WWII tank Duel

[Strix]

Yes, but this is most noticeable amongst the least educated, so it stands to reason.  These are the kinds of people who don't question things, in any society.

I'm not sure I agree with that first sentence.

It's probably not 100% accurate but I think it's true for the most part. The least educated are often the most vocal but when push comes to shove they tend to follow orders and not question what is occurring.

[dps]

I think the Germans were simply unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions; it was always easier to just obey orders than to take the time and effort needed to think rationally about the best interests of one's own nation and family, especially in time of war.

I agree with this in terms of the Western front, but I can't blame them for not lying down & surrendering to the Russians.

Well, what they wanted was to find a way to make peace with the Western Allies and keep fighting against the Soviets.  That wasn't really in the cards after the US entered the war.  If the Germans had been able to keep the US neutral, eventually the British would have probably agreed to peace, though they'd have had to vote Churchill out of office first.  The Germans AFAIK never had any demands that the British surrender;  the UK could probably have had peace on the basis of the status quo any time after the fall of France.

Actually, even given the unconditional surrender demand, they probably could have gotten a conditional surrender as late as 1943.  Italy's surrender, after all, was highly conditional.  But they wouldn't have gotten a peace with the WA that allowed them to continue fighting in the east.

[Habbaku]

I think the Germans were simply unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions; it was always easier to just obey orders than to take the time and effort needed to think rationally about the best interests of one's own nation and family, especially in time of war.

Well, what they wanted was to find a way to make peace with the Western Allies and keep fighting against the Soviets.  That wasn't really in the cards after the US entered the war.  If the Germans had been able to keep the US neutral, eventually the British would have probably agreed to peace, though they'd have had to vote Churchill out of office first.  The Germans AFAIK never had any demands that the British surrender;  the UK could probably have had peace on the basis of the status quo any time after the fall of France.

I agree with this in terms of the Western front, but I can't blame them for not lying down & surrendering to the Russians.

[The Brain]

I think the Germans were simply unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions; it was always easier to just obey orders than to take the time and effort needed to think rationally about the best interests of one's own nation and family, especially in time of war.

Well, what they wanted was to find a way to make peace with the Western Allies and keep fighting against the Soviets.  That wasn't really in the cards after the US entered the war.  If the Germans had been able to keep the US neutral, eventually the British would have probably agreed to peace, though they'd have had to vote Churchill out of office first.  The Germans AFAIK never had any demands that the British surrender;  the UK could probably have had peace on the basis of the status quo any time after the fall of France.

I agree with this in terms of the Western front, but I can't blame them for not lying down & surrendering to the Russians.

[grumbler]

I think the Germans were simply unwilling to face the consequences of their own actions; it was always easier to just obey orders than to take the time and effort needed to think rationally about the best interests of one's own nation and family, especially in time of war.

Well, what they wanted was to find a way to make peace with the Western Allies and keep fighting against the Soviets.  That wasn't really in the cards after the US entered the war.  If the Germans had been able to keep the US neutral, eventually the British would have probably agreed to peace, though they'd have had to vote Churchill out of office first.  The Germans AFAIK never had any demands that the British surrender;  the UK could probably have had peace on the basis of the status quo any time after the fall of France.

I agree with this in terms of the Western front, but I can't blame them for not lying down & surrendering to the Russians.

[Razgovory]

Is anyone going to say anything?

[Agelastus]

Is anyone going to say anything?

What would you like someone to say?

[Barrister]

Yes, but this is most noticeable amongst the least educated, so it stands to reason.  These are the kinds of people who don't question things, in any society.

I'm not sure I agree with that first sentence.

It's probably not 100% accurate but I think it's true for the most part. The least educated are often the most vocal but when push comes to shove they tend to follow orders and not question what is occurring.

Again, I don't really agree with that.  The "least educated" are almost by definition the least plugged into society and therefore tend to not follow anyone's orders, and question very highly the direction of society.

I suspect it's bias on the part of a highly educated forum to say that those with less education than us (annd whther it's formal education or not, this is a knowedgeable bunch) are more like sheep, and less questioning.

