Is "Civil Disobedience" a legitimate tool to effect government change?

[CLAX1911]

Is "Civil Disobedience" a legitimate tool to effect government change?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/civil-disobedience

Quote from linked article:
"Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or nonexistent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes, however, and known by actor and public alike to be punishable, that such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change. Under the imperative of setting a moral example, leaders of civil disobedience insist that the illegal actions be nonviolent."

Emphasis in bold mine.

When done properly it works. We can look at prohibition or sit-ins during the sixties Civil Rights Movement.

 

[Jredbaron96]

That's quite a speculation you have there, especially considering that we still don't know the details of the peace treaty that Hitler offered to Britain.

Because it was a meaningless gesture that meant nothing. Hitler was fond of throwing out ideas in various directions and seeing what stuck. He did that often during his early years of international relations.

Further, why are you so convinced that the Soviets would have been completely defeated? How far deep into Russia do you think the Nazis could have gotten using horses to maintain their supply lines?

Whether or not the Soviets would've been defeated had the Western Allies (specifically America) not been involved is a question that will likely never be fully answered. But even so, your argument is poor in either case.

If the Nazis lose, they are free to implement their plans of General Plan Ost to their full extent, which will kill hundreds of millions of people. Hitler's kill count will rocket even higher and the very thing you lament, the murder of innocents, will only increase ten fold.

Or the Soviets defeat the Nazis. Except because there is no Western Front (because the US doesn't join in), there's nothing stopping the Soviets from pushing beyond Berlin. If they could defeat Germany, what was stopping them from seizing France, Italy, and the rest of Europe sans Spain and Britain. Now the entire continent is under communist control, not just the East, and what you said was the primary problem (Soviet domination of Eastern Europe) has only been magnified.

 

[Jredbaron96]

This is a point just begging for evidence.

Oh, too easy.

This is a map demonstrating how the Germans intended to colonize Eastern Europe after the USSR was defeated. It was part of an overall strategic plan called Generalplan Ost, or General Plan for the East. It was the Nazi ideal of what would follow the defeat of the Soviet Union and the seizure of it's territory for usage by colonizing Germans. Here are some of the details.

• The extermination of the Polish people. Yes, the entire annihilation of nearly 40 million Poles was to be carried out. According to the Nazis, the Polish were a subhuman mutt people who had soiled good Aryan genes by mixing with Slavs, therefore they were worthy only of extinction.
• The population of the Soviet Union, all 190 million of them, are to be either enslaved, expelled to Siberia, or exterminated. Seeing as Siberian expulsion is just about the same as a death sentence for most people, that's 2/3rds of the Soviet population killed.
• While such visions were never realized or planned out due to the reality around late 1942 that the war would not result in a sure victory, it can be inferred from Nazi documentation and testimony that the Nazis intended to rewrite the racial makeup of Europe in general, eliminating those considered un-Aryan and leaving the continent alone for the German people. How this would've been carried out isn't entirely certain, but given the framework laid out in previous Nazi planning, it's safe to assume this included murdered or expelling millions more.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Hitler convinced them that German minorities in Poland were being persecuted. They had no knowledge of the Holocaust. How guilty were the civilians really?

Very guilty actually. Most Germans were aware of the Holocaust and the murder of the Jews, and Hitler remained very popular up until the final weeks of the war.

 

[phattonez]

Because it was a meaningless gesture that meant nothing. Hitler was fond of throwing out ideas in various directions and seeing what stuck. He did that often during his early years of international relations.



Whether or not the Soviets would've been defeated had the Western Allies (specifically America) not been involved is a question that will likely never be fully answered. But even so, your argument is poor in either case.

If the Nazis lose, they are free to implement their plans of General Plan Ost to their full extent, which will kill hundreds of millions of people. Hitler's kill count will rocket even higher and the very thing you lament, the murder of innocents, will only increase ten fold.

Or the Soviets defeat the Nazis. Except because there is no Western Front (because the US doesn't join in), there's nothing stopping the Soviets from pushing beyond Berlin. If they could defeat Germany, what was stopping them from seizing France, Italy, and the rest of Europe sans Spain and Britain. Now the entire continent is under communist control, not just the East, and what you said was the primary problem (Soviet domination of Eastern Europe) has only been magnified.

Just a note to clear up a lot of confusion. I don't think the US had a choice. After Pearl Harbor and Hitler declaring war on Germany, I have no problem with the US going in and defeating Nazi Germany. What I do have a problem with is directly aiding Stalin and ignoring his many war crimes.

