First, generals, especially generals who come from long military families, simply do not quit. It's not in their DNA. That sounds silly, but you have to experience the social straight-jacket that family ethos construct to see what this is so. (Imagine Michael Moore or Al Gore suddenly realized that progressive politics is a complete disaster. Could they change stripes, drop all their friends and family ties to embark on a path of conservative politics? It just isn't done.)

Secondly, the generals that did not perform were quickly sacked to face an very uncertain future. Rommel, one of the greatest, was forced to commit suicide.

Finally, generals are trained to fight battles, not muse about the philospohy of conflict. Their biggest concern was usually logistical–where can I get more ammunition, where is the nearest fuel dump, how many man can I muster by combining divisions, etc., etc.

I tried to approach this issue in a WW-II novel "Ballard's War," and while the tale is technically interesting, still, I'm not sure I caught the essence of the quandry…

Niels Mørup Pedersen