Discussion of the World Wars

[Totenkopf]

I think the one problem everyone runs up against in a wartime situation is gauging the sincerity behind any request for surrender or ceasefire. Do the people attempting to backchannel petition you really have the ability or influence they claim to turn their situation around. I think you're basically incorrect in stating that EVERYONE (that also includes Stalin) would have embraced a negoitiated settlement that left the Germans with anything of consequence. By the time the Germans realized they might actually lose the war, too many Russians had died. The Wehrmacht, and the world, would have been better off if those same men had realized that Hitler was poison back in the 30's and had gotten rid of him BEFORE he consolidated his position. It's a little too late to try to stop a fight b/c you're losing when you started it in the first place.

 

I guess you could say the Germans paid their reparations in blood and servitude. But my point about that was that WHAT could the German's have offered to mollify their opponents enough to agree to a cessation of hostilities on the western front (it certainly would not have flown on the eastern front)? One way or another, the fascists and commies would have come to blows (Stalin realized that early on) and EE would have suffered for it anyway.

 

I think that what you said about Truman's situation kinds of sums up my assesment of FDR's legacy at Yalta. He gave away far too much to the Soviets. I guess he must have had a GB moment with Stalin. While one shouldn't underestimate the contribution the Russians made to the war effort (tying down close to 2/3 of the Nazi's military), FDR never should have given Stalin the concessions he did.

 

They were effective but also foolish. The difference between courage in battle and stupidity is a small one. The Waffen SS divisions that were sent into battle during the war were really effective but also took tremendous losses. Blind zealotry and bravery killed many of them.

It was inevitable that this would end up so. The Waffen SS wasn't exactly uniform in quality anyway. There were many excellent units, but lackluster ones as well. No doubt, though, that many of the better units were superior in capability to the enemies they faced, while still suffering the problems of resupply and lack of r'n r. Not to mention being horribly outnumbered on the eastern front. I guess they saw only 2 possibilities....death or dishonor. WSS units often fought to the death, both in the east and the west. I'm not saying that none of them EVER surrendered, just that they were often less willing to throw in the towel than their Wehrmacht counterparts.

 

In answer to Lord Devon's speculation, I'd say the war would have been infinitely bloodier and more difficult, but time was still working against them.

[machievelli]

I think you're basically incorrect in stating that EVERYONE (that also includes Stalin) would have embraced a negoitiated settlement that left the Germans with anything of consequence..

 

No, once Stalin looked at 17 million dead civilians, you are right, only the extirpation of Germany would have satisfied them.

 

However without the shipments of US steel, fuel, radios, truck, and medical supplies, do you honestly believe that a surrender to the Western Allies would have allowed Uncle Joe to follow through? The US kept the entire Russian war machine in the field. Without our support they would not have pulled of Stalingrad, Kursk, or any of their future offensives.

 

What I mean is that if we hand'e given them what they needed. the Russians would have collapsed.

 

I think that what you said about Truman's situation kinds of sums up my assesment of FDR's legacy at Yalta. He gave away far too much to the Soviets. I guess he must have had a GB moment with Stalin. While one shouldn't underestimate the contribution the Russians made to the war effort (tying down close to 2/3 of the Nazi's military), FDR never should have given Stalin the concessions he did.

 

 

Roosevelt's problems asd one man put it, was he considered Uncle Joe and his men as 'Bronx politicians' who just had to be handed some cash for their districts, and theyd'd be satisfied. The agreements signed with the Soviets said the Russians would have 'democratic elections' in the occupied territories. The farce of elections in Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria proved exactly how honest the Soviets would be, yet the new dealers who still controlled Truman's cabinet until 1948 proved exactly how honest they were by claiming that those countries had spoken with a popular voice, not an arranged fake election.

[Totenkopf]

As aside...

Originally Posted by machievelli:

....yet the new dealers who still controlled Truman's cabinet until 1948 proved exactly how honest they were by claiming that those countries had spoken with a popular voice, not an arranged fake election.

 

I guess Jimmy Carter didn't fall far from that tree.

 

 

I agree that the US made a contribution to the Russian war effort that the commies and their apologists tend to downplay. However, once they moved much of their industry beyond the range of the Luftwaffe, it is only US aid that would have helped the Germans defeat the Russians. Do you really believe that anyone would've agreed to that. I think Patton was probably right that we should have used Germany to fight the USSR (perhaps as a way to redeem themselves, I guess). But politically it would have been a kind of suicide, even in the west. Selling the surrender and turnaround alliance of the (presumably) former Nazi enemy to start a new war w/the USSR....well let's just say I wouldn't have wanted to sell that to the public. Of course the French would probably have signed on w/out blinking (the Vichy anyway). But even by mid to late 1943, I don't think most of the public in the allied countries would've signed on with that kind of expansion of hostilities. And without the atomic bomb, I don't think US policy makers would have either.

