:::::Whether that's true or not, nobody expected ''Germany'' to rapidly collapse and fall. So any demand for unconditional surrender would have been premature. That's all there is to it. --[[Special:Contributions/22.214.171.124|126.96.36.199]] ([[User talk:188.8.131.52|talk]]) 06:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
:A country needs to invade another country before demanding surrender. France probed German defences in 1939 but were forced to retreat back to France.<br>[[User:Sleigh|Sleigh]] ([[User talk:Sleigh|talk]]) 06:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
:Well, to begin with, a surrender is a military thing from the victorious leaders to the defeated (just like an [[armistice]] is a military agreement, different from a political [[peace treaty]]). British and French tradition separates the military from the politics, and find it bad to have military decision taken by politicians, and vice-versa; of course then do talk, and obviously it is best for generals to be backed by their political leaders, but they don't need to. A surrendering question was irrelevant in 1939 or 1940, considering the course of the war. Even in 1918, after total allied victory, [[armistice of 11 November 1918]] was NOT unconditional.
:Besides, even if you consider its political aspects, why would they? Such a demand is useless, and tantamount to "we don't want to make peace with you, only to destroy you". This certainly wasn't their mindset: it takes time (or some traumatic Pearl Harbor event) to switch from 1938 "let preserve peace whatever the cost" to 1939 "now that's too much, we fight ([[phony war|but not that much]])" to 1943 "the hell with you, we will crush you into total submission and don't want to even hear a word from you". Germany was an enemy, not the Evil incarnate you see it now, after the war and the German atrocities revelation.