Unconditional surrender
The term unconditional surrender is used when the side that was surrendering acknowledges they have no more power to resist, and can not insist on any terms of surrender.[1]
Surrenders, where the losing side can insist on terms are often termed an armistice.[1] Traditionally, when forts surrendered, the weaker side would present initial attempts at resistence -- enough for the public, and their commanders at headquarters, would realize that further resistance would merely result in further unnecessary casualties, on both sides. In return for not causing further casualties among the winners they could insist on terms like the winners would let the keep their uniforms and weapons, and that the winners would transport the losers home.
Historians have criticized the USA for its tendency to insist on unconditional surrrender.[1] For example, the USA had made clear to Japan that it insisted on unconditional surrender. Japanese people had been subjected to years of anti-US propaganda, so they expected surrender to bring Japanese workers to be rounded up as slave labor. They expected the widely admired Emperor of Japan to be subjected to humiliating symbolic degradation. They expected the Emporer to be charged and face conviction at a humiliating show trial, and to be executed in a humiliating manner. Japanese were confused, when the USA didn't engage in an orgy of rape, did not round up slave labourers, and didn't humiliate the Emporer. If they weren't planning to totally humiliate Japan, after victory, why hadn't Japan negotiated a conditional surrender, years earlier?
References
[edit | edit source]- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 George H. Quester (1977). Offense and Defense in the International System. Cornell University Peace Studies. ISBN 978-0-471-70256-6. Retrieved 2025-12-22.