This was the question that sparked my interest in WWII. I remember as a boy of 14 raising my hand to ask my history teacher as he used the term "what does unconditional surrender mean, sir?" He paused and said "Good question" then diverted the lesson into a lengthy discussion of it's meaning and the ramifications for Germany. A good teacher can have a powerful effect on a young mind. Tonight nearly 40 years later, Tik has provided a deeper insight into the meaning of these two words. Thank you, sir.
@@danreed7889 Yes! Both would be good. CafePress may have what Tik needs. Maybe "You should stick to tanks" with the sticky bomb from Saving Private Ryan as an encore?
@@johnpoole3871 What makes TIK more interesting is that he has a completly different bias than about everyone else. He makes you think about and question a lot of facts you have taken for granted. It can't get much more interesting than that!
Technically he has bias, but it's unfair to say it, since it doesn't affect most of his videos. And the videos where he has bias often stand out as such, where he makes a political point. It's ok, most people support some narrative when they research a lot about history, economy and politics.
Tik, I'm a bit ashamed to admit that your central question is one that had never occurred to me. This was a concise and neatly reasoned piece and was definitely food for thought. Way back I taught senior high school history, and this video would have been a fantastic tool for teaching students how to organize a written essay.
Others disagree. Unconditional surrender prolonged the war and suffering and allowed the Soviets to take control of Eastern Europe, leaving Europe worse off than in 1939. ua-cam.com/video/DOgNHBa_ZPM/v-deo.html
Excellent. I would add that the war with Japan loomed large in 1945, Ike did not try for Berlin for multiple reasons but one was that his Armies had already stopped getting replacements and units being rotated out of combat were being sent back to the US to be reconstituted for Coronet. And we still wanted Soviets to enter war against Japan. All reasons not to incur huge casualties and not to stick a thumb in Stalin’s eye.
@@misterbaker9728 I have never seen that stated anywhere. Do you have a reference or is that just your opinion. Ike was insistent that allied troops stop at the Elbe. Considering how many troops the Soviets lost in taking Berlin, this was obviously a good decision. I have heard that Patton wanted to rearm the German troops and then to turn around and attack the Soviets with them fighting alongside the western powers. In hindsight, that might have been the best course of action. Without western material support the Soviets most likely could not have withstood such an attack.
Very nice example for a "stupid" decision that makes perfect sense when you take into account the situation at the time and the information the actors had.
Excellent and incisive, as always. In fact, the allies in the Pacific war did accept a conditional surrender in the sense that the Emperor was allowed to remain on the throne. This is further evidence of the Soviet factor in establishing the criterion of unconditional surrender for Germany.
That was MacArthur going off-script. The Japanese government did surrender unconditionally. Only after they surrendered, MacArthur got drunk and decided that Emperor Hirohito was now his BFF and not a war criminal and everyone acting under Hirohito's authority could not be convicted of war crimes. Japan should have been de-japanified. Hirohito should have been executed by hanging like a common criminal. All of the army and navy officers should have been shot or hanged for war crimes. The Japanese citizens should have been reprogrammed to reject toxic Japanese culture. Just like we did in Germany.
that is false. Because the soviets were in the table with japan too when they surrendered. In fact the soviets attacked Japan itself via naval disembark
For anything other than unconditional surrender to work, the conditions would've been necessarily sufficiently acceptable to the Nazi regime itself which suggests the Nazis would remain in power in Germany. The point of demanding 'unconditional surrender' is that the Nazi regime had proven itself sufficiently untrustworthy to treat with. To suggest demanding 'unconditional' didn't prolong the war misses the point that 'unconditional' was necessary by the circumstances. If the Allies had offered Germany 1918 borders in summer 1944, would Germany have taken it? Probably.
Can we add a note about US military history and theory, including Sherman's thoughts on Total War and the conduct of the US Civil War. Break the people's ability to wage the war, but not their will to wage it, simply sets up a future inevitable conflict. Sherman predicted this and it influenced his judgment during the march to the sea. His war was with the people of the South, and not just its armies. The fall out from the WW1 Armistice would seem to bear out his theory as wisdom.
RE: Iron Curtain on French border. I wonder which side of the Curtain the lowlands would have fallen. I imagine the British would have insisted on their inclusion on the western side if only because of their continued use to invade France.
Alternatively all sherman did was Stoke up resentment in the south. The reason there hasn't been a second civil war was the reconciliation efforts after the civil war. Linkin was determined not to treat the southerners as a defeated enemy. Similarly the reason the germans haven't fought a 3rd World War is more to do with relations with the vicotiuois powers after the war. France after ww1 was very agreesive with Germany breeding resentment, but after ww2 worked with the west germans. You don't win the peace by being hard, that only breeds resentment, you win it by making the enemy your friend. The enemy won't be your friend if he thinks he can beat you, but he also won't be your friend of you breed too much resentment.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 There was a second civil war and America lost it when it allowed the defeated southerners establish the jim crow south through armed uprisings that usurped many southern state governments. Instead of fighting back against these insurrections, the federal government meekly capitulated to southern demands to roll back black enfranchisement. Much of this can be attributed to Andrew Johnson deliberately sabotaging Reconstruction just as it began, severely disrupting the establishment of a black middle class and the emerging coalition between freed blacks and poor whites that Lincoln and Sherman had been working toward. Contrary to your statement, it was the abandonment of Sherman's policies towards blacks and seditious groups like the KKK that resulted in 100 years of lost civil rights progress.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yes and no, it's a carrot and stick situation, or perhaps better stated a good cop-bad cop situation. The South felt and knew it was defeated, humiliated, and stripped of the very thing the initial conflict had been waged over; but instead of lording over them or putting every man of the South to the sword we took a page out of the Spartan playbook and kept the South from total annihilation, which very much did bandage over the wound, even if in a lot of ways it's still healing. West Germany very much operated in this same paradigm, although that was entirely overwritten when the two states reunited, she's now the same Germany she always was, save a bit more clever due to reduced territory and increased suspicion.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Alternatively all Sherman did was give that resentment a target. "Reconciliation" actually made things far worse, as the punitive faction took charge of government following the war. The South would remain impoverished as a result and not truly recover until after WW2. Arguably, not until manufacturing jobs across the country were shipped overseas, making it more a mirage than anything.
Great explanation. My gripe with the ww2 in real-time series is their penchant to judge decisions and actions taken with the values of today and ignoring the impact of the great slaughter of the trenches and the ineffectual armistice that followed.
Especially Spartacus with his War Against Humanity series. Granted, the subject matter he covers is more then enough to drive a man insane with horror. But I feel it clouds his judgments and makes him prone to linking it to current day events.
Dear tik, thank you for your perpetually interesting content. Not only do your videos make my day more interesting, I believe you do the best "Hitler voice" of all historical you tubers I watch.
I think you said that the July 4th plot would have allowed conquests to be surrendered. This is not the case. Many of the plotters assumed that some territories remain under German control. But ... magnificent review!
3:09 This is demonstrably false. Article 231 reads: "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."
My initial thought of why the Allies agreed to "Unconditional Surrender" was because of events some 25 years earlier. The general feeling was that Germany had once again started a major war because they were not dealt with properly after WW1. The Western Allies had learned from their mistakes though. Instead of leaving Germany in ruins, they invested in rebuilding the nation while maintaining the occupation.
I'd argue that the Marshall Plan was more about the Cold War than preventing yet another rerun of the Great War. The US built western Europe into a tool for breaking the westward march of Soviet Communism.
Another mistake Germany never started world war 1 historians always get this wrong they joined the war because they were surrounded with enemies ie France sleeping with ussr and Germany had come to help austria
Actually Germany was punished more harshly in the aftermath of WW2 and completely occupied. But it was only the Cold War that put an end to that due to necessity.
your videos are a real pleasure, although I understand English very badly, I am French, the use of automatic translation allows me to follow your reasoning without any problem.
There definately was a war guilt clause in the Treaty of Versaille? Article 231 "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies". Germany did not declare the war, nor would possibly even have entered it if Russia hadn't tried to guarantee Serbia.
That was excellent, it did go much deeper than most explanations I've seen over the years. Thanks, you've inspired me to spend more time going through the rest of your library.
The allied policy of unconditional surrender may have shortened the war WITH Germany, but it also made the Cold War longer WITH the USSR. As you pointed out in an earlier video, the British realized earlier prior to the outbreak of the war that making an alliance with the Soviets to defeat Hitler would have invited in the Soviets (the problem of getting the Communists out of central Europe). The decision of unconditional surrender was more like another appeasement - i.e. to the Soviets this time around.
Very good comment. Unconditional surrender shortened the war, but sold out the Poles, the Czechs, the Slovaks - ostensibly the very reason for the war - to new conquerors. Not to even mention the Balts and Ukrainians who I suspect would have very much liked their freedom and the Finnish, Hungarian and Romanian peoples who were punished for combating Soviet aggression beside the Nazi regime by decades of occupation. I mean the Western Allies not only effectively put their stamp of approval under the Soviet-demands in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact but also gift wrapped everyone else east of the Elbe river. And the mass expulsion of Germans from the East... two wrongs don't make a right.
@@Runenschuppe Precisely. Just to note also, at the conclusion of a triumphal postwar visit to Moscow in 1945, then General Eisenhower told reporters at a news conference in Moscow: “I see nothing in the future that would prevent Russia and the United States from being the closest possible friends.” He also brushed aside a reporter’s query on the subject and told the US House Military Affairs Committee that “Russia has not the slightest thing to gain by a struggle with the United States. There is no thing, I believe, that guides the policy of Russia more today than to keep friendship with the United States.” It's no surprise, then, that he would let the Soviets take Vienna and Berlin.
Precisely! The allies sold out the central European nations and also caused more deaths, MILLIONS MORE, to the non-German victims of the Nazis and also to the Germans themselves.