And for Britain, what ultimately did they fight for? They declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland, but then they declare victory after the other country who invaded Poland dominates it? It makes no sense.

 

[phattonez]

Very guilty actually. Most Germans were aware of the Holocaust and the murder of the Jews, and Hitler remained very popular up until the final weeks of the war.

Even the US Holocaust Memorial Museum disagrees with you.

The Nazi leadership aimed to deceive the German population, the victims, and the outside world regarding their genocidal policy toward Jews. What did ordinary Germans know about the persecution and mass murder of Jews? Despite the public broadcast and publication of general statements about the goal of eliminating “the Jews,” the regime practiced a propaganda of deception by hiding specific details about the “Final Solution,” and press controls prevented Germans from reading statements by Allied and Soviet leaders condemning German crimes.

https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007822

 

[Jredbaron96]

Even the US Holocaust Memorial Museum disagrees with you.

Which means nothing, because it's directly contradicted by multiple indepth studies formulated by interviews with actual Germans who lived during the war. Robert Gellately's study from 1990 is probably the single most damning work on it, since it collectively proves that the average German was aware of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany's anti-Jewish endeavors.

 

[Jredbaron96]

And for Britain, what ultimately did they fight for? They declared war on Germany because they invaded Poland, but then they declare victory after the other country who invaded Poland dominates it? It makes no sense.

What do you think would've had happened to Poland if

A) We let Nazi Germany retain control of it instead of the USSR

or B) We tried to fight Stalin over it?

 

[phattonez]

Oh, too easy.

This is a map demonstrating how the Germans intended to colonize Eastern Europe after the USSR was defeated. It was part of an overall strategic plan called Generalplan Ost, or General Plan for the East. It was the Nazi ideal of what would follow the defeat of the Soviet Union and the seizure of it's territory for usage by colonizing Germans. Here are some of the details.

• The extermination of the Polish people. Yes, the entire annihilation of nearly 40 million Poles was to be carried out. According to the Nazis, the Polish were a subhuman mutt people who had soiled good Aryan genes by mixing with Slavs, therefore they were worthy only of extinction.
• The population of the Soviet Union, all 190 million of them, are to be either enslaved, expelled to Siberia, or exterminated. Seeing as Siberian expulsion is just about the same as a death sentence for most people, that's 2/3rds of the Soviet population killed.
• While such visions were never realized or planned out due to the reality around late 1942 that the war would not result in a sure victory, it can be inferred from Nazi documentation and testimony that the Nazis intended to rewrite the racial makeup of Europe in general, eliminating those considered un-Aryan and leaving the continent alone for the German people. How this would've been carried out isn't entirely certain, but given the framework laid out in previous Nazi planning, it's safe to assume this included murdered or expelling millions more.

You're assuming that Nazis could take over all of Russia, could carry out repression of hundreds of millions of people, and face no resistance at home or any kind of rebellion. All of it is incredibly unlikely. Further, while consensus estimates are that Stalin did in fact kill 20 million, we don't actually know for sure how many (Solzhenitsyn says 60 million).

Look, I understand that you want to just argue a Nazi. It's really simple to do, and had you been arguing a Nazi this post would have worked. But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that if the US does not send aid to Stalin, that Stalin doesn't conquer Eastern Europe. At the same time, Hitler still probably can't hold on to Russia. Once the Western Front was open, even a weakened Russia would be able to expel Nazis. They were simply overextended, and they wouldn't be able to carry out a two-front war while maintaining command of the Soviet Union. What would have happened instead is that Nazi Germany still gets defeated, but this time by Britain and the US instead of the Soviet Union. Only Britain and the US (and France) occupy Germany, there is no Communism in Eastern Germany (outside of Russia), and there is no Cold War.

You seem to say that without US direct aid to Stalin, that Hitler would have won WWII. That's highly doubtful. We could have gone in without giving Stalin Jeeps and food to help him conquer Eastern Europe.

 

[phattonez]

Which means nothing, because it's directly contradicted by multiple indepth studies formulated by interviews with actual Germans who lived during the war. Robert Gellately's study from 1990 is probably the single most damning work on it, since it collectively proves that the average German was aware of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany's anti-Jewish endeavors.

Germans were aware of anti-Jewish attitudes, ghettos, and the like. Were they aware of systematic killing of people? No. Why else would the allies feel the need to force German citizens through concentration camps after the war? Shouldn't they have all already known about it?

 

[phattonez]

What do you think would've had happened to Poland if

A) We let Nazi Germany retain control of it instead of the USSR

or B) We tried to fight Stalin over it?

