British opinion after successful Valkyrie

General Zod

Banned
What, and repeat this all 20 years down the line?

1918 was very much in people's memories.

1918 was unconditional surrender in all but name. The Entente crafted whatever harsh peace terms they wanted, and Germany accepted them under duress. Clearly giving germany a Carthagianian peace was attempted at Versailles and failed. It only produced Hitler. Maybe time for a sensible compromise peace, hmm ?
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
1. The Russians had accrued enough military power to defeat Germany without American and British troops. It just would have taken a great deal longer to do and if Russia had conquered europe in the 1940's, History would be extremely different today.

Not an issue, if Germany lets A-A troops take their place in Eastern Europe, or surrender sto the Western Allies alone. Stalin would never risk war with the Western Allies, and their puppet Germany.

2. Having nearly been destroyed in 1940-41, it is almost certain that "Winny" would not have accepted anything less than total Victory!

Winny was totally unwilling to have peace as long as Htiler was in power, but he did not want a crippled Germany nor Stalin left the overlord of half Europe. He was in favor of leaving a denazified, democratized sturdy Germany as a bulwark against Stalin.

3. It is unlikely that the winner of the 1944 U. S. Presidential Election could have won on the slogan "He negotiated with the German High Command to end the war".

No, the slogan would be "he won the war and brought the boys home".
 
1918 was unconditional surrender in all but name. The Entente crafted whatever harsh peace terms they wanted, and Germany accepted them under duress. Clearly giving germany a Carthagianian peace was attempted at Versailles and failed. It only produced Hitler. Maybe time for a sensible compromise peace, hmm ?

This has always come across to me as quite funny, not least because its a commonly held view. It should be immediately apparent that the peace in 45 was far more Carthaginian and yet no one claims that was a failure. Versailles may have had the intent of being so, but if so it must be considered a complete failure in implementation.
 
Most of the conspirators were under the mistaken impression that they could negotiate for the preservation of a territorially intact Germany with a professional army that would have roles for them. They thought the West was willing to make this deal to counter the Soviets once Hitler was out of the way.

This was politically unrealistic. Certainly there were suspiscions between Churchill and Stalin, but FDR and Stalin had a solid relationship. There's no way the American or British public would accept wrestling such a compromise from the jaws of victory. From a practical matter, it would be universally seen as an unprovoked betrayal of an ally which would threaten WWIII before WWII was finished. Nobody (except Churchill) was in the mood for this at all.

Fact was Allied occupation zones of Germany were already agreed upon months earlier at the Second Quebec Conference. So if the coup had succeeded and the leaders offered to negotiate, they will only get a demand for unconditional surrender.

At best all they could hope for was an earlier end to the bloodbath, which would be hugely worthwhile on its own merits.
 

General Zod

Banned
This has always come across to me as quite funny, not least because its a commonly held view. It should be immediately apparent that the peace in 45 was far more Carthaginian and yet no one claims that was a failure. Versailles may have had the intent of being so, but if so it must be considered a complete failure in implementation.

Versailles would have been a success if they had let the Anschluss happen, cozed the Polish nationalists less, and given more attention to implement long-term disarmement. Less territorial cuts, more inspection rights. The 45 peace stayed in place because the alternative was a nuclear shower. However, did you notice that as soon as the SOviet Empire croaked, the division of Germany immediately collapsed ? This tells that any peace scheme built upon the dismemberment of Germany was doomed to fail.
 

General Zod

Banned
Most of the conspirators were under the mistaken impression that they could negotiate for the preservation of a territorially intact Germany with a professional army that would have roles for them.

The part about a professional army was indeed politically unrealistic (at least for several years, until the Cold War were to unfold). Territorial integrity of Germany was not. Neither the American nor the British public were willing to suffer another year of war just for the specific goal of inflicting massive territorial losses to Germany. Faced with the alternative, they would have chosen an early peace, for a surrender conditioned with territorial integrity garantees. They may have wanted surrender as the most sure way of implementing demilitarization and punishment of the Nazis, sure. But this is another thing.

This was politically unrealistic. Certainly there were suspiscions between Churchill and Stalin, but FDR and Stalin had a solid relationship.

FDR was £$%& but he was not the entire story. He has a Congress and a public to answer to. Another year of war so that Stalin may have half of Germany was not a winning slogan with the American public. The moment the German government goes on the waves telling they shall accept peace in exchange for territorial integrity and safety from Communism, the support for any contrary policy will evaporate in America.

