Defining Surrender ... and making it stick
Curious if anyone had a good source for what happens after a political entity surrenders. Been looking into the distinctions that occurred after Napoleon. My interest is in how political opponents signaled the end of a fight and did that change as countries became more democratic. - the distinction between an emperor acknowledging unconditional surrender (as in the case of Japan after WWII) and a democratic country offering surrender (perhaps, France during WWII). Anyone know of any papers or books written on the subject?
Thanks
The Nature of War after Democracy
OK, I will expand the idea into the nature of war after democracy. Have stuff on the democratic advantage and the nature of the democratic peace, still looking at how one would manage a country whose democratically elected leaders surrender.
Ireland, accomidation and civil war
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
Personally I don't think it was a surrender, although Portugal scuttled out rapidly once it became a democracy and Rhodesia / South Africa (inc. SW Africa) were rather protracted political accommodations. At the time much was written and discussed about the successes.
Nearby is Ireland, first the emergence of the Irish Republic (which promptly had a far more vicious civil war) and more recently the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 on power-sharing in Northern Ireland. The later was hyped a lot by all those involved as the way forward; not to overlook the role of the USA either.
Giving India independence after WW2 was a momentous decision, more a negotiated transfer of power than a surrender. Much was written on this, not much recently.
I have looked at South Africa as a democracy lately. They have a interesting power sharing deal with the traditional tribal leaders, essentially paying them and allowing them to remain the de facto local authority despite their non-elected status and paying them to do that ... but they also have the funding from natural resources to make such a plan work.
Ireland is interesting. Funny how transitions to a republican form of government is often followed by a civil war. It seems to take a while for the idea of democratic power sharing and accommodation to minorities to really take hold. This is kind of the essence of my question. If a democracy is granted power from the people, then surrender must come from the people. If the political leader acquiesces that is not a guarantee that the people will cease to continue to fight. There was a fairly active resistance in France during WWII. Once you establish democracy (or where you are trying to establish one), you automatically decentralize power, making the idea of surrender more difficult to define.
India I am not as familiar with. And it also separated after independence along religious lines rather than finding common ground.
If we assume a war between two democracies, how would surrender work?
Germany -v- Western Allies 1918
Quote:
If we assume a war between two democracies, how would surrender work?
I can only immediately think of the ending of WW1 on the Western Front, between Imperial Germany - which had an elected democratic government, although waging war appeared to be directed by the military - and the Western Allies. IIRC the government clinging to domestic power decided that continued fighting was not in the national interest, negotiations began with a joint civil-military delegation sent to meet the allies.
In 1918 Germany was exhausted, the military offensives in the spring had failed to break the Western Front, defeats were regular, the USA was building up, the navy faced several mutinies, discipline in the the army was deteriorating and civil order was under severe strain. All these factors needed to coincide for the government to decide the war had to be ended.
Both the civil and military parts of the state knew discipline and order could easily be lost. I am not sure if the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia had much impact then, although in time it would.
You can hardly conduct negotiations if the state crumbles and any agreement will not be fulfilled.
Making it - surrender - stick?
In this example Germany withdrew from occupied France and Belgium, the army demobilised, the navy was interned @ Scapa Flow, the Rhineland was occupied by the allies and much more. The Treaty of Versailles was to follow. How Germany was to govern itself was left to them.
Making it - surrender - stick?
The exchange prompted me to think again. It may not fit your terms of reference as it was not a surrender.
I refer to the public and political reaction in Yugoslavia in 1941, when the national government signed a treaty with Germany and were deposed:
Quote:
Following agreements with Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria that they would join the Axis, Hitler put pressure on Yugoslavia to join the Tripartite Pact. The Regent, Prince Paul of Yugoslavia, succumbed to this pressure on 25 March 1941. However, this move was deeply unpopular amongst the anti-Axis Serbian public and military. A coup d'tat was launched on 27 March 1941 by anti-Paul Serbian military officers, and the Regent was replaced on the throne by King Peter II of Yugoslavia.
Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Yugoslavia
Perhaps an explination is in order ...
The genesis of this question comes from a piece I am working on regarding changes in war that are a result of the shift in the world's political landscape away from monarchies, theocracies, ideological autocracies or other forms of government where the political system is "top down" versus the world we are only now starting to live in where the political systems are more democratic or "bottom up". The changes which are traced back to Napoleon I include an Army with a more egalitarian officer corps and the idea of Levee en masse or the entire nation supporting the fight rather than a small professional army.
I have found research on the alleged advantage democracies have fighting wars and the idea of the democratic peace (democracies do not choose to fight against other democracies because the nature of a democracy allows for accomidation). I can also link changes in the nature of Terrorism as democracy became its target (The Assassins targeted political leaders as did many of the anarchist because that is where the political power lies but more recent terrorist act are perpetrated against the general population as a way to sway political decisions as in the case of the Spanish train bombings). I can also show that democracies are more likely to wage war against an autocratic system in order to help create a new democracy (evangelical democracy). What I lack is how a democracy deals with losing on their own soil.
More than an American Myth ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bill Moore
Posted by Fuchs
This is a popular American myth, and the key driving force why we crusade globally to spread democracy. This myth is perpetuated in places like Harvard, Yale, the Department of State, the Pentagon, etc. Since perception is reality, the myth has in fact become fact (for us).
The "myth" dates back to Kant's "Perpetual Peace" published about 1795. Not everyone buys into it [Sebastian Rosato. The Flawed Logic of Democratic Peace Theory (2003). The American Political Science Review, Vol. 97(4)]. Probably the most common attack is based on the idea that the democratic peace, at least in recent history, was a byproduct of the Cold War [Farber and Gowa. Common Interests or Common Polities? Reinterpreting the Democratic Peace (1997). Journal of Politics Vol. 59]. And while it may be no more than myth what does seem to be true is that democracies prefer to fight against non-democratic states with at least part of the justification being the spread of democracy [Morgan and Campbell. Domestic Structure, Decisional Constraints, and War: So Why Kant's Democracies Fight? (1991) Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol 35(2)]. The 'myth', or the perception, of the democratic peace is part of the logic of getting involved in those wars. So, as you say, perception is reality, or at least in this case, it justifies it.
Why should this matter? Because if we want to determine the type of war the US Army is most likely to engage in at some future date, then it is more likely to be against a non-democratic state justified, at least in part, on the idea that we are spreading democracy. And if spreading democracy is part of the justification, then it will be part of the requirements of victory.
I don't prescribe to the the maxim of a democratic peace, otherwise I would not be asking the question what surrender by a democracy might look like (or how might it be different from the surrender of the Japanese after WWII or even the German's for that matter).