Europe, Boring Until it's Not

[SuburbanFarmer]

They only held out for forty days, and the net result was simply 32,000 Confederates killed, and Vicksburg was reduced to rubble, before the Yankees rolled on to the next objective without breaking a sweat, this is how Grant became the Boss.

May 18 to July 4, is not a "prolonged siege", and surrendering after pointlessly holding out for a month, destroying Vicksburg in the process, is hardly "brilliant".

I believe you'll find that, upon reading more closely, the 'brilliant campaign' referred to is that of the US Army and Gen. Grant...

Who imposed the siege and then brought it to a close by forcing an early capitulation therein, so you're making my point for me, they trapped the Confederates in a siege, then they hung back and pounded on them with superior firepower, then the Confederates capitulated in the face of it, forty days too late, attempting to repel a siege at Vicksburg was a pointless and costly exercise, where the besieging party forced a capitulation through superior firepower in short order, providing you with an example of how burn the village to save the village, by attempting to hold out in the face of a forgone conclusion, is a serious mistake.

Anyway, we weren't fantasizing about the Russian infantry encircling Finnish cities, were we? You were making the point that by remote bombardment alone, Ivan would force the surrender of an entire modern country. I challenge the idea that any city or army has ever surrendered to remote bombardment...

[Okeefenokee]

This isn't the first time I've seen a Russian embassy shit posting on twitter. Can't remember the last time but whoever it is got bantz.

Yeah they made this lame duck tweet two weeks ago

[Smitty-48]

Anyway, we weren't fantasizing about the Russian infantry encircling Finnish cities, were we? You were making the point that by remote bombardment alone, Ivan would force the surrender of an entire modern country. I challenge the idea that any city or army has ever surrendered to remote bombardment...

I specifically said that the Finnish would not surrender, what I said was that hunkering down under bombardment by the Russians would be a pyrrhic victory, where it would be much more sensible to capitulate to the Russian terms in the near term, so as to live to fight on another day, in another way, when the situation was more advantageous.

[Speaker to Animals]

I challenge the idea that any city or army has ever surrendered to remote bombardment...

[Okeefenokee]

I believe you'll find that, upon reading more closely, the 'brilliant campaign' referred to is that of the US Army and Gen. Grant...

Who imposed the siege and then brought it to a close by forcing an early capitulation therein, so you're making my point for me, they trapped the Confederates in a siege, then they hung back and pounded on them with superior firepower, then the Confederates capitulated in the face of it, forty days too late, attempting to repel a siege at Vicksburg was a pointless and costly exercise, where the besieging party forced a capitulation through superior firepower in short order, providing you with an example of how burn the village to save the village, by attempting to hold out in the face of a forgone conclusion, is a serious mistake.

Anyway, we weren't fantasizing about the Russian infantry encircling Finnish cities, were we? You were making the point that by remote bombardment alone, Ivan would force the surrender of an entire modern country. I challenge the idea that any city or army has ever surrendered to remote bombardment...

For the second time, he didn't say surrender.

[Smitty-48]

Speaking of capitulate to live on to fight another day...

[Speaker to Animals]

Forgot about that one.

[BjornP]

That wasn't the question though. I'm asking specifically about remote bombardment. Rockets/cannon/artillery upon a city. I don't think it's ever happened. Siege warfare, sure, watching kids starve in front of citizens will do it. But bombardment alone? I think not..

British land and naval bombardment following the second Battle of Copenhagen, 1807, as part of the preemptive attack by the British to seize the Dano-Norwegian fleet (believing that Napoleon was about to seize it). Particularly effective use of incendiary rockets. Burned large parts of the capital to the ground.



The court surrendered the fleet (which was the condition for peace) the next morning.

Though I don't think that the surrender of a fleet followed by the enemy force leaving again, is comparable to a hypothetical Russo-Finnish war, and I don't think any country has ever surrendered territory or accepted annexation due to the bombardment of one army or city, your specific question has been answered.

[Smitty-48]

The Georgians accepted the annexation of South Ossetia, the Moldovans accepted the annextion of Transdneistr, the Ukrainians accepted the annexation of Crimea nary a shot fired.

You think the bourgeois Finns are tougher than the Moldovans, Georgians, and Ukrainians? I think not.

[BjornP]

Hardly "nary a shot fired" and how many of those countries have so faraccepted (at least publically) those annexations? Not that they will ever be able to do anything about it... Yet point taken, you're right, it doesn't have to take large scale destruction to surrender. Knowing that you're going to be destroyed even if you do fight can be enough.

I don't know about tougher, and while I tbh have only national stereotypes to rely on here, I'd suspect they'd be more disciplined.