into the waters and ask if bomber harris was genocidal (yes,he was. moral bombing was almost as criminal as it was stupid and useless)
Such a combination of flag waving, current politics, disregard to grammar, and bad taste in less than one page.
hammo1j
Donor
The Allied demands went too far with the publication of the Morgenthau plan to break up Germany and deny it industry. That strengthened resistance.
That said the Allies were right to demand unconditional surrender.
1. WW1 Did not break the expansionist ideology.
2. The Soviets would not permit anything less given what the Germans had done to them.
That said the Allies were right to demand unconditional surrender.
1. WW1 Did not break the expansionist ideology.
2. The Soviets would not permit anything less given what the Germans had done to them.