No WWII Unconditional Surrender

Irioth

Banned
Roosevelt wasn't that bad. I am not clear on American Goverment though. I think it was him who popularized air power, besides Billy Mitchell.

Well, to be honest, my exceedingly severe judgement is only about the war Roosevelt. My judgement on the New Deal one is much more favourable. I see him as a Jeckyll and Hyde figure, much like Nixon in a way. His New Deal work and record was excellent, here lies his historic rightful claim to greatness. But he should really have died or stepped down from power by 1940, and let another more level-headed president the job of dealing with Hitler and Stalin. America would have won WWII anyway without him. Lincoln as war president was crucial, one of the best war leaders in historey, the right mean at the right job, Roosevelt was as negative as his New Deal record was positive.
 
Last edited:

Irioth

Banned
Irioth

Even if the 'Germans' whatever that meant got rid of Hitler, which is a long way from de-nazification, how do you have an honourable peace with an highly militaristic group who think they have a right to right roughshod over anyone who has the mis-fortunate to live on the same continent as them?

And this is how any different from the record of say USA in South America, or UK in India, not to say the East European Soviet Empire ? Spare me the anti-fascist rethoric please, any country is naturally imperialistic and expansionistic if given half a chance.

Olmeka has mentioned the nature of some of the resistance to Hitler and much of the army, those parts not heavily nazified, was highly committed to an expansionist and racist programme.

Which will have to be compromised down to the peace table, since it's unrealistic in the peace negotiations. The Stauffenberg clique weren't angels, nobody is, but they would rid Germany and the world of "Holocaust" Hitler and his cronies, and are reasonable enough to see that any 1943 peace deal with the Allies must involve liberating any area of Europe that isn't German. It way suffices. The Allies had frikking "I've butchered more people than anyone else in history" Stalin in their war camp, it destroys any higher moral and political ground.

If you get the chance read up on the Manor Farm transcripts. Their most famous for the reaction of the German nuclear scientists to the 1st news of the atomic attacks on Japan. However I remember reading about others involving some of their military leadership. Their general option when discussing matters, which they didn't realise was being recorded was on what they did wrong and how to avoid that next time.

IIRC, Manor Farm was about *Nazi* top echelons POWs, not the anti-Nazi conspirators and their plans for a post-war Germany. Nothing to do with our issue.

Not what they did wrong in waging brutal and aggressive war, but wrong in failing to win that conflict.

Any country under the sun gets imperialistic, wages brutal and aggressive wars, builds empires, steals land and resources from other countries given half a chance, since countries were tribes of Homo Erectus and before. It's human nature. The Holocaust was what truly damned Hitler's cause, morally, politically, and historically. Trying to build an empire with aggressive wars... Louis XIV did it. Charles V did it. Napoleon did it. Stalin and successors did it. Countless British Premiers and US Presidents did it, up to today's very newslines. Expecially blaming Nazi Germany for aggressive expansionism sheer hypocrisy. And yes, the Nuremberg Tribunals should have strictly limited itself, to the *true* Nazi crimes, the war crimes and the planned minority exterminations, leaving "planning and waging war of aggressions" strictly alone. There wasn't a country on the judges bench that wasn't "guilty" of that, if one may honestly ever claim basic human nature as realized in international politics and history a "crime", all the way. True, there was also one that was guilty of atrocities as bad as everything Hitler did....

However the behaviour of Germany in the conflict, military and much of the population as well as the Nazi party, meant that it must be under far greater restrictions than after WWI if there was to be any chance of lasting peace.

Sure, let's repeat the Versailles blunder, amped-up. That worked real well...

I pact with the devil might have been made in some way to sacrifice eastern Europe to German domination but its one that I think the west would have lived to regret if it made such a mistake.

Reread what I've posted, I've argued that a fair peace deal for eveyone involved, one that post-Nazi Germany and the Allies could have easily agreed with, is Germany keeps independence and national integrity in its ethnic borders (Austria, Danzig, Sudentenland), and liberates everything else (after steps are taken to ensure that the Red Army doesn't overrun Eastern Europe, of course).

I have many reasons to be unhappy with Roosevelt and his behaviours in WWII but one thing he did get right was that Germany must be defeated.

Defeated, as in overthrowing Nazism and liberating Europe, not in crushing Germany as an indepedent nation, or rape it ethnically.

Unconditional surrender may have been avoidable but a surrender was necessary if Germany was to be rebuilt as a democratic nation that could live at peace amongst its neighbours.

Ridicolous. Germany could have managed an efficient denazification on its own and turned out a decent democratic nation as many others countries have historically done on their own, without need of invasion and foreign occupation, coming out from both right-wing and left-wing nasty dictatorships: Spain, Portugal, Greece, Chile, Argentina, all of the post-1989 Eastern Europe... It's GWB's lie that you need invasion and foreign occupation to accomplish democracy.
 
Last edited:

hammo1j

Donor
I think there is a bit of parallel with Iraq I and II here in that, in I GB Senior was entirely pragmatic, whereas GB Junior in II may have been talking too much with God.

Did Roosevelt suffer the same problem of putting Good and Evil beyond pure Politics? Better to get the neighbour to repaint his house rather than pull it down and ask him to rebuild to your plans from scratch?

Pod is 1942. Rossevelt dies and Harry Truman takes over and there's big concern that US is doing the world's dirty work.

1. He persuades Churchill to drop Unconditional Surrender (UC) simply as Senior Partner. Stalin will ally with the US regardless but will not agree (UC) since he is winning now despite trying to make a deal with the Nazis when he was losing.

2. The most pragmatic Terms and conditions for an end to hostilities are:

(a) Removal of Hitler and named Nazis from leadership.
(b) Withdrawal from the Western European Occupation and allowance for UK/US forces to be based there.
(c) Rights for persecuted minorities to leave Germany.

3. If these terms occur Germany and USSR will continue to fight but will be evenly matched.

4. The US can sit back and wait until it has the bomb and then it can call the shots still further.
 

Irioth

Banned
I think there is a bit of parallel with Iraq I and II here in that, in I GB Senior was entirely pragmatic, whereas GB Junior in II may have been talking too much with God.

Did Roosevelt suffer the same problem of putting Good and Evil beyond pure Politics? Better to get the neighbour to repaint his house rather than pull it down and ask him to rebuild to your plans from scratch?

The comparison between wartime Roosevelt and GWB is very telling and up to the point.

Roosevelt dying in early 1942 is very very nice, but it requires a second POD to make Truman VP instead of that far left loony Wallace (the worst VP choice ever before Spiro Agnew) chosen as running mate in 1940. However, since neither of them had any substantial influence in the Democratic party (Wallace tried running for president in 1948 with a third party on an Soviet appeasement platform and it took barely one million votes, the Commies and far left fellow-travelers essentially), the POD is entirely feasible.

Truman instead of Roosevelt as US war president would have been great. :) He would have got rid of the Commie spies and Morgenthau genocidal fanatics, put the basis for Stalin containment in Eastern Europe at the Soviet borders, scrapped unconditional surrender, and be willing to negotiate a honorble peace for Germany. The policies he implemented in 1945-1952 vs. Germany, the UUSR, and Europe, he would have been able to start running during the war, and they would have been far more effective.
 
Last edited:

hammo1j

Donor
Truman instead of Roosevelt as US war president would have been great. He would have got rid of the Commie spies

Yes it is a very important point that without the US allied to SU the bomb would have remained a US monopoly for much longer than OTL.

I think that Roosevelt was of a breed that was looking to a New World Order for want of a better term and there have been others such as him such as GB II, Blair (cf GB I, Thatcher!) who have all put this above political pragmatism at the expense of their own people.

IMHO a pragmatic US President would still have been terrible for Eastern Europe since around 1945 they would reach a deal where Germany took Poland and the USSR kept its original borders.

There would be a 3 way cold war as in OTL with alliances and skuldugery but eventually the USSR and Germans would break - perhaps before 1990 as in OTL if the West was so much more stronger.

We could be looking at halving the war dead. In addition with extra resources in the east Japan could have been defeated earlier and a communist China prevented.

Ironic that Enlightened Self Interest would produce a better result than the Moral Crusader version.
 
Yes it is a very important point that without the US allied to SU the bomb would have remained a US monopoly for much longer than OTL.

I think that Roosevelt was of a breed that was looking to a New World Order for want of a better term and there have been others such as him such as GB II, Blair (cf GB I, Thatcher!) who have all put this above political pragmatism at the expense of their own people.

