Camp that held Rommel's men surrenders its secrets

Well during the era of the Clan which by the way still technically exist, which ever clan controlled Kyoto, their Daimyō would then become Shogun if my knowledge is correct. So technically a Shogun is a military leader but I think Daimyo is technically a civilian who just happens to know how to fight like a Samurai.

One way to think about this subject is in terms of bargaining power. An unconditional German surrender eliminates all German bargaining power. That would leave the Soviet Union and the Western democracies with all the bargaining power, and also in a position to collectively determine what to do with postwar Germany.

It’s also worth considering the level of negotiating determination, and negotiating objectives in the first place. Churchill was interested in a democratic postwar Europe. FDR’s interest in spreading democracy or resisting communism was much weaker than Churchill’s. On the other hand, a Soviet-American postwar alliance was very important to FDR. There is little reason to suppose that FDR would raise strong objections to the Soviets getting about half of Germany’s prewar land territory. (Which was about what they received under Yalta.)

If things went badly for Stalin at the negotiating table, he could always point out that the Red Army had the ability to take what it wanted by force. Between the power of that threat and FDR’s intrinsic lack of interest in stopping the spread of communism, I think it would be very unlikely that the Soviet Union would come away from an unconditional surrender with anything less than half of prewar Germany under its control.

@ABWorsham:

Stug III if I get off the first shot.

If the engagement is any longer than the first shot, give me the T-34.

By the way love the question.

Me too. Sorry I did not say, Aequitas.

Thanks Marc.  I often visit the BBC site but dont often go to the england section.  Missed this one!

I would have doubled the committment in Africa.

If you end it there, you end it for Britain after the fall of Egypt.  Opening a third front -with- Arab allies on the communists.

Haile Selassie’s words were to ring true. Four more years the Western Powers allowed Hitler, Mussolini and Japan  to take what parts of the world they wished.
It was only arrogant errors by those same leaders that saw them reversed after some years and millions of deaths.

The defeat of Leningrad would have been easier than Stalingrad.

The loss of Moscow would have been much greater loss than Baku and resulted in a shortening of the front of which a latter southern drive could succeed without fear of getting cut off because at that point all logistical support for Soviets would be coming entirely east of the Don and this country is not too developed. The last Soviet Factories would be in range of Axis bombers and the front would have rolled up more easily, than committing the 6th to Stalingrad with all other Soviet logistical and political objectives are intact allowing easy reinforcement from rail heads running south from Moscow.

all the best NATO military testing facilities

Canada should get an award for that. Most important thing ever!