Allies don't demand unconditional surrender in WW2?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
Ah. So the Red Army soldiers aren't exhausted from three years of war and want to fight it til the end, even if they get a direct peace witht the 1939 borders restored? So the whole Soviet leadership wants to fight a war devasting the Union, instead of getting an instant ceasefire which is basically a status quo ante bellum?

You are assuming that the Soviet government would act as irrational as Hitler and decline everything that isn't a total victory.

Yes, it isn't being idiotic it is the fact that there is no way you can trust Hitler if nothing else. I think the vast majority of Red Army soldiers wanted revenge for all the atrocities the Nazis caused. Many had their wives raped, their friends murdered in POW camps, their families left starving after the Nazis stole everything. You think they would forget all that just because Hitler offered peace? Not on this planet! By 1944 the Red Army was going forward and was clearly winning. Why would they stop and not get their revenge, strengthen their country , and not have to worry about a proven lying, backstabbing, sadistic, homicidal maniac will go back on his word?
 
Yes, it isn't being idiotic it is the fact that there is no way you can trust Hitler if nothing else. I think the vast majority of Red Army soldiers wanted revenge for all the atrocities the Nazis caused. Many had their wives raped, their friends murdered in POW camps, their families left starving after the Nazis stole everything. You think they would forget all that just because Hitler offered peace? Not on this planet! By 1944 the Red Army was going forward and was clearly winning. Why would they stop and not get their revenge, strengthen their country , and not have to worry about a proven lying, backstabbing, sadistic, homicidal maniac will go back on his word?

Don't be so upset.

1) 1944 is already too late - Bagration will bring Soviet victory against Germany.

But 1943 between Stalingrad and Kursk is all correct: Stalin knows that ultimate victory is coming, but he also knows that this victory will cost a lot of manpower and ressources - ressources the Soviet Union needs for a reconstruction after the victory and for a more than hypothetical competition with the capitalist west.

2) A peace deal with Hitler is out of discussion. Because while Stalin was (usually) thinking rationally, Hitler was completly mad - you're right, but I never said something else. Hitler wants complete victory, just like the Wallies. It's just that he isn't going to get it.

A peace deal on white peace conditions in 1943 presupposes that Hitler is dead and that rational leaders in Germany negotiate with rational leaders in the Soviet Union.
 
Don't be so upset.

1) 1944 is already too late - Bagration will bring Soviet victory against Germany.

But 1943 between Stalingrad and Kursk is all correct: Stalin knows that ultimate victory is coming, but he also knows that this victory will cost a lot of manpower and ressources - ressources the Soviet Union needs for a reconstruction after the victory and for a more than hypothetical competition with the capitalist west.

2) A peace deal with Hitler is out of discussion. Because while Stalin was (usually) thinking rationally, Hitler was completly mad - you're right, but I never said something else. Hitler wants complete victory, just like the Wallies. It's just that he isn't going to get it.

A peace deal on white peace conditions in 1943 presupposes that Hitler is dead and that rational leaders in Germany negotiate with rational leaders in the Soviet Union.

You said 3 years which brings it to '44. The problem is 1) There is a striking lack of rational leaders in the Nazi Hierarchy: Who are you going to trust, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels? Only if you are stark raving mad. 2) Even if the Germans have a rational leader why would the Soviets believe it? As far as they are concerned it is probably a sign of a weakness extreme enough that the Germans need to regain their strength and are offering peace so they can do so. All the more reason to push forward. 3) You are also leaving human emotion out of the equation. The Nazis were conducting a genocidal war against the Russians they are not going to forget that until they are totally defeated!
 
Let's face it, between Stalin and Hitler there is, from an outsider's point of view, very little to choose. Both were mass murderers, both were completely untrustworthy, both psychopaths without empathy. The reality is that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more Soviet citizens than Hitler was. There was no trust between Hitler and Stalin in 1939, it was strictly a question of mutual benefit. In fact the Soviets had gone to the west to try and work some sort of security understanding and when that went nowhere, Stalin decided to cut a deal with Hitler.