IMHO a pragmatic US President would still have been terrible for Eastern Europe since around 1945 they would reach a deal where Germany took Poland and the USSR kept its original borders.

There would be a 3 way cold war as in OTL with alliances and skuldugery but eventually the USSR and Germans would break - perhaps before 1990 as in OTL if the West was so much more stronger.

We could be looking at halving the war dead. In addition with extra resources in the east Japan could have been defeated earlier and a communist China prevented.

Ironic that Enlightened Self Interest would produce a better result than the Moral Crusader version.

But of course thats because the road to hell is paved with good intentions

and enlightened self interest always works out in the end for the majority
 

Irioth

Banned
hammo1 said:
IMHO a pragmatic US President would still have been terrible for Eastern Europe since around 1945 they would reach a deal where Germany took Poland and the USSR kept its original borders.

Well, I sense we may be talking about related but distinct ATL, with similar but different POD:

a) the kinda "Fatherland" TL. Nazi Germany wages war more successfully, never declares war on Germany after Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt dies early (or loses the 1940 elections, or does not run for third term), as a result America never goes to war against Germany or does but commits to a "Japan First" strategy, eventully a compronise peace is signed, that liberates Western Europe, but leaves Eastern Europe in Germany's control, Soviet Russia is either forced to agree to 1939 borders or Brest-Litovsk borders, 3-way Cold War ensues, difficult to say whether Nazism or Communism topples first. Probably Germany returns to democracy first, its more developed political culture and economy makes it ill-fitting for brute authoritarianism in the long-term. Let's say Nazism gradually switches to moderate paternal autocracy (under guys like Speer, moderates from the bureaucracy and the army, as they try to modernize the economy and ease the burden of running their Eastern Europe empire and the arms race) in the 1950s and the regime falls in the 1960s, as the baby-boomer generation stages a growing widespread grassroots dissidence.


b) the "rollback" Cold War TL. Roosevelt picks Truman as running mate, dies by 1942, offers Germany independence and national integrity if Hitler is toppled and liberty of Europe restored. In 1943 (likely after Kursk and Sicily) Generals coups the Nazis, implement denazification, accept the peace deal and withdraw in their 1939 borders. Anglo-American troops occupy Eastern Europe as Germany withdraws. Stalin is offered to return to its 1939 or 1941 borders (which ones, it depends on many factors), and after much pressure, and the threat of turning it into a Germany-Allies team-up, he agrees reluctantly. No 3-way cold war, since the USA comes to detente and eventual alliance with the post-Nazi Germany (after a couple years of a provisional moderate right-wing military junta, democratic elections are held, votes are split between the moderate leftist Socialdemocratic Party, the center Democratic Cristian Party, and the moderate right-wing National party, Communists and Nazis are banned, and a new constitution is drafted) the by the late 1940s-early 1950s. A Western-Soviet Cold War ensues, but with the Nato in Eastern Europe, and in all likelihood the USSR collapses earlier, likely in the 1960s.

This is because ITTL USSR has its deal stacked against it: No satellites in Eastern Europe, maybe it lost some territory in the peace deal, likely no Communist China or Mao only gets a Northern rump China at best, early end of the war means capitalist Europe in better shape an da much more toned down Final Solution and hence sharper focus on Soviet crimes in comparison, that and poor Soviet war performance means less world-wide appeal for Communism.

Soviet leadership likely tries to foster unrest in the Third World during the decolonizaton process anyway. But it has to draw on the resouces of USSR alone, which likely hastern the failure of its economy.
 

Olmeka

Banned
Soviet Russia is either forced to agree to 1939 borders or Brest-Litovsk borders, 3-way Cold War ensues, difficult to say whether Nazism or Communism topples first. Probably Germany returns to democracy first, its more developed political culture and economy makes it ill-fitting for brute authoritarianism in the long-term. Let's say Nazism gradually switches to moderate paternal autocracy (under guys like Speer, moderates from the bureaucracy and the army, as they try to modernize the economy and ease the burden of running their Eastern Europe empire and the arms race) in the 1950s and the regime falls in the 1960s, as the baby-boomer generation stages a growing widespread grassroots dissidence.
Why should Nazism switch to that and not North Korea like totalitarian regime ?

But let us see some results of your scenario.

During WW2 Nazis killed circa 16 % of Polish population within 5 years, and 13 % of Soviet population in 4 years. Now the Soviet losses are inflicted by much of the fighting. The Polish ones are mostly civilian and circa 500,000 are from Soviet hands.

For general overview let us assume that the death ratio is 2 % of population per year under Nazi occupation.

Polish population was 34,8 milion.
If we take that the Nazi German regime makes 'liberal' reforms and turns Poles to slaves rather then subhumans by 1955 it gives us 16 years of Nazi occupation and extermination policy. 16 x 2 % gives us 32% of population dead. 11,136,000 people.

Of course that is version light-in OTL Nazi leadership envisioned that Polish population was to be eliminated within 15 to 20 years after the war ends. In this scenario they have already 10 years of work for them. It could be that 2/3 of Polish population would be dead by 1955(they were circa 24,000,000 milion ethnic Poles).
Using that estimate we have circa 8,000,000 ethnic Poles dead in addition to all the Jews in German occupied Europe(that would be circa 8-10 milion).

So the for Poland let's make it 8 milion ethnic Poles.
I will estimate the Jews seperate from ethnic Poles and add all Jews in occupied Europe-circa 8-10 milion.

By now we have 16-18 milion murdered people by 1955 alone by Polish and Jewish group.

Soviet Union had 168.500.000 citizens at the start of the war.
Forgive for shorting it to 168 milion.
1941-1955-14 years. 14 x 2=28%

47,040,000 Milion deaths.

47 milion + 16 milion =63 milion deaths.

So the the death toll we can conclude would be around 60 milion deaths. Perhaps somewhat less if the Nazis would consider peace treaty with SU an impossibility in itself considering their goals.

But certainly we can forsee a death toll of at minimum 30 million going up to safe bet of 50 milion or so by 1955.

Of course the remaining population is far worse then OTL. In our world Soviets rebuilded infrastructre, health care, education. In Nazi controlled Europe the "untermenschen" will receive no education, no health care besides needs to work in slave camps. So its safe to bet that by 1955 we will have completely eradicated Polish, Jewish, Roma cultures. Even as some of their people survive in case of Poles or Ukrainians. But expect all art, records, landmarks to be destroyed or stolen, cities erased (for example Warsaw was to be made a small German transit town completely reconstructed, the city itself was to be destroyed completely).

Consequences-30 by 50 to 60 million dead. Several cultures eradicated. Whole populations reduced to slave status. That is by 1955. By 1960 of course increase deaths by another milions. By 1970 if the regime continues to exist Slavic peoples slated for extermination no longer exist. At best a couple of milion are kept as slaves. In any cases their cultures and nations are no longer existing. Jews of Central and Eastern Europe were exterminated completely(disregarding lone survivors).


(b) Withdrawal from the Western European Occupation and allowance for UK/US forces to be based there.
Why should Allies agree to continued occupation of North, South and East Europe by Germany ?
[quote[
(c) Rights for persecuted minorities to leave Germany.[/quote]
Why should Allies accept German annexations during the war and tell the people there they should “leave Germany” ?


And this is how any different from the record of say USA in South America, or UK in India, not to say the East European Soviet Empire ?
We can start with the fact that neither of them waged a war with the goal of racial extermination like Nazi Germany did with its death camps and gas chambers.


Which will have to be compromised down to the peace table, since it's unrealistic in the peace negotiations.
There is no force of nature that forces them to be reasonoble. They might consider it even better to perform a large ethnic cleansing or extermination to claim ethnic majority in disputed areas.

The Stauffenberg clique weren't angels, nobody is, but they would rid Germany and the world of "Holocaust" Hitler and his cronies, and are reasonable enough to see that any 1943 peace deal with the Allies must involve liberating any area of Europe that isn't German.
Except the demands of Resistance included continued occupation of non-German territories. In fact in the South towards Italy they went further then Hitler.

It way suffices. The Allies had frikking "I've butchered more people than anyone else in history" Stalin in their war camp, it destroys any higher moral and political ground.
And the Germans had death camps with gas chambers to exterminate whole nations. It puts them on lower moral and political ground to all who fought them in the war. And frankly I had a bit enough of trying to bleach Nazis by Soviet atrocities, Soviets saved more people then they killed and if you take both plans and timeframe the Nazis are without doubt much worse then them. Allies dealing with people “We are the superior nation, all Europe and the World bow to us, especially the Slavic and Jewish pest” isn’t moral to be exact.



