Most wars in history are somehow reflected in culture (whether films or fiction). Most 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 "capitulation" always slips. This concept means the cessation of the armed resistance of a side that is defeated. But what does this mean in practice and how does it go?
In a street fight, it's enough to disperse to stop 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 party, and in the form of a request from the losing party. Surrender is the last chance to save 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 evils.
Examples of such a way out of hostilities are especially rich in the past century. These are two world wars, where representatives of Germany had to sign an act of surrender twice, or Imperial Japan, which also recognized defeat. The choice of these countries was not, because the enemy at the time of the adoption of the agreement had an overwhelming superiority in force. There were other examples in the history, too. Most of the clashes of the last centuries ended diplomatically, when further use of weapons was less profitable than an 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 the fighting immediately. The destroyed communications, the remoteness of 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 on unconditional surrender is signed, the parties decide on a ceasefire. Only after a while, when silence comes on all sectors of the front, one can begin negotiations without fear of provocation and the resumption of hostilities.
It is worthwhile to understand that the adoption of such a decision is a rather serious step. After all, in order to prevent re-aggression, the losing country can be disarmed and must pay financial compensation, which sharply limits the state's capabilities. Surrender - this is not a short-term truce, but a full exit of the signatory from the conflict to its completion. Here the question arises about how to keep the ruined lands. More than a 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 both with concessions for both sides, and completely in favor of the winners. In the first case, capitulation is a kind of bargaining, when almost equal in strength rivals try to avoid further damage to the economy and the economy. In the second case, there is coercion of the loser to fulfill obligations and further supervision with the suppression of any attempts to revise the conditions.