Churchill and Unconditional Surrender

[Roberto]

Hull and Stimson wanted to punish Germany by enslaving her to produce "reparations" with her industry.

This nonsense is particularly hilarious in the face of Stimson's memorandum of 15 September 1944 that I quoted a few posts above, for instance.

[Caldric]

Whatever the terms were placed on Germany at the end of WWII, just as it was in WWI, are much better then what they had in mind if they were victorious.

I have been reading The Third Reich: A new history,and when I was first reading the terms of Versailles I though "damn that is harsh”. However, then I considered Brest-Litovsk treaty for Russia (the Germans should have been ashamed to ask for such a peace), and consider the fact that Western Europe would have lost 70% of its territory and 50% of its heavy industry to a German victory. The V treaty was not so bad in comparison. The conditions placed on Germany at the end of WWII were still much better then what the Germans themselves had in mind for their enemy. I think they are lucky to have got what fairness they did, considering their actions in WWII it is amazing they survived as a Nation.

Brest

[Scott Smith]

Hull and Stimson wanted to punish Germany by enslaving her to produce "reparations" with her industry.

This nonsense is particularly hilarious in the face of Stimson's memorandum of 15 September 1944 that I quoted a few posts above, for instance.

No, of course it is not called enslavement because they are only exacting "reparations" and only "punishing Germany's leaders" (which is everybody who had ever been in the NSDAP, pending denazification).

[Roberto]

Morgenthau wanted to preserve peace and punish Germany by eliminating German industry altogether; reparations by forced-labor and dismantling infrastructure or as booty were among ways of doing this.

Morgenthau also calls for dividing Germany into zones, i.e., politico-economic balkanization. This was done, and not only in the U.S. sector.

Reparations and the division of Germany into zones were not implemented due to Morgenthau, but because they were part of the policy more or less agreed upon by the Allied nations at various conferences. The driving force regarding reparations, as we have seen, was the Soviet Union.

It should be remembered that the Morgenthau Plan merely contained, in the respective most radical form, all suggestions and measures that had already been discussed in the debate about the goals of the war among the Allied powers.

Hull and Stimson wanted to punish Germany by enslaving her to produce "reparations" with her industry.

In my post of Tue Oct 29, 2002 5:50 pm on this thread, I transcribed Stimson’s memorandum for Roosevelt of 15 September 1944.

Smith is again invited to show us where he sees support for his above accusation in this memorandum, or in any other statement issued by Stimson or by Hull.

I'd say that Mausbach saying Morgenthau was not implemented is merely splitting hairs dishonestly.

I wonder how Smith can draw such a conclusion on the basis of only second-hand knowledge of a document that Mausbach obviously had a look at instead of relying on someone else’s assessment of it.

The spirit of Morgenthau was a Carthaginian Peace, and a "Cathaginian Peace"

Is that the basis for accusing a historian of “splitting hairs dishonestly”?

The fact that the Morgenthau Plan was called “Carthaginian” and one or the other observer made similar remarks in regard to JCS 1067 is sufficient for Smith to conclude that both were one and the same thing and to shoot off his mouth at a contrary assessment he doesn’t like?

A very instructive attitude.

was implemented, though illegally violated whenever convenient for the occupational authorities wherever they could.

Smith has never had a problem with contradicting himself.

How can a directive that occupational authorities took care to circumvent in its negative aspects on every possible occasion, whatever their reasons for this may have been, be considered as having been implemented in regard to those negative aspects?

[Roberto]

Hull and Stimson wanted to punish Germany by enslaving her to produce "reparations" with her industry.

This nonsense is particularly hilarious in the face of Stimson's memorandum of 15 September 1944 that I quoted a few posts above, for instance.

No, of course it is not called enslavement because they are only exacting "reparations" and only "punishing Germany's leaders" (which is everybody who had ever been in the NSDAP, pending denazification).

I see.

Smith is reading what he would like to believe into the statements of Stimson and Hull without even having had a look at those statements.

Again, a very instructive attitude.

How about improving your miserable record by providing a convincing assessment of Stimson's memorandum of 15 September 1944 that supports your contentions, Mr. Smith?

[Scott Smith]

Whatever the terms were placed on Germany at the end of WWII, just as it was in WWI, are much better then what they had in mind if they were victorious.

I have been reading The Third Reich: A new history,and when I was first reading the terms of Versailles I though "damn that is harsh”. However, then I considered Brest-Litovsk treaty for Russia (the Germans should have been ashamed to ask for such a peace), and consider the fact that Western Europe would have lost 70% of its territory and 50% of its heavy industry to a German victory. The V treaty was not so bad in comparison. The conditions placed on Germany at the end of WWII were still much better then what the Germans themselves had in mind for their enemy. I think they are lucky to have got what fairness they did, considering their actions in WWII it is amazing they survived as a Nation.

Brest

Caldric, we've discussed Brest-Litovsk before and that is a red-herring. For one thing, Brest-Litovsk, though a harsh peace, was still a NEGOTIATED peace. Lenin wanted to unload parts of the Tsarist empire and get out of the war immediately or risk losing power. The Russian parts of the empire were not ceded, only the continental colonies, none of which are part of the Russian federation today. Of course, the Rightwing of the Communist Party (Bukharin) didn't like the treaty, but that was the price of the revolution and keeping the power--as the war was hopelessly lost anyway, with the Germans about to march on Petrograd, and the Russian people just wanting out.

Brest-Litovsk did not balkanize the Russian nation proper nor build a hostile ring of alliances around it, nor impose a War-Guilt clause. Some tribute was demanded but the Russians didn't have to borrow from American counting-houses or debase their currency to pay it. And furthermore, Hitler didn't even ask for his overseas colonies back because he, like Lenin, was not an imperialist.

what the Germans themselves had in mind for their enemy.

And what would that be?

I think they are lucky to have got what fairness they did, considering their actions in WWII it is amazing they survived as a Nation.

The Jews have survived as a nation without any territory of their own from AD 70 to 1948. It would have taken more than a Morgenthau Plan to eliminate Germans from their crucial role in Europe's future.

[Scott Smith]

JCS 1067 was implemented, though illegally violated whenever convenient for the occupational authorities wherever they could.

Smith has never had a problem with contradicting himself.

Huh? How is that a contradiction?

JCS 1067 was the law and by circumventing it Clay was violating his orders; however, as Murphy notes, anytime a jurisdictional or procedural conflict arose, Clay was supported.

[Scott Smith]

I guess I'm going to have to quit because for the second time today a long post was lost because I hit Submit before remembering to save the text and the server crashed, so my patience is wearing thin.

[viriato]

Caldric wrote:

However, then I considered Brest-Litovsk treaty for Russia (the Germans should have been ashamed to ask for such a peace), and consider the fact that Western Europe would have lost 70% of its territory and 50% of its heavy industry to a German victory. The V treaty was not so bad in comparison.

What on hell are you talking about Caldric? Western Europe losing 70% of its territory and 50% of heavy industry? But was Poland, Finland and Ukraine after all situated in Western Europe? 8)

And you should remember that Russia didn't lose any "really" Russian territory in BL. In all Finland, tha Baltics, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and Transcaucasus (admiting that all this territories would have been lost by Russia) the Russians were no more than 5% of the total population of Ukraine and less than 5% in all other territories, being virtually absent from both Finland and Poland! What Russia would have lost were simply non-russian territories. Compare that to Germany after Versailles. The territories she lost (in Europe) were populated in excess of 60% by Germans!

[Caldric]

Caldric wrote:

However, then I considered Brest-Litovsk treaty for Russia (the Germans should have been ashamed to ask for such a peace), and consider the fact that Western Europe would have lost 70% of its territory and 50% of its heavy industry to a German victory. The V treaty was not so bad in comparison.

What on hell are you talking about Caldric? Western Europe losing 70% of its territory and 50% of heavy industry? But was Poland, Finland and Ukraine after all situated in Western Europe? 8)

And you should remember that Russia didn't lose any "really" Russian territory in BL. In all Finland, tha Baltics, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and Transcaucasus (admiting that all this territories would have been lost by Russia) the Russians were no more than 5% of the total population of Ukraine and less than 5% in all other territories, being virtually absent from both Finland and Poland! What Russia would have lost were simply non-russian territories. Compare that to Germany after Versailles. The territories she lost (in Europe) were populated in excess of 60% by Germans!

and consider the fact that Western Europe would have lost 70% of its territory and 50% of its heavy industry to a German victory.

IF GERMANY WON THE WWI THIS IS WEST EUROPE FUTURE. Not hard to understand, mainly France but also the Low Countries. If they won WWII we can well guess the future of Europe, suppose the killing would still be going on.

Those lands had been in Russian hands for centuries, longer then Greater German Nation has been united.

Your double standards are showing brightly. It is ok that Russia loses most of its productive land, but goddamn the world if Germany loses 15% or so, and this gives Germany some right to start another war that will destroy 55 million people. Let me say it again for you. If Germany would have won either war their treatment of the defeated would have been much worse then what was placed on them. Many would say Germany got more then they deserved.

[Caldric]

Whatever the terms were placed on Germany at the end of WWII, just as it was in WWI, are much better then what they had in mind if they were victorious.

I have been reading The Third Reich: A new history,and when I was first reading the terms of Versailles I though "damn that is harsh”. However, then I considered Brest-Litovsk treaty for Russia (the Germans should have been ashamed to ask for such a peace), and consider the fact that Western Europe would have lost 70% of its territory and 50% of its heavy industry to a German victory. The V treaty was not so bad in comparison. The conditions placed on Germany at the end of WWII were still much better then what the Germans themselves had in mind for their enemy. I think they are lucky to have got what fairness they did, considering their actions in WWII it is amazing they survived as a Nation.

Brest

Caldric, we've discussed Brest-Litovsk before and that is a red-herring. For one thing, Brest-Litovsk, though a harsh peace, was still a NEGOTIATED peace. Lenin wanted to unload parts of the Tsarist empire and get out of the war immediately or risk losing power. The Russian parts of the empire were not ceded, only the continental colonies, none of which are part of the Russian federation today. Of course, the Rightwing of the Communist Party (Bukharin) didn't like the treaty, but that was the price of the revolution and keeping the power--as the war was hopelessly lost anyway, with the Germans about to march on Petrograd, and the Russian people just wanting out.

Brest-Litovsk did not balkanize the Russian nation proper nor build a hostile ring of alliances around it, nor impose a War-Guilt clause. Some tribute was demanded but the Russians didn't have to borrow from American counting-houses or debase their currency to pay it. And furthermore, Hitler didn't even ask for his overseas colonies back because he, like Lenin, was not an imperialist.

what the Germans themselves had in mind for their enemy.

And what would that be?

I think they are lucky to have got what fairness they did, considering their actions in WWII it is amazing they survived as a Nation.

The Jews have survived as a nation without any territory of their own from AD 70 to 1948. It would have taken more than a Morgenthau Plan to eliminate Germans from their crucial role in Europe's future.

What Russia was or was not is not important. It is an example of what Germans were capable of. When we discuss "poor Germany" at the end of WWII it is important to remember how they treat people when they are the victor's. France was split up and dismantled, and much of its Heavy Industry went to Germany.

To answer your second question, the first thing the Germans did was round up any non-desirables and send them to be destroyed. They raped the land and people in the East, had all intentions of making Russia a colony for the Germans. If Russia would have even been allowed to exist it would have been beyond the Urals. France was more or less destroyed.

[viriato]

Caldric I don't understand your problem here. First you state:

IF GERMANY WON THE WWI THIS IS WEST EUROPE FUTURE. Not hard to understand, mainly France but also the Low Countries.

And what would have happened to France and the Low Countries were Germany the victorious power? If I remeber well Germany lost some 16000 (some 3% of all German territory) square kilometers to France and Belgium after Versailles territories that were inhabited by almost 2 million persons, almos 90% having German for mother language. What would Germany wanted from both countries? From the September program (and there is a lot of controversy about the "objectivity" of that program) Germany would have annexed Luxemburg (less than 3000 square kilometers), some territories in Eastern Belgium including the city of Liège (2000-4000 square kilometers) and two small portions of France, Briey and Belfort (1000 square kilometers in total) Even we stretch a little the territories to be annexed they would have been less thanthose that Germany lost in Versailles. Belguim furthermore would have been compensated with some Northern French territories (French Flanders, French Hainaut and possible the two ports of Calais and Boulogne in Artois. This would mean some 6000-7000 square kilometers. In fact Belgium would have won her day! France of course would have lost 7000-8000 square kilometers, 1.5% to 2% of her territory, stil less than the 15000 she won from Germany after Versailles (the other 1000 went to Belgium)!

Your double standards are showing brightly

Right, but as I show it seems that is you Caldric that is having double standards!

[Caldric]

And what would have happened to France and the Low Countries were Germany the victorious power? If I remeber well Germany lost some 16000 (some 3% of all German territory) square kilometers to France and Belgium after Versailles territories that were inhabited by almost 2 million persons, almos 90% having German for mother language.

OK Virato:

Here you go!

If Germany won the war in the West in 1918, Western European countries would lose up to 70% of their land mass, and up to 50% of their industry to German demands.

I don't care what language these people speak, it has nothing to do with it. According to The Third Reich: A new History Germany lost 13% of its population at the final peace of WWI.

[Caldric]

I guess I'm going to have to quit because for the second time today a long post was lost because I hit Submit before remembering to save the text and the server crashed, so my patience is wearing thin.

Yes I lost 1 myself.

I knew better to, but it had been running pretty good all week.

[Roberto]

JCS 1067 was implemented, though illegally violated whenever convenient for the occupational authorities wherever they could.

Smith has never had a problem with contradicting himself.

Huh? How is that a contradiction?

JCS 1067 was the law and by circumventing it Clay was violating his orders;

And also hindering implementation.

Hence the contradiction.

however, as Murphy notes, anytime a jurisdictional or procedural conflict arose, Clay was supported.

See ?