Not what they did wrong in waging brutal and aggressive war, but wrong in failing to win that conflict.
Any country under the sun gets imperialistic, wages brutal and aggressive wars, builds empires, steals land and resources from other countries given half a chance, since countries were tribes of Homo Erectus and before. It's human nature.
Excuse me for asking but according to which theory ?


. True, there was also one that was guilty of atrocities as bad as everything Hitler did....
Which other country determined whole national groups to be something lower then animals and wanted to exterminate them by such means as gas chambers ?

Sure, let's repeat the Versailles blunder, amped-up. That worked real well...
It might be that Versailles was not enforced well enough. Perhaps after WW1 Germany should have been divided and occupied for couple of decades. It worked after WW2.

I've argued that a fair peace deal for eveyone involved, one that post-Nazi Germany and the Allies could have easily agreed with, is Germany keeps independence and national integrity in its ethnic borders (Austria, Danzig, Sudentenland
Neither the Allies nor the Germans were willing to return to 1939 borders. Calling such proposal a “one that they could have easily agree with” is implausible. The German Resistance wanted borders from 1914 and expansion in the south, they also wanted “free hand in the East”. Poland demanded incorporation of Gdańsk, rest of Upper Silesia, more defensive positions, and East Prussia.


and liberates everything else (after steps are taken to ensure that the Red Army doesn't overrun Eastern Europe, of course)
The German resistance didn’t want to liberate anything, they wanted to keep their control over those territories.


not in crushing Germany as an indepedent nation, or rape it ethnically
To be defeated Germany must lose independence, that is obvious. What else do you expect ? The Allies happily giving Germany want it grabbed up till 1939 ? A return to non-defensive borders for Poland and Czechoslovakia ? Leaving German military potential intact ? After years of brutal racist motivated war that murdered milions ?


Ridicolous. Germany could have managed an efficient denazification on its own and turned out a decent democratic nation as many others countries have historically done on their own, without need of invasion and foreign occupation, coming out from both right-wing and left-wing nasty dictatorships: Spain, Portugal, Greece, Chile, Argentina, all of the post-1989 Eastern Europe
None of those examples were totalitarian dictatorships based on racist supremacy ideology. Spain, Greece, Chile, Argentina faced strife or civil war that Germany didn’t in establishing Nazi rule. Eastern Europe didn’t choose its rule but was occupied. So the comparision is not relevant or fair.



Destroying Germany' industrial base would have created an humanitarian catastrophe of unheeded proportions
Ending German ability to build tanks I would hardly call a catastrophe.

Not at all. It's just that we are discussing Allies' peace terms with Germany, and how it can be accomplished. They can release Eastern Europe prisoners, too, but to whom ?
You dodged the question. The German resistance didn’t want to keep POW’s. It wanted to keep Central and Eastern Europe. An unacceptable demand to the Allies.

Withdrawing German troops from Eastern Europe can't be safely done until Stalin has agreed on peace terms on the 1939 or 1941 borders (which ones depends on much pressure the Allies apply on him),afterwards USA and UK troops can land in the Balkans and go upwards to pacify the region and fill the power vacuum.
Looks like a cheap ploy of Germans for the Allies to do their dirty work for them and through Allied actions keep Central and Eastern Europe within German sphere of influence. Who guarantees the Germans will leave ? Who guarantees they won’t return with German borders remaining up to 1939 land grabs and its military and economic production untouched ? And its obvious that Germans would use their presence to influence territorial decisions or ethnic makeup. Simply put:unaccaptable demand.

The peace terms I've mentioned would be honorable to anyone
Not to Soviets, Poles, Czechs, British.
[/quote]
Czechoslovakia would have its independence restored in the 1939 borders ditto for Poland they would get back anything but Danzig (which is German)[/quote]Too bad Czechoslovakia wanted pre-Munich borders, and too bad giving Sudetes to Germans makes Czechs soveirgnity in the hands of Germany as it is without defensive borders. Too bad also Poland wanted Upper Sileisa, Gdańsk, East Prussia and correction of borders to make them more defensive. Also both countries wanted to remove pro-Nazi German minorities who supported invasion of their countries and comitted atrocities.

I can’t imagine British or Soviets allowing Germany to keep its war potential untouched after what they went through.

Germany would get an honorable peace, too, independence and territorial integrity in the borders that reflect its rightful ethnic areas: Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig.
As said before-this was not what Germans wanted or what they considered ethnic borders. And both latter demands conflict with demands of Polish and Czech governments-supported by Soviets in this regard.

Very hard for the Poles, they have a lot of territory to recover from Stalin.
Most of it is non-Polish anyway. By 1944 Polish leadership accepted the idea of demanding ethnic borders, which of course are a bit furhter then Curzon line. The main point was Lviv but not much more then that. Poles expected East Prussia and Upper Silesia as compensation for their lost land along with some border corrections in Pomerania and Greater Poland. And while their were problems with Stalin, lets not be confused, the core Polish areas were in German occupation, and Poland wanted them liberated at all costs. The Kresy region was wanted bonus but it was not essential to existance of Polish state, Silesia, Poznan, Pomorze-were.


Well, the 1914 borders aren't such an abusive claims
Why is that ?

but I fear that they would be wholly unrealistic, the bets they can hope to get, are referendums in the disputed territories: Germany will win in Danzig, lose in Posen and the Corridor, Upper Silesia is a toss-up.
If you think anybody would accept German conquests from 1939 by allowing them to stage referendums(especially after years of ethnic cleansing of milions and murdering milions of Polish citizens) you are looking just as realistic at the situation Germany was in as the German resistance.

They are rigthfully theirs
Not in the view of Czech government.

and the presence of the Polish Corridor is honestly a thorn in the side, but it can't be helped, too
And who guarantees that Germans won’t try to take it back once they recover ? Seriously a treaty without any changes to German that make it impossible won’t be accepted by the Allies.

Stalin "I rightfully claim the prize for having butchered more people than any other tyrant in history" guy ? This is exceedingly biased, and I won't discuss it seriously.
Stalin “I never exterminated whole nations believing them to be worse species then animals, nor did I sent children to gas chambers, in fact my soldiers liberated people from camps where such gas chambers existed and defeated people who did it” ? Yes indeed he does look nice compared. Especially looking at the timeframe in which he and the Nazis had their victims. Also its a bit silly to bleach Nazis with Stalin, one could argue that Stalin saved milions and whole nations, Nazis can’t claim such record.

A moderate right-wing military junta provisional government for 1-2 years as they iron out the peace treaty, resettle the country, and work out Denazification is only reasonable.
One would need to be a very foolish person to allow Germans 1-2 years to recover their military, strenghten their hold on Central Europe and prepare for better defense and war. At least nobody sane would take for something else.

Again, claiming the 1914 borders is likely unrealistic in the 1943 conditions, but it's not so terribly evil
I’m afraid the Allied governments of Britain, USA, Soviet Union, Poland and Czechoslovakia will argue otherwise. And not only for moral and ethnic reason but also due to political ones, diplomacy and pure strategic ones. Why should anyone allow Germany what it conquered. It would be Allied surrender not German one.

Germany has owned those lands for almost two centuries
1918-1871= 47. Not centuries at all. I have an impression you are bit biased towards the German side.

The decent realistic deal I envisage is, Danzig to Germany, everything else to Poland.
Oh but Poland demanded Gdańsk, and much more. Upper Silesia etc, removal of pro-Nazi Germans, trials of war criminals, compensation for damage and exploitation and so on. It was not alone in this.

. If, as it is likely, denazified Germany and USA will end up allies in a few years, it will be like a codominium.
And why would Soviets, Czechs, Poles agree to that ? If you can imagine that, so can Stalin. And Stalin can promise Poles and Czechs more then Germans can. A status of Finlandization, more territories, agreement to help in removing German population, military aid, direct support for partisans as envisoned by Poles in Operation Tempest. The Germans have nothing to offer that can beat Stalin. Their plans will be easily thwarted.
As for the war criminals, whatever Nazi top echelons survived the coup
Now now, pretty much of war criminals were in Wehrmacht as well. And nobody is interested in protecting them. Especially Eastern countries were the gross bulk of crimes were comitted. Only the military junta might tried to protect those people.


