Topic
Unconditional surrender
About: Unconditional surrender is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 171 publications have been published within this topic receiving 1821 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
1 / 2
Papers
Book•
1 Jan 1999
TL;DR: In this paper, a requiem for departed heroes, irrationality, science and "responsibility for defeat", Buddhism as repentance and repentance as nationalism, responding to atrocity, remembering the criminals, forgetting their crimes.
Abstract: Part 1 Victor and vanquished: shattered lives - euphemistic surrender, unconditional surrender, quantifying defeat, coming home ... perhaps, displaced persons, despised veterans, stigmatized victims gifts from heaven - "revolution from above", demilitarization and democratization, imposing reform. Part 2 Transcending despair: "Kyodatsu" - exhaustion and despair - hunger and the bamboo-shoot existence, enduring the unendurable, sociologies of despair, child's play, inflation and economic sabotage cultures of defeat - servicing the conquerors, "butterflies", "onlys" and subversive women, black-market entrepreneurship, "kasutori" culture, decadence and authenticity, "married life" bridges of language - mocking defeat, brightness, apples and English, the familiarity of the new, rushing into print, bestsellers and posthumous heroes, heroines and victims. Part 3 Revolutions: neocolonial revolution - victors as viceroys, reevaluating the monkey-men, the experts and the obedient herd embracing revolution - embracing the commander, intellectuals and the community of remorse, grass-roots engagements, institutionalizing reform, democratizing everyday language making revolution - lovable communists and radicalized workers, "a sea of red flags", unmaking the revolution from below. Part 4 Democracies: imperial democracy - driving the wedge -psychological warfare and the son of heaven, purifying the sovereign, the letter, the photograph and the memorandum imperial democracy - descending partway from heaven - becoming bystanders, becoming human, cutting smoke with scissors imperial democracy -evading responsibility - confronting abdication, imperial tours and the manifest human, one man's shattered god constitutional democracy - GHQ writes a new national charter - regendering a hermaphroditic creature, conundrums for the men of Meiji, popular initiatives for a new national charter, SCAP takes over, GHQ's "constitutional convention" thinking about idealism and cultural imperialism constitutional democracy - Japanizing the American draft - "the last opportunity for the conservative group", the translation marathon, unveiling the draft constitution, water flows, the river stays, "Japanizing" democracy, renouncing war ... perhaps, responding to a fait accompli censored democracy -policing the new taboos - the phantom bureaucracy, impermissible discourse, purifying the victors, policing the cinema, curbing the political left. Part 5 Guilts: victor's justice, loser's justice -stern justice, showcase justice - the Tokyo Tribunal, Tokyo and Nuremberg, victor's justice and its critics, race, power and powerlessness, loser's justice - naming names what do you tell the dead when you lose? - a requiem for departed heroes, irrationality, science and "responsibility for defeat", Buddhism as repentance and repentance as nationalism, responding to atrocity, remembering the criminals, forgetting their crimes. Part 6 Reconstructions: engineering growth - "oh, mistake
1,165 citations
Book•
1 Jan 1979
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the British home front, the home front the "final solution", the British response false hopes resistance unconditional surrender conclusion, and the Jewish problem sealing the escape routes.
Abstract: Britain and the Jewish problem sealing the escape routes, the home front the "final solution" the British response false hopes resistance unconditional surrender conclusion. Who was who. Sources. Index.
133 citations
Book•
21 Apr 2008
TL;DR: Ermakoff argues that these explanations are either incomplete or misleading as discussed by the authors, and recasts abdication as the outcome of a process of collective alignment, and distinguishes several mechanisms of alignment in troubled and uncertain times and assesses their significance through a fine-grained examination of actors' beliefs, shifts in perceptions, and subjective states.
Abstract: What induces groups to commit political suicide? This book explores the decisions to surrender power and to legitimate this surrender: collective abdications. Commonsensical explanations impute such actions to coercive pressures, actors’ miscalculations, or their contamination by ideologies at odds with group interests. Ivan Ermakoff argues that these explanations are either incomplete or misleading. Focusing on two paradigmatic cases of voluntary and unconditional surrender of power—the passing of an enabling bill granting Hitler the right to amend the Weimar constitution without parliamentary supervision (March 1933), and the transfer of full executive, legislative, and constitutional powers to Marshal Petain (Vichy, France, July 1940)— Ruling Oneself Out recasts abdication as the outcome of a process of collective alignment.
Ermakoff distinguishes several mechanisms of alignment in troubled and uncertain times and assesses their significance through a fine-grained examination of actors’ beliefs, shifts in perceptions, and subjective states. To this end, he draws on the analytical and methodological resources of perspectives that usually stand apart: primary historical research, formal decision theory, the phenomenology of group processes, quantitative analyses, and the hermeneutics of testimonies. In elaborating this dialogue across disciplinary boundaries, Ruling Oneself Out restores the complexity and indeterminate character of pivotal collective decisions and demonstrates that an in-depth historical exploration can lay bare processes of crucial importance for understanding the formation of political preferences, the paradox of self-deception, and the makeup of historical events as highly consequential.
76 citations
TL;DR: According to the Declaration made at Berlin on June 5, 1945, by the Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, these Governments have assumed " supreme authority with respect to Germany including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the high command, and any state, municipal, or local government or authority" as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: According to the Declaration made at Berlin on June 5, 1945, by the Governments of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, and the Provisional Government of the French Republic, these Governments have assumed “ supreme authority with respect to Germany including all the powers possessed by the German Government, the high command, and any state, municipal, or local government or authority.” This means that the German territory, together with the population residing on it, has been placed under the sovereignty of the four powers. It means further that the legal status of Germany is not that of “ belligerent occupation” in accordance with the Articles 42 to 56 of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907. After Germany's unconditional surrender and especially after the abolition of the last German Government, the Government of Grand Admiral Doenitz, the status of belligerent occupation has become impossible. This status presupposes that a state of war still exists in the relationship between the occupant state and the state whose territory is under belligerent occupation. This condition implies the continued existence of the state whose territory is occupied and, consequently, the continued existence of its government recognized as the legitimate bearer of the sovereignty of the occupied state. This is the reason why it is generally assumed that belligerent occupation does not confer upon the occupant power sovereignty over the occupied territory. By belligerent occupation the legitimate government is made incapable of exercising its authority and is only substituted for the period of occupation by the authority of the occupant power. The legitimate government of the occupied state, especially the head of the state, may be expelled from the occupied territory and may have established his seat on the territory of an ally; the government, and especially the head of the occupied state, may even be made prisoners of war.
But the government must continue to exist and must be recognized as such by the occupant power. The latter must be willing to conclude with this government a treaty of peace and to hand back to it the whole or a part of the occupied territory.
58 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 3 |
| 2020 | 5 |
| 2018 | 3 |
| 2017 | 2 |
| 2016 | 9 |
| 2015 | 5 |