This picture offers a key lesson on how wars end.
That lesson points to why Putin should be given an "off ramp" in the current 🇺🇦-🇷🇺 war.
[THREAD]
That lesson points to why Putin should be given an "off ramp" in the current 🇺🇦-🇷🇺 war.
[THREAD]
This is the famous photo from the deck of the USS Missouri when Japan officially surrendered to the United States, ending WWII in the Pacific.
As is well known, the United States and its allies demanded the “unconditional surrender” of Japan.
What that meant was laid out in the 1945 Potsdam conference.
What that meant was laid out in the 1945 Potsdam conference.
The conference issued the "Potsdam Declaration" on the terms of Japan's surrender
ndl.go.jp/constitution/e…
ndl.go.jp/constitution/e…
While some things were left unsaid, "unconditional" essentially meant “no off ramps”: fully surrender or be destroyed.
Following the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki...
...and Soviet invasion of Manchuria...
But here's the thing: when Japan surrendered, they still asked for a condition. They wanted to qualify the "unconditional surrender".
You see, the Potsdam declaration called for eliminating the authority of those who "deceived and misled the people of Japan". The Japanese feared that this meant Emperor Hirohito.
Japan would not accept a peace that "prejudice the prerogatives" of the Emperor.
legal-tools.org/doc/aa92df/pdf/
legal-tools.org/doc/aa92df/pdf/
...the Americans agreed to that condition (though subject to the determination of the Supreme Commander of the Allied -- MacArthur).
Japan's "unconditional" surrender illustrates a key lesson about how wars end.
Unfortunately, as Marc Gallicchio warns in this @ForeignPolicy piece, we often fail to draw this lesson.
foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/13/vj-…
Unfortunately, as Marc Gallicchio warns in this @ForeignPolicy piece, we often fail to draw this lesson.
foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/13/vj-…
What is the lesson?
That wars commonly end in negotiated settlements short of fully exhausting both sides.
In other words, the sides find "off ramps".
That wars commonly end in negotiated settlements short of fully exhausting both sides.
In other words, the sides find "off ramps".
The Pacific War is an extreme case: Japan was devastated by the fighting and was clearly in the weaker position.
But the allies, notably the United States, just wanted the fighting to be over. The "off ramp" was the Emperor's status.
But the allies, notably the United States, just wanted the fighting to be over. The "off ramp" was the Emperor's status.
International relations scholars have known for a long time is that wars between states commonly end in a brokered settlement codified in a treaty.
Coleman Phillipson identified this pattern back in 1916.
google.com/books/edition/…
Coleman Phillipson identified this pattern back in 1916.
google.com/books/edition/…
Quincy Wright elaborated on this tendency in his classic "A Study of War"...
amazon.com/Study-War-2nd-…
amazon.com/Study-War-2nd-…
Berenice Carroll, in her 1969 @JPR_journal paper, offered an evaluation of this tendency, which then questioned the adage: "war is pressed by the victor, but peace is made by the vanquished." It's not so simple.
journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…
journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.117…
That wars end in settlements is key to thinking about the nature of war itself.
Indeed, as I ask my students: if the sides sign an agreement at the end of the war, why couldn't they have done that at the beginning? Why bother fighting and create all of those costs?
Indeed, as I ask my students: if the sides sign an agreement at the end of the war, why couldn't they have done that at the beginning? Why bother fighting and create all of those costs?
This is the puzzle of war, as James Fearon aptly described at the beginning of his seminal piece, "Rationalist Explanations of War":
"The central puzzle about war, and also the main reason we study it, is that wars are costly but nonetheless wars recur."
cambridge.org/core/journals/…
"The central puzzle about war, and also the main reason we study it, is that wars are costly but nonetheless wars recur."
cambridge.org/core/journals/…
In this 🧵, I elaborate on Fearon's answer to the puzzle for why deals aren't reached before fighting starts.
https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1421445909116768256
@olga_chyzh applies that framework to explain why bargaining didn't result in avoiding the 🇺🇦-🇷🇺 war.
https://twitter.com/olga_chyzh/status/1502785545893732352
Without going too deep into bargaining theory or how the fighting of the war itself can alter the terms of an acceptable bargain, the point is to accept that the 🇺🇦-🇷🇺 war is not going to end in a decisive outcome.
Those calling for "unconditional surrender" have a skewed understanding of how wars end...
https://twitter.com/djrothkopf/status/1505388908326100992
...and this will surely lead to disillusionment when the war does finally end.
https://twitter.com/EmmaMAshford/status/1506092908633538562
In short, the extreme case of Japan's "unconditional surrender" to end WWII shows that wars commonly end when the sides are offered "off ramps".
That is a key lesson for how to end the current 🇺🇦-🇷🇺 war.
[END]
That is a key lesson for how to end the current 🇺🇦-🇷🇺 war.
[END]
Addendum 1: The above Gallicchio @ForeignPolicy piece draws from his recent book on Japan's surrender.
amazon.com/Unconditional-…
amazon.com/Unconditional-…
Addendum 2: While I didn't elaborate above, if you do want more on how bargaining theory sheds light on the ending of war, then I highly recommend Dan Reiter's 2009 book...
amazon.com/dp/B00EM3457U/…
amazon.com/dp/B00EM3457U/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
