German ww2 peace

Mrstrategy

Banned
When could the german ask for peace in ww2 and get a peace the Germans and supporting countries and allies both agree on
 
You would need very different Hitler that Germany would sue peace and with different Hitler probably wouldn't go to war.

Only way might be succesful July Plot but even then Germany is totally under mercy of Allies.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
If the 20th of July happened before D-Day such a peace MIGHT be possible, IF

1.) Hitler/NSDAP is no longer at power

2.) The Allies don't follow the unconditional-surrender-doctrine.

The latter is only the case if

a) Stalin makes a separate peace (possible until Bagration)

b) and/or the Germans can inflict great damage to the Allies.
 

Mrstrategy

Banned
If the 20th of July happened before D-Day such a peace MIGHT be possible, IF

1.) Hitler/NSDAP is no longer at power

2.) The Allies don't follow the unconditional-surrender-doctrine.

The latter is only the case if

a) Stalin makes a separate peace (possible until Bagration)

b) and/or the Germans can inflict great damage to the Allies.
That would be an interesting timeline
 
When could the german ask for peace in ww2 and get a peace the Germans and supporting countries and allies both agree on

Following OTL, never. There's a lack of trust, and a lack of need for both sides to make peace. Instead, when one side might want peace, it's because the other is so far in the ascendancy that it isn't interested.

So you need some tweaks to OTL. Such as:

Loss of the BEF in France and preventing Churchill from taking power. But actually agreeing a peace here is still going to be very difficult because the two sides are likely to be very far apart, because it's in the British interest to stall for time and if Germany does attempt to up the pressure in the form of a BoB, then it'll lose, which will invigorate Britain and increase US support for her. And even if you do get a peace it's likely to just be an interbellum before Germany breaks the spirit, if not the letter, of the treaty and attacks Russia.

A US uninterested in Europe. Difficult, because there was a very good reason why the US saw Germany as a severe threat. But maybe fiddling about with the Depression can do it, by weakening the US.

The Germany military deposes Hitler and purges the Nazis before it's obvious that they're screwed. Would really have to occur before Barbarossa. Possible but improbable - delaying Barbarossa would be handy here, along with some sensible German intelligence on Soviet political, military and industrial strength that emphasises that invading in 1942 would be stupid.
 
The BEF is anhilated or captured at Dunkirk, France surrenders as OTL.

Hitler dies somehow before BoB and Göring takes over. He publicly calls for peace negotiations and tries to get the US as a negotiator.
 
If the 20th of July happened before D-Day such a peace MIGHT be possible, IF

1.) Hitler/NSDAP is no longer at power

2.) The Allies don't follow the unconditional-surrender-doctrine.

The latter is only the case if

a) Stalin makes a separate peace (possible until Bagration)

b) and/or the Germans can inflict great damage to the Allies.

If Ludwig Beck had become head of the provisional government, they surely would have had negotiate on terms for an armistice, as the allies would have wanted to follow the unconditional surrender doctrine if Hitler had been dead then.
The allies just wanted peace.

Besides, Hitler offered the allies peace, after germany invaded Poland. But they rejected.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
If Ludwig Beck had become head of the provisional government, they surely would have had negotiate on terms for an armistice, as the allies would have wanted to follow the unconditional surrender doctrine if Hitler had been dead then.
The allies just wanted peace.

Besides, Hitler offered the allies peace, after germany invaded Poland. But they rejected.

No, Roosevelt wanted to destroy Germany. He was behind unconditional surrender.
 
No, Roosevelt wanted to destroy Germany. He was behind unconditional surrender.

But not if an anti-nazi coup took place.

Ludwig Beck was 100% liberal. I bet the allies would have accepted such peace offer.
Noone wanted to spill blood anymore.

And also, in the Casablanca Conference a coup in germany wasn't contemplable.
 

tenthring

Banned
The Nazi economy was unable to function. It was always overheating, and it required resources from abroad that it had to pay for in hard currency it didn't have. The only way to get a semi-stable Nazi economy is to achieve resource autarky (so they don't need to pay hard currency for essentials), but that involves the controlling all of Europe all the way to the Urals.

This is why the one scenario I can think of, Germany pulling back from most of its gains in 1940 after France falls in exchange for peace, while it seems like the right move to us probably wouldn't have worked out in the long run for the Nazis.