There's no way the American or British public would accept wrestling such a compromise from the jaws of victory. From a practical matter, it would be universally seen as an unprovoked betrayal of an ally which would threaten WWIII before WWII was finished.

The American and British public would be quite happy with a "compromise" which lets them control the whole of Germany, in exchange for garanteeing German territorial integrity. It would be, and feel, a complete victory. And it would be no betrayal, Stalin would keep what it had already got in Summer 1944 (the 1941 borders) and in all likelihood, the Western Allies would acknowledge him a sphere of influence in Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Finland, and Serbia, the typical Russian interests in Europe. More than what he had conquered at Valkirie. Much like the Churchill-Stalin "percentage agreement" in late 1944 (which Stalin indeed betrayed, but the Red Army got much further, ITTL ithe war would stop with it at the 1941 borders).

Fact was Allied occupation zones of Germany were already agreed upon months earlier at the Second Quebec Conference.

Not really, they were finalized at Yalta and Potsdam, an year after the PoD.

So if the coup had succeeded and the leaders offered to negotiate, they will only get a demand for unconditional surrender.

And they shall eventually accept to surrender... to the Anglo-Americans alone, withdrawing within German borders in exchange for territorial integiry garantess, and no Communist occupation, And the British-American public shall support the deal. If anything else, the Germans may implement the doomsady gambit, they cease any resistance against the Anglo-Americans and let them advance, while they send all troops and stockpile supplies on the Eastern front, resisting the Red Army until the Anglo-American troops arrive. If you think that the A-A would pull back, and let Stalin occupy half of Europe without shedding a drop of blood, I have a Brooklyn bridge to sell. Roosevelt would be universally reviled as a Communist traitor if he dared propose that, against Churchill's opposition.
 

General Zod

Banned
One issue would have been the morality of the so-called good Germans as virtually all of the figures involved in Valkyrie, especially the military officers, were active supporters and enthusiasts of a war to correct the defeat of 1918. In other words, their primary reason for wanting to kill Hitler was not that he started a war or committed grave atrocities but that he was LOSING a war they had wanted.

First, the morality of the Valkirie generals is not any different from the one of the Soviet generals that were enthusiastically fighting a war to save Stalinism or the Confederate generals that fought to make America safe for chattel slavery.

Fighting for your country is no crime as long as you respect the laws of war, and if saving your country means you have to defend a horrible regime, well it's a lousy bugger choice but sometimes it is politically unavoidable, given the circumstances. For Germany, the right political conditions to overthrow the Nazis did not realsitically materialize before 1943-44.

Moreover, it must be acknowledged that Hitler's actions to reverse the 1918 settlment were not really any immoral until he started to implement Lebenstraum plans. Any sincere democratic German patriot would have enthusiastically endorsed actions to recover Rheineland, Austria, Sudenteland, Danzig, and the Corridor. And a war to being down Stalin (who would have attacked Europe in the end, had not Barbarossa prevented him) would not have been immoral except the Nazis meant to substitute Soviet slavery and extermination with their own slavery and extermination.

It was just and moral to do whatever was possible to being down Hitler for the atrocities he had unleashed upon Europe, but realistically the conditions in Germany did not exist until 1943 (there was a fleeting window in 1938-39, but continued success of Hitler's policy closed it). Sad it may be, it is basic fact that it is very hard to pull down a leadership, however barbaric it may be against its chosen opponents, as long as it's pulling a continued string of successes at home and abroad, just for a moral point. The vast majority of people, in any country, are not that idealistic or altruistic.

Resolved: That as of the current date, August of 1944, Adolf Hitler would better serve the Anglo-American cause better alive than dead.​

Indeed, if any Germans as a clique were capable of assassinating the Fuhrer the Anglo-Americans should take whatever actions they can to prevent this.​

This simply makes one a willing accomplice in Hitler's crimes and atrocities, and destroys the whole Allied moral high ground, nor to mention the essence of their first war aim, eliminating the Nazi.​

1) The German motive: If this is to be carried out by representatives of the General Staff and German aristocrats, and it was in OTL, the benefits to the Western allies would be nil.

