Allies don't demand unconditional surrender in WW2?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Supposedly the demand for unconditional surrender extended the war to the bitter end and kept the German resistance from launching an earlier and more widely supported coup against Hitler. Say if in 1943 there isn't the unconditional surrender demand, which apparently Roosevelt demanded against the wishes of Stalin and Churchill, could there have been a more serious effort to topple Hitler and if it happened in 1943 or early 1944, with Churchill telling Canaris via back channels that a negotiated peace could be worked out in 1943 provided the Nazis were removed, what then? What terms could be worked out that the German resistance would accept? They'd have to accept occupation, reparations, disarmament, and probably a lot more. Surely the Allies would want to pull out the ruling class of even the resistance by its roots. Maybe could Germany then keep Austria and the Sudetenland, lose East Prussia, and be disarmed/neutral like Austria was with Allied occupation bases in the country to ensure its compliance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender#World_War_II
The use of the term was revived during World War II at the Casablanca conference when American President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) sprang it on the other Allies and the press as the objective of the war against the Axis Powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan.[10] And, when President Roosevelt suddenly announced this surrender condition at Casablanca, he did so referencing U.S. Grant and the fact that the famous general's initials, since the Civil War, had also come to stand for "Unconditional Surrender".
The term was also used at the end of World War II when Japan surrendered to the Allies. Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin disapproved of the demand for unconditional surrender, as did most senior U.S. officials.[citation needed] It has been estimated that it helped prolong the war in Europe through its usefulness to German domestic propaganda that used it to encourage further resistance against the Allied armies, and its suppressive effect on the German resistance movement since even after a coup against Adolf Hitler:
"those Germans — and particularly those German generals — who might have been ready to throw Hitler over, and were able to do so, were discouraged from making the attempt by their inability to extract from the Allies any sort of assurance that such action would improve the treatment meted out to their country."[11]
It has also been argued that without the demand for unconditional surrender Central Europe might not have fallen behind the Iron Curtain.[11] "It was a policy that the Soviet Union accepted with alacrity, probably because a completely destroyed Germany would facilitate Russia's postwar expansion program."[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris#World_War_II
After 1942, Canaris visited Spain frequently and was probably in contact with British agents from Gibraltar. In 1943, while in occupied France, Canaris is said to have made contact with British agents. He was conducted blindfolded to the Convent of the Nuns of the Passion of our Blessed Lord, 127 Rue de la Santé, where he met the local head of the British Intelligence Services, code name "Jade Amicol", in reality Colonel Claude Olivier. Canaris wanted to know the terms for peace if Germany got rid of Hitler. Churchill's reply, sent to him two weeks later, was simple: "Unconditional surrender".[13]
 
Supposedly the demand for unconditional surrender extended the war to the bitter end and kept the German resistance from launching an earlier and more widely supported coup against Hitler. Say if in 1943 there isn't the unconditional surrender demand, which apparently Roosevelt demanded against the wishes of Stalin and Churchill, could there have been a more serious effort to topple Hitler and if it happened in 1943 or early 1944, with Churchill telling Canaris via back channels that a negotiated peace could be worked out in 1943 provided the Nazis were removed, what then? What terms could be worked out that the German resistance would accept? They'd have to accept occupation, reparations, disarmament, and probably a lot more. Surely the Allies would want to pull out the ruling class of even the resistance by its roots. Maybe could Germany then keep Austria and the Sudetenland, lose East Prussia, and be disarmed/neutral like Austria was with Allied occupation bases in the country to ensure its compliance?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender#World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Canaris#World_War_II

Even if the term "Unconditional Surrender" isn't used something close to it will be the policy. The "stab in the back" myth did that. The Allies had to beat Germany to the point it KNEW it was beaten fair and square. Germany had to be totally occupied and for good while. Unfortunately it probably also need the near total destruction of the German military and the actual invasion of Germany itself. That way the German people could in no way convince themselves they were on the brink of victory before they were sold out.
 
