Was a negotiated peace in Europe after Jan. 1st 1942 possible?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
I do think it's telling that every time the German resistance tried to cut a deal with the Allies, they were told "we're not playing that game again."

Bingo, on one is going to buy Goering or anyone else , certainly including the German General Staff, keeping the agreement five seconds longer than they have to.
 

Deleted member 1487

Why would they trust them? The Germans broke virtually all agreements they made under the Nazi government why would they not break them in the future?
No I meant the Allies would only hold the peace as long as it made sense for them.
 
No I meant the Allies would only hold the peace as long as it made sense for them.

True enough, which makes it even more unlikely. None of the parties have any reason at all to trust anything the other said. WWII was going to be a fight to the finish and was only going to end when Allied armies were sitting on Rome, Berlin and Tokyo and not before.
 

Deleted member 1487

True enough, which makes it even more unlikely. None of the parties have any reason at all to trust anything the other said. WWII was going to be a fight to the finish and was only going to end when Allied armies were sitting on Rome, Berlin and Tokyo and not before.
Right, perhaps the Soviets build up for later to catch a breather, same with the Germans, the Wallies may or may not, potentially not unless public pressure gets to much due to casualties.
 
Right, perhaps the Soviets build up for later to catch a breather, same with the Germans, the Wallies may or may not, potentially not unless public pressure gets to much due to casualties.


The point is, that even then, at most you have a temporary cease fire not peace. That cease fire wouldn't last long however.
 
The point is, that even then, at most you have a temporary cease fire not peace. That cease fire wouldn't last long however.

A few months, at the most, as the Soviets process lessons learned, arm their forces, and then attack.

Really, this is just another attempt by Wiking to have Germany avoid the consequences of it's actions when it is far too late.
 
Last edited:
A few months, at the most, as the Soviets process lessons learned, arm their forces, and then attack.

Really, this is just another attempt by Wiking to have Germany avoid the consequences of it's actions when it is far too late.


Agreed, and I don't know why he does this. I am half German and I think Germany (and Japan for that matter) got what it deserved from the war.

When you kick off a world war and then start to slaughter innocent men, women and children because you think they are "inferior" then you deserve whatever happens to you.


The allies would have had to have been insane to trust anything coming out of Germany at the time. The German government broke one agreement after another, started wars against all its neighbors and harshly oppressed pretty much everybody while slaughtering millions.

"With the "stab in the back" myth so strong in Germany , Germany had to be whipped and whipped badly to make sure that you wouldn't have to fight another war in another generation. After WWII no one in Germany who wasn't completely insane could pretend that they weren't whipped badly.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm curious if it were possible before the official position of unconditional surrender was formalized. I'm putting forth an argument to stimulate discussion, if you want to read deeper motives into asking the question, I can't stop you.
 
I'm curious if it were possible before the official position of unconditional surrender was formalized. I'm putting forth an argument to stimulate discussion, if you want to read deeper motives into asking the question, I can't stop you.


Then the answer is no, it was not possible to have anything but a short cease fire, which would be damn difficult in and of itself.
 
If Egypt fell he would certainly hve to face such a motion and he would likely lose to be succeeded most likely by Lord Halifax.
Oh, Churchill may get the boot, but Halifax would have had problems in 1940 (a member of the House of Lords acting as PM hadn't really happened since 1900... with a significant constitutional change reducing the power of the House of Lords in 1911), let alone 1942 by which time he'd been shipped off to be the Ambassador to the US, leaving Eden a much more likely candidate for the PM-ship.

Then, of cause, there's the delusion that because Halifax even considered the possibility of peace negotiations in the darkest days of 1940 he's going to roll over and deliver the Germans a peace which amounts to little less than a British surrender under all circumstances... even when they have the Americans and Russians on side; the U-Boat situation somewhat under control; no significant aerial threat to Britain and the threat of invasion long gone.
:rolleyes:
 
Think about the actual practicalities. A ceasefire is proposed, to enable peace negotiations to take place. These will take some months. During this time, no offensive actions are to take place, but naval blockades remains in place. If negotiations fail, then war is resumed.

Surely buying time like this benefits the West and the USSR much more than Germany? It allows more time for US industry to develop, more time for materiel to be shipped to the UK and USSR, more time for the Soviets to rebuild their industry and forces. In contrast, while Germany can benefit from uninterrupted industrial production, the restrictions on raw materials mean that time is against them.
 

Deleted member 1487

Think about the actual practicalities. A ceasefire is proposed, to enable peace negotiations to take place. These will take some months. During this time, no offensive actions are to take place, but naval blockades remains in place. If negotiations fail, then war is resumed.

Surely buying time like this benefits the West and the USSR much more than Germany? It allows more time for US industry to develop, more time for materiel to be shipped to the UK and USSR, more time for the Soviets to rebuild their industry and forces. In contrast, while Germany can benefit from uninterrupted industrial production, the restrictions on raw materials mean that time is against them.
Why would combat stop during talks? Until there is a cease fire, which would require the blockade is lifted, then combat continues.
 

Ian_W

Banned
Why would combat stop during talks? Until there is a cease fire, which would require the blockade is lifted, then combat continues.

