Hitler dead before allies demand unconditional surrender

The kind of political wrangling you're talking about would cause confusion, dissent, and hostility. It's impractical in a coalition war to treat your ally derisively in both public and private.
Why? I can understand that when the two armies are fighting side-by-side and relating to each other every day, like America and Britain. But, when you're in completely different fronts like America and Russia, I don't see how that'd be a real problem.
 
Why? I can understand that when the two armies are fighting side-by-side and relating to each other every day, like America and Britain. But, when you're in completely different fronts like America and Russia, I don't see how that'd be a real problem.

First it makes war crimes trials difficult. Second it makes division and occupation of land next to impossible if there's mutual mistrust, and before 1944 no one was certain where the boundaries would be. Third it also makes the establishment of any post war body like the UN, or basically any international treaties, impossible. Finally it's also hard to justify to the public/Congress sending aid to the Soviet Union in IOTL's enormous quantities if at the same time it's being presented in a negative light.
 
First it makes war crimes trials difficult. Second it makes division and occupation of land next to impossible if there's mutual mistrust, and before 1944 no one was certain where the boundaries would be. Third it also makes the establishment of any post war body like the UN, or basically any international treaties, impossible.

Post war boundaries are something that should have been set up well after the war or with any official German surrender. Ike was against communicates with the German commanders they were fighting who were trying to contact him, but I would have also authorized that. The German commanders in the West once it was clear the beachheads were solid and they had no negotiating leverage did want to see the WAllies take central Europe before the Soviets.

Why not play along with them and let them conduct a 'retreating campaign' back into Germany so that perhaps its Poland that ends up divided between Soviet and the Western Allies and a number of other Eastern European countries remain free and democratic as well?

Finally it's also hard to justify to the public/Congress sending aid to the Soviet Union in IOTL's enormous quantities if at the same time it's being presented in a negative light.

We started giving multi billion dollar loans to the Soviet Union at the very start of December 1941 before Pearl Harbor and we opened Lend Lease up to them a number of days before Pearl Harbor as well. At least at that time they were still depicted as cobelligerents in starting the war by both invading Poland in the press.

If FDR could get those loans through before the war and the press seemed to be positive about it before the war and wartime controls were put on the press I don't think it would be a huge problem to argue during the war that we are helping the Soviets as a people, and we are helping their government because the enemy of our enemy is our friend, but at the same time their government isn't fighting for democracy and freedom and their government did ally with Hitler and invade Poland together with him.

First it makes war crimes trials difficult.

The German Army would have protected its own meaning people like Von Manstein instead of serving 4 years in prison OTL would have gotten nothing. The SS though I do believe would have gotten off worse then OTL. Its amazing how that people who were at the Wannsee Conference and voted in favor of industrial genocide got off with nothing or a slap on the wrist, but that was part of the inherent problem with the whole concept of collective guilt and collective punishment.

If all of German society was guilty of all of the crimes of the regime then the people who ordered their men to commit genocide or planned it weren't much more guilty then all other Germans according to the collective guilt prospective. Instead of indoctrinating Germans with that mindset and pushing that view I would have gone for creating a mindset that the SS were effectively traitors to Germany and those who collaborated with them in the Army were cowards. The likes of Von Manstein might not get a prison sentence, but they would be far more negatively regarded by Germans IMHO. I also think you would have seen much more of the SS directly reasonable for crimes in the East punished.
 
Last edited:
I understand thar the demand for Unconditional Surrender was publicized in lat 42 or early 43.

Had Hilter died sometime after the declaration of War on the USA might the idea of an end to the war on some other conditions have been an option?

Not really. There was a widespread belief among the Allies, both in the U.S. and Britain (I'm not sure about the USSR) that Hitler and the Nazis were a convenient front for the real German power elite: Prussian militarists. the General Staff, and armaments tycoons. WW I had ended with the removal of the Kaiser, but only a few years later, a new militaristic and aggressive government rose in Germany, and it seemed as though Germany was eager to launch a new war of aggression. The conclusion was that those really responsible for WW I had kept their hidden power. Furthermore, Germans seemed to believe that they could win a second round and that the previous loss was a cheat.

WW I had ended with an armistice and conditions, and a peace of limited effects. The Allies were determined that this time, Germany's secret rulers would be rooted out. No conditions would be allowed that might allow them to hang on. Also, German defeat must be so complete that it could not be denied. Again, conditions could be used by the German leadership to mask the real situation.

