No WWII Unconditional Surrender

[Slamet]

In OTL FDR in January 1943 (Casablanca Conference) had the plans of 'Unconditional Surrender' to Germany and Japan. Nothing else was allowed.
Germany was going to be turned an agricultural state by the Morgenthau plan directives. It was called (notably by Liddel Hart) WW2's worst blunder.

This stiffened German resistance. Now the German public (largely due to Goebbels) knew that the Allies were not only prepared to defeat Hitler, but also to destroy Germany. They didn't have a choice other than to swear an oath to Hitler and fight for their country.

So, WI FDR wasn't so stiff with his 'Unconditional Surrender' slogan? WI they informed that they only wanted Hitler out of the way, like in Woodrow Wilson's 1918 'Fourteen Points'? Would Hitler be assasinated, now that the Germans knew all the Allies wanted was Hitler out of the way?

 

[WhatIsAUserName]

I'm not sure about the German aspect, but one part of the Casablanca Conference was that the "unconditional surrender" aspect applied also to Italy, and that had the Allies dropped this aspect, there was the possibility of Italy joining the Allies, or at least leaving the Axis, earlier. An Italy on the Allied side would have been a benefit to the Allies, however small, as there would be none of the issue of Mussolini's Italian Social Republic, had Italy not gone through that turmoil.

 

[Alratan]

The Japanese would probably have surrendered before the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[Slamet]

I'm not sure about the German aspect, but one part of the Casablanca Conference was that the "unconditional surrender" aspect applied also to Italy, and that had the Allies dropped this aspect, there was the possibility of Italy joining the Allies, or at least leaving the Axis, earlier. An Italy on the Allied side would have been a benefit to the Allies, however small, as there would be none of the issue of Mussolini's Italian Social Republic, had Italy not gone through that turmoil.

The Allies wouldn't be stuck in Italy in 1944, for one thing. Italy joining the Allies too soon would probably mean 1/3rd of Italy razed by the Germans, as they had a lot of troops there. They were also prepared to use gas againts the Italians.

The Japanese would probably have surrendered before the use of nuclear weapons.

Probably not. The Japanese Diet had more warmongers prepared to sacrifice the whole of the Japanese populance in some kind of Ketsu-Go, decisive operation.

 

[Alratan]

robably not. The Japanese Diet had more warmongers prepared to sacrifice the whole of the Japanese populance in some kind of Ketsu-Go, decisive operation.

The US government disagrees with you

 

[Irioth]

Are the Allies willing to garantee a non-Nazi German leadership decent peace conditions, like the post-Munich borders and no occupation of the Fatherland, the Germans liberate Europe and withdraw within their ethnic borders ? If so, the united generals successfully coup Hitler in a few months, and WWII in Europe comes to an end by mid-/late-1943 with much less destruction and bloodshed. Something that was wholly in the grasp of the Allies all the way, if Roosevelt hadn't been such a fanatic. Pal, how I despise the man. He was wholly willing to destroy Europe completely and abandon what was left to Stalinist nightmare, in order to fulfill his anti-German crusade to the end. Really, the world would have been a better place if he had got an ictus or lost an election early. Sadly, it would have been necessary to happen by 1940, or that equally loony far left Wallace would have been into his place. So whatever POD removes him from power must happen before November 1940. Either he dies before, or his treasonous schemes to cause a US-German war no matter what come to the light, and he loses the 1940 election or is impeached. Without him and his cronies in the White House, fanatics like Morghentau or Communist spies, it's entirely feasible that a more sensible Democratic or Republican administration will agreee to a compromise peace by which Germany deposes Hitler, evacuates Europe and withdraws within its borders. Churchill is bound hands and feet to US help, so he will eventually jump where Washington says jump. Stalin, well, he may prove more recalcitrant, but the Red Army will quickly break its teeth fighting the whole Wehrmacht on a defensive action, without any further Land-Lease help.

Really, it would have been a much happier outcome to WWII in Europe: Germany liberated by its own people without destruction, occupation, disunion, or territorial loss, Europe wholly liberated from Nazis, a couple years less of destruction and bloodshed in Europe, the Final Solution would have made much less progress, Stalin safely contained within his borders. Sadly, it is likely that he would have been insisted on the 1941 borders, so Baltics, Moldavians, Rutenians, etc. would have been toast. But Germans, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, Bulgarians would have been spared the long Commie nightmare. And it's likely that Communism in Russia, too, would have fallen sooner.

