DOCSLIB.ORG

The Meaning of Victory

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Meaning of Victory THE MEANING OF VICTORY Beatrice Heuser Strategic Studies University of Reading (currently Paris) “Victories“? • Gulf War I • Afghanistan • Gulf War II • (and the many defeats in the Cold War) Debate about victory • General Petraeus: “This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home with a victory parade … It’s not war with a simple slogan. (11 Sept. 2008) • Robert Mandel • William Martel • Colin Gray • Angstrom & Duyvesteyn • Boone Bartholomees • Pres. Obama: “Let’s not talk about victory” (June 2011) The Age of the Napoleonic- Clausewitzian Paradigm • 19th century until 1945 (or even later, especially US armed forces – Col Harry Summers) • Obsession with victory for its own sake • Defined as: “imposing one’s will upon the enemy” (Clausewitz), negation of any give- and-take. • And… Pursuit of Victory at all cost • Brian Bond: The Pursuit of Victory from Napoleon to Saddam Hussein • American Civil War: unconditional surrender. • Franco-Prussian War: Peace “Diktat”, unaffordable Reparations, extensive humiliation of defeated party. Perceived injustice. • World War I: Versailles “Diktat”, unaffordable Reparations, extensive humiliation of defeated party. Perceived injustice. • World War II: unconditional surrender. By contrast: earlier thinkers… ARISTOTLE • The end of the medical art is health, that of shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that of economics wealth. (Nicomachean Ethics I.1) • We are busy that we may have leisure, and make war that we may live in peace. … no-one chooses to be at war, or provokes war, for the sake of being at war. (Nicomachean Ethics X.7) Just War • Goes back to pre-Christian ROMAN concepts • Preconditions for Just War: – Just cause (self-defence or defence of another) – Just aim: the pursuit of peace – Was is the last resort – Carried out with moderation (proportionality), – And balance of consequences, i.e. the destruction and suffering caused must not outweigh the evil that is fought. – After a formal declaration. (all in Cicero). Classical Literature on the Art of War Onosander (1st century): The causes of war … should be marshalled with the greatest care; it should be evident to all that one fights on the side of justice. For then the gods also, kindly disposed, become comrades in arms to the soldiers, and men are more eager to take their stand against the foe. For with the knowledge that they are not fighting an aggressive but a defensive war, with consciences free from evil designs, they contribute a courage that is complete; while those who believe an unjust war is displeasing to heaven, … enter the war with fear. Just War (cont.) • Adopted by the Roman Augustine of Hippo, who fused it with Christianity (c.400 AD) – Adds: need for legitimate authority (God, or the legitimate government) • Codified by Thomas Aquinas (13th century) • General acceptance in International Law: – UN Charter (1945) only allows defensive war or war authorised (Chapter VII.51), or action authorised by UN in protection of international security (Chapter VI) – UN High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004): ‘A More Secure World: our shared responsiblity’. See over… “A more secure world” (UN 2004) five basic criteria of legitimacy (for authorization of action by UN): (a) Seriousness of threat. Is the threatened harm to State or human security of a kind, and sufficiently clear and serious, to justify prima facie the use of military force? In the case of internal threats, does it involve genocide and other large - scale killing, ethnic cleansing or serious violations of international humanitarian law, actual or imminently apprehended? (b) Proper purpose. Is it clear that the primary purpose of the proposed military action is to halt or avert the threat in question, whatever other purposes or motives may be involved? (c) Last resort. Has every non-military option for meeting the threat in question been explored, with reasonable grounds for believing that other measures will not succeed? (d) Proportional means. Are the scale, duration and intensity of the proposed military action the minimum necessary to meet the threat in question? (e) Balance of consequences. Is there a reasonable chance of the military action being successful in meeting the threat in question, with the consequences of action not likely to be worse than the consequences of inaction? From Antiquity to Napoleon: Peace is self-evidently the war-aim. • Both Pagan and Christian Roman • East Roman (Byzantine) – Especially Emperor Leo VI (c. 900 AD) • Western Medieval • Early Modern (from Christine de Pizan to eve of French Revolution) Victory is the preferred way to peace… … but not the only one Rühle von Lilienstern • ‘War is the means of settling through chance and the use of force the quarrels of the peoples. Or: it is the pursuit of peace or for a legal agreement by States with violent means.’ (On War, 1813) • ‘Some say that the aim of war is victory. Others say it is peace. Even others say it is the defence … or the conquest of large pieces of land. In some cases any of these definitions may be right. In general, however, one is as unsatisfactory as the other, for otherwise each of these {three definitions} would have to State the same. Victory, however, is not always the necessary condition of conquest or of peace, and peace is not always the necessary result of victory and conquest.’ (Handbook, 1817) Rühle von Lilienstern (cont.) • ‘Victory and conquest are often causes of the continuation, the renewal and the multiplication of war.’ • ‘{It should be the case} that one only wages war for {the sake of} peace, and that one should only wage war, in order afterwards to build it the more firmly and intensively on the lawful understanding between States.’ Rühle von Lilienstern (cont. 2) ‘But in our experience and with individual real wars it does not always work like that. There are … political contexts … in which a warring State only concludes peace for the sake of the next war, in which it regards peace as a convenient and irreplaceable period of calm, in order to continue thereafter the struggle that has been decided upon the more forcefully and completely. There are other contexts … in which a State derives some substantial, or perhaps only imaginary, gains from the continuation of war. In such cases, war is by no means waged for the sake of peace, as this would be a quite undesired event, but for the sake of the hoped-for gains, to be achieved through war. Such wars include those that are waged for passion and personal interests of individual military men or officials, of the army – in short, because of some subordinate interest, but not the general welfare of the State.’ Sir Basil Liddell Hart • ‘The more intent you appear to impose a peace entirely of your own choosing, by conquest, the stiffer the obstacle you will raise in your path. … if and when you reach your military goal, the more you ask of the defeated side the more trouble you will have, and the more cause you will provide for an ultimate attempt to reverse the settlement achieved by war.‘ (1939) So: Victory alone not a good aim? • Imposed peace conditions after Napoleonic victories led to Prussian, Spanish, … Revanchism and anti- French coalition. • Imposed peace conditions of Franco-Prussian War led to French Revanchism, contrib. to World War I • Peace of Versailles led to German Revanchism, contributed to World War II • Arab-Israeli Wars • Defeat of Iraq 1991 not accepted by Saddam Hussein • … Immanuel Kant • ‘The field of battle is the only tribunal before which states plead their cause; but victory, by gaining the suit, does not decide in favour of the cause. Though the treaty of peace puts an end to the present war, it does not abolish a state of war (a state where continually new pretences for war are found)…’ (On Eternal Peace, 1795) Victory through pietas and uirtus Labarum, C 4th AD Zeus nikepohoros, C 3rd BC Peace with JUSTICE Just war theory: you may fight the adversary only until your just cause is served. • Machiavelli (1513): ‘Victories are never so overwhelming that the conqueror does not have to show some scruples, especially regarding justice.’ • Matthew Sutcliffe (1593): ‘In the execution of wars, this precept must be diligently remembered, that no cruelty should be used. There is moderation even in the execution of justice, not only in the other actions of war.’ ‘To keep our conquest, there are two principal means which are necessary; force and justice.’ Peace and justice (Tiepolo; Corrado Giaquinto) Peace with Clemency • Polybius (2nd C BCE) ‘[G]ood men should not make war on wrongdoers with the object of destroying and exterminating them, but with that of correcting and reforming their errors.’ • Raymond de Beccarie de Pavie, Baron de Fourquevaux (1548): ‘the true office of the conqueror is to pardon and to have pity upon the conquered. ‘ • Giacomo di Porcia (1530): ‘the duty and office of any political leader, after the battle is won and victory achieved, [is] to save lives [of those] who have not been excessively cruel and overly resistant. For what would be less gentle, indeed more like to the cruel and fiercely brutal beasts, than to handle your enemy without any mercy and meekness. Undoubtedly a leader acting thus will kindle the minds of men against him…’ Peace with Clemency II • Paul Hay du Chastelet (1668): What one has to do after having won a battle: {the captain} has to preserve a generous humanity for the vanquished, to have compassion with them, to comfort them in their disgrace, and through good treatment, sweeten their rude misfortune. … It is a sign of the greatness of a victorious prince if he … make[s] it easier [for the defeated enemy] to fulfil the condition of the treaties, proportionately to the fact that [the victor] has won the greatest advantages.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Grant National Memorial
