Why did the Nazis surrender so easily? Why didn't the SS mount a guerilla resistance from the Alps?

...

They tried some guerilla actions with Werwolf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werwolf

but failed

It is in the German's nature to obey. Resistance simply would not occur to him.

Wehraboos are coming out of the woodwork more than often lately.

Germany was by all means ruined by 1945. All sources of fuel and coal were either destroyed or captured, all weapons, vehicle, and munitions plants have been taken or bombed to hell, Germany's capacity to resist was limited to 15 year old children and retired old men using their family's rifle and whatever weapons that were left on hand. The capacity to wage war was nonexistent, it was a struggle for people to even defend their homes, much less orchestrate counterattacks.

Within 1 week of Hitler's suicide, most of his inner circle and chiefs of staff have either been captured or committed suicide, with most others who managed to evade capture at the end of the war fleeing to South America. It's simple to say, there were no leaders in Germany willing to lead a resistance by the time Donitz signed Germany's surrender.

The final factor is that this war engulfed europe for 6 years, and laid waste to the entire continent, the German people lost all confidence in the NSDAP with their homes destroyed and their country under occupation. The common public's support for the party evaporated with the war, and no one wanted to see them return to power, much less fight a resistance in their name.

because people slowly started to realize that Hitler was a complete psychopathic egomaniac faggot

>the German's
We're a highly diverse group, which I'd be glad to clarify for you

You can't make a guerilla resistance out of soldiers that just saw everything they believed in destroyed by two of the things they hated the most, capitalism and communism
Besides, they were already pretty weakened before starting Operation Barbarossa.

Any kind of guerrilla resistance requires a large segment of the population to be sympathetic to it and thus willing to provide it with food, intel, supplies, and safe houses. Contrary to popular belief the Nazi's never gained an electoral majority or even plurality and many who did electorally support them did so out of the promise they would defend germany from the communists. In 1945 the Nazi's had ruined Germany so utterly no german would have been willing to give them the time of day much less give them support for an insurrection.

>All sources of fuel and coal were either destroyed or captured, all weapons, vehicle, and munitions plants have been taken or bombed to hell, Germany's capacity to resist was limited to 15 year old children and retired old men using their family's rifle and whatever weapons that were left on hand.

Didn't stop the vietnamese or the iraqis

no one was funneling the Germans more stuff like the Russians and Chinese did the Viet cong

What would be the point? Death or Glory was the only way for them.

Pretty much everybody knew that the country was fucked and the war was over.
They went from kicking Soviet ass in 1941 and taking huge swathes of territory in short amounts of time to getting their own ass kicked and having to resort to using old men and kids as soldiers.
They had 5.1 million military dead and probably millions more crippled, either physically or mentally. Even some of the more die-hard fanatics of the SS realized further struggle was hopeless.

Insurgencies don't work if the larger power doesn't give up.

hmm. Fair point, but how much external help were the iraqis really getting?

I bet a nazi insurgency could have expected some cynical support from either the US or the USSR depending on which one was doing the bulk of the counterinsurgency

All of the true believers died in the meat grinder.

see

fair enough tbqh

I'll raise a slightly interesting point:

Guerilla warfare continued against the Reds in the Baltics, Poland and Ukraine up until the 50s - whilst there was hardly any in Germany (East or West).

Why was this?

I've spoken to a number of British veterans who were stationed in Germany after the war and into the Cold War. Several of them have said they were ordered not to leave their bases at night unless they go out in groups, "because those old Hitler Youth types would beat up soldiers or even cut their throats".

Wether this was actually the case or just a ghost story told to stop squaddies wandering off by themselves and getting into trouble, I didnt think to press further.

Those who wanted their seat in Valhalla already achieved it.

Interesting question.

The Iraqis were getting fighters and funding from all over the world. Iran also sent them a shitton of explosives and other weapons.

I would like to know more.

Could it be the case that the Germans felt their war - directed and headed by them - was at an end, while the occupied nations felt like theirs was only beginning?

What's more, there's reports of German soldiers joining the local anti-Soviet partisans in the Baltics, rather than surrender - as a means to continue the struggle.

An overall interesting angle on the question, I'd say.

The TL;DR is that you shouldn't invade a country that borders Iran and Syria.

The Syrians were more than happy to leave their borders open and stir the pot, and the Iranians wanted to increase their control over the region by arming the Shiites in Iraq.

Every jihadist shithead from Morocco to Malaysia was pouring in to fight the infidels.