@@occultprophecies Eisenhower was greatly overrated, both as a general and as a politician. He was a prime example of how a mediocrity can rise to the top if he has the right contacts and pleases the right people.
Either that or the Soviets will be forced to make peace with Germany. thus making another war entirely possible again. The Cold War while not the best of things, didn't killed additional millions of White Europeans.
Appeasement was a failure because the appeasement was not finished. The Polish government's stupidity was astounding when looking at the fact that if the Germans where to invade the Soviets would also. Poland could have literally gotten carte blanch to take the Baltics if they came to an agreement with Germany.
You could also argue that the First World War ended too soon. If it had lasted into 1919 and ended with the Allies actually fighting in Germany itself, the "stab in the back" myth might never have taken root. WWII might never have happened. I've never been sold on that idea, to be honest. I'm pretty sure enough Germans would have been disillusioned/resentful regardless to make another war likely.
Churchill as First Sea Lord in WW1, urged the British government to starve Germany into unconditional surrender AFTER the war ended which Great Britain did by putting an embargo, not just in them but on the Netherlands and Belgium in order to prevent smuggling food into Germany. Millions starved or died of malnutrition and disease including children. Germany eventually did surrender unconditionally BUT the event scarred them and made them hateful of the western powers. This starvation is NEVER mentioned in the history books but Buchanan and Kollerstam cover it.
If fighting happened in Germany in 1919, it would have been harder for the 'stab in the back' myth to take root as the many Germans would have seen the Allies had defeated them rather soundly. This would have particularly true if the 'Plan 1919' had been implemented with large numbers of tanks rumbling around Germany.
@@washingtonradio rather it would be take revenge solely on the allies instead of using scapegoats like Jews, the French might've been slaughtered instead in revenge.
No, because when you look at Korea or Vietnam you see years of half hearted but casualty causing fighting while peace talks drag on for years. Unconditional surrender is the way to end a war in a way that it stays ended.
Iw we're to look at it in this antihumanistic way, then slow loss of life over time is better for demographic than massive loss of life in a short time.
@@varvarith3090There’s already been this state of half-hearted fighting for Ukraine in 8 years prior to full-scale invasion in Feb 2022 so the "negotiations" won’t solve anything as long as Russia keeps having imperialistic ambitions in Ukraine. And Ukraine will never tolerate continued occupation of what it views as it’s own land.
Thank you for doing some deep diving for us. Not only do you provide good analysis, but references are provided should we choose to go further on our own.
Easy solution to the problems of the western Allies: Step1: conditional surrender for Germany after they lost Africa 1943 Step2: let them fight the Soviets in the east. Supply both factions with oil and raw materials. (Maintain a good balance so nobody looses) Step3: profit Ps: this is just a shitpost :)
I have a feeling the next episode will be about American vs British way to end the war or divide up the map. I'd really love to see this. Great job as always TIK 😁
I think Hitler would have accepted terms with the West but not in the East. Mussolini approached Hitler in 1943 urging him to seek peace with Stalin but Hitler said we will have to fight them eventually so why not do it now while we have the Army there.
Grant had the same idea in the American Civil war. The only way to win was to totally defeat the enemy army in the field and only accept unconditional surrender.
@@VarenvelDarakus That's a little unhinged. The Republicans were the Union, the Democrats were the South. Saying a Republican in California is clinging onto the cause of an Alabama Democrats is a stretch.
@@Pangora2 And? notice that republicans seam to the most wear confederate flags these days , not to say that while you are true , they are not the party now they were 200 years ago. who you know its most ironic that party who won civil war to save US , are the party who is party who is pulling the US into bottomless void while holding its ankles.
Bad analogy. In the case of the American Civil War you obviously could not have a compromise peace because any compromise would be a defeat for the union. Can you imagine if Lincoln had said: "we're going to accept peace with the South because they have agreed to give up the border states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia". I don't think that would have gone down well at all.
@@tancreddehauteville764 It might have done had Southern cannons been shelling their homes in Washington. The Vice President of the CSA was on his way to visit Lincoln to negotiate peace just before the defeat at Gettysburg.
It is also helpful to remember, when considering if the "unconditional surrender" demand lengthened the war, that at any time the enemy could have floated real terms to see what would happen. In reality, both Italy and Japan got ever-so-slightly better than unconditional surrender. In the case of Italy, they effectively took themselves out of the war and had Germany not promptly occupied them, might have fared tolerably well. In the end, the Japanese floated keeping their Emperor. While not explicitly assured, the diplomatic back channels conveyed that it was possible (once they surrendered), thereby effectively giving them the minimum they would accept. The problem was that no "legitimate" terms were ever suggested as the basis for something short of unconditional surrender. Had Germany offered real, substantial concessions (especially to the USSR) it is not inconceivable that something might have arisen from it. No, the real problem with "terms" is that they conducted themselves so badly (both Germany and Japan) that their crimes made it impossible for them to accept defeat.
just rewatched the Colditz series (on UA-cam) - it accurately shows the Wermacht commandant's worry about not surrendering to, or being handed over to, the Russian forces - who were massacreing German officers who had already surrendered
Nobody thinks about what kind of state the world would have had to deal with had the July 20, 1944 bomb plot succeeded. Letting people like Halder, Guderian and Manstein run their own Prussian Junkers junta would have made stability in postwar Europe difficult if not impossible. It would have continued brutal German rule over Poland and Czechia, let war criminals like in the Wehrmacht say all the crimes were Hitler’s fault and get away scot free, and given the anti-Semitic, anti-Slavic attitudes of the Prussian Junkers I doubt their state would have been much better than Nazism.
WWII wasn't just Europe though. Usually when people justify the atomic bombings of Japan they cite the estimated casualties of Operation Downfall, and say that Japan wouldn't have surrendered otherwise. I think that's true if the only terms offered were unconditional surrender, but by August 1945 surely Japan would have been willing to accept other terms.
Exactly, the Japanese just like the Germans in reverse were hoping the Russians would negotiate for them to lessen the unconditional surrender of the nation however they had no idea the Russians were already decided to invade them as well. When Russia declared war on them, they lost the last ace in their sleeve. If the US just let them know their emperor stayed in power they probably would have surrendered. The nukes were unjustified due to Japanese cities being obliterated by firebombing. See more destruction like that didn't matter to those in power.
Great video as usual TIK! But, I must raise the point that you failed to mention Japan in this video. I'm of the opinion that the war in the Pacific would have ended sooner had the Allies explicitly stated they would allow the Emperor to remain on the throne. My logic is that fear for the fate of the Emperor and the Royal Family pushed those who may have otherwise been more amenable to surrender to side with the psychotic hardliners who would rather have seen millions dead in a fight for the home isles than surrender. But that is just my poorly explained and evidenced argument quickly typed up on my phone at work, and I'd love to see your take on the matter
The so-called Japanese peace feelers through Switzerland, even in the last months, were bullshit. They were calls for a truce, with existing occupations remaining in place. Japan would have still had massive chunks of China, Indonesia, Korea, etc. The Japanese military would have remained in power. The Japanese armies killed 200,000 Chinese, Indonesians, etc in each of the last four months of the war (I don't know how the half month of August figures in this). Explicitly saying the Emperor could remain would have made no difference.
Quoting Bastiat made me happy :) Question about Eisenhower rebuffing the German military surrender feelers. Why didn't the Germans simply surrender, period, all at once? Tell all commanders to pass down the word to surrender immediately. What was Eisenhower going to do, keep shooting? I understand Eisenhower not accepting partial national political surrenders. But he couldn't refuse to acknowledge military surrenders, or individual towns surrendering. Soldiers quit shooting, lay down their arms, lay themselves down with hands out front, or wave rifles with white handkerchiefs or even t-shirts tied to the muzzles. Mayors in civilian clothes wave sticks with a white cloth attached.
Anyone who says the war could have been won earlier are not familiar with Hitler's statements on the matter. In 1943 members of his government, his army, and his allies, were recommending peace talks that he categorically refused. This was after the Casablanca conference, but some people were still under the impression they might be able to negotiate with either the allies or the soviets separately. Timeghost History recently covered the attempted Swedish mediation in their weekly episodes a few months ago. So, realistically, peace could not be possible until Hitler was dead. At a minimum.
"So, realistically, peace could not be possible until Hitler was dead. At a minimum" absolutely yes, and that's why I think "unconditional peace" means "get rid of Hitler and then we begin talking". Italy had a conditional peace because she didn't have a Fascist government any more.
The biggest myth about the end of WWII was that it was somehow a "lighter" peace than in WWI, when it is actually the exact opposite. Whether you like the post-WWII peace settlement or not (I certainly despise it in many ways tbh), you can't deny that a much firmer stance was taken with regards to the defeated Axis powers by the Allies and especially the Soviets.
"...thinking critically when studying history is so important." Yes! Thank you so much for including this at the end. I teach ancient history, among other things, and this is something I have to drill into my students from day one. So many of them already come into the classroom with a multitude of preconceived and false knowledge: their own unobjective reading of ancient sources, narratives created by those with a political/cultural supremacy agenda, and historically/archaeologically known events and peoples who are mythicized into white-washed nationalist heroes. It is so important when examining history to not lock yourself into one primary or secondary source.
Well 95% history is indoctrination.. And remaining 5% is there to set narrative. I have read almost 20-25 books on history and I came to conclusion that many a times it's just a waste of time. Because after reading 100 Pages you get a something of 1 page important
Hi TIK another great topic I love how you bring up interesting questions this topic brought up a question I’d never even considered before You always bring a different perspective being unbiased as you have taken all facts into consideration and then ask questions which is what makes your channel stand out from those who just tell the same old stories without questioning if has anything changed over time as move evidence comes out
I concur. I’m still hoping that someone on UA-cam would become the “TIKHistory” of the Asian theater of WW2, and provide us with videos that cite sources and historical evidence to shed light on what led to Asia going to war; the rise of Imperial Japan, legends/myths/ popular beliefs and narratives, etc.