    both as a citizen and soldier. Allegorical figures by J. CAPTAIN SAM GRANT: The future commanding gen­ At Shiloh in April, when a Confederate surprise Massey Rhind representing Grant's youth, military service, eral of the Union armies and President of the United States attack threatened to overwhelm the Federal army, Grant civilian life, and death are between the arches of the ro­ was born in Point Pleasant, Ohio, on April 27, 1822. regrouped his shaken forces and drove the Southerners tunda. Bronze busts sculpted by Mues and J. Juszko of sev­ Baptized Hiram Ulysses Grant, he found when he en­ from the field. The narrowly won victory was a giant eral of Grant's comrades-in-arms are in niches in the walls tered West Point in 1839 that his name appeared on the step forward in the North's conquest of the Mississippi of the crypt. In 1966 three mosaics, designed by Allyn Cox, records as Ulysses Simpson Grant. The record was al­ Valley. representing the battles of Vicksburg and Chattanooga and lowed to stand. To the other cadets his initials suggested Maintaining the initiative in the West, Grant the surrender at Appomattox, each a significant event in the nickname "Uncle Sam," quickly shortened to "Sam." achieved a major goal of Union war strategy on July 4, Grant's career, were placed in the lunettes of the rotunda. At West Point he distinguished himself in horsemanship 1863, when his capture of the Mississippi fortress of Vicks­ THE NATIONAL MEMORIAL: From the time of its and showed ability in mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nuremberg Trials and Crimes Against Humanity
    Portland State University PDXScholar Young Historians Conference Young Historians Conference 2014 Apr 29th, 10:30 AM - 11:45 AM The Nuremberg Trials and Crimes Against Humanity Katie A. Welgan St. Mary's Academy Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/younghistorians Part of the European History Commons, and the Legal Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Welgan, Katie A., "The Nuremberg Trials and Crimes Against Humanity" (2014). Young Historians Conference. 8. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/younghistorians/2014/oralpres/8 This Event is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Young Historians Conference by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! The Nuremberg Trials and !Crimes Against Humanity ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Katie Welgan Portland State University Challenge: Modern European History December 15, 2013 !2 While Germany’s unconditional surrender to Allied forces on May 9th, 1945 marked the conclusion of physical conflict on Western Front, this transfer of power at the end of World War II created a new conflict of an administrative nature. As victors, American, British, French, and Soviet officials were responsible for the development of a system to address the crimes of Nazi leaders. While international law—and popular opinion in several Allied countries—favored executions without trials, prominent leaders including Joseph Stalin
    [Show full text]
  • Right Intention and a Just and Lasting Peace
    1 Right Intention and a Just and Lasting Peace Historically, the norm of right intention has been a constitutive part of the ad bellum phase of just war theory, and “aims to overcome the pos- sibility that a state may have a just cause, but still act from a wrong intention.”1 Wrong intentions aim or intend acts or effects (e.g., punishing the state one is at war with, using the resources of that state, causing more destruction than is needed, or pursuing a war longer than is neces- sary) that are not warranted by and do not serve to vindicate a state’s just cause. “Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough: the actual motivation behind the resort to war must also be morally appropriate; the only right intention allowed is to see the just cause for resorting to war secured and consolidated”2 Without the condition of right intention, “the connection between one’s action and the reason that justifies it remains contingent, and this allows for the possibility that just cause could be only a pretext or excuse for bellicose action aimed at some further goal beyond that which one’s justifying reason supports, or at some completely independent goal that can be pursued using the justifying reasons as a rationalization only.”3 Having a just cause does not necessarily entail that the state’s leaders and citizens will not have ulterior motives. However, as Joseph Boyle posits, “This does not mean that one cannot engage in war in anticipation of benefits that go beyond one’s justified war aims.
