Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Page by page discussion of the comic.

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Lamech » Sat Nov 09, 2013 11:31 am

MonteCristo wrote:I actually do wonder if these Parley violations will come to bite Parson in the butt... namely when he wants to focus on fighting charlie while getting the RCC off his back.

Maybe. There have been several Parley violations and other treacheries so far.
1) Bogroll and Ansom. Nothing much to say here. However the only witnesses are Charlie, GK or dead.
2) Jillian and Jitteri. Yes, she violated terms of Parley. No, "I was negotiating with the giants" doesn't cut it. The actual parley violation is only witnessed by Charlie, FAQ and the dead. However the treachery is known to Jitteri.
3) Bea and GK. Not a whole lot to say here. Blatant. Witnessed by GK and the RCC.
4) Jillian and Wanda. She negotiated a truce for the sole sake of getting a chance to attack GK with their pants down. The spell didn't exactly look like a quick one to cast. Without the treachery there is no guarantee that it would have gotten off before dragons hit the tower. Witnessed by Wanda and Jillian. However if the RCC makes the mistake of honestly retelling the story, its pretty clear Jillian betrayed GK. Notice how the dwagons were not attacking and holding formation when Jillian screwed around? Yeah there was a violated truce.
5) Parson and the Dwagon poop. Witnessed by GK and the RCC and Charlie. Probably public knowledge by this point.

So, negotiations are going to be hard with the RCC. Someone took an ice-pick to the mutual trust they had. For starters they will be done by hat if they happen at all. This isn't entirely Parson's fault though. The RCC has had multiple negotiations. They turned each one to treacherous purpose. That said, with negotiations when it comes to non-RCC members? "Yeah, we betrayed them at the parley. After they had done so. And used treachery to get us in that position. So we gave them a taste of their own medicine. We are honorable, but not quite that honorable."
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby dholm » Sat Nov 09, 2013 1:44 pm

I am pretty sure Parson advised against parleys, actually.
--Dan Holm
dholm
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:31 pm
Location: Denmark

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Tonot » Sat Nov 09, 2013 3:50 pm

Oberon wrote:This unconditional surrender wasn't going to spare GK as a side, unlike the unconditional surrender of Japan to the US after WWII. (And for any historian who might claim that the Potsdam Declaration was not 'unconditional surrender' because it did specify some concessions to the Japanese government and people, just recall that the Japanese had absolutely no say in the terms of the Declaration. It was not a negotiation, it was a "here are our terms, take it or leave it, and by leave it we mean we will destroy you." Anything given to the Japanese in the Declaration was purely out of Allied political expediency and/or mercy, however you may wish to perceive it.) Breaking those terms is something any nation at any point in history would have done. Had the Japanese not been offered the concessions in the Declaration, one of which promised that the nation of Japan was not going to be destroyed, they probably would have fought on.


The initial intention was to offer not even the concessions you mention. Behind the scenes talks through neutral embassies convinced Churchill and Truman at least that they had to couch them in terms that allowed at least a part of the Japanese race to feel there was a hope of remaining their own people eventually, mere pragmatism informed their choices.
Certainly it didn't make it any less unconditional because, as you say, the points were simply issued by fiat, it wasn't a debate. Saying, "We are gunna come knock all you varmints on the head, and cut all ya fence-wires, burn all ya corn stacks . . . but we ain't savages, we'll leave yer hair unlifted" isn't offering concessions, it is just pointing out how far you yourself are prepared to go having your way. ;)
(edit to add) I see someone doubted that it was an unconditional ultimatum, because concessions to the future of Japan were made. The way to look at that was they were made without consulting the Japanese, or even attempting to consult the Japanese. If instead of "nice" things, it was a list of "bad" things, it would be clearer to doubters that it was unconditional. In either case, it was one sided and peremptory and not offered for debate = unconditional.
A conditional surrender is when an offer of surrender by the dominant party is agreed to by the subordinate party, contingent upon certain added conditions being included in the terms agreed to. The added conditions is where the term conditional comes into it. (/edit)

The question I don't know enough about the comic to settle in my own mind is, what does happen to a side that accepts a surrender offer/demand?.

