One major agreement of an unconditional surrender is that the troops that disarm won’t be slaughtered by the other side when they do.
Holy nitpick Batman. Or strawman? The terms of surrender were unconditional. That their troops wouldn’t be slaughtered is implicit and was protected under international law. That’s not a negotiation.
that’s not nit-picking. Reaching a surrender IS DEPLOMACY. I swear to God people think it’s like a video game and you kill the main boss and all the henchmen lay down their arms. That’s not how wars end.
Okay check yourself with ad hominem attacks, asshole.
Germany’s surrender was a military act, not a diplomatic one. It was signed by generals, not diplomats or politicians. Germany’s surrender was not a negotiated agreement as they were denied any legitimacy to negotiate.
There is literally a picture of the surrender being signed mate. You don’t have to be a politician to do diplomatic actions for your state. This is all that I’m referring to. Wars end with agreements. No matter what you want to call it. Surrender, Treaties, Truce, etc.
No matter how you want to nitpick if it’s a “not a politician” or whatever else you dense idiots can’t get through your skulls.
Also, ad hominems are when someone insults a person in order to AVOID addressing their argument.
You can call someone an idiot AND address their argument. Which is what I’m doing. It’s not an “ad hominem” everytime someone insults you. Get a brain.
Again, unconditional surrender by the military, which was no longer willing to defend its country, is not diplomacy. It is a military act. Unconditional surrender is the result of failed diplomacy, it is failure to negotiate an end to a conflict. It’s not an “agreement,” it is a one-sided act of capitulation.
This isn’t nitpicking, you’re making a huge reach to call it diplomacy. If you can show me any published book, dictionary or document that says that unconditional surrender is an act of diplomacy, I’ll stand corrected. But I’m pretty sure you’ll have a very hard time finding such a thing.
Diplomacy is by definition the management of relations between countries, by representatives of the countries, not between a country and another country’s military. Germany was not under military rule, so the military wasn’t making a decision for the country, and it was not a diplomatic act.
I mean, it’s in the first sentence of what you posted [emphasis mine]
The German Instrument of Surrender[a] was a legal document effecting the unconditional surrender of the remaining German armed forces to the Allies, ending World War II in Europe.
The signatories on the German side were
Admiral Hans-Georg von Friedeburg
Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel
General Hans-Jürgen Stumpff
Notice they’re all military, not government representatives. These signatories represent the German High Command (military), not Germany itself, it says so on the first line of the terms.
The terms are all about orders to the military and how they will perform the act of surrendering. It is a purely military document. There’s nothing about the country, nothing about the government, nothing diplomatic about it. There is nothing in the terms that say what the Allies will do.
You don’t have to be a politician to do diplomatic actions for your state.
As I hope you can see now, they weren’t performing actions on behalf of the state. They were performing on behalf of the military, and that’s a huge difference.
Imagine if the US military signed terms of surrender, or even gave away equipment to another country, on its own, without Congress or the President issuing an order. That wouldn’t be considered diplomacy, it would be a military act, and if you can’t see the difference, then I guess we’re done here.
And ad hominem attacks are used to distract from the weakness of your own argument, which is what you continue to do.
Yeah I’m not reading all that. You’re going max autism to ignore a very simple point that started with JD Vance making a vague statement about how “talks” end wars.
You can nitpick all day. But it’s a garbage reason to attack JD Vance. Proven by the fact that literally only this click-bait article is talking about it. And I’m not wasting my time reading an essay from someone that doesn’t understand that.
There are a thousand better reasons to shit on Vance and I have no reason to care about an exhausting conversation like this. Especially when you can’t get that very simple point from my initial comment.
Holy nitpick Batman. Or strawman? The terms of surrender were unconditional. That their troops wouldn’t be slaughtered is implicit and was protected under international law. That’s not a negotiation.
that’s not nit-picking. Reaching a surrender IS DEPLOMACY. I swear to God people think it’s like a video game and you kill the main boss and all the henchmen lay down their arms. That’s not how wars end.
Okay check yourself with ad hominem attacks, asshole.
Germany’s surrender was a military act, not a diplomatic one. It was signed by generals, not diplomats or politicians. Germany’s surrender was not a negotiated agreement as they were denied any legitimacy to negotiate.
I swear people are being purposely obtuse.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Instrument_of_Surrender
There is literally a picture of the surrender being signed mate. You don’t have to be a politician to do diplomatic actions for your state. This is all that I’m referring to. Wars end with agreements. No matter what you want to call it. Surrender, Treaties, Truce, etc.
No matter how you want to nitpick if it’s a “not a politician” or whatever else you dense idiots can’t get through your skulls.
Also, ad hominems are when someone insults a person in order to AVOID addressing their argument.
You can call someone an idiot AND address their argument. Which is what I’m doing. It’s not an “ad hominem” everytime someone insults you. Get a brain.
Again, unconditional surrender by the military, which was no longer willing to defend its country, is not diplomacy. It is a military act. Unconditional surrender is the result of failed diplomacy, it is failure to negotiate an end to a conflict. It’s not an “agreement,” it is a one-sided act of capitulation.
This isn’t nitpicking, you’re making a huge reach to call it diplomacy. If you can show me any published book, dictionary or document that says that unconditional surrender is an act of diplomacy, I’ll stand corrected. But I’m pretty sure you’ll have a very hard time finding such a thing.
Diplomacy is by definition the management of relations between countries, by representatives of the countries, not between a country and another country’s military. Germany was not under military rule, so the military wasn’t making a decision for the country, and it was not a diplomatic act.
I mean, it’s in the first sentence of what you posted [emphasis mine]
The signatories on the German side were
Notice they’re all military, not government representatives. These signatories represent the German High Command (military), not Germany itself, it says so on the first line of the terms.
Now, read the full instruments of surrender here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Definitive_German_Instrument_of_Surrender_(8_May_1945)
The terms are all about orders to the military and how they will perform the act of surrendering. It is a purely military document. There’s nothing about the country, nothing about the government, nothing diplomatic about it. There is nothing in the terms that say what the Allies will do.
As I hope you can see now, they weren’t performing actions on behalf of the state. They were performing on behalf of the military, and that’s a huge difference.
Imagine if the US military signed terms of surrender, or even gave away equipment to another country, on its own, without Congress or the President issuing an order. That wouldn’t be considered diplomacy, it would be a military act, and if you can’t see the difference, then I guess we’re done here.
And ad hominem attacks are used to distract from the weakness of your own argument, which is what you continue to do.
Yeah I’m not reading all that. You’re going max autism to ignore a very simple point that started with JD Vance making a vague statement about how “talks” end wars.
You can nitpick all day. But it’s a garbage reason to attack JD Vance. Proven by the fact that literally only this click-bait article is talking about it. And I’m not wasting my time reading an essay from someone that doesn’t understand that.
There are a thousand better reasons to shit on Vance and I have no reason to care about an exhausting conversation like this. Especially when you can’t get that very simple point from my initial comment.
You’re reaching so hard to defend JD Vance I wonder what orifice you use to please him every morning.
See, now that’s Ad hominem. No rebuttal and pure insult. Glad you’re learning.