I don't think that we would have had to fight Stalin. Without US aid, Stalin can't rampage through Eastern Europe. The US, Britain, and France still would have destroyed Nazi Germany.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Germans were aware of anti-Jewish attitudes, ghettos, and the like. Were they aware of systematic killing of people? No.

Yes, they were. Not the day-to-day schedule of course, but yes, the Germans knew the Jews were being killed. It was not a secret at all.

Why else would the allies feel the need to force German citizens through concentration camps after the war? Shouldn't they have all already known about it?

Because the Allies were aware, through interviews and testimonies, that most Germans continued to like Hitler until the last days of the war, and they were determined to break the German people from that mindset.

 

[phattonez]

Yes, they were. Not the day-to-day schedule of course, but yes, the Germans knew the Jews were being killed. It was not a secret at all.



Because the Allies were aware, through interviews and testimonies, that most Germans continued to like Hitler until the last days of the war, and they were determined to break the German people from that mindset.

How do you break their mindset by showing them something that they supposedly already know exists?

 

[Jredbaron96]

How do you break their mindset by showing them something that they supposedly already know exists?

You don't find it even slightly troubling that most of the evidence of the claim the Germans didn't know what was happening comes from testimonies right after the war ended, when it would been in the interest of a lot of people to pretend to not have known anything about Holocaust?

Whereas the evidence that the Germans did know comes from during the war?

I'll level with you here for a second: It's an absolutely appalling thing to admit. Germany at the time composed roughly 70 million people. To contemplate the reality that 70 million people were willing to go along with such a murderous regime, and indeed commit horrible atrocities in the name of said regime while fighting fanatically against all odds to preserve said regime, all from a nation that just 30 years prior led the world in Nobel prizes, is profoundly disturbing.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You're assuming that Nazis could take over all of Russia, could carry out repression of hundreds of millions of people, and face no resistance at home or any kind of rebellion.

Well they did invade and repress millions of people in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Yugoslavia, Luxembourg, and Greece without facing resistance from home. So yeah, I am assuming that.

Further, while consensus estimates are that Stalin did in fact kill 20 million, we don't actually know for sure how many (Solzhenitsyn says 60 million).

We actually have a pretty good idea of how many people Stalin killed, because the NKVD kept it's records pretty accurate. It's roughly 7-10 million, anything higher and Soviet demographics simply don't support such a conclusion.

I'm saying that if the US does not send aid to Stalin, that Stalin doesn't conquer Eastern Europe. At the same time, Hitler still probably can't hold on to Russia. Once the Western Front was open, even a weakened Russia would be able to expel Nazis. They were simply overextended, and they wouldn't be able to carry out a two-front war while maintaining command of the Soviet Union. What would have happened instead is that Nazi Germany still gets defeated, but this time by Britain and the US instead of the Soviet Union. Only Britain and the US (and France) occupy Germany, there is no Communism in Eastern Germany (outside of Russia), and there is no Cold War..

I don't think that we would have had to fight Stalin. Without US aid, Stalin can't rampage through Eastern Europe. The US, Britain, and France still would have destroyed Nazi Germany.

I'll tackle these two questions together because they're pretty similar.

This is implausible for several reasons.

Up until the end of the war, the bulk of the Heer was concentrated in the East, including German's best Panzer and SS units. The Red Army tied down anywhere from 6-3 million Axis troops, while OB West (The German forces in the west) never exceeded more than 2 million.

Without Lend Lease Aid, the Soviets are forced to conduct their operations with much more limited logistics and firepower. The great Soviet offensives of late 1943-1944 don't take place, because the Red Army doesn't have the operational mobility or logistical capability to do so. This actually makes things a lot harder for the Western Allies, because so much of the German war machine was concentrated in the East. In our timeline, the Germans became increasingly desperate in 1944 as vast, swift moving Soviet formations cut into their defenses and threatened encirclement for dozens of German divisions. This stark reality that the Soviets were rapidly forcing back the Ostheer panicked the Germans, who in turn diverted increasingly large amounts of troops and supplies to stem the tide.

But without the Red Army's ability to launch such operations (so hinged on Lend Lease supplied trucks and supplies, which allowed the Soviets to focus on combat power versus logistics), the situation on the East is far less concerning. The inability of the Red Army to launch wide sweeping offensives reduces their actual threat level by a significant margin. The Ostheer no longer has to worry about being out maneuvered and surrounded because the Soviets simply can't do that, at least no where on the scale that they did in real life.