IS there any value in accepting it, does the side live on in someway, as a sub-tribe of the conquerors, or actual members of the winning side?. What happens to Warlords and Rulers in that case?.
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Lilwik » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:14 pm

Tonot wrote:I see someone doubted that it was an unconditional ultimatum, because concessions to the future of Japan were made. The way to look at that was they were made without consulting the Japanese, or even attempting to consult the Japanese.
You can't offer a surrender deal to Japan without telling Japan about it, and it won't mean anything if Japan doesn't actually agree to it. The consultation process is pretty much not optional. It seems like you're ignoring the conditions that were given on surrender and calling it unconditional surrender just because the surrender offer was given under threat of violence. Everything in war is under threat of violence. I can't imagine why anyone would surrender when the enemy isn't threatening violence, so I wouldn't read so much into that part of it.

Tonot wrote:If instead of "nice" things, it was a list of "bad" things, it would be clearer to doubters that it was unconditional.
That would still be conditional surrender, except Japan would probably never have agreed to that, depending on how bad the bad things were. People don't usually offer bad things as conditions for surrender because the point is to entice surrender rather than prolong the war.

Tonot wrote:In either case, it was one sided and peremptory and not offered for debate = unconditional.
Your saying it wasn't up for debate because people were going to get killed if debate was attempted. It was war; of course people are going to be killed if there is no surrender. That's not a brutally heavy-handed negotiating tactic; it's just how war works. Just like any surrender negotiation Japan had to be consulted, and if they hadn't liked the deal they could have offered a counter-deal or just gone on with the war until they were wiped out. In most of life it's not proper negotiation if you've got a gun to the other guy's head. In war, negotiation usually doesn't even start until someone has a gun to someone's head.

A real unconditional surrender is when you are pounded by the enemy unto such hopelessness that you surrender without even getting anything in return.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Oberon » Sat Nov 09, 2013 7:44 pm

Lilwik wrote:Surely that is exactly what a conditional surrender is: surrender, plus conditions. Are you saying that it wasn't a conditional surrender just because it was offered by the US?
No, I'm saying it was an unconditional surrender because it was an unconditional surrender. Look it up if you doubt me, but don't play semantic (or nationalistic? Why would being or not being the US have anything to do with it?) games with the subject if you have no real knowledge about it.
Lilwik wrote:A real unconditional surrender is when you are pounded by the enemy unto such hopelessness that you surrender without even getting anything in return.
No, it isn't. Again, go do some reading, and stop relying upon the dictionary definition of unconditional to make your arguments. You are uninformed, and it shows.

Lilwik wrote:
Oberon wrote:And yet both in both parlays with GK we see Trem as a prat, cracking jokes, tossing insults, and in no way taking things seriously. No real diplomat would act that way, regardless of his personal feelings about the persons on the other side of the table.
Surely there's no point in being diplomatic with the ultimate evil. The very idea of negotiating with Gobwin Knob seems to be a joke to Tramennis, so I wouldn't use that to judge his diplomatic skills.
It is exactly because he treated it as a joke that I know that Trem's diplomacy skills are only an informed ability. Let me spell it out for you:

    GK was coming with a huge army to attack Jetstone;

    Trem acted like a complete prat, insulted the GK representative (Ansom) who was offering alliance in advance of attacking the Jetstone capital city. Trem said nothing but "Double the dog bowels" when Ansom asked him if he agreed with Ossomer's refusal to treat with GK peacefully;

    In his conversation with Slately, Trem admitted that even destroying the dwagons, Wanda, and retaking the 'Pliers was no guarantee that GK wouldn't eventually win the war against the entire RCCII;

    In that same conversation with Slately, he suggested that Jetstone ally with GK, to the utter consternation of Slately. This would be the same day in which he acted like an utter imbecile at the parley table and did everything in his power to insult Ansom for even considering an alliance between GK and Jetstone. That's quite a sweet 180% flip, especially considering that it was now the Jetstone turn and everyone thought that the GK units at Jetstone were doomed anyway! And so much for your "alliance with the ultimate evil should be treated as a joke" theory, right?


