|
slackerbitch posted:What's your take on [Speer]? Do you think he was covering his rear end, so to speak, in case Germany lost? I know he played the "nice Nazi" card to save his own neck at Nuremberg, but I don't know that he would have seen that coming that far in advance. So was he angling for something else entirely? Amyclas posted:What was Nazi Germany's fiscal policy like after 1933? How much control did the party have over the central bank? Was it a purely political currency? Germany's international economic problem was a lack of foreign currency with which to import goods, which Tooze goes into in some great detail. Kangaroo Jerk fucked around with this message at 14:21 on Apr 2, 2013 |
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
I think it may have gotten lost in the shuffle due my  edit, so I'll ask again.....LeeMajors posted:Actual question for the scholar: It was brought to my attention that the Jewish population of Vienna was largely exterminated, never to return in any number. Is there a remaining/prevailing anti-semitism in Austria? I find that interesting to reconcile against the intentional dissociation with Nazism after the war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
While I can't answer conclusively (or really academically), I will say that based on personal experiences and anecdotes I've heard about other people visiting Austria, Austria is much more anti-Semitic than Germany. I'd say it's linked to that disassociation - when you don't acknowledge the past, and don't explore the meaning and legacy of your actions, then you don't recognize the habits, traditions and behaviors that caused those events to occur in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:24
|
|
|
Gumby posted:I think Speer was a pretty slimy guy who was very good at ingratiating himself into various groups and who knew what people wanted to hear. His defenses included "I didn't know what was going on," "I knew what was going on but tried to keep my head down," "I once tried to kill Hitler, honest," and "I feel really bad about the Holocaust but I didn't know what was going on until you just told me about it." He was a good-looking and charming guy who knew how to use those qualities. To elaborate a little: When Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he directed his economists to pursue two different agendas - one was autarky (financial independence and self-sufficiency) to prevent Germany from being economically isolated by her enemies, and two a rapid military expansion. Later in the 1930s, when the economists realized that these goes were mutually exclusive, and that Germany didn't have the foreign currency to continue to expand the military at the pace it had been pursuing, Hitler told them to gently caress themselves, and as Gumby said, dismissed Schacht and ordered even more military spending.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:While I can't answer conclusively (or really academically), I will say that based on personal experiences and anecdotes I've heard about other people visiting Austria, Austria is much more anti-Semitic than Germany. I'd say it's linked to that disassociation - when you don't acknowledge the past, and don't explore the meaning and legacy of your actions, then you don't recognize the habits, traditions and behaviors that caused those events to occur in the first place. I'd agree from my experience. East Germany is still a bit of a hotbed, though. If I had a dollar for every dude in Thor Steinar I saw.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:I'd agree from my experience. East Germany is still a bit of a hotbed, though. If I had a dollar for every dude in Thor Steinar I saw. It fits. West Germany went through the very real accounting for its actions as Bee said, while the DDR tended to blame everything on the Fascists that now somehow only existed in the West.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Why did the Germans carry out the Malmedy massacre? Did they not stop and think that 1) We'll be caught and punished because we are losing the war or 2) The Americans will become enraged and hate/want to kill us more?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
kanonvandekempen posted:This is slightly off topic, but who was the equivalent of Hitler/the Nazis before they existed? If you had a questionnaire about 'Who was the most evil man in history' I'm pretty sure Hitler would win with an overwhelming majority. Who would have won in Europe in 1920? The Assyrians got a pretty bad rap in antiquity. Romans told horror stories to their kids about Hannibal for generations. Beyond that you can also look at the Huns and Genghis Khan to some degrees. Edit: regarding Malmedy someone will answer this better, but that campaign was being executed to some degree with the same ferocity as that on the Ostfront. Germans were not particularly worried that their behaviors in the East would be called out, and a similar logic applies to the conditions that generated Malmedy. MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
What was the deal with Rudolf Hess and his wacky adventure to Scotland?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:I was aware of Generalplan Ost, for example, what I'm wondering is if there was an analogue for the area of the Axis powers as well as Western Europe. What were the Nazis long-term plans for, say, France, Norway, or Denmark, as well as Germany and southeastern Europe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