I don't get the claim that without the unconditional surrender policy the Iron Curtain would have come down on France. How would a German unconditional surrender to the West have prevented the German Army repelling the Soviets? If they had got the terms they wanted would not the German have been able to focus their efforts on defeating Stalin? It's worth noting that Roosevelt promised to let Stalin have Czechoslakia if he fought Japan.
Unconditional Surrender. That's a surrender with no or without conditions. I would say it looks like a blank page and counts for the Allies as well. Sounds like 'You surrender we dictate the conditions afterwards'. But also 'Surrender and we have no further conditions'. ...what tha, this sounds like a mindf*ck.
I want to highlight something thats kind of important for the debate. You said paraphrased: "the treaty of versailles had no war guilt clause and it was used by the germans for nationalist propaganda" While what you said might be true, the opposite is what is currently being taught in history class of EVERY SINGLE german school. But not as a point of nationalism to strengthen anti-entente sentiments, but rather as a point of shame, which i find objectively worse. We are being indoctrinated by the state school system that germany is guilty for everything and youre bad and you should feel bad, citing that supposed war guilt clause in versailles, that isnt even in there in the first place.
Hey Tik, how long do you plan to continue the Stalingrad series for? Do you have a specific part of the war or the Fall Blau campaign in which the series will conclude or is this still tbd?
The fighting will end on the 2nd of February 1943, but there were some holdouts going beyond that which I'll briefly cover. I suspect there will also be a wrap up / analysis episode (or maybe more) for the whole campaign. I won't be covering in any detail what happened to Paulus after he surrendered since Anton Joly has a extremely good series on that already so my plan is to just link to that. But otherwise, there's no real plan. I suspect we've got at least another dozen episodes left, easily, especially with the discussion involving whether Paulus could have broken out and whether Manstein actually gave the "order" or not.
@@TheImperatorKnight Nooooo, your fanbase won't accept anything but an hourly analysis of the rest of the war up until September 2, 1945. Our lives will be empty without it! Please oblige, k thx
@@brunomancuso7798 There's no chance I can get it done by February, even if I dropped everything else. It takes a week to script and a week for me to edit each episode. My new editor simply can't edit or animate as fast as me, and they'd have no chance. They're actually shocked that I can even edit a Stalingrad video in one week, probably not realizing that I spend something like 60 to 70 hours animating each one. This is why I'm struggling enough as it is doing them every 4 weeks - it's just too much. I'm absolutely exhausted, and it's Stalingrad that's killing me.
Also, I'll add that my new editor hasn't got up to speed yet and is still causing me more work than they're taking off me. This is why I'm struggling to keep up, and why I missed an video a couple weeks back. I'm sure in the future they'll save me time, but right now I'm in trouble.
19:09 Strangley from that perspective, one can say WWII was about Germany wanting the rest of Europe to join them in fighting Russia, when the rest of Europe wanted Germany to join them in fighting Russia. WWII was about who would be in charge of fighting of Russia, while Russia rofl stomped Europe. "The purpose of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down"
And one point you didn't make: negotiating with people who has already proven themselves to be untrustworthy, is an exercise in stupidity. The Nazi's and Japanese had both proven themselves to be untrustworthy, so it was pointless to negotiate with them. And we've seen plenty of conflicts since then where negotiations were just an opportunity for the other side to improve their military position, without any serious desire for peace on any terms other than their own. Unfortunately there are still people today who don't get this.
It is important to understand that the unconditional surrender position was adopted not only for the European theater, but for the Pacific as well. Many today forget that the Japanese embraced a formal policy of national resistance. The civilian populace, even school children, were trained in hand-to-hand combat and told to prepare for “the glorious death of the 100 million.” Think about it. If they were willing to die almost literally to the last man for a rock in the Tarawa atoll, what difference does Allied policy make in the minds of the Japanese war lords. These are folks who tried to overthrow the Emperor after Japan had been bombed into oblivion (including two nuclear bombs). There was nothing rational about their mental processes. In the end, they effectively secured terms short of unconditional (they got to keep their Emperor), but for the record it was unconditional. Curious what your take is on this aspect of the issue.
I _really_ want to complain that the people running the country were willing to sacrifice the entire rest of the country to get better surrender terms... but then I think about what little I know about the previous four or five decades of Japanese politics*, my ignorance on these particular individuals, and I realize I don't know that they don't include themselves in the 'expendable' category. *Primarily what I know is that policy differences were often sorted out by 'patriotic' assassination of the opposition's spokesperson. Once nobody was willing to argue for your opponents' position, your side won the argument.
As long as Japanese history goes, in my many years of studying Japanese history both from Japanese sources and sources in other languages, the opinion that the Allied policy of ‘unconditional surrender’ prolonged WW2 is very common. As far as I read, the Japanese were ready to surrender a long time before the nuclear bombs were used, but they were only willing to surrender under certain conditions. According to many sources, they still wouldn't surrender unconditionally even after the nuclear attacks. The (non nuclear) fire bombings, which were already going on before the nuclear attacks, continued for some time after the nuclear attacks, before the Japanese emperor used his veto power over the government and the army to stop the war and officially surrender unconditionally. At that time, there were talks of not only taking all executive powers away from the Empror after the surrender, but also there were talks of taking away even his title and status. In the end, only the executive powers were taken, because the Americans feared an uprising among Japanese people if they took away the Emperors title and status. Or so I've read.
The only "unconditional surrender" that I know of is that of the "stick to tanks" crowd leading to the prolonging and further production of more eco videos.
The more people tell me not to do something, the more I do it. This is precisely why I read up on Mises and Rothbard. Everyone was screaming at me for "just believing Mises and Rothbard" when I hadn't actually read them. After arguing back that I hadn't read them, I began to wonder why they were so adamant that I had read them. So I picked up some of Mises' books (like his book "Socialism", and later his "Omnipotent Government") and realized that I'd independently come to the same conclusions as them regarding National Socialism based on the evidence, and then discovered that their economics was not only far superior to all the socialist "economics" (politics) that I was brainwashed with, but it opened my eyes to an entirely different way of looking at the world that wasn't what I had presumed the "conservative extremist right-wing racist nut-job" world view to be. Turns out that Mises and Rothbard aren't conservatives, aren't extremists, aren't "right-wing", aren't "racists", aren't sexists, and aren't nut-jobs... It turns out that all those insults are just that - insults, designed to make people assume the worst and therefore not pick up their books in the first place. But actually, their books make a lot more sense than the nonsense that Marx, Keynes or any of the lamestream media come out with.
The way that I have established the so called 'policy of appeasement' offered by Chamberlain, was an attempt by him to allow Britain to rearm, a policy of which was harshly opposed by Churchill, who did not want a military build up to occur at all. Chamberlain was desperate for a properly rearmed Britain, prepared for a coming conflict. Your thoughts on that TIK.
Hi TIK, very nice video. The main points to me are: 1) i think UK was right in considering a total defeat of Germany counter productive on the long run (Cold war) and 2) i am not 100% sure that iron curtain would have reached the Rhine. Without lend lease support and without the Western Allies tying up troops in France and Italy Germany might have had a chance to stabilize the eastern front forcing Stalin to accept a compromise as well (eg. Germany with frontiers of 1939)
I don't think Germany would had the slightest chance of stopping Russia without help. By any stage when a 'Western peace' might have been considered Russia had More than enough material to Finnish the job. I would have fully supported supplying or even fighting with the Germans UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS. But by ekk it would have had to of had a lot of planning. There are so many difficulties to be sorted out and agreements made. The yanks would not have helped and after years of, (insane,) praise for Russia and Stalin's public opinion would need adjusting but we could have done it.
I don't think TIK would delete any comment, he is very honest. I think it's the site automatic bot which operates a censorship when it deletes certain words, such as the one beginning with J, that you probably used several times in your post (and I don't use it exactly so that you can read my post).
This is where Hitler being a legitimate “mad man” comes from. Hitler was never going to surrender under any conditions and the soviets were never going to accept it politely. My view.
Roosevelt became a true traitor. He went from being an isolationist and protectionist president to giving Stalin the dance and selling half of Europe to the USSR, at the same time that he stabbed his own ally Churchill in the back, claiming that he wanted to end British imperialism. Thomas Urban in his book on the Katyn massacre states that Roosevelt turned a blind eye to the reports that came in about the graves, as well as that many men in his cabinet were openly communists. He also wanted to allow the Morgenthau Plan, which would turn Germany basically into a rural desert, of happening to the disgust of Churchill and the people themselves.
FDR's VP, Henry Wallace, favored socialism. His people in Moscow in 1941 praised "Uncle Joe" and defended Stalin's purges as a necessary evil to restructure the USSR. for the better.
@@samsonsoturian6013 I can't imagine Wilhelm III would be as despotic as the Mustache Man, even though I despise monarchy generally. Honestly Europe was stitched up a lot better and frankly just looked better with central Europe divvied up between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire, so long as everyone kept Russia from collapsing they'd remain enough of a check on Europe that they'd have to think twice before engaging.
As TIK points out, the culture of Prussian militarism would have remained intact, and one assumes that many of the same postwar dynamics leading to Hitler's rise (who was supported by the Kaiser's generals) would have pertained. So, maybe, not much. But at the end of the day, they were forced out by their own enraged populations.
What's the difference between "unconditional surrender" with the total annihilation of the enemy... and genocide? The Serbs only wanted "unconditional surrender" from the Bosnians. Why does everyone accuse the Serbs of ""war crimes"" and ""crimes against humanity"" when they did the same thing that FDR and the Communists did to Germany?
