@p @Nimbius666 @dagda @irie
> Same as when he switched to the other side after Barbarossa. Sucked for Poland.
I’m getting confused. Who’s he and what other side?

> soldiers stationed in the east not be allowed to surrender to the US/UK
Because the Soviets knew about how surrendered German divisions are not being disbanded, and instead put on rations and train for something. In fact, the 12 German division that were on the west, were disbanded only in January 1946.

> because is concern was that there was going to be a counteroffensive against the Soviet incursions
What incursions? I have an abridged version of the “Unthinkable” of 22 May 1945. And the number one item under “Goals” says “The general political goal [of the operation] is to foist the will of the United states and the British empire upon the Russians.” Don’t ask me, how the “British empire” got there.

> what the German troops wanted to do: if they were going to be occupied, they'd rather be occupied by the US than USSR.
They didn’t get to choose. And as to whom they can surrender – of course. The German high command thought about it before the troops. I’ve read somewhere that the Northern line of defence yielded easily, because the Anglos and the Americans have bought a high-ranked army general (Rommel?) and convinced him to surrender and betray the painter in the bomb shelter.

> Eisenhower wasn't confident that Hitler really was dead and suspected a ploy that was designed to start the US/USSR fighting to buy Hitler time to start an insurgency from the south.
That’s interesting. But where from the south? I remember, that some remains were to the south, and some – to north-east (the latter being very scarce, though). It’s just hard to imagine, where could such considerable forces hide to suddenly jump out of the shadows and hit the USSR, US, UK, and some French armed forces? Remembering how you and the British turned Montecassino into a pile of rocks, it doesn’t seem like the rest of the places could survive better.

> Churchill was in favor but was in the same boat as Eisenhower. FDR loved Stalin, though, so he would never give the order.
Hmm, I would think that “FDR loved Stalin” is his opponents smearing dirt on him for being a “socialist”. FDR was for allowing government more control (which in turn allowed social services to function and then that sweet life, that boomers enjoyed). The primary goal was… it’s hard to tell. Anyway, I guess that oil, logistics and real estate big shots didn’t like him for making their existence more difficult (taxation, inspections etc.). The increase of government control is what happened in Europe too, so that was sort of development stage for the modern states.
 And as for “FDR would never…” our books say it was either because on the day when the attack on the USSR should’ve happened (July 1st), the US and UK found, that Soviet positions have suddenly changed – or because when in the USA they counted what would it cost to fight Japan without USSR, they’ve already postponed the idea.