Which is a problem for the West. OB west was composed mostly of second rate reservists and under strength SS divisions. Not to diminish the sacrifice of American, British, Canadian and French troops, but their campaigns against the Germans were no on the same scale of intensity nor ferocity that the Soviets faced. But not facing a much more mobile and dangerous Red Army, the Germans have a lot easier time justifying the transfer of units from the east to the west, meaning the W. Allies face a much harder fight invading France.

Allied bombing, despite your misgivings, is a necessity. Between 1943-1944 Albert Speer drastically reorganized the German arms industry, transforming what had been woefully inefficient and corrupt system into a very powerful war machine that actually peaked German fighter production in 1944. Not bombing these cities simply isn't an option. To not to so is to allow the Germans to continue to produce arms to kill American and Commonwealth soldiers.

Given that the Allied rapid advance across France was only made possible because of a general retreat by the Germans (and only because OB West's position had been so badly mauled, not likely if they had been reinforced with units from the east), it's almost a certainty that the war in Europe lasts even longer.

And that brings me to my final note. The atom bomb was intended for use on Germany.

 

[phattonez]

You don't find it even slightly troubling that most of the evidence of the claim the Germans didn't know what was happening comes from testimonies right after the war ended, when it would been in the interest of a lot of people to pretend to not have known anything about Holocaust?

Whereas the evidence that the Germans did know comes from during the war?

I'll level with you here for a second: It's an absolutely appalling thing to admit. Germany at the time composed roughly 70 million people. To contemplate the reality that 70 million people were willing to go along with such a murderous regime, and indeed commit horrible atrocities in the name of said regime while fighting fanatically against all odds to preserve said regime, all from a nation that just 30 years prior led the world in Nobel prizes, is profoundly disturbing.

You're right, it does take a lot to believe that an entire nation can simply become evil. It takes far more than I am willing to believe.

Still, why would the Holocaust museum perpetuate something like that if it isn't true? How does that help their narrative?

 

[phattonez]

Well they did invade and repress millions of people in France, Belgium, Netherlands, Poland, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Norway, Yugoslavia, Luxembourg, and Greece without facing resistance from home. So yeah, I am assuming that.

I heard that the French had a pretty big resistance movement. I guess that must just be something Hollywood made up.

We actually have a pretty good idea of how many people Stalin killed, because the NKVD kept it's records pretty accurate. It's roughly 7-10 million, anything higher and Soviet demographics simply don't support such a conclusion.

You're intentionally not including man made famines.

I'll tackle these two questions together because they're pretty similar.

This is implausible for several reasons.

Up until the end of the war, the bulk of the Heer was concentrated in the East, including German's best Panzer and SS units. The Red Army tied down anywhere from 6-3 million Axis troops, while OB West (The German forces in the west) never exceeded more than 2 million.

Without Lend Lease Aid, the Soviets are forced to conduct their operations with much more limited logistics and firepower. The great Soviet offensives of late 1943-1944 don't take place, because the Red Army doesn't have the operational mobility or logistical capability to do so. This actually makes things a lot harder for the Western Allies, because so much of the German war machine was concentrated in the East. In our timeline, the Germans became increasingly desperate in 1944 as vast, swift moving Soviet formations cut into their defenses and threatened encirclement for dozens of German divisions. This stark reality that the Soviets were rapidly forcing back the Ostheer panicked the Germans, who in turn diverted increasingly large amounts of troops and supplies to stem the tide.

But without the Red Army's ability to launch such operations (so hinged on Lend Lease supplied trucks and supplies, which allowed the Soviets to focus on combat power versus logistics), the situation on the East is far less concerning. The inability of the Red Army to launch wide sweeping offensives reduces their actual threat level by a significant margin. The Ostheer no longer has to worry about being out maneuvered and surrounded because the Soviets simply can't do that, at least no where on the scale that they did in real life.

Which is a problem for the West. OB west was composed mostly of second rate reservists and under strength SS divisions. Not to diminish the sacrifice of American, British, Canadian and French troops, but their campaigns against the Germans were no on the same scale of intensity nor ferocity that the Soviets faced. But not facing a much more mobile and dangerous Red Army, the Germans have a lot easier time justifying the transfer of units from the east to the west, meaning the W. Allies face a much harder fight invading France.

Allied bombing, despite your misgivings, is a necessity. Between 1943-1944 Albert Speer drastically reorganized the German arms industry, transforming what had been woefully inefficient and corrupt system into a very powerful war machine that actually peaked German fighter production in 1944. Not bombing these cities simply isn't an option. To not to so is to allow the Germans to continue to produce arms to kill American and Commonwealth soldiers.

