Defining Surrender ... and making it stick

[Fuchs]

Democracies not fighting each other? That's news to me.
There are no pure democracies, and some imperfect democracies surely waged war against each other.
The Greeks were the first with a (well-documented) kind of democracy, and they understood peace to be the exception, not the rule.

The Americans attacked the constitutional monarchy of Spain in 1898.
Germany fought against the French Republic and the British constitutional monarchy during the First World War while having a powerful parliament (the emperor was merely head of state, incapable of enacting laws or defining budgets himself).
Lots of republics faced each other in Latin American wars.

____________

I suppose that the characteristic "democratic" is often overpowered by nationalism in regard to your topic and that the relative scarcity of wars between democracies is probably rather a result of democracies becoming more common during the period of impractical wars between great powers than democracies working for peace.

Just look at how the war of 1898 came into being - you may be reminded of 2003.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I suppose that the characteristic "democratic" is often overpowered by nationalism in regard to your topic and that the relative scarcity of wars between democracies is probably rather a result of democracies becoming more common during the period of impractical wars between great powers than democracies working for peace.

Just look at how the war of 1898 came into being - you may be reminded of 2003.

The paucity of data and the trouble defining democracy both hamper the effort. Under modern parlance America was not a democracy until 1920. There is also the problem of nationalism overriding democratic ideals, particularly when a country feels that it is under attack (for the US, 1941 and 2001). Times when people are willing to trade their freedom for security.

Non-the-less it has relevance in the future of war as an instrument of a democracy's political desires.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Fuchs

Democracies not fighting each other? That's news to me.

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).

[Fuchs]

This is a popular American myth, and the key driving force why we crusade globally to spread democracy.

Hmm, I thought this was more like 'democracies tend to be more economically liberal, thus meaning more opportunities for U.S. corporations to make profit'.

Perry didn't insist on elections, for example.

[Bill Moore]

Hmm, I thought this was more like 'democracies tend to be more economically liberal, thus meaning more opportunities for U.S. corporations to make profit'.

No, of course not. Corporations just take advantage of opportunities created by our altruistic crusading.

[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.