[quote[
They will get their independence back. As for the Sudentenland, as national self-determination goes, it was never rightfully theirs in the first place. [/quote]
Without Sudetes their independence is at the mercy of Germany, and as to rights to that regions, they obviously had different view then yours.

The only hope of what ? Getting Russian domination on them again ?
The hopes of not being German puppets. And as to Russian domination-why not ? It was always prefered to German one, as it was neither as racists or dangerous to Polish nation. Russians might have opressed the Poles, they didn’t want to erase Warsaw and settle it with Russians.

The peace deal gets their independence and their national territories back (minus Danzig, which is not, nor ever was, Polish).
What about reperations, war criminals, removal of Nazi Germans, creating safe borders as opposed to borders from 1939 ? Gdansk was never Polish ? It actually dates its founding from creation by Polish ruler Mieszko, and alltogether was part of Poland for over 600 years.
Polish resistance was fiercely anti-communist
Polish politics were in fact quite socialistic, had Stalin played it right he would have no problems with establishing a second Finland. The fierce anti-communist resitance NSZ was only a minor resistance group(third in numbers). Give Poland Lviv, promise Upper Silesia and East Prussia and Poles would gladly ally with Stalin like they tried in Operation Tempest.



Why ? They have just accomplished all their war aims, Hitler is dead, the Nazi are dead or awaiting trials, Europe has been liberated and kept asafe from the Bolsheviks, Germany is cowed within its national borders but hasn't been humiliated, Europe is freed without the untold destruction and bloodshede that it would take an invasion. It's an excellent deal.
Let’s star that your proposal allows German to keep control over Central and Eastern Europe which was never an Allied goal. Stoping SU was never a war goal. War criminals from Wehrmacht are saved, the war potential of Germany wasn’t limited, and borders return to their unstable status of 1939. Neither are your proposals viewed as not humilitating by Germans.

Any peace negotiation begins by stating your maximum claims, which then you negotiate down and compromise with.
So the Germans want a “bit” of 1914 borders. Sorry no government would negotiate on that absurd demand. Perhaps you discovered why the unconditional surrender was demanded in the first place.

Hitler is out, Europe is free. The Allies' war aims are fulfilled.
The War aims of Allies were far more then “Hitler out”, and you envision Central Europe as “dominum” of Germany-it certainly wouldn’t be free. The Allied war aims also included revision of borders and stopping German potential to wage another war.
What legitimate business are the Allies marching in Berlin now ?
To ensure that Germany will be disarmed, its industry dismantled so that it will not be used for another war, and that Germans will see that they are defeated. The lack of parade in Berlin was a complaint after WW1.

The Valkuria government will quickly come to their senses at the peace table anyway.
I see no reason for them to do so. Your personal belief is not convincing enough.

Ethnic borders mean complete national unfication as dreamed in the 1800s has been done
Europe back then was patchwork of mixed ethnic regions, it is impossible to make them divided by states in clear way, it was only done due to population movements in WW2 and after it.
[quote[
Germany will remain a great power, if they lay down and stay quiet and subtle for a few tears, they will still control Eastern Europe ecnomically in a few years[/quote]I am sure neither Britain, Soviet Union, nor Poland or Czechoslovakia will imagine that. And I am sure if they would they would happily agree to Germany being a great power and dominating Eastern Europe. Certainly they would not combine their efforts to thwart German attempt at remaining a power with the ability to control Europe by destroying Allied Camp during talks aime at making Allies do their dirty work against SU.
Seriously-there is no reason for majority of Allied governments to do this. Such naive plot wll be seen through right away.


the Allies tried super-harsh peace deals once before, and it stirred German resentment to a whirlwind of hate that shook the world.
Super harsh treaty ? Then what was Brest Litovsk. Germany was neither divided nor occupied. Hardly a harsh treaty. In comparision the post-WW2 treaties were harsher and worked.

Germany is there to stay, unless you want to top Hitler's and Stalin's genocides combined, and crippling it would only invite Stalin to dominate the continent. It's time for a fair peace deal. A treaty that does not humiliate Germany and fulfills its basic legitimate national claims w
In OTL Germany didn’t get such treaty, was divided, occupied and its population transfered from large regions. Somewhow there was no another war, and Germany didn’t turn into dictatorship.

The great treaty-breaker, Hitler, is dead
The treaty was broken by Weimar Republic in the first place, when it engaged in military cooperation with SU to avoid its limits.


To summ it all up. You proposed treaty is in fact for the benefit of Germany only. It leaves German war potential intact, it leaves it in control of Central and Eastern Europe. It leaves its war criminal intact. It is unrealistic as it brushes aside the nationalistic demands and vision of German resistance. It ignores any guarantees that would prevent Germany from being able to start another war. It ignores the issue of war reperations. The proposal does not take into consideration Allied war aims, the need to stop German ability to wage another war or the need to create stable borders after the war. Much of the proposal seems to be an attempt by Germany to exploit Western Allies against Soviet Union. It is plausible that such treaty would never be accepted by Allies and rejected by German nationalists who led the resistance. In fact the reality is that with civil strife in Germany itself and its weakened state, SU would make greater advances and the end result would be more Soviet occupied Germany.
 
Last edited:

Irioth

Banned
Why should Nazism switch to that and not North Korea like totalitarian regime ?

The social makeup and economy are completely different. At the very most, it might evolve towards a China model. But the North Korea scenario is completely farfetched. Not to mention that *any* right-wing dictatorship on earth has eventually evolved to democracy within 40 years at most.

(snip overblown extermination scenarioes which are completely irrelevant since we are discussing a compromise peace with the Allies, not the "fatherland" one where Nazis get a free hand in Europe).

Why should Allies agree to continued occupation of North, South and East Europe by Germany ?

It doesn't happen, ITTL. That's the German victory ATL. Possible, but other PODs.

We can start with the fact that neither of them waged a war with the goal of racial extermination like Nazi Germany did with its death camps and gas chambers.

No, they focused on butchering their own people instead. Social classes, minorities, political opponents, anyone that looked funny to the NKVD.... And when hey got the opportunity to do the same to other peoples (the Baltics, the Poles) they were mroe than happy.

There is no force of nature that forces them to be reasonoble. They might consider it even better to perform a large ethnic cleansing or extermination to claim ethnic majority in disputed areas.

They won't, cause that won't give them the peace deal they seek.

And the Germans had death camps with gas chambers to exterminate whole nations.

And the Soviets did it by planned working them to death, disease, slow starvation...

Soviets saved more people then they killed and if you take both plans and timeframe the Nazis are without doubt much worse then them.

Soviets "saved" no one. They fought a war to save their own hides, and whomever they managed to put their hands on, among former Nazi subjects, they immediately started to oppress, send to slave camps, and butcher, on their own. It was just an exchange of tyranny.

Which other country determined whole national groups to be something lower then animals and wanted to exterminate them by such means as gas chambers ?

Stalin, re extermination of the Kulaki. Pol pot, re. extermination of urban Cambodians, intellectuals, anyone but an uneducated peasant, and anyone with glasses.

It might be that Versailles was not enforced well enough. Perhaps after WW1 Germany should have been divided and occupied for couple of decades. It worked after WW2.

No, it worked because Truman reversed the insane Roosevelt policies and built a free, indepedent, and united (as much Germany as the Allies controlled) Germany, that was allowed to build a prosperous economy, rebuild its army and join EU and the Nato. NOT the fanatical plans of Roosevelt, Morgenthau, and their clique.

The German Resistance wanted borders from 1914 and expansion in the south, they also wanted “free hand in the East”.

And by 1943, they are not going to get it. If they want a peace, they will have to compromise.

Poland demanded incorporation of Gdańsk, rest of Upper Silesia, more defensive positions, and East Prussia.

Who cares about the farfecthed claims of the Poles ? It's not like they have aries in the field , or are making any substantial contribution to the war effort. The Allies waged a war to save Poland and others as independent nations, not because they could fatten themselves exploiting the blood of Aliied soldiers. They will take whatever deal they Allies decide on, as in OTL.

To be defeated Germany must lose independence, that is obvious. What else do you expect ? The Allies happily giving Germany want it grabbed up till 1939 ?

They started grabbing other peoples by march 15, 1939, when they invaded Bohemia and Moravia, and that what turned Allied opinion against Germany, when they saw it was not just about fulfilling legitimate national self-determination claims. Until 1938, they had been liberating ethnic Germans from foreign domination, amid cheering crowds.

