From: Hoorn (NED).
Let me put it this way:
Would any country surrender unconditionally if they still can defend themselves? Especially before WW II, a country which did so, always became a poor country, full of hungry and despaired citizens...
Look at the WW I treaty: Germany, Turkey and Austria had huge reparation payments to do. While in the West their were the "roaring" twenties, in those nations there were food riots, hunger, unemployment, hyperinflation and on and on and on. My grandmother was evacuated out of Austria in those years, together with her schoolchildren to the Netherlands, because there was no food there. And after her return there, it wasn't any better...
So we've got a war going on, which everybody knows will be lost. However, if you surrender, this is an "unconditional" surrender, which will probably mean hunger, occupation, unemployment and no prospects to a better life. So it is better to die with honor and to fight to the last bullit... That's what was the reason the Germans still did fight in 1945, according to my greatuncles diary of those years...
Why did Japan surrender? Because the emperor stayed on as emperor of Japan. That meant that a Japan would be existing after the war and that the country wouldn't be dismantled...
If you don't give the enemy a way out, they will fight and continue to fight, even with the home country conquered. This is also what the Poles, Dutch, Belgians, Norwegians and on and on and on did in the CW forces...
< Message edited by Centuur -- 11/26/2014 7:39:03 PM >