When to surrender?

[Elderito]

Lately I have been revisiting my study of the US Civil War and I am struck by the stubbornness of the Confederacy. When Lincoln won the election of 1864 it dashed their last reasonable hope of a peace treaty which would allow them to exist outside of the Union. Fighting on far a time while preparing to surrender would have made some sense but Jefferson Davis did not seem to contemplate surrender, nor was their continued fighting motivated by any desire for best terms. Bluntly stated they fought a lost cause against and overwhelmingly superior enemy far beyond any rational point.

Thinking about it I wonder why fighting well beyond the point of reason is so common. Germany fought on far to long at the behest of on irrational leader. While some Germans tried to negotiate a peace with the western allies, their understanding and their actions were not rational.

The Japanese also fought far to long. They were preparing to defend the homeland against an enemy with demonstrably overwhelming firepower. While the US may have lost hundreds of thousands of soldier in an invasion, the Japanese would have lost even conservatively 20 to 1. (My guess is more like 100 to 1) In any case they fought to long.

On this forum some threads, (the War of 14-18 for example) seem to ridicule those societies such as the French and Italians who seem to demonstrate an ability to surrender at a rational point and whose soldier question the merits of their cause. The Vichy French who capitulated in North Africa and the Italian soldiers who gave up on fighting for Mussolini both behaved rationally in my mind, while the Germans who tried to hold off the Russians near Berlin would have more rationally just run away.

I have then two questions:

Why do societies, units, or individuals fight on irrationally? And why do we admire them for doing so?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

On a micro scale: I've watched men give up and die when they were close to rescue. I refused to give up, and I'm here and they're not.

On a macro scale: The South didn't have anything to lose. They felt it couldn't get any worse than it was, so why give up. Them hillbillies are "bloody-minded" to a degree few people could conceive.

[Elderito]

On a micro scale: I've watched men give up and die when they were close to rescue. I refused to give up, and I'm here and they're not.

Giving up to die runs counter to our basic survival instinct. That is not at all the point. On a micro scale. why do people refuse to give up a lost cause and save their own lives?

On a macro scale: The South didn't have anything to lose. They felt it couldn't get any worse than it was, so why give up. Them hillbillies are "bloody-minded" to a degree few people could conceive.

Nothing to lose? A post election timeline.

November 15, 1864 - After destroying Atlanta's warehouses and railroad facilities, Sherman, with 62,000 men begins a March to the Sea. President Lincoln on advice from Grant approved the idea. "I can make Georgia howl!" Sherman boasts.

December 15/16, 1864 - Hood's Rebel Army of 23,000 is crushed at Nashville by 55,000 Federals including Negro troops under Gen. George H. Thomas. The Confederate Army of Tennessee ceases as an effective fighting force.

December 21, 1864 - Sherman reaches Savannah in Georgia leaving behind a 300 mile long path of destruction 60 miles wide all the way from Atlanta. Sherman then telegraphs Lincoln, offering him Savannah as a Christmas present.

1865

February 3, 1865 - A peace conference occurs as President Lincoln meets with Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at Hampton Roads in Virginia, but the meeting ends in failure - the war will continue.

How would slavery figure into a reunification plan? Lincoln remarked that he wished the Southern states would take the lead in abolishing slavery, that he was open to compensating slaveowners for their losses, and that he considered the Emancipation Proclamation a wartime measure whose applicability might end the hostilities, depending on what the courts might say. Seward went so far as to suggest the recently adopted Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery might be withdrawn once peace had been established.

At the same time, both Lincoln and Seward made it clear that there would be no peace until the Southern states laid down their arms and accepted all of the actions the U.S. government had taken in the course of the war in regard to emancipation and confiscation of Southern property. They insisted, however, that they were not demanding unconditional surrender and made a concerted effort to assuage concerns expressed by their guests that their people's constitutional rights might not be secure once they were back in the Union.

Despite the inclination toward leniency expressed by Lincoln and Seward, their insistence that the Confederacy surrender its independence was unacceptable to the Southern commissioners. Efforts to persuade Lincoln to accept anything short of unconditional restoration of the Union and the end of slavery were likewise futile. Thus, after four hours of discussions, the Confederate commissioners departed, with the Hampton Roads Conference having only confirmed the fact that, as long as Lincoln was in command, the Civil War would not and could not end without the complete and total defeat of the Confederacy.

Only Lee's Army at Petersburg and Johnston's forces in North Carolina remain to fight for the South against Northern forces now numbering 280,000 men.


April 2, 1865 - Grant's forces begin a general advance and break through Lee's lines at Petersburg. Confederate Gen. Ambrose P. Hill is killed. Lee evacuates Petersburg. The Confederate Capital, Richmond, is evacuated. Fires and looting break out. The next day, Union troops enter and raise the Stars and Stripes.

April 4, 1865 - President Lincoln tours Richmond where he enters the Confederate White House. With "a serious, dreamy expression," he sits at the desk of Jefferson Davis for a few moments.

Lee Surrenders

April 9, 1865 - Gen. Robert E. Lee surrenders his Confederate Army to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at the village of Appomattox Court House in Virginia. Grant allows Rebel officers to keep their sidearms and permits soldiers to keep horses and mules.

"After four years of arduous service marked by unsurpassed courage and fortitude the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources," Lee tells his troops.

