Jump to content
15 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

I was reading an editorial about how, during World War II, Allied forces wanted nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. It made me wonder what would happen if WW II were fought in the here and now. Would we see scores of protesters with signs saying "No blood for rice" for Japan or "no blood for Jews" for Germany? Would people be screaming for a cease-fire that would allow Hitler and Tojo to stay in power?

 

What do you think about this "what if" scenario?

I was reading an editorial about how, during World War II, Allied forces wanted nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. It made me wonder what would happen if WW II were fought in the here and now. Would we see scores of protesters with signs saying "No blood for rice" for Japan or "no blood for Jews" for Germany? Would people be screaming for a cease-fire that would allow Hitler and Tojo to stay in power?

 

What do you think about this "what if" scenario?

 

 

Well, I think part of the reason behind the unconditional surrender motive was because japan and germany posed a real world threat to the US, much more so that our current demons, I think the same thing would happen, mostly because we were pretty much attacked by the japanese kinda out of nowhere, and that was a real presence that actually attacked us, not a terrorist organization that is kinda/kinda not from a certain country and the government of that country kinda/kinda not supports them, its just not the same thing, so of course we look at it differently, atleast thats the way I see it :)

Unconditional Surrender is one of those things...

 

The time to sue for peace is when you havent been almost entirely beaten, with no hope of winning. Once you've made your enemy bleed from every pore to defeat you, it's too late to ask for terms.

 

Conditional Surrender is one of those things too...

 

Suing for peace with terms and whatnot sounds good to an enemy, because it means your enemy doesnt have to devote overwhelming numbers of men and materials to crushing you. Once those resources have been spent, why would anyone accept terms?

 

EDIT: On a side note. The waging of war against Japan, at the very least, was overwhelmingly publicly endorsed. It's easy to justify a war when you're attacked first, especially in Fourth of July style.

 

The waging of war against the Germans was a harder sell. Most americans are of english/germanic descent, so, the germans looked like us. However, Germany declared war on the US. When someone declares war against you and starts attacking you, you cant just say "No, we're not playing, sorry".

Unconditional Surrender is one of those things...

 

The time to sue for peace is when you havent been almost entirely beaten, with no hope of winning. Once you've made your enemy bleed from every pore to defeat you, it's too late to ask for terms.

 

Conditional Surrender is one of those things too...

 

Suing for peace with terms and whatnot sounds good to an enemy, because it means your enemy doesnt have to devote overwhelming numbers of men and materials to crushing you. Once those resources have been spent, why would anyone accept terms?

 

EDIT: On a side note. The waging of war against Japan, at the very least, was overwhelmingly publicly endorsed. It's easy to justify a war when you're attacked first, especially in Fourth of July style.

 

The waging of war against the Germans was a harder sell. Most americans are of english/germanic descent, so, the germans looked like us. However, Germany declared war on the US. When someone declares war against you and starts attacking you, you cant just say "No, we're not playing, sorry".

 

youre right, its really a totally different comparison to today, if one looks at vietnam, compared to today, there are a lot more similarities there, and people did protest for peace, it was because WE went in there, nobody attacked us, we were just getting in other people's affairs, and thats a hard sell to fight for

youre right, its really a totally different comparison to today, if one looks at vietnam, compared to today, there are a lot more similarities there, and people did protest for peace, it was because WE went in there, nobody attacked us, we were just getting in other people's affairs, and thats a hard sell to fight for

 

But one could protest the war back in the 1940's...only to get stoned by the ensuing angry mob.

But one could protest the war back in the 1940's...only to get stoned by the ensuing angry mob.

 

 

Right, but WW2 was pretty hard to protest, I mean, we were pretty much just blatently attacked, theres total justification for fighting there...we put saddam hussein in power and then we arbitrarily attacked our puppet when he didnt do what we wanted anymore, totally different situation

Afghanistan was easy. Attacking Afghanistan followed a flow of logic that even the most idiotic midwesterner could appreciate.

 

Al-qaeda attacked us.