Revisionist nonsense. While many German generals later tried to pretend unconditional surrender committed them to Hitler, in reality they have no one but themselves to blame for that. German resistance stemmed from a mix of political indoctrination and apathy, not from what terms were offered.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that the Allies would offer anything less then unconditional surrender. Stalin and Churchill were fully satisfied with the policy (perfectly so in Stalin's case). As far as they were concerned after everything that had happened, Germany had to be defeated totally and utterly. They were not going to accept anything more modest from the Germans for the same reason they will not accept anything more modest from the Japanese: German behavior in starting and conducting the war had simply put them beyond such considerations in Allied eyes. The most your ever going to get is unconditional surrender under a different name.
 
Last edited:
Even if the term "Unconditional Surrender" isn't used something close to it will be the policy. The "stab in the back" myth did that. The Allies had to beat Germany to the point it KNEW it was beaten fair and square. Germany had to be totally occupied and for good while. Unfortunately it probably also need the near total destruction of the German military and the actual invasion of Germany itself. That way the German people could in no way convince themselves they were on the brink of victory before they were sold out.

The stab in the back myth was only possible because Germany was not occupied and the war ended with the terms befitting a conquered nation with the Anglo-French Armies outside German territory and the victors demanding civilians not the generals sign the peace.

The WAllies didn't even offer Germany the deal they offered the Japanese of unconditional surrender just to them. It was the demand of unconditional surrender to both the Soviet Union and the WAllies at the same time that effectively provided no leeway for a great many who otherwise would have been willing to stick out their necks and willing to see them be potentially cut off if they had any hope of a better outcome.

Unconditional surrender just like Plan Morgenthau after it was a mistake that was not needed to keep Stalin in the war.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Worth pointing out is that all the Allied leaders in

Worth pointing out is that all the Allied leaders in 1939-45 were men who had come of age in 1914-18.

None of them wanted to have to come back and do it again in the 1960s...

Best,
 
Worth pointing out is that all the Allied leaders in 1939-45 were men who had come of age in 1914-18.

None of them wanted to have to come back and do it again in the 1960s...

Best,

Churchill as hard nosed as he was didn't even want unconditional surrender. I am willing to bet any amount of money deep down if he still had the say he would have dangled the prospect of getting rid of the Nazis as enough to maybe just maybe negotiate with Germany, but after they do still don't negotiate and the whole thing would have perhaps plunged Germany into civil war in the process continue the war that ends the war a year or two early anyway.

Its one thing to go for unconditional surrender, its another thing to announce it and then let it be released to the press you are going to de-industrialize Germany after and let the German people realize they have no way out other then fighting to the very end. Even if unconditional surrender is the plan, its bad policy to announce it.
 
Last edited:

TFSmith121

Banned
Not if it keeps the American and British populations

Churchill as hard nosed as he was didn't even want unconditional surrender. I am willing to bet any amount of money deep down if he still had the say he would have dangled the prospect of getting rid of the Nazis as enough to maybe just maybe negotiate with Germany, but after they do still don't and perhaps plunge Germany into civil war in the process continue the war that ends the war a year or two early anyway.

Its one thing to go for unconditional surrender, its another thing to announce it and then you are going to de-industrialize Germany after and let them realize they have no way out other then fighting to the very end. Even if unconditional surrender is the plan, its bad policy to announce it.

Not if it keeps the American and British populations in the fight.

Look at it from the perspective of someone born in the U.S. or UK or Canada or wherever, in 1895 or 1920...

John Jones Sr. went off to fight the Huns to make the world safe for democracy, and look what happened?

John Jones Jr. has to go off to fight the Nazis because Hitler et al are the Kaiser's minions on amphetamines, and Hirohito' and Tojo's minions are like the Nazis on amphetamines... If you're not going to finish it, why bother?

Neither John Sr. or John Jr. - assuming they did'nt get starched in the mud somewhere in 1914-18 or the snow or the sand somewhere in 1939-45 - really would prefer if John III doesn't have to go for round 3 in 1965 ... Especially with nukes.

As the man said, either war is finished or we are...