Hence, coalition troops found a wide variety of passports on the insurgents they killed, ranging from Tunisian to Chechnyan, to Kuwaiti, and so on.

Several Eastern European countries had been promised independence. It is isn't until around the 50's that the iron curtain solidifies.

Nothing had been promised to the Balts, and 1949 brought further deportations and repressions. And yes tens of thousands were prepared to die for a lost cause - after a world war.

>Why was this?

>Most males of fighting age in Germany are either dead, wounded, or in captivity
>Entire country is basically morally crushed from years of war, death, bombing, etc.
>Allies keeping the country under an iron grip
>German women pacified under threat of more big Siberian cock
That's why

All of this applies to the aforementioned Eastern European countries, yet they fought to the death for another decade.

>All of this applies to the aforementioned Eastern European countries
It doesn't all apply
The Baltics for example never saw the amount of death and destruction that Germany saw. They did have a large number of men who were drafted/volunteered to fight for either side during the war, but they never saw the kind of mass military mobilization that Germany and the other major powers saw. They never witnessed the kind of mass-atrocities the Germans saw in retaliation from the Red Army. They never witnessed major strategic bombing like what happened to Germany.
Yes, they were occupied, but they had been occupied by the Russians for a long time and could handle that.
Germans never saw a defeat like they took in WW2. They never took those kinds of casualties before.

Except that Germany wasn't innocent and unjustly invaded by foreign superpowers that were retarded enough to put camera crews along front-line units and allowed unrestricted media coverage of any atrocity that occurred. Germans wouldn't had been able to exploit the benevolence of their invaders and occupiers. They were getting raped regardless. Mind as-well just lube up and have them kiss you and cuddle with you beforehand than getting it in dry with no romantic passion.

I can agree with the Balts having experienced the Reds before (though a year and 2 weeks is not a long time by any measure) - however mass mobilization was most definitely prevalent there as well - starting with men of conscription age, and concluding with teenagers conscripted into the Luftwaffe helpers.

As far as mass atrocities go - I'd say they did, they just weren't as publicized. Strategic bombing though, fair enough, didn't take place there.

However there was another factor which just dawned on me - men of the Baltics at least, who served with the Germans, were considered traitors to the Soviet state, as they had been Soviet citizens 1940-41, and thus could expect much, much harsher treatment than Germans, and were not mere POWs.

youtube.com/watch?v=beZmjHhME6M

"On April 30th, 1945, the Führer committed suicide, thereby leaving everyone who followed him to their own death. You, our German soldiers, followed the Führer's orders, and were determined to continue the fight of Berlin, despite that our ammunition ran out and the fight was already lost. I hereby order immediate cease-fire! Every hour you fight on, only prolongs the agony of the civilians and our wounded. In agreement with the Russian troops high command, I ask you to surrender now!

Weidling, former commander of Berlin's defense area."

Partisan activity is for cowards. If you can't fight the enemy openly you might as well not fight at all.

Who was supposed to fight? They were already recruiting old men and children.

>Luftwaffe helpers

Hitler betrayed them desu.

They were sick of his shit.

destruction of the ruhr valley industry depots for storage of materials for national survival and war industry

rekt

...

Remnants of the 19th Latvian SS division formed the core of Latvian National partisans and the elements of the 15th Latvian SS division rather chose to fight to the death than surrender.

Remember that the SS wasnt German only and only in Germany.

>and the elements
some of the remaining elements*

not an argument

Bitte ein Glas Wasser

It's a fight for a different concept though. Germany was the aggressor who were then defeated, they were also fighting for the idea of a nation state, not a political ideology as much as Nazism is one, they were fighting for the state which when gone is pointless to fight for.

Thats just insurgency against commies.

Not true. The 15th mostly surrendered, disobeying orders to participate in defense of Berlin.

Kampfgruppe Janums with 40 officers, 123 NCOs and 658 enlisted surrendered at Güterglück on April 27th, the 34th Regiment surrendered at Schwerin on May 2nd, along with 700 men of the divisional artillery regiment, the divisional AT unit, signaller battalion.

The reserve battalion surrendered to allies in Denmark.

Only three companies of the Fusilier battalion participated in the last stand in Berlin, finding themselves there by accident.

The other divisional artillery regiment (there were two to add to the confusion) was detached and sent to Kurland, as was the divisional AA unit.

>If capitalism is so great how come they lost to chink communists?
If you lose militarily it does not discredit your ideology whatsoever dumbass.