A return to non-defensive borders for Poland and Czechoslovakia ?

Funny, I thought this war was waged to save peoples of Europe from domination, not to allow Czechs and Poles to fulfill their farfetched nationalistic claims.

Leaving German military potential intact ?

We can agree about military limitations.

After years of brutal racist motivated war that murdered milions ?

Here's the list of the Nazi war criminals that we agreed upon. Since you insisted that you want them tried in your tribunals, instead of ours, we are shipping them, as per truce agreements.

None of those examples were totalitarian dictatorships based on racist supremacy ideology.

Which is completely irrelevant as to shape the social forces that will cause a dictatorship to fall. Loony belief in the superiority of communism didn't save OTL Soviets from an humiliating fall, loony belief in farfetched racial theories that progress of science wsill show as more and more ridiclous won't save ATL Nazis. Racial doctrines won't make a iota of difference.

Spain, Greece, Chile, Argentina faced strife or civil war that Germany didn’t in establishing Nazi rule.

Such strife merely dissuaded dissidents from using violence to fight those regimes, but it fell eventually anyway, in any case. The point is irrelevant.

Eastern Europe didn’t choose its rule but was occupied.

After 10, 20, or 30 years it matters very little how a regime occurred, it matters how popular and efficient is right now.

Ending German ability to build tanks I would hardly call a catastrophe.

Those plans involved destroying the Gemran economy wholly, which would have caused a catastrophic fall of economy, and since Germany (or France, or UK) has not the means to sustain itself without industry, a catastrophic famine.

You dodged the question. The German resistance didn’t want to keep POW’s. It wanted to keep Central and Eastern Europe.

They will have to compromise. That's the matter of diplomacy. Since the whole point of overthrowing the NAzi is to get peace for Germany, once they see the initial plan is wholly urealistic, they will scale down. They aren't fanatics. Those they blown apart in order to take power.

Who guarantees the Germans will leave ?

If they don't, the Allies break the truce. If they do, they advance and liberate Europe.

Who guarantees they won’t return with German borders remaining up to 1939 land grabs and its military and economic production untouched ?

No doubt, the Allies will station troops on Gemrany's borders, as they did OTL. That will garantee it effectively. The Allies can always force military limitations and unrestricted access for inspections, through the treaty. That will garantee it, too.

And its obvious that Germans would use their presence to influence territorial decisions or ethnic makeup.

Which presence ? They are withdrawing to their 1939 borders. Displaced Czechs, Poles, etc. are free to return and reverse any ethnic changes the Nazis worked.

Not to Soviets, Poles, Czechs, British.

Historically, the British were the ones that willed to moderate demands vs. the Germans vs. Roosevelt extremism, if ITTL the American shape a more moderate policyt vs. the Gmerans (the whole assumption of TTL), they will happily jump the bandwagon.

The Czechs and the Poles ? Are you seriously assuming the Allies will take the demands of utterly powerless governments in exile, that have to beg everything from the Allies fro their very existence ? They will jump when London and Washington say jump. They are going to get their countries back, it way suffices. The American people and the British people aren't going to keep shedding the blood of their sons and to waste their money so that a bunch of Slav nationalists can fatten themseleves.

As for the Soviets... yes, they will moan and rage, but what they want ? The Germans will withdraw from every inch of Soviet soil, so their legitimate war aims are fulfilled. Continuing the war after that means they have plans to control Eastern Europe, which is wholly unacceptable. We didn't fight a war to save Europe from Hilter, in order to abandon it to the Bolsheviks. Look, if they insist, it seems like we will have to start countermeasures against them. For starters, we will station troops in those Eastern Europe countries.

Too bad Czechoslovakia wanted pre-Munich borders, and too bad giving Sudetes to Germans makes Czechs soveirgnity in the hands of Germany as it is without defensive borders. Too bad also Poland wanted Upper Sileisa, Gdańsk, East Prussia and correction of borders to make them more defensive.

Who cares about the claims of nationalist Slavs ? Sure the Allies aren't going to wage 2-3 more years of total war in order to fulfill them. They are free again, what they want ? if they want to be defended, they can accept our garrisons, and enter our defensive alliances.

Also both countries wanted to remove pro-Nazi German minorities who supported invasion of their countries and comitted atrocities.

Quite a questionable ethnic cleansing request, which might have worked IF the Allies had had to fight all the way to Berlin, since that mustachoed fanatic will fight to the bitter end. Since the Allies have a decent chance for immediate peace, and they won't have fanatics of their own in charge, they got an ictus last year, they will grab it. Goodbye, Polish-Czech ethnic cleansing.

I can’t imagine British or Soviets allowing Germany to keep its war potential untouched after what they went through.

The British will accept the peace deal, once Hitler is gone. Even if Churchill wouldn't, Americans and his own Parliament will force him to. The Soviets may not like it, but in the end will take it, rather than waging a war of their own, with the very real perspective of the Allies turning on them, once the red Army crosses the Soviet borders.

And both latter demands conflict with demands of Polish and Czech governments-supported by Soviets in this regard.

The Poles will never ever risk Soviet domination willingly, by letting the Red Army occupy them, once the Germans are committed to retreat. The Czech, well, they might, but betraying the Allies for siding with the Soviets (besides starting the happy trip to Communist dictatorship) will destroy any and every residual sympathy the Allies might have. Welcome to the Cold War, waged on the Czech border.

Poles expected East Prussia and Upper Silesia as compensation for their lost land along with some border corrections in Pomerania and Greater Poland.

What they expected and what they will get are two wholly different things. They also expected democracy and national independence, they got 40 years of Communism instead. The Czech-Polish tip of the tail won't wag the US-UK big dog. They aren't going to fight two more years of total war for Czech-Polish nationalists.

If you think anybody would accept German conquests from 1939 by allowing them to stage referendums(especially after years of ethnic cleansing of milions and murdering milions of Polish citizens)

Well, that maybe is a little too difficult to push through.

Not in the view of Czech government.

Which nobody really cares about, nor they are in the position to push through anything, as they are beggars living in London at the Allies' mercy. If Czechs on the ground get really strange ideas, well check what happened to Greek communists.

And who guarantees that Germans won’t try to take it back once they recover ?

Allied garrisons, defensive alliances, Germany limitations (which will nonetheless scrapped in due time to make them a better bulvark against the Soviets) the inspections to enforce them.

Stalin “I never exterminated whole nations believing them to be worse species then animals, nor did I sent children to gas chambers, in fact my soldiers liberated people from camps where such gas chambers existed and defeated people who did it” ?

No, it's "I exterminated whole nations and social classes beliveing them to be enemy of the people scum unworthy to live, I extemrinated children by purposefully causing famines, I sent millions of my own people to slave camps to slowly work them to death, and when my army enlarged my empire by defeating my enemy that had set up his own death camps in conqured countries, I started sending those people to MY death camps".

One would need to be a very foolish person to allow Germans 1-2 years to recover their military, strenghten their hold on Central Europe and prepare for better defense and war.

1-2 years to phase Germany's government from provisional military junta to democracy, NOT to implment the peace accord.

And not only for moral and ethnic reason but also due to political ones, diplomacy and pure strategic ones. Why should anyone allow Germany what it conquered.

It does keep anything that it conquered. It keeps what it got peacefully, with the agreement of the Western powers, and it always was German anyway.

1918-1871= 47. Not centuries at all.

Posen was German since the first Partition of Poland. I'm counting from that.

I have an impression you are bit biased towards the German side.

On these forums, I made no secret of the fact that historically and (geo)politically, my strong sympathies go to Germany, the USA, Israel, and the British Empire, and my strong antipathies go to Communists/Soviets, Islam, Russia, France, and Slavs, in that rough order.

Oh but Poland demanded Gdańsk, and much more. Upper Silesia etc,

American and British lives and money won't be wasted so that greedy Poles can fatten themselves on stuff that wasn't theirs before the war.

removal of pro-Nazi Germans, trials of war criminals, compensation for damage and exploitation and so on.

The peace agreement may, and will, include all of these. Just not Polish territorial enlargement.

And why would Soviets, Czechs, Poles agree to that ? If you can imagine that, so can Stalin. And Stalin can promise Poles and Czechs more then Germans can. A status of Finlandization, more territories, agreement to help in removing German population, military aid, direct support for partisans as envisoned by Poles in Operation Tempest.

