Unconditional surender - price to high ?

and why was there no unconditional surrender in the Korean War? Or in the first war against Irak ?

 

Well there could have been if American forces stopped in North Korea in 1950 but its still a what if as we will never know. I think in the case of Korea by 1953 both sides could see they were in a trench warfare situation since 1951 when both sides just dug in.

As for Germany under Hitler, as already said here, as long as Hitler was alive Germany could not surrender.

 

Germany as a whole did not choose Hitler, the Nazi's and Hitler chose themselves! The only way they were able to get into a position of power was by tampering, intimidating, and targeting those who stood in their way or those who could have been used as platforms to propel them further.

On the death of Erwin Rommel, Winston Churchill told the world:

Erwin Rommel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems Churchill would have been open to the idea given that quotation, I highly doubt many of the western nations wanted to continue the war for much longer, any reasonable terms should have done.

 

??? Are you serious?
The Korean "War" was fought within the greater context of the "Cold War". North Korea was well on the way to disappearing when the Chinese stepped in. MaC did push for taking them out via nuclear weapons but wiser heads prevailed. As for Iraq it was the terms of the coalition. Many in it did not want to see the destruction of Iraq.

 

These two are hardly comparable. Let's see:

1. The Western Allies and Soviets did not border each other until 1945, and until then, neither could achieve any significant military goal against the other.
2. Although a war against the Russians would have been possible after Germany's defeat in military terms for the Western Allies, there was no popular support for a prolonged war.
3. The Russians would not have been foolish enough to declare war on the Western Allies in 1945 when they are at a severe disadvantage and had already achieved their goals (and more).
4. Later in the 50s we have the nuclear bombs on each side.

Anyways, Russia achieved her goals through Germany and not the other way around. Russia wanted its former territories in Poland and the Baltics back, just like Germany wanted her territory populated by ethnic Germans back from Poland. Had the Allies folded, or had the Russians for whatever reason went in first, I'm sure that there would have been no war.

 

That very much depends. Since the author of thread was comparing Nazi Germany and the USSR a comparison of the conflicts between them and the western allies is not only legitimate but almost required.

 

Well, my point is that the conditions for the Russians and Western Allies to fight one another did not meet until 1945 because of geopolitical reasons, and from 1945 and onwards due to political reasons. So because of that I consider it flawed to say that the Russians were more trustworthy from the Western Allies' point of view than the Germans would have been had they defeated Russia in 1941 for instance.

 

The Nazis were in control of Germany for a little over half a dozen years before they started WWII. For political reasons by the way. The USSR and the west were in contact by your definition above for over 40 years and didn't invade each other.

I don't remember addressing trustworthiness at all. Stalin was less confident/more paranoid than Hitler. Successive rulers of the USSR saw no reason to risk it all on one throw of the dice. Hitler showed a marked tendency to do so.

 

I addressed that in an earlier post. That was during the nuclear era, so of course no side is going to attack the other if that means certain destruction. Today's great powers are not at peace with one another because they get along so well, but out of necessity.

 

Possibly but possibly not as well. And there's no indication that Hitler especially with a victory over the Soviets wouldn't have continued to push until he was at war with the west no matter what. After all any rational individual would have realized that trying to fight most of the world was a recipe for destruction but it seems to have escaped Hitler's notice.

 

The one mistake Hitler made on the diplomatic front was to declare war on the United States, but all in all he and his staff was aware of that Germany could not achieve anything against the British, let alone against the Americans. So I'm positive that Germany would have offered a white peace --for the Western Allies, that is-- had they conquered Russia.

Building a stronger navy would have taken time, and building one strong enough to head for the British Isles and the America's would likely have proven to be unfeasible. And then during the nuclear era peace would more or less have been cemented.

 

That's probably by the Kreigsmarine had so much invested in U-Boats, there were U-Boat shelters built by the Germans which no bomb was able to penetrate, there were a few in France which the Allies simply couldn't take over and were successfully defended by the Germans until the war ended.

The boats themselves were super effective during the first few years of the war, I think some in England referred to the era as the "U-Boat terror". After the Allies got a bit smart to them they still weren't completely useless, they were putting up a good fight for the most part. In North America it got to a point where a lot of anti submarine tech was rendered mostly useless due to weather conditions allowing U-Boats to wage campaigns near Newfoundland.

 

About Germany not choosing Hitler:I know it,but the allies took another point of view in WW II :Germany =Hitler ,thus no negociations with any German .

