How Democrats Eviscerated the Nazis

C

Cypress

Well-known member
There were plenty of isolationists in America willing to cut deals with Hitler, and give him terms for surrender.

FDR was playing for all the marbles: unconditional surrender, submission to total military occupation, tearing down the entire infrastructure of the third Reich, their government and civil society, and rebuilding a peaceable democracy straight from scratch (West Germany).

^ That is a political decision and not at all a foregone conclusion.

A total war based on unconditional surrender and total submission probably prolonged the war and the fighting, because the enemy felt they had nothing to lose. If all you wanted to do was end the war as quickly as possible, all you would have to do would be offer terms to Japan and Germany, perhaps letting them keep some form of their existing government and autonomy, in exchange for standing their army down and withdrawing from occupied territories.

There were plenty of isolationists in America willing to cut deals with Hitler and Tojo to end the war faster.
 
Walt said:
Republicans did NOT want to go after Hitler.
Click to expand...

There was no choice about entering the war.
We didn't declare war on Germany first.
They declared war on us.

Going for unconditional surrender against the Germans was a no brainer with the Soviet Union crushing them from the east.
Unconditional surrender from the Japanese was a different matter
until we became the only nation in the world to launch a nuclear attack, a status that we still hold.
Better to be the pitcher than the catcher in that regard, I imagine, but then again, we were the only ones who had a ball in 1945.
 
Walt said:
Republicans did NOT want to go after Hitler.
Click to expand...

As late as 1944 Hitler was under the impression he could get the United States to give him terms, so he could end the war on the western front and turn all of Germany's military power towards the east.

With different leaders than FDR and Churchill, that might have been possible
 
NiftyNiblick said:
There was no choice about entering the war.
We didn't declare war on Germany first.
They declared war on us.

Going for unconditional surrender against the Germans was a no brainer with the Soviet Union crushing them from the east.
Unconditional surrender from the Japanese was a different matter
until we became the only nation in the world to launch a nuclear attack, a status that we still hold.
Better to be the pitcher than the catcher in that regard, I imagine, but then again, we were the only ones who had a ball in 1945.
Click to expand...

I would say it wasn't a foregone conclusion that Allied policy would be to refuse to negotiate with dictators, tear apart Germany's military, occupy them, build them from the ground up, and force democracy on them.

Those were policy and political choices.

No allied soldier ever set foot in Imperial Germany in 1918, an armistice was called.

From an American isolationist point of view, the American involvement in the war would have been shorter and less costly if we gave Hitler terms, only expelled him from North Africa and France, stopped at the Rhine, and let the Soviet Army try to finish Hitler off. Hitler never really wanted to fight France and Britain. He was looking East.
 
Cypress said:
I would say it wasn't a foregone conclusion that Allied policy would be to refuse to negotiate with dictators, tear apart Germany's military, occupy them, build them from the ground up, and force democracy on them.

Those were policy and political choices.

No allied soldier ever set foot in Imperial Germany in 1918, an armistice was called.

From an American isolationist point of view, the American involvement in the war would have been shorter and less costly if we gave Hitler terms, only expelled him from North Africa and France, stopped at the Rhine, and let the Soviet Army try to finish Hitler off. Hitler never really wanted to fight France and Britain. He was looking East.
Click to expand...

After Pearl Harbor isolationist were in the minority!
 
Cypress said:
As late as 1944 Hitler was under the impression he could get the United States to give him terms, so he could end the war on the western front and turn all of Germany's military power towards the east.

With different leaders than FDR and Churchill, that might have been possible
Click to expand...

Even fat Hermann thought he could get Americans on his side in the end even when he was captured
 
Cypress said:
As late as 1944 Hitler was under the impression he could get the United States to give him terms, so he could end the war on the western front and turn all of Germany's military power towards the east.

With different leaders than FDR and Churchill, that might have been possible
Click to expand...

FDR wasn't leading that parade. Stalin and Churchill were. FDR caved on virtually everything to one or both of them.
 
guno said:
Even fat Hermann thought he could get Americans on his side in the end even when he was captured
Click to expand...

Unconditional surrender is the exception, not the rule in warfare. Hitler probably held out hope to the end that the western allies would give him terms, so he could focus on the Soviets.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
FDR wasn't leading that parade. Stalin and Churchill were. FDR caved on virtually everything to one or both of them.
Click to expand...

Stalin wasn't involved in the war on Japan (except for the last five days), and for Churchill the Pacific theater was totally secondary in importance.

The fact that FDR also demanded unconditional surrender by Japan undermines your claim that Roosevelt was
totally squeamish about seeking the complete obliteration and unconditional surrender of America's foes
 
Cypress said:
As late as 1944 Hitler was under the impression he could get the United States to give him terms, so he could end the war on the western front and turn all of Germany's military power towards the east.

With different leaders than FDR and Churchill, that might have been possible
Click to expand...

Only until June of that year
 
Yakuda said:
Only until June of that year
Click to expand...

No, the whole point of the Ardennes offensive of December 1944 was to knock the allies back on their heels and make them consider offering terms and a separate peace with Hitler so he could turn his full attention back to the Red Army.
 
Cypress said:
There were plenty of isolationists in America willing to cut deals with Hitler, and give him terms for surrender.

FDR was playing for all the marbles: unconditional surrender, submission to total military occupation, tearing down the entire infrastructure of the third Reich, their government and civil society, and rebuilding a peaceable democracy straight from scratch (West Germany).

^ That is a political decision and not at all a foregone conclusion.

A total war based on unconditional surrender and total submission probably prolonged the war and the fighting, because the enemy felt they had nothing to lose. If all you wanted to do was end the war as quickly as possible, all you would have to do would be offer terms to Japan and Germany, perhaps letting them keep some form of their existing government and autonomy, in exchange for standing their army down and withdrawing from occupied territories.

There were plenty of isolationists in America willing to cut deals with Hitler and Tojo to end the war faster.
Click to expand...

FDR did not eviscerate the Nazis. The Russians did.
Eisenhower certainly materially damaged them and eventually freed the surviving Jews and POWs, using capable generals like Patton and Bradley. Even Montgomery contributed in his own way, despite his incompetence.

FDR built no democracy. Western Germany was converted to a republic by Eisenhower. Eastern Germany was converted into an oligarchy by the Russians.

Germany lost the war when Hitler shot himself as the Russians entered Berlin.

While VE day occurred in 1945, FDR had little to do with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top