Really now, for Trem to recognize that GK was a relentless juggernaut which could lose it's entire dwagon airforce, a master class caster, and a Tool of the Titans, and still have fair odds of destroying Jetstone in the end? That makes his actions at the bridge unforgivable, from a diplomatic standpoint.

If there ever is another alliance discussion between GK and Jetstone, I hope that his prior "alliance discussion" conduct is thrown, hard, into his face. With sand and hot ashes, and a lot of sucking up required for forgiveness. Because if his assessment was right then, that GK could lose all those units and still destroy Jetstone, then it is quadruply the case now, what with the dead Jetstone units now decrypted and wearing GK livery, Wanda and the 'Pliers still with GK, and at least some small remnants of the air force left. Jetstone won't be seeking an alliance of equals so much as a "please don't wipe us out" alliance with a lot of penalty clauses on the Jetstone side this time.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Tonot » Sat Nov 09, 2013 8:07 pm

Lilwik wrote:You can't offer a surrender deal to Japan without telling Japan about it, and it won't mean anything if Japan doesn't actually agree to it. The consultation process is pretty much not optional.

Yes, it is exactly optional.
consult : verb : seek information or advice from (someone, especially an expert or professional).
dictate : verb : state or order authoritatively.

Lilwik wrote:It seems like you're ignoring the conditions that were given on surrender and calling it unconditional surrender just because the surrender offer was given under threat of violence.


It wasn't a surrender offer, either nominally or effectively. There were semantic reasons they chose to call it an unconditional ultimatum, and referred to it as the Potsdam Declaration. They were making it perfectly clear that they were not offering a opportunity for consultation and compromise.That is what ultimatum means.

ultimatum : noun : a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.
declaration : noun : a formal or explicit statement or announcement.

An explicit demand the rejection of which will result in retaliation and you can't find anywhere in that, the idea even, of a consultation.

Lilwik wrote:
Tonot wrote:In either case, it was one sided and peremptory and not offered for debate = unconditional.


Your saying it wasn't up for debate because people were going to get killed if debate was attempted. It was war; of course people are going to be killed if there is no surrender. That's not a brutally heavy-handed negotiating tactic; it's just how war works. Just like any surrender negotiation Japan had to be consulted, and if they hadn't liked the deal they could have offered a counter-deal or just gone on with the war until they were wiped out. In most of life it's not proper negotiation if you've got a gun to the other guy's head. In war, negotiation usually doesn't even start until someone has a gun to someone's head.


This is wrong, and actually it is so wrong it is not EVEN wrong. And worse, from my point of view, because you are putting words into my mouth. I am not saying "wasn't up for debate blah blah people were going blah blah surrender negotiation Japan blah blah blahditty blah".

Instead I said "it was one sided and peremptory and not offered for debate = unconditional" and I am right because , as I point out, the definition of Ultimatum?

ultimatum : a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Lilwik » Sat Nov 09, 2013 9:25 pm

Tonot wrote:consult : verb : seek information or advice from (someone, especially an expert or professional). dictate : verb : state or order authoritatively.
They were doing both. They probably presumed that the deal they were offering Japan was too good to pass up, but that's never 100% certain, so they need Japan's opinion on it. And naturally since the US was in a position of power and planned to kill many people if the deal was rejected, that's a kind of authority, but in war death is a real option that Japan really could have chosen.

Tonot wrote:It wasn't a surrender offer, either nominally or effectively.
I don't see how it could have been anything but an offer and not just an offer but an excellent offer that Japan couldn't refuse because it was so much better than being bombed out of existence. When an "offer" isn't really an offer it's because it's unacceptable and everyone knows it, like the sort of things that Jack described in Book 2, Page 36. This is the opposite of that.