Finally, there were serious arguments among Allied leaders about what was to be done with conquered Germany. The Morgenthau Plan suggested the demolition of all German industry. Other suggestions included the division of Germany into several small states. Extreme suggestions from various pundits and thinkers included abolishing the German language, or a permanent quarantine of Germany (and Italy and Japan) with strict population controls. These extreme ideas never had any support in official circles, but even the less drastic ideas would never be accepted by Germans if they were given any say in the matter. Therefore they must not have any say - they must surrender without conditions.

Certainly as long as Germany was ruled by Nazis, there would be no question of anything but unconditional surrender. And few among the Allies thought there was any real difference between the Nazis and the Army-conservative faction that formed the Schwarze Kapelle.

However, if Hitler was dead, and if the Schwarze Kapelle gained power and liquidated the Nazis, and if the Schwarze Kapelle government clearly repudiated Nazi crimes (say by releasing all concentration camp inmates to Allied custody), and demonstrated that they truly wanted peace, and would accept almost any terms - but still balked at unconditional surrender - then maybe the U.S. and Britain might negotiate a little.
 
Not really. There was a widespread belief among the Allies, both in the U.S. and Britain (I'm not sure about the USSR) that Hitler and the Nazis were a convenient front for the real German power elite: Prussian militarists. the General Staff, and armaments tycoons. WW I had ended with the removal of the Kaiser, but only a few years later, a new militaristic and aggressive government rose in Germany, and it seemed as though Germany was eager to launch a new war of aggression. The conclusion was that those really responsible for WW I had kept their hidden power. Furthermore, Germans seemed to believe that they could win a second round and that the previous loss was a cheat.

WW I had ended with an armistice and conditions, and a peace of limited effects. The Allies were determined that this time, Germany's secret rulers would be rooted out. No conditions would be allowed that might allow them to hang on. Also, German defeat must be so complete that it could not be denied. Again, conditions could be used by the German leadership to mask the real situation.

Finally, there were serious arguments among Allied leaders about what was to be done with conquered Germany. The Morgenthau Plan suggested the demolition of all German industry. Other suggestions included the division of Germany into several small states. Extreme suggestions from various pundits and thinkers included abolishing the German language, or a permanent quarantine of Germany (and Italy and Japan) with strict population controls. These extreme ideas never had any support in official circles, but even the less drastic ideas would never be accepted by Germans if they were given any say in the matter. Therefore they must not have any say - they must surrender without conditions.

Certainly as long as Germany was ruled by Nazis, there would be no question of anything but unconditional surrender. And few among the Allies thought there was any real difference between the Nazis and the Army-conservative faction that formed the Schwarze Kapelle.

However, if Hitler was dead, and if the Schwarze Kapelle gained power and liquidated the Nazis, and if the Schwarze Kapelle government clearly repudiated Nazi crimes (say by releasing all concentration camp inmates to Allied custody), and demonstrated that they truly wanted peace, and would accept almost any terms - but still balked at unconditional surrender - then maybe the U.S. and Britain might negotiate a little.

All too true regarding the view of the Prussians from my reading of news articles at the time. The understanding of the U.S. was that the Nazis were just puppets of the Junkers so it was really Prussians like Von Rundstedt who were pulling the strings in Germany behind the scenes.

t2-1.jpg


In fact the reporting of the July 20th plot at the time in the U.S. saw it as a plot by middle and lower class Germans from central and southern Germany to dethrone the ruling Junkers who were viewed as the true controlling force behind the Nazi Party. The U.S. completely misunderstood the political dynamics going on in Germany.

As for negotiation I have to disagree with you there. The only way I see FDR agreeing to negotiation with any German government or military leadership is if Normandy fails badly in which case the democratic party is in for a bloodbath in November and FDR himself certainly might not even be re-elected as he was bucking public opinion with the Germany first strategy... if he could get some agreement which looks like a good deal for the United States to the public and salvages his and his parties election prospects in November I believe he would most likely take it.
 
Last edited:
Its oversold by many historians and others how much the 'stab in the back' contributed to the Nazi's rise. 40% unemployment and hyperinflation did the trick to create an angry population that wants revenge and was willing to vote for a party that will give it to them not any myth.

It certainly added to the mix for German nationalists who couldn't admit they were beaten. Like Americans who claim today that we were "stabbed in the back" regarding Vietnam.:rolleyes:

Don't force on a country peace terms that are so extreme they will collapse their economy, but also that you can't enforce. There are other examples in history of this like say the peace treaty the Roman's forced on Carthage after the first Punic War. That just led to Carthage spending years and years planning its payback and nearly destroyed Rome in the process.

