Opinions on Communism

[Izak]

No Hitler did choose him, at least that's what I'm aware of.

Hitler chose Doenitz but only after his chosen successors (specifically Goebbels, Göring, Hess and Himmler) were killed, captured, repudiated or had evacuated.

Replace them with Nazis? No thank you.

Where'd you get the idea that Churchill specifically wanted the Nazis to continue governing Germany?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yeah, it was part of Hitler's political testament. Hitler explicitly cut out Göring and Himmler due to him thinking that they were planning on making peace and taking over Germany.

Well, he was right after all.

The Göring Telegram was a message sent by Adolf Hitler's designated successor—Hermann Göring— on 23 April 1945 asking for permission to assume leadership of the crumbling Third Reich. The telegram caused Hitler to strip his hand-picked successor of power and appoint new political successors, Joseph Goebbels and Karl Dönitz.
(...)

On the evening of 28 April, the BBC broadcast a Reuters news report about Himmler's attempted negotiations with the western Allies. Hitler, who had long believed Himmler was second only to Joseph Goebbels in loyalty—calling Himmler "der treue Heinrich" (the loyal Heinrich)—flew into a rage about this apparent betrayal. Hitler told those who were still with him in the bunker complex that Himmler's act was the worst treachery he had ever known and ordered his arrest.
(...)

But Dönitz had great plans for the Reich after all.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Hitler chose Doenitz but only after his chosen successors (specifically Goebbels, Göring, Hess and Himmler) were killed, captured, repudiated or had evacuated.

Where'd you get the idea that Churchill specifically wanted the Nazis to continue governing Germany?

Or he feared that they would make peace. While I can't imagine Himmler doing that, Goring without doubt would make peace if only to continue his own power and rule.

Because he wanted to arm their remaining government?

Well, he was right after all.

The Göring Telegram was a message sent by Adolf Hitler's designated successor—Hermann Göring— on 23 April 1945 asking for permission to assume leadership of the crumbling Third Reich. The telegram caused Hitler to strip his hand-picked successor of power and appoint new political successors, Joseph Goebbels and Karl Dönitz.
(...)

On the evening of 28 April, the BBC broadcast a Reuters news report about Himmler's attempted negotiations with the western Allies. Hitler, who had long believed Himmler was second only to Joseph Goebbels in loyalty—calling Himmler "der treue Heinrich" (the loyal Heinrich)—flew into a rage about this apparent betrayal. Hitler told those who were still with him in the bunker complex that Himmler's act was the worst treachery he had ever known and ordered his arrest.
(...)

But Dönitz had great plans for the Reich after all.

I... I loved that video.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Strange enough, many of the prominent Nazis figures thought the allies would negotiate with them and offer them a seat in the 'new' government. Guess the surprise of some, when they had to face a trial. They knew that the Soviets would probably kill them on the spot - which was their plan - the western allies had a different idea though. But at no point have they seriously considered to keep the third Reich alive. At least not the leadership. And you have to ask your self if most of those Nazis have been in denial or simply disillusioned about their future.

Where'd you get the idea that Churchill specifically wanted the Nazis to continue governing Germany?

Even if he had this idea to put Nazis back in power - which I still doubt - there was hardly anyone left at this point. Most of them have been either dead, on the run or prisoners. The German high command stoped to exist at this point or was entrapped in pockets. The German army and industry simply was no more in April of 1945. Most of the divisions only existed on paper, there was not enough fuel to keep any tanks and planes runing, old people and children maned the anti air craft guns. And the German population was facing a famine due to the colapsed agriculture and industry.

What ever Churchill had in mind, it wouldn't have worked. Hence the name, Operation Unthinkable. Any war between the Soviets and western allies would had to be carried out completely by the British and American forces. I am not even sure of which use France would have been after the liberation of France they didn't really had much of an industry either and relied heavily on British and American supplies, and Vichy France was collaborating with Nazi Germany, a political mess. And there was a good chance that both British and American forces might have lost to the Soviets, at least Germany as a whole and going for a cease fire at the very least. Particularly as it would have been very difficult to sell the Soviets as enemies to the population of America and Britain who became extremly war-worn. The US has been sending supplies and material to the Soviets for years, and now they had to fight them? Not to mention that the war in the Pacific was not yet won.