If the Czechs and Poles are so foolish to purposefully invite the Red Army in, instead of the Allies (assuming the Allies just don't coup them away, as they did in Greece 1944), they are just outting their own neck in the Communist noose, first. Second, any and all consideration their claims might have with the Allies will vanish like smoke. They will be enemy. Third, the Allies will immediately ally with Germany, scrape its military limitations, maybe even place troops on the eastern German borders which the German government will be happy to invite in. The Cold War immediately starts, only it's waged in Silesia/Pomerania/Austria. But the USA will have the whole of Germany on its side. The Polish and Czech people will curse the foolish choice of their former governments within a month of tasting the NKVD's caresses.

Now now, pretty much of war criminals were in Wehrmacht as well. And nobody is interested in protecting them. Especially Eastern countries were the gross bulk of crimes were comitted. Only the military junta might tried to protect those people.

The top echelons of the Nazi government and the most egregious middle-rank offenders, provided they aren't killed in the coup or the following hasty purges, will be tried as they were OTL, by German tribunals under Allied supervision or Allied ones, it is to be settled by the peace agreement. If the Allies want them, they will get them. As for the mass purges and trials of the low echelons that you are thinking of, they didn't happen OTL when the Allies occupied Germany, no reason they should happen here.

Without Sudetes their independence is at the mercy of Germany, and as to rights to that regions, they obviously had different view then yours.

If we throw ethnic borders to the winds, and go for historic claims and security, then Germany has a very valid claim to the 1914 borders, and everything goes up in the air. The whole Allied war claim was based on national self-determination, they will rely on that, and under that the Czech have no valid claim on the Sudetes.

The hopes of not being German puppets.

They can be in the American sphere of influence, and get its protection.

And as to Russian domination-why not ? It was always prefered to German one, as it was neither as racists or dangerous to Polish nation. Russians might have opressed the Poles, they didn’t want to erase Warsaw and settle it with Russians.

Oh suuurree. Poles will throw newfound independence to the winds, and happily invite Russians, which oppressed and butchered them for a century, and did it again in 1939-40, back in, to set up a nice Stalinist paradise, so that they can grab a little more German land.

What about reperations, war criminals, removal of Nazi Germans, creating safe borders as opposed to borders from 1939 ?

They can have a decent mount of everything, except the land grab.

Gdansk was never Polish ? It actually dates its founding from creation by Polish ruler Mieszko, and alltogether was part of Poland for over 600 years.

Did I tell ya how much the "a millennia ago, we ruled here" and "we want more votes, to make up for the dead of WWII" farfetched overblown Polish nationalist rethoric grates on my nerves ? Danzig was ethnically German, until Stalin's goons ethnically cleansed it. That's what matters.

Let’s star that your proposal allows German to keep control over Central and Eastern Europe which was never an Allied goal.

They retire. They might get *economic* influence, later, as the Eastern Europe masses discover how good German consumer goods are... That won't oppress anybody.

Stoping SU was never a war goal.

For Churchill and Truman ? The hell, yes. Not for Roosevelt, who would have happily thrown Europe to Chthulhu, if that would allow him to trample Germany better. But we have POD him away. Churchill kept pushing plans to land Allied landings in the Balkans instead of Italy and France, just to deny Stalin any foothold byond Soviet borders.

War criminals from Wehrmacht are saved,

Which ones ? if you mean the Nuremberg trials, they will be ITTL as in OTL. If you pipedream summary trials and mass shootings of Wehrmacht officials, sorry, they didn't happen OTL, either.

the war potential of Germany wasn’t limited

Nobody but Roosevelt wanted to cripple Germany, and throw open the door of the continent to Stalin.

and borders return to their unstable status of 1939.

Which nobody but a bunch of powerless Slav nationalists will care about. Surely British and US electors won't condone further world war in order to appease them. The tail does not wag the dog.

The War aims of Allies were far more then “Hitler out” The Allied war aims also included revision of borders and stopping German potential to wage another war.

You sorrily mistake the Roosevelt clique of German-hating leftists, who were powerless once he was out, for the whole rest of the USA-British ruling elites, which were very aware of the dangers of crippling Germany, for European economy, and letting Stalin dominate the continent.

To ensure that Germany will be disarmed, its industry dismantled so that it will not be used for another war, and that Germans will see that they are defeated. The lack of parade in Berlin was a complaint after WW1.

The fact that you assume the collated demands of the most extreme anti-German nationalists fringes from two wars, as the collective will of the Allied ruling elites and peoples, and assume the Allies will happily keep pouring blood and money in order to fulfill them, once they have a serious chance to end it all with honor, and achieve their main war objectives (destruction of Nazism, liberation of Europe) makes it rather difficult to take it seriously.

I am sure neither Britain, Soviet Union, nor Poland or Czechoslovakia will imagine that. And I am sure if they would they would happily agree to Germany being a great power and dominating Eastern Europe. Certainly they would not combine their efforts to thwart German attempt at remaining a power with the ability to control Europe by destroying Allied Camp during talks aime at making Allies do their dirty work against SU.

Which will only jumpstart Cold War, and make the Allies even more wary of doing any sacrifice of their resources to appease those treacherous "allies".

Super harsh treaty ? Then what was Brest Litovsk. Germany was neither divided nor occupied. Hardly a harsh treaty.

Unfortunately the historic consensus disagrees with you. I can see why it must seem so to you, as Versailles didn't admittedly allow Poles to steal German land up to the Oder, what a shame. :rolleyes:

In comparision the post-WW2 treaties were harsher and worked.

No, the Truman-Attlee policy of pacification, German reconstruction, independence, national unity, industrial development, integration in Western economic and miliary alliances, and rearmment, worked. The Roosevelt policies were a recipe for catasthrope , only Stalin would have benefited, by picking the pieces of a beggered, starving, resentful Germany.

The ATL I argument, just advances the very successful policies they did since 1946-47, in 1943-44, by removing the main obstacle, Roosevelt and his clique.

Somewhow there was no another war, and Germany didn’t turn into dictatorship.

Because Trumand and Attlee made a U-turn, and salvaged what could be salvaged from Roosevelt's catastrophic policies. Unfortunately, for everything beyond the Elbe, it was too late. If only he had died early... hence this ATL.


To summ it all up.

Once Roosevelt is gone, and the fanatical anti-German element within the Allied leadership is gone with him, you want the Allied leaders and electors to mindlessly keep pouring blood and money in a long total war, once a good chance for a reasonable peace settlement is nearby, eding the war early and fulfiling what the mainstream war aims of the Allied opinion was (destruction of Nazism, liberation of Europe), in order to fulfill plans of extreme economic and territorial rape of Germany that were only the plans of the most extreme anti-German fringe (only influential with Roosevelt) and to cater at the extreme claims of a bunch of nationalists in minor occupied and powerless countries that had precisely zero influence and political-military leverage on the Allies, totally and purposefully disregarding the goals of not disrupting the economy of Europe and containing soviet expansion as much as possible that were foremost in the minds of anyone in the Allied ruling elites but the Roosevelt clique, and were the very basis of the Allied policy on Germany after the war.

Your view assumes that the Czech and Polish governments in exile are in control of the USA and UK governments, and their claims and concerns form the basis of their policy. That's way ridiculous.
 
Originally posted by Irioth
Who cares about the claims of nationalist Slavs ? Sure the Allies aren't going to wage 2-3 more years of total war in order to fulfill them. They are free again, what they want ? if they want to be defended, they can accept our garrisons, and enter our defensive alliances.
So, the Germans claim only what is "rightfully theirs" and when the Slavs have some demands they are nationalists?
And are the Slavs free again? Let's see: their countries were ravaged by war (mostly Poland), milions are death, economy is in ruins. Meanwhile, the aggressor is still powerful, with big military force (or an ability to rebuild it very quickly), and he suffered practically no consequences for starting the war: oh, sure, Hitler's dead and bunch of his henchmen is hanged. So what?
War wasn't started by Hitler alone, but by whole Germany under nazi leadership. Genocide wasn't committed by Hitler alone, but by German state. So where is justice in that?

Who cares about the farfecthed claims of the Poles ? It's not like they have aries in the field , or are making any substantial contribution to the war effort. The Allies waged a war to save Poland and others as independent nations, not because they could fatten themselves exploiting the blood of Aliied soldiers. They will take whatever deal they Allies decide on, as in OTL.
Poland wanted those changes not for whim, but for its own security. After all, who could guarantee Germany wouldn't try another war? Only occupation and disarmament of Germany could prevent that. If not that, safer borders.
Another thing: considering milions of Poles murdered by German state during WW2 I consider your casual remarks about "bunch of nationalistic Slavs fattening on Allies' blood" as highly offensive and almost nazi-like.