More importantly, conflict itself was central to Nazi ideology. They didn't want peace. If the Anglos had granted them free hand in the east, it just would have been a change for them to consolidate resources for the next conflict.
 
But not if an anti-nazi coup took place.

Ludwig Beck was 100% liberal. I bet the allies would have accepted such peace offer.
Noone wanted to spill blood anymore.

And also, in the Casablanca Conference a coup in germany wasn't contemplable.


Roosevelt made it pretty clear that he had a personal hatred towards all things German.

He would have pushed for unconditional surrender no matter what. That's why you need to get a peace before the US joins. Roosevelt is too much off an asshole to consider anything but a dead Germany tolerable.
 
No, Roosevelt wanted to destroy Germany. He was behind unconditional surrender.

This grossly over simplifies the unconditional surrender policy. Leaving aside Roosevelt there was a broad feeling among US leaders that Germany would need to be more clearly defeated than in 1918. This went outside the inner circles within the government, and out side the Warhawk leadership as well. The proposal in 1943 that Germany be stripped of its industrial capacity was one of the variations of this, so were the assorted proposals for dismemberment of Germany. By 1942 any residual admiration of German culture or other Germanophile feelings in the US were throughly suppressed. So no, there would not have been a rush by US leadership to negotiate away the war, leaving a intact Germany as in 1918.

But not if an anti-nazi coup took place.

Ludwig Beck was 100% liberal. I bet the allies would have accepted such peace offer.
Noone wanted to spill blood anymore.

And also, in the Casablanca Conference a coup in germany wasn't contemplable.

This is another over simplification of the era. It derives from a post war focus on Hitler - which did not exist before 1945. Prussian militarism had long been the bogeyman of European politics, which extended to the US. In 1942-45 The Prussians, the Junkers, the old General Staff & its revived version, the German industrial leaders like the Krupps, and the entire nazi party leadership were seen collectively as the problem. The perception was that the cease fire in Nov 1918 had left German militarism intact & the Versailles Treaty had not resolved it either. There may have been some unspoken guilt among US leaders for the lack of US support in 1923-24 to France in its effort to suppress German resurgence. The Rhineland crisis of 1936 was another bad memory, where again lack of support left the French alone in any effort to suppress a German military revival. The bankruptcy of that policy was clear by March 1939 let alone 1942.

So no. Hitlers removal is extremely unlikely to change Allied attitudes towards the level of capitulation of Germany.
 

gaijin

Banned
Roosevelt made it pretty clear that he had a personal hatred towards all things German.

He would have pushed for unconditional surrender no matter what. That's why you need to get a peace before the US joins. Roosevelt is too much off an asshole to consider anything but a dead Germany tolerable.

Firstly, the unconditional surrender wasn't just something pushed by Roosevelt. All allies agreed that Germany needed to be completely defeated. There was to be no repeat of the Dolchstoss legend this time around. Nazism wasn't considered to be something alien that had taken over the otherwise chillexed Getmans. At that time nazism and German militarism were considered to be two sides of the same medal (which in many ways they were).

Secondly, if you think that Roosevelt is an asshole for wanting to defeat Germany you are loosing perspective. The Germans were the baddies here and they had a choice to avoid further bloodshed. The problem was that a significant majority of the German population was not willing to pay the price which was unconditional surrender.

Blaming Roosevelt for German intransigence is completely out of bounds.
 

Deleted member 1487

When could the german ask for peace in ww2 and get a peace the Germans and supporting countries and allies both agree on
July 1940. Had they publicly given terms that Churchill could not refuse then it was potentially possible (no military restrictions, loss of territory, or reparations, but recognition of German treaties with the continentals and expelling governments in exile). Not really sure if it were after that (both sides being able to agree). Arguably (with a lot of argument last time I brought it up) there was a potential for a deal in 1943-44 if the Allies had not made the public announcement of unconditional surrender and had privately encouraged the assassination of Hitler and removal of the Nazis for better terms.
 
Another possibility would have been if the assassination attempt in 1941 would have been successful. With Hitler dear the German Military would have mounted a coup and crushed the Nazi's. It is possible that a deal could have been reached with Britain but it would have required the Germans to leave France, the lowlands, Denmark, Norway and Greece.
 
Top