If Japan would have given up at the same time like Germany, history might have been very different. There might have never been a Korean war, and Soviet influence in Europe slowed down. The US gave the Soviets a lot of leeway as long as they could get their troops to fight against Japan, and Stalin exploited this. No one really knew how long the fighting in the Pacific would still go in April 1945, and Japan had quite a large force outside of Japan in China, Manchuria and Korea. If the Emperor fleed to China, the war might have taken up to late 1946.

 

[Dr Fallout]

No one really knew how long the fighting in the Pacific would still go in April 1945, and Japan had quite a large force outside of Japan in China, Manchuria and Korea. If the Emperor fleed to China, the war might have taken up to late 1946.

I agree with everything else you've said apart from this.
1. The Emperor was a puppet and lacked any substantial power apart from being a spiritual figurehead. All the power was in the hands of General Tojo and the hyper-imperialist military which was slowly losing its sway at the end of the war, especially as the Japanese population suffered from bombing and starvation.
2. The Japanese would have surrendered without the atomic bomb and the emperor fleeing, as they feared a Soviet invasion and communist occupation of Korea, Manchuria and Japan. Also, starvation and war weariness played a huge part in forcing the Japanese to surrender. The atomic bomb had little impact and was merely an excuse to test out their new weapon, show it off to Stalin and make the surrender come quicker to stop the introduction of substantial Soviet armies.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yes, we know that by now. But the American leadership of 1945 hasn't been aware of that.

I should have said, from the American point of view. Considering the propaganda of the time and how much the Japanese population believed in the emperor, if the Japanese command decided to 'flee' to China or some other occupied teritory on the main-land, the fighting between the US and Japan might have taken much longer. Like I said, some members of the US command estimated the war might have continued till the end of 1946, in a worst case scenario. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the US had no access to nuclear weapons anymore and it would have taken a considerable amount of time to get new ones - I have read somewhere like 6 months to get enough material for more bombs. And no solution really sounded very great at that point, like mass starving Japan into submission with a long siege from the sea, invading the mainland with 1 - 1,5 milion of troops, and increasing the bombing raids was well, also not without issues because they have already bombed every major city. And the brutal fighting on Iwo Jima and in Okinawa gave the US a taste of what might still have been in front of them, if they decided to invade the rest of Japan. While the Japanese military was on their last leg and the Japanese Navy pretty much non existant, the troops and the US leadership had the feeling like the Japanese spirit and morale was still at an all time high. And up to this point, they had yet to face a masss of soldiers which yielded like the Germans did in 1945. Many civlians and soldiers rather chose to die, then to face defeat and inprisonment.

Hence why US tried everything in 1945 to get the Soviets on their side, no one knew really how long the fight might have continued and neither the Americans nor the British had any real base of operation on the mainland of Asia, and to establish that would have been rather difficult. It would have taken a lot of material, men and time, to drive the Japanese forces out from China. The Aliance with China and the US was rather complicated, they for example wouldn't allow american military bases or even air fields on their soil. So if the US really had to put boots on the ground in Asia, all of this would have meant a lot of risks as well. Britain, was almost as hated like Japan if not even more in some areas, and American forces have been rather ill adapted for fighting in Asia, not to mention that many in Asia would see them eventually as another occupant.

 

[Izak]

Because he wanted to arm their remaining government?

Rearming Nazi Germany would mean aiding and abetting them in carrying out Nazi policy, rearming Germany would just be giving guns back to the Wehrmacht. Why would Churchill specifically want to rearm not just the country he was fighting against but the very government he was at war with?

1. The Emperor was a puppet and lacked any substantial power apart from being a spiritual figurehead. All the power was in the hands of General Tojo and the hyper-imperialist military which was slowly losing its sway at the end of the war, especially as the Japanese population suffered from bombing and starvation.

I'm sure if they wanted to they could've kept the war going, considering how fanatical the Japanese were about the war (I mean the last Japanese soldier surrendered in like the 70's, right? At least a small minority were damned dedicated).