 

[Slamet]

Are the Allies willing to garantee a non-Nazi German leadership decent peace conditions, like the post-Munich borders and no occupation of the Fatherland, the Germans liberate Europe and withdraw within their ethnic borders ? If so, the united generals successfully coup Hitler in a few months, and WWII in Europe comes to an end by mid-1943 with much less destruction and bloodshed. Something that was wholly in the grasp of the Allies all the way, if Roosevelt hadn't been such a fanatic.

The US can't gurantee 'no Allied occupation of the Fatherland', on account that the Soviet Union is not going to accept the peace terms. The Soviet Union is probably going to get Poland.

Is the coup going to be that easy? I mean the condition in 1943 was bleak but not that bleak. The SS was still a fanatical diehard force to be reckoned with.

 

[Krall]

The US can't gurantee 'no Allied occupation of the Fatherland', on account that the Soviet Union is not going to accept the peace terms. The Soviet Union is probably going to get Poland.

In that case you might have an alternate WW2 with Germany on the side of the Allies, afterall, the reason for the appeasement policy was because they wanted Germany to be a buffer against a possible Soviet invasion into Europe.

 

[merlin]

Initially, US war planners had expected the Japanese opposition to the Invasion of Kyushu, to be in the region of 350,000 incl. 8 to 10 div's. But during July & August decrypts identified 14 Div's + separate Brigades - at least 680,000! That is the same as the attacking Us troops.But the Japanese were also going to mobilize the adult population into militia units - similar to that of Okinawa;this could have amounted to 'Home Guard' of 3,804,570 people (as per the 1944 census).
No wonder the Japanes Army was confident of success. It may be that there were others in the Japanese Government who could not see the point of carrying on, but it was the Army that counted. And the 'peace' overtures made - didn't allow for foreign occupation of Japan, or withdrawal from all occupied territory. As it was, there was an attempt to sabotage the Potsdam acceptance by younger Army officers - in the belief that the Emperor was badly advised.
The 'Bomb' gave the Japanese an excuse/reason to accept the end. Also, the 'Bomb' meant there was no need for the US to invade - which meant that the Japanese were left without a 'strategy'.

 

[Slamet]

In that case you might have an alternate WW2 with Germany on the side of the Allies, afterall, the reason for the appeasement policy was because they wanted Germany to be a buffer against a possible Soviet invasion into Europe.

Cool
Iron Curtain '44.

The 'Bomb' gave the Japanese an excuse/reason to accept the end. Also, the 'Bomb' meant there was no need for the US to invade - which meant that the Japanese were left without a 'strategy'.

Right. The Bomb gave the Pseudo-Samurai the light. They couldn't die heroically if the Allies were dropping A-bombs on your head. I mean, bamboo againts B-29s?

 

[Irioth]

The US can't gurantee 'no Allied occupation of the Fatherland', on account that the Soviet Union is not going to accept the peace terms. The Soviet Union is probably going to get Poland.

He may drag his feet for a few months, having the Red Army break itself on the defenses of the whole Whermacht, as Allied opinion turns more and more against him, Land-Lease aid is withdrawn (which was keeping Russia from starving, by th way), and Washington and London eventually threaten an alliance with Germany. Once the Nazi are out and Germany withdraws from Western Europe, it becomes clear that the only obstacle to peace in Eastern Europe is Stalin conquer lust. In the eyes of the Allies, he cannot have any other legitimate war aim than restoration of Russia's borders. Open conquest of Eastern Europe or much worse, the Red Army on the Rhein is not acceptable to any non-Commie American or British sane politician. If he gets really unreasonable, it will become a US-UK-Germany team, which can easily wipe out the Red Army and reach Moscow in what six months ? A year ? The USSR was a hairsbreadth away from completely exausting its manpower reserves in 1945, the loss of Land-lease would mean the loss of critical parts of the Soviet war machine, and without USA food, the Russians would starve. How much a half-exausted Red Army can withstand the combined might of the 1943 Wehrmacht, the vast majority of the US Army, and almost all of the British Army ? Plus, they can quickly rearm the French and the Italians, if need be. And by mid-1945, the USA will have nukes, and Stalin will not.