April 18, 1865 - Confederate Gen. Joseph E. Johnston surrenders to Sherman near Durham in North Carolina.

In May - Remaining Confederate forces surrender. The Nation is reunited as the Civil War ends. Over 620,000 Americans died in the war, with disease killing twice as many as those lost in battle. 50,000 survivors return home as amputees.

An early acceptance of defeat could have avoided Sherman's march through Georgia and South Carolina, plus the destruction of Richmond. Even as late as February 1865, the Confederates held out for independence in spite of Lincoln's reasonable attitude and his position of overwhelming strength.

However I don't post this to argue over the examples I posted in the beginning. They all demonstrate unreasonableness in the face of defeat. They only serve as examples. Many reasons may exist for continuing to fight such as group mentality, belief that something remains to be gained (terms of surrender), religion, fear of the unknown, or simple inertia, but why do we so admire fighting to the bitter end?

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Could be a variation of the Concorde-fallacy perhaps? This almost certainly had some bearing on Vietnam dragging-on for so long.

Also, on the part of the leadership at least, there may be a (often well-justified) fear of retribution by the winning side, in the event of defeat. And often in wars, soldiers have been fed propaganda regarding the supposedly horrific treatment of POW's by the other side, which could provide a motivation to keep on fighting 'till you're killed.


Also a leader may decide they want their own country ruined, as a final petulant act of spite when they know all else is lost ("If I can't have this country, then no-one should have it") a prime example of this attitude would be Hitler, or (if I may delve into fiction) President Clark in Babylon 5.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nothing to lose? A post election timeline.

Um, leaving words out changes the meaning. I said "they felt".

[klr]

Some famous case studies:

The Germans in WW I (OK, technically this was an armistice)
The Germans in WW II
The French in WW II (technically this was an armistice as well)
The British in WW II (as in they didn't surrender)
The Japanese in WW II

Each involves a quite different set of circumstances IMHO.

EDIT: And lest I forget, the Romans post-Cannae, or any of the other disasters in the Second Punic war.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Should Wellington have given up when Waterloo was going against him? What if Blücher had been delayed in a brothel?

Where there's hope... It's genetic. Those that gave up too early got weaned out of the gene pool.

[Elderito]

Could be a variation of the Concorde-fallacy perhaps? This almost certainly had some bearing on Vietnam dragging-on for so long.

Also, on the part of the leadership at least, there may be a (often well-justified) fear of retribution by the winning side, in the event of defeat. And often in wars, soldiers have been fed propaganda regarding the supposedly horrific treatment of POW's by the other side, which could provide a motivation to keep on fighting 'till you're killed.


Also a leader may decide they want their own country ruined, as a final petulant act of spite when they know all else is lost ("If I can't have this country, then no-one should have it") a prime example of this attitude would be Hitler, or (if I may delve into fiction) President Clark in Babylon 5.

[FBM]

Not sure how relevant this is, but consider that the leaders themselves are rarely in danger in armed conflict. Also, before and during the war, they've spent much of their time drumming up emotions in their own populace with high-flying rhetoric, all the while demonizing the enemy, and setting it up such that victory is a moral imperative and defeat unthinkable. Consider that you can't send people into battle with an order to 'fight until it gets dangerous'. You have to send them from day one with the mindset of 'kill those bastards at all costs'. It's really hard for a leader to admit defeat to those he's been pumping up for so long, reversing much of the rhetoric he'd committed himself to. It also usually means that he loses his position of power and authority, that which he's invested so much time and effort into attaining. It means living the rest of one's life in shame, knowing he'll go in the history books as a loser. Not just a loser, but the highest-ranking loser on the losing side. Pride has a lot to do with it. As for the footsoldiers, they'd probably have the good sense to head for the hills earlier if execution wasn't the punishment for desertion.

[Clinton Huxley]

"Nations which go down fighting rise again, those who surrender tamely are finished" - Winston Churchill.

Not entirely accurate as, last time I checked, France and Italy were still there and the Byzantine Empire wasn't.

[klr]

"Nations which go down fighting rise again, those who surrender tamely are finished" - Winston Churchill.

Not entirely accurate as, last time I checked, France and Italy were still there and the Byzantine Empire wasn't.

Thread about surrendering. Check.

Clinton. Check.

Mention of France, and Italy. Check.


All is well with the world.

[Clinton Huxley]

"Nations which go down fighting rise again, those who surrender tamely are finished" - Winston Churchill.

Not entirely accurate as, last time I checked, France and Italy were still there and the Byzantine Empire wasn't.

Thread about surrendering. Check.

Clinton. Check.

Mention of France, and Italy. Check.


All is well with the world.

I'm sure you or Pappa could write some kind of script to generate this CH guff.

[klr]

"Nations which go down fighting rise again, those who surrender tamely are finished" - Winston Churchill.

Not entirely accurate as, last time I checked, France and Italy were still there and the Byzantine Empire wasn't.

Thread about surrendering. Check.

Clinton. Check.

Mention of France, and Italy. Check.


All is well with the world.

I'm sure you or Pappa could write some kind of script to generate this CH guff.

Something like the Daily Mail headline generator - or a postmodernist essay generator.

[Clinton Huxley]

something like that....maybe it's already been done.....

[Pappa]

...or a postmodernist essay generator.

How does anyone read that stuff (I mean the real postmodernist essays)?