XPost: soc.culture.baltics, soc.culture.czecho-slovak, soc.culture.russian   
   From: kurkku@hassuserveri.fi   
      
   "David Friedman"  kirjoitti   
   viestissä:ddfr-204A47.12193017082008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET...   
   > In article ,   
   > Markku Grönroos  wrote:   
   >   
   >> "David Friedman"  kirjoitti   
   >> viestissä:ddfr-1AF837.11563417082008@CA.NEWS.VERIO.NET...   
   >> > In article   
   >> > ,   
   >> > holman@mappi.helsinki.fi (Eugene Holman) wrote:   
   >> >   
   >> >> > After the Russian defeat of the Wehrmacht at Stalingrad,   
   >> >> > it was achieved by renouncing armed resistance.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> Obviously a wise move. It is always prudent to abandon a cause that   
   >> >> has   
   >> >> become hopeless. Germany refused to do so, and look what happened to   
   >> >> it   
   >> >> after the war.   
   >> >   
   >> > I thought Germany didn't have the option--that the allies had committed   
   >> > themselves pretty firmly to unilateral surrender, presumably as a way   
   >> > of   
   >> > preventing efforts by the Germans to divide them.   
   >> >   
   >> So the Germans couldn't surrender before the May 1945 because the Allies   
   >> (the Soviets)  had committed themselves to something?   
   >   
   > Couldn't surrender on more favorable terms then they ended up getting.   
   >   
   Because Germany wasn't as shattered and devastated in summer 1944 as it was   
   in spring 1945, the Soviets had levelled Germans cities a bit more (in order   
   to achieve the spring 1945 level, which was most flat indeed) if the Germans   
   had decided to wave white flags in summer 1944. Somehow I believe I have   
   missed you.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)