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.

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.

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.