 

The one other thing to keep in mind, though, is what effect building Germany up like that would've had on the balance of power. Supposing the Germans had actually managed to defeat the USSR, what would have stopped them from engaging us in a cold war like the commies did for ~50 years? What form would our assitance to the Germans take, specifically? And, I suppose, do you think switching sides midstream would have actually cut down the length of the war or it's destruction? I'd guess no. I guess the only possible benefit would have been a phyrric (sp?) victory for Germany over the Russians, with both sides bled white. And while we're addressing confronting commies, how would you have addressed the looming potential problem of Mao?

[machievelli]

I don't think keeping the Nazis afloat would have gone over well, even if others had been in charge. In that I agree wholeheartedly.

 

But at the end of WWII, the only nation not destitute from their losses was the US. If we had pushed, the Russians would have backed down. After all as you pointed out, we had the A bomb, something they would not match until 1948. However Truman had too strong a 'bring our boys home' front to deal with. Most Americans couldn't pick out where Lidice Poland was, or the Katyn Forest. They wanted it to be over, and that was all that mattered. So 100 million people entered brutal repression because we let it happen.

 

Regardless, even if Germany had defeated the Communists, both would have been destroyed. The Germans quite honestly did not have the manpower to occupy and subdue 130 million Russians, then turn around and beat the British and Americans. They would have needed three time as many troops.

 

However from 1941 to 1946 we poured over 11 billion 1997 dollars into their war machine. Money that was never paid back. If we had not given that to them, Russia would not have survived the third year of the war. Yet according to Russian History, we just kept a quarter of the german Army occupied as the Russians beat on the others.

[Totenkopf]

machievelli:

But at the end of WWII, the only nation not destitute from their losses was the US. If we had pushed, the Russians would have backed down.

 

We'll never know for certain, but it might have been the way to bet. Russia and the US were roughly equal in population and no doubt had similiar numbers of boots on the ground in the european theatre. Moreover, though vanquished, it's possible that many Germans would have sided with the Americans in an attack by Russians. But in a world of rational choices, the Nazis never would have gambled as they did either. Strictly speaking, I don't think you can blame America for the enslavement of people around the world who won't stand up for themselves. Where the US does have to take some blame is in encouraging futile attempts to overthrow a government and providing no backup. Hungary, Cuba and post Gulf War Iraq (1991) come to mind.

[machievelli]

When the US government promises the government in exile of Poland to return so they can be arrested and sent off to gulags,

 

when we promised Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia that the Russians would only be there long enough for proper elections. No one believed the Russians when they came to 'liberate' them they accepted our word on it.

 

So we lied, and gave away nations that didn't belong to us for the sake of the alliance. We did the same to Korea which was a possession, not a belligerent, yet we gave half of it away to appease the Russians along with Manchuria, which also didn't belong to us.

 

How is that not our fault?

[Q]

First off, I'd like to thank Emperor Devon for posting this thread.

 

Secondly, I'm pleased to see that that there are some Ahtonauts who have studied these most important events in the history of the modern world. Your knowledge and insights are impressive.

 

Now my list of comments:

 

Germany came FAR closer to winning WWI (or at least obtaining a favorable peace) than she ever did WWII. That should be obvious, even to the most casual observer. If Germany had just been more careful regarding relations with the US, she could have won. Remember that by 1917 France and the UK were war-weary. There were several mutinies in the French army that year, and it seemed like the western Allies were on the verge of giving up after the Russians were soundly defeated in the east. The entry of the US on the Allied side changed all that, of course.

 

I must admit that in spite of being a citizen of the US that I find myself somewhat sympathetic to Germany in WWI (NOT WWII; they got what they deserved!). They fought very well, better than any other individual nation, and were NOT responsible for starting the war. They may have invaded France, but not for territorial gain; they did it as part of their plan to keep from getting crushed between France and Russia. Not to say that they were angels; they just didn't deserve the extremely harsh treatment they received under the Versailles Treaty (which the US rejected, BTW).

 

My question is this: If Germany had won WWI would there have been a WWII in Europe? Would they have treated the Allies as harshly, and forced them to assume "war guilt"? Would they have moved out of the territory they had gained (eastern France, Belgium and Luxembourg in the west, all that Russian territory in the east)? Could that huge amount of bloodshed in Europe 20 years later been avoided?

