Why "bad enemy leadership" makes sense in Safehold

Julia Minor wrote:
A joke thread I once read started out with the comment that had Monty written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The War". The first response was that if Patton had written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The Damn War Despite Monty". The next post was that Eisenhower should have titled his memoir "Why I Am Bald".

And Zukov then would probably titled his memoir as "The unfortunate phenomenon of excessive self-esteem".

Dilandu wrote:

Julia Minor wrote:
A joke thread I once read started out with the comment that had Monty written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The War". The first response was that if Patton had written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The Damn War Despite Monty". The next post was that Eisenhower should have titled his memoir "Why I Am Bald".

And Zukov then would probably titled his memoir as "The unfortunate phenomenon of excessive self-esteem".

Churchill's title would have been "Why I didnt shoot Stalin the first time he reached out for a separate peace with Hitler." Roosevelt's would have been "How I managed to cage that damm limey" Stalins would have been "Lessons on Playing Both Ends against the Middle".

Don

-

Julia Minor wrote:
A joke thread I once read started out with the comment that had Monty written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The War".
The first response was that if Patton had written a memoir, it would have been titled "How I Won The Damn War Despite Monty".
The next post was that Eisenhower should have titled his memoir "Why I Am Bald".

ROFLMAO!

n7axw wrote:
Churchill's title would have been "Why I didnt shoot Stalin the first time he reached out for a separate peace with Hitler."

-

Er... Stalin never reached out for a separate peace with Hitler.

Dilandu wrote:

n7axw wrote:
Churchill's title would have been "Why I didnt shoot Stalin the first time he reached out for a separate peace with Hitler."

-

Er... Stalin never reached out for a separate peace with Hitler.

I thought I might bite you with that one...

Apparently there were possibly two attempts. One is a bit more iffy and while there rumors, the Intel wasn't solid. The other one, a bit more solid, was a meeting in Sweden and confirmed by the Swedes. At any rate, they failed to arrive at terms. Stalin wanted the borders to go back to the 1941 borders with Poland as a buffer between Germany and Russia. Hitler's war aim and a major reason for invading was to acquire Ukraine's breadbasket and the Caucus with the oil fields which Stalin was unable to agree to. The whole idea was dropped after the Normandy landing after which Germany's unconditional surrender became official policy for all the allies, including Russia.

If you have access to U Tube try clicking on TIK's channel. He is a Brit and a very thorough researcher and critically minded historian. He has done a special video on this subject.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:
Apparently there were possibly two attempts. One is a bit more iffy and while there rumors, the Intel wasn't solid. The other one, a bit more solid, was a meeting in Sweden and confirmed by the Swedes.
-

As far as I knew, the only source is the memoirs of Peter Kleist, and aside of some documents in Russian and American archives that maybe have some dubious meaning, there is no outside confirmation. While it is possible that some attempts to initiate peace talks may be commenced in 1941, in 1943 it would have exactly zero sense to even try it for USSR. It is possible that Germany MAY try to initiate some kind of peace talks on low levels (German diplomatic service was, let's just say, not very supportive of Hitler course...), they obviously weren't supported by USSR.

So frankly, it sound just like another British attempt to scream "vile Russians, after we, noble British, betrayed France, Spain and Czech and make all possible amendments with Nazi to help them destroy USSR, how dare you sign Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?!" Britain is... a bit hysterical about the role it played (or shall we say - blundered?) in helping Hitler became a threat, so London was always first in any finger-pointing...

Dilandu wrote:

n7axw wrote:
Apparently there were possibly two attempts. One is a bit more iffy and while there rumors, the Intel wasn't solid. The other one, a bit more solid, was a meeting in Sweden and confirmed by the Swedes.
-

As far as I knew, the only source is the memoirs of Peter Kleist, and aside of some documents in Russian and American archives that maybe have some dubious meaning, there is no outside confirmation. While it is possible that some attempts to initiate peace talks may be commenced in 1941, in 1943 it would have exactly zero sense to even try it for USSR. It is possible that Germany MAY try to initiate some kind of peace talks on low levels (German diplomatic service was, let's just say, not very supportive of Hitler course...), they obviously weren't supported by USSR.

So frankly, it sound just like another British attempt to scream "vile Russians, after we, noble British, betrayed France, Spain and Czech and make all possible amendments with Nazi to help them destroy USSR, how dare you sign Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?!" Britain is... a bit hysterical about the role it played (or shall we say - blundered?) in helping Hitler became a threat, so London was always first in any finger-pointing...

No, that is not TIK finger pointing. He is pretty darned insistent on getting it right. His politics are a bit right wing, but he is admirably professional with his history and is willing to gore any ox that gets in the way.

That's how we should all be, I think. To hell with party lines and white washing..

You might like him. He has done a quite a bit on the Eastern Front.

I'll go back and re-listen to the video and pay attention to his source material.

Don

-

I don't have a compete reference, but this might help locate it: Vojtech, "Stalin and the Propect of a Separate Peace in World War II."

TIK's presentation is heavy on conjecture and short on source material. But it does seem persuasive. You'll have to watch it yourself and see what you think.


Don

-

Dilandu wrote:
And Zukov then would probably titled his memoir as "The unfortunate phenomenon of excessive self-esteem".

or better yet if we lived in an Alt History timeline...

"Zhukov, my part in eliminating the party leaders in the Revolution of 1933 and saved the Rodina!"
and
his second memoir:
"How we fed Beria to pigs and set the Lubyanka on fire!"