Right back at you: Treaty of Brest-Litvosk. Compared to the Germans, the Allies at Versailles were positively beneficent.

As for unconditional surrender it was a bad idea in my view that helped keep the Nazis in power to the bitter end and the Final Solution continuing to near completion in Europe as far as the Jews were considered and greatly reduced support in Germany for those wanting to overthrow the Nazi regime.

The Holocaust was already a full year in by the time of FDR's announcement. And by July 20th, more than two and a half years. Even with a successful Valkyrie and a negotiated peace, at most the camps are closed/liberated about nine months earlier than OTL.

Even the anti-Nazi resistance both civilian and military considered unconditional surrender to both the Soviet Union and the Western Allies a non-starter. And, in the press in 1944 they were already talking about reducing all Germans to substance farmers and then they made it official policy in the press in 1944.

And the German "press" newsreels were telling their people about the special Jewish US Army regiments being readied to occupy Berlin. Considering what the German people had been reading in Mein Kampf about what THEY planned to do to the whole of European Russia and Poland, what else should they have expected, anyway?:rolleyes:

I believe FDR did a amazing job at mobilizing the country for war and at putting the U.S. economy to work mass producing war materials, but no one will ever convince me he did a good job in handling the political side of the war as he gave Germans no reason to give up and every reason to fight to the last man and last bullet with unconditional surrender and Plan Morgenthau.

jmc247

IDK where you hail from, but if there is still an America and a Europe in the Year 100,000 the Europeans will still be telling us how naive we are about international affairs because we haven't been on the world stage long enough to learn our lessons.:rolleyes:

And any Russian today will tell you FDR did a GREAT job of making sure that Germany was ground under even though it meant fighting the war to the last Russian.:mad:

The Morganthau Plan was a proposal, not a finalized official policy.

Its fun reading old news articles on the topic. Ike in traditional political fashion was one of the militaries strongest supporters of unconditional surrender during the war and then a number of years later into the Cold War says unconditional surrender was a bad policy that helped the Soviets with hints that it was the other parties fault.

Yeah, politics truly bastardized the man. But even in WWII, regarding the Morgantheau Plan, he furiously told his staff that the "semites" (his word) had won the day for the treating of postwar Germany. The newspapers had a lot of supporters for Morgenthau.

The problem is that, at least in the case of the Soviet Union, anything less than total German surrender was unacceptable. The opinion of every citizen of the Soviet Union, from the ordinary person to the regional commissars to the military to the highest political figures, was that the war would either end with Germany at the Urals or the Soviets in Berlin. It was quite literally a war to the death in which both sides were committed totally to the destruction of the enemy.

In a war where twenty million Soviets died, and 61% of all German Army combat deaths occurred on the Eastern Front, the West was in no position to take any chances with even APPEARING to play footsies with Germany. Nazi or otherwise.

I wonder what sort of terms would be acceptable to both the Germans, and their enemies in Europe? :confused:

None. Next question?;)

That's another problem, what any German government would want is completely at odds with what the Allies wanted.

Just look at the Four Conditions demanded by the Japanese for them to surrender:

1) Keep the Emperor
2) No occupation
3) Self-disarming the military
4) War crimes tribunals to be run by themselves

Save for the emperor, even the Japanese recognized internally that they themselves lacked the internal political strength to carry out these conditions even if the Allies agreed! For the Germans, with all those dedicated Nazis still running around and a heavily armed SS, who's to say the same wouldn't be true?

there's also that little problem about Nazi Germany not abiding by the terms of ANY treaty they signed.......so what would the point be to anything other than total capitulation.

Ultimately that was the argument that forced even Neville Chamberlain's hand when faced with a cabinet revolt at the start of the war. One of his ministers had told him flat out that it had become impossible to believe that Hitler would make any agreement that he would not betray the moment it suited him to do so. He had made some noises about accepting an offer from Italy for new negotiations (with Warsaw being bombed!), hence the revolt...

and furthermore did anyone else here gag on the thought of Churchill negotiating with Germany:confused::confused:.........l

I didn't gag. I ROTFLOL:D

It would be the central problem.

The Italian surrender is sometimes held up as a example of a 'conditional surrender'. True the remnant of the Facist leadership got to remain as a government for a couple more years, and they got to organize a itty bitty army, but the substance of the agreement between them & Eisenhower was unconditional in every substantial sense.