As long as things were not totally in the toilet, Stalin was not going to seek some sort of settlement. If we look at the possibility that Barbarossa does better - Moscow encircled/occupied in 41 or 42 for example, or the movement of factories and workers east is severely disrupted neither of which are ASB even if unlikely - then Stalin (or whomever is in charge) is faced with two choices. They can keep fighting and keep being bled, or they can have an armistice and a chance to survive, a chance to rebuild, and hope the W. Allies defeat Germany. In either case a large chunk of territories is out of play for the USSR as well as the populations. If the equation is let the population of the occupied areas hang out to dry in order to save "communism" or suffer more pain to try and do something for them and risk collapse, I have zero doubt what Stalin will choose. This is the person who allowed millions to starve to move communism forward so what happens to those behind German lines is a statistic.

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - Stalin

Let me state firmly this is not any sort of apologia for Hitler and the Nazis. I believe that as long as the facts on the ground are the same as OTL, this sort of armistice/peace is not going to happen. However, under the right circumstances Stalin seeking a separate peace with Germany certainly could have happened which was a real concern of the W. Allies. No matter how much the average soldier might hate the Germans, they will obey orders. Furthermore if things are bad enough to hope for an armistice, the generals are military realists.
 
You said 3 years which brings it to '44. The problem is 1) There is a striking lack of rational leaders in the Nazi Hierarchy: Who are you going to trust, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels? Only if you are stark raving mad.

There was a very "promising" assasination attempt on 21th March 1943: Hitler, Göring, Himmler, Keitel and Dönitz could have died in a suicid attack of von Gersdorff.

I suspect that after such a decapitation of the Nazi government, a traditional Prussian army junta would have seized power in Nazi Germany, maybe with some form of compromise with the SS.

2) Even if the Germans have a rational leader why would the Soviets believe it? As far as they are concerned it is probably a sign of a weakness extreme enough that the Germans need to regain their strength and are offering peace so they can do so. All the more reason to push forward.

I suspect that the terms of the ceasefire would be the German retreat to the 1939 borders without causing any further damage on Soviet territory. After that, the Germans can partially demobilize their army and send the rest of the troops westbound to counter a possible invasion of the remaining allies.

3) You are also leaving human emotion out of the equation. The Nazis were conducting a genocidal war against the Russians they are not going to forget that until they are totally defeated!

Was Stalin, was the communist party that emotional? They will be outraged about German war crimes, but most of the party members accepted the purges, the Molotov-Ribbentropp-Pact and the invasion of Poland too. A peace deal with Germany is, in a convinced party member's mind, just another necessary evil on the road towards world revolution (as was Brest-Litovsk).
 
Let me state firmly this is not any sort of apologia for Hitler and the Nazis. I believe that as long as the facts on the ground are the same as OTL, this sort of armistice/peace is not going to happen. However, under the right circumstances Stalin seeking a separate peace with Germany certainly could have happened which was a real concern of the W. Allies. No matter how much the average soldier might hate the Germans, they will obey orders. Furthermore if things are bad enough to hope for an armistice, the generals are military realists.

It was not going to happen as long as LL is happening and Moscow, Leningrad, and the oil fields are in Russian hands.

And, FDR was giving by 1943 Stalin all these things he wanted and more because he believed Stalin was vital to defeating Japan and honestly FDR trusted Stalin very much by this point (I suspect more then he trusted Churchill) and the whole Stalin could make a separate peace that was the excuse for keeping LL going strong even after the Red Army was rolling over the German Army and giving Stalin half of central Europe. The idea Stalin was needed in the Pacific and the idea that Stalin was a true ally that would be helpful in occupying Europe after the war so we didn't have to spend so much on it were the core reasons.
 
