I remeber watching history channel a night ago, and they said something about a Division surrendering to the Americans ( maybe russians ) The division was ordered to help defend Berlin, but the commander surrender instead, saying that his orders were to take care of his men....

Anyone know anything about this? i need to do a Nation Honor Society paper about something in History that someone took a stand.....

During the liberation of Berlin, there were pockets of German officers that would rather surrender to the US/Britain as oppose to the russians as they were aware of what the russians were capable of once they surrendered to them.

I cant recall the name of the German senior officers that met up with Field Marshal Montgomery to arrange for a surrender but Montgomery wasnt going to accept anything else apart from unconditional surrender which the germans were totally prepared to do. They wanted assurance that their men would be kept alive and not turned over to the russians. Montgomery said no to them. This meeting occured on a train carriage on the outskirts of Berlin.

I would recommend the DVD " Last Days of WWII" as they analyze the end of the war down to the weeks and there is a whole episode on this part of the war.

The underlying point is that this incident definitely occured and it was a known fact that the germans did what they could to surrender to the US.

I'm not sure a German surrendering to the "good guys" rather than be killed/captured by the "bad guys" qualifies as taking a stand ...

Rosa Parks certainly qualifies and is certainly more topical and relevant ....

John

Yeah it does, Rather than sacraficing his own men to a lost cause, he rejected his orders to save his, men in my opinion that is taking a Stand.

Reminds me of the german officer who got promoted for saying "I will fight to the last man" or somthing like that in Stalingrad. The next day he ends up surrendering to the russians. I cant remember his name off the top of my head. But I thought that was a type of move only hypocrites pull.

Sources like the History Channel are o.k. as a general introduction to a theme, however, in the final analysis, there is little to beat a good reference book written by a reputable historian - i.e. NOT Cornelius Ryan or Ambrose...Jim

Harrison

I believe you're referring to Gen. von Paulus. Hitler promoted him to Field Marshall because no German Field Marshall in history had ever surrendered, and this was Hitler's way of trying to ensure that the 6th Army didn't surrender, but would fight until "the last man".

I believe that Brigadefuhrer Heinz Harmel was removed from command of the Frundesberg Division in 1945 for refusing to lead his men in a suicidal attack on superior Russian forces. Army Group commander Felix Steiner also refused to commit his units to aid Berlin, as he was hopelessly outnumbered. However Steiner was not relieved of his command as he was too well respected & too remote from Hitlers headquarters to make this feasible. Both these officers were Waffen SS.

An excellent idea.

Also, do not be afraid to ask around, as this is an international forum. For example, what about the protestors in Prague, 1968? There might be people here who saw some of that first hand, and at least might give you some key terms on which to search. Or Captain Alphonse Dreyfuss?

If you are interested in German defiance of Hitler, you could take the example of the Nazi euthanasia program for the mentally ill, which had to be halted due to protests from the Churches. This is about the only anti-Nazi protest to achieve anything in Germany 1933 - 45.
If you want a military instance, you could study Paul Hausser's defiance of Hitlers last stand order in Kharkov in Jan- Feb 1943. Hausser defied a direct "Fuhrer Order", withdrew the SS Panzer Korps (LAH, Das Reich & Totenkopf) from Kharkov, allowing the Russians to enter, then in a "backhand blow", used the units he had saved to encircle & destroy the Russian Army in Kharkov.

Jim,

I would like to respectfully disagree with the Ryan statement. I honestly think that his three books were well researched and ground breaking for their time. He wrote books when most historians were giving the masses the typical “victors justice” version of what occurred. He actually interviewed Germans, which, at that time was unheard of. As far as Ambrose is concerned, I think the best book he wrote was “Undaunted Courage.” I realize that both of these writers have taken hits for being too soft on one thing or the other but I give them both credit for getting people to actually read history books instead of watching TV.

Reference Rosa Parks,

Max asked for information, not suggestions on what his paper topic should be. The fact that he is in the National Honor Society should speak for itself. When I was a freshman in high school, oh so many years ago, the first speech I gave in communications class was about Operation Epsom. No one knew anything about Epsom, but everyone knew about Reagan getting shot. You have to pick your topic. While Rosa Parks may be topical, everyone has played that to death, so to speak. If Max can write a decent paper about people who stood up to an evil that was directly responsible for the deaths of at least 50 million people, I say go for it. I have been there. As soon as you are interested in military history and aren't on the football team everyone looks at you funny. I wasn't on the football team, but most of the guys that were are handing me my breakfast when I drive through McDonald's.

Max, If you need any help with the paper let me know.

Shaun.

Sorry for the rant.

Max, I don't know much about the man you're looking for, but since you're gonna need some research material on your subject. Maybe you should give USAF pilot and leader Billy Mitchell some thought. Back when the USAF was called the US Army Air Corp he suggested the expansion and use of the air force for strategic bombing. Off course this was after WWI and before WWII. So his opinion hadn't materialized yet. He demonstrated his idea of strategic bombing on an old warship infront of the heads of the different departments of the military and infront of some congressmen. His planes were not supposed to go below a certain altitude (command from Army officials who wanted the money for their own projects)which would ruin the demonstration. He told his boys to go low anyway, the demonstration was a success. The planes sank the ship. Because of the direct order not to allow the planes to go low Billy Mitchell was busted in rank and went before a committee of army judges along with some senators who used the opportunity to ruin his career. Anyway long story short Mitchell was right about the bombing demonstration (Dec. 7, 1941). Ironically they named a bomber after him the B-25 "Mitchell." So, since you live in the U.S. and it might be hard to find info on the german guy, why don't you give Mitchell a try

Studying Rosa Parks may yield lessons on strategy useful to the soldier, as well. In war, finding the invincible position, plan, or weapons system is generally not where success comes from. Success is maximizing your own potential, minimizing your own vulnerabilities (or using them to your own advantage), while forcing the enemy to nullify his or her advantages, and present his or her vulnerabilities. You don't simply run over the enemy. You present him or her with a (seemingly) unsolvable problem. Local law enforcement would either have to ignore her action, thereby creating a dangerous (as far as segregation goes) precedent, or they'd have to book her, and the cameras would tell a heart-rending story of uniformed authority finger-printing a well-dressed lady for a charge that was altogether impossible in other places. She didn't lean into the enemy's strength, testing him gun for gun, club for club, firebrand or bomb. Like the Panzers across the Meuse, she maneuvered.

Keenan, I understand your concerns about how military history gets snubbed at all levels of education. Even among educators, people who should be especially open-minded to a diversity of views, interests, and backgrounds, there are those who are remarkably (and sadly) bigoted toward students interested in, or involved in military affairs. That said, I think what JRatz was suggesting was that Max consider writing about something he doesn't have any idea about, instead of simply learning about yet another German soldier. After all, he has a whole lifetime of spare time to do that, and can even pursue it professionally if he chooses (See the Society for Military HIstory Website for graduate programs in Military History).

Jimbrae, I understand the criticisms of both historians you mention, but I'll stand up for Ryan. His work is less interpretive, and more geared toward a popular audience's taste for adventure, rather than the professional's interest in strategy, military theory, or policy--but he does present a decent analysis of these, too. Further, he is grounded in the experience of many veterans (who's subsequent careers are listed in the back of the book--fascinating social study, there!) and anyone who even writes a book about market-garden is not simply leading the allied cheering section.