As I said SOME elements

Most of the 15th surrendered to the Allies because that was the best choice they had, since the Soviets would have shot them anyway. The Allies even used Latvians from the 15ths for after war missions and as guards in Nuremberg.

The Fusiliers were not there by accident, they had no way to surrender to Allies so the choice was obvious: die in combat or get executed by Soviets. So they died defending the Reichstag and Air ministry ruins.

To what end?

They were there by accident - due to their battalion Wally commander managing to lose his unit.

And the fight to the death is also bollocks: 140 men of the Fusiliers that fought in Berlin wound up in the Zedelgem POW camp, while around 100 in Soviet captivity - that's out of the a bit over 300 that left for Berlin on April 20th.

And it's Neilands, not Nielands. He himself lived to see the end of the war, even escaping to Western captivity.

>nazis hated capitalism
Not quite. Capitalism is bad when jews do it but if it's done for the sake of Reich, its awwwwright

what are the red markings supposed to mean?

>Why did the Nazis surrender so easily
>Had their infrastructure, industry and cities bomb to ruins
>Millions and millions of dead
>The entire country is occupied and the capital as well
>easily surrendered
Are you stupid?

What did they have to do in order for it to not be a easy surrender.

this man knows

Parts of the picture to be censored.

>so easily

Ah yes.

Servile instincts.

>meanwhile in Poland
>Most of the Polish anti-communist groups ceased to exist in the late 1940s or 1950s, hunted down by agents of the Ministry of Public Security and Soviet NKVD assassination squads.[2] However, the last known 'cursed soldier', Józef Franczak, was killed in an ambush as late as 1963, almost 20 years after the Soviet take-over of Poland.[3][4]
Germs are pussies.

>The Baltics for example never saw the amount of death and destruction that Germany saw.
Estonia lost 25% of their population and I'm sure the other two countries didn't fare that much better.
This conversation is asinine

>Remember that the SS wasnt German only and only in Germany.
Much to the chagrin of Himmler himself. He did it because if a Croatian dies instead of a german, isn't that better for the german race? Stop trying to force your make believe agenda of nazi multiculturalism on a dweeb image board

What are you on about? OP asked why there werent any SS resistance in Germany, I pointed out the SS wasnt only in Germany.

>What did they have to do in order for it to not be a easy surrender.
The OP clearly sets out post-surrender resistance as the bar. Reading comprehension is hard?

Sorry, just had a fight with a /pol/ack regarding nazis and their inclusion of non-aryans in their ranks in 1944 and '45. Still a bit antsy, I'm sorry.

Easily surrendered. Read about the battle of Berlin, it was high-fantasy-tier epic and retarded. The Baltics and Poland had still more to lose at this point.

Guerilla warfare is only effective if there is a large foreign power supplying the guerillas. There is only so much you can do with salvaged and home made weapons. Every successful guerilla movement that went up against a major power (Vietcong, the Mujahedeen, all those various islamist groups in modern Syria) had foreign backers.

After WW2, there were still a lot of Germans against allied and Soviet occupation and some even tried to organize the Nazi resistance but they never became relevant because no one would supply them.

Estonia had a tiny fucking population in the 30s and 40s

Germany lost around five million or more soldiers and maybe 1 or 2 million civilians if I recall correctly.

And that would be the leftist/communists and the former Nazi/Socialist settling their hash.

You guys used that excuse for WWI, can't use it again buddy.

>have ability to colonize Antarctica and moon
>can survive there isolated
>both feats far beyond capabilities of nations after all those decades
>still lose World War 2

I think the psychological situation is different when you start a war and end up worse off than you when you started.

Nazi logic.

You can't betray those you don't have any loyalty to, you can't have any loyalty towards those who are trying to stomp you out of existence.

That's pretty much the logic in all wars.

this

And this: I have no idea what you guys are arguing about. Germany's defeat was probably the clearest loss in modern history. In Berlin 12 year olds were fighting and dying.

Also Germans have always despises Guerilla warfare.

I'm calling "nazi logic" the idea that "jews and communists can betray nazis" because such a thing is impossible by definition

>implying the SS isn't still active underground

The shit I've seen over the past ten years on /new/pol/...

...

DAMAGE CONTROL
A
M
A
G
E

C
O
N
T
R
O
L

cucked harder than humanely possible

/thread

What about Teutoberg Forest?

Not him, but there's a huge swath of distance between the ambush of a regular army in a single engagement and guerilla warfare.