Tonot wrote:ultimatum : noun : a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.
It doesn't make much sense to talk about surrender in a war if violence isn't part of the discussion. What is the alternative? Does "conditional surrender" mean the US going to Japan and saying something like, "Here's our proposal. If you don't like that one, we promise we won't use violence; this is not an ultimatum. We'll just sit here discussing this until we find a deal that you like without any coercive threats."

Tonot wrote:
Lilwik wrote:You're saying it wasn't up for debate because people were going to get killed if debate was attempted.
[...]
And worse, from my point of view, because you are putting words into my mouth.
I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I shouldn't have presumed that I understood your position, but at the time I honestly believed that you would agree with my statement about what you were saying. Even now I'm not sure why it isn't correct, but that's no excuse for saying your said something and getting it wrong.

Tonot wrote:Instead I said "it was one sided and peremptory and not offered for debate = unconditional" and I am right because , as I point out, the definition of Ultimatum?
It's an ultimatum, but that doesn't mean it's not up for debate. It's always up for debate as long as Japan was willing to accept violence as an option, and considering Japan's role in the war I suspect they were willing to tolerate a certain amount of violence.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Lamech » Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:26 pm

The surrender of Japan was described as "unconditional" in the official surrender document. That said there were an awful lot of guarantees in the Potsdam Declaration. Like "you get to keep your economy", and "you get a government when this is all over". Simply put that isn't unconditional. Those were major guarantees.

Finally, an ultimatum does not make an unconditional surrender. It has nothing to do with being unconditional, or even a surrender. Agreeing to an ultimatum does not make something an unconditional surrender.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Whispri » Sat Nov 09, 2013 10:45 pm

drachefly wrote:
Whispri wrote:
Mrtyuh wrote:I see no reason why Jetstone could not have existed concurrently with Haffaton. While what are now Gobwin Knob and Jitterati were definitely occupied by Haffaton, that territory made up the southern periphery of that side. Unaroyal was over two hundred hexes to the east of Gobwin Knob, and Jetstone is even farther east than that. Given Jetstone's age, I would actually think it is virtually certain that Jetstone existed before Haffaton fell and perhaps even before it was founded. It wouldn't surprise me if Slately was already their King when Dame Branch croaked.

Yeah, problem with that is that Wanda, Haffaton's Erf-famous Croakamancer, is currently stomping all over Jetstone territory with an army that marches under Haffaton's banner. Also, the lack of an RCC in Haffaton's face is rather telling.

It had a large buffer zone - if there was an unfriendly side in between where Unaroyal now is, they might not have heard of them.

I wouldn't expect this to have been when Slately was king, but when Jetstone was a side? Sure. Especially since Spacerock is closer to GK than Jetstone is!

That zone is insiginficant, it is, as you noted, no further than the distance from Jetstone's current territory to present day Gobwin Knob and Gillian rampaged far and wide in her mercenary campaigns, far beyond Faq's borders. And still she encountered Wanda's reputation. So... the fall of Haffaton can't have occured in living memory.

I didn't actually claim that Haffaton fell pror to the founding of Jetstone, but... well, why can't it have? The only obstacle is Gillian having lived that long. And she was having her mind ripped to pieces last we saw, who knows how long it could take before she recovers sufficiently to fly to war?

And like I said before, if Jetstone existed at the same time as Haffaton and never, ever changes(so much like war)... why weren't they crusading against the Overlady of Haffaton?

Teachernine wrote:Just got around to this and admittedly, I haven't read through all 6 pages of this thread, so maybe this was addressed...
Wouldn't Tramennis have addressed the future monarch as "Your Majesty" instead of "Your Highness?"
If this has already been mentioned/answered, please feel free to ignore!

Um no? Why would he do that? I mean for a start...

dholm wrote:I am pretty sure Parson advised against parleys, actually.

