To both your points: no, this is not just apathy. The bottom three teams did try to put up a fight in the first round.
To your first point, the second link gives examples of this in games people choose to play on their own.
To your second point, why did they give up in the second round, rather than form a block of losers? In particular, Austria supported Russia in the first round, so why didn't Russia support Austria in the second?
why did they give up in the second round
Because once they saw that everyone else was following the lead of the ASB guys, they didn't want to force the issue (social confrontation) because they didn't care enough about the game?
Game theory is great if you know what game you're playing. All this talk of Diplomacy reminds me of this memory of Adam Cadre:
What happened? Why did Italy and Russia fall into line and abandon Austria in the second battle?
This utterly failed to demonstrate the "shifting alliances" that Adam thought the teacher wanted. Does this happen every year?
Yes, the students were coerced into "playing" this game, but elsewhere he describes the same thing happen in games that people choose to play. Moreover, he tells the first story to illustrate his perception of politics.