As title, if you have post or link any useful resource you have

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I didn’t think it saved lives, since it empowered the Nazis to kill more people. So I say no it wasn’t the right choice.

    • SLfgb@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Look it’s hard to say if it saved lives in the overall ww2 tally, but surrender to save lives was the rationale of the Generals eg in The Netherlands. They looked at what the Luftwaffe had done to Rotterdam, looked at what weapons they had themselves, considered the prospect of what was going to happen to Utrecht next, and decided that further resistance was futile. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II#German_occupation

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Sorry, I don’t mean to say that it killed more people in every case. I agree there are could be cases where the outcome was certain, and maintaining strength for gorilla resistance and saving population centers was likely prudent.

        I was primarily referring to appeasement, where countries in Europe, mostly England, gave the Nazis land to avoid war.