Given that the Allied rapid advance across France was only made possible because of a general retreat by the Germans (and only because OB West's position had been so badly mauled, not likely if they had been reinforced with units from the east), it's almost a certainty that the war in Europe lasts even longer.

And that brings me to my final note. The atom bomb was intended for use on Germany.

You have to understand. I understand tactical bombing. Military targets and the like, I'm fine with that. My issue is with targeting civilians, which is why I find Arthur Harris so disgusting. I'm fine with disrupting the German war machine. It absolutely had to be done.

Your argument hinges on the idea that without direct aid to the Soviets, that Britain, France, and the US could not have overpowered Nazi Germany. It would have been far harder, admittedly, but look at what changes in the end. No Berlin wall. No Communist Eastern Europe. Ultimately, the Nazis lost because the US was a greater industrial power and because they could not successfully fight a two front war. Their defeat was inevitable. So our options are ally with Stalin, and end up with the Cold War, or go without helping Stalin, and you end up with all of Europe liberated.

The only reason to ally with Stalin is because you think we cannot win unless we aid him. I say that our aid only helped him to conquer Eastern Europe, which we didn't want anyway. The Nazis were never going to be able to take Russia. They couldn't even take Moscow because they were overextended.

 

[Jredbaron96]

You're right, it does take a lot to believe that an entire nation can simply become evil. It takes far more than I am willing to believe.

Well that's the cool thing about facts, they're true whether you believe them or not.

Still, why would the Holocaust museum perpetuate something like that if it isn't true? How does that help their narrative?

It's not really perpetuating anything actually, the website just says the Nazis didn't tell the Germans the full extent of what they were doing. It doesn't actually prove or say that the German people didn't know about the Holocaust.

And to answer your question, very shortly after WWII most of the Allied nations forgave the Germans for the Holocaust. It certainly wasn't an obstacle from making alliances with them. That may have had something to do with it.

 

[phattonez]

Well that's the cool thing about facts, they're true whether you believe them or not.



It's not really perpetuating anything actually, the website just says the Nazis didn't tell the Germans the full extent of what they were doing. It doesn't actually prove or say that the German people didn't know about the Holocaust.

And to answer your question, very shortly after WWII most of the Allied nations forgave the Germans for the Holocaust. It certainly wasn't an obstacle from making alliances with them. That may have had something to do with it.

Or they didn't know about the death camps. It's what the Holocaust Museum says, and it explains why the Allies would tour Germans through the concentration camps. And what evidence have brought to lead us to believe that they did know?

 

[Jredbaron96]

I heard that the French had a pretty big resistance movement. I guess that must just be something Hollywood made up.

The French resistance movement actually didn't reach significant numbers until 1944 and never proved to be anything more than a nuisance. There were more collaborators in Western Europe than resistance members. In fact the only countries where strong domestic resistance rose against the Nazis were in Eastern Europe.

You're intentionally not including man made famines.

That number actually includes the Holodomor.

My issue is with targeting civilians, which is why I find Arthur Harris so disgusting. I'm fine with disrupting the German war machine. It absolutely had to be done.

A very effective way of defeating your enemy is demoralizing their civilian population and destroying national morale. The Germans were the first to do this actually, because they realized the value of it, which is why the Allies were so eager to respond in kind.

Your argument hinges on the idea that without direct aid to the Soviets, that Britain, France, and the US could not have overpowered Nazi Germany.

Oh no, they could've. I just don't think you realize what the cost of that would be. 90% of German fatalities occurred on the Eastern Front. Without the Red Army crushing German formations en mass, not only does the war last longer, it gets even bloodier. There's more time to carry out the Holocaust, D-Day doesn't happen so Allied bombings must intensify, and in the end mushroom clouds rise over Berlin, Hamburg, and Frankfurt.

But at least you saved Poland. Or what's left of it.

The only reason to ally with Stalin is because you think we cannot win unless we aid him. I say that our aid only helped him to conquer Eastern Europe, which we didn't want anyway. The Nazis were never going to be able to take Russia. They couldn't even take Moscow because they were overextended.

Actually the US can win without Stalin. I never denied that.

I left that out because doing so would've involved the atomic bomb, and I know from experience you were not a fan of that.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Or they didn't know about the death camps. It's what the Holocaust Museum says, and it explains why the Allies would tour Germans through the concentration camps.