    [Show full text]
  • Ending the Pacific War: the New History
    CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE Ending the Pacific War: The New History RICHARD B. FRANK In 1945, and for approximately two decades thereafter, no significant American controversy attended the use of atomic weapons to end the Pacific War. A national consensus assembled around three basic premises: (a) the use of the weapons was justified; (b) the weapons ended the war; and (c) that in at least a rough utilitarian sense, employment of the weapons was morally justified as saving more lives than they cost (Walker 1990 , 2005 ; Bernstein 1995 ). The historian Michael Sherry branded this as “The Patriotic Orthodoxy” (Sherry 1996 ). Beginning in the mid-1960s challenges appeared to “The Patriotic Orthodoxy.” The pejorative label “revisionists” was sometimes pelted at these challengers, but a more accurate term is just critics. The critics developed a canon of tenets that, in their purest incarnation, likewise formed a trio: (a) Japan’ s strategic situation in the summer of 1945 was catastrophically hopeless; (b) Japan ’ s leaders recognized their hopeless situation and were seeking to surrender; and (c) American leaders, thanks to the breaking of Japanese diplomatic codes, knew Japan hovered on the verge of surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. The critics mustered a number of reasons for the unwarranted use of atomic weapons, but the most provocative by far marches under the banner “atomic diplomacy”: the real target of the weapons was not Japan, but the Soviet Union (Walker 1990 , 2005 ; Bernstein 1995 ). These two rival narratives clashed along a cultural fault line most spectacularly in the “Enola Gay” controversy in 1995 over the proposed text of a Smithsonian Institution exhibit of the fuselage of the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb.
    [Show full text]
  • Limited Vs. Total War Brian W Brennan Armor; Sep/Oct 2002; 111, 5; Proquest Direct Complete Pg
    Limited vs. total war Brian W Brennan Armor; Sep/Oct 2002; 111, 5; ProQuest Direct Complete pg. 8 Limited vs. Total War by Captain Brian W. Brennan retain its dominant role in world af­ tie and to break his will to continue the fairs, it will have to look back at past conflict. total war strategies and incorporate Limited war is entirely different. At them into future operations. Since 1776, the U.S. Government and, the dawn of the Cold War, when the more specifically, the U.S. Army have Soviet Union entered the nuclear age, The concept of total war is fairly sim­ struggled with how best to fight our na­ the Truman and Johnson administra­ ple. Total war is best defined by the old tion's wars. tions were concerned that a war of any Soviet definition for a "Total 'Naya kind would risk global nuclear annihi­ Though the terms "total war" and Voyna," or "foreign or total war," lation, so a limited warfare policy was "limited war" are relatively new and which states that a total war is "an all­ developed. were developed to describe the United embracing imperialist war, waged by States' efforts to minimize civilian ca­ all manner of means, not only against The policy's goal was "to exact good sualties, prevent global nuclear annihi­ enemy armed forces, but against the behavior or to oblige discontinuance of lation, and engage the enemy only in entire population of a nation, with a mischief, not to destroy the subject specific, politically driven battlefields, view to its complete destruction."2 It is altogether."3 This type of warfare, how­ their concepts have been debated for in this kind of war that almost every ever, was not at all in accordance with centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Ulysses S. Grant Born April 27, 1822 Point Pleasant, Ohio Died July 23, 1885 Mount Mcgregor, New York
    Civil War Bios- Vol. 1 10/7/03 4:17 PM Page 159 Ulysses S. Grant Born April 27, 1822 Point Pleasant, Ohio Died July 23, 1885 Mount McGregor, New York Union general who captured Vicksburg and defeated Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, ending the Civil War Eighteenth president of the United States lysses S. Grant was one of the greatest—and most un- “I have but one Ulikely—military commanders in American history. Prior sentiment now. We have to the Civil War, he struggled to provide for his family, first a government and laws as a soldier and then as a businessman. But when the war and a flag and they must began, he quickly showed that he was one of the North’s be sustained. There are top military leaders. During the first two years of the con- flict, his victories at Fort Donelson, Vicksburg, and Chat- but two parties now: tanooga helped the Union seize control of the Confedera- traitors and patriots.” cy’s western states. Grant then moved to the war’s eastern theater (a large geographic area in which military operations take place), where he was given command of all the Union armies. Begin- ning in the spring of 1864, he brought the full power of the Union forces against the South. Grant’s merciless use of sus- tained pressure against the weary armies and citizens of the Confederacy eventually forced the South to surrender in 1865. Four years later, Grant became president of the United States. But the North’s greatest military hero never really learned how to be a good political leader, and his two terms Ulysses S.