*"The Serbs only wanted"* *"Why does everyone accuse the Serbs of ""war crimes"" "* Probably because "what X wanted" does not equal "what X did", especially for "X *only* wanted" variant, ie. a bs obfuscation or flimsy excuse.
Translation: "I conveniently ignore anything I don't like that runs contrary to my narrative" If TIK is wrong about economics, why wouldn't he also be wrong about everything else?
Well done, but I disagree with the conclusion. The Soviets tried to do an unconditional surrender on the Finns. The Finns took it to the Soviets and beat them so bad that the Soviets finally came back and offered conditional surrender. The Finns were able to exit the war intact and stronger than before but accepting the new Soviet borders and terms. We could have avoided the whole Cold War and the loss of Eastern Europe had we just taken the rest of Europe from the Germans before the Soviets could. Then taken a conditional surrender of the Germans leaving the country intact and a better ally against the Soviets. The Germans fought against the Soviets with all they had, while they would surrender to the Americans in droves. We could have saved a lot lives, time and money going about it this way, even if we would have lost the Soviet support.
What a bullshit. For the West the war turned out better than ever, and the Soviet Union itself collapsed in the early 90s without a war. The communist countries of the Warsaw Bloc collapsed even earlier.
It does seem a bit silly to blame the Allies for the actions of the Germans tbh. ‘Oh the evil Allies for not treating the Germans with more mercy’ like please…
Excellent analysis as usual. Nothing is ever simple is it? I appreciate TIK's explanation and his quoting of Armstrong that in the abstract it was a war of good against evil, and therefore a fight to the finish.
"We never really let the Germans know who won the war. They are being told that their army was stabbed in the back, betrayed, that their army had not been defeated. The Germans never believed they were beaten. It will have to be done all over again…." - Pershing (1923)
1: Nobody could agree on a post war settlement so they decided to cross the bridge when they got to it. 2: The possible conditions of surrender would have been so harsh Germany wouldn't have accepted them.
Without a doubt Germany's goal for the USSR when it launched Barbarossa was its unconditional surrender...if not unconditional annihilation. From the very start, Hitler had no interest in fighting the British and its allies (or anyone else besides Russia)...having (foolishly?) spared the British army at Dunkirk, and having sent up various back-channel peace "feelers" to the British during the earlier years of the war. A Soviet-initiated insistence on unconditional surrender would have been justifiable and logical, given the existential life-death struggle with Germany on the eastern front. From the perspective of the British and its American ally, though, no such existential threat (or threat of any kind) was posed by Germany. In fact, the opposite was the case. Germany desired nothing more than to be a good trading partner and cooperative world affairs administrator with its western counterparts (curiously enough, not much unlike the situation in which Russia finds itself with regard to Ukraine and its western puppet masters today). So, you could just as well chalk it up to typical British imperial intransigence and nastiness to have rejected, out of hand, Germany's early "peace feelers" and insist, in advance, on the "unconditional surrender" of Germany...and Germany alone, among the opposing combatant nations (is this a clue?). The idea of the US being the chief instigator of the "unconditional surrender" policy, on the other hand, would assume the Americans to have had a much larger, perhaps even transcendental, reason for insinuating itself onto another European war and seeking the complete and total capitulation of a distant European nation it had no direct and actual grievance with...a transcendental reason that some among the British may very well have shared. After all, the notorious Morganthau Plan originated in the US...not Russia - though the Soviets with good reason might have found the plan appealing. Nevertheless, it's quite obvious that the unconditional surrender policy of the allies extended the war by the simple fact that it would take time and a lot of destruction to achieve that end...and all German entreaties to seek an early end to the hostilities (at least with the British) were rejected early on. Besides, it's difficult to see how the Soviets could have accepted anything less than Germany's total surrender...and Hitler's shrunken head still steaming in a silver samovar. There are two kinds of people in this world...puppets, and puppet masters. When looking at momentous historical events, they almost never make sense or proffer answers until one begins to look for, and identify and distinguish between an event's true puppets and true puppet masters (for instance, we still have no satisfactory answers to the who and why of WW1). The puppet masters are always obscured, as the eyes of most of the world are focused on the puppet show. So there can never be an understanding of these events and their causes until and unless the puppeteers are revealed...which is rare. And more than 100 years after those wars, the true puppet masters remain obscure...our understanding of those events and their causes (at least by us plebes) remains muddled...and "TIKhistory" will always have enough historical loose ends to work with to continue making this interesting and highly entertaining content...if not to solve some of histories great puzzles and mysteries, then at least for shits and grins, and they say.
Churchill hated Germany, always had, he kept blockade intact after 1918 armistice... Truman hated Germans, he was artillery guy in WWI. That's why they wanted to crush Germany. You cannot ignore those facts and they certainly wanted Germany destroyed. Why you think they did "strategic bombing" after knowing it wasn't working. I agree that the end of the war, territory distribution, was inevitable for peace and all Nazis had to step down, but you know the Nazi's simply changed parties and continued to be in government. So, yeah unconditional surrender did prolong the war... Soviets needed it so they could rob all German wealth, industry in their zones which is the only reason soviets survived for 45 more years... Plus this was our appeasing of Soviets which still didn't work. Oh, notice how we now have good vs evil in politics? Guess what comes next...
"One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once 'The unnecessary War.' There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle" -War mongering criminal Sir Winston Churchill (Page xviii of Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War by Patrick J. Buchanan.)
But I think, that the articel 231 states, that the allies blame Germany for causing the war. So the Point that: they had not blamed germany for the war, is untrue. But I agree in the Point, that Germany used this article for exeexcessive Propaganda...as a reason for vengance Edit: * vengeance
"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which world finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." -- Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960)
@@CannibaLouiST A quick Google search will reveal why easily enough. In short, it was made up by the then leader of the Islamic party of Britain, who provided no source or proof that Churchill ever said it
For once I completely agree with Roosevelt: WW2 happened because the result has been blured in WW1 by premature ending, letting think to the Germans that they did not really been beaten and that's it's only because of treason from the politics: the country itself didn't suffer enough. There, the ruins of Berlin definitivaly convinced them that there was no doubts to the effective result: you have been beaten to the last man, you had been conqured to the last square kilometer and now you'll pay the true price of an other war mongering without a tomorow chance to rebuilt an belligerent army.
“No separate peace”, which I think was the main policy by the West, would have been even less popular with the German Army than unconditional surrender. I agree that bring diplomatically vague was a benefit.
The seen and the unseen. This seems to be the case evermore so with the Internet, but now it can take just a few minutes for the "seen" to become fact and the unseen just drifts away into the mists of time.
There was also the factor of the embarrassment surrounding the surrender of Admiral Darlan. He had negotiated the liberation of French North Africa, but had also been a high-ranking official in the Vichy government. Unconditional surrender was seen as a way to prevent collaborators and war criminals from escaping post-war justice.
This was the question that sparked my interest in WWII. I remember as a boy of 14 raising my hand to ask my history teacher as he used the term "what does unconditional surrender mean, sir?" He paused and said "Good question" then diverted the lesson into a lengthy discussion of it's meaning and the ramifications for Germany. A good teacher can have a powerful effect on a young mind. Tonight nearly 40 years later, Tik has provided a deeper insight into the meaning of these two words. Thank you, sir.
"Is this really the case" makes every episode better!
We need a t shirt or sticker of this phrase...
@@danreed7889 Yes! Both would be good. CafePress may have what Tik needs. Maybe "You should stick to tanks" with the sticky bomb from Saving Private Ryan as an encore?
It definitely makes my day too every time! 🙂
Is this case the really?
@@dukevalentino whose? I am not ... seeing that
Tik never stop making these videos as it's highly interesting, and very informative without any bias.
Oh he has a bias. But it's cool. Everybody has a bias. He does the best he can. I appreciate that.
@@johnpoole3871 In fact, he made a whole video about how everyone, absolutely everyone, including himself, has a bias :)
@@johnpoole3871 What makes TIK more interesting is that he has a completly different bias than about everyone else. He makes you think about and question a lot of facts you have taken for granted. It can't get much more interesting than that!
Technically he has bias, but it's unfair to say it, since it doesn't affect most of his videos. And the videos where he has bias often stand out as such, where he makes a political point. It's ok, most people support some narrative when they research a lot about history, economy and politics.
Everybody has a bias, but TIK always comes up with very good arguments.
Tik, I'm a bit ashamed to admit that your central question is one that had never occurred to me. This was a concise and neatly reasoned piece and was definitely food for thought. Way back I taught senior high school history, and this video would have been a fantastic tool for teaching students how to organize a written essay.
Others disagree. Unconditional surrender prolonged the war and suffering and allowed the Soviets to take control of Eastern Europe, leaving Europe worse off than in 1939.
ua-cam.com/video/DOgNHBa_ZPM/v-deo.html
Excellent. I would add that the war with Japan loomed large in 1945, Ike did not try for Berlin for multiple reasons but one was that his Armies had already stopped getting replacements and units being rotated out of combat were being sent back to the US to be reconstituted for Coronet. And we still wanted Soviets to enter war against Japan. All reasons not to incur huge casualties and not to stick a thumb in Stalin’s eye.
This would make sense, and Ike did not know about the atomic bomb.
If you think Ike didn’t want Berlin than your more stoned than me.
@@misterbaker9728 I have never seen that stated anywhere. Do you have a reference or is that just your opinion. Ike was insistent that allied troops stop at the Elbe. Considering how many troops the Soviets lost in taking Berlin, this was obviously a good decision.
I have heard that Patton wanted to rearm the German troops and then to turn around and attack the Soviets with them fighting alongside the western powers. In hindsight, that might have been the best course of action. Without western material support the Soviets most likely could not have withstood such an attack.
People who ask these questions always forget it was a WORLD war.
@@pax6833 What questions? Your comment does not seem to have relevance here.
Very nice example for a "stupid" decision that makes perfect sense when you take into account the situation at the time and the information the actors had.