Where's Al-qaeda? In Afghanistan.

Who supports Al-qaeda? The Taliban

What's the Taliban? The theocratic government of Afghanistan.

What do we do? Attack Afghanistan

Why? We can Blitz Al-qaeda for attacking us, and oust the Taliban for supporting Al-qaeda.

 

Iraq however, doesnt follow a flow of logic.

 

-Iraq must be attacked!

-Why? Because they have weapons of mass destruction.

-Okay. Where are they? In hidden secret mobile installations that we know for a fact are around there somewhere.

-Are you pretty sure? We're 100% sure. Saddam's working on Nukes too.

-Are you pretty sure of that? No, we're 100% sure.

+Interregnum while Iraq is attacked+

-Where are the WMDs? If you hadnt blinked, you would have seen them plain as day.

-Okay... Everyone credible says there wasnt a working nuclear program. You said he was making nukes. Well, he would have been making Nukes if he had the ability to. That's enough.

-Is that like saying that someone is guilty of robbing a bank if they think about doing it?

 

Etc and so forth.

The antiwar protestes about iraq was not because people were board of war... it was because there was no proof of WMDs... and after the bush admin reilized that they started talking about how saddam commit genicide\other {censored}... which is ok to go to war over, but not if you start a false war and then piggy back on that.

 

Most war's are either protested because of that kind of {censored} or because there are ways to avoid the war... WW2 is the only war that I have never heard anyone say was unjust.

 

The comparison of the wars in Iraq and WW2 are totally not realistic.

The antiwar protestes about iraq was not because people were board of war... it was because there was no proof of WMDs... and after the bush admin reilized that they started talking about how saddam commit genicide\other {censored}... which is ok to go to war over, but not if you start a false war and then piggy back on that.

 

They didn't protest over WMD's initially. It was more protesting over "pre-emptive strikes." You'll remember that every intelligence service in the world (including France, Germany, and Russia) said Saddam had WMD's. Now we have to take a serious look at intelligence gathering and revamp it.

Well... "pre-emptive strikes" are problematic.

 

"Why did you shoot him in the face?"

 

"I felt that he might have a gun."

 

I should say that there probably were WMDs in Iraq. I totally believe that there were. I however dont believe that anything has ever been located.

Nonny, you are right about intelligence gathering. Too many flawed decisions made on half baked reports, imho. I find it ironic that the Libyans were the ones who had the WMD stuff.

 

If it were fought today? How long would the UN take to pass a resolution condemning the Germans expansionist policy? Would the UN be as inept as the League of Nations were?

 

Or maybe the UK, France and Russia have nuclear weapons. Japan and Germany don't.

France would for once have a very, very effective Maginot line type deterrent - invade us this time and we _might_ use this bomb on you?

 

Nope - too much to think about. :(

 

//R

 

Edited to stay on topic...

I was reading an editorial about how, during World War II, Allied forces wanted nothing less than the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. It made me wonder what would happen if WW II were fought in the here and now. Would we see scores of protesters with signs saying "No blood for rice" for Japan or "no blood for Jews" for Germany? Would people be screaming for a cease-fire that would allow Hitler and Tojo to stay in power?

 

What do you think about this "what if" scenario?

 

Another response to your question :)

 

All manner of things spring to mind over this. I'd like to think that the brutality of the parties involved in WW2 was the last gasp of a thinking that controlled empires, and was used to putting down uprisings and rebellions in that empire with massive cruelty. I name no one country here, you understand - most of the countries had empires or the vestiges of one.

 

And because I don't think that empire thinking exists, I think that the unconditional surrender mindset has been replaced by a willingness to negotiate. I also hope that the United Nations carry a bigger stick than the league of nations used to. So if it was now, I don't believe the aggressors in WW2 could even get as far as the expansionism that kicked it all off without the UN threatening them with military repurcussions - as in the original gulf war?

 

Thats the idealist and optimist in me - the pessimist in me recognises that there are different cultures and different values in other parts of the world....

 

//R

×
×
  • Create New...