They've tried doing that for years, both are stupid as like everything in life, moderation is usually the best policy which is helped by sex with a partner.
Except war, there if you truly want to win you don't stop till you get an unconditional surrender and go more brutal than any gangbang porn.
Worked with Japan, the good thing is after the allies showed mercy and helped them rebuild (since new enemy communists were nearby) it allowed time for reflection so that they didn't go "well we lost, better try harder next time"
The problem with a lot of 'wars' after was there was no end point, no clear conclusion where one side lost, the victor had a choice and if they chose mercy they had the chance to build a new ally. As 'the war on terror' wtf is that!? A motivational poster for the arms industry?
Well, there was the English conquest of New France, which is why Quebec exists, and why Louis Real was a thing; they allowed the French Catholics to remain French Catholics rather than forcing assimilation into British culture. Which led to decades of English-French infighting, which has been largely forgotten because of mass immigration and the problems that brings.
It's a tactic. It works when you're winning and your enemies are weak or stupid enough to accept those terms. When you are in no position to dictate terms or you start believing your own bullshit, then it is foolishness.
They've tried doing that for years, both are stupid as like everything in life, moderation is usually the best policy which is helped by sex with a partner.
Except war, there if you truly want to win you don't stop till you get an unconditional surrender and go more brutal than any gangbang porn.
Seeking unconditional surrender is not a good policy.
Worked with Japan, the good thing is after the allies showed mercy and helped them rebuild (since new enemy communists were nearby) it allowed time for reflection so that they didn't go "well we lost, better try harder next time"
The problem with a lot of 'wars' after was there was no end point, no clear conclusion where one side lost, the victor had a choice and if they chose mercy they had the chance to build a new ally. As 'the war on terror' wtf is that!? A motivational poster for the arms industry?
Well, there was the English conquest of New France, which is why Quebec exists, and why Louis Real was a thing; they allowed the French Catholics to remain French Catholics rather than forcing assimilation into British culture. Which led to decades of English-French infighting, which has been largely forgotten because of mass immigration and the problems that brings.
You've described ALL English/French relations, though that can describe all the UK, reminds me of my favourite joke about Britain:
Britain is the most tolerant country in the world why,
The Scots hate the English, The Welsh hate the English, The Irish hate the English, The English hate everyone including the majority of the English
That's why they are the most tolerant people in the world, living and working with people they can't bloody stand!
It's a tactic. It works when you're winning and your enemies are weak or stupid enough to accept those terms. When you are in no position to dictate terms or you start believing your own bullshit, then it is foolishness.
A "kill them all" policy has its own problems.