teribus - Yes, you're quite right that the Allies had agreed much earlier in the war to fight until achieving unconditional surrender of Germany, Italy, and Japan. I'm suggesting that that was a bad decision...and one that should have been reconsidered AS SOON as any Axis power showed a genuine inclination toward a negotiated settlement. Stalin would never have agreed to negotiate with the Germans...but Stalin was not even AT war with Japan until the last couple of days of the war, so that would not have been a problem in that case.

The only one of the 3 Axis powers that was totally disinclined toward a negotiated end was Nazi Germany...specifically because of Hitler, who was a madman and was in total control of the country. That is why a lot of German officers conspired on various occasions to assassinate him...but unfortunately they did not succeed!

I think it is extremely wrong-headed and unnecessary for anyone involved in a war to insist on unconditional surrender of their enemy. It simply pushes the thing to the utter limit of destruction and human suffering. Negotiated surrenders with conditions are almost always possible, given a little common sense on both sides.

Some exceptions to the common sense rule: Hitler in the Berlin bunker, and the Jewish zealouts who were slaughtered by the Romans in Jerusalem and committed suicide at Masada (mind you, the Romans might well have slaughtered them anyway...but their absolute refusal to compromise with Rome on anything was the main reason for that circumstance...they were the only subject people the Romans ever were unable to reach a mutual arrangement with as far as I know).

It takes a willingness on both sides to admit that the other guy is human. Then negotiations can always find a solution to a bad situation without stretching it out to the final catastrophe.

Ireland - When people suggest that a certain course of military action is not advisable in a given situation, why do you respond by acting as though that means they are incapable of defending themselves in ALL situations? Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why must it be all one way or all the other? While I may well object to the unnecessary or excessive use of force in any particular situation, I have never suggested that anyone not defend himself if attacked. I'm basically non-violent by nature (which means...I don't ATTACK people), but don't let that fool you into thinking that I am helpless if attacked. :-) No sir! And neither would a country be helpless if I were commanding it, I can assure you.

George Harrison reacted in the way that was natural to him, and then fought because he HAD to fight. That doesn't prove anything one way or another about people who are for or against a given war...or plans for a given war.

- LH