He talked to Wanda about how they'd proved it was impossible to parley with Jetstone as I recall. And he's right, there really isn't any point in talking to those war hungry, honourless maniacs. But other Sides...
Whispri
YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet + Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 9:02 pm

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Oberon » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:28 am

Lamech wrote:The surrender of Japan was described as "unconditional" in the official surrender document. That said there were an awful lot of guarantees in the Potsdam Declaration. Like "you get to keep your economy", and "you get a government when this is all over". Simply put that isn't unconditional. Those were major guarantees.

Finally, an ultimatum does not make an unconditional surrender. It has nothing to do with being unconditional, or even a surrender. Agreeing to an ultimatum does not make something an unconditional surrender.

Some people will never get it.

Here's how it went:

There was no attempt to open diplomatic discussions. There was no attempt to speak to anyone in Japan at all.

Propaganda-style leaflets were dropped on Japan with the gist of the Declaration for the Japanese people to read. Then a radio broadcast (one-way, in case there is any doubt) was aimed in the general direction of Japan, repeating the Declaration. This is telling, as it is as close as possible to saying "Gee, I sure hope you've got your radios on and can figure out a way to communicate your reply, because it's just not our problem at all."

That is the essence of unconditional. It is terminology repeated both in the Declaration and in the Japanese instrument of surrender. I'm not sure what makes you think that your semantic exercises have any effect on history, but they do not.

Japanese Instrument of Surrender wrote:We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.
There's a lot more, but this should make the point to any but the terminally stupid. Give it a read, it's probably the shortest 'diplomatic' document in history.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Tonot » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:35 am

Lilwik wrote: They probably presumed that the deal they were offering Japan was too good to pass up, but that's never 100% certain, so they need Japan's opinion on it. And naturally since the US was in a position of power and planned to kill many people if the deal was rejected, that's a kind of authority, but in war death is a real option that Japan really could have chosen.

NO they didn't need Japans opinion on it, they SPECIFICALLY coached their ultimatum in terms that precluded Japan thinking it was an option, their having an opinion, that is what makes it an ultimatum, EXACTLY THAT. The Allies in effect said "One of two things is now going to happen. Japan is going to surrender without trying to impose conditions, or we will wage a war of destruction on them that has never been seen before".
Japan had to surrender without asking for conditions, or be destroyed. They were offered an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER ULTIMATUM.

Lilwik wrote:
Tonot wrote:ultimatum : noun : a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations.
What is the alternative? Does "conditional surrender" mean the US going to Japan and saying something like, "Here's our proposal. If you don't like that one, we promise we won't use violence; this is not an ultimatum. We'll just sit here discussing this until we find a deal that you like without any coercive threats."


No, and here is the point you might accept.

If the USA didn't have nukes up its sleeve ( which of course is what Japan thought to be the case ), they would have had to continue to firebomb Japan, probably for years, or commit to an invasion that would have made D Day seem like a beach excursion.
And as everyone with an almanac and a calculator knew, the Allies were running out of military age men, the very pool of men who also basically were essential to be at home making more Americans* and British peoples and running factories and all the rest. The cost of the war up to that point had staggered all countries except the US, and even the US was running close to empty of fighting men. So the cost of continuing the war right into the grounds of Imperial Palace ( and of course, the whole of Japan is one huge mountain range. They would have fought for decades. ) would have been sobering for all the Allies. And the Japanese calculated that out to the Nth degree.

The extremely Right wing and highly experienced Japanese ruling case/military, thought that they would be forced back to the Home Islands, hang on like grim death in the interior of China and then the Allies would offer Japan a chance to surrender. And they thought that the military and economic realities would mean that they were going to get an initial surrender ultimatum, absolutely refuse it, then wait till the Allies accepted that the sheer staggering cost of going on, was not acceptable without FIRST OFFERING JAPAN CONDITIONAL SURRENDER. That is actually what the Japanese thought was happening, it was all going according to their plan . . . they couldn't have known that the US was going to nuke-bomb them within a matter of weeks.