Last edited:
Let's face it, between Stalin and Hitler there is, from an outsider's point of view, very little to choose. Both were mass murderers, both were completely untrustworthy, both psychopaths without empathy. The reality is that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of more Soviet citizens than Hitler was.
This is a very fanciful exaggeration. Even the highest estimates of victims of the Stalin regime nowadays go to 20 million, while more credible ones are between ten and 15 million (the Black book of Communism, which as the name shows is hardly likely to be pro-Soviet, gives an estimate of 14 million). Meanwhile there were about 27 million casualties in the Soviet Union due to the German invasion.

As long as things were not totally in the toilet, Stalin was not going to seek some sort of settlement. If we look at the possibility that Barbarossa does better - Moscow encircled/occupied in 41 or 42 for example, or the movement of factories and workers east is severely disrupted neither of which are ASB even if unlikely - then Stalin (or whomever is in charge) is faced with two choices. They can keep fighting and keep being bled, or they can have an armistice and a chance to survive, a chance to rebuild, and hope the W. Allies defeat Germany. In either case a large chunk of territories is out of play for the USSR as well as the populations. If the equation is let the population of the occupied areas hang out to dry in order to save "communism" or suffer more pain to try and do something for them and risk collapse, I have zero doubt what Stalin will choose. This is the person who allowed millions to starve to move communism forward so what happens to those behind German lines is a statistic.
The problem is that Hitler would never accept such an agreement while he was winning. Especially in the scenario you are describing. I expect that Hitler would demand the Ural as a border and no Soviet leader would accept that since that would utterly cripple the USSR.

"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - Stalin
A misquote, like most of the quotes attributed to Stalin. See here, for example.
 
It was not going to happen as long as LL is happening and Moscow, Leningrad, and the oil fields are in Russian hands.

And, FDR was giving by 1943 Stalin all these things he wanted and more because he believed Stalin was vital to defeating Japan and honestly FDR trusted Stalin very much by this point (I suspect more then he trusted Churchill) and the whole Stalin could make a separate peace that was the excuse for keeping LL going strong even after the Red Army was rolling over the German Army and giving Stalin half of central Europe. The idea Stalin was needed in the Pacific and the idea that Stalin was a true ally that would be helpful in occupying Europe after the war so we didn't have to spend so much on it were the core reasons.
Another reason was that the USSR was vital in defeating Germany. Especially in 1943 when the Western allies were nowhere near doing so and wouldn't have been able to do so without massive casualties. I expect that this was in fact a far more important reason than any of the idealistic reasons you're claiming.
 
The problem is that Hitler would never accept such an agreement while he was winning. Especially in the scenario you are describing. I expect that Hitler would demand the Ural as a border and no Soviet leader would accept that since that would utterly cripple the USSR.

When he was winning he wanted it to the Urals, when he was losing in late 1942 he wanted most of Ukraine when the best he could get was 39 borders.

His mentality was one of a drunk gambler by this point in time who will always gamble on another offensive and getting more rather then less.
 
There was a very "promising" assasination attempt on 21th March 1943: Hitler, Göring, Himmler, Keitel and Dönitz could have died in a suicid attack of von Gersdorff.

I suspect that after such a decapitation of the Nazi government, a traditional Prussian army junta would have seized power in Nazi Germany, maybe with some form of compromise with the SS.

Who wouldn't be trusted in the least. Even without the SS there were enough atrocities committed by the Heer for the Russians not to trust them.

I suspect that the terms of the ceasefire would be the German retreat to the 1939 borders without causing any further damage on Soviet territory. After that, the Germans can partially demobilize their army and send the rest of the troops westbound to counter a possible invasion of the remaining allies.
None of whom would think the new leadership sold themselves out to the godless, Communist untermenschen and need to be overthrown ? :rolleyes:

Was Stalin, was the communist party that emotional? They will be outraged about German war crimes, but most of the party members accepted the purges, the Molotov-Ribbentropp-Pact and the invasion of Poland too. A peace deal with Germany is, in a convinced party member's mind, just another necessary evil on the road towards world revolution (as was Brest-Litovsk).
I wasn't talking about the Communist Party bigwigs bur Ivan Ivanov who cares far more that his wife was raped at State Farm #2232 or that his best friend Gregor was murdered in a POW camp than world revolution.