And that's your only source. Tell, what actual studies do you have to support this claim?

And what evidence have brought to lead us to believe that they did know?

https://www.amazon.com/Backing-Hitler-Consent-Coercion-Germany/dp/0192802917

I own this book. If you want I can start quoting passages.

 

[phattonez]

The French resistance movement actually didn't reach significant numbers until 1944 and never proved to be anything more than a nuisance. There were more collaborators in Western Europe than resistance members. In fact the only countries where strong domestic resistance rose against the Nazis were in Eastern Europe.

And they were defeated, which lends credence to the idea that they wouldn't have been able to carry it out. Besides, I'm not arguing for a scenario where the Nazis win WWII. I don't think it was possible.

That number actually includes the Holodomor.

How can you have detailed records on the Holodomor?

A very effective way of defeating your enemy is demoralizing their civilian population and destroying national morale. The Germans were the first to do this actually, because they realized the value of it, which is why the Allies were so eager to respond in kind.

Oh no, they could've. I just don't think you realize what the cost of that would be. 90% of German fatalities occurred on the Eastern Front. Without the Red Army crushing German formations en mass, not only does the war last longer, it gets even bloodier. There's more time to carry out the Holocaust, D-Day doesn't happen so Allied bombings must intensify, and in the end mushroom clouds rise over Berlin, Hamburg, and Frankfurt.

But at least you saved Poland. Or what's left of it.

D-Day would have happened anyway. Unless the Allies finally pushed through Italy, they would have had to launch it to defeat Hitler. Yes, the US and Britain would suffer more casualties, but ultimately the US and Britain win. You don't need Stalin. And allying with Stalin only accomplishes Communist domination of Eastern Europe.

Actually the US can win without Stalin. I never denied that.

I left that out because doing so would've involved the atomic bomb, and I know from experience you were not a fan of that.

You don't need the atomic bomb to defeat the Nazis. They simply cannot win a two-front war.

 

[Jredbaron96]

How can you have detailed records on the Holodomor?

http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/documents/CREES_SIPS-20.pdf

Demographic data shows that the casualties from the Holodomor were between 2-5 million. Anything higher or lower isn't supported by the evidence. This also includes the lesser known famine of 1948 (which was obviously not the fault of the Soviets).

D-Day would have happened anyway.

No, it really wouldn't have. D-Day was launched against a very lightly defended sector of France where in some cases German defenders numbered less than 800 against 125,000 allied soldiers. Can you imagine trying to secure that beachhead against say 100,000 German mechanized and Panzer forces?

You don't need the atomic bomb to defeat the Nazis. They simply cannot win a two-front war.

The US demonstrated quite clearly it was willing to use an atomic bomb to avert further American casualties. It would've been ready in time to use on Nazi Germany in this scenario.

 

[phattonez]

And that's your only source. Tell, what actual studies do you have to support this claim?



https://www.amazon.com/Backing-Hitler-Consent-Coercion-Germany/dp/0192802917

I own this book. If you want I can start quoting passages.

Great, but from what I can tell most of the people conflate anti-semitism, ghettos, and internment with actual industrial scale killing.

 

[phattonez]

http://www.melgrosh.unimelb.edu.au/documents/CREES_SIPS-20.pdf

Demographic data shows that the casualties from the Holodomor were between 2-5 million. Anything higher or lower isn't supported by the evidence. This also includes the lesser known famine of 1948 (which was obviously not the fault of the Soviets).

This sounds absurdly low.

“The Black Book” recorded merely 20 million dead for the Soviet Union. Alexander Yakovlev, a high-level Soviet official who became one of Mikhail Gorbachev's chief reformers and was given the post-Cold War task of trying to tally the victims, estimates Stalin alone “annihilated ... 60 to 70 million people.”

Paul Kengor: Death what communism did best | TribLIVE

And that number is right in line with Solzhenitsyn.

No, it really wouldn't have. D-Day was launched against a very lightly defended sector of France where in some cases German defenders numbered less than 800 against 125,000 allied soldiers. Can you imagine trying to secure that beachhead against say 100,000 German mechanized and Panzer forces?

You're again acting as if there would be no Eastern Front. Of course Hitler would still be busy trying to invade Russia. D-Day is harder, yes, but it's not as if Hitler can ignore the east.

The US demonstrated quite clearly it was willing to use an atomic bomb to avert further American casualties. It would've been ready in time to use on Nazi Germany in this scenario.

Which while awful, wouldn't have allowed Stalin to dominate Eastern Europe.