Back in the days of gentlemanly conflicts, at least among the upper class officer cadres, surrenders were ritual events with due protocol and mutual respect within military elites. But long gone are those days, as the Brits complained that Americans did not fight fair in their war for independence. Yet even the Gulf War conclusion was a less than unconditional surrender negotiated between General Schwartzkopf & his Iraqi military counterpart. So perhaps a case-by-case account is needed to flesh out any blanket statement on this proposed propensity of the USA to demand unrealistic conditions for surrender.
-----Original Message----- From: Carrol Cox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:19545] Re: America is losing the battle forhearts and minds James Devine wrote: > > > the grunts didn't know that an invasion of Japan wasn't really > necessary, since Japan was trying to surrender anyway. The > Japanese elite wanted to keep its emperor, but the US wanted > "unconditional surrender." In the end, despite the A-bombs, > the Japanese kept their emperor. > What I've often wondered is whether even the invasion of Okinawa was necessary? It is hard even to arrive at a rough estimate of the millions that have died as a result of the U.S. focus on "unconditional surrender." (That seems to have been one of the sticking point even in the two wars the U.S. lost -- Korea & Vietnam. The eventual settlements could have been arrived at must sooner had the U.S. not clung to its unrealistic goal.) I think it is debatable whether the war in Europe had to go beyond the successful establishment of the Normany invasion. What might have been the result of a really open invitation to the Germans to negotiate? Carrol
