Defining Surrender ... and making it stick

[TheCurmudgeon]

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).

[Fuchs]

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

One of the most interesting surrenders of a democratic country was the surrender of Czechoslovakia prior to WW2. It was probably the greatest strategic air war success ever, for the mere threat of bombarding Prague (people thought more of gas than fire in such a context prior to 1940) was pushing the Czechoslovak leader to cave in.

The later popular resistance was a mere nuisance in comparison to what happened farther east.

This example fits my description of hopelessness of resistance being influential; the Czechs were not beaten in the field at all.
(Their army was actually very respectable. It would have been wise if they had at least sabotaged their guns and tanks instead of surrendering them and the plans intact. The equipment was worth a German tank division and multiple infantry divisions, a much larger haul than in Austria. It's not a stretch to claim that Czech pre-surrender hardware was necessary for the 1940 campaign in France.)

[TheCurmudgeon]

One of the most interesting surrenders of a democratic country was the surrender of Czechoslovakia prior to WW2. It was probably the greatest strategic air war success ever, for the mere threat of bombarding Prague (people thought more of gas than fire in such a context prior to 1940) was pushing the Czechoslovak leader to cave in.

First, thanks for the example. I will research it as my example. Do you have any work to recommend on the conflict?

I am particulalry interested in the nature and doctrine of the occupying force and the government after the surrender?

This example fits my description of hopelessness of resistance being influential; the Czechs were not beaten in the field at all.
(Their army was actually very respectable. It would have been wise if they had at least sabotaged their guns and tanks instead of surrendering them and the plans intact. The equipment was worth a German tank division and multiple infantry divisions, a much larger haul than in Austria. It's not a stretch to claim that Czech pre-surrender hardware was necessary for the 1940 campaign in France.)

Fascinating. The German's were much more clever at Scara Brae.

[wm]

Fuchs' example of Czechoslovakia made me think of the Polish forces' surrender in 1939. I think Poland as a nation never officially surrendered. In 1940, France, as I remember the case, did not actually surrender either. An armistice was signed by General Huntziger, perhaps on behalf of the French Government, but no peace treaty was ever signed.

So perhaps a first step in the process would be to decide what counts as surrender. I think we have a fairly clear case of what that means when military forces surrender--they lay down arms and agree to stop fighting as an armed force, usually for a specified period of time.

Nations, on the other hand, do not surrender in the same way. I submit the people of the occupied parts of the the nation either acquiesce in the process of being absorbed by their conquerors (or at least being detached from the rule of their former government) or accept their government's agreement not to do whatever it was that caused their opponents to start fighting with them in the first place. I am not sure that this would be surrender in the same sense that an army surrenders though. Just as the "contracts" by which governments are established/receive their legitimacy seem to be somewhat mythical, I think national surrenders as datable events are equally chimerical.

[davidbfpo]

Poland never did surrender, the government and military command fled into Rumania and after Dunkirk set up in London, as the Polish Government in Exile; very little detail on:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...%E2%80%931945)

Several other countries followed a similar route: Norway, Netherlands and France (albeit with two governments, Free French and Vichy)

A more interesting example is Denmark, which had limited sovereignty 1940 till 1943, its king stayed put and numbers fought for Germany:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Denmark

In all my history reading I have never seen anything in detail about what happened to Czechoslovakia, the focus has been on the Munich Agreement. We do have one Czech member, maybe he will comment.

[wm]

I have dim recollections of a book read long ago, The White Flag Principle: How to Lose a War (and Why) that might bear reading as part of the research for this project.

Nearly 40 years ago, contemplating a dogfight between Israeli and Syrian jets, Shimon Tzabar got to thinking about how war works. The result is a crystal-clear, at times funny inversion of such classics as Sun-Tzu’s The Art of War. Readers find the facts on why often — almost always, in major conflicts throughout history — victory is not all it’s cracked up to be. Practical advice is offered as well, such as what to do if you’re in danger of winning, and how to surrender in the midst of a firefight.

[TheCurmudgeon]

It appears that most of the examples come from the early days of WWII in Europe. What is also clear is that there was more often than not, no surrender. No political entity handed the country over to the new landlords. In some cases no actual military exchange was required to force the old political entity to fold up shop and move on. Being the pragmatists democratic regimes are supposed to be, they forgo the fight when the odds are not in their favor in order to survive to fight another day. They hold the blood of the people in higher regard than a dictator who will throw every last child into the fight in order to survive politically. Perhaps that is what democracies do when faced with a fight that is not stacked in their favor.

From the American perspective this is interesting in-and-of itself. We have built an Army designed to fight and destroy something. We have Brigade COMBAT teams. We have no comparable formation to administer the area after hostilities end (what I remember being the old ASG back in the days when there was a forward line of troops and a rear area). But that is not where I wanted to go with this. Besides, we do not fight other democracies (if you believe that sort of thing)

I think I may have to leave this one alone. What I thought I would find was situations where the people, being the actual "power" behind the government, would not surrender until they were personally compelled to by an occupying force. No political leader could compel them to give in. No king could hand over the territory with its serfs to another lord. They would only surrender where they saw no advantage in pressing the fight on a very personal level. This meant that it would take a larger occupying force willing to commit atrocities to be able to compel the people that survival was more important than liberty. Perhaps this willingness to fight for your own liberty only exists in the situations where there is a real possibility of pressing the fight to the end. Survival takes precedence over liberty - Patrick Henry be damned. Perhaps there is no difference at all.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I have dim recollections of a book read long ago, The White Flag Principle: How to Lose a War (and Why) that might bear reading as part of the research for this project.

Not easy to find but I just ordered it on Amazon. Whether I use it or not, it will make interesting reading.