Would a conditional surrender have been possible in world war 2? Did Hitler refuse to surrender, choosing instead to fight to the end? Did the Allies want to crush the Axis into submission?
Would a conditional surrender have been possible in world war 2? Did Hitler refuse to surrender...
Ryder Martin
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Chase Cruz
Pretty sure the USA demanded unconditional surrender from it's entry into the war on, so likely no.
Charles Thomas
No. But it might have been possible to avoid the level of destruction seen at the end of the war.
Gabriel Watson
the mutual distrust between USSR and Allies made it impossible to have a conditional surrender, which would spare the lives of probably millions
the allies were afraid if the germans surrender to the USSR, the red horde will overrun europe
the USSR was afraid if the germans surrender to the allies, they suddenly face not the wehmacht only, but the allies too
this made germans having no choice but to fight on as the unconditional surrender term made the possible removal of shitler useless
Sebastian Bennett
>conveniently forgets that Hitler had anyone moderate in a position of power killed one way or another.
Liam Campbell
The allies had a sniper in place at Hitler's mountain retreat, but never gave the order. Unconditional surrender was also a demand in the first World War. The presence of Hitler made it an easier sell to a war fatigued populace.
My question would be, could the Germans have obtained a favorable peace immediately after defeating France, but floating a conditional withdrawal from the country, sans the Alsacian and other disputed territories, but keeping all the conquests in Eastern Europe? A France treaty bound to dismantle all fortifications would be at the mercy of the Werhmacht, and once the French people got a taste of the extra money that otherwise would have gone to the military, they could no longer budget for it (as is the case today). The withdrawal would be contingent on British peace negotiations, therefore if the British refuse, France could enter the war on the German side, and a united France wouldn't have to deal with insurrection in the colonies.
By the fall of Paris, Germany had already obtained enough resources to be mostly self sufficient, but it was also over extended. An end to the blockade was ultimately necessary to rebuild Europe. Could Britain really abandon its closest ally just for the sake of the balance of power? Also imagine the propaganda value if Hitler forgave the French war debt, it would give credence to the German line that postwar reparations only sow the seeds of future conflict. The French war debt would be a small price to pay for German control of the European monetary system, aka the Euro.
Christopher Nelson
>By the fall of Paris, Germany had already obtained enough resources to be mostly self sufficient
Jackson Jackson
>The allies had a sniper in place at Hitler's mountain retreat, but never gave the order
Sorry mate but that Wolfenstein level you played is not rooted in reality.
Joshua Young
They had supplies of oil, coal, steel and other industrial products, but they still faced serious bottlenecks due to the blockade. Imagine if they had been able to properly exploit the vast mineral resources of Norway for example.
Blake Parker
en.wikipedia.org
>The plan was submitted in November 1944, but was never carried out because controversy remained over whether it was actually a good idea to kill Hitler: he was by then considered to be such a poor strategist that it was believed whoever replaced him would probably do a better job of fighting the Allies. Thornley also argued that Germany was almost defeated and, if Hitler were assassinated, he would become a martyr to some Germans, and possibly give rise to a myth that Germany might have won if Hitler had survived. Since the idea was not only to defeat Germany but to destroy Nazism in general, that would have been a highly undesirable development.
Can we at least google things before we issue a kneejerk dismissal?
Jack Adams
Now please point out where it says that there "was a sniper in place".
Self sufficieny is a meme and the war was not lead on rational grounds. Stop being retarded.
Levi Evans
>An "inside man" was also recruited: vehemently anti-Nazi Heidentaler, the uncle of a captured soldier, Dieser, lived in Salzburg, 20 kilometres from the Berghof. He, with like-minded shopkeepers, regularly visited a shooting range 16 km from the Berghof.
My fucking sides, do I have to do everything for you, it's literally the next paragraph up from the one I posted. I am done replying to you on this, I am now only fielding responses in regards to the actual plan of peace by condition withdrawal from France which is 90% of the contents of
Charles Mitchell
>literally illiterate.
I'm not even the guy you're responding to, watch the number of posters go from 8 to 9. But the "inside man" wasn't the sniper, who, as per wikipediea
>The scheme called for the SOE to parachute a German-speaking Pole and a British sniper into the area surrounding the compound, wearing German army uniforms. A sniper was recruited and briefed, and the plan was submitted. The sniper practiced by firing at moving dummy targets with an accurized Kar 98k, the standard rifle of the Wehrmacht, under conditions which simulated the actual assassination.
I.E. NOT Mr Heidentaler.