Because those of us who havent got into the Pervetin know that when you're negotiating with a regime that has broken every agreement it's ever made, you need trust building measures.

Unless Germany has a solid civil war - and we're talking SS hanging from lamp-posts and the German army assaulting German cities because they are Nazi-held - no one is going to believe a post-Hitler government isnt the same old Nazis.

The idea that anyone would take "talks" seriously while the German Army is still fighting to move forward is literally insane.
 
I'm curious if it were possible before the official position of unconditional surrender was formalized. I'm putting forth an argument to stimulate discussion, if you want to read deeper motives into asking the question, I can't stop you.

I'm not going to question you motives but you are coming across a bit dense and flip flopping a little.

For instance you haven't even really made the case that this benefits Germany. All you say is Eastern European resource. But what does that even mean. Who is gathering these resources? Are the Germans paying for it or is it plunder? Was there plunder left? I thought the Soviets were practicing scorch earth.

What are they going to do against the Wallies for the year Russia spends to recover? Or are they going to make peace with the Wallies. Well no there is no chance of that, as you said, for this to work Stalin needs to assume The western front is still a thing. Maybe an Air War or some commercial raiding but would that be enough to please Stalin at the negotiating table?

If Stalin assumes that the Wallies aren't going to make peace then why would He? You say he wasn't a gambler and I agree. A gambler always think they will make it all back on their next bet. They assume there will be a future for themselves. I think Stalin would realize that there isn't a next time for him. Trusting Nazi Germany would be the gamble from his prospective.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm not going to question you motives but you are coming across a bit dense and flip flopping a little.

For instance you haven't even really made the case that this benefits Germany. All you say is Eastern European resource. But what does that even mean. Who is gathering these resources? Are the Germans paying for it or is it plunder? Was there plunder left? I thought the Soviets were practicing scorch earth.
Its funny how you call me dense and flip flopping and don't know how much the Germans were able to exploit Soviet resources in Ukraine and across the front by their own manpower and volunteers and forced labor. They operated critical Soviet mines across Ukraine IOTL until they were overrun by the Soviets. They benefit from not having to fight a massive land war against the Soviets for a period of time, even if its only a year, can save on their logistics, and concentrate against stopping the partisan threat; when they dedicated frontline units to fight partisans, they could be highly effective at destroying them, like Operation Seydlitz during the Rzhev fighting wiped out resistance behind the lines for the during of the German occupation.


What are they going to do against the Wallies for the year Russia spends to recover? Or are they going to make peace with the Wallies. Well no there is no chance of that, as you said, for this to work Stalin needs to assume The western front is still a thing. Maybe an Air War or some commercial raiding but would that be enough to please Stalin at the negotiating table?

If Stalin assumes that the Wallies aren't going to make peace then why would He? You say he wasn't a gambler and I agree. A gambler always think they will make it all back on their next bet. They assume there will be a future for themselves. I think Stalin would realize that there isn't a next time for him. Trusting Nazi Germany would be the gamble from his prospective.
Probably fight in the Mediterranean, use the air power and resources from the East to defend in the West, make a show of force and negotiate.

Stalin could make peace to get a breather to recover while the Wallies fight for a while and when the Axis is weak enough he attacks.
 

takerma

Banned
If Stalin assumes that the Wallies aren't going to make peace then why would He? You say he wasn't a gambler and I agree. A gambler always think they will make it all back on their next bet. They assume there will be a future for themselves. I think Stalin would realize that there isn't a next time for him. Trusting Nazi Germany would be the gamble from his prospective.

"Peace" which in reality would be more of an extended ceasefire, would have a huge benefit for USSR..

1. Time to get all factories moved past Ural working at top efficiency and get quality control issues resolved
2. Time replace losses an retrain the Air Force. In Kharkiv VVS got absolutely annihilated, even a year will make a massive difference
3. Time to reorganize and retrain, all the division that at this point are running on what is left of the officer corps that has been annihilated in purges and then bled dry in 1941

This is not a gamble this is a gift from Goering or whoever.

When summer of 1943 comes.. USSR will have a far stronger military machine and Stalin can make a decision as to what to do. As added benefit this separate peace just force Allies into a much more active war vs Germany. USSR and Stalin were incredibly frustrated with lack of direct combat help. Well now they can have their payback.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
Oh, Churchill may get the boot, but Halifax would have had problems in 1940 (a member of the House of Lords acting as PM hadn't really happened since 1900... with a significant constitutional change reducing the power of the House of Lords in 1911), let alone 1942 by which time he'd been shipped off to be the Ambassador to the US, leaving Eden a much more likely candidate for the PM-ship.

Then, of cause, there's the delusion that because Halifax even considered the possibility of peace negotiations in the darkest days of 1940 he's going to roll over and deliver the Germans a peace which amounts to little less than a British surrender under all circumstances... even when they have the Americans and Russians on side; the U-Boat situation somewhat under control; no significant aerial threat to Britain and the threat of invasion long gone.
:rolleyes:

Amen... (And of course there is a limit to the number of times you breack your word and still kept making deals)
 
Top