Unluckyimmortal posted:I think this got overlooked as well, but it's one of the questions that I've just never really seen an answer for. Germany had various plans for winning the war, ranging from decent to ridiculously stupid. What plan did they have for winning the peace, so to speak, in the west? What would a postwar Nazi Europe look like in the areas that were never planned for colonies? What did they intend to do with places like Norway and Britain (had they captured Britain at all)? Hitler's 'vision' of the world was basically this: Large portions of France would be incorporated into Germany, the rest of France would be split off into a subservient client state which would function as a market for German exports and a source of raw materials and labor from Germany. The Nordic countries would be client states in the German sphere of influence, and would serve as a market for German goods. If invaded, after winning Germany would withdraw from England. Hitler respected England, and as a country populated by fellow "Aryans" (Anglo-Saxons), he expected Britain, in the post war world, to be a partner of Germany. More than a client state, less than an independent nation. America would be part of this new Aryan empire, both as a market for German goods as well as a foreign partner. Hitler never wanted to invade England, he hoped that by defeating Russia, England would realize that resistance is futile and come to terms with Germany. Southeastern Europe would be treated along similar lines. "Independent" countries that fell within the German sphere of influence and were subservient to German interests. Seven Hundred Bee fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Apr 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Denmark was viewed by Hitler as a model protectorate of the Nazi Empire, since it was a country of fellow Aryans he wanted to show the world how nicely they would treat occupied countries. The occupation of Denmark wasn't really intended at first, it was more a target of opportunity since the German army was passing up through Jutland to get to Norway and their naval bases and resources. The Germans realised that since Denmark didn't really have much of an army they might as well take the country and the rather sizeable farming industry so they could feed their military. The Danish government chose to cooperate with the Germans (something which has recently been condemned by politicians here as unforgivable, but it's not like there really was any other option) to make sure they would retain the most amount of power. The country essentially continued as usual, only with some German oversight. Eventually the resistance movement became enough of a nuisance that the Germans dissolved the government and ran the country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Denmark was viewed by Hitler as a model protectorate of the Nazi Empire, since it was a country of fellow Aryans he wanted to show the world how nicely they would treat occupied countries. The Danes also managed to get their (small) Jewish population out of there, along with a lot of other types the Germans would have liked to get their hands on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 00:26
|
|
|
 Well there goes the OP for a week.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
Seven Hundred Bee posted:as a historian (maybe a junior historian) i don't really judge the nazis to be 'evil,' or, by extension the allies to be 'good.' such pronouncements aren't really historically useful. that being said, hitler and the nazis were unique, and the holocaust is distinct from other genocides that came before and have come sense. Can someone expand more on the bolded? I've heard the Holocaust is unique in terms of the industrialization of the process and also possibly in terms of scale, but are there other unique features as well?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:What was the deal with Rudolf Hess and his wacky adventure to Scotland? IIRC he mistakenly believed that some Earl or Duke in Scotland was a borderline Nazi sympathizer (or at least was against British involvement in the war) and attempted to fly to Scotland to negotiate a peace treaty between England and Germany. He ended up bailing out of his plane, was captured and spent the rest of the war in British custody, was convicted at Nuremberg and lived the rest of his life at Spandau and ended up committing suicide sometime in the 80s after a lifetime of failed attempts to do so. Allied doctors long believed he suffered from some form of mental illness or another, between the suicide attempts and his on again/off again claims of amnesia - which he attempted to use as a defense at Nuremberg, later recanted and admitted he was making it all up and then recanted again and claimed he couldn't remember anything despite having previously confessed to lying about it. When Hitler was informed of his leaving Germany he ordered him to be shot if he ever set foot on German soil again, so he wasn't acting on any official capacity - lending substance to the theory that he was a bit crazy. Geoj fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
It's not as if Rudolf Hess would be the only oddball among the Nazi leadership, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 09:42
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:Finally, the Germans did not have as ready access to nuclear materials for research as the Allies. I don't think they had access to uranium ores and - going by unreliable memory here - I think they also lacked access to large amounts of heavy water. Sorry to butt in, but I can confirm they did have access to uranium ores - there are deposits in the Black Forest. (But I don't know if the Nazis already knew about them.) Since the leading Nazi scientist in researching the atom bomb in Germany was a crazed drug addict the research wouldn't have gone anywhere even with those ores, though. Libluini fucked around with this message at 09:52 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 09:47
|
|
|
Tojai posted:Can someone expand more on the bolded? I've heard the Holocaust is unique in terms of the industrialization of the process and also possibly in terms of scale, but are there other unique features as well? It was an industrialized genocide. Factories, infra-structure, administration and bureaucracy was created to enable the efficient process of the Jewish genocide. This wasn't a typical genocide of moving entire populations out of their homes, murdering the majority of them in a great movement of masses , blind raids into towns to murder the populations or the forced impoverishment of a population and deprivation of autonomy until they die out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 10:54
|
|
|
For anyone interested in learning more about the Holocaust I very highly recommend the 6 part BBC/PBS documentary Auschwitz: The Nazis and the 'Final Solution'. It goes into great detail exactly why the Holocaust was so unique and devious in history. Its on Netflix instant right now, so go watch it.
Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Sorry to butt in, but I can confirm they did have access to uranium ores - there are deposits in the Black Forest. (But I don't know if the Nazis already knew about them.) There were also large deposits in Thuringia, which were already being exploited and which eventually supplied large amounts of Uranium for the Soviet bomb projects. The Germans were definitely aware of the possibility, but in typical Nazi fashion the Army, Navy and Postal Service (No poo poo!) each had their own projects which sucked off resources that were already sparse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:There were also large deposits in Thuringia, which were already being exploited and which eventually supplied large amounts of Uranium for the Soviet bomb projects. The Germans were definitely aware of the possibility, but in typical Nazi fashion the Army, Navy and Postal Service (No poo poo!) each had their own projects which sucked off resources that were already sparse. Beyond a lack of overarching command structure, a clear goal, the collection of the absolutely best researchers and unlimited funds (like the Manhattan project), the Uranverein was also critically hindered by resource availability. While Stalin would later build many of his bombs out of uranium mined in East Germany, the uranium available to the Germans during WWII was actually stolen from Belgian Congo. Also, the heavy water critical as a reaction moderator had to be imported from a plant in occupied Norway, and the allies undertook commando and bomber attacks to cripple the facility. A German U-boat (U 234) tried to supply the Japanese with tons of uranium, supporting them in their attempts at building a nuclear bomb, but never reacher Japan. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:You're almost making it sound as if there had been a number of separate organisations aiming to produce a nuke during WWII. This was not the case. The postal service partially funded one research group independently working on I think isotope separation/enrichment, and the Uranverein was designated kriegswichtig, but especially during the time where the Manhattan Project operated, Nazi Germany was far from willing or able to coordinate anything at the scale of the Manhattan Project. The German physicists (severely depleted by anti-fascist brain drain) had discussed and rejected (as unfeasible) the idea of constructing a nuke for the current war. What they were working on was a power plant, and they got quite close at times. Really, one of the biggest things that the US had was Oppenheimer. His skills as a leader of scientists-- one of the more difficult things in the world to do-- were extremely high. Without a figure like him, it's hard to see the Manhattan Project succeeding in the time scale that it did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
How big of a role did Hitler and NSDAP play in getting the German economy back on track after the Great Depression? From the OP's and Gumby's posts I gather that Nazi economics actually weren't that great. I vaguely remember Adam Tooze writing in his book that the German central bank would've ran out of money in 1939 if Poland hadn't been conquered and exploited.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 20:39
|
|
|
This might be a little off topic, but I've always been curious about the British Fascist movement, the Black Shirts, BUF, Oswald Mosley and all that. How much influence did they every really have? Did they have any kind of real support? What was up with the Daily Mail's headline "Hurrah for the Blackshirts"? What the hell was with Edward VIII, did he really have that much affection for the Nazis?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
Big Blood Bovine posted:How big of a role did Hitler and NSDAP play in getting the German economy back on track after the Great Depression? From the OP's and Gumby's posts I gather that Nazi economics actually weren't that great. I vaguely remember Adam Tooze writing in his book that the German central bank would've ran out of money in 1939 if Poland hadn't been conquered and exploited. They had the benefit of Hjalmar Schacht, something of an economic wizard who had hitched his horse to the Nazi wagon during their rise to power. He was something of a gadfly for the old guard banking establishment that wanted to austerity their way out of the Depression, and thought he could use the Nazi party to wrangle his way back into a position where he could put his policies to good use. He was right, but was never really down with Nazi racial policies though and wound up getting shoved aside before the war. I'm not sure of the details of German economic policy after his departure but by all signs I don't think they were terribly effective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Big Blood Bovine posted:How big of a role did Hitler and NSDAP play in getting the German economy back on track after the Great Depression? Their defense spending and public works projects reduced unemployment and had a stimulative effect on the economy in the short term. In the long term Germany wound up in WW2 and that changed the rules a bit. quote:From the OP's and Gumby's posts I gather that Nazi economics actually weren't that great. I vaguely remember Adam Tooze writing in his book that the German central bank would've ran out of money in 1939 if Poland hadn't been conquered and exploited. I think I went over this a long time ago in the Ask me about Military History thread, so I can give a quick version. Germany was