Most wars in history are somehow reflected in culture (be it movies or fiction). For the most part, people know the dates of the beginning of the greatest conflicts and even individual battles. But when asked how wars end, the answer is often vague, and the word “surrender” is sure to slip through. This concept means the cessation of the armed resistance of the side suffering the defeat. But what does this really mean and how does it work?
In a street fight, it is enough to disperse to end the fight. But how to stop entire states and their armies? Such decisions are made at the highest level, both in the form of a proposal from the winning side, and in the form of a request from the losing side. Surrender is the last chance to preserve the people and culture at the expense of independence or in exchange for certain restrictions (territorial, political or economic). This is far from the best scenario, but, as you know, they choose the lesser of two evils.
The last century is especially rich in examples of such a way out of hostilities. These are two world warswhere the representatives of Germany twice had to sign an act of surrender, or imperial Japan, which also admitted defeat. These countries had no choice, because by the time the agreement was adopted, the enemy had an overwhelming superiority in strength. There were other examples in history as well. most of the clashes of the last centuries ended in a diplomatic way, when the further use of weapons was less advantageous than immediate peace. With the expansion of trade and economic ties in the world, this trend began to manifest itself more often.
Naturally, the document itself does not stop hostilities instantly. The destroyed communications, the remoteness of the troops from the headquarters and the general chaos of the last days of the war prevent the rapid passage of orders. Therefore, before the act of unconditional surrender is signed, the parties decide on a ceasefire. Only after some time, when silence sets in on all sectors of the front, can negotiations begin, without fear of provocations and resumption of hostilities.
It should be understood that making such a decision is a rather serious step. After all, in order to prevent a second aggression, the losing country can be disarmed and obliged to pay financial compensation, which sharply limits the capabilities of the state. Surrender is not a short-term truce, but a complete withdrawal of the party signing the act from the conflict before it ends. Here the question already arises of how to save the lands turned into ruins. More than one year will pass before the country can recover, although its further development will depend on politicians, not on generals.
Depending on the balance of power, the act can be drawn up both with concessions for both sides, and completely in favor of the winners. In the first case, capitulation is a kind of bargaining, when rivals practically equal in strength seek to avoid further damage to the economy and economy. In the second case, the loser is forced to fulfill obligations and further observation with the suppression of any attempts to renegotiate the conditions.
