JD Vance Schooled Over 'Clueless' Historical Claim: 'Does He Know Anything?'

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Vice President JD Vance was hit with a short, sharp history lesson after making what critics slammed as a “clueless” claim about world history in an interview that aired Sunday.

Speaking with NBC’s Kristen Welker about efforts to end Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Vance argued that other conflicts have ended in compromise.

“If you go back to World War II, if you go back to World War I, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation,” the vice president said on “Meet the Press.”

But social media users ― including historians ― were quick to point out that’s not true. World War II, for example, ended not with a negotiation but with the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

Link to tweet

Don't you know MAGAs think intelligence is elitist

[kirby]

1. Of course Welker was not the one to correct him.

[WarGamer]

2. From the interwebz:

Official, public negotiations between the US and Nazi Germany during World War II did not occur. The Allies were committed to unconditional surrender, a policy that disallowed any negotiated peace. However, secret, late-war talks did happen, leading to a local surrender of German forces in Italy. Documents related to these and other late-war arrangements are available from official archives.

Operation Sunrise (1945)

Operation Sunrise was the most significant series of secret negotiations involving the US and Germany during the war.
Negotiators: The talks were held in Switzerland between Allen Dulles, the head of the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS), and SS General Karl Wolff, who commanded German forces in Italy.

Purpose: The goal was to secure the surrender of nearly one million German troops in northern Italy and Austria, bypassing German High Command and potentially ending the war in that theater faster.

Documents: Records of these negotiations are available from the CIA and have been detailed by Allen Dulles in his own writings. The National WWII Museum also has information on the operation.

Outcome: The talks successfully led to the surrender of German forces in Italy on May 2, 1945, just days before the official end of the war in Europe.

Soviet reaction: Soviet leader Joseph Stalin became suspicious of the secret negotiations, believing the US and Britain were attempting to secure a separate peace with Germany. This distrust contributed to the developing Cold War.

[dpibel]

4. This is less than unconditional surrender how?

What was the quid pro quo? What did the Allies concede to produce this mass surrender?

I believe there is a difference between negotiations, in this case negotiating how a subset of the larger entity surrenders, and the type of negotiated settlement Vance is talking about, which involves each side giving a bit at the end of things.

Doncha think?

[WarGamer]

7. Vance is an idiot.

Very few wars end in Ukraine style proposed treaties.

[dpibel]

8. Wait, wut?

Did I utterly misread your post?

It appeared you were arguing that there was indeed a negotiated peace at the end of WWII.

Did I grievously misread? Did you grievously miscommunicate?

Because I can't see how your post is in any way responsive to mine.

You appeared to be gainsaying the proposition in the OP:

“If you go back to World War II, if you go back to World War I, if you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation,” the vice president said on “Meet the Press.”

But social media users ― including historians ― were quick to point out that’s not true. World War II, for example, ended not with a negotiation but with the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

Now, the way I read that is that Vance says all wars end with negotiation. The OP points out that various sources say that WWII did not end with a negotiation.

Then you say: "Look here! There was this negotiation!!"

Is there some way to read this other than that you were saying, "Vance was right! The end of WWII WAS NEGOTIATED!!!11!"?

And now you are saying "Vance is an idiot."

Someone is missing something here.

And I'm actually fairly sure it's not me.

[WarGamer]

10. I stated it pretty clearly...

The post in question started off acknowledging that WW2 ended in unconditional surrender.

I added the interesting story about the surrender of 1m troops in Italy just as trivia.

And to make 100% sure I wasn't misunderstood, after calling Vance an idiot I added that it's very rare for a war to end with a negotiated peace through land swaps etc.

[BannonsLiver]

5. Of course none of that was the argument JD Trance was making.

[Abolishinist]

3. To be fair, in general,

he's exponentially less clueless than his boss. So there's that.

[BannonsLiver]

6. There's a new history movement in right wing circles with regard to WW2

And I've unfortunately seen it elsewhere.

It goes something like this: "The Allies were just as cruel and evil as Hitler was, but unfortunately, they won, so that fact has been obscured."

Of course, that ignores several things. One, Stalin was allied with Hitler first and was NOTHING like Churchill and Roosevelt personally or as a leader. And two, the fucking Holocaust. You know, that thing where Germans murdered 7 million people just because they were Jews, Roma, gay, developmentally delayed etc. And three, the Japanese and Germans started the god damn war. But hey, outside of that...

Beware anyone who tries to "both sides" WW2. They are not acting in good faith -- at best.

[Straw Man]

9. You can't really call Germany's capitulation in WWII a "conditional surrender."

If it were, I imagine that one of the prime "conditions" would have been not hanging any of the losing side's general staff.

I'm not "both sidesing" here -- the bastards deserved every inch of that rope.