Really, it would be the happiest outcome of all, Stalin wiped out by the Allies-Germany team in 1944, but he would have swallowed the bitter pill, and eventually come to the bargaining team for a compromise peace after the first defeats. The Red Army has no hope in heaven of withstanding the USA, the UK, and Germany. Nonetheless, it would have been a very happy day for Eastern Europe, as the new alliance would have been no reason for appease Stalin anymore, so they would have likely pushed for the 1939 borders, which means freedom for the Baltics, or maybe even the Brest-Litovsk borders, which means freedom for Ukraine. Anyway, the Iron Curtain would have been on Soviet borders, wherever they might be, which means the USSR would have fought the Cold War with the resources of Russia alone, hastening its fall (they might have made a try for China, but an USA that had fought the Russians would have been very wary of allowing the communists any inch beyond Soviet borders, coming down on Mao very hard).

Is the coup going to be that easy? I mean the condition in 1943 was bleak but not that bleak. The SS was still a fanatical diehard force to be reckoned with.

Yes. Anytime after Stalingrad, the coup might have triggered, but what fatally delayed it till mid-1944 and made it sloppy and half-hearted was the fact that anti-Nazi generals were garanteed no decent future for Germany from the Allies, even if they ousted Hitler. Betraying your leader to open the doors to unconditional surrender is one thing, but peace, a moderate interim milirary vgovernment and eventual restoration of democracy, and keeping the legitimate minimum war aims of Germany in WWII (national integrity, independence, Austria and Sudetenland), Germany keeping its place in the world as a great power and reconciliation withe Anglo-Saxon powers ? I can see no real trouble in selling it to the German people. The Waffen SS would have followed the Wehrmacht once Hitler was dead, and disarming the others would not have been too difficult for the Army. The vast majority of the German people would have transfered their loyalty to the military junta. A civil war to restore the Nazis into power would only have meant the Bolsheviks conquering the Fatherland.

 

[Major Major]

The vast majority of the German people would have transfered their loyalty to the military junta. A civil war to restore the Nazis into power would only have meant the Bolsheviks conquering the Fatherland.

The problem was that prevailing opinion in the United States was that Naziism was the successor of "Prussianism". There were best-selling books claiming that Hitler was the front man of the German General Staff working its aim of World Conquest for the Teutonic Conspiracy.

Roosevelt himself believed the German high command -- accordingly, the Wiederstand to be Nazi; he saw no difference between Keitel (chief of the OKW, hanged at Nuremburg, known as "Lakeitel", Lackey-Keitel, by the army for his obsequious subservience) and Beck (leader of the Opposition, fired for opposing the takeover of the Sudetenland).

So if Hitler is blown apart, and Himmler is shot dead in the middle of his magic charms at Wewelsberg, and Beck is Reichstellvertreter while Carl Goerdler is Chancellor, Roosevelt and much of American public opinon will hold that "the Prussianists got rid of the Nazi front men and are trying to save themselves for the next attempt at World Domination."

 

[Irioth]

The problem was that prevailing opinion in the United States was that Naziism was the successor of "Prussianism". There were best-selling books claiming that Hitler was the front man of the German General Staff working its aim of World Conquest for the Teutonic Conspiracy.

Roosevelt himself believed the German high command -- accordingly, the Wiederstand to be Nazi; he saw no difference between Keitel (chief of the OKW, hanged at Nuremburg, known as "Lakeitel", Lackey-Keitel, by the army for his obsequious subservience) and Beck (leader of the Opposition, fired for opposing the takeover of the Sudetenland).

So if Hitler is blown apart, and Himmler is shot dead in the middle of his magic charms at Wewelsberg, and Beck is Reichstellvertreter while Carl Goerdler is Chancellor, Roosevelt and much of American public opinon will hold that "the Prussianists got rid of the Nazi front men and are trying to save themselves for the next attempt at World Domination."

