I'm no stormfag, Hitler conquering Europe would not have been a good outcome for the non-Germans. That being said, the Allies' requirement for unconditional surrender led to far more destruction than what was needed.
Specifically with regard to "balance of power", yes Germany needed to be taken down a notch. But we didn't do that- we completely wiped them out, teaming up with Marxists to do so, thus enabling them to extend their influence over most of Eastern Europe, completely messing up the power balance in the region.
A united self ruling Germany, neighbored by a Western Europe that was not totally destroyed by war, would have been a better counterbalance to the Soviets, than what we got- a divided Germany and a devastated Western Europe dependent on the US. Then you have to factor in the post-war Marxist infiltration of government and academia that was directly and indirectly caused by the Soviets, leading to much of the issues we face today.
Taking those points into account, it is logical to say that the outcome of WW2 that we got, was not a good one and that better outcomes were possible.
For the best "balance of power" outcome, we should have pushed the Germans back into Germany, let them sue for peace, then withdraw Lend-lease from Russia and let the Germans and Soviets duke it out.
I specifically mentioned balance of power, but things would also have been way worse in humanitarian terms if Hitler had won. Particularly in the east.
That being said, the Allies' requirement for unconditional surrender led to far more destruction than what was needed.
The national socialist regime was not going to surrender either way. And without a demand for unconditional surrender, this may have led Stalin to make a separate peace with the Germans. And Western leaders were very interested in making sure that it would continue to be Russians who would die fighting the Germans, rather than their tax base.
Taking those points into account, it is logical to say that the outcome of WW2 that we got, was not a good one and that better outcomes were possible.
That the outcome of World War II was not good is beyond question. The question is whether a better outcome was possible by a way other than fantasy. I do not think so. If the cowardly politicians had acted in 1936 or 1938, then sure, the outcome would have been far better, but by the time Germany was too strong, there was no other option than to side with the Soviets against the Germans.
For the best "balance of power" outcome, we should have pushed the Germans back into Germany, let them sue for peace, then withdraw Lend-lease from Russia and let the Germans and Soviets duke it out.
Not particularly. Then you would have been better off never getting involved to begin with. But the truth of the matter is that a Germany in possession of the Soviet Union, and ruled by aggressive, belligerent Nazis, would be a lethal threat to the rest of Europe. Which is why Britain and France declared war on Germany to begin with.
Balance of power means that you don't let your enemies get too powerful. When two major powers fight, and one completely overwhelms the other, then it becomes too powerful by definition.
You're not wrong there but
that is the worst example you could have picked.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C-tiC6KWsAE5MQn.jpg
Nah, that statement is dumb. Simple balance of power logic dictated siding with the USSR against Hitler.
And where did that get us today?
I'm no stormfag, Hitler conquering Europe would not have been a good outcome for the non-Germans. That being said, the Allies' requirement for unconditional surrender led to far more destruction than what was needed.
Specifically with regard to "balance of power", yes Germany needed to be taken down a notch. But we didn't do that- we completely wiped them out, teaming up with Marxists to do so, thus enabling them to extend their influence over most of Eastern Europe, completely messing up the power balance in the region.
A united self ruling Germany, neighbored by a Western Europe that was not totally destroyed by war, would have been a better counterbalance to the Soviets, than what we got- a divided Germany and a devastated Western Europe dependent on the US. Then you have to factor in the post-war Marxist infiltration of government and academia that was directly and indirectly caused by the Soviets, leading to much of the issues we face today.
Taking those points into account, it is logical to say that the outcome of WW2 that we got, was not a good one and that better outcomes were possible.
For the best "balance of power" outcome, we should have pushed the Germans back into Germany, let them sue for peace, then withdraw Lend-lease from Russia and let the Germans and Soviets duke it out.
Compared to what, and in what respect?
I specifically mentioned balance of power, but things would also have been way worse in humanitarian terms if Hitler had won. Particularly in the east.
The national socialist regime was not going to surrender either way. And without a demand for unconditional surrender, this may have led Stalin to make a separate peace with the Germans. And Western leaders were very interested in making sure that it would continue to be Russians who would die fighting the Germans, rather than their tax base.
That the outcome of World War II was not good is beyond question. The question is whether a better outcome was possible by a way other than fantasy. I do not think so. If the cowardly politicians had acted in 1936 or 1938, then sure, the outcome would have been far better, but by the time Germany was too strong, there was no other option than to side with the Soviets against the Germans.
Not particularly. Then you would have been better off never getting involved to begin with. But the truth of the matter is that a Germany in possession of the Soviet Union, and ruled by aggressive, belligerent Nazis, would be a lethal threat to the rest of Europe. Which is why Britain and France declared war on Germany to begin with.
Balance of power means that you don't let your enemies get too powerful. When two major powers fight, and one completely overwhelms the other, then it becomes too powerful by definition.