Conditional surrender

Animefan

Banned
At the Casablanca Conference Roosevelt is persuaded by Churchill and Stalin not to use the term unconditional surrender but to agree to an conditional surrender of Germany and Japan.

With the prospect of an "honourable" peace with conditions could the war have been over by late 1944? In Europe and the Pacific?
 

Cook

Banned
It isn’t that Churchill didn’t agree with unconditional surrender, he didn’t agree with announcing it; he knew immediately how much propaganda value such a statement would have for Goebbels. Churchill wasn’t forewarned of Roosevelt’s statement and it came as quite a shock. Had Roosevelt told him in advance in all likelihood he’d have managed to talk Roosevelt out of making the announcement. But that doesn’t mean Churchill would ever have accepted a Germany that was in any way Nazi.

Stalin was not at Casablanca.

The German anti-Hitler conspirator’s really aren’t going to get any more support than they did IOTL from this; the Gestapo aren’t going to be less ruthless so I don’t think you can expect much change.
 

Animefan

Banned
It isn’t that Churchill didn’t agree with unconditional surrender, he didn’t agree with announcing it; he knew immediately how much propaganda value such a statement would have for Goebbels. Churchill wasn’t forewarned of Roosevelt’s statement and it came as quite a shock. Had Roosevelt told him in advance in all likelihood he’d have managed to talk Roosevelt out of making the announcement. But that doesn’t mean Churchill would ever have accepted a Germany that was in any way Nazi.

Stalin was not at Casablanca.

The German anti-Hitler conspirator’s really aren’t going to get any more support than they did IOTL from this; the Gestapo aren’t going to be less ruthless so I don’t think you can expect much change.

If Churchill would have known this it is likely that he would have told Stalin and Stalin would have immediately called Roosevelt.

Yes but the population would not be ready to fight as in OTL without the threaty of a second Versailles and a Morgenthau plan. Also the army might revolt.

And in Japan the army leadership would certainly have agreed to a conditional surrender. In the last months of the war they did fight only to avoid the unconditional surrender thing.
 
I agree with Cook, making such an announcment would have been a bad idea as it would only strengthen the axis while sending a message to your own troops that you didnt think they could win hence you needed to negotiate a peace.

While this is obviously not the case, it would send that impression to the public and the rank and file servicemen.

Not to mention that it would send a sense of approval of the nazi and Japanese governments as well as their actions, it would require an acknowldgement of their right to exist as a government or else you cant negotiate with them. And given their crimes against various nations and ethnic groups, this is not something that will find support with the people back home.
There would be accusations that Churchill and Roosevelt were nazi sympathisers.
And final point, it would also send the wrong message to the USSR, that the west was willing to compromise despite being attacked and invaded as was therefore weak. Wrong message to send to someone that could be a serious threat as it would only encourage them to be agressive.
 
But not making any announcment might strengthen internal opposition in Germany. Many officers didn´t support the conspirators because they thought there was no chance of a seperate peace in the west. Even the hope of an agreement in the west might help Hitlers internal enemies - probably not enough but every bit less unity in Germany can help the allies.
 
If Churchill would have known this it is likely that he would have told Stalin and Stalin would have immediately called Roosevelt.

Yes but the population would not be ready to fight as in OTL without the threaty of a second Versailles and a Morgenthau plan. Also the army might revolt.

And in Japan the army leadership would certainly have agreed to a conditional surrender. In the last months of the war they did fight only to avoid the unconditional surrender thing.

Well Versailles was a conditional surrender.
 
And in Japan the army leadership would certainly have agreed to a conditional surrender. In the last months of the war they did fight only to avoid the unconditional surrender thing.
In the last months of the war, they fought because Byrnes at State wanted the atomic bomb completed & refused to permit a statement to Japan saying the Imperial System wouldn't be destroyed, nor would Truman make one. The essence of the Atlantic Charter was, the gov't a country got was the one it wanted, & Japan wanted to retain the Emperor. That was the one irreducible demand Japan made, &, in the event, got it. That could've been done in April '45, when Japan started looking for an out, without changing "unconditional surrender" at all.
 
In the last months of the war, they fought because Byrnes at State wanted the atomic bomb completed & refused to permit a statement to Japan saying the Imperial System wouldn't be destroyed, nor would Truman make one. The essence of the Atlantic Charter was, the gov't a country got was the one it wanted, & Japan wanted to retain the Emperor. That was the one irreducible demand Japan made, &, in the event, got it. That could've been done in April '45, when Japan started looking for an out, without changing "unconditional surrender" at all.

You misunderstand the difference between a ceremonial king or queen - much like the UK has - and one with actual powers, ala Saudi Arabia. The Japanese wanted their emperor to retain his power. The Allies wanted the emperor to act solely in a ceremonial duty.
 

abc123

Banned
You misunderstand the difference between a ceremonial king or queen - much like the UK has - and one with actual powers, ala Saudi Arabia. The Japanese wanted their emperor to retain his power. The Allies wanted the emperor to act solely in a ceremonial duty.

On the contrary, Emperor of Japan acted much like constitutional ruler, especially Hirohito.
 
With the prospect of an "honourable" peace with conditions could the war have been over by late 1944? In Europe and the Pacific?

There would be no "honorable peace." Any backdoor negotiations with the Allies would result in terms that would make it apparent that unconditional surrender from Germany was what was demanded.

People make too big a deal about the negative impacts of FDR's declaration in my opinion.

Most of the Axis did negotiate their surrenders. In 1945, the Allies did have backdoor negotiations with Japan; Truman specified Japan's unconditional military surrender to indicate retention fo the Emperor would be acceptable; and Japan did try to use the Soviet Union as an intermediary to negotiate a peace.

Certainly, the politicians and military in Germany and Japan used it for some propaganda value, but the declaration also benefitted the Allies.

1) It made sure that Stalin knew that the US and UK would not accept any separate peace from Germany.

2) It pacified a public deeply upset about the negotiations with Admiral Darlan during Operation Torch.

3) It let the rest of the world know that the Allies considered the unconditional defeat of the Axis to be inevitable at that point.

4) It ensured that the defeat of the Axis would be by military means, ensuring forever that no one could ever argue the frontline troops had been "betrayed". After the war, no German or Japanese could argue they could have won or kept their conquests. For long term considerations of peace, this is fairly important.
 
Well Versailles was a conditional surrender.

It was and look how that worked out for Europe and the world! Unconditional Surrender was the best option, it let both the leadership of Germany and Japan, as well as the people or those two nations, know that totalitarian, genocidal, warmongering governments were not going to be tolerated by the civilized world. It is just too bad that since then the world is often all too willing to compromise with regimes that are just as bad or worse, but that discussion really does not belong here.
 
The USA has a historical tradition up to that time for unconditional surrender . It goes back to Grant and the Civil War. Even so it was not always used. It is part of the folk lore.
 
Top