Hitler, Himmler, Dead in 1943?

Interesting idea.

Unfortunately, the last time the Allies fought a German military clique and didn't thoroughly break the German militarists, WW2 happened.

So, on to Berlin!

I think the proletarians that the messianic Left would gladly feed into the meat grinder might have something to say about that.
 
Last edited:
Fantasizing about "mad draconian plans" as the goal of a "Roosevelt clique" seems more suggestive of the writer than anything else. The American people wanted blood; the Soviets wanted revenge for the slaughter of millions of their fellow citizens.

Making some ad homineum attacks, now are we?

Read "The New Dealers' War." Many of them DID have "mad draconian plans"--using German POWs as slave labor for public-works projects in the Congo, the Morganthau Plan (which would caused mass starvation), etc.

Luckily Truman was VP instead of Wallace.
 

General Zod

Banned
Only to say that this is the sensible bottom line to it all.

Only if the Western Allies are willing to make something akin to what eventually did for Japan, qualify the unconditional surrender request with sensible garantees (e.g. for Japan it was about the national unity of Japan, freedom from Communist occupation, and the survival of the Imperial institution).

Any German leader would be a fool and a traitor that in 1943-44, with the line of fighting well beyond the boundaries of Germany, if not outside Europe altogether, would think of accepting surrender without garantees about national unity, territorial integrity in the ethnic boundaries, safeguarding of German economy, and the lack of summary or collective punishments. That would not be about "miltarism", any sincere German patriot, be him a neo-Wilhemine, a fascist, a communist, or a democratic newly christened by fair and free elections, would do the same.

If Churchill and Roosevelt are willing to discard mad revenge plans about summary executions of German officers (Katyn, anyone ?), deindustrialization, slave labor for PoWs, ethnic cleansings, savage territorial losses, partition, Communist occupation, and publicly garantee Germany national unity, independence, its industry and the post-Anschluss borders (after D-Day; in 1943, at least the 1939 borders plus Danzig and the Corridor would be necessary) and occupation by the Anglo-Americans alone, then peace can be made sometime in 1943-44.

Luckily, I am quite unconvinced that the British and American people are willing to pay a huge butcher bill in order to let the New Dealers rape the German people with their Genghis Khan plans and fatten Stalin.

Germany may accept surrender if it is qualified with the garantees of a just, humane, and honorable peace. Like the one Japan eventually got.
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
Those polls are meaningless.

Indeed. Besides, 30-40% support for a negotiated peace is not that bad a base taking into account the electors were contemplating a wholly hypotethical scenario in the face of continued German allegiance to Hitler. When confronted with the stunning news that the German people has indeed overthrown the Nazis and is willing to negotiate a compromise peace, I'm willing to bet that public support for total war to the bitter end in order to let Roosevelt implement Plan Morgentau and give half of Europe to Stalin would evaporate.
 
Would it be fair to brand all of the New Dealers as having delusions of grandeur about remaking the world?

Truman was a smart, pragmatic fellow. He might not be as much of a New Dealer as say, Wallace, but he was Roosevelt's VP.
 

General Zod

Banned
Truman was a smart, pragmatic fellow. He might not be as much of a New Dealer as say, Wallace, but he was Roosevelt's VP.

There were New Dealers and there were New Dealers, sure. Many of them were moderates of the Truman brand (e.g. Harry Stimson), not wild-eyed leftists, and were not so eager to go Genghis Khan on the German people nor so cozy with the thought of Stalin conquering Europe, as Roosevelt, Morgenthau, Wallace, etc.
 
Those polls are meaningless.

Now really.
Of course they are based on a hypothetical. But I'd say they are quite a clue to the general feeling in the USA at the time. Never less than 70%, and at times up to 88% of the whole sample polled wanted unconditional surrender full stop, regardless of who was in charge.
Additionally, at least they are actual, factual data, which is more than what those who believe in the feasibility of such a negotiated peace have posted.
 
Top