And as far Polish contribution in war, Poland had one of the most powerful resitance in Europe (Germany had to keep a very significant force there), Polish intelligence gave valuable information to the Allies, not to mention the Enigma. Polish soldiers, sailor and airmen fought against Germany on every front of WW2 (with exception of Balkans, although in Yugoslavia many Polish refugees joined the partisants): wherever Germany reached its bloody hands, sooner or later it met perhaps small, but tough and brave Polish force. From military point of view their contribution might be considered small, but they did their part to stop Nazi beast. And for that you should be eternally grateful to them.
Unless you wish they hadn't done it.

Great Britain and USA didn't fight Germany ONLY to liberate Slavs. They agreed that notoriously imperialistic Germany was a clear danger to world peace. It was Germany that started 2 world wars (I agree that WWI wasn't only their fault). It was Germany that declared "total war". It was Germany that comminted genocide. From Allies' POV Germany had to be defeated completely, so they wouldn't have to fight WW3 after in another 20 years.
And yes, they didn't understood the danger Stalin represented. However, they were perfectly right about the danger Germany represented.
 
Originally posted by Irioth

So, the Germans claim only what is "rightfully theirs" and when the Slavs have some demands they are nationalists?
And are the Slavs free again? Let's see: their countries were ravaged by war (mostly Poland), milions are death, economy is in ruins. Meanwhile, the aggressor is still powerful, with big military force (or an ability to rebuild it very quickly), and he suffered practically no consequences for starting the war: oh, sure, Hitler's dead and bunch of his henchmen is hanged. So what?
War wasn't started by Hitler alone, but by whole Germany under nazi leadership. Genocide wasn't committed by Hitler alone, but by German state. So where is justice in that?


Poland wanted those changes not for whim, but for its own security. After all, who could guarantee Germany wouldn't try another war? Only occupation and disarmament of Germany could prevent that. If not that, safer borders.
Another thing: considering milions of Poles murdered by German state during WW2 I consider your casual remarks about "bunch of nationalistic Slavs fattening on Allies' blood" as highly offensive and almost nazi-like.

And as far Polish contribution in war, Poland had one of the most powerful resitance in Europe (Germany had to keep a very significant force there), Polish intelligence gave valuable information to the Allies, not to mention the Enigma. Polish soldiers, sailor and airmen fought against Germany on every front of WW2 (with exception of Balkans, although in Yugoslavia many Polish refugees joined the partisants): wherever Germany reached its bloody hands, sooner or later it met perhaps small, but tough and brave Polish force. From military point of view their contribution might be considered small, but they did their part to stop Nazi beast. And for that you should be eternally grateful to them.
Unless you wish they hadn't done it.

Great Britain and USA didn't fight Germany ONLY to liberate Slavs. They agreed that notoriously imperialistic Germany was a clear danger to world peace. It was Germany that started 2 world wars (I agree that WWI wasn't only their fault). It was Germany that declared "total war". It was Germany that comminted genocide. From Allies' POV Germany had to be defeated completely, so they wouldn't have to fight WW3 after in another 20 years.
And yes, they didn't understood the danger Stalin represented. However, they were perfectly right about the danger Germany represented.

Seraphim, I think Irioth is talking from an in-TL perspective - what the diplomats would say about all this. I doubt that this is his personal opinion. If it is, I would be both surprised and report-button-clicky.
 
Seraphim, I think Irioth is talking from an in-TL perspective - what the diplomats would say about all this. I doubt that this is his personal opinion. If it is, I would be both surprised and report-button-clicky.

I certainly hope so. Although...

Originally posted by Irioth
On these forums, I made no secret of the fact that historically and (geo)politically, my strong sympathies go to Germany, the USA, Israel, and the British Empire, and my strong antipathies go to Communists/Soviets, Islam, Russia, France, and Slavs, in that rough order.
 
Originally posted by Nekromans
Care to post a link? I can't quite believe he actually posted that...

He posted that in this thread, today (i.e. 11th of May) at 07:11 AM.
His post is a big one, so it is easy to overlook it. It is one of his responses to Olmeka's accusations and remarks. Just find that Olmeka's quote in Irioth's post:
1918-1871= 47. Not centuries at all.
And look a little lower. It is pretty much in the middle of Irioth's post.
 

Irioth

Banned
Originally posted by Irioth

So, the Germans claim only what is "rightfully theirs" and when the Slavs have some demands they are nationalists?

Going by ethnicity (AKA national self-determination, the polar star of Allied policy, according to United Nation Charters), there were overwhelming German majorities in Austria, Sudetenland. There were overwhelming Czech majorities in Bohemia and Moravia, and Polish majorities (roughly so) in 1939 Poland but Danzig. So it's only just that Germany keeps Austria and Sudetenland, Czech and Poland keep all the rest. If a standard must stand, it must stand for everyone. That's justice.

And are the Slavs free again? Let's see: their countries were ravaged by war (mostly Poland), milions are death, economy is in ruins.

Make them pay reparations. Ravaging another country is NOT the answer.

Meanwhile, the aggressor is still powerful, with big military force (or an ability to rebuild it very quickly), and he suffered practically no consequences for starting the war:

The millions of war dead ? The terror bombing of its cities ?

oh, sure, Hitler's dead and bunch of his henchmen is hanged. So what?

The guilty ones are punished.

War wasn't started by Hitler alone, but by whole Germany under nazi leadership. Genocide wasn't committed by Hitler alone, but by German state.

The "collective guilt" theory is stupid and criminal. Where's the collective punishment for the crimes of Communism ? We should push the borders of Russia back to Viazma, and strip away every building in Moscow. And the crimes of Mao ? Let's invade China and steal Manchuria, to make them pay. Let's take Maine from the USA, to pay for Iraq, and California, to pay for the Indians.

So where is justice in that?

There's no justice in history. Most of the worst butchers and tyrants in history, from Stalin to Mao downwards, die in their beds, amid the flattery of their cronies and their stolen riches. Nobody ever went to trial for the Gulags, or the Holodomor. Where's justice, indeed ?


Poland wanted those changes not for whim, but for its own security. After all, who could guarantee Germany wouldn't try another war? Only occupation and disarmament of Germany could prevent that. If not that, safer borders.

Poland may make all the claims it wants. Fulfilling them is not worth contnuing the destruction of Europe, and throwing the doors of what remains open to Communism. Allied military protection and collective security is more than enough to satisfy legitimate claims for security. Anything else is an excuse for land-grabbing.

Another thing: considering milions of Poles murdered by German state during WW2 I consider your casual remarks about "bunch of nationalistic Slavs fattening on Allies' blood" as highly offensive and almost nazi-like.

How else would you define, Poland asking the Allies to get losses and losses, when the war can be ended right now, just to fufill Poles' territorial claims and cravings for revenge ? if they had wished that stuff, they should have done a better job in 1939. Asking others to keep dying for years, to fulfill their claims 100%, and the rest of Europe to keep being ravaged, is too easy, too selfish. Do they want security garantees ? Install Allied troops on their borders, and sign a defensive pact.

Unless you wish they hadn't done it.

No, I don't. But I do not deem their objectively scarce contribution, nor their revenge grievances, nor their expansionistic claims disguised as "security", nowhere important enough to toss away the chance to end WWII in Europe years before, prevent millions of deaths, uncounted destruction, including cutting the very Holocaust short mid-way (not that it would matter much from your standard, according to your arguments only Polish dead count, it seems), ensure a peace deal that will keep the scourge of Communism away from Europe, and ensure that what was possible in 1989-1990, an Europe united in peace, prosperity, security, and democracy, would be possible by the late 1940s. And yes, I deem the Polish dead go unavenged in the butterflying away of apocalyptic 1945 Germany, a very, very good price for it. Nobody avenged the victims of Genghis Khan, either. 1939 Poles aren't anything special, in all the bloodshed of history. If anything, my tears go to the Jews, the Rom, and the homosexuals, they truly were innocent of everything. The Poles, no, they share their part of guilt in and for WWII, with their bullheaded nationalism and antisemitism.

I anything, I wish for what I've described, or better for the Central Powers winning WWI early, and butterflying Lenin, Hitler, and all the atrocities of totalitarianism away entirely.
 