 

[Crni Vuk]

Ah the empire of Japan ... I am always surprised by their ferocity and incredible willpower, despite of all the ods. It was nothing short but amazing, if also terryfing at the same time. How little value they gave not only to the live of their enemy, but also their own, as long it was for the greater good of Japan. And a fun little fact, from the diaries of the Shimpū Tokkōtai, the (in)famous Kamize units, many of them had a very low opinion of their military leadership and generals who in their eyes have been the reason for Japans misfortune in 1945. They fought against the Americans, and they saw them fighting and pushing closer to Japan, and some slowly realized that they can't be this worthless and unskilled barbaric hordes as how the propaganda described them, if they actually did so well in combat. But the japanese soldiers at this point, thought that protecting Japan was their duty, even if it meant death. I mean even the Germans, who have been known as quite good fighters, gave at some point simply up, except for the really die hard defending-the-reich-to-the-last-bullet fanatics.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

No Hitler did choose him, at least that's what I'm aware of.

Replace them with Nazis? No thank you.

Why would you think that the US and UK would let a hostile ideology in remain in power in their new puppet, and even if they did what makes you think they would let their puppet dictate the politics of their other puppets they would gain by liberating territory from the Soviets?

 

[Dr Fallout]

Rearming Nazi Germany would mean aiding and abetting them in carrying out Nazi policy, rearming Germany would just be giving guns back to the Wehrmacht. Why would Churchill specifically want to rearm not just the country he was fighting against but the very government he was at war with?

I'm sure if they wanted to they could've kept the war going, considering how fanatical the Japanese were about the war (I mean the last Japanese soldier surrendered in like the 70's, right? At least a small minority were damned dedicated).

I have no idea, ask Churchill. Again, perhaps he thought the Nazis were more military competent?

They wouldn't. Japanese fanaticism has been highly overrated. Remember, the government decides peace and war not it's people or soldiers. And the Japanese government would have preferred a US occupation other then a Soviet one, because the Soviets would have created a commie paradi... I mean hell. And the Japs knew it.

In fact, the Japanese tried to surrender before the bombs fell... I will try to find sources to back up this claim.

 

[Izak]

I have no idea, ask Churchill.

You keep on saying 'ask Churchill' but I can't, everytime I google this nothing of note comes up and you've yet to cite any source.

Again, perhaps he thought the Nazis were more military competent?

I doubt Churchill thought being a Nazi gave a soldier +3 Strength, there's no reason he'd think the Nazis made better soldiers.

They wouldn't. Japanese fanaticism has been highly overrated. Remember, the government decides peace and war not it's people or soldiers.

Yeah and the government (or at least some of it) tried to keep the war going after the bombs fell, they were damned fanatical about the war, dude.

 

[Dr Fallout]

You keep on saying 'ask Churchill' but I can't, everytime I google this nothing of note comes up and you've yet to cite any source.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-Nazi-troops-drive-Russia-Eastern-Europe.html
More will come, fear not.

I doubt Churchill thought being a Nazi gave a soldier +3 Strength, there's no reason he'd think the Nazis made better soldiers.

As in they were more fanatical, more organized, more militaristic...

Yeah and the government (or at least some of it) tried to keep the war going after the bombs fell, they were damned fanatical about the war, dude.

Some of them yes, but they were deluded. The majority of the government feared the Soviets far more then surrender.

 

[Izak]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...-Nazi-troops-drive-Russia-Eastern-Europe.html
More will come, fear not.

Again, rearming Germany is vastly different from rearming the Nazis.

As in they were more fanatical, more organized, more militaristic...

One could say the same thing about the first French Republicans, fanaticism isn't unique to Nazis nor extremists.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Again, rearming Germany is vastly different from rearming the Nazis.

But the fact remains that he wanted to re-arm the Nazis, or at least Doenitz's remnants.

One could say the same thing about the first French Republicans, fanaticism isn't unique to Nazis nor extremists.

But the Nazis were able to take over most of Europe and proved their fighting capability.

 

[Izak]

But the Nazis were able to take over most of Europe and proved their fighting capability.

So did the French Republicans/Bonapartists, the Communist Russians (in the very same war that saw the Nazis conquer shit) and the Imperialist Spanish. Most European nations have, at one point or another, dominated Europe.

 

[Dr Fallout]

So did the French Republicans/Bonapartists, the Communist Russians (in the very same war that saw the Nazis conquer shit) and the Imperialist Spanish. Most European nations have, at one point or another, dominated Europe.

But the Nazis (out of a depression and limitations of the Versailles treaty) were able to defeat the dominating powers of Europe, France and even Britain. They then swept through Russia, the Balkans and Norway even against tough resistance. The Imperial Spanish won not through outright war but through marriage and diplomacy. The Communist Russians... no debate there. And the French dominated only because the major players they defeated accepted a benevolent surrender (in the case of Austria).