In the case of Japan the retention of the Emperor and a Japanese civil administration is thin stuff (1) beside the complete disarmament and occupation of the homeland, plus the complete loss of the hard won empire.

Italy wasn't a surrender so much as a recognition of collapse.

1) Very thin, as MacArthur was not just standing over their shoulders but telling them what to write throughout.

If it were up to me I wouldn't offer terms, I would say there will be no negotiation as long as death camps are being operated in the Poland. (2) If Hitler shuts them down which I doubt he would do (3) I would still say that Germany is refusing reasonable peace overtures, regardless of if he is and isn't. (4) Make Hitler into the problem that the German people have to get rid of, instead of what the government did at the time back in 1942 and 43. (5) That is, saying the German public is the problem and setting up plans very publicly in the press as early as the start of 1943 to reeducate the population that national pride is bad, that they are all collectively guilty for Hitler's actions, that militarism is bad, that their military is responsible for the war. (6)

2) If you accept that the Allies knew 100% all about the death camps all along.

3) Your abilities of understatement are unsurpassed.

4) :confused:I see English is not your 1st language. I'm not criticizing, as I have no right to. I am mono-lingual myself. But your grammar in that line is very unclear. Could you try rephrasing that?:)

5) There was PLENTY of that. Hitler was recognized as an Anti-Christ in his own lifetime! Apparently, the thought that he was considered to be Nostradamus' Second (of three, the first being Napoleon) Anti-Christ did not really seem to displease him. Unsurprisingly.:rolleyes:

6) Well, that sounds all very well. The problem for Germany, and all Germans at the time, was something that Allied propagandists (and Allied troops pouring into a collapsing Germany in 1945) were able to hit them over the head with incessantly: Hitler and his Nazi Party were elected.:mad: He didn't seize power the way the Italian Fascists and Japanese warlords did.

Its great reading news articles because a little more then half a decade later after the Berlin Blockade the same newspapers were basically saying the new policy is to re-educate the German population that honorable German militarism like done by Rommel is good, (7) that nationalism is good, that Communism is bad, that the SS and Nazis were guilty for the Final Solution and not the public. (8)

Remember that thanks to Speidel's "biography" of Rommel he had people of the time convinced that July 20th Plotters were coming into Rommel's office in columns of four.:rolleyes: Mainly to help himself get the job of founding and becoming the first commander of the West German Army. Oddly enough, when his lies were exposed, it was assumed (wrongly) that neither Speidel nor Rommel had any involvement. When in fact Speidel was in it up to his neck, and Rommel, ony to the point of not reporting any suspicions he might have had (more than enough though in Nazi Germany to get someone shot anyway).

8) Better than what the Soviets did, which was to tell the East German populace that ALL the guilt was on the western imperialist/fascists and that as good little communists they could consider themselves blameless. Which sadly, may help explain why after the Wall came down anti-semitism seemed to be more a problem with "Ossies" rather than "Wessies".

Back, to what I would have done... after making Hitler the problem and assuming he is killed see how rational and responsible the new government is and if the terms for a free and independent Eastern and Western Europe are accepted and if its a shit government and the terms are not accepted make the new leadership the problem and keep fighting until you get what you want.

The Soviets will Scream. Bloody. Murder. from the getgo. Any terms offered will include full occupation or it's NO DEAL. A separate peace by the West? Not by FDR, not by Churchill. It would take a full civil war in Germany to get rid of sufficient numbers of "bad guys" even to get anyone to talk to the Germans, and the Soviets WILL be at the table. OTL the people of Valkyrie were determined to succeed BEFORE Overlord. But the sooner they succeed, the harder it will be for them to put down resistance (2nd stab in the back). The later they succeed, the less negotiating power they will have.

Besides, what happens when the Valkyrie people find out about the Final Solution?

Basically, the U.S. needed to realize that the Nazis were an awful regime that needed to be defeated and Europe liberated. But, the U.S. wasn't very good at playing the age old game in Europe (9) that if you give too much help to one bad regime and completely destroy, divide and 're-educate' their opponent instead of just defeating them and perhaps occupying them for awhile you don't leave yourself much to work with and you have just given up a free and independent Eastern Europe to the other Totalitarianism on the block and pretty soon they will be trying to take it all. (10)

9) The Third Reich had nothing to do with any age old games. In Europe or anywhere else. They got to where they were by breaking every agreement they ever made except agreements against the use of poison gas. They didn't play by the rules because the only rule they recognized was "might makes right". An overnight coup d'etat isn't going to change that perception by the rest of the world of Germany. Remember that in WWII the old WWI German line about "just a scrap of paper" regarding the validity of treaties was played to the hilt by Allied propagandists, and was ingrained in the West's psyche.