    [Show full text]
  • Choices: Truman, Hirohito, and the Atomic Bomb
    Choices: Truman, Hirohito, and the Atomic Bomb In summer 1945, President Truman focused on two choices to end the war with Japan: invade or use the atomic bomb. Truman ordered the bomb dropped on two Japanese cities. His decision created a controversy that is with us today. On August 6, 1945, the world changed forever. A single American B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, dropped one atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. About 70,000 persons, some military but mostly civilian, perished in the blast and the firestorm that resulted from it. Another 50,000 died later from injuries and radiation sickness. Three days after Hiroshima, some 60,000 Japanese died when a plane dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki. The intentional bombing of civilians had been going on for quite some time--first by the Germans and Japanese and then by the British and Americans. About 100,000 Japanese died during American fire bombing raids on Tokyo five months before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But what made atomic bombs even more frightful were the largely unknown short- and long-term effects of radiation and their capacity for worldwide destruction. Truman: "The Most Terrible Bomb" Shortly after Hitler began World War II in Europe, physicists Leo Szilard and Albert Einstein wrote a letter to President Roosevelt. They urged him to set up a project to develop an atomic bomb, which they believed Germany was already working on. Roosevelt initiated the "Manhattan Project" in 1941. He placed General Leslie R. Groves in command of a group of scientists headed by J. Robert Oppenheimer.
    [Show full text]
  • Unconditional Surrender, the Emperor and the Tokyo Trial 59
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE Unconditional Surrender, the Emperor and the Tokyo Trial 59 Unconditional Surrender, the Emperor and the Tokyo Trial: Implications for the Present-Day Japan-US Alliance Kazuhiko TOGO 無条件降伏・天皇・東京裁判： 現在の日米同盟に対して有する意味合い 東 郷 和 彦 <Abstract> In August 1945, when Japan was on the brink of total defeat, opinions among Japanese top leaders on when and how to surrender were divided, although everyone agreed that one condition would have to be met before any surrender: the preservation of the Imperial House. The Potsdam Declaration had been formulated in such a manner that this issue was left ambiguous. The final US reply, however, allowed sufficient room for the interpre- tation that the Imperial House would be preserved. So the Japanese Government surrendered. Since the surrender was only based on this interpretation, the defeated Government’s immediate efforts were concentrated on realiz- ing this condition through the establishment of a new Constitution (Article One) and the Tokyo Trial (not indicting the Emperor). Thus the final and only condition of the falling Empire was met. However, the crucial aspect of “honoring the commitment” was forgotten through a prevailing notion that Japan had made an unconditional surrender and that the US occupation was using the Emperor for the expediency of its occupation policy. After the signing of the San Francisco Peace Treaty even the Japanese Government itself began to acknowledge that Japan had indeed made an unconditional surrender. It is time to go back into history and recall this forgotten commit- ment in order to consolidate the contemporary Japan-US alliance.
    [Show full text]
  • Teacher Answer Key the Civil War Animated Battle Map (Runtime 27:28)
    The Traditional Civil War Curriculum, Name: _________________ Optional Date: _________________ The Civil War Animated Map Teacher Answer Key The Civil War Animated Battle Map (Runtime 27:28) The American Battlefield Trust Civil War Animated Battle Map tells the story of the American Civil War from its origins to its outcomes. The following questions can be answered by students during or after viewing the Civil War Animated Battle Map. Click here to access the video. 1. What were the stereotypes of Northerners and Southerners? o Northerners = stubborn and arrogant o Southerners = lazy 2. Arguments over which key issue in the United States during the 1830s and 1840s led to Civil War? o Slavery 3. What crisis brought Southern slaveholders into northern territories? o Fugitive slave crisis. 4. What book galvanizes people against the cruelty of slavery? o Uncle Tom’s Cabin 5. Who attempted to lead a slave uprising that convinced southerners that their way of life and lives were in danger? o John Brown 6. Who was a prairie lawyer turned politician? o Abraham Lincoln 7. Who was a senator from Mississippi and former Secretary of War? o Jefferson Davis 8. Where was the first battle of the Civil War fought? Which side won? o Fort Sumter in South Carolina o Confederate Victory 9. Who refused to recognize the Confederacy and deemed secession unconstitutional? o President Abraham Lincoln 10. Name three Confederate victories in 1861. o Fort Sumter o First Manassas of First Bull Run o Wilson’s Creek o Ball’s Bluff 11. What does the South view the Civil War as? What did they think they needed to do to win? o South viewed the Civil War as the “Second War of Independence” o South believed they could win if they: ▪ Waited till the North tired of war The Traditional Civil War Curriculum | High School Battlefields.org The Traditional Civil War Curriculum, Name: _________________ Optional Date: _________________ The Civil War Animated Map ▪ Gained foreign recognition 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Siegecraft and Surrender: the Law and Strategy of Cities and Targets
