Talk:Unconditional surrender

message: Was Iraq a third instance of this doctrine in US history?
:Nah, don't think so, really, as the US, probably to allow some face-saving, never required anyone connected with the Saddam government to "officially" declare or sign a surrender. On the other hand, since the government and army were completely smashed, it could be considered to be in that spirit, although not following the doctrine to the letter. Ellsworth 22:34, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: See Debellatio --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004

message: There seems to be a lot of biased info here. It seems to all be centered around the United States? Where there no cases of other countries asking for unconditional surrenders? Also, why does anyone reading this article care about statues? or the history of other Civial War battles? I think some content should be reconsidered for relevance. --DFRussia 06:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The two major uses of the term unconditional surrender were American. Both for the American Civil War and the WWII demand. It is important to distinguish between surrender at discretion which happens all the time, indeed the Japanese WWII habit of fighting on when further resistance will only lead to loss of life is exceptional. However asking a state to surrender unconditionally at the end of a war is unusual (the German state in the end did not surrender only their armies did), and seems to be something that other than with physical debellation is not a common war aim as enemy states usually come to some form of terms as most wars have limited aims. It may have been used by other states but to date no-one had added any to the page. For this reason I am removing the Globalize template. -- PBS (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reasons I am removing the current . -- PBS (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so much about the states? 

message: The above line from the article seems simply false to me.  Perhaps a more accurate way of expressing this idea would be to say, "Normally a belligerent will only agree to surrender unconditionally if completely convinced of the impossibility of either victory or improved surrender conditions."  Certainly, at the time of Germany's surrender in 1945, it was not only capable of continuing hostilities, but was actively doing so right up until the surrender.  The same can be said for Japan (though their surrender was conditional).  It was a lack of hope, not a lack of capability, that led to the unconditional surrender. 62.219.163.100 (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whilst this article requires significant improvement, adding original research only adds to the problem. Please provide a source Rotovia (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Normally a belligerent will only agree to surrender unconditionally if completely incapable of continuing hostilities." 

message: I am removing the reference to Roosevelt from the See Also section, it it too specific. Bazuz (talk) 08:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roosevelt 

message: If you see this and I haven't fixed it yet, well. heh. :P  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keiththelegokid (talk • contribs) 15:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  German papers link is broken. 

message: :When Roosevelt made the announcement at Casablanca, he stated that Grant's initials, since the Civil War, had also come to stand for "Unconditional Surrender."
Can someone clarify what this actually means?  Why is he mentioning Grant?  At first I didn't get it.  Then I thought the sentence might be implying that the initials U.S (United States) also stood for Unconditional Surrender, but I'm even less sure now. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roosevelt's use 

message: This article says “…the British were under no legal obligation to either accept his surrender or to spare his life.”
that might be true. The article then says:
“However, they did so to prevent him from being a martyr and exiled him to the remote South Atlantic island of Saint Helena.” 
It might be true but the statement is not supported by the reference given. The reference says only “they were disinclined to the capital punishment [which was possible]” there is no mention of martyrdom or Saint Helena.
Rather than flagging the reference in toto, I have moved it to the end of the sentence to which it applies correctly. Then I have flagged the final sentence as ‘citation needed’. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napoleon’s surrender