Would the allies actually accept a conditional surrender?

Nietzsche

Banned
Assume that, at some point, the Army manages to over throw Hitler(Kill him) and most of the "Big Bads" are arrested and killed as well: Would the allies really accept a conditional surrender? (Allies not including the Soviet Union)

What would it take? Give back all lands taken in the west except, maybe, Luxembourg? Give back all French lands except the Alsace and the Lowlands?
 
Assume that, at some point, the Army manages to over throw Hitler(Kill him) and most of the "Big Bads" are arrested and killed as well: Would the allies really accept a conditional surrender? (Allies not including the Soviet Union)

What would it take? Give back all lands taken in the west except, maybe, Luxembourg? Give back all French lands except the Alsace and the Lowlands?

This has been argued before. Churchill would be adamantly against it, though FDR may cave in if the public gets tired of the war especially when they know the new government is fishing for terms and most of the baddies are gone. Basiclly a Valkyrie like overthrow I guess.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
1) Would it actually matter all that much if the Western Allies backed down? Stalin was going to get his pound of flesh regardless.

2) The U.S. believed, deeply, that it needed the USSR to join in against the Japanese right up to the last few weeks of the war (remember the Plutonium Bomb wasn't anywhere close to a sure thing until July 16, 1945 and Manhattan had already come to the conclusion that it was a practical impossibility to make Uranium bombs in any sort of quantity). This being the case, the Western Allies had to stay in the game against the Germans.

3) There is also the not small matter of the propaganda the West had pumped out about "Uncle Joe" and the plight of the brave Russian people. To suddenly say, "Just Kidding about the whole Unconditional Surrender thing" would have been a domestic disaster AND sent the absolute wrong message to Tokyo, with all the potential horrors that involved.

4) The Death Camps. Once those came to light, it was over. I have always been amazed that Germany were as gently treated by the West as happened IOTL after the Camps and their horrors became common knowledge.

Overall, the chances for any sort of conditional surrender for the Reich was nil.
 
1) Would it actually matter all that much if the Western Allies backed down? Stalin was going to get his pound of flesh regardless.

2) The U.S. believed, deeply, that it needed the USSR to join in against the Japanese right up to the last few weeks of the war (remember the Plutonium Bomb wasn't anywhere close to a sure thing until July 16, 1945 and Manhattan had already come to the conclusion that it was a practical impossibility to make Uranium bombs in any sort of quantity). This being the case, the Western Allies had to stay in the game against the Germans.

3) There is also the not small matter of the propaganda the West had pumped out about "Uncle Joe" and the plight of the brave Russian people. To suddenly say, "Just Kidding about the whole Unconditional Surrender thing" would have been a domestic disaster AND sent the absolute wrong message to Tokyo, with all the potential horrors that involved.

4) The Death Camps. Once those came to light, it was over. I have always been amazed that Germany were as gently treated by the West as happened IOTL after the Camps and their horrors became common knowledge.

Overall, the chances for any sort of conditional surrender for the Reich was nil.

1) If the allies occupy Germany and move up to prewar positions as part of the truce(as it would have to be for Germany), would Stalin really start a war with the allies to "get his pound of flesh"?

2) I never really understood this one, Soviet involvement in the Far East is a nightmare. All it really did OTL is ensure that China falls to Mao instead of Chiang and cut Korea in half. Say what you will about good old "Uncle Joe" he was the next rival, even then.

3) Why would it be a disaster? If the people in charge of starting the war and committing the atrocities were all arrested, suddenly it's not a war to liberate Europe, the Germans pretty much took care of that, it's just a war to crush Germany, even after they've shown they're all not that bad. As for Japan, seems to me getting them to surrender earlier can only benefit the Asian situation as it would be handing Manchuria to Chiang instead of Mao, and likely giving all of Korea to the Allies.

4) Same point, if the Germans cleaned their own house and owned up to it all, how could it be any worse than it was OTL when we waltzed into the death camps?
 
It would depend a great deal with the situation on the ground. Japan's aims in 1945 of forcing such a high body count as to lead to lead to a negotiated surrender may well be possible, at a ruinous cost in lives to their own people.

Germany would probably have to do better in Europe--if they could hold out until something like 1948, MAYBE they can peace out. But Stalin is not going to peace out unless he's pretty sure that he's going to lose even more. Give Stalin the choice of driving to the Rhine on his own or allowing a hostile state that attacked him on his western border--he's going to go for the kill.

The way I see a conditional surrender playing out in Europe is greater and earlier Soviet-Western Tensions, and therefore the Axis powers winding up surrendering ONLY to the West. Perhaps if the UK actually bombs Baku over the Finland Invasion--perhaps then the Allied/Soviet rift is strong enough that the UK and USA would agree to a "freezeout surrender"
 

Nietzsche

Banned
It would depend a great deal with the situation on the ground. Japan's aims in 1945 of forcing such a high body count as to lead to lead to a negotiated surrender may well be possible, at a ruinous cost in lives to their own people.