and is not self-sufficient in natural resources and has to import a lot of different things for the economy to function, including everything from foodstuffs to petroleum. If you're a German fruit broker and you want to get a load of oranges from Spain, you can't pay your guy in Spain with reichsmarks. He wants pesetas instead. So to get pesetas you take your reichsmarks to the German central bank and use them to buy pesetas, so you can make the deal. Alternatively he might accept reichsmarks and take them to the Spanish central bank and exchange them for pesetas. This functions the same way with any commodity being traded internationally. The central bank of a country will maintain reserves of foreign currency so individuals and companies can exchange their money to facilitate trade. Those reserves are kept topped off by the normal function of international trade; German merchants wind up with francs, pounds, lire, whatever, and when they exchange them for reichsmarks the foreign currency goes in the reserve. Likewise for other countries. If a lot more money is leaving the country than is coming in, this upsets the system because the reserves aren't getting refilled. If the reserves run dry, the above transactions can't be completed and everything stops. This is called a balance of payments crisis. In the 1930s Germany's foreign currency reserves were already low because the Treaty of Versailles stipulated that Germany's reparations had to be paid in the currency of the country to which the debt was owed. This prevented them from accumulating francs and pounds, and foreign currency in general, as long as they were making payments. Then, when the Nazis began a bunch of expensive projects of military expansion, public works, and so forth, they needed to import a lot of stuff from abroad, driving the balance of payments sharply negative. If the reserves bottomed out, not only would the Nazi's stimulative projects have to stop, but the normal functioning of the German economy would likely collapse disastrously, with production grinding to a halt, layoffs, shortages, and most likely widespread panic. This was averted by several events. When Germany absorbed Austria it also took control of Vienna's currency reserves; likewise when Czechoslovakia was dismembered and the German protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia was established, they raided Prague's central bank. During WW2, the foreign currency situation was no longer a problem because the Nazis simply stole whatever they needed from occupied countries.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 23:38
|
|
|
Gumby posted:I think Speer was a pretty slimy guy who was very good at ingratiating himself into various groups and who knew what people wanted to hear. His defenses included "I didn't know what was going on," "I knew what was going on but tried to keep my head down," "I once tried to kill Hitler, honest," and "I feel really bad about the Holocaust but I didn't know what was going on until you just told me about it." He was a good-looking and charming guy who knew how to use those qualities. Thanks, I found a copy of Tooze's work at http://www.2shared.com/document/F88SwIuL/Adam_Tooze_The_Wages_of_Destru.html, if anyone is interested in his exposition on Nazi economics. It's pretty amazing that the regime was able to field such a large war machine in spite of the arbitrary nature of their economy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Amyclas posted:It's pretty amazing that the regime was able to field such a large war machine in spite of the arbitrary nature of their economy. How much of that is due to confiscation, looting occupied countries, and slave labor, though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
BigDave posted:This might be a little off topic, but I've always been curious about the British Fascist movement, the Black Shirts, BUF, Oswald Mosley and all that. How much influence did they every really have? Did they have any kind of real support? What was up with the Daily Mail's headline "Hurrah for the Blackshirts"? What the hell was with Edward VIII, did he really have that much affection for the Nazis? Although France and England maintained stable governments because of their victory in WW1 and had a few of the semi-functional democratic governments at the time, the rise of fascism inspired the jackboots in these countries too. One can say that these democratic institutions, coupled with the lack of "national loss" felt in the rest of Europe, might've helped to quell the right wing masses from ever reaching power with fascist groups. This is not the entire truth though. Even though modern day american liberals love to talk about peace, love and showing the other cheek as the only way to do any sort of politics i doubt Mosley wouldn't be kicked out of politics if the british fascists didn't suffer the public rear end kick they received during the battle of cable street or if numerous French left wing parties didn't unite while "non-affiliated" leftists kicked the french jackboots in the streets too. It's sort of ironic how one of the most important ways to eliminate fascism in these countries was by doing what so many people said the German communists shouldn't have done in Germany. Would the world be different if the KDP and other leftists were more pro-active? To be fair, 1919 must've been a terrible scar for German leftists, so it's understandable their more "conservative" approaches during the late 20's and early 30's But yes, they did have some support, they were growing in popularity but were cut short by efficient street action. Edward was a fervorous anti-communist and didn't want Britain to be involved in another world war, so he promoted politics of appeasement and support of Nazism against the Soviet Union. He didn't send them any war plans or anything of the sort during the war per-se, he was just supportive of Hitler before the invasion of Poland. In short: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7mRG88KPbA Amyclas posted:It's pretty amazing that the regime was able to field such a large war machine in spite of the arbitrary nature of their economy. Plus, it's easier to do it when any dissent is sent to the camps, your labor force is composed of slaves and you survive on loot obtained like a 20th century equivalent of a 30 years war mercenary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 03:24
