[jeffersondem]

“And yet, we're mainly talking about the Civil War here, which was some 40 years before George Orwell was even born.”

Orwell's novel was looking forward but informed by earlier events including the 1940s.

His cautionary tale may have been targeting those who would find the need - for whatever reason - to claim that unconditional surrender means the exact same thing as surrender with conditions.

He was concerned about those that would twist the truth into its opposite. Orwell is as current as this thread.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "His cautionary tale may have been targeting those who would find the need - for whatever reason - to claim that unconditional surrender means the exact same thing as surrender with conditions."

Since you are obviously the expert on "unconditional surrenders", I would invite you to inform us, from your expertise, exactly what each of these men intended by the term "unconditional surrender" and whether you believe that was, in fact, what they achieved:

1. US Gen. George Washington at the 1781 Battle of Yorketown, VA.

2. US Gen. Ulysses Grant at the 1862 Battle of Fort Donelson, TN.

3. US Gen. Ulysses Grant at the 1865 Battle of Appomattox Court House, VA.

4. US President Franklin Roosevelt's WWII stated terms for surrender of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan.

I'll be most interested to learn your thoughts on the subject, and how they may, or may not, be related to George Orwell's 1940s era warnings.