Germany would probably have to do better in Europe--if they could hold out until something like 1948, MAYBE they can peace out. But Stalin is not going to peace out unless he's pretty sure that he's going to lose even more. Give Stalin the choice of driving to the Rhine on his own or allowing a hostile state that attacked him on his western border--he's going to go for the kill.

The way I see a conditional surrender playing out in Europe is greater and earlier Soviet-Western Tensions, and therefore the Axis powers winding up surrendering ONLY to the West. Perhaps if the UK actually bombs Baku over the Finland Invasion--perhaps then the Allied/Soviet rift is strong enough that the UK and USA would agree to a "freezeout surrender"

I don't really care about Japan. I was wondering about the whole "Valkyrie succeeds and allies & Germany are happy again" thought process that seems to prevail in the forum. Now, personally, if Germany were willing to give up all their western gains, I think the allies(Again, not the Soviets) would take it. Why fight to gain what you could get for, err...free.
 
2) I never really understood this one, Soviet involvement in the Far East is a nightmare. All it really did OTL is ensure that China falls to Mao instead of Chiang and cut Korea in half. Say what you will about good old "Uncle Joe" he was the next rival, even then.

Think about it then, Manchuria has about a million Japanese soldiers, then you still have to go do downfall after that. The atom bomb seems like a dead end.

Not the sorta plans a sane person would try ato carry out. Better to let the Soviets bleed.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
1) If the allies occupy Germany and move up to prewar positions as part of the truce(as it would have to be for Germany), would Stalin really start a war with the allies to "get his pound of flesh"?

2) I never really understood this one, Soviet involvement in the Far East is a nightmare. All it really did OTL is ensure that China falls to Mao instead of Chiang and cut Korea in half. Say what you will about good old "Uncle Joe" he was the next rival, even then.

3) Why would it be a disaster? If the people in charge of starting the war and committing the atrocities were all arrested, suddenly it's not a war to liberate Europe, the Germans pretty much took care of that, it's just a war to crush Germany, even after they've shown they're all not that bad. As for Japan, seems to me getting them to surrender earlier can only benefit the Asian situation as it would be handing Manchuria to Chiang instead of Mao, and likely giving all of Korea to the Allies.

4) Same point, if the Germans cleaned their own house and owned up to it all, how could it be any worse than it was OTL when we waltzed into the death camps?

1. Were are the U.S. and UK going to stop? The Elbe? If so, fine. Otherwise there will be hell to pay as far as Soviet involvement in

2. the war against Japan. In all the recent debate about the end game against Japan in another thread one thing that is not even questioned was the impact of the Soviets going after the Kwantung Army. It was that action combined with the Bombs that gave the Peace Party in Japan the window to surrender. The Soviet intervention in the Pacific War was not what "lost" China. The utter inability of Kuomintang to act in even a mildly compentent manner, despite the support of the U.S., when facing the CCP was the reason that Mao wound up ruling China.

3. Unconditional Surrender had been drummed into every American. It was accepted as the only way to be sure that American boys wouldn't be dying in the Argonne AGAIN in 1960. It was a given that you had to crush the Nazis and the Japanese. The U.S. had spent several years, using the very best film makers on Earth to shape that message and serve it up in every single media.

As far as how much of a disaster accepting a conditional end in the ETO would have created in the PTO that would seem to require no comment at all. The Japanese were, even after the fall of Okinawa, deluding themselves with the belief that they could keep their gains in China and give the Emperor veto power over anything they agreed to at a peace table.

4. How many are going to be arrested? Most of the Heer senior leadership was guilty as sin. The Heer wasn't going to take their own people in hand. How could you trust that sort of people to "clean things up" on their own? The evidence that they would do something as dreadful as the camps would make fairly clear that they need to be dealt with in a signficiant way.


Also, how bad IS Germany? It is worth remembering that we are not talking about American and British voters who have seen Germany as a fried and ally against the Red Menace for four decades or so. This was the second time in a generation that the U.S. had been forced to cross the Atlantic to deal with the "Krauts". Most Americans, and virtually every British subject, knew someone (or knew someone who had a family member) who had died in the Great War fighting the "Huns". My grandmother almost had a stroke when I took German as my foreign Language elective in the 1970's because "the Germans are bad people".

Overall, these sorts of POD need to account for how the people of the era viewed the Reich and generally fail to do so. I try to always use "the Reich" when discussing WW II Germany because it is indicitive of how the West looked at Germany. It was a monolith, Nazi to the core, fascist, evil, untrustworthy in every way. "Left the job undone in 1918; not going to make that mistake again" was a common belief.

Was that true? Good question and perhaps one for a separate thread, but it WAS how the West looked at the country. Any review of this sort of a POD has to keep that in constant view.
 
The only way I can see this to be possible is for
(1) The Army to take over, arrest/execute the Nazi and SS as necessary
(2) Be in a much stronger position in 1944 (I dont see a coup pre-44 as being plausible in any way)
Say if Germany inflicted a defeat on Russia on the Eastern front (yes, I know,it wont last, but it gives them a window of opportunity), while retreating steadily in the West (again, difficult, but not impossible).

The summer of 44 is also the last time the British can dictate