12-16-2017, 09:02 PM
(12-16-2017, 08:42 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote:(12-16-2017, 07:47 PM)Cynic Hero Wrote: > On the contrary the facts show that WW2 probably would have ended
> shortly after the battles of Normandy and Saipan in mid-1944
> rather than the historical end dates in mid-1945 had the US not
> been wedded to the childish policy of unconditional surrender and
> regime change.
No that's not true. You're thinking of a non-crisis war. A
generational crisis war like WW II is a fight to the death, and does
not end in any sort of compromise or settlement. It requires an
"explosive climax," something so horrific that it stops both losers
and winners from fighting further, makes them vow to spend their whole
lives making sure it doesn't happen again. WW II could not end before
such events as the firebombing of Dresden, the fall of Berlin, and the
nuking of Japan.
"the facts show that ... probably" -- what weasel words -- can I call
you a stand-up comedian yet?
Without unconditional surrender Hitler would have been assassinated either by the army or even by the nazis themselves. Japanese leaders acknowledged behind closed doors that they lost the war after saipan and marianas turkey shoot. The US historically however insisted on unconditional surrender and regime change which the militarists adamantly resisted because they would have been executed by the allies after the war. Without unconditional surrender they would have had no reason to attempt a fight to the end.
I've noticed you completely ignored my second point about the post-WW2 world a non-completely destroyed Germany and Japan would have been useful buffers against the soviets. Thus we would not have had to fight the cold war. The Dominant boomer Conclusion that we should have worked to democratize Russia and China is what is utter nonsense. Once again, can Boomers imagine how BORING the current saeculum would have been without the Communist USSR, Communist China, and the Arab and Asian nationalist states.