It would take one battalion commander going rouge to possibly restart the whole thing. All he has to do is tell his men that he was told the Germans just backstabbed Russia and we were ordered to attack. The Russian battalion attacks another German one who radios in the Godless Communists just backstabbed them and he needs reinforcement and the Germans send a brigade and it quickly spirals out of control. A rouge German commander might do the same thing convinced that the new government sold themselves out to the untermenschen.
 
Last edited:
Who wouldn't be trusted in the least. Even without the SS there were enough atrocities committed by the Heer for the Russians not to trust them.

The issue is not one of trust, Stalin did he care about his people and had them under a very tight tumb by this point with the army purged to hell.

The issue is does Stalin get more out of the deal then continuing the war. If he continues the war at this point as long as the LL is coming he knows he will get half or more of Germany if he makes peace he gets half of Poland.

The Heer would need a successful Kursk in reverse in 43 with Red Army smashing itself on solidified German lines to change the clear calculus favoring continuing the war. Morality and 'Heer troops raping Russians' are really not factors in Stalin's mind.
 
The issue is not one of trust, Stalin did he care about his people and had them under a very tight tumb by this point with the army purged to hell.

The issue is does Stalin get more out of the deal then continuing the war. If he continues the war at this point as long as the LL is coming he knows he will get at least half of Germany if he makes peace he gets half of Poland.

it is a matter of trust, the deal means nothing if the Germans don't keep it and why would he trust the Germans to keep it?
 
it is a matter of trust, the deal means nothing if the Germans don't keep it and why would he trust the Germans to keep it?

Of course its a matter of trust, but trust goes both ways. Many Germans themselves didn't trust Stalin if the line suddenly goes from where it was before Kursk to the middle of Poland not to wait a year while they tire themselves against the WAllies and then watch as the Red Army tears through their lines in the middle of Poland all the way to Berlin.
 
Of course its a matter of trust, but trust goes both ways. Many Germans themselves didn't trust Stalin if the line suddenly goes from where it was before Kursk to the middle of Poland not to wait a year while they tire themselves against the WAllies and then watch as the Red Army tears through their lines in the middle of Poland all the way to Berlin.

True, and that means it is twice as likely to break down, quickly!
 
Led by their government and military, of course.

Best,

Exactly, both Germany and Japan should have surrendered much earlier (Even aside that humanity was better without their governments!) to save their own people but their governments were more interested in holding out for a miracle than to save their own people's lives.!:mad:
 

TFSmith121

Banned
True...

Exactly, both Germany and Japan should have surrendered much earlier (Even aside that humanity was better without their governments!) to save their own people but their governments were more interested in holding out for a miracle than to save their own people's lives.!:mad:

True...

Hitler was not the equal of Hirohito, as far as that goes.

Best,
 

Deleted member 1487

Exactly, both Germany and Japan should have surrendered much earlier (Even aside that humanity was better without their governments!) to save their own people but their governments were more interested in holding out for a miracle than to save their own people's lives.!:mad:
That and they assumed that they were in a war of total destruction, so if they surrendered that was the end of their people, so it was better to go down swinging before the genocide started.
 
True...

Hitler was not the equal of Hirohito, as far as that goes.

Best,

I don't see how not getting an unconditional surrender leads to a better world. The governments of Germany and Japan and their most likely successors are not worth saving and would have caused considerable hardship in the future, to their own people most of all.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
My point is that Hirohito, in the final extremity was willing to surrender

I don't see how not getting an unconditional surrender leads to a better world. The governments of Germany and Japan and their most likely successors are not worth saving and would have caused considerable hardship in the future, to their own people most of all.

My point is that Hirohito, in the final extremity was willing to surrender; Hitler never was, and the Germans who tried to stage a coup were universally unable to do so...

So the unconditional surrender policy, in that it guaranteed to the American and British population who were, after all, fighting and dying, that it would not end in a re-run of 1918, was the only rational approach.

Best,
 
Top