Declaring victory and admitting defeat

When do wartime events cause state leaders to change their political or military approach to a war, or try to end it? This study answers this question by focusing on leaders' beliefs about how war advances their political aims and the changes those beliefs undergo, and the role of emotions in motivating or suppressing those changes. These key beliefs are conceptualized as Theories of Victory, and three key types of theory of victory---oriented toward demonstrating capability, wearying their opponent, or directly acquiring the aims---are identified. These types are used to explain how leaders interpret wartime events and, if they conclude their approach has failed, what further options (if any) will seem plausible. The motivation to learn associated with anxiety (produced by novel bad news) and the suppression of learning associated with anger and contentedness (produced by familiar bad news and good news) are used to explain when particular series of events lead to these key changes. Three cases are used to test the theory---the Winter War (Finland-USSR 1939-1940), the Pacific War (US-Japan 1941-1945) and the Battle of France (France-Germany 1940).