Is there a military term or phrase for a strategy of one belligerent country grabbing as much land as possible in an invasion and settling for an advantageous truce or armistice later?

In My Humble Opinion
1

Is there a military term or phrase for a strategy of one belligerent country grabbing as much land as possible in an invasion and settling for an advantageous truce or armistice later? I’m thinking specifically of Germany in World Wars I&II and Russia’s annexation of the Crimea and portions of Donbas in 2014 and its more recent (2022) annexation of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, Mykolayiv, and Zaporizhzhya Oblasts. I’m assuming Putin. will want to settle for as much of Ukraine as possible if any deal can be negotiated.

2

Dickery?

3

Far West settlers?

More seriously, the idea of total war is recent. Up until 19th century, wars were mostly dealt with siege warfare and cession of land was the norm: you grab what you can and try to hold on it long enough for the other side to give up.

4

That was and has been the normal course of pursuing war when total conquest was not a goal: you conquered territory you did not intend to keep, to bargain away for other concessions in the peace treaty. You also often met the enemy on territory you did not intend to conquer, in order to weaken their military and force a favourable peace.

An example was Napoleon’s campaign against Russia, the goal of which was not to conquer Russia but to force the Russian government to close the country to British trade, open it to French trade and possibly cede territory to a Poland aligned with France. The lever for which settlement was to be the destruction of the Russian military. Foiled by the Russian army which declined to show up to be annihilated but instead drew the French in.

5

Exactly. If the goal is to destroy the enemy’s capacity to wage war, and thereby force them to submit to an unequal peace, the strategy is annihilation.

~Max

6

I’m thinking “Sue for Peace” as was Japans strategy in WW2, smash the US and British forces extremely quickly and grab as many colonies as they could and then negotiate peace terms after you do enough damage to demoralized the enemy.

7

My understanding is that while some (relatively) rational military leaders like Yamamoto championed the idea of landing a stunning blow early on and using that to negotiate a favorable peace which involved ceding some captured territory, the hard-liners in charge almost to the very end refused to consider giving up any conquests.

I’ve never heard of a specific military phrase for land-grabbing. Usually it’s politicians who’ve talked up imperialism, manifest destiny and such.

8

There really wasn’t a realistic strategy in place.

There was some sort of vague plan of :

  1. Win territory quickly

  2. (??)

  3. Profit

It wasn’t realistic and they had no idea how to bring about a diplomatic solution for Step 2.

9

In fairness, the Japanese strategy might have worked if they had only gone after Holland, and left the U.S. and G.B alone.

10

Because in a non-pathological political system, the military doesn’t formulate national strategic goals. They wouldn’t have a canned phrase for it because it’s not their job.

The politicians (or other ruling class) are the ones who decide these matters.

In situations where both populations are the same (e.g., ruling military clique), they’re still wearing their “politician” hat when talking about Manifest Destiny, lebensraum, revanche, etc.

11

War with the USA and UK was inevitable. It’s unlikely they could have accepted Japanese occupation of Dutch colonies as this would have looked exactly like a precursor to cutting off and conquering American and British possessions.