No WWII Unconditional Surrender

I suspect that the "Unconditional Surrender" demand may have bolstered Nazi and Japanese resistence and may have cost some allied lives

BUT in the case of Germany to see an end of the war without utter defeat

1) Hitler has to be got out of the way (possible but hard)

2) Germany has to be sure it is losing

3) which is hard to see, the Soviet Union needs to be far enough away not to be able to do anything about a deal with the West (not compatable with 2)
 
I suspect that the "Unconditional Surrender" demand may have bolstered Nazi and Japanese resistence and may have cost some allied lives

BUT in the case of Germany to see an end of the war without utter defeat

1) Hitler has to be got out of the way (possible but hard)

2) Germany has to be sure it is losing

3) which is hard to see, the Soviet Union needs to be far enough away not to be able to do anything about a deal with the West (not compatable with 2)

1) It is not that hard. In 1943 (after Stalingrad and Kursk) the public well knew that the war was turning the other way.

This was also indicated in the increased bombing of Germany by the Allied airfleets. A coup would have the increased support of the people.
Hitler and his successors. That means Bormann and Himmler

2) Coincides with point 1). late (fall) 1943.
 
And did the German public really know how badly Germans had lost at Kursk? Remember, German information and propaganda service was led by Goebbels.
Besides, Germans lost at Moscow (or at least they were stopped there), but later they won at Kharkov. If you didn't have all information it was easy to assume that defeat at Stalingrad and at Kursk were only severe setbacks, but not necessarily total turning of the tide.
 
And did the German public really know how badly Germans had lost at Kursk? Remember, German information and propaganda service was led by Goebbels.
Besides, Germans lost at Moscow (or at least they were stopped there), but later they won at Kharkov. If you didn't have all information it was easy to assume that defeat at Stalingrad and at Kursk were only severe setbacks, but not necessarily total turning of the tide.

The Allied bombing certainly convinced the German public of the severe setbacks of the total war. A lot of other things, like the survivors of Stalingrad convinced the Germans.
 
Let's see. Reparations to Poland, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Belgium, France, Norway. Denmark, Great Britain, USA... That would have ruined German economy, so most probably Germany would have refused to pay them. And how could Allies enforced them without occupation of Germany?

Be smart about collecting them and do not call them reparations.

It worked for the Western European nations IRL ... Germany has been the paymaster of the EU and its precursors for decades and continues to do so in the name of ´European Unity´, love, peace and understanding.

Ironically, one reason for a reduced German willingness to continue doing so 60+ years after the war are diplomatic blunders by the hyper-nationalistic last Polish administration.
 
So...Germany is going to have to pay for reparations to all those countries? Just like Versailles. Germany will be humiliated once again. Another Hitler.

Can't we come up with a treaty that benefits Allies AND Germany?
 

hammo1j

Donor
I think the question of Unconditional Surrender (debatable) and the Morgenthau plan (Roosevelt should have been indicted for willful negligence against his own people) need to be separated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

General George Marshall complained to Morgenthau that German resistance had strengthened.[48] Hoping to get Morgenthau to relent on his plan for Germany, President Roosevelt's son-in-law Lt. Colonel John Boettiger who worked in the War Department explained to Morgenthau how the American troops that had had to fight for five weeks against fierce German resistance to capture the city of Aachen had complained to him that the Morgenthau Plan was "worth thirty divisions to the Germans." Morgenthau refused to relent.[49]

On December 11, OSS operative William Donovan sent Roosevelt a telegraph message from Bern, warning him of the consequences that the knowledge of the Morgenthau plan had had on German resistance; by showing them that the enemy planned the enslavement of Germany it had welded together ordinary Germans and the regime; the Germans continue to fight because they are convinced that defeat will bring nothing but oppression and exploitation.[50] The message was a translation of a recent article in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung.

This cost thousands of lives. The Nazis lied that the Jews were the cause of Germany's downfall, so to present evidence of a Hare Brained Scheme to destroy the country authored by a Jewish American was Gold Dust to Goebbels.

I honestly thought that the contents of the Morgethau plan was an exaggeration by Anti Semites to claim an undue influence in the conduct of the War against Germany by the Jews, but it truly was for real! I am sure that the Jews would not be behind the plan because it meant the war dragged on, but Roosevelt must be condemned to the point where he loses his reputation for this monumental blunder.

With the original poster's consent I would like open another topic with the less debatable question of WI no Morgenthau Plan for Germany?
 
My, all this hysteria for a proposal which never became government policy.:rolleyes:

Meanwhile this would leave a Germany in the hands of Germans who were ready to follow Hitler before there was a Hitler and whose sole reason for turning on him would be that he was losing the war. A a repeat of 1918, when the German military commanders and others who had started the war and repeatedly escalated it suddenly threw the Kaiser under a bus, claiming it was all his fault. I think we all remember how that worked out.

A good portion of this, leaving Germany much of her conquests and the US and UK(under Churchill!) joining with unrepentant Germans against the Soviet Union displays an ignorance of public opinion at the time bordering on mental illness or fascist fantasies.
 

Typo

Banned
What, what, is it making an open disclosure of one's historic sympathies for some nations and cultural/political movements, a violation of the forum's terms of usage ? Enlighten me. In the heat of discussion, he asked me if I am a bit biased on Germany's side. Since I do believe that an early unification of Germany in the Middle Age, or its early victory in WWI, or an early end of WWII after a successful 20-July coup, would have brought an happier overall future for Europe. That, I deem, is a good thing to sympathize for. Please show me where I crossed the boundary.
lol to be honest you think that a complete German victory in WWII would make for a better future for Europe
 
A good portion of this, leaving Germany much of her conquests and the US and UK(under Churchill!) joining with unrepentant Germans against the Soviet Union displays an ignorance of public opinion at the time bordering on mental illness or fascist fantasies.

Irioth and Olmeka were banned.
 
To let aside this heated ideological debate:
IMO, a non-unconditional surrender policy would have been impossible for the western allies.
Before the big german defeats in the east, -say, Stalingrad and Kursk- it was pointless, as the germans would never have given their war gains.
After those defeats, such a policy would have meant that the soviets take all of Germany, maybe even more (Norway? Denmark?).
D-Day was really more pointed at avoiding a soviet europe than destroying the Reich. After Kursk, the soviets were going to win no matter what.
The war in the east was a true total war, Stalin would not have stopped and for sure the americans would not have declared war on their former soviet ally and take sides with the germans, no matter what governement.
 
Top