10) I'd say that crushing a Nazified state was the better option rather than risking a negative reaction from a Soviet Union that was doing most of the fighting and dying in that war. IIRC, the USSR lost more people in the Stalingrad Campaign than the USA lost in all of WWII. If Bulgaria, Rumania, and Hungary had to suffer the fate of Soviet domination for 45 years, it was the price they paid for siding with the Axis. Only Poland got stuck with the bill.

Without the Manhattan Project I really believe WW3 would have come by the end of the 40s and it would have been more bloody then WW2.

No. Stalin was old and dying. The USSR had lost 10% of their population outright. Belarus and the Ukraine didn't get their prewar population levels back until the 1970s.:eek: Without the Bomb WWII may or may not have ended as OTL in the Pacific (let us not de-rail), but the Russians had too much to rebuild. Without the Bomb, Truman would not have been able to enter the period of madcap demobilization he did OTL.

Then Fuhrer Fatso continues the war.

IDK whether this story is apocryphal or not, but as I heard it when Germany was split at the Elbe River by US and Soviet forces, Hitler ordered that Goering take over in the southern section (This was before Hitler canned him). When General Keitel declared to Hitler: "Mein Fuehrer, no German soldier will fight for the Reichsmarshal!", Hitler responded: "Fight? What do you mean, 'Fight'? There's precious little fighting left to be done!":p

Stalin was threatening all the time to abandon us and maybe make a separate pact with Hitler again if he didn't receive X, Y, Z through Lend Lease. The fact was he needed us for Lend Lease and we treated only as we needed him and we needed to keep him placated.

We were the ones who through our press and through hiding every crime Stalin committed during the war and turned Stalin into kindly Uncle Joe in the eyes of the U.S. public so much so that Churchill's Iron Curtain speech was met with great derision in the U.S. at the time.

We couldn't even do a 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' type propaganda. No Stalin fights for freedom and democracy. We made it through the press politically impossible to regard and treat Stalin as anything less then the co-equal partner of England during the war.

(paraphrasing, I don't remember the exact words):

If Hitler should launch an assault upon the gates of Hell itself, I would expect that I would at least make some kindly references to Lucifer in the House of Commons!

Winston Churchill, June 22nd, 1941
upon learning of Germany's invasion of the USSR


Stalin's threats were never made seriously. And in any case, the Soviet Union was primarily responsible for fighting Nazi Germany on land until 1944, so for practical purposes a united allied front had to be presented. The kind of political wrangling you're talking about would cause confusion, dissent, and hostility. It's impractical in a coalition war to treat your ally derisively in both public and private.

Seconded

Post war boundaries are something that should have been set up well after the war or with any official German surrender. Ike was against communicates with the German commanders they were fighting who were trying to contact him, but I would have also authorized that. The German commanders in the West once it was clear the beachheads were solid and they had no negotiating leverage did want to see the WAllies take central Europe before the Soviets.

No. You make specific agreements when the fronts make it clear that both sides will more or less meet in the middle. Except for most of Western Czechoslovakia, and the later southwestern portions of the DDR, the Allies got to where ever they were going to get by the time the Soviet did. Local commanders do NOT have the right to engage in communications that risked the tactical initiative, and offered the Nazis the opportunity to play on Allied disunity. What German commanders "wanted" was irrelevant, as many were also dedicated Nazis who were planning on saving the last bullet for themselves (Model comes to mind). Not all Nazis were in the SS.

Why not play along with them and let them conduct a 'retreating campaign' back into Germany so that perhaps its Poland that ends up divided between Soviet and the Western Allies and a number of other Eastern European countries remain free and democratic as well?

Because...it represents a separate peace de facto, if not de jure, proof of Allied treachery, and a ticking political time bomb for the Allies and the Germans the moment those first death camps are liberated? And who exactly is going to tell British Bomber Command and the USAAC to stop their bombing runs? If they do, there is Stalin's ironclad proof of Allied treason. If they don't, Germany's "coup government" collapses, as it is obvious to the German people that all they are accomplishing is a Stab In The Back 2 that reduces the first to insignificance.