Excellent and incisive, as always.
In fact, the allies in the Pacific war did accept a conditional surrender in the sense that the Emperor was allowed to remain on the throne. This is further evidence of the Soviet factor in establishing the criterion of unconditional surrender for Germany.
That was MacArthur going off-script. The Japanese government did surrender unconditionally. Only after they surrendered, MacArthur got drunk and decided that Emperor Hirohito was now his BFF and not a war criminal and everyone acting under Hirohito's authority could not be convicted of war crimes.
Japan should have been de-japanified. Hirohito should have been executed by hanging like a common criminal. All of the army and navy officers should have been shot or hanged for war crimes. The Japanese citizens should have been reprogrammed to reject toxic Japanese culture. Just like we did in Germany.
inciteful?
that is false. Because the soviets were in the table with japan too when they surrendered. In fact the soviets attacked Japan itself via naval disembark
@@Ciborium Any chance that you might cite your sources supporting your points?
@@brrrrrick Thanks. Good catch. I edited my original remark.
Winston Churchill being a calm voice of reason who makes a lot of sense.
I guess stranger things have happened.
For anything other than unconditional surrender to work, the conditions would've been necessarily sufficiently acceptable to the Nazi regime itself which suggests the Nazis would remain in power in Germany. The point of demanding 'unconditional surrender' is that the Nazi regime had proven itself sufficiently untrustworthy to treat with. To suggest demanding 'unconditional' didn't prolong the war misses the point that 'unconditional' was necessary by the circumstances. If the Allies had offered Germany 1918 borders in summer 1944, would Germany have taken it? Probably.
A discussion I often encounter in the comment section. Great video to refer to.
Can we add a note about US military history and theory, including Sherman's thoughts on Total War and the conduct of the US Civil War. Break the people's ability to wage the war, but not their will to wage it, simply sets up a future inevitable conflict. Sherman predicted this and it influenced his judgment during the march to the sea. His war was with the people of the South, and not just its armies. The fall out from the WW1 Armistice would seem to bear out his theory as wisdom.
RE: Iron Curtain on French border. I wonder which side of the Curtain the lowlands would have fallen. I imagine the British would have insisted on their inclusion on the western side if only because of their continued use to invade France.
Alternatively all sherman did was Stoke up resentment in the south. The reason there hasn't been a second civil war was the reconciliation efforts after the civil war. Linkin was determined not to treat the southerners as a defeated enemy.
Similarly the reason the germans haven't fought a 3rd World War is more to do with relations with the vicotiuois powers after the war. France after ww1 was very agreesive with Germany breeding resentment, but after ww2 worked with the west germans.
You don't win the peace by being hard, that only breeds resentment, you win it by making the enemy your friend. The enemy won't be your friend if he thinks he can beat you, but he also won't be your friend of you breed too much resentment.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 There was a second civil war and America lost it when it allowed the defeated southerners establish the jim crow south through armed uprisings that usurped many southern state governments. Instead of fighting back against these insurrections, the federal government meekly capitulated to southern demands to roll back black enfranchisement.
Much of this can be attributed to Andrew Johnson deliberately sabotaging Reconstruction just as it began, severely disrupting the establishment of a black middle class and the emerging coalition between freed blacks and poor whites that Lincoln and Sherman had been working toward.
Contrary to your statement, it was the abandonment of Sherman's policies towards blacks and seditious groups like the KKK that resulted in 100 years of lost civil rights progress.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Yes and no, it's a carrot and stick situation, or perhaps better stated a good cop-bad cop situation. The South felt and knew it was defeated, humiliated, and stripped of the very thing the initial conflict had been waged over; but instead of lording over them or putting every man of the South to the sword we took a page out of the Spartan playbook and kept the South from total annihilation, which very much did bandage over the wound, even if in a lot of ways it's still healing.
West Germany very much operated in this same paradigm, although that was entirely overwritten when the two states reunited, she's now the same Germany she always was, save a bit more clever due to reduced territory and increased suspicion.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Alternatively all Sherman did was give that resentment a target. "Reconciliation" actually made things far worse, as the punitive faction took charge of government following the war. The South would remain impoverished as a result and not truly recover until after WW2. Arguably, not until manufacturing jobs across the country were shipped overseas, making it more a mirage than anything.
Great explanation. My gripe with the ww2 in real-time series is their penchant to judge decisions and actions taken with the values of today and ignoring the impact of the great slaughter of the trenches and the ineffectual armistice that followed.
Especially Spartacus with his War Against Humanity series. Granted, the subject matter he covers is more then enough to drive a man insane with horror. But I feel it clouds his judgments and makes him prone to linking it to current day events.
Dear tik, thank you for your perpetually interesting content.
Not only do your videos make my day more interesting, I believe you do the best "Hitler voice" of all historical you tubers I watch.
This video is a very good example of how proper research often leads to counter-intuitive outcomes.
Research is looking for new insights, not for confirmation.
I think you said that the July 4th plot would have allowed conquests to be surrendered. This is not the case. Many of the plotters assumed that some territories remain under German control. But ... magnificent review!
July 20th plot, would've been funny if they did it on American Independence Day though
Excellent presentation. The clearest, best reasoned analysis of the “unconditional surrender” issue that I have seen.
This motivations of German actors involved part looks like a perfect topic for William Spaniel lines on map video
3:09 This is demonstrably false. Article 231 reads:
"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies."
My initial thought of why the Allies agreed to "Unconditional Surrender" was because of events some 25 years earlier. The general feeling was that Germany had once again started a major war because they were not dealt with properly after WW1. The Western Allies had learned from their mistakes though. Instead of leaving Germany in ruins, they invested in rebuilding the nation while maintaining the occupation.
I'd argue that the Marshall Plan was more about the Cold War than preventing yet another rerun of the Great War. The US built western Europe into a tool for breaking the westward march of Soviet Communism.
Another mistake Germany never started world war 1 historians always get this wrong they joined the war because they were surrounded with enemies ie France sleeping with ussr and Germany had come to help austria
Actually Germany was punished more harshly in the aftermath of WW2 and completely occupied. But it was only the Cold War that put an end to that due to necessity.
your videos are a real pleasure, although I understand English very badly, I am French, the use of automatic translation allows me to follow your reasoning without any problem.
I am English and Likewise follow discussions in other languages - for all its bad points isn't the Internet wonderful, a true marvel of this age.
There definately was a war guilt clause in the Treaty of Versaille? Article 231 "The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associated Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of the war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her allies". Germany did not declare the war, nor would possibly even have entered it if Russia hadn't tried to guarantee Serbia.
Yeah I think he's kind of biased against German government goes a little hard to the other side
That was excellent, it did go much deeper than most explanations I've seen over the years. Thanks, you've inspired me to spend more time going through the rest of your library.
They could say our policy of not seeking terms after Dunkirk prolonged the war then
Thanks for the video Tik! Great watching at my mind numbing retail job at a well known British supermarket (light green, 4 letters) 👍
The allied policy of unconditional surrender may have shortened the war WITH Germany, but it also made the Cold War longer WITH the USSR. As you pointed out in an earlier video, the British realized earlier prior to the outbreak of the war that making an alliance with the Soviets to defeat Hitler would have invited in the Soviets (the problem of getting the Communists out of central Europe). The decision of unconditional surrender was more like another appeasement - i.e. to the Soviets this time around.
Very good comment. Unconditional surrender shortened the war, but sold out the Poles, the Czechs, the Slovaks - ostensibly the very reason for the war - to new conquerors. Not to even mention the Balts and Ukrainians who I suspect would have very much liked their freedom and the Finnish, Hungarian and Romanian peoples who were punished for combating Soviet aggression beside the Nazi regime by decades of occupation. I mean the Western Allies not only effectively put their stamp of approval under the Soviet-demands in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact but also gift wrapped everyone else east of the Elbe river. And the mass expulsion of Germans from the East... two wrongs don't make a right.
@@Runenschuppe Precisely. Just to note also, at the conclusion of a triumphal postwar visit to Moscow in 1945, then General Eisenhower told reporters at a news conference in Moscow: “I see nothing in the future that would prevent Russia and the United States from being the closest possible friends.” He also brushed aside a reporter’s query on the subject and told the US House Military Affairs Committee that “Russia has not the slightest thing to gain by a struggle with the United States. There is no thing, I believe, that guides the policy of Russia more today than to keep friendship with the United States.” It's no surprise, then, that he would let the Soviets take Vienna and Berlin.
Precisely! The allies sold out the central European nations and also caused more deaths, MILLIONS MORE, to the non-German victims of the Nazis and also to the Germans themselves.
@@occultprophecies Eisenhower was greatly overrated, both as a general and as a politician. He was a prime example of how a mediocrity can rise to the top if he has the right contacts and pleases the right people.
Either that or the Soviets will be forced to make peace with Germany. thus making another war entirely possible again. The Cold War while not the best of things, didn't killed additional millions of White Europeans.
Appeasement was a failure because the appeasement was not finished. The Polish government's stupidity was astounding when looking at the fact that if the Germans where to invade the Soviets would also. Poland could have literally gotten carte blanch to take the Baltics if they came to an agreement with Germany.
Pole's are slavs. Have you read Mein kampf? I can stand this bs
You could also argue that the First World War ended too soon. If it had lasted into 1919 and ended with the Allies actually fighting in Germany itself, the "stab in the back" myth might never have taken root. WWII might never have happened.
I've never been sold on that idea, to be honest. I'm pretty sure enough Germans would have been disillusioned/resentful regardless to make another war likely.
Churchill as First Sea Lord in WW1, urged the British government to starve Germany into unconditional surrender AFTER the war ended which Great Britain did by putting an embargo, not just in them but on the Netherlands and Belgium in order to prevent smuggling food into Germany. Millions starved or died of malnutrition and disease including children. Germany eventually did surrender unconditionally BUT the event scarred them and made them hateful of the western powers. This starvation is NEVER mentioned in the history books but Buchanan and Kollerstam cover it.