[Martim Silva]

In the light of the Allied demands, I think it's a bit easier to see why they might've gambled, as they did, on a few last-gasp offensives, wonder weapons and, at the end, simply wanted to see the destruction of Germany rather than a surrender of what little was left standing.

You DO realise, I suppose, that our demands were unconditional surrender and that all planners from the victors' side intended to carve Germany up, right?

Germany was to BE destroyed - nobody hid that intention. Surrender or no surrender.

So, it was moot if the Germans kept fighting or laid down their weapons - their country was going to be gone. The US even had the Morgenthau Plan, which planned the divison of Germany into two nations and the creation of several 'international' states.

Besides, he had even said that:

There is the illusion that the New Germany left after the annexations can be reduced to a 'pastoral state'. It cannot be done unless we exterminate or move 25,000,000 people out of it."

http://www.un.org/Pubs/chronicle/2008/webarticles/080103_marshallplan.html

Small wonder that the Germans kept fighting.

How would YOU act if many great powers invaded the US with the express intent to destroy the country forever and kill/displace 100 million Americans, no matter what? Just give up and say 'okay, you're too strong, no point in trying to get some conditional peace that may allow the US to keep existing'?

In fact, the Germans ended up better than they expected, the country was only split into three (two if you don't count Austria).

And Germany could even have become reunited again by 1952, with no Berlin Wall ever, if the US had just accepted the USSRs' proposal of March 10th 1952 to reunify the country, but leaving it neutral as a buffer between both blocs.

But, alas, the allies were very keen on their new imperial possessions on the east side of the Rhine, so Germany remained divided until 1990 and had to endure a very painful division for decades.

EDIT: And the 'scorched Earth policy' of Hitler was also moot. Even if it is commonly said that his commanders were wise to ignore Hitlers' orders and ended up not destroying the German industry before it was conquered, the result was merely that the USSR packed up the German factories and sent them to the Union, while the Allies simply blew them up, as part of the plan to reduce the Germans to a pastoral state.

[citizen k]

But, alas, the allies were very keen on their new imperial possessions on the east side of the Rhine, so Germany remained divided until 1990 and had to endure a very painful division for decades.

Those mean allies. 

[Habbaku]

You DO realise, I suppose, that our demands were unconditional surrender and that all planners from the victors' side intended to carve Germany up, right?

  Did you even read the first half of my post?

[Warspite]

But, alas, the allies were very keen on their new imperial possessions on the east side of the Rhine, so Germany remained divided until 1990 and had to endure a very painful division for decades.

It is a very curious kind of "imperialism" indeed that involves the conquerors turning the vanquished into a rich export powerhouse while simultaneously paying considerable sums of their own money for its defence.

[Martim Silva]

It is a very curious kind of "imperialism" indeed that involves the conquerors turning the vanquished into a rich export powerhouse while simultaneously paying considerable sums of their own money for its defence.

Turned the vanquished? Or just the portion of them that suited you? What did you do to the Germans on the Soviet side?

Besides, the German achievements were done on their own merit - note that Austria *did* became a neutral nation between the two blocs, and its economy also flourished, without your alleged "help". And East Germany was the most prosperous nation of the Eastern Bloc.

As for your "sums for defence"... since Germany needed NONE, you merely served your own interests, not the Germans (who also had to pay for their militaries, and that went double as they had to pay for armies on both sides)

  Did you even read the first half of my post?

Yes, but you placed a good chunk of the issue on the German High Command, and you did not emphazise enough what the Germans knew was coming to them, and added the surrrender "of what was left standing". It did not do justice to the actual situation.

But at least you were one of the few that grasped that the Germans were forced to do their stand for other reasons than just fanaticism - they were fighting for their very existence.

Those mean allies. 

Yes, the USSR was disappointed with the Allies' decision to keep Germany divided.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/cwh/2004/00000004/00000002/art00003

[garbon]

I like that Msil isn't afraid to share the objective truth.

[grumbler]

I like that Msil isn't afraid to share the objective truth.

Indeed.  Because one man had a plan (A man, a plan, a canal, Panama!) that the Germans didn't even know about, it is easy to understand why they fought tooth and nail to keep another man in power who obviously planned to destroy them for failing him. 

Thank god for Martim Silva!  Without him, we would have to take turns being "the languish poster who has learned the least from a study of history."