    Columbia Law School Scholarship Archive Faculty Scholarship Faculty Publications 1999 Siegecraft and Surrender: The Law and Strategy of Cities and Targets Matthew C. Waxman Columbia Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Military, War, and Peace Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Matthew C. Waxman, Siegecraft and Surrender: The Law and Strategy of Cities and Targets, 39 VA. J. INT'L. L. 353 (1999). Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/592 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Archive. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Siegecraft and Surrender: The Law and Strategy of Cities as Targets MATrHEW C. WAXMAN* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction ................................................................... 354 II. Cities as Territory: Early Modern Europe and the Duke of Alva's Campaign Through the Netherlands ...................... 357 A. The City in Early Modem Europe ................................... 357 B. The Laws of Siege Warfare ............................................... 360 C. The Duke of Alva and the Dutch Revolt: The Convergence of Law and Strategy ............................... 364 III. Cities as Nationhood: Sherman's March Through the Confederate
    [Show full text]
  • Grant Grant's Overland Campaign and Lee's Surrender Presidency
    Fact or Fiction? Name: _________________________ Below is a biography on Ulysses S. Grant. On the following page is a chart with ten statements. Indicate whether each statement is fact or fiction. Ulysses Simpson Grant was born April 26, 1822, in Point Pleasant, Ohio. Against his father’s wishes, Grant entered the US Military Academy and finished in the middle of the class. Like most military school graduates at the time, Grant was sent to Mexico and served under General Zachary Taylor during the Mexican War. In other endeavors before the Civil War, Grant was unsuccessful. "Unconditional Surrender" Grant At the outbreak of the Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant was working at this father’s leather shop in Illinois. He was appointed by the Illinois governor as the commander of a local militia but soon rose to the rank of brigadier general in the Civil War. Grant’s aggressive and bold tactics were a major reason why the Union Army was able to defeat the Confederates. His campaigns in the Mississippi River Valley were legendary and crucial to Union victory. In 1862, Grant led his forces to victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson in Tennessee. At Fort Donelson, Grant earned the nickname “Unconditional Surrender Grant.” Though less successful at Shiloh, Grant’s leadership opened the way for Union occupation of the Mississippi River. Grant went on to take the key port city of Vicksburg and then broke Confederate ranks at Chattanooga. Grant's Overland Campaign and Lee's Surrender In 1864, President Lincoln named him Commander of the Union army.
    [Show full text]
  • The Atomic Bomb, War Room Intrigue and Emperor Hirohito's Decision to Surrender Breaking News Historians DC
    ABOUT US Join our mailing list SUBSCRIBE Departments Home News U.S. World History Features Books Roundup Blogs Job Board Custom Search ; 4/5/2020 NEWS The Atomic Bomb, War Room Intrigue and Emperor Hirohito's Decision to Surrender Breaking News Historians DC News Abroad From Afar, Congress Moves to Oversee tags: Hiroshima, Japan, atomic bomb, Emperor Hirohito, Nagasaki, World War 2 Trump Coronavirus Response A 200-Foot Section of the Berlin Wall Has Been Torn Down to Make Way for 13 Condos, Leaving Historians Appalled Shares The Military Knew Years Ago That a Coronavirus Was Coming "Be Nice" Is Not Needed During Crisis — by David Dean Barrett But A Free Press Is The Prep-School Nazi David Dean Barrett is a military historian, specializing in World War II. He has published work in WWII Quarterly Magazine, U.S. Military History Review, and Global War Studies. He is the Consulting/Producer for Lou Reda Productions' two-hour documentary, " Heroes of the Sky: The Real Mighty Eighth," which will air as a primetime global event on National Geographic in May of 2020. Please visit Mr. Barrett's website at www.onewithhistory.com for more information. TRENDING NOW Trending on HNN The Election of 1940 and the Might- th As the world observes the 75 anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Have-Been that Makes One Shudder Nagasaki later this year, Americans have still not reached a consensus about the role of the Getting Medieval on COVID? The Risks of Periodizing Public Health atomic bomb in Japan’s surrender. Was Japan ready to surrender without the bomb? Some The Ruthless Litigant in Chief: James of us believe so, in particular if the Allies would have simply guaranteed the preservation of Zirin Paints a Portrait of Trump Through the Imperial System (with the divine Emperor as the embodiment of all sovereign power in 3,500 Lawsuits the realm).
    [Show full text]