Allies don't demand unconditional surrender in WW2?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Yhe Heer would need a successful Kursk in reverse in 43 with Red Army smashing itself on solidified German lines to change the clear calculus favoring continuing the war.

That ain't happening. Good strategic defense requires either good strategic intelligence so tryouts can predict enemy blows or vastly superior forces so you can recover from said blows. Germany in 1943 has neither compared when it comes to fighting the Red Army.
 

Deleted member 1487

That ain't happening. Good strategic defense requires either good strategic intelligence so tryouts can predict enemy blows or vastly superior forces so you can recover from said blows. Germany in 1943 has neither compared when it comes to fighting the Red Army.
Germany was too outmatched by 1943 to do anything but die, it was a question of how quick. It was primarily the USA that was guaranteeing that loss due to LL, strategic bombing/killing the Luftwaffe, contesting all fronts/winning the BotA. The Soviets were rolling on US made gear/producing with US raw materials and tools, while benefiting from Wallied strategic bombing sucking off the Luftwaffe and smashing their industry, while Britain was little more than a add on to the US effort by 1943.

The only way to get the war to end by negotiation on an equal basis is not have the US in the war. Only if the Allies had a different perspective on Germany could they have negotiated a slightly less harsh end to the war.
 
My point is that Hirohito, in the final extremity was willing to surrender; Hitler never was, and the Germans who tried to stage a coup were universally unable to do so...

So the unconditional surrender policy, in that it guaranteed to the American and British population who were, after all, fighting and dying, that it would not end in a re-run of 1918, was the only rational approach.

Best,

I wasn't disagreeing with you but backing you up.
 
Germany was too outmatched by 1943 to do anything but die, it was a question of how quick. It was primarily the USA that was guaranteeing that loss due to LL, strategic bombing/killing the Luftwaffe, contesting all fronts/winning the BotA. The Soviets were rolling on US made gear/producing with US raw materials and tools, while benefiting from Wallied strategic bombing sucking off the Luftwaffe and smashing their industry, while Britain was little more than a add on to the US effort by 1943.

The only way to get the war to end by negotiation on an equal basis is not have the US in the war. Only if the Allies had a different perspective on Germany could they have negotiated a slightly less harsh end to the war.

Even without US involvement Germany is doomed, it just takes longer and is bloodier. LL helped quite a bit but it wasn't decisive in and of itself.
 

Deleted member 1487

Even without US involvement Germany is doomed, it just takes longer and is bloodier. LL helped quite a bit but it wasn't decisive in and of itself.
Totally incorrect; the Soviet economy by early 1943 was heavily dependent on US and UK LL. If it weren't there they'd be in famine in 1943 and starved of fuel, explosives, aluminum, food, etc. Also in terms of the air effort the US destruction and diverting of the LW was pretty damn decisive. By the time of Kursk 75% of the LW single engine fighters were stationed in the Mediterranean or Western Europe. 90% of twin engine fighters were in Germany fighting as night or day fighters. If the US alone was not in the war then half of those fighters could move East, which would more than double the existing fighters available for Kursk and in fact outnumber the Soviets at Kursk; as it was the Soviets had more than twice the Luftwaffe fighter total at Kursk and they lost the loss ratios badly. The entire context of the Eastern Front changes if the US drops out of the war at the beginning of 1943 for some reason.
 
Top