Yes, but the whole point of this TL is that the Allies *offer* a compromise honorable peace to a denazified Germany. Unconditional surrender was Roosevelt's brainchild (did I told you how much I hate the man today ), and he was the Alpha dog of the Alliance anyway, so any plausible PoD causes the USA to be rid of Roosevelt at the helm. And it ought to happen before the 1940 election, so the Democrats can either pick a conservative Democrat (plausible, the influence of New Deal leftists in the party was losing ground since the 1938 midterm elections), he loses the election to Dewey (plausible if Germany is winning the war in Europe more decisely than IOTL and he comes to be seen as the warmonger he is, or his treacherous attempts to go at war with Germany against the will of the Congress and the people were discovered) or he's impeached (a really bad scandal about his secret deals with Churchill). Either way we need a moderate Democrat or Republican in the White House.

Once Roosevelt is got rid of, either America never goes to war against Germany (say Hitler does not declare war), or it goes for a "Japan First" strategy (very plausible without Roosevelt; the vendetta of the American people was against Pearl Harbor, not the invasion of Poland) and the enimity vs. the Germans gets downplayed. Anyway, once Hitler is out, it would be relatively easy to sell a compromise peace to the American people, by means like releasing POWs, withdrawing from some Western Europe countries, etc. The war fury of the American people was focused on the treacherous Japs first and foremost (distasteful as it may seem today, there was also a strong racial element involved), Nazism second. The broad anti-German feeling that you describe were a very distant third, and would be easily contained after the new Administration would realize the strong benefits of an early peace with Germany which fulfills the US war aim, does not wreck Europe by destroying its strongest country, and keeps it around as a bulvark vs. the Bolshevik hordes. The genocidal plans a la Morgenthau to starve Germany into an agricultural backwater were but a tiny minority of US ruling elites, the Communist spies and anti-german cronies that riddled Roosevelt's adminstration, they only got an ear while Roosevelt was in charge, proof is they very quickly evaporated after Truman was in charge.

 

[bard32]

In OTL FDR in January 1943 (Casablanca Conference) had the plans of 'Unconditional Surrender' to Germany and Japan. Nothing else was allowed.
Germany was going to be turned an agricultural state by the Morgenthau plan directives. It was called (notably by Liddel Hart) WW2's worst blunder.

This stiffened German resistance. Now the German public (largely due to Goebbels) knew that the Allies were not only prepared to defeat Hitler, but also to destroy Germany. They didn't have a choice other than to swear an oath to Hitler and fight for their country.

So, WI FDR wasn't so stiff with his 'Unconditional Surrender' slogan? WI they informed that they only wanted Hitler out of the way, like in Woodrow Wilson's 1918 'Fourteen Points'? Would Hitler be assasinated, now that the Germans knew all the Allies wanted was Hitler out of the way?

Germany, if you remember, didn't give generous terms to its defeated enemies. Why would the Allies give generous terms to Germany, and by extension, Japan?

 

[Olmeka]

The genocidal plans a la Morgenthau to starve Germany into an agricultural backwater

That was never the intention of the plan. The idea that it was planned genocide to my knowledge is the brain child of revisionists.

Anyway, once Hitler is out, it would be relatively easy to sell a compromise peace to the American people, by means like releasing POWs, withdrawing from some Western Europe countries,

So you are in belief only Western Europe is important ?

Letting openly betray Eastern Europe means a diplomatic disaster that will make Western Allies lose face both to the world and to their people. Czech and Polish governments in exile as well as their forces will easly be seduced by Soviet Union which will be seen as their only hope against the Germans.

Roosevelt himself believed the German high command -- accordingly, the Wiederstand to be Nazi

It's not hard to understand him. After all prominent resistanceleaders like Stauffenberg had ideas like borders from 1914 in the East, free hand of Germany in the East and using Poles as slaves for German economy. Such German resistance makes Stalin look like a nice guy.

moderate interim milirary vgovernment and eventual restoration of democracy, and keeping the legitimate minimum war aims of Germany in WWII (national integrity, independence, Austria and Sudetenland), Germany keeping its place in the world as a great power and reconciliation withe Anglo-Saxon powers ? I can see no real trouble in selling it to the German people.