|
|
|
Is there definitive evidence, beyond the writings of Hitler's physician, Dr Morrell, that Hitler was daily injected with methamphetamine at least between 1940-ish and 1944? I've always thought this was an important facet of the war-time Hitler in that it certainly influenced grandiosity and likely, on many levels, being blasted every day played a key role in his blunderous military decisions during the time period. Were other high-ranking nazis stimulant-drug users? It's pretty well known that amphetamine and methylphenidate use was pretty common among at least the German, Soviet, Finns, and other military forces of the time. Was it a thing that stimulant drugs were seen among the German high (lol) command as socially acceptable vice Goering's opiate use?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
While there is truth in Hitler's weird medical habits I believe a lot of the more ridiculous stuff is just apocrypha stories as a lazy way of trying to explain "why" he did what he did.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 05:00
|
|
|
If the July 20 plot succeeded, what did the conspirators plan to do with the country? I know they had a government ready to take over once the coup was complete, but what were their intentions beyond killing Hitler?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
brozozo posted:If the July 20 plot succeeded, what did the conspirators plan to do with the country? I know they had a government ready to take over once the coup was complete, but what were their intentions beyond killing Hitler? Desperately beg the Western Allies for a conditional peace. They then would have been told to go gently caress themselves and the war would have gone on. Shimrra Jamaane fucked around with this message at 05:44 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 05:39
|
|
|
brozozo posted:If the July 20 plot succeeded, what did the conspirators plan to do with the country? I know they had a government ready to take over once the coup was complete, but what were their intentions beyond killing Hitler? The German military had already set up emergency plans for martial in case of a breakdown in civilian authority, for example if a large allied bombing raid on a city paralyzed the government. The assassination of Hitler would be blamed on an attempted coup d'etat by the SS, and their officers as well as the rest of the top echelons of the Nazi government would be arrested. The martial law plans would be activated due to the national emergency and the military would replace the NSDAP-controlled civilian government, purging any opposition. As Shimrra Jamaane says, the plotters believed that with the Nazis out of power Britain and the United States could be persuaded to accept a separate peace, most likely in exchange for Germany withdrawing from Western and Southern Europe. They hoped to hang on to much of what they had gained however. In any case it would allow them to concentrate on saving Germany from being destroyed by the USSR, which was regarded with almost apocalyptic dread. It is notable that Stalin was always worried that the Western Allies would be amenable to this kind of understanding, but in reality it was a very unrealistic hope on the plotter's part. Britain and the USA had made firm commitments to total victory and moreover it was pretty easy to see that agreeing was not to their advantage. Germany was very obviously losing the war by the time the plotters began dreaming all this up, so the Allies knew they were probably going to win unconditionally in fairly short order, so there was no incentive for them to come to terms--they would get everything that Germany could offer, plus more (i.e. crushing Germany once and for all to avert future wars instead of letting them hang on), and they would avoid pissing the Soviets off immensely. Also the Germans wouldn't have been able to stabilize the Eastern Front and they still would have been screwed, except that the USSR would get everything and also be very very angry with the West. Speculatively, I would think it likely that the chaos resulting from the military coup would have broken the German war effort and led them to collapse even earlier than historical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