Instead, quite deliberately, the Allies simply gave an Unconditional Surrender Ultimatum, knowing the Japanese would play for time and hope to gain valuable conditions, and THEN by the rules of diplomacy, the Allies were "allowed" to go on and Nuke Japan, people suspect it was all done that way so as to show Stalin what he could expect if he went for Western Europe.

Lilwik wrote:I apologize for putting words in your mouth.


You are very good, I am sorry in my turn that I didn't realise you were doing it perfectly genuinely, thank you.

* Of course, like good Allies, many of the American Servicemen based in Allied countries were doing their best to stand-in for the men who were away in Europe and Burma and Malaya and India and the Pacific etc. :P
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Chit Rule Railroad » Sun Nov 10, 2013 3:45 am

Japanese Instrument of Surrender wrote:We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated.


Lamech wrote:The surrender of Japan was described as "unconditional" in the official surrender document. That said there were an awful lot of guarantees in the Potsdam Declaration. Like "you get to keep your economy", and "you get a government when this is all over". Simply put that isn't unconditional. Those were major guarantees.

Finally, an ultimatum does not make an unconditional surrender. It has nothing to do with being unconditional, or even a surrender. Agreeing to an ultimatum does not make something an unconditional surrender.

The Declaration only used the term "unconditional surrender" to refer to the Japanese military, which was to be dissolved. The Declaration clearly is not evidence that an organization should expect to remain intact after an unconditional surrender, which I think is what the argument was originally about in the Erfworld context.

Furthermore, while it was an ultimatum restricting what terms of surrender would be accepted, Japan still saw there as being topics to be discussed, and negotiation did in fact follow. They noted that it lacked assurances about the status of the Emperor and secured agreement from the Allies that the Emperor would be given a chance to oversee the implementation of democracy. From the perspective of the US, this was a concession - the reason the Potsdam Declaration doesn't address the Emperor is the US and the UK couldn't agree on whether he should remain.
User avatar
Chit Rule Railroad
YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
YOTD + Erfabet Supporter!
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:44 pm

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Tonot » Sun Nov 10, 2013 4:10 am

Chit Rule Railroad wrote:Furthermore, while it was an ultimatum restricting what terms of surrender would be accepted, Japan still saw there as being topics to be discussed, and negotiation did in fact follow.
No, it did not, Atomic Bombs, PLURAL, followed, with NOT ONE APPROACH from the Allies, just a re-broadcasting of the UNCONDITIONAL surrender ultimatum.

Chit Rule Railroad wrote:They noted that it lacked assurances about the status of the Emperor and secured agreement from the Allies that the Emperor would be given a chance to oversee the implementation of democracy. From the perspective of the US, this was a concession - the reason the Potsdam Declaration doesn't address the Emperor is the US and the UK couldn't agree on whether he should remain.



NO, they NUKED Japan TWICE, THEN accepted Japans UNCONDITIONAL surrender and THEN they told Japan that the Emperor would have some, to be decided, further role in Japans Government.

Ultimatum, no acceptance heard, Nuclear Fucking Weapons Plural dropped, Unconditional Surrender Accepted.

That is WHAT HAPPENED !.
Tonot
 
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:06 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Krennson » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:32 am

There are two basic definitions of Unconditional surrender here:

Unconditional Surrender, (1). Surrender to a vastly superior enemy, without asking for or receiving any promises, and without retaining any ability to protect or defend yourself afterwards. Generals usually accept this offer when their only options are the deaths of every soldier under their command, or the faint hope that after they surrender, the enemy will allow some of the soldiers to live.

This type of surrender usually occurs on a specific battlefield, where the victor has the ability to quickly and efficiently do whatever he wants with the captured soldiers.

This type of surrender is basically what happened to the American army in the Philippines, when Japan invaded. The death marches and POW camps that came afterward sucked, but there was no question that the alternative really was having every american soldier shot.