Too bad German resistance wanted a fascist government, borders from 1914, control over Eastern Europe and refused to hand over war criminals. And why should Czech government in exile be betrayed by the Allies openly. I can already Stalin bragging about it while warning Poles that he is their only hope. Congratulations-you just destroyed the Allied camp while ruining Allied diplomacy and face.

Are the Allies willing to garantee a non-Nazi German leadership decent peace conditions, like the post-Munich borders and no occupation of the Fatherland, the Germans liberate Europe and withdraw within their ethnic borders ?

A-Read on what were the conditions demanded by German resistance. It starts with 1914 border in the East and "free hand in the rest of East Europe"
B-You propose a ceasefire not a surrender, the terms are as if Germans won the battle and Allies are forced to their terms.
C-Germans never wanted a withdrawal to ethnic borders.
D-Returning to status quo before the war is unaccaptable, Germany started the war two times it needs to be stopped from third.
E-Conditional surrender requires a treaty. Germany was given one in First World War-then broke it several times as well as other treaties. Hence the demand for unconditional surrender.

 

[Slamet]

Germany, if you remember, didn't give generous terms to its defeated enemies. Why would the Allies give generous terms to Germany, and by extension, Japan?

Because they foresaw that an agricultural Germany ala the Morgenthau plan isn't going to hold out under a Soviet attack. Because Poland was essentially red (with the LWP and all that) then the buffer state was Germany.

Japan was given a conditional peace treaty because it also provided a buffer state between China. It also had a strong anti-atheist govermental system AND it was a valuable base in East Asia.

 

[Slamet]

Yes, but the whole point of this TL is that the Allies *offer* a compromise honorable peace to a denazified Germany. Unconditional surrender was Roosevelt's brainchild (did I told you how much I hate the man today ), and he was the Alpha dog of the Alliance anyway, so any plausible PoD causes the USA to be rid of Roosevelt at the helm.

Roosevelt wasn't that bad. I am not clear on American Goverment though. I think it was him who popularized air power, besides Billy Mitchell.

 

[stevep]

Irioth

Even if the 'Germans' whatever that meant got rid of Hitler, which is a long way from de-nazification, how do you have an honourable peace with an highly militaristic group who think they have a right to right roughshod over anyone who has the mis-fortunate to live on the same continent as them? Olmeka has mentioned the nature of some of the resistance to Hitler and much of the army, those parts not heavily nazified, was highly committed to an expansionist and racist programme. If you get the chance read up on the Manor Farm transcripts. Their most famous for the reaction of the German nuclear scientists to the 1st news of the atomic attacks on Japan. However I remember reading about others involving some of their military leadership. Their general option when discussing matters, which they didn't realise was being recorded was on what they did wrong and how to avoid that next time. Not what they did wrong in waging brutal and aggressive war, but wrong in failing to win that conflict.

There may have been the chance for a conditional surrender. However the behaviour of Germany in the conflict, military and much of the population as well as the Nazi party, meant that it must be under far greater restrictions than after WWI if there was to be any chance of lasting peace. I pact with the devil might have been made in some way to sacrifice eastern Europe to German domination but its one that I think the west would have lived to regret if it made such a mistake.

I have many reasons to be unhappy with Roosevelt and his behaviours in WWII but one thing he did get right was that Germany must be defeated. Unconditional surrender may have been avoidable but a surrender was necessary if Germany was to be rebuilt as a democratic nation that could live at peace amongst its neighbours.

Steve

 

[Slamet]

Irioth

There may have been the chance for a conditional surrender. However the behaviour of Germany in the conflict, military and much of the population as well as the Nazi party, meant that it must be under far greater restrictions than after WWI if there was to be any chance of lasting peace. I pact with the devil might have been made in some way to sacrifice eastern Europe to German domination but its one that I think the west would have lived to regret if it made such a mistake.

If you had more restrictions you could otherwise make another Hitler. The Versailles treaty was both restricting and humiliating.

Maybe the Allies will decide to install a more pro-Allied leader. The populance were really following the leader, so just install a pro-Allied one. I don't know if this has something to do with Germany being a police state, but the Japanese in the pre-WW2 and WW2 years were really subjugated and loyal to their leaders. They were even called Shimnin or Shimin or something like that (sorry 'bout the rusty Japanese) and that meant 'The Emperor's subjects'.