Finally, most of these had different strategies and battle tactics. I doubt Napoleon would have been able to beat the generals of most countries these days due to massive differences in tactics and fighting styles.

 

[Izak]

But the Nazis (out of a depression and limitations of the Versailles treaty) were able to defeat the dominating powers of Europe, France and even Britain. They then swept through Russia, the Balkans and Norway even against tough resistance.

This wasn't due to their superior Aryan blood though, they succeeded so well because they were the only ones that properly adapted their strategy and tactics to the times. Germany lost that advantage the moment they showed off Blitzkrieg (as can be seen in the later parts of the Eastern and Western fronts).

And the French dominated only because the major players they defeated accepted a benevolent surrender (in the case of Austria).

France stripped Prussia of half her territory, took all of Austria's Italian and Belgian possessions, forced Russia into an economic alliance, tricked the Spanish Monarchy into abdication, stole Germany out from under the Holy Roman Empire and installed itself as protector of Poland. Really if the French Empire was more genocidal there'd be very little difference between them and the Nazis.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Infact, the allies adobted very quickly to the German Blitzkrieg tactic, and there are many situations where they countered the Germans later in the war. The German military and industry, simply adobted a tactic, out of necessity, and not so much because it was superior. Go and look up the 4-Jahres-plan. Everyone and their mother in Germany knew this much, if they started a war with France and/or Britain, in the conventional way, they would lose. Like always. So they adobted a very different stragy, and it worked almost perefectly. But even this so called Blitzkrieg, was a huge gamble - which wasn't even a German term, as far as I know they called it Führung und Gefecht der Verbundenen Waffen, or better known as combined arms. If I remember correctly, when the Germans decided to attack France they had only enough amunition and supplies for like 3 months. The German strategy also leaves their flanks open, which gives the enemy the chance to counter attacks. THe Soviets, British and Americans exploited that later in the war. The French military was simply to static, their leaders to old and their leadership to riggid to respond to the German doctrine of mobility.

The most impressive moves by the German military leadership in my opinion was between 1939 and 42 maybe 43, but at that point they already exhausted their capabilities completely. You could even argue that they did this long before they reached Moscow. From that point on, it was nothing more but a question of when they would lose. But their victory in France and the few they had in Africa against the British forces, was nothing short but amazing, from a military perspective.

Also, Dr. Fallout, you really shouldn't just say Nazis, when you talk about post war Germany. Even if the allies would have remared the remenants of the Third Reich to fight the Soviets, it wouldn't really have been the Nazis, again most of the die hard Nazis fleed, died or ended up in prison. people often confuse the ultra-nationalism with national socialism. But it really is not exactly the same.

 

[Dr Fallout]

This wasn't due to their superior Aryan blood though, they succeeded so well because they were the only ones that properly adapted their strategy and tactics to the times. Germany lost that advantage the moment they showed off Blitzkrieg (as can be seen in the later parts of the Eastern and Western fronts).

Where have I said it was? It shows that the Nazis were willing to change tactics and adapt. They were held back by incompetence and interfering from Hitler who changed plans at the last minute.

France stripped Prussia of half her territory, took all of Austria's Italian and Belgian possessions, forced Russia into an economic alliance, tricked the Spanish Monarchy into abdication, stole Germany out from under the Holy Roman Empire and installed itself as protector of Poland. Really if the French Empire was more genocidal there'd be very little difference between them and the Nazis.

Finally, most of these had different strategies and battle tactics. I doubt Napoleon would have been able to beat the generals of most countries these days due to massive differences in tactics and fighting styles.

 

[Izak]

Where have I said it was?

The Aryan blood part was a joke.

It shows that the Nazis were willing to change tactics and adapt. They were held back by incompetence and interfering from Hitler who changed plans at the last minute.

Everyone was willing to change strategy, this isn't unique to Nazi Germany in anyway.
It's not really a question of tactics as much as it is of policy, anyway. There's a fundamental difference between rearming Germany and rearming the Nazis. If Churchill had wanted to rearm the Nazis then Germany would have to continue under a Nazi government (which would just be an utterly retarded move on Churchill's part), if Churchill wanted to rearm the Wehrmacht then it'd basically be a similar situation to modern day Germany with the Bundeswehr