Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2019 June 18

= June 18 =

Why didn't Britain and France demand unconditional surrender from Germany in 1939-1940?
Why didn't Britain and France demand unconditional surrender from Germany in 1939-1940? Unconditional surrender became an Allied war aim, but only starting from 1943 when the US and the USSR were both already in the war. Why didn't Britain (and France) demand unconditional surrender from Germany earlier--specifically before the Fall of France? Futurist110 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What leverage did they have to have made such a demand? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Their military might (or at least their potential military might), of course. Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Right. Military might. That's why France never got invaded and D-Day didn't happen. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, France's rapid collapse and fall was unexpected--including by the Germans themselves. It was apparently a huge surprise even for the Germans. Futurist110 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether that's true or not, nobody expected Germany to rapidly collapse and fall. So any demand for unconditional surrender would have been premature.  That's all there is to it. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, though, Germany still had a lot of fight left in it as late as 1943. Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A country needs to invade another country before demanding surrender. France probed German defences in 1939 but were forced to retreat back to France. Sleigh (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Allied troops weren't yet on German territory either when the Allies demanded unconditional surrender from Germany at the 1943 Casablanca Conference, though. Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It was not even a probe: orders were to stay at least 1 km away from Siegfried line. This says it all about the prevalent mindset (not a mindset to demand unconditional surrender...). Gem fr (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, to begin with, a surrender is a military thing from the victorious leaders to the defeated (just like an armistice is a military agreement, different from a political peace treaty). British and French tradition separates the military from the politics, and find it bad to have military decision taken by politicians, and vice-versa; of course then do talk, and obviously it is best for generals to be backed by their political leaders, but they don't need to. A surrendering question was irrelevant in 1939 or 1940, considering the course of the war. Even in 1918, after total allied victory, armistice of 11 November 1918 was NOT unconditional.
 * Besides, even if you consider its political aspects, why would they? Such a demand is useless, and tantamount to "we don't want to make peace with you, only to destroy you". This certainly wasn't their mindset: it takes time (or some traumatic Pearl Harbor event) to switch from 1938 "let preserve peace whatever the cost" to 1939 "now that's too much, we fight (but not that much)" to 1943 "the hell with you, we will crush you into total submission and don't want to even hear a word from you". Germany was an enemy, not the Evil incarnate you see it now, after the war and the German atrocities revelation.
 * Gem fr (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that the US didn't have as clear of a military-political distinction as Britain and France had? Also, I wonder if Britain's and France's stance in regards to unconditional surrender would have changed had France not fallen and had Britain and France began pushing the German forces back into Germany--and especially if in response to a defeat in France the Nazis would have began murdering the Jews under their control en masse. Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * An obvious difference is, that the POTUS was the Commander-in-chief, whereas in UK and Fr the government did rule the army just as everything else, but the army is still a special body with its own head. Gem fr (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then again, I think you misunderstand what a surrender is. It basically depends only on the military situation and the way it is expected to change if fighting goes on (how much hate and respect the warring parties have for each other makes little difference. When a political leader issue some "no negotiated surrender" (or even worse "no surrender at all") order (whether for his troops, or enemy's), he enter military domain while showing |lack of knowledge of it, proving himself stupid, weak, distrustful of his army, and disrespectful of his people. For some reason, it seems that Fr and UK still understood this, while Roosevelt, Hitler and Stalin (backward people thinking they were the future) did not.Gem fr (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Have you ever seen any information suggesting that this was considered? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As discussed in the linked article, "unconditional surrender" means total capitulation, with the victor being able to do whatever they like to the loser (international laws aside). No one is going to surrender unconditionally therefore, unless they absolutely have no choice.  Which, as others have said, generally requires you to destroy their armies, invade and occupy their territory, and generally be in a position to say "or we'll just kill all of you, and there's nothing you can do about it", which the Allies at that time were not.  So if you demand an unconditional surrender, and are not in position to enforce such conditions, the other side are likely to refuse (whereas they may agree to a conditional surrender). Iapetus (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there any evidence that the internal German opposition was actually willing to agree to a conditional surrender before the Fall of France, though? Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Or they might just laugh at the other country for displaying such chutzpah. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Stalin and Mao are having a war. First day: Russians take 1 Million prisoners; second day: 2 millions; third day: 3 millions. At this point Mao wires to Stalin: "OK, you got it, now? I demand unconditional surrender" Gem fr (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * China then proceeds to defeat the Soviet Union using a massive stampede! Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Mao decided to fight India. The plan was one small war of attrition in the 10 to 20 million death range at each place where the border drops under 20,000 feet high. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- even leaving aside that the Allies simply weren't in any military position to make such demands, unconditional surrender has been at least partly kind of a U.S. thing since the Battle of Fort Donelson in 1862. FDR introduced it into WW2 allied decision-making later in the war, with somewhat ambiguous results. AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Europeans never demanded unconditional surrender before the 1940s? Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * To piggyback on this excellent point -- it's not just that the USA used unconditional surrender in 1862, it's that they used it in the context of crushing an internal rebellion. The demand for unconditional surrender implies that the conquered force has no right to an independent existence.  Even when the USA/Britain/France were gobbling up tiny ethnic groups in their colonial conquests, they would usually make a show of negotiating with the Indians/Africans/etc.  --M @ r ē ino 14:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That "internal rebellion" fit the constitutional definition of treason. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The thinking behind requiring an unconditional surrender was to avoid a re-run of the First World War, which had finished with an armistice which came into effect before any Allied troops had actually entered Germany, allowing German nationalists to claim that they had been defeated at the conference table rather than on the battlefield. This statement of British war aims by Anthony Eden (Churchill's Foreign Secretary), from May 1941, clearly requires German regime change, but there is little idea how that might be achieved: "We cannot now foresee when the end will come. But it is in the nature of a machine so rigid as the German to break suddenly and with little warning". Note that in May 1941, the British were still seriously expecting a German invasion attempt. Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Alansplodge, for future reference, the first sentence isn't 100% right. See File:Western front 1918 german.jpg or similar maps: France seized a small portion of Oberelsaß (Upper Alsace) in the Battle of the Frontiers, retained it through the years of trench warfare, and was still holding it at the Armistice.  Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction Nyttend (although a Frenchman would tell you that Alsace wasn't really Germany at all). The point about the need for a complete German defeat was made in the Alanbrooke War Diaries, although frustratingly I don't have my copy to hand. Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Very interesting link! Thanks! I'll make sure to check it out! Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * By the way, the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942 uses the phrase: "Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom...". It was not until the US and the USSR were onside that a clear route to winning the war could be envisaged. Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Weather conditions were bad at the time, and those of the porcine persuasion could not take off. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)