If fighting happened in Germany in 1919, it would have been harder for the 'stab in the back' myth to take root as the many Germans would have seen the Allies had defeated them rather soundly. This would have particularly true if the 'Plan 1919' had been implemented with large numbers of tanks rumbling around Germany.
@@washingtonradio rather it would be take revenge solely on the allies instead of using scapegoats like Jews, the French might've been slaughtered instead in revenge.
If the Germans were made to comply with the Treaty of Versailles for real, they would have had a 300000 man army and no air force, for that next war.
No, because when you look at Korea or Vietnam you see years of half hearted but casualty causing fighting while peace talks drag on for years. Unconditional surrender is the way to end a war in a way that it stays ended.
Iw we're to look at it in this antihumanistic way, then slow loss of life over time is better for demographic than massive loss of life in a short time.
@@varvarith3090There’s already been this state of half-hearted fighting for Ukraine in 8 years prior to full-scale invasion in Feb 2022 so the "negotiations" won’t solve anything as long as Russia keeps having imperialistic ambitions in Ukraine. And Ukraine will never tolerate continued occupation of what it views as it’s own land.
Yes, the USA should have unconditionally surrendered to Vietnam.
@@markphilipp224 US territory was never even remotely threatened by Vietnam.
@@norwegianboyee Wow, really? Had no idea.
Thank you for doing some deep diving for us. Not only do you provide good analysis, but references are provided should we choose to go further on our own.
Easy solution to the problems of the western Allies:
Step1: conditional surrender for Germany after they lost Africa 1943
Step2: let them fight the Soviets in the east. Supply both factions with oil and raw materials. (Maintain a good balance so nobody looses)
Step3: profit
Ps: this is just a shitpost :)
In fact, as of 10/3/2010, germany has deposited 36.1 billion as ww1 reparations
I have a feeling the next episode will be about American vs British way to end the war or divide up the map. I'd really love to see this. Great job as always TIK 😁
I think Hitler would have accepted terms with the West but not in the East. Mussolini approached Hitler in 1943 urging him to seek peace with Stalin but Hitler said we will have to fight them eventually so why not do it now while we have the Army there.
I Take General Pattons position on this. That would have been much better as the bolsheviks were far worse than the Nazis
Sounds exactly like what Patton said about the Soviets.
Super cool, and plenty of data to boot!
Grant had the same idea in the American Civil war.
The only way to win was to totally defeat the enemy army in the field and only accept unconditional surrender.
true , tho even defeat the mythos still lives. Republicans that is.
@@VarenvelDarakus That's a little unhinged. The Republicans were the Union, the Democrats were the South. Saying a Republican in California is clinging onto the cause of an Alabama Democrats is a stretch.
@@Pangora2 And? notice that republicans seam to the most wear confederate flags these days , not to say that while you are true , they are not the party now they were 200 years ago.
who you know its most ironic that party who won civil war to save US , are the party who is party who is pulling the US into bottomless void while holding its ankles.
Bad analogy. In the case of the American Civil War you obviously could not have a compromise peace because any compromise would be a defeat for the union. Can you imagine if Lincoln had said: "we're going to accept peace with the South because they have agreed to give up the border states of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia". I don't think that would have gone down well at all.
@@tancreddehauteville764 It might have done had Southern cannons been shelling their homes in Washington. The Vice President of the CSA was on his way to visit Lincoln to negotiate peace just before the defeat at Gettysburg.
It is also helpful to remember, when considering if the "unconditional surrender" demand lengthened the war, that at any time the enemy could have floated real terms to see what would happen. In reality, both Italy and Japan got ever-so-slightly better than unconditional surrender. In the case of Italy, they effectively took themselves out of the war and had Germany not promptly occupied them, might have fared tolerably well. In the end, the Japanese floated keeping their Emperor. While not explicitly assured, the diplomatic back channels conveyed that it was possible (once they surrendered), thereby effectively giving them the minimum they would accept.
The problem was that no "legitimate" terms were ever suggested as the basis for something short of unconditional surrender. Had Germany offered real, substantial concessions (especially to the USSR) it is not inconceivable that something might have arisen from it.
No, the real problem with "terms" is that they conducted themselves so badly (both Germany and Japan) that their crimes made it impossible for them to accept defeat.
just rewatched the Colditz series (on UA-cam) - it accurately shows the Wermacht commandant's worry about not surrendering to, or being handed over to, the Russian forces - who were massacreing German officers who had already surrendered
You have done more to solidify my belief in critical thinking than anything I can think of.
German saying.
"Enjoy the war, for the peace will be Savage"
Nobody thinks about what kind of state the world would have had to deal with had the July 20, 1944 bomb plot succeeded. Letting people like Halder, Guderian and Manstein run their own Prussian Junkers junta would have made stability in postwar Europe difficult if not impossible. It would have continued brutal German rule over Poland and Czechia, let war criminals like in the Wehrmacht say all the crimes were Hitler’s fault and get away scot free, and given the anti-Semitic, anti-Slavic attitudes of the Prussian Junkers I doubt their state would have been much better than Nazism.
WWII wasn't just Europe though. Usually when people justify the atomic bombings of Japan they cite the estimated casualties of Operation Downfall, and say that Japan wouldn't have surrendered otherwise. I think that's true if the only terms offered were unconditional surrender, but by August 1945 surely Japan would have been willing to accept other terms.
Exactly, the Japanese just like the Germans in reverse were hoping the Russians would negotiate for them to lessen the unconditional surrender of the nation however they had no idea the Russians were already decided to invade them as well. When Russia declared war on them, they lost the last ace in their sleeve. If the US just let them know their emperor stayed in power they probably would have surrendered. The nukes were unjustified due to Japanese cities being obliterated by firebombing. See more destruction like that didn't matter to those in power.
Tik make a t shirt with 'is this really the case' i would for sure buy it
Me too
Very interesting analysis. Thanks for a great educational video !
Great video as usual TIK! But, I must raise the point that you failed to mention Japan in this video. I'm of the opinion that the war in the Pacific would have ended sooner had the Allies explicitly stated they would allow the Emperor to remain on the throne. My logic is that fear for the fate of the Emperor and the Royal Family pushed those who may have otherwise been more amenable to surrender to side with the psychotic hardliners who would rather have seen millions dead in a fight for the home isles than surrender. But that is just my poorly explained and evidenced argument quickly typed up on my phone at work, and I'd love to see your take on the matter
The so-called Japanese peace feelers through Switzerland, even in the last months, were bullshit. They were calls for a truce, with existing occupations remaining in place. Japan would have still had massive chunks of China, Indonesia, Korea, etc. The Japanese military would have remained in power.
The Japanese armies killed 200,000 Chinese, Indonesians, etc in each of the last four months of the war (I don't know how the half month of August figures in this). Explicitly saying the Emperor could remain would have made no difference.
Quoting Bastiat made me happy :)
Question about Eisenhower rebuffing the German military surrender feelers. Why didn't the Germans simply surrender, period, all at once? Tell all commanders to pass down the word to surrender immediately. What was Eisenhower going to do, keep shooting? I understand Eisenhower not accepting partial national political surrenders. But he couldn't refuse to acknowledge military surrenders, or individual towns surrendering. Soldiers quit shooting, lay down their arms, lay themselves down with hands out front, or wave rifles with white handkerchiefs or even t-shirts tied to the muzzles. Mayors in civilian clothes wave sticks with a white cloth attached.
Anyone who says the war could have been won earlier are not familiar with Hitler's statements on the matter. In 1943 members of his government, his army, and his allies, were recommending peace talks that he categorically refused. This was after the Casablanca conference, but some people were still under the impression they might be able to negotiate with either the allies or the soviets separately. Timeghost History recently covered the attempted Swedish mediation in their weekly episodes a few months ago.
So, realistically, peace could not be possible until Hitler was dead. At a minimum.
"So, realistically, peace could not be possible until Hitler was dead. At a minimum" absolutely yes, and that's why I think "unconditional peace" means "get rid of Hitler and then we begin talking". Italy had a conditional peace because she didn't have a Fascist government any more.
The biggest myth about the end of WWII was that it was somehow a "lighter" peace than in WWI, when it is actually the exact opposite. Whether you like the post-WWII peace settlement or not (I certainly despise it in many ways tbh), you can't deny that a much firmer stance was taken with regards to the defeated Axis powers by the Allies and especially the Soviets.
"...thinking critically when studying history is so important." Yes! Thank you so much for including this at the end. I teach ancient history, among other things, and this is something I have to drill into my students from day one. So many of them already come into the classroom with a multitude of preconceived and false knowledge: their own unobjective reading of ancient sources, narratives created by those with a political/cultural supremacy agenda, and historically/archaeologically known events and peoples who are mythicized into white-washed nationalist heroes. It is so important when examining history to not lock yourself into one primary or secondary source.
Well 95% history is indoctrination..
And remaining 5% is there to set narrative.
I have read almost 20-25 books on history and I came to conclusion that many a times it's just a waste of time. Because after reading 100 Pages you get a something of 1 page important
Yes it did. Love your channel.
Hi TIK another great topic I love how you bring up interesting questions this topic brought up a question I’d never even considered before You always bring a different perspective being unbiased as you have taken all facts into consideration and then ask questions which is what makes your channel stand out from those who just tell the same old stories without questioning if has anything changed over time as move evidence comes out
It's amazing what history can do when you're not looking to praise or redeem your personal favorite historic figures.
I would love to see someone do videos like you do for the American Civil War!
I concur. I’m still hoping that someone on UA-cam would become the “TIKHistory” of the Asian theater of WW2, and provide us with videos that cite sources and historical evidence to shed light on what led to Asia going to war; the rise of Imperial Japan, legends/myths/ popular beliefs and narratives, etc.
