Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions

:As discussed in the linked article, "unconditional surrender" means total capitulation, with the victor being able to do whatever they like to the loser (international laws aside). No one is going to surrender unconditionally therefore, unless they absolutely have no choice. Which, as others have said, generally requires you to destroy their armies, invade and occupy their territory, and generally be in a position to say "or we'll just kill all of you, and there's nothing you can do about it", which the Allies at that time were not. So if you demand an unconditional surrender, and are not in position to enforce such conditions, the other side are likely to refuse (whereas they may agree to a conditional surrender). [[User:Wardog|Iapetus]] ([[User talk:Wardog|talk]]) 12:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
::Or they might just laugh at the other country for displaying such chutzpah. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 13:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
:::<small>Stalin and Mao are having a war. First day: Russians take 1 Million prisoners; second day: 2 millions; third day: 3 millions. At this point Mao wires to Stalin: "OK, you got it, now? I demand unconditional surrender" [[User:Gem fr|Gem fr]] ([[User talk:Gem fr|talk]]) 14:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)</small>
Futurist110 -- even leaving aside that the Allies simply weren't in any military position to make such demands, unconditional surrender has been at least partly kind of a U.S. thing since the [[Battle of Fort Donelson]] in 1862. FDR introduced it into WW2 allied decision-making later in the war, with somewhat ambiguous results. [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 13:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)