 

I'd very much like to read your opinions on this.

[Palpatine_dc]

I must admit that in spite of being a citizen of the US that I find myself somewhat sympathetic to Germany in WWI (NOT WWII; they got what they deserved!). They fought very well, better than any other individual nation, and were NOT responsible for starting the war. They may have invaded France, but not for territorial gain; they did it as part of their plan to keep from getting crushed between France and Russia. Not to say that they were angels; they just didn't deserve the extremely harsh treatment they received under the Versailles Treaty (which the US rejected, BTW).

 

My question is this: If Germany had won WWI would there have been a WWII in Europe? Would they have treated the Allies as harshly, and forced them to assume "war guilt"? Would they have moved out of the territory they had gained (eastern France, Belgium and Luxembourg in the west, all that Russian territory in the east)? Could that huge amount of bloodshed in Europe 20 years later been avoided?

 

Have you ever heard of the massacre of Leuven? Because of the percieved threath (not actual) of resistance fighters the Germans burned down most of this town. Several hundred people were shot, because there were rumors that there were resistance fighters, which later prooved to be unfounded. I'm Belgan and I remember stories of my great-grandmother who lived through both WW's. One of the favourite tactics of suppression by the Germans in both WW's was summary execution of innocents. She actually stood in a line of hostages, where every 3rd person got shot. No trial, no guilty or innocent, just dead.

 

As a matter of fact why did Germany invade Belgium for in the first place? The Belgan king Albert I declared neutality. Germany demanded free passage to France and he denied it and vice versa. Still it was Germany who invaded, completly ignoring our territorial sovreignity and forced a war upon Belgium. Do you really think that after that, they would have just said, ok here is your country back? At best we would have become a puppet state, at worst a part of the Great German Empire.

 

As to Gemany fought better than any other nation, I can only reply that while they conquered most of Belgium, there was a small part they didn't conquer, although they had superior numbers. This part is what we call the 'Westhoek', and most of the world knows as the infamous Flanders Fields.

[Emperor Devon]

First off, I'd like to thank Emperor Devon for posting this thread.

 

You're perfectly welcome.

 

As a matter of fact why did Germany invade Belgium for in the first place?

 

Part of Schlieffan's plan. France had a strong line of fortresses by their border, and the Germans could avoid them entirely by going through the mucher weaker country of Belgium. Unfortunately for them, the Belgians didn't prove as weak as they thought.

 

It's quite unlikely that we would have become part of the German Empire, though. The oceans were an effective enough barrier in WWII, much less in WWI.

[Palpatine_dc]

It's quite unlikely that we would have become part of the German Empire, though. The oceans were an effective enough barrier in WWII, much less in WWI.

 

I was not talking about the US, like I said in my above post, I'm Belgan.

[Emperor Devon]

I was not talking about the US, like I said in my above post, I'm Belgan.

 

Whoops, didn't read the post thoroughly enough.

 

Well, if Germany ended up gobbling up France, they would have done the same to Belgium. Should your country have agrred to let the Germans pass through? You'd have gotten the wrath of the Germans one way, and the wrath of the French the other. Ultimately, it looks like it was better to get the wrath of the Germans, as they lost the war.

[Totenkopf]

Mahievelli:

When the US government promises the government in exile of Poland to return so they can be arrested and sent off to gulags,

 

when we promised Bulgaria, Rumania, Hungary and Czechoslovakia that the Russians would only be there long enough for proper elections. No one believed the Russians when they came to 'liberate' them they accepted our word on it.

 

So we lied, and gave away nations that didn't belong to us for the sake of the alliance. We did the same to Korea which was a possession, not a belligerent, yet we gave half of it away to appease the Russians along with Manchuria, which also didn't belong to us.

 

How is that not our fault?

 

----------------------------------

Simply put, you seem to be of the belief that the US was virtually omnipotent circa 1945. Given that there was an alliance and that to push the Russians out of these zones would have required yet another war, I ask you, would further sacrifice on our part have really been worth it? How many more people would have had to die to ensure that these nations had, not necessarily freedom, but autonomy? Perhaps we should go further and ask what of China? Should the US have mounted an expedition to eradicate the tens of millions of commies from the soon to be formed PRC? I mean, if you thought Korea and Vietnam were quagmires........ While I agree that the US should not have encouraged some of these groups to stand up, were these people really so foolish as to think the US would have started WW3 to give them what they wanted? From their actions it would appear so, I suppose.