Best,
 
The stab in the back myth was only possible because Germany was not occupied and the war ended with the terms befitting a conquered nation with the Anglo-French Armies outside German territory and the victors demanding civilians not the generals sign the peace.

The WAllies didn't even offer Germany the deal they offered the Japanese of unconditional surrender just to them. It was the demand of unconditional surrender to both the Soviet Union and the WAllies at the same time that effectively provided no leeway for a great many who otherwise would have been willing to stick out their necks and willing to see them be potentially cut off if they had any hope of a better outcome.

Unconditional surrender just like Plan Morgenthau after it was a mistake that was not needed to keep Stalin in the war.

In the end it didn't really matter HOW the "stab in the back" myth came about, just that it did. Mistakes were certainly made in WWI and it might well have helped cause it. That said the Allies were rightly more concerned at the moment of what happened not the way. What was done could not be undone just learned from.

The Soviets didn't do the vast majority of fighting against the Japanese. You can't say that about the Germans. Like it or not they deserved a say in the aftermath.
 
Not if it keeps the American and British populations in the fight.

Look at it from the perspective of someone born in the U.S. or UK or Canada or wherever, in 1895 or 1920...

John Jones Sr. went off to fight the Huns to make the world safe for democracy, and look what happened?

John Jones Jr. has to go off to fight the Nazis because Hitler et al are the Kaiser's minions on amphetamines, and Hirohito' and Tojo's minions are like the Nazis on amphetamines... If you're not going to finish it, why bother?

Neither John Sr. or John Jr. - assuming they did'nt get starched in the mud somewhere in 1914-18 or the snow or the sand somewhere in 1939-45 - really would prefer if John III doesn't have to go for round 3 in 1965 ... Especially with nukes.

As the man said, either war is finished or we are...

Best,

Perhaps you don't understand you don't tell your enemy your plan if it keeps him in the fight and no it wasn't needed to keep Americans in the fight.

The war being just didn't mean giving the Germans a potential not assured reason to undermine their own war effort to try to get peace along with throwing out that evil government you are talking about wasn't a good idea.

We even provided to Japan more leeway in that we allowed them to just unconditionally surrender to us while we made clear Germany had to unconditionally surrender to Stalin as well as us. No half way war is fine and no one is a bigger supporter of that notion then me. But, also don't give the German population no option other then fight to the end, we even gave Japan a way out short of being occupied by the Soviets we weren't willing to give Germany.

Basically we could have separated the Nazi party from the German people and pushed the German people to rid themselves of their government and we didn't do that, we decided to treat them as one in the same and got a war that ended up lasting a year longer then it needed to order to beat any fight out of Germany as a nation for good.
 
The WAllies didn't even offer Germany the deal they offered the Japanese of unconditional surrender just to them.

Except that is nonsense which isn't the slightest bit true. The Japanese unconditional surrender applied just as much to Japan vs the USSR as it for Japan vs the WAllies, just like it had with the Germans. That is why there were Soviet representatives at the capitulation ceremony on the Missouri and the signature of Soviet Lieutenant General Kuzma Derevyanko on the documents. That Japanese forces continued to resist Soviet forces was a function of those Japanese forces not getting news of the surrender. Those which did receive word laid down their arms as fast as they could when Soviet forces showed up.

There was ultimately no difference in relation to the terms of surrender which were offered to Germany and those offered to Japan.
 
Churchill as hard nosed as he was didn't even want unconditional surrender. ...

Then why did he imeadiatly agree to it when Roosevelt sprang it on him at the Symbol Conference? Roosevelt had not proposed anything like it in the previous conferences. When he did put it Churchill it was in a side conversation seperate from the other attendees, where Churchill could have refused and frankly expressed why without embarassment. Instead he went with it after a few remarks and moved on to another subject. His later problem with it seems to have been part of his common selective memory & talent for embelishing history. In any case both Stalin and Churchill had opportunities to reverse the policy at subsequent conferences, particularly in November 1943 when so many key policies for completing the war were still in the air and worked that week. I dont recall either proposing the war be ended by negotiation with Germany as part of their planning.
 