We started giving multi billion dollar loans to the Soviet Union at the very start of December 1941 before Pearl Harbor and we opened Lend Lease up to them a number of days before Pearl Harbor as well. At least at that time they were still depicted as cobelligerents in starting the war by both invading Poland in the press.

Friendly neutral at best. They weren't sending "volunteers" to fight in Case: Yellow, ala Franco's Blue Division in Russia, or Italy's split "cobelligerance status" following their 1943 surrender. Though Russia's actions with Poland warranted war, Stalin knew he could get away with it because Britain and France were busy with Germany. And Russia paid for those sins in full measure, and far far more beyond.

If FDR could get those loans through before the war and the press seemed to be positive about it before the war and wartime controls were put on the press I don't think it would be a huge problem to argue during the war that we are helping the Soviets as a people, and we are helping their government because the enemy of our enemy is our friend, but at the same time their government isn't fighting for democracy and freedom and their government did ally with Hitler and invade Poland together with him.

See above. And Post-Barbarossa, the Soviets were fighting for something far more precious than freedom and democracy. They were fighting for their lives,:eek: for the right to avoid outright extinction.

The German Army would have protected its own meaning people like Von Manstein instead of serving 4 years in prison OTL would have gotten nothing. The SS though I do believe would have gotten off worse than OTL. Its amazing how that people who were at the Wannsee Conference and voted in favor of industrial genocide got off with nothing or a slap on the wrist, but that was part of the inherent problem with the whole concept of collective guilt and collective punishment.

Um, I can't really respond to the highlighted section without a nasty rant. Anyone else want to take a crack at it?:(

If all of German society was guilty of all of the crimes of the regime (10) then the people who ordered their men to commit genocide or planned it weren't much more guilty then all other Germans according to the collective guilt prospective. (11) Instead of indoctrinating Germans with that mindset and pushing that view (12) I would have gone for creating a mindset that the SS were effectively traitors to Germany and those who collaborated with them in the Army were cowards. The likes of Von Manstein might not get a prison sentence, but they would be far more negatively regarded by Germans IMHO. I also think you would have seen much more of the SS directly reasonable for crimes in the East punished. (13)

You wouldn't be a philosophy major, would you?

10) Who said that? Morgenthau?

11) You wouldn't be a law student, would you?

12) It's done wonders for helping to seriously douse the fires of anti-semitism in Germany. Western Germany, that is.

13) Perhaps. But you might also have the problem nationwide (as opposed to the former DDR) of more serious problems with Neo-Nazis. Sometimes collective guilt is a good thing. Like America with Slavery and its Native Americans.:(:(

If Hitler was dead, and if the Schwarze Kapelle gained power and liquidated the Nazis, and if the Schwarze Kapelle government clearly repudiated Nazi crimes (say by releasing all concentration camp inmates to Allied custody), and demonstrated that they truly wanted peace, and would accept almost any terms - but still balked at unconditional surrender - then maybe the U.S. and Britain might negotiate a little.

Except once the camps are open, the only sincere repentance is full occupation, disarmament, and war crimes tribunals. AT BEST, a more limited even than Japan's deal.

As for negotiation I have to disagree with you there. The only way I see FDR agreeing to negotiation with any German government or military leadership is if Normandy fails badly in which case the democratic party is in for a bloodbath in November and FDR himself certainly might not even be re-elected as he was bucking public opinion with the Germany first strategy... if he could get some agreement which looks like a good deal for the United States to the public and salvages his and his parties election prospects in November I believe he would take it.

By the time of the November elections, Bagration has taken place, Dragoon, and the advance up the Italian peninsula to just short of the Po River region. Don't say butterflies. A failed D-Day isn't going to destroy all those follow up divisions, nor will it spark a spontaneous continental cease fire. FDR was a lock regardless (its Eisenhower and possibly Marshall who get the axe). The GOP might get control of the House, but they won't have a say on foreign and military affairs.

As for the more extreme plans quite a few in press liked the breaking Germany up into a bunch of different countries idea so there would be no Germany anymore. In fact soldiers that served in Africa, Italy and France who fought against the German Army in those places that were the loudest voices in the comments section of papers arguing that the Germans they fought against treated them and American POWs honorably so getting rid of their country completely would be dishonorable..

Those voices tended to grow quieter the more contact they had with the Waffen SS. And went stone cold silent with the opening of the death camps.
 
Last edited:
Top