Were there ever any cases, large or small scale, of German forces giving way to the Western Allies in the hopes of speeding up the war's conclusion before the Soviets ended it from their end? I guess part of this is also me wondering what the Allies would have done if a Hitler-less gov't just up and decided to capitulate en masse, but only to the West. Do you continue shooting the soldiers because you're committed to a total victory? Do you still stop at the Elbe even if the Germans will give you a clear road to Berlin?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Were there ever any cases, large or small scale, of German forces giving way to the Western Allies in the hopes of speeding up the war's conclusion before the Soviets ended it from their end? In such a case it would make more sense for such forces to surrender to the allies and be interned as POWs for the duration. I'm pretty sure deliberately ceding land against orders would be a capital offense, so it would be wiser to become a POW. Also, once you've decided to stop fighting there's no point in waiting until later to surrender, you've already taken yourself out of the war. And yeah, a lot of German units surrendered to the Western Allies rather than fight on as the war finished up. quote:I guess part of this is also me wondering what the Allies would have done if a Hitler-less gov't just up and decided to capitulate en masse, but only to the West. Do you continue shooting the soldiers because you're committed to a total victory? Do you still stop at the Elbe even if the Germans will give you a clear road to Berlin? The Allies aka the United Nations had explicitly committed to accepting only unconditional surrender from Axis powers as early as January 1943 at the Casablanca Conference, a commitment that was reiterated at the later Tehran and Yalta Conferences (interestingly, it was also decided at Tehran to make a specific exception and allow Finland to seek a conditional peace with the USSR). Yalta also involved the division of Germany and Europe generally into postwar spheres of influence. Had the Germans approached the Allies seeking terms that included a condition like "no land to the Soviets" they would have been rebuffed. If the Germans had simply started surrendering en masse on the Western Front without such terms and cleared the road to Berlin, the Western Allies most likely would have marched on through and then later on ceded to the Soviets anything they had captured that was delineated as part for the the Soviet Zone. Realistically if the German command had decided the war was lost and stopped fighting on the Western Front the news would have been impossible to conceal from the troops on the Eastern Front, and they would have collapsed into panicked disorder trying to get west in time to be interned by the Western Allies rather than the Soviets (more or less this is what happened historically once it was clear that the military situation was hopeless). This would allow the Soviets to advance rapidly anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 08:48
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Were there ever any cases, large or small scale, of German forces giving way to the Western Allies in the hopes of speeding up the war's conclusion before the Soviets ended it from their end? There were cases when a German unit would surrender on the condition of being given ice-cream and other such things from what I remember of reading the latter parts of "Tigers in the mud" by Otto Carius.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 08:58
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Were there ever any cases, large or small scale, of German forces giving way to the Western Allies in the hopes of speeding up the war's conclusion before the Soviets ended it from their end? According to most accounts I've read, German resistance in the west collapsed almost totally after the Rhine got crossed. In Aachen post-Bulge, the german commander once realizing that the battle of the city was lost, hosed off with a recon battalion and holed up in a manor house for the rest of the war and this was before the Rhein got crossed. Local resistance happened, some SS units kept fighting even in the west but especially in Southern Germany and Austria, the Allied forces advanced without practically any resistance whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 09:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:35 |
|
|
Sometimes it was the civilian population as well that decided to surrender without a fight. Local anecdote: My Bavarian hometown lies directly on the road between Augsburg and Munich, to very important population centres in Southern Germany. When the US Army occupied Augsburg (without a fight, I might add), a group of maybe 40 SS and Wehrmacht soldiers decided to put up a fight - my hometown is situated on a mountain and they hoped that they could stall the US advancement until the Wonder Army arrived or something, I don't know. There is only a single road leading up from Augsburg to my hometown (which, after centuries of being besieged and pillaged, is architecturally well suited for defensive warfare in the classical pre-artillery sense), so they felled a bunch of trees and erected a barricade. Every sensible person in the town knew, however, that the Americans in all likelihood would just have shelled the city instead. Many people wanted the soldiers to stop and give up but nobody had the guts to do so - except the old women of the city who gave no fucks and managed to drive the soldiers away by the power of their stern looks (and nobody wants to shoot his own grandmother for insubordination). After the SS and assorted rabble either had been persuaded to give up or fled further eastwards instead, the women disassembled the barricade again. The American rolled into the town without a shot being fired and arrested the mayor who had hid in the cellars of the town hall and eventually came out to greet them with a heartfelt "Heil Hitler!" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 12:47
|
|
