Well, that government ceded its power to another nation so really the only ones it is illegal and unlawful to, is the occupiers. If you don’t believe they have the right to dictate to you, then you should resist.
Mostly honourable, with a small side of war crime?
Yet far better than Soviet WW2 forces or Korean Conflict era Chinese or North Koreans.
That’s rather like saying that being raped is better than being doused in gasoline and set on fire. True, but hardly a recommendation for the former.
Think of what he is saying like this…
If I am captures by the US, I have a very very high possibility of meals, a cot, a shower, and some small personal freedoms (read a book, pray, etc.). Especially if I am a good prisoner.
If I am captured by the Chinese, Koreans, Taliban, etc., the odds of getting the things above, up to and including meals, a cot, and showers, start to decline pretty rapidly, regardless of my behavior.
Yes, being a prisoner sucks. But even in a world of things that suck, there are variables and values of suck.
Then, or now ?
surrender
Other than the one instance I cited, can anyone think of a modern nation that did the rational thing and called it quits?
For the fictional example of a US takeover of Canada ,and subsequent annexation that I gave , how would the average person resist in practical terms. Absent any help from a third party that would supply weapons and knowledge regarding setting up cells, lines of communication and targeting for maximum effect.
But as my boss likes to say , dont bring me problems , bring me solutions.
Whats more of an effective resistance, burying the weapons , or burying the history books ?
Declan
If you back through history, I’d be really surprised if more wars weren’t ended by either the attacker withdrawing (such as how the US ended it’s participation in Vietnam) or with a conditional surrender, such as the French and Indian War, the American Revolutionary War, the Mexican-American War, and the Spanish-American War, to name a few which America has been involved with.
However, the OP is talking about a situation where there isn’t hope for surrender with terms.
If you are the top, it really depends on what the other side intends. If you’re a Hitler then you’re basically SOL. Since you would likely be an egomaniac, if not right insane, then you destroy your country in the vain hope that someone things will turn around.
If you are a Hirohito-type of emperor, then you make a personal deal to save yourself while remaining with lessened powers. You could try to save yourself by going into exile, e.g. Napoleon or what Saddam is reported to have tried.
It depends on your bargaining skills, the relative strengths of the countries and how much the other side is committed to getting you personally as part of their desired outcome. There isn’t a solution which would have allowed Hitler to have remained free, even in exile. OTOH, the US accepted a slightly less than unconditional surrender of Japan, by allowing Hirohito to remain a figurehead. Tojo and the others were screwed, but not everyone gets to go free.
Hirohito was allowed to remain in order to shorten the end, finish things before the USSR joined, and spare the expected large number of expected casualties, among other reasons. OTOH, Iraq wasn’t expected to put up with enough resistance and the US was expecting an easy victory so there wasn’t as much room for negations for personal gain.
Is you are a top general, then you have the option to try a coup, such as the July 20 Plot against Hitler. Difficult to pull off; with a higher personal price for failure. I can’t speak from personal experience, but putting together a coup is a risky business and dictators spend part of their time ensuring that they don’t succeed.
If you do succeed, you may be able to negotiate better with the enemy, which would be more likely to agree to terms with you where they wouldn’t with the government you replaced. With a coup, you would want to replace the previous administration and jail a bunch of the same people the enemy would want to, so you would be on the same side there.
As a grunt, then you keep your head down and hope for the best, or surrender if you believe you’ll get a reasonable chance of not being mistreated.
As an uniformed combatant, I’d take my chances with the US then or now.
Either. The odds are pretty good either way.
Of course, I don’t expect you to believe that, given your personal bend about these issues, but it’s still true.
In the CSA example, I’d have taken to the sea in commandeered ships, whenever possible.
South America is calling.
As it did in real life.
http://www.patsabin.com/lowcountry/confederados.htm
I presume the Confederados chose Brazil because it still permitted negro slavery. I wonder what they thought when Brazil phased out slavery not too many years later?
Some went to Mexico.
Others went to Venezuela.