This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
How about the surrender of 100,000 US troops in the Philippines during WW2? Very curious the Americans get both the surrender of Japan and Germany in pictures. Gotta love the American dominated Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.212.110 (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this article non muslims surrender to muslims is not mentioned
it seems wikipedia want to hide muslims victories and their achievements i have seen very less on wikipedia about muslim victory and integrity and honor…………i hope you all would have noticed Codereader786 (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are really right same thing i have commented check it Codereader786 (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
History?
A history with no dates, not even rough ones (e.g., "in the middle ages") is not a history. Can someone find some dates, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.99 (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
France Again
As stated, this is not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcocker2 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody added France to "See also" section (again). Removed
--77.109.206.116 (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
France?
Yeah, that France mention seems like it was added as a subtle joke. I'm going to go ahead and delete it...
Err is it just me or should France not be in the see also? It might not be NPOV.
-81.104.135.154 23:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5 S's
I was taught just last year the 5 S's are
Secure,
Search,
Segregate,
Safeguard,
and Speed to the rear
not what you have written down. But it was my Sargent Major who taught us that so I believe him a whole heck of a lot more then your non-sourced 5 S's.
That is all.
Well, yes, it is unsourced. Did he teach that from a specific publication or something else from the War Department that can be looked up and/or referenced?
Does any-body else think it odd that three of the five photograhs are of the Second World War? User: Mmuroya
Armistice and Surrendering
The armistice article states a key aspect of armistice is that "all fighting ends with no one surrendering." The surrender (military) article states that a surrender between nations is achieved by the signing of an armistice. Both lack any citations. Obviously one of these statements is wrong. ialsoagree (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honourable surrender
You've missed one form of surrender, the best for the loser, meaning the honourable surrender (French: "reddition dans l'honneur"; German: "ehrenvollen Kapitulation"; Italian: "onore delle armi"), when the loser army parades with flags and band between two wings of winners in military formation, showing the weapons.
The last times this rite was performed were: after the siege of Gaeta in 1861; at the end of Franco-Prussian War in 1871; during First World War Austrians gave this honour to the Granatieri di Sardegna. During Second World War Germans granted this honour to Frenchmen in 1940 and Allies acknowledged this honour to Italians four times: after Amba Alagi surrender, after Al Alamein battle, after battle of Tunisia and to X M.A.S. at the end of the war. Lele giannoni (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This well-designed RfC is about whether to add a photograph of Pakistani officers signing an instrument of surrender forty-five years ago. However, some of the debate participants !voted on a slightly different question, which was whether to replace the photograph of Japan's surrender in the Second World War with the Indo-Pakistani war one. At first glance the debate might appear to be a "no consensus", but that's deceptive; if you keep in mind who was !voting on which question and then follow the diffs one by one, the true course of the debate is revealed.
During the course of this debate, there were some allegations that I considered. It was alleged that Barthateslisa wanted to insert this image for partisan reasons. What's certainly true is that the long conflict between India and Pakistan has involved a war of words as well as of bullets, and that Wikipedia has been one of its key battlegrounds. I don't know, or care, whether Barthateslisa is a partisan; what's missing from this line of argument is any actual reason to exclude the image. No such reason is offered, and in fact, there are several excellent reasons to include it, enumerated in SMcCandlish's decisive intervention in the debate. Remarkably, after SMcCandlish's edit, every single subsequent editor voted to include the picture. It was clearly highly persuasive.
I conclude that the disputed photograph may be added to the article, but it may not replace any of the pre-existing images.
I hope this helps and all the best—S MarshallT/C 13:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rfc : Shouldn' this Photograph of Pakistan's surrender in 1971 be added?
The following pic is one of the most iconic picture of any surrender by a military in the world. Its an actual, explicit picture of a Lt Gen from a defeated army signing a real instrument of surrender following his force's defeat. Its neither a portrait, nor a picture implying a surrender, it shows a real surrender. The picture should be added on the page. I invite people's input regarding objection or support to the said edit, for discussion. Thanks.
Placement of File:Surrender of Japan - USS Missouri.jpg
The picture File:Surrender of Japan - USS Missouri.jpg's placement may make it appear to be related to the "False surrender" section, while not particularly important, it may be misleading, should it be moved? IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 03:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When an article is somewhat short, image placement is usually not closely tied to content. This article could obviously be expanded a great deal, so this is a semi-problem that will fix itself over time. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rethink of photos
If we can have four photos, how about four different stages or types of surrendering? (1) the formal surrender like Cornwallis's shown. (2) a signing like the Indian-Pakistani one or this one from the USS Missouri surrender, this showing the signing [1] (3) showing the use of a white flag by individual soldiers: [2] or [3], and (4) showing raised-hands surrender: [4] and [5] and [6] --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Surrender (military). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.