Realistically, they were the only ones able to bring the Nazis down. A grassroots popular democratic rebellion in Nazi Germany in the middle of WWII was hardcore ASB. Besides, the benefits to the Western Allies (and the world) would be indeed huge: a quick end to the war, cutting down the butcher bill and the devastation, sparing many of the Holocaust's victims, liberating Europe and ending the Nazi menace with much less bloodshed, and preventing Stalin from becoming the master of half Europe (which all but destroys most of the WA's second war aim, liberating Europe from tyranny).

If they succeed, they form a provisional government and demand negotiations and NOT unconditional surrender.

There is nothing immoral nor unjust in wanting to preserve your own people from the likes of Plan Morgenthau or Stalin's atrocities, before laying down arms.

As an example, a concession regarding Austria, the Sudetenland, and the Polish Corridor.

Again, this is nothing immoral or unjust or threatening the freedom or safety of Europe in demanding that Germany has territorial unity and integrity in its ethnic-linguistic borders. Those were German lands, whose people wanted to say in Germany.

Dolchstoss/Stab in the back: Allowing this and agreeing to a negotiated surrender repeats the error of WWI, leaving a Germany subject to the deadly poison that they were defeated by traitors at home while the outcome in the field had not been resolved. Such a post-war Germany would seek revenge, first against the home-grown 'traitors' and then World War Three would be at hand.

Negotiation would be about garantees of territorial integrity, no deindustrialization, no Communist occupation, and no summary/collective punishments for the German people. The military situation in 1944 was bad enough that the vast majority of the people was not doubt thre reality of defeat, especially when America unveils the nukes later. Not to mention the fact that Gwemrany has lost TWO wars in a row. Dolchstoss was only a factor because the unjust territorial losses and reparations alienated the German people against the peace deal. If the Allies eschew territorial losses and huge reparations, let the German economy recovery, there won't be any mass revanchism. The revelation of the full import of Nazi crimes will alienate the mass of the people against the legacy of the Nazis for good, and any revanchism by association. besides, revanchism was only a problem because disarmement was not implemented.


3) A pox on them all: Far too many of the conspirators, such as Carl Goerdeler and Marshall Beck, the civilian and military heads of the conspiracy, were ready and eager to follow Hitler before there was a Hitler to follow. Why were they conspiring against him now? He was losing the war. Hardly an attitude to endorse or have much confidence in.​

One does overthrow a dictatorship when the realistic conditions for doing so exist. Pure political idealism which lets one openly defy the tyrant nonetheless belongs to a rare few, which typically end up in the concentration camps and the execution camp, years before any crack in the regime does materialize. The Havels and Mandelas who manage to overthrow the tyrant from their prison are as rare as hen's teeths, in history. More often than not, tyrannies are brought down by the "impure", the moderate, sane, reform-minded members of the ruling elite who begin to have second thoughts about the wisdom and competency of the leadership, even if they cooperated since then. Gorbachev, Suarez, Deng, Jaruzelski, the 1974 Portoguese generals, the last Apartheid government. The Valkirie generals were nothing special in this regard. That a tyrant is typically brought down by second-minded associates and not "pure" revolutunaries may not fulfill messianic expectations, but generally ensures much less bloodshed and suffereing than the alternative. And more often than not, revolutions build just as bad successor tyrannies. Robespierre, Khomeini, Castro, Lenin & Stalin, Mao, etc.​

From this perspective Hitler becomes a justification but the true enemy is German militarism and German expansionism. It is these and not a particular political figure who must be destroyed.​

German militarism get pretty much eradicated if you enforce effective democratization and demilitarization. Savage territorial losses, partition, deindustrialization, and Communist occupation are not necessary nor beneficial. Besides, this completely ignores how Versailles caused Hitler, and WWI was born out of Edwardian imperialistic rivalries of the Great Powers, of which Germany no more and no less guilty than all the others. Gavrilo Princip was not German nor the pupopet of German militarists.

Assume the coup is given the blessing of the UK/US along with various promises which might or might not be honored. Now assume it is crushed. If this happens, is it not likely that if the Nazi Party finally reaches the point of discussing an arrangement, they will do it with Stalin?

If Hitler does survive the coup, he won't seek a separate peace with Stalin or he would have done so in 1941-43, as indeed he did not ITOL. So this leaves the WA no worse for the try. Just another opportunity that failed to materialize. Such things happen all the time in war.