The commitment to Stalin about no separate peace was made early on to make sure Stalin did not bail on the Allies (a real and possible worry). Once this was out and publicized, making a separate peace by the W. Allies was pretty much off the table. Also, even assuming the Nazis are cleared out, by now the Holocaust as well as lots of other nastiness. Can this be swept under the rug by killing/trying a limited number of the high up Nazis and everyone else say "atrocities? what atrocities?" or using the Sgt Schultz defense "I know nothing, I know nothing." Furthermore, a separate peace means the W. Allies end up helping the Germans against Stalin - not directly but no more blockade, etc. Lastly, given Stalin's penetration of Allied circles, he may undercut the W. Allies and make a peace with Germany with Poland divided as per the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement, and perhaps some other gains in Eastern Europe, allowing the Nazis to make life much more difficult for the W. Allies.
 
Then why did he imeadiatly agree to it when Roosevelt sprang it on him at the Symbol Conference? Roosevelt had not proposed anything like it in the previous conferences. When he did put it Churchill it was in a side conversation seperate from the other attendees, where Churchill could have refused and frankly expressed why without embarassment. Instead he went with it after a few remarks and moved on to another subject. His later problem with it seems to have been part of his common selective memory & talent for embelishing history. In any case both Stalin and Churchill had opportunities to reverse the policy at subsequent conferences, particularly in November 1943 when so many key policies for completing the war were still in the air and worked that week. I dont recall either proposing the war be ended by negotiation with Germany as part of their planning.

FDR had Churchill by the economic short hairs and the announcing the policy to the world much like the announcing in the press of Plan Morgenthau only helped Stalin by keeping Germans fighting on all fronts until the bitter end.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
Except that is nonsense which isn't the slightest bit true. The Japanese unconditional surrender applied just as much to Japan vs the USSR as it for Japan vs the WAllies, just like it had with the Germans. That is why there were Soviet representatives at the capitulation ceremony on the Missouri and the signature of Soviet Lieutenant General Kuzma Derevyanko on the documents. That Japanese forces continued to resist Soviet forces was a function of those Japanese forces not getting news of the surrender. Those which did receive word laid down their arms as fast as they could when Soviet forces showed up.

There was ultimately no difference in relation to the terms of surrender which were offered to Germany and those offered to Japan.

What was the Japanese equivalent of the Nuremburg trials and was Horihito invited?
 
Well, no, there was a difference. In the case of Japan, the Allies did agree to one condition, the retention of the Emperor. The Germans got no such considerations. Nazisim had to go and even if the Allies had been willing to consider a conditional surrender in Europe, that would have instantly gone out the window as soon as Allied forces found the death camps.
 
What was the Japanese equivalent of the Nuremburg trials and was Horihito invited?

We are discussing what conditions of surrender were offered, not what happened after the surrender took place.

Well, no, there was a difference. In the case of Japan, the Allies did agree to one condition, the retention of the Emperor. The Germans got no such considerations.

It astonishes me how pervasive this myth is. To make a long story short: the Allies made no such condition. What they did was leave the status of the Emperor up to MacArthur. Had MacArthur decided the Emperor had to go, the Emperor would have been gone. But he didn't, so the Emperor stayed.
 
Last edited:
The commitment to Stalin about no separate peace was made early on to make sure Stalin did not bail on the Allies (a real and possible worry). Once this was out and publicized, making a separate peace by the W. Allies was pretty much off the table. Also, even assuming the Nazis are cleared out, by now the Holocaust as well as lots of other nastiness. Can this be swept under the rug by killing/trying a limited number of the high up Nazis and everyone else say "atrocities? what atrocities?" or using the Sgt Schultz defense "I know nothing, I know nothing." Furthermore, a separate peace means the W. Allies end up helping the Germans against Stalin - not directly but no more blockade, etc. Lastly, given Stalin's penetration of Allied circles, he may undercut the W. Allies and make a peace with Germany with Poland divided as per the Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement, and perhaps some other gains in Eastern Europe, allowing the Nazis to make life much more difficult for the W. Allies.