 

[Irioth]

That was never the intention of the plan. The idea that it was planned genocide to my knowledge is the brain child of revisionists.

Then it would have been "culpable neglect" genocide. Not much of the difference. Destroying Germany' industrial base would have created an humanitarian catastrophe of unheeded proportions in Europe since Stalin's Holodomor famine in the 30s.

So you are in belief only Western Europe is important ?

Not at all. It's just that we are discussing Allies' peace terms with Germany, and how it can be accomplished. They can release Eastern Europe prisoners, too, but to whom ? Many Russian POWs would not want to be returned in the hands of the NKVD. Withdrawing German troops from Eastern Europe can't be safely done until Stalin has agreed on peace terms on the 1939 or 1941 borders (which ones depends on much pressure the Allies apply on him), afterwards USA and UK troops can land in the Balkans and go upwards to pacify the region and fill the power vacuum.

Letting openly betray Eastern Europe means a diplomatic disaster that will make Western Allies lose face both to the world and to their people.

Who's speaking of betraying them ? The peace terms I've mentioned would be honorable to anyone, Czechoslovakia would have its independence restored in the 1939 borders, ditto for Poland, they would get back anything but Danzig (which is German), the Eastern Europe countries would have their independence restored in the Allies' sphere of influence. Now, the US President and the UK Premier would have a big headache deciding exactly where the ethnic borders are in the Balkans, and would have to forcibly desarm or shoot some Commie partisans in Yugoslavia as they did in Greece, but that's not a matter that would block a truce with Germany.

Germany would get an honorable peace, too, independence and territorial integrity in the borders that reflect its rightful ethnic areas: Austria, Sudetenland, Danzig.

Czech and Polish governments in exile as well as their forces will easly be seduced by Soviet Union which will be seen as their only hope against the Germans.

Very hard for the Poles, they have a lot of territory to recover from Stalin. Possible for the Czech if they want Sudetenland that bad, but mind it, this ATL peace deal envisages Allies occupying Eastern Europe, too, they won't tolerate pro-Soviet uprisings (see Greece).

After all prominent resistanceleaders like Stauffenberg had ideas like borders from 1914 in the East, free hand of Germany in the East and using Poles as slaves for German economy.

Well, the 1914 borders aren't such an abusive claims, but I fear that they would be wholly unrealistic, the bets they can hope to get, are referendums in the disputed territories: Germany will win in Danzig, lose in Posen and the Corridor, Upper Silesia is a toss-up.

As for the other claims, they are unrealistic, they will be quickly talked down at the peace negotiations, they can settle for their rightful ethnic claims, although: Austria and Sudetenland. They are rigthfully theirs. With them, a post-Nazi German government can make a sincere claim to its people to have pulled the country put of the disgraceful Hitler adventure, keeping the national unity of the Fatherland intact (minus Alsace-Lorraine and Luxembourg, but it can't be helped, and the presence of the Polish Corridor is honestly a thorn in the side, but it can't be helped, too).

Such German resistance makes Stalin look like a nice guy.

Stalin "I rightfully claim the prize for having butchered more people than any other tyrant in history" guy ? This is exceedingly biased, and I won't discuss it seriously.

Too bad German resistance wanted a fascist government, borders from 1914, control over Eastern Europe and refused to hand over war criminals.

A moderate right-wing military junta provisional government for 1-2 years as they iron out the peace treaty, resettle the country, and work out Denazification is only reasonable. Or are you claiming they would have to hold elections while the war is still raging, Hitler's blood is still fresh, and they are not done with Denazification. Come on, even the UK suspended elections while the war was on. Only USA has ever managed to hold wartime elections twice, and it's an unprecedented feat in history, even in established democratic the standard is to suspend elections and restrict some basic liberties in wartime. Again, claiming the 1914 borders is likely unrealistic in the 1943 conditions, but it's not so terribly evil, Germany has owned those lands for almost two centuries, even if the pre-war ethnic balance was not on their side, but admittedly the Polish corridor was a thorn in Germany's side, economically and strategically, they would have needed a much more favourable military situation to pull it through at the peace table, and not have Hitler's ethnic changes in the Warthenland stick. But again, Poles and Czech did worse OTL. The decent realistic deal I envisage is, Danzig to Germany, everything else to Poland.