 

Many in it did not want to see the removal of Saddam and many were looking indifferently when ,after the armistice,Saddam was killing those who were rebelling (at the instigation of the US ).
Why were the US negociating an armistice and peace with Saddam's foreing secretary ,while they were refusing negociations with the opponents of Hitler?
Is there any difference between Hitler and Saddam ?(maybe the former murdering millionsand the latter' only 'hundred of thousands?)
The "moral" attitude of the US beying:you can talk with someone who murdered hundred of thousands ,but not with someone who murdered millions .(only a difference of degree ).
Or maybe,it is only a question of good old hypocrisy (oil beying more important)and maybe racism (Saddam murdering "only" non-whites ).

 

The Uboats were only effective because;

A. At this time in the war, although Submarines had been around since ww1 they still had not mastered any real anti submarine weapons, tactics or means to stop them, just look at the massive drop effectiveness not only in the much lesser ton's be sunk allies merchant ships, but by even the allies encounters with Uboats, and then again how many actual successful attack's by the submarines on convoy's.

B. The Germans were prepared for a war of attrition at sea as there plan was after all too "starve Britain dry"

Ahoy - Mac's Web Log - The British Convoy System in Two World Wars, and winning the Battle of the Atlantic

 

I'm rather surprised you are even asking these questions. Clearly in both cases it was coalition warfare. In both cases the terms offered were those the coalition desired.

 

That's questionable. This statement exaggerates the role of nuclear weapons in Soviet decision-making and understates the Soviet reluctance for war during the first 15 years of the Cold War. Atomic bombs, delivered by strategic bombers, were not lethal enough to warrant the mythical powers of deterrence attributed to it by conventional wisdom. It was the combination of ballistic missiles and H-bombs that made "assured destruction" possible, and even then, the Soviet military establishment did not believe it was beyond human effort to "win" a nuclear exchange until the 80s, when they finally acquired the computing capabilities to simulate a nuclear war. Yet, the Red Hordes (tm) didn't invade.

 

Oh, and it's complete rubbish to compare Nazi atrocities to what the Allies did. No one sane wanted to wipe Germany off the earth, but after two world wars world leaders wanted to make sure that there wouldn't be another repeated performance. It had to be made plain that the political leadership is to be destroyed so that there would not be another "stabbed in the back" myth.

 

I am rather surprised that you are believing the term 'coalition '
US were doying the fighting (I know there was Britain cs,but without US,there would be no fighting).
The Arab countries were paying,US electors were not willing to pay more taxes and the old Bush would not raise them ;you know what happened in 1992when he raised the tases ?
About Saddam:
1)before 1980 :he was murdering his own people and buying weapons :every one was very enthusiast to sell weapons (there is a picture of Chirac recieving Saddam in France,where he was buying weapons ;you will say :the French!,but Carter-the super moralist -was doying the same)
2)198O:Saddam attacked Iran (aggression war ):reaction :the world big business was very enthusiast :they could do big business ,with the murderer Saddam,and when Iran was loosing,every one was selling weapons to Iran .
3)19? (my memory ):meanwhile,Saddam was 'restauring law and order',with,among others,US weapons . I have heard no critique .
Saddam is attacking Koeweit :suddenly:a lot of moralising and the first gulf war,ending with a negociation with Saddam:you imagine the Allies recieving Ribbentrop ?They were not even willing to make promises on the German opponents of Hitler .
And the end of the first Gulf War,there wasat the US instigation,an uprising in the south of Irak ,Saddam "restaured law and order" and the US,they were looking at the slaughter.
4)09-11 ublic opinion in the US wanted a culprit,who could be punished,and,because the leader of Al Kaida was 'immune','inaccessible',one found another one:Saddam;and this time:no negociations :the electors wanted blood;the war ended with ...total anarchy. A good solution would have been :to replace Saddam with another murderer(some Iraqui Somoza) who would restore law and order (I forgot the 'inverted commas ) and leave as quickly as possible;but no:some stupid ideologues of the State Department were thinking that Iraq has to become a democracy,with free elections and bla bla :the result :a lot of deaths ann wasting of money ending in (probably ) an ignominious retreat .
If the Allies could do business with Saddam and keep him in power,why could they not they not make some promises (which they were not obliged to hold )to the German opponents of Hitler . Even if the possibility that this would shorten the war,was very small,it had to be tried:it could save lives .

 

Why? That's what it was.

It wasn't just the US and Britain doing the fighting. Even if it was that's irrelevant to the fact that it was a coalition and the wishes of all members were considered.

??? Not sure what your point is here or even what you are trying to say.

Not sure how all that was/is relevant.

Nope. Wrong again.

Obviously they could have they chose not to.

It obviously didn't have to be tried because it wasn't. It would only have saved lives if the whole allaince bought in and it worked. The combined probablility was probably judged not worth the effort especially since doing so might have encouraged the Germans to fight on for even better terms.