I don't get the claim that without the unconditional surrender policy the Iron Curtain would have come down on France. How would a German unconditional surrender to the West have prevented the German Army repelling the Soviets? If they had got the terms they wanted would not the German have been able to focus their efforts on defeating Stalin?
It's worth noting that Roosevelt promised to let Stalin have Czechoslakia if he fought Japan.
Churchill wasnt suprised by the policy of unconditional surrender but rather he didnt think this was the way to announce it to the enemy
I agree with his logic, ridiculous genocidal shit like the Morgenthau Plan going public would have played into Goebbels' hands.
Unconditional Surrender. That's a surrender with no or without conditions. I would say it looks like a blank page and counts for the Allies as well. Sounds like 'You surrender we dictate the conditions afterwards'. But also 'Surrender and we have no further conditions'. ...what tha, this sounds like a mindf*ck.
Morganthau probably prolonged the war.
I want to highlight something thats kind of important for the debate.
You said paraphrased: "the treaty of versailles had no war guilt clause and it was used by the germans for nationalist propaganda"
While what you said might be true, the opposite is what is currently being taught in history class of EVERY SINGLE german school. But not as a point of nationalism to strengthen anti-entente sentiments, but rather as a point of shame, which i find objectively worse.
We are being indoctrinated by the state school system that germany is guilty for everything and youre bad and you should feel bad, citing that supposed war guilt clause in versailles, that isnt even in there in the first place.
Hey Tik, how long do you plan to continue the Stalingrad series for? Do you have a specific part of the war or the Fall Blau campaign in which the series will conclude or is this still tbd?
The fighting will end on the 2nd of February 1943, but there were some holdouts going beyond that which I'll briefly cover. I suspect there will also be a wrap up / analysis episode (or maybe more) for the whole campaign. I won't be covering in any detail what happened to Paulus after he surrendered since Anton Joly has a extremely good series on that already so my plan is to just link to that. But otherwise, there's no real plan. I suspect we've got at least another dozen episodes left, easily, especially with the discussion involving whether Paulus could have broken out and whether Manstein actually gave the "order" or not.
@@TheImperatorKnight Nooooo, your fanbase won't accept anything but an hourly analysis of the rest of the war up until September 2, 1945. Our lives will be empty without it! Please oblige, k thx
@@TheImperatorKnight Do you plan end the series this february? or is too early for this ( since every chaper is apox one week)
@@brunomancuso7798 There's no chance I can get it done by February, even if I dropped everything else. It takes a week to script and a week for me to edit each episode. My new editor simply can't edit or animate as fast as me, and they'd have no chance. They're actually shocked that I can even edit a Stalingrad video in one week, probably not realizing that I spend something like 60 to 70 hours animating each one. This is why I'm struggling enough as it is doing them every 4 weeks - it's just too much. I'm absolutely exhausted, and it's Stalingrad that's killing me.
Also, I'll add that my new editor hasn't got up to speed yet and is still causing me more work than they're taking off me. This is why I'm struggling to keep up, and why I missed an video a couple weeks back. I'm sure in the future they'll save me time, but right now I'm in trouble.
19:09 Strangley from that perspective, one can say WWII was about Germany wanting the rest of Europe to join them in fighting Russia, when the rest of Europe wanted Germany to join them in fighting Russia.
WWII was about who would be in charge of fighting of Russia, while Russia rofl stomped Europe.
"The purpose of NATO is to keep the Americans in, the Soviets out, and the Germans down"
And one point you didn't make: negotiating with people who has already proven themselves to be untrustworthy, is an exercise in stupidity. The Nazi's and Japanese had both proven themselves to be untrustworthy, so it was pointless to negotiate with them. And we've seen plenty of conflicts since then where negotiations were just an opportunity for the other side to improve their military position, without any serious desire for peace on any terms other than their own. Unfortunately there are still people today who don't get this.
It is important to understand that the unconditional surrender position was adopted not only for the European theater, but for the Pacific as well.
Many today forget that the Japanese embraced a formal policy of national resistance. The civilian populace, even school children, were trained in hand-to-hand combat and told to prepare for “the glorious death of the 100 million.” Think about it. If they were willing to die almost literally to the last man for a rock in the Tarawa atoll, what difference does Allied policy make in the minds of the Japanese war lords. These are folks who tried to overthrow the Emperor after Japan had been bombed into oblivion (including two nuclear bombs). There was nothing rational about their mental processes. In the end, they effectively secured terms short of unconditional (they got to keep their Emperor), but for the record it was unconditional.
Curious what your take is on this aspect of the issue.
I _really_ want to complain that the people running the country were willing to sacrifice the entire rest of the country to get better surrender terms... but then I think about what little I know about the previous four or five decades of Japanese politics*, my ignorance on these particular individuals, and I realize I don't know that they don't include themselves in the 'expendable' category.
*Primarily what I know is that policy differences were often sorted out by 'patriotic' assassination of the opposition's spokesperson. Once nobody was willing to argue for your opponents' position, your side won the argument.
As long as Japanese history goes, in my many years of studying Japanese history both from Japanese sources and sources in other languages, the opinion that the Allied policy of ‘unconditional surrender’ prolonged WW2 is very common. As far as I read, the Japanese were ready to surrender a long time before the nuclear bombs were used, but they were only willing to surrender under certain conditions. According to many sources, they still wouldn't surrender unconditionally even after the nuclear attacks. The (non nuclear) fire bombings, which were already going on before the nuclear attacks, continued for some time after the nuclear attacks, before the Japanese emperor used his veto power over the government and the army to stop the war and officially surrender unconditionally. At that time, there were talks of not only taking all executive powers away from the Empror after the surrender, but also there were talks of taking away even his title and status. In the end, only the executive powers were taken, because the Americans feared an uprising among Japanese people if they took away the Emperors title and status. Or so I've read.
Thanks TIK! Another great video! 🙏🙏
The only "unconditional surrender" that I know of is that of the "stick to tanks" crowd leading to the prolonging and further production of more eco videos.
The more people tell me not to do something, the more I do it.
This is precisely why I read up on Mises and Rothbard. Everyone was screaming at me for "just believing Mises and Rothbard" when I hadn't actually read them. After arguing back that I hadn't read them, I began to wonder why they were so adamant that I had read them. So I picked up some of Mises' books (like his book "Socialism", and later his "Omnipotent Government") and realized that I'd independently come to the same conclusions as them regarding National Socialism based on the evidence, and then discovered that their economics was not only far superior to all the socialist "economics" (politics) that I was brainwashed with, but it opened my eyes to an entirely different way of looking at the world that wasn't what I had presumed the "conservative extremist right-wing racist nut-job" world view to be.
Turns out that Mises and Rothbard aren't conservatives, aren't extremists, aren't "right-wing", aren't "racists", aren't sexists, and aren't nut-jobs... It turns out that all those insults are just that - insults, designed to make people assume the worst and therefore not pick up their books in the first place. But actually, their books make a lot more sense than the nonsense that Marx, Keynes or any of the lamestream media come out with.
@@TheImperatorKnight Wait mainstream economics is socialist? Keynes/Friedman are socialist?
@@TheImperatorKnight Don't read Simon Newman's "March 1939: The British Guarantee to Poland" then.
The way that I have established the so called 'policy of appeasement' offered by Chamberlain, was an attempt by him to allow Britain to rearm, a policy of which was harshly opposed by Churchill, who did not want a military build up to occur at all. Chamberlain was desperate for a properly rearmed Britain, prepared for a coming conflict. Your thoughts on that TIK.
I don't think I'd want to be in charge of managing the powderkeg that was post-WW1 Germany had they unconditionally surrendered.
Decent subtitles, love it! Can always be counted upon to go that extra mile our TIK 🙂
Hi TIK, very nice video. The main points to me are: 1) i think UK was right in considering a total defeat of Germany counter productive on the long run (Cold war) and 2) i am not 100% sure that iron curtain would have reached the Rhine. Without lend lease support and without the Western Allies tying up troops in France and Italy Germany might have had a chance to stabilize the eastern front forcing Stalin to accept a compromise as well (eg. Germany with frontiers of 1939)
I don't think Germany would had the slightest chance of stopping Russia without help. By any stage when a 'Western peace' might have been considered Russia had More than enough material to Finnish the job.
I would have fully supported supplying or even fighting with the Germans UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS. But by ekk it would have had to of had a lot of planning.
There are so many difficulties to be sorted out and agreements made. The yanks would not have helped and after years of, (insane,) praise for Russia and Stalin's public opinion would need adjusting but we could have done it.
I was one of those people who looked at this on the surface only. This video has definitely changed my perspective on the matter.
I spent thirty minutes writing and sourcing a post for the Stab in the Back theory and why Jews were blamed and the channel owner deleted it lmao.
youtube gestapo censorship auto-deletes everything nowadays
I don't think TIK would delete any comment, he is very honest. I think it's the site automatic bot which operates a censorship when it deletes certain words, such as the one beginning with J, that you probably used several times in your post (and I don't use it exactly so that you can read my post).
This is where Hitler being a legitimate “mad man” comes from. Hitler was never going to surrender under any conditions and the soviets were never going to accept it politely.
My view.
Roosevelt became a true traitor. He went from being an isolationist and protectionist president to giving Stalin the dance and selling half of Europe to the USSR, at the same time that he stabbed his own ally Churchill in the back, claiming that he wanted to end British imperialism. Thomas Urban in his book on the Katyn massacre states that Roosevelt turned a blind eye to the reports that came in about the graves, as well as that many men in his cabinet were openly communists.
He also wanted to allow the Morgenthau Plan, which would turn Germany basically into a rural desert, of happening to the disgust of Churchill and the people themselves.
