You would not regard it as irrelevant if you were on the losing side in a war, Number 6.

Remember, people who start and fight wars are always under the impression that they are absolutely in the right and fully justified AND defending their nation. Not sometimes. Always.

It is only after the war is lost that their assumptions in that regard may come into question.

Had Hitler won his war, for instance (which was extremely unlikely in the long run), he would have been hailed worldwide as a great hero, it would have been Churchill and Stalin who were dead or in a war crimes trial, and the general public would never even have heard about the Nazi death camps. Not a peep would be heard about it.

Note: I am NOT saying Hitler was right or that his cause was right! He was dead wrong. His cause was dead wrong. But...I am saying that history is written by the winners, and the winners go to great lengths to whitewash their own sins.

It's absolutely stupid to hold an opposing side to an unconditional surrender when a conditional surrender is possible. It's asinine to do so. It only means that there will be a lot more fighting and death and destruction before it ends than there needs to be.

It was Ulysses S. Grant who most popularized the modern concept of "unconditional surrender" during the Civil War, so much so that he became known as "Unconditional Surrender Grant". He did the world no favor.