that is because for what i wanted to say, merely declaring “war” is not enough. i wanted to say that it would be a move where i would carry through to, well, the bitter end.
不是你死, 就是我亡.
Yes, but what are you imagining the bitter end to be? Extermination? Annexation? Enslavement? Vassal state status? Total capitulation?
Was the defeat of Germany and Japan in WWII war to the bitter end? Both countries were allowed to surrender, albeit unconditionally. Both countries were occupied by the victors, their political systems completely replaced, and surviving high-level leaders were put on trial and executed.
All-out war?
This is exactly the question I’m asking. I believe most Japanese would say that World War II was fought to the bitter end, yet their country was never invaded.
I’m just not clear whether you’re talking about war until capitulation (like a Japan type of case) or something more like a war predicated on genocide. In the first case, I still submit that “war” is a perfectly adequate term by itself, although others make fine points about a demand for unconditional surrender. I don’t understand why you think “war” has some meaning other than to seek the surrender of the other country.
ETA: when you are declaring war, are you expecting to lose the war but fight to the last man? Or are you declaring an aggressive war to completely dominate another country? You’re just not defining your terms clearly. At first I thought you were speaking of the latter case, but later comments make me think you are referring to the former.
We are going to sweep your nation into the sea?
Unlimited War, or in Middle English, ‘Havoc.’
(Did you know declaring Havoc on a besieged garrison is illegal? I seem to remember that. So cut it out.)
Doctrinally from an Army viewpoint, I think “total war” comes closest. This implies a societal component to the war, where the fate of the society is tied to the outcome of the war, thus the parties engaged will fight using all the resources available, to include all weapons and all people (soldiers and civilians). I’d argue Japan was definitely fighting this type of war in WWII.
I say “doctrinally,” although I don’t think the term is ever formally defined.
initially i was referring to a game of Risk where i controlled, and also drew the most armies per turn. this naturally made me a target for the other four players. i was holding out till it reached the point where they decided to coordinate a massive attack to carve out my territories.
not knowing what to do, for such an attack would put me out of the running to win the game, i decided to declare total war (?) on the first player to break my bonuses. that is, i would commit all my forces to take out that player from the game too. i certainly had enough to take out a player, if not all of them. i thought i needed another term because we were already at war.
this thread has turned out to be very interesting, what with the various terms used in actual wars in different situations. keep on posting!
as to whether a term is needed beyond a simple declaration of war, i agree none is needed in times of relative peace like today. in the past however, when wars were aplenty and peace fleeting, there was perhaps a need to define the various flavours of war?
Interesting. How did that tactic (mutually assured destruction, of sorts) work out for you?
Is that similar to a scorched earth policy? Or is that term only for destroying resources and not the population as well?
the four way stalemate was essentially reduced to a one on one.
it’s really only used as a last resort. i’ve only ever done it twice, and this time round it didn’t work out. apparently the one who attacked me didn’t understand that by total war i meant to effectively take both of us out. i guess i should have just said ‘suicide’ like i did the first time. /shrug
Traditionally, scorched earth policy is a defensive tactic. It is used when you are retreating, to make sure that nothing is left behind to sustain the invading army, which is getting farther & farther away from their supply points.
Usually, you try to get your population to evacuate at the same time, taking with as much valuables & animals as they can. Think of Russia in WWII, when the Germans invaded. (Or even earlier, when Napoleon invaded – similar tactics.)
You just declare war. War is war. You may adopt a strategic position that you will not accept any ceasefire or armistice, but that is a separate decision from your decision to declare war. You can take it at a different time, and you can revisit it without, so to speak, terminating the war and immediately declaring another.
IIRC, the UK declared war on Germany 1939, and Germany invaded the Soviet Union and declared war on the US in 1941, but the allies did not adopt their policy of demanding unconditional surrender until 1943, . They stuck with that, but they could have changed their minds at any time - the policy wasn’t uncontroversial.
In fact, they did.
The surrender of Japan was not signed until the US agreed not to hold the Emperor of Japan personally responsible, nor to try him for war crimes (lik he should have been!).
i’m using my bump card for this - as it turns out, i have just won the game. i was able to rebuild my forces and get back into the war.
in retrospect it was a big risk to take, but it was better than to encourage a pile up on me.
Yeah, I was going to suggest “war without quarter” as an apt description.