And the conditional peace is retarded because Hitler had broken numerous treaties within the past 5 years, some of them bilateral ones with Britain specifically, who would be the major party they needed to make peace with. Fool them about 5 times, and nobody's going to believe your word is worth shit.
Andrew Evans
>implying Dieser was a sniper
>implying Dieser was in place
>implying you are not a wiki warrior
Wiki warrioir without historical training.
Brayden Murphy
The core of his statement is that Hitler was left alive on porpoise. Doesn't matter if there wasn't literally a guy suspiciously aiming a rifle at Hitler 24/7.
Levi Roberts
I don't care who the sniper is, just so long as there's a guy with a gun somewhere in the vicinity.
>the conditional peace is retarded because Hitler had broken numerous treaties within the past 5 years, some of them bilateral ones with Britain specifically, who would be the major party they needed to make peace with. Fool them about 5 times, and nobody's going to believe your word is worth shit.
I'm asking for an objective analysis based on game theory. What is the best move for Germany, especially since a rejected peace offer costs them nothing and possibly improves their propaganda position, it would be rational to offer peace at this juncture. The French delegation were willing to offer just about everything in exchange for guaranteeing the integrity of France proper, it is only a matter of adopting the French plan or at least taking important elements of it. Besides, with an active French lobby for peace there was a real chance of convincing the sole remaining coalition power, as opposed to what happened, a Vichy regime with no lobby power and an overseas empire divided between factions.
Simply saying "Oh he would never have done that" ignores the purpose of strategic thought experiments, which is to put any and all possible decisions through analysis. There are also plenty of decisions made during the war which seem inexplicable today, so it's not as if everyone is behaving perfectly even with regards to their overt objectives. At West Point it is common to run wargame scenarios such as this, and nobody bitches because they understand the purpose of the case study is to improve one's own strategic thinking, not score political points by towing any particular line.
Bentley Allen
>Did Hitler refuse to surrender, choosing instead to fight to the end?
He shot himself in the head. He tried to escape reality, it's neither fighting to the end nor refusing to surrender.
Jaxson Parker
>Continuing illiteracy.
>I don't care who the sniper is, just so long as there's a guy with a gun somewhere in the vicinity.
But there literally wasn't. There was a guy they approached for a prospective plan (that didn't go through) who actually wasn't a marksman and had no indication of being close enough to Hitler to shoot him. He lived 20 kilometers away and you can't just walk up to the home. Hell, Eberhard von Breitenbuch couldn't get into position to kill Hitler, and he got a fucking lot closer with a gun.
There are thousands of guys with guns in Washington D.C. Does that mean they have the opportunity to kill Trump?
>I'm asking for an objective analysis based on game theory.
Then you should say that.
>What is the best move for Germany, especially since a rejected peace offer costs them nothing and possibly improves their propaganda position, it would be rational to offer peace at this juncture.
By 1940? There are no "good moves". All moves inevitably lead to the same kind of defeat. Germany has no credibility to build on for a conditional peace, no means to decisively strike at her enemies in Britian, the USSR, and eventually America, and an hugely unstable war economy dependent on mass slavery to even approach Allied production rates.
Any decision made leads to loss, which is why statements like
>Simply saying "Oh he would never have done that" ignores the purpose of strategic thought experiments, which is to put any and all possible decisions through analysis.
Do nothing but reveal your idiocy and/or illiteracy.
Luke Jackson
The matter is settled, stop derailing the thread with your OCD.
>Then you should say that.
I literally just did. I'm looking for best moves, please refrain from posting if you aren't willing to participate in our purely academic exercise.
For those of you who are actually interested in a real discussion en.wikipedia.org
A Nash Equilibrium is a position from which deviation cannot improve the situation, but that requires calculation of the payoff matrix. Given the pictured equation, what can we infer about the value of λ (the deviation from best response) that is how much utility is Germany sacrificing in the native scenario versus the theoretical scenario.
Adrian Harris
Here is a sample payoff matrix.
Brandon Morgan
>I literally just did. I'm looking for best moves, please refrain from posting if you aren't willing to participate in our purely academic exercise.
And I literally responded to that, to which twice you've completely misunderstood what are actually very simple statements.
It's like asking what the best move for black is in this chess position. No matter what decisions are made, none of them alter the final outcome, as white has simply too much extra material to be defeated even with perfect play at that point onward. There is no concept of "best move" when none of the moves change the outcome. From every position, you come up with the same conclusion; Allies enter into a total war economy that has about 8 times the resources as Germany, and crush them, sooner or later. Germany has no means of stopping this or even substantially slowing it down. Therefore, the strategic moves that Germany makes from this point are irrelevant, and to actually make a difference, you need to go considerably farther back.