Exclusive control over Eastern Europe is again unrealistic, but then again, Germany and the Allies have a strong common strategic interest into keeping Stalin out of the area, once they settle on deal, the region will still be open to Germany, economically, and it will go into American sphere of influence. If, as it is likely, denazified Germany and USA will end up allies in a few years, it will be like a codominium.

As for the war criminals, whatever Nazi top echelons survived the coup, will in all likelihood end up before German tribunals, the Rommel government has no interest in being especially lenient towards them, the more they can publicly distance themselves from Nazi crimes, the better, Goring ad co. will still end up before the executioner, but it may be a German firing squad insted of an Allied one. Or they might just be still handed over to an Allied tribunal, it depends on how much keen the Allies are to do the trials themselves.

And why should Czech government in exile be betrayed by the Allies openly.

They will get their independence back. As for the Sudentenland, as national self-determination goes, it was never rightfully theirs in the first place. If the Germans don't have a rightful claim on the 1914 borders, so the Czech havedn't on the Sudetenland.

I can already Stalin bragging about it while warning Poles that he is their only hope.

The only hope of what ? Getting Russian domination on them again ? The peace deal gets their independence and their national territories back (minus Danzig, which is not, nor ever was, Polish). Polish resistance was fiercely anti-communist, it is all in theri interest to cling to the USA like dear life and pray that tensions between the Allies and the Soviets heat up hard enough that he is forced to hand over the Polish 1939 borders.

Congratulations-you just destroyed the Allied camp while ruining Allied diplomacy and face.

Why ? They have just accomplished all their war aims, Hitler is dead, the Nazi are dead or awaiting trials, Europe has been liberated and kept asafe from the Bolsheviks, Germany is cowed within its national borders but hasn't been humiliated, Europe is freed without the untold destruction and bloodshede that it would take an invasion. It's an excellent deal.

A-Read on what were the conditions demanded by German resistance. It starts with 1914 border in the East and "free hand in the rest of East Europe"

Any peace negotiation begins by stating your maximum claims, which then you negotiate down and compromise with.

B-You propose a ceasefire not a surrender, the terms are as if Germans won the battle and Allies are forced to their terms.

Hitler is out, Europe is free. The Allies' war aims are fulfilled. Destroying Germany's independence and making it a USA/British protectorate was not among them. What legitimate business are the Allies marching in Berlin now ?

C-Germans never wanted a withdrawal to ethnic borders.

The Valkuria government will quickly come to their senses at the peace table anyway. Independence and ethnic borders are a god deal, a legitimate deal under the ideologies and war aims the Allies are figthing for. Ethnic borders mean complete national unfication as dreamed in the 1800s has been done, Germany will remain a great power, if they lay down and stay quiet and subtle for a few tears, they will still control Eastern Europe ecnomically in a few years, albeit it will have to be a condominium with the USA, France and the UK are broken from the war effort.

D-Returning to status quo before the war is unaccaptable, Germany started the war two times it needs to be stopped from third.

To be honest it was once, WWI was a collective guilt, but anyway, the Allies tried super-harsh peace deals once before, and it stirred German resentment to a whirlwind of hate that shook the world. A new Versailles will create conditions for a new war of revenge, Germany is there to stay, unless you want to top Hitler's and Stalin's genocides combined, and crippling it would only invite Stalin to dominate the continent. It's time for a fair peace deal. A treaty that does not humiliate Germany and fulfills its basic legitimate national claims will create the conditions for another war, and will keep it as a bulwark against Russia.

E-Conditional surrender requires a treaty. Germany was given one in First World War-then broke it several times as well as other treaties. Hence the demand for unconditional surrender.

See above. The Versailles treaty was untenable, and in the late 20s-early 30s, the Allies had acknowledged it. The great treaty-breaker, Hitler, is dead, its cronies are dead or in jail. Germany will try the survivors, but if ou really, really insist, sure, we'll deliver them, it's not like post-Nazi Germany has anything to gain from them.