drgondog
Major
Then we reflect on so many historical turnarounds when the odds were hopelsss ranging from Spartans to the US War for Independence from Britain to frozen Chosin, etc
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.
Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.
I dont agree with the basic premise here. I think most lower and middle ranked officers were still ardent disciples of hitler. though they could see their formations being overwhelmed, none could know that this was happening in all sectors. many believed that hitler was preparing reserves for a massive counterstrike. others believed that terror weapons would turn the tide. Others, more logically believed that hitler would not allow Russian hordes to rape and pillage the fatherland. They fought on desperately, believing hitler would negotiate peace, or somehow achieve victory. perhaps the belief of total victory was gone, but most still believed in the nazi star. Belief in hitler was deep seated and almost unshakeable until the very end.
The fear of unconditional surrender also motivated many to fight on, hoping that something would change.
The high command knew much better, but even they deluded themselves into believeing that they could fight a war of attrition that would somehow demoralise their enemies, and that Hitler would be able to break up the grand alliance ranged against him and make separate peace with one or more of germany's enemies. Throughout germany there was an air of complete detached unreality as to the attitude the world had taken towards them (which was that germany had to be exorcised of its warlike, aggressive, murderous, untrustworthy ways) did not sink in.
It was not so much a refusal to accept the inevitable, as continuing to beleieve the lies put out by Hitler. most still believed in him until the very end. a few continued to do so even after the surrender
Then we reflect on so many historical turnarounds when the odds were hopelsss ranging from Spartans to the US War for Independence from Britain to frozen Chosin, etc
benevolent empire like the British one, and a brutish one like the Nazi's dreamt of is that we encouraged and developed the countries we arrived in. More importantly, when the time was right we gave independence and protection to these fledgling nations.
Cheers
John
Why fight a lost cause though? You have referred to 'saving what was left of Germany', surely to carry on fighting was ultimately self destructive?
Or,was it a refusal to accept the inevitable?
As we weren't there maybe we'll never know for sure.
A bit off topic, but I'll answer your point.
Absolutely. History records many examples of this.
The difference between a languid and benevolent empire like the British one, and a brutish one like the Nazi's dreamt of is that we encouraged and developed the countries we arrived in. More importantly, when the time was right we gave independence and protection to these fledgling nations.
Cheers
John
You are kidding right. There was nothing benevolent about the British Empire if you were on the wrong side of it,unless you fancy being strapped to a cannon and blown to bits.
For "encourage and develop" you could easily substitute exploit. A Jamaican slave cutting sugar cane on an 18th century plantation would struggle to see how he was being encouraged and developed by his benevolent masters.
This is not the place or forum to discuss this as it is inevitably a political debate but I couldn't just leave a contentious post like yours,even if trolling,to go unchallenged.
I'm saying no more.
Steve
John - in no way am I disparaging the Empire - but King George did not 'give us' anything, and the Empire retained a short memory of the woes of 3000 mile logistical chain in 1812-1814? Nor do I recall much in the way of protection to our 'fledgling nation' - lol
Maybe we were the poster child for the inevitable and Canada was one of the first beneficiaries of the 'new policy'?
Regards,
Bill
Thank the lord for the unconditional surrender terms. It changed Europe, and it changed Germany forever. The world is rid of one less problem because of it.
John - in no way am I disparaging the Empire - but King George did not 'give us' anything, and the Empire retained a short memory of the woes of 3000 mile logistical chain in 1812-1814? Nor do I recall much in the way of protection to our 'fledgling nation' - lol
Maybe we were the poster child for the inevitable and Canada was one of the first beneficiaries of the 'new policy'?
Regards,
Bill
parsifal, whats that chart for? allies?
Before you lot continue to play the race card (and quite what all this has to do with Eric Hartmann is beyond me,) you would do well to remember that it was the Royal Navy who led the way in putting an end to white slavery, by non-white nations, in the Mediterranean.
Edgar
P.S. Sorry, wrote this while the boss was trying to pull this back on course. To drag it right back, I suspect that, as with other top men in their profession, some were quite happy with them, while others loathed them. Talk to those who knew Bader, and you'll find a 50/50 split, even Johnny Johnson has his detractors.