Unconditional Surrender, (2). Same as Unconditional Surrender, (1), with one exception. The enemy is known to follow certain rules of war with regards to POW's, and there is either an implied or explicit promise that they will continue to follow those rules after you surrender. However, if they decide to break that promise, you'll have lost any power to resist them.


Then you have two basic types of conditional surrender:
Conditional surrender, (1). You agree to surrender certain key items, but most of your army will continue to exist as a fighting force. For example, you might agree to surrender a fortress and all heavy artillery to the enemy, on the CONDITION that your men are allowed to retain their personal weapons, and are allowed to march back to their home territory and rejoin the main component of their army.

This type of surrender only gives up certain specific items, and lets you retain enough violence on your side that you have a hope of successfully resisting if the enemy breaks their word.

Conditional surrender, (2). very similar to Unconditional surrender (2), but you also ask for a special, unusual favor to be granted. For example, requesting that you be allowed to send a courier back to your home government describing your failure, requesting that children in your fortress be shipped home via neutral territory, or requesting that your officers be allowed to retain swords and pistols when they go into POW camps, so that they can maintain discipline among the enlisted men.

You can sometimes negotiate the for the special favor to be granted BEFORE you formally surrender, but in general, Conditional surrender, (2) requires you to trust that the enemy will still honor it's terms after you surrender. You're going to lose almost all capacity to resist.

Depending on your point of view, the Japanese surrender at the end of WWII could be considered either Unconditional surrender, (2), or Conditional surrender, (2).

on the one hand, they retained their emperor, and he was never charged with war crimes.
On the other hand, they lost their entire military, they had American occupiers all over their country, and if the American's had changed their minds about the terms they felt like offering, there's not much the Japanese could have done about it.

I believe that even today, the official policy of Japan is that they were required to surrender their senior officers to American war crimes tribunal as a tragic part of an unconditional surrender, but that those officers were never charged or convicted under Japanese law, and at least some of them were probably innocent, so their descendants don't need to feel ashamed of their ancestors.
Last edited by Krennson on Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Krennson
 
Posts: 151
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 5:27 pm

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Lilwik » Sun Nov 10, 2013 5:38 am

Tonot wrote:NO they didn't need Japans opinion on it, they SPECIFICALLY coached their ultimatum in terms that precluded Japan thinking it was an option, their having an opinion, that is what makes it an ultimatum, EXACTLY THAT. The Allies in effect said "One of two things is now going to happen. Japan is going to surrender without trying to impose conditions, or we will wage a war of destruction on them that has never been seen before".
If that's what the Allies effectively said then they really were phrasing it as an option, with two possible courses of action for Japan: surrender and fight. Even if we imagine that the Allies deliberately chose not to mention the possibility of fighting, there would be no chance of Japan overlooking that option since they are already in the middle of a war. Surely Japan didn't consider war unthinkable, given the situation, so it was a real option.

Tonot wrote:Japan had to surrender without asking for conditions, or be destroyed. They were offered an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER ULTIMATUM.
Japan didn't need to ask for conditions because the Allies were giving Japan conditions for free, exactly the kind of conditions that Japan might ask for, like the continuation of Japan as a nation and a promise not to enslave the people. Japan didn't even have to ask for a promise to be allowed to continue industrial activities or that the occupying force would eventually be withdrawn; that was just given to them. Whether a surrender is conditional or unconditional has nothing to do with who is asking for conditions; it's about the content of the surrender agreement.

Tonot wrote:If the USA didn't have nukes up its sleeve ( which of course is what Japan thought to be the case ), they would have had to continue to firebomb Japan, probably for years, or commit to an invasion that would have made D Day seem like a beach excursion.
So not only did Japan have real options to surrender or fight, the fighting option was an excellent option that Japan had every reason to believe would give them a better result. Just being an ultimatum doesn't remove the fighting option; in fact, ultimatums tend to spell out that fighting is an option.