Last edited:

Irioth

Banned
What, what, is it making an open disclosure of one's historic sympathies for some nations and cultural/political movements, a violation of the forum's terms of usage ? Enlighten me. In the heat of discussion, he asked me if I am a bit biased on Germany's side. Since I do believe that an early unification of Germany in the Middle Age, or its early victory in WWI, or an early end of WWII after a successful 20-July coup, would have brought an happier overall future for Europe. That, I deem, is a good thing to sympathize for. Please show me where I crossed the boundary.
 

Olmeka

Banned
On these forums, I made no secret of the fact that historically and (geo)politically, my strong sympathies go to Germany, the USA, Israel, and the British Empire, and my strong antipathies go to Communists/Soviets, Islam, Russia, France, and Slavs, in that rough order.
Being against policies of one state is one thing, being against a whole religious groups and whole national ones is racist.
My point that Irioths scenario A would would mean minimum 30 million people murdered, with 50 million being more likely and above 60 million possible if high estimates, was left unanswered.
 
Last edited:
Orginally posted by Irioth
The Poles, no, they share their part of guilt in and for WWII, with their bullheaded nationalism and antisemitism.
EXCUSE ME?!
How the hell Polish "nationalism" help starting WWII?
Did Poland invade Germany? No!
Did Poland started organized persecutions of ethnic Germans in Poland? No!
Did Poland provoke Germany to invade it? Hell, NO!
Unless you count as provocation refusal to German territorial demands.
Many Germans have similar problem: they graciously accept the right of Poles to be independent; they don't mind Poland regaining territories taken during the partitions by Austria and Russia; however, they have almost alergic reaction when Poles claim territories taken by Prussia during the same partitions. If Poles had the right to regain the territories taken by Romanovs and Habsburgs, they had the same right to regain territories taken by Hohenzollerns.

What, what, is it making an open disclosure of one's historic sympathies for some nations and cultural/political movements, a violation of the forum's terms of usage ? Enlighten me. In the heat of discussion, he asked me if I am a bit biased on Germany's side. Since I do believe that an early unification of Germany in the Middle Age, or its early victory in WWI, or an early end of WWII after a successful 20-July coup, would have brought an happier overall future for Europe. That, I deem, is a good thing to sympathize for. Please show me where I crossed the boundary.

I never said all that above is a violation of terms of usage. However, I must say that your incessantly contemptive attitude towards Slavs is very close to racism. And you declared your antipathy towards specific counties and/or nations.

Originally posted by Irioth
Make them pay reparations. Ravaging another country is NOT the answer.
Let's see. Reparations to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium, France, Norway. Denmark, Great Britain, USA... That would have ruined German economy, so most probably Germany would have refused to pay them. And how could Allies enforced them without occupation of Germany?

The millions of war dead ? The terror bombing of its cities ?
And who started the war and terror bombing? When you start the war and fight it in the most cruel way possible (without WMDs) do not expect sympathy from your victims. It is as a bandit was lamenting because his victim defending himself hit him below the belt.

The guilty ones are punished.
And what about those who cleared the way for SS, Gestapo and the rest? I mean Wehrmacht, Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe. They were ordered to murder and pillage and much too often they executed that orders.

The "collective guilt" theory is stupid and criminal. Where's the collective punishment for the crimes of Communism ? We should push the borders of Russia back to Viazma, and strip away every building in Moscow. And the crimes of Mao ? Let's invade China and steal Manchuria, to make them pay. Let's take Maine from the USA, to pay for Iraq, and California, to pay for the Indians.
Well, here you might have a point. However, there was also a matter of ensuring Germany wouldn't try it again. That also was impossible without occupation and disarming of Germany.
BTW, IMHO Morgenthau's plan WAS stupid and criminal. And it is good it wasn't implemented, althought I don't know if it was really considered. But occupation, disarmament and possible division of Germany could have been done. And it didn't exactly mean destruction of whole infrastructure.

Poland may make all the claims it wants. Fulfilling them is not worth contnuing the destruction of Europe, and throwing the doors of what remains open to Communism. Allied military protection and collective security is more than enough to satisfy legitimate claims for security. Anything else is an excuse for land-grabbing.
Destruction of Europe and opening the door to communism was Germany's fault, not Poland's. And Poland couldn't count on allied military protection withput allied military presence in Poland AND Germany. We all know how western guarantees worked in 1939.
Besides, most of Poland's claims could be refused (Poland could live without them). However, Poland would have insisted on disarming and occupation at least part of Germany. And I believe in that case Poles would have had support of pretty much every ally, including France and Britain. Germany HAD to be neutralized (from military POV), because sooner or later it would become menace again.And with German nuclear program still working (even if in secrecy) after a few years Germany might have had a nuclear bomb. And Allied intelligence knew about it.

No, I don't. But I do not deem their objectively scarce contribution, nor their revenge grievances, nor their expansionistic claims disguised as "security", nowhere important enough to toss away the chance to end WWII in Europe years before, prevent millions of deaths, uncounted destruction, including cutting the very Holocaust short mid-way (not that it would matter much from your standard, according to your arguments only Polish dead count, it seems), ensure a peace deal that will keep the scourge of Communism away from Europe, and ensure that what was possible in 1989-1990, an Europe united in peace, prosperity, security, and democracy, would be possible by the late 1940s.

And I say that without complete defeat of Germany in 1940s there would be no peace, prosperity and democracy in Europe. Why? Because:
- Germany remains political, military and economical power; that means all central Europe lives in its shadow and has every chance to become its economical and political vassal.
- Germany doesn't aknowledge its guilt for terrors of WWII; Germans say: oh, but it was only Hitler and his buddies, but we get ridden of them ourselves, so everything is fine, isn't it? Well it is not. The resentments on both sides are very strong and you can forget about any reconcilliation the way it happened IOTL. There can be no forgiveness without admission of guilt and sincere repentance. IOTL German people was literarily forced to see the horror most of them helped to create (like when Patton forced German civilians to visit concentration camps) and that helped them to turn away from nazism.
- Germany has another myth: "we might have been able to win the war, but we stopped it to save the Europe from communism"; so when the international situation is better we can correct a few things and try again - only this time we will do better. And again, soon they might have a nuclear bomb.
- Germany believes Hitler's fault wasn't that he had started the war only that he had been close to loosing it; besides, he wasn't so bad, was he? He made us strong again, he only made some mistakes; and besides, the ones who suffered most were only Jews, Poles, Roms...etc.
- Will Germany really become democratic country? Instead of crazy-racist imperialists we have a junta of military imperialists; why should we believe that Germans suddenly become good, friendly neighbour? Why should we believe it would become a democracy?
In short we have military and economical giant in the heart of Europe, who doesn't seem to be particularly repentant for the crimes he comitted and still sees Eastern Europeans as 2nd class people. And who is to stop him?

the chance to end WWII in Europe years before, prevent millions of deaths, uncounted destruction, including cutting the very Holocaust short mid-way (not that it would matter much from your standard, according to your arguments only Polish dead count, it seems)...
WHERE EXACTLY DID I SAY THAT?!
 

hammo1j

Donor
Olmeka you said:

Being against policies of one state is one thing, being against a whole religious groups and whole national ones is racist.

From wikipedia - my italics pointing out the absurdity of your claim.

Racism, by its perhaps simplest definition, is prejudice and discrimination based on race. One with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their race (i.e., bigotry), or in the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits. Racism typically starts with, though is rarely confined to the assumption that there are taxonomic differences between different groups of people. Prejudices on other grounds would strictly categorize as discrimination to national or regional origin, religion, occupation, social status or some other distinction.

I think you are attempting to use the racism card to censor Irioth whose opinions you do not like. Please argue against him, but playing games like this is most unseemly. He is against certain cultures but not races. If someone is anti Nazi then by your argument that person is racist.
 

Olmeka

Banned
Thee user clearly stated that he has a grudge towards whole ethnic group

my strong antipathies go to Communists/Soviets, Islam, Russia, France, and Slavs, in that rough order
If you want to use wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-slavism
Anti-Slavism, also known as Slavophobia, a form of racism or xenophobia, refers to various negative attitudes towards Slavic peoples, most common manifestation being claims of inferiority of Slavic nations with respect to other ethnic groups.
He is against certain cultures
Slavic people are various ethnic and national groups with their own cultures, not 'a culture'.
 
Top