Stalin pretty much couldn't bail, his land was invaded and the Nazis act like the murderous thugs they were. There was no way he could not fight to the end . This is the one thing that I think would end in either a military coup or a revolution. After all the Nazi atrocities the Soviet people were strongly committed to the fight to the end.
 
Stalin pretty much couldn't bail, his land was invaded and the Nazis act like the murderous thugs they were. There was no way he could not fight to the end . This is the one thing that I think would end in either a military coup or a revolution. After all the Nazi atrocities the Soviet people were strongly committed to the fight to the end.

I completely agree with that. The war in the east was explicitly a war of genocide. There is simply no way that the Soviets accept anything other than complete and unconditional German capitulation.
 
Churchill as hard nosed as he was didn't even want unconditional surrender.

If that was true, then he would have objected when it first came up. He did not. The most he ever did was express reservations about it in private. That is as far a cry as possible from not wanting it.

It was the demand of unconditional surrender to both the Soviet Union and the WAllies at the same time that effectively provided no leeway for a great many who otherwise would have been willing to stick out their necks and willing to see them be potentially cut off if they had any hope of a better outcome.

More total nonsense. Had the fact they would have had to surrender unconditionally to the Soviet Union as well as the WAllies been the Germans only worry, then they could have easily sidestepped it by engineering the Western Front to collapse while throwing everything they could have to the East. They did not and instead continued to almost as vigorously resist the WAllies advance as they did the Soviets until it was far too late.

Basically we could have separated the Nazi party from the German people and pushed the German people to rid themselves of their government and we didn't do that, we decided to treat them as one in the same and got a war that ended up lasting a year longer then it needed to order to beat any fight out of Germany as a nation for good.
Because such a separation was impossible so long as the war was being waged. Ian Kershaw in The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Nazi Germany illustrates quite well conclusively Germans were committed to the Nazi regime not by anything the WAllies did but because the Nazis engineered it so that the Germans could not have conceived of any alternatives other then total victory or total defeat. Had the German generals actually cared about their people they would have quickly shot Hitler and accepted unconditional surrender in the latter half of 1944, at the latest. Instead, only a very few handful even attempted an assassination and did so in such a half-hearted manner that it's failure was guaranteed.

The time for mercy for the Germans could only come when they had quit fighting, not before. Given the unspeakable suffering which the German nation, in full complicity (and sometimes outright cooperation) with the Nazi regime, had brought upon the world, nothing less than its unconditional surrender could be acceptable.
 
Last edited:
If that was true, then he would have objected when it first came up. He did not. The most he ever did was express reservations about it in private. That is as far a cry as possible from not wanting it.



More total nonsense. Had the fact they would have had to surrender unconditionally to the Soviet Union as well as the WAllies been the Germans only worry, then they could have easily sidestepped it by engineering the Western Front to collapse while throwing everything they could have to the East. They did not and instead continued to almost as vigorously resist the WAllies advance as they did the Soviets until it was far too late.

Because such a separation was impossible so long as the war was being waged. Ian Kershaw in The End: The Defiance and Destruction of Nazi Germany illustrates quite well conclusively Germans were committed to the Nazi regime not by anything the WAllies did but because the Nazis engineered it so that the Germans could not have conceived of any alternatives other then total victory or total defeat. Had the German generals actually cared about their people they would have quickly shot Hitler and accepted unconditional surrender in the latter half of 1944, at the latest. Instead, only a very few handful even attempted an assassination and did so in such a half-hearted manner that it's failure was guaranteed.

The time for mercy for the Germans could only come when they had quit fighting, not before. Given the unspeakable suffering which the German nation, in full complicity (and sometimes outright cooperation) with the Nazi regime, had brought upon the world, nothing less than its unconditional surrender could be acceptable.

Agreed, the Allies couldn't accept anything less than unconditional surrender from those murderous thugs!
 
Top