Such a group could be trusted in principle; the danger exists, though, that they may be too idealistic in their hope that the German people would ever grant them recognition.The German people needed something new, the old guard, the failed republic, and any other bruised relics from the past were not going to create a stable Germany in the future. Opa assumed (as I believe most people did) that Germany would have a "puppet" government that was in effect controlled by the Allied superpowers (Russia, England, and the USA). Little did they know that in fact, Germany would be carved up into zones for each power, with the strongest divide between the Anglo-Americans and the Russians.
What would Germany and the rest of the world have looked like if this puppet government over a unified Germany was the solution? We'll never know.
Opa's last paragraph struck me as wise. He posits that no one surrenders because they are overwhelmed by an army, but rather because they have something to gain by surrender. In some way I think this can be true. In war, you are already willing to die, so what more can the army take from you? If you surrender, you want more than just your life. I'm sure that ideal differed from person to person, but I imagine it's wise to think of when negotiating peace. Opa drives this point home by panning out to the bigger picture saying that "no country has ever gained any lasting good by waging war." I think that is true. Those who wage war nearly always fall eventually.