WW II last war won by the "Good Guys*

[Sgt Barker]

In the Second World War, Fuller argues that Churchill committed a major blunder at the beginning of the war by declaring that the total defeat of Germany was England's sole aim and that England would ally herself with any nation that fought against Hitler's Germany. If Churchill was to have declared the removal of Hitler and his Nazi regime as his prime war objective Britain could have worked at establishing contact and collaborating with groups of Germans disaffected with Hitler. But by making the country itself the focus of victory Churchill ended up strengthening the resolve of the German people.

Fuller makes some good points, but given recent (and even not so recent when I think about it), history I have to disagree with this line of reasoning.

History doesn't show "regime change" being viable in the short or medium term without direct intervention, either covert or overt. Covert only works against unsophisticated foes, and would never have worked against Germany. The notion of a "revolt of the high command," with or without outside help, is revisionist, driven by apologists for empowerment of the NAZI regime by the military.

The idea that US & British demands for "unconditional surrender" is what hardened the high command is false, shown by the many contacts by Germans late in the war to offer local & regional surrenders. The vast majority of the military establishment simply believed in victory or at least stalemate (depending on how late the war we're talking about), or were duty bound unto death to follow orders, or a combination of the two. That's what kept the war going as long as it did. Not the demand for unconditional surrender.

The resolve of the people themselves was also only mildly or not at all affected by unconditional surrender. We seem to think that the populace had access to complete, unbaised and truthful information; nothing could be further from the truth. If there had been no call for unconditional surrender the German government would have created it, or something like it, to help motivate the people in a do-or-die cause. At any rate that do-or-die motivation - not just you, your family, the government, whatever, but your RACE was at stake - had been a part of the culture for close to a decade. They were fighting animals, inferiors, genetic poison. That's motivation enough to explain the fanaticism and longevity of the war. Claiming that the proclamation of heads of state about unconditional surrender was what hardened them flies in the face of reason when compared.

In short the thesis that the allies, specifically the western allies, caused the suffering of Germany by calling for unconditional surrender doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Neither the command nor populace was driven by it to do anything they weren't already doing (continue fighting) by other, deeper, convictions and motivations.