Tonot wrote:Instead, quite deliberately, the Allies simply gave an Unconditional Surrender Ultimatum, knowing the Japanese would play for time and hope to gain valuable conditions, and THEN by the rules of diplomacy, the Allies were "allowed" to go on and Nuke Japan.
Far from being unconditional surrender, the Potsdam Declaration offered quite a few reasonable terms. I agree that it could have been far more generous, but dropping atomic bombs doesn't change the content of the Potsdam Declaration.
Lilwik
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Sun May 19, 2013 5:55 pm

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Oberon » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:02 am

Lilwik wrote:Japan didn't need to ask for conditions because the Allies were giving Japan conditions for free, exactly the kind of conditions that Japan might ask for, like the continuation of Japan as a nation and a promise not to enslave the people.
You continue to show your ignorance on the subject. The Japanese were in fact desperately trying to get Russia to broker a peace treaty with the Allies just prior to the Declaration and the nuclear bombings. A peace treaty with conditions far and away better than what the Japanese were forced to accept in the end. The Russians, however, decided to honor their commitment to attack Japan, and did so on the mainland. This, and destruction of 2 cities in 3 days time, finally woke the Japanese up to the fact that they were well and truly screwed. (And there was STILL a coup attempt to try to prevent the surrender!) The Declaration didn't have "exactly the kind of conditions that Japan might ask for", it had the conditions that they were being told they would either accept or be destroyed.

Lilwik wrote:So not only did Japan have real options to surrender or fight, the fighting option was an excellent option that Japan had every reason to believe would give them a better result. Just being an ultimatum doesn't remove the fighting option; in fact, ultimatums tend to spell out that fighting is an option.
No. Just....no. The Emperor realized that there was no longer an option to fight. Thus, the surrender. In his address to the Japanese people (which sparked the coup attempt) he spoke of terrible weapons (the nukes) and need to accept the inevitable. That's not a leader who is happy with the terms he has been offered. That's a leader who realizes that if he does not accept those terms, in their entirety, without comment or complaint, that his nation will be destroyed.
How using capslock wins arguments:
Zeroberon wrote:So we know with 100% certainty that THIS IS HOW TRI-LINKS WORK, PERIOD END OF STORY.
Oberon
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:59 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Lipkin » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:31 am

I'm so happy to watch this argument.
User avatar
Lipkin
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
Print 2 Draw 3 Supporter!
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 5:36 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby mortissimus » Sun Nov 10, 2013 6:35 am

Chit Rule Railroad wrote:The Declaration clearly is not evidence that an organization should expect to remain intact after an unconditional surrender, which I think is what the argument was originally about in the Erfworld context.


If that is what this discussion is all about, then that is correct. An unconditional surrender means no guarantees in terms of the surrendering nation remaining intact. Just look at Germany being partitioned after wwII. Heck, even an armistice without surrender (Austria and Germany in 1918) is no guarantee for the surrendering nation remaining intact.

In general, I think the term surrender has more been used for troops on a battlefield or fortification, and the conditions mostly been around the defeated being guaranteed some amount of freedom, property and life in return for abandoning their position. In some cases even being allowed to march of as an intact fighting force in exchange for abandoning a fortification.

So perhaps in return for skipping the semantics we could all march away from this hostile territory of the terminology of real world history and return to its applications (if any) on Erfworld.
mortissimus
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:04 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Lamech » Sun Nov 10, 2013 12:51 pm

Lipkin wrote:I'm so happy to watch this argument.

It appears to have devolved into a definitional argument. Needless to say, I'm just gonna back away now.
Lamech
 
Posts: 1450
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 9:23 am

Re: Epilogue 22 - The King of Jetstone's Diary

Postby Fcannon » Sun Nov 10, 2013 2:12 pm

Man, this thread got derailed in the dumbest way possible. It's like people trying to defend bad fan theories in the face of canon...except with history, which is so much worse. Hint-when an instrument of surrender uses the phrase "unconditional surrender", THE SURRENDER WAS UNCONDITIONAL.
Fcannon
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2009 5:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Reactions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], dagazzard, Google [Bot] and 7 guests