AHC: WWII Allies fight for Negotiated Peace

With no PoDs prior to 1942 (or 1941 at the very earliest), how can:
  1. the declaration at the Casablanca Conference (Jan 1943), that the Allies will only accept Unconditional Surrender from the enemy nations, be prevented, both then and after?
  2. the war end with a negotiated surrender, not an unconditional one? Bonus if the aftermath sees Germany remain Nazi, Italy Fascist, etc.n
 
Considering what the Russians have suffered at the hands of the Nazis, this might be ASB and it will be even more difficult to justify a negotiated settlement once the Allies hit the death camps.
 
Ok, testing idea -- supposing the U.S. fleet gets hit hard at Midway, while the Japanese fair ok, and the Empire of the Sun is able to take New Caldonia et el later that year, cutting off Australian supply lines. I would say that were this plausible, that one effect is that by January 1943, not only is FDR less likely to declare a demand for unconditional surrender, but there might even be tension between the U.S. and UK as the former is reluctant to "overcommit" to Europe. Now as the tide of war changes, this dynamic can fix itself; however, the change could have major changes on how the war is fought, and what the Allies ultimately take as their war goals.
Considering what the Russians have suffered at the hands of the Nazis, this might be ASB and it will be even more difficult to justify a negotiated settlement once the Allies hit the death camps.
That's why I said PoDs could be in 1942, or even 1941 if necessary.
 
Last edited:
The French, Poles, Cezchs, Belgians, Norewegians, and a dozen others would have seen this as another betrayal just like Chamberlain throwing the Cezchs to the wolf in 1938 to buy a little time for Britain. On the US side the surrender thing was not a spur of the moment thought. Since the possibility of returning a US Army to Europe emerged circa 1938 - 1940 there had been a ongoing discussion, or more accurately tens of thousands of discussions on what the US objectives should be. There was a very strong feeling that a partial victory this time was not acceptable. US blood was not going to be wasted this time to buy deals for a pack of duplicitious old men.
 
Maybe if Germany does better and Hitler comes off his victory disease for a moment to start consolidating his gains. Maybe if beating a Germany on the defensive before losing too many troopswill cost too many lives they'll negotiate
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Germany would have to defeat the USSR(basically an Axis victory), otherwise the allies had come to realize that any piece of paper signed by Adolf Hitler was meaningless.
 
Germany would have to defeat the USSR(basically an Axis victory), otherwise the allies had come to realize that any piece of paper signed by Adolf Hitler was meaningless.
Well, Hitler himself certainly doesn't need to stay in power to meet the OP; if the generals overthrow him or if he's assassinated, that might, in certain circumstances, allow for a surrender short of unconditional.
 
Ok, testing idea -- supposing the U.S. fleet gets hit hard at Midway, while the Japanese fair ok, and the Empire of the Sun is able to take New Caldonia et el later that year, cutting off Australian supply lines. I would say that we're this plausible, that one effect is that by January 1943, not only is FDR less likely to declare a demand for unconditional surrender, but there might even be tension between the U.S. and UK as the former is reluctant to "overcommit" to Europe. Now as the tide of war changes, this dynamic can fix itself; however, the change could have major changes on how the war is fought, and what the Allies ultimately take as their war goals.
Roosevelt was a major proponent of "Germany First", so this isn't going to happen.

Well, Hitler himself certainly doesn't need to stay in power to meet the OP; if the generals overthrow him or if he's assassinated, that might, in certain circumstances, allow for a surrender short of unconditional.
Before 1944 it's the Soviets that gain the most from any German infighting, and they're not in the mood for conditional surrenders.
 
You probably need a bunch of "smart-Nazi" decisions coupled with a few disastrous Allied ones, which isn't impossible. Perhaps a POD like "Hitler ODs on speed" in May 1942 may do the trick. The Germans will have better performance in Case Blue, might not let Rommel go way beyond his tether and get Malta instead, and by the end of 42, the Germans avert disaster in the East and are fighting a withdrawal in Africa.

The Western Allies respond with a Overlord 43. The Germans don't blow the wad at Kursk. With the additional men not destroyed in encirclements the Germans hold their own in the East, and repulse Overlord 43. The Wallies sow up North Africa, but with Malta in Axis hands would have to wait to 44 to get Italy out of the war.

The USSR experiences serious manpower issues on par with the Germans in 1944 as they did not recapture large parts of Ukraine, nor Russia in the center that they did OTL. The Germans have the benefit of recruiting more Ukrainians and Balts and begin fighting a devestating, fighting withdrawal in the East. With Hitler not in power, the Wallies send out peace feelers, the most ASB moment is that the Germans accept--they agree to reparations and withdrawing to 1938 borders. Poland is to be set up as an independent state, which isn't too bad for Germany as it keeps them safe from Russia. Russia is not in the place to demand territorial concessions.
 
Top