Most of the wars in history are somehow reflected in the culture (whether it be films or fiction). For the most part, people know the dates of the beginning of the greatest conflicts and even individual battles. But the question of how the wars end, the answer is often vague, and the word "surrender" necessarily slides. This concept refers to the cessation of armed resistance of the defeated party. But what does this mean in practice and how does it go?
In a street fight, to disperse the battle, it is enough to disperse. 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 one. Surrender is the last chance to preserve a people and culture to the detriment of independence or in exchange for certain restrictions (territorial, political or economic). This is far from the best option for the development of events, but, as you know, they choose the lesser of evils.
The past century is especially rich in examples of such a way out of hostilities. These are two world wars, where the representatives of Germany twice had to sign the act of surrender, or imperial Japan, which also recognized defeat. These countries did not have a choice, because the enemy at the time of the adoption of the agreement had overwhelming superiority in strength. There were other examples in history, as most of the clashes of the last centuries ended diplomatically, when the further use of weapons was less profitable than immediate peace. With the expansion of trade and economic ties in the world, such a tendency began to appear more often.
Naturally, the document itself does not stop the fighting instantly. Destroyed communications, the remoteness of troops from headquarters and the general chaos of the last days of the war impede 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 we begin negotiations without fear of provocations and the resumption of hostilities.
It should be understood that making such a decision is a pretty serious step. Indeed, in order to prevent re-aggression, a losing country can be disarmed and must pay financial compensation, which severely limits the ability of the state. Surrender is not a short-term truce, but the complete withdrawal of the signatory from the conflict before its completion. Here the question already arises of how to preserve the ruined earth. Not one year will pass before the country can recover, although its further development will depend on politicians, and not on generals.
Depending on the balance of power, an act can be drawn up both with concessions for both parties, and completely in favor of the winners. In the first case, surrender is a kind of bargaining, when rivals almost equal in strength strive to avoid further damage to the economy and economy. In the second case, there is coercion of the loser to fulfill obligations and further monitoring with the suppression of any attempts to review the conditions.