6) Repeat as 5 except assume the coup is partially successful, and Germany lapses into civic breakdown or outright civil war. Also note Stalin's Red Army is much closer to Berlin...

Any German would much better prefer to surrender to the A-A than the Soviets, so it's time to throw all hesitation to the winds and exercise all possible efforts on the Western Front to advance as east as possible.

The American perspective: Assume total success for the plotters and the negotiations begin. An enormous number of Americans consider Japan to be the real enemy, and are finding the losses in Europe unexpectedly severe. Can it be confidently assumed that even FDR could hold out for unconditional surrender if an alternative is available, with the election in three months.

It could not, indeed, but again this is no problem whatsoever, it is a blessing to the world, since the kind of peace Roosevelt advocated was a huge disaster (not to mention an atrocity as immoral as the crimes it purported to avenge) only Stalin would be happy with, and the sooner FDR is reomved and someone like Truman gets his place, the better.
 

General Zod

Banned
Similar data has been posted in another thread which also touted some nonsense about the German generals being good reasonable guys one could make a deal with.

Just as reasonable and good guys as Gorbachev, Eltsin, Suarez, the last PM of Apartheid South Africa, the 1974 Portoguese generals, Deng, Jaruzelski, etc. I guess that according to your standard, it was preferable that the Berlin Wall had come down through WWIII, since Gorbachev and Eltsin were not "good reasonable guys" enough. Come on, we cannot trust these guys, they have been Commies for years, we must bring down the Soviet Empire with the nukes, that would be morally good.
 

General Zod

Banned
I suppose I should've also asked how much news of the Valrykie Plot would have reached the British public, had the Plot worked?

Since the plotters meant to go on the airwaves and publicy announce the coup, and their asking for a "just and honorable peace", pretty much everything. Neither Churchill nor Roosevelt could censor the press that much. If the UK/US prove obstinate about "unconditional surrender" with no garantees for the German people, all the junta has to do, in order to make irresistible pressure on the UK/US leadership, is to issue a new radio statement, that they would accept Allied terms as long as Germany gets garantees of territorial and economic integrity, no collective punishment for those innocent of Nazi crimes, and no Communist occupation. Try selling to the American/British public that the war must continue, because those garantees are unacceptable.
 
Similar data has been posted in another thread which also touted some nonsense about the German generals being good reasonable guys one could make a deal with. But the topic here is the _British_ opinion. If anybody has data about the actual British public opinion in this time frame, it would be useful to inject some factual basis and common sense in the issue.

I don't see anything factual posted. By factual I mean some hard data collected at the time, or at least some reputable historian's take on the issue, not personal musings of people living today.
Too bad. However, as a guide, we have the US public opinion, which _was_ documented at the time. Generally speaking, the US public was way less involved in the war than the British public, and thus tended to be more lenient. And the US public did not want a deal with Nazi generals. Unless something concrete comes up, I think we're pretty safe maintaining the British public would have been even less willing.
 
Versailles would have been a success if they had let the Anschluss happen, cozed the Polish nationalists less, and given more attention to implement long-term disarmement. Less territorial cuts, more inspection rights. The 45 peace stayed in place because the alternative was a nuclear shower. However, did you notice that as soon as the SOviet Empire croaked, the division of Germany immediately collapsed ? This tells that any peace scheme built upon the dismemberment of Germany was doomed to fail.

Which is why Austria is part of Germany today right?

This makes no sense. Austria was never part of a post-1871 unified Germany except during the Anschluss which happened after Versailles, so how could Versailles be doomed to fail because it somehow "dismembered" an area that was never part of Germany in the first place?

And all that you have written actually assumes that it was unified Allied policy for there to be a divided Germany along the lines of East and West Germany in the first place. There wasn't, otherwise none of the zones would have been unified or given back self-government of any sort. The Soviets may have preferred a divided Germany and perhaps the French to an extent, but a divided Germany evolved as a result of post-war Allied disagreement, not as a result of some peace scheme concocted to actually end the war. There were certainly lots of plans to divide Germany in various ways, but none of them were ever implemented (many had up to 3 or 4different states not just the 2 that occurred in OTL), all that happened was that Germany lost some territory and lost it's sovereignty for half a decade while the Allies tried to figured out what to do with the bits they occupied. Originally there was supposed to be an all-encompassing Allied policy in Germany through the Allied Control Commission but that stopped working in 1948 due to Allied disagreement.
 
Top