FDR's VP, Henry Wallace, favored socialism. His people in Moscow in 1941 praised "Uncle Joe" and defended Stalin's purges as a necessary evil to restructure the USSR. for the better.
Thanks for all your videos TIK hope you had a great thanksgiving
So Tik, what do you think would have happened after WWI if the Hohenzollerns, Wittelsbachs, and Habsburgs weren't forced to abdicate?
A lot of things would have been different, but it probably wouldn't have been better or worse.
Well they were forced to abdicate by their own people.
@@samsonsoturian6013 I can't imagine Wilhelm III would be as despotic as the Mustache Man, even though I despise monarchy generally. Honestly Europe was stitched up a lot better and frankly just looked better with central Europe divvied up between the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the German Empire, so long as everyone kept Russia from collapsing they'd remain enough of a check on Europe that they'd have to think twice before engaging.
@@Pantsinabucket Not by their people for most. Rather bunch of revolutionaries took opportunities from the chaos to seized power for themselves
As TIK points out, the culture of Prussian militarism would have remained intact, and one assumes that many of the same postwar dynamics leading to Hitler's rise (who was supported by the Kaiser's generals) would have pertained. So, maybe, not much. But at the end of the day, they were forced out by their own enraged populations.
What's the difference between "unconditional surrender" with the total annihilation of the enemy... and genocide? The Serbs only wanted "unconditional surrender" from the Bosnians. Why does everyone accuse the Serbs of ""war crimes"" and ""crimes against humanity"" when they did the same thing that FDR and the Communists did to Germany?
*"The Serbs only wanted"*
*"Why does everyone accuse the Serbs of ""war crimes"" "*
Probably because "what X wanted" does not equal "what X did", especially for "X *only* wanted" variant, ie. a bs obfuscation or flimsy excuse.
Lunatic, was there a genocide in Germany? Well,except for the extermination of the Jews by the Germans themselves.
As a Socialist your videos are some of the best on UA-cam (military videos)
@The Wandering Jew no. jew.
@The Wandering Jew why
Translation: "I conveniently ignore anything I don't like that runs contrary to my narrative"
If TIK is wrong about economics, why wouldn't he also be wrong about everything else?
@@SonofTiamat ya know some people have areas of expertise within politics and history and have weakspots
@@real_yunicellular You have a FNAF avatar, so your opinion is invalid
now Israel wishes to have Hamas to accept "unconditional surrender", and it truly prolong the current Israel-Hamas conflict...
Well done, but I disagree with the conclusion. The Soviets tried to do an unconditional surrender on the Finns. The Finns took it to the Soviets and beat them so bad that the Soviets finally came back and offered conditional surrender. The Finns were able to exit the war intact and stronger than before but accepting the new Soviet borders and terms. We could have avoided the whole Cold War and the loss of Eastern Europe had we just taken the rest of Europe from the Germans before the Soviets could. Then taken a conditional surrender of the Germans leaving the country intact and a better ally against the Soviets. The Germans fought against the Soviets with all they had, while they would surrender to the Americans in droves. We could have saved a lot lives, time and money going about it this way, even if we would have lost the Soviet support.
What a bullshit. For the West the war turned out better than ever, and the Soviet Union itself collapsed in the early 90s without a war. The communist countries of the Warsaw Bloc collapsed even earlier.
My professor also said that the war guilt clause was a misinterpretation resulting from a mistranslation too!
It does seem a bit silly to blame the Allies for the actions of the Germans tbh. ‘Oh the evil Allies for not treating the Germans with more mercy’ like please…
Excellent analysis as usual. Nothing is ever simple is it? I appreciate TIK's explanation and his quoting of Armstrong that in the abstract it was a war of good against evil, and therefore a fight to the finish.
Patton would have been more than happy to join the Wehrmacht in a renewed campaign against the Soviets.
How could countries make a treaty with a country that has consistently broken every treaty?
"We never really let the Germans know who won the war. They are being told that their army was stabbed in the back, betrayed, that their army had not been defeated. The Germans never believed they were beaten. It will have to be done all over again…."
- Pershing (1923)
Oou...
1: Nobody could agree on a post war settlement so they decided to cross the bridge when they got to it.
2: The possible conditions of surrender would have been so harsh Germany wouldn't have accepted them.
Without a doubt Germany's goal for the USSR when it launched Barbarossa was its unconditional surrender...if not unconditional annihilation. From the very start, Hitler had no interest in fighting the British and its allies (or anyone else besides Russia)...having (foolishly?) spared the British army at Dunkirk, and having sent up various back-channel peace "feelers" to the British during the earlier years of the war.
A Soviet-initiated insistence on unconditional surrender would have been justifiable and logical, given the existential life-death struggle with Germany on the eastern front. From the perspective of the British and its American ally, though, no such existential threat (or threat of any kind) was posed by Germany. In fact, the opposite was the case. Germany desired nothing more than to be a good trading partner and cooperative world affairs administrator with its western counterparts (curiously enough, not much unlike the situation in which Russia finds itself with regard to Ukraine and its western puppet masters today). So, you could just as well chalk it up to typical British imperial intransigence and nastiness to have rejected, out of hand, Germany's early "peace feelers" and insist, in advance, on the "unconditional surrender" of Germany...and Germany alone, among the opposing combatant nations (is this a clue?).
The idea of the US being the chief instigator of the "unconditional surrender" policy, on the other hand, would assume the Americans to have had a much larger, perhaps even transcendental, reason for insinuating itself onto another European war and seeking the complete and total capitulation of a distant European nation it had no direct and actual grievance with...a transcendental reason that some among the British may very well have shared. After all, the notorious Morganthau Plan originated in the US...not Russia - though the Soviets with good reason might have found the plan appealing.
Nevertheless, it's quite obvious that the unconditional surrender policy of the allies extended the war by the simple fact that it would take time and a lot of destruction to achieve that end...and all German entreaties to seek an early end to the hostilities (at least with the British) were rejected early on. Besides, it's difficult to see how the Soviets could have accepted anything less than Germany's total surrender...and Hitler's shrunken head still steaming in a silver samovar.
There are two kinds of people in this world...puppets, and puppet masters. When looking at momentous historical events, they almost never make sense or proffer answers until one begins to look for, and identify and distinguish between an event's true puppets and true puppet masters (for instance, we still have no satisfactory answers to the who and why of WW1). The puppet masters are always obscured, as the eyes of most of the world are focused on the puppet show. So there can never be an understanding of these events and their causes until and unless the puppeteers are revealed...which is rare. And more than 100 years after those wars, the true puppet masters remain obscure...our understanding of those events and their causes (at least by us plebes) remains muddled...and "TIKhistory" will always have enough historical loose ends to work with to continue making this interesting and highly entertaining content...if not to solve some of histories great puzzles and mysteries, then at least for shits and grins, and they say.
Churchill hated Germany, always had, he kept blockade intact after 1918 armistice... Truman hated Germans, he was artillery guy in WWI. That's why they wanted to crush Germany. You cannot ignore those facts and they certainly wanted Germany destroyed. Why you think they did "strategic bombing" after knowing it wasn't working. I agree that the end of the war, territory distribution, was inevitable for peace and all Nazis had to step down, but you know the Nazi's simply changed parties and continued to be in government. So, yeah unconditional surrender did prolong the war... Soviets needed it so they could rob all German wealth, industry in their zones which is the only reason soviets survived for 45 more years... Plus this was our appeasing of Soviets which still didn't work. Oh, notice how we now have good vs evil in politics? Guess what comes next...
"One day President Roosevelt told me that he was asking publicly for suggestions about what the war should be called. I said at once 'The unnecessary War.' There never was a war more easy to stop than that which has just wrecked what was left of the world from the previous struggle" -War mongering criminal Sir Winston Churchill (Page xviii of Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War by Patrick J. Buchanan.)
But I think, that the articel 231 states, that the allies blame Germany for causing the war. So the Point that: they had not blamed germany for the war, is untrue. But I agree in the Point, that Germany used this article for exeexcessive Propaganda...as a reason for vengance
Edit: * vengeance
"Germany's unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which world finance couldn't profit anymore. ...We butchered the wrong pig." -- Winston Churchill (The Second World War - Bern, 1960)
The authenticity of this quote is highly questionable
@@silverhost9782 how?
@@CannibaLouiST A quick Google search will reveal why easily enough. In short, it was made up by the then leader of the Islamic party of Britain, who provided no source or proof that Churchill ever said it
Its crime was that it started the war
@@Spiderfisch against Poland.
I was here when you had 10k subs. Onwards to the half mil!
Congrats to all of you who is early and found this comment 💫
Another Great Video! Excellent work TIK!
For once I completely agree with Roosevelt: WW2 happened because the result has been blured in WW1 by premature ending, letting think to the Germans that they did not really been beaten and that's it's only because of treason from the politics: the country itself didn't suffer enough. There, the ruins of Berlin definitivaly convinced them that there was no doubts to the effective result: you have been beaten to the last man, you had been conqured to the last square kilometer and now you'll pay the true price of an other war mongering without a tomorow chance to rebuilt an belligerent army.
Great work here Sir and your Team
Hard stance on Germany, Soft stance on the Soviet Union ..
“No separate peace”, which I think was the main policy by the West, would have been even less popular with the German Army than unconditional surrender. I agree that bring diplomatically vague was a benefit.
First
I think it's joint FIRST! So I'll give it you
The seen and the unseen. This seems to be the case evermore so with the Internet, but now it can take just a few minutes for the "seen" to become fact and the unseen just drifts away into the mists of time.
okay, but what about using unconditional surrender against japan?
There was also the factor of the embarrassment surrounding the surrender of Admiral Darlan. He had negotiated the liberation of French North Africa, but had also been a high-ranking official in the Vichy government. Unconditional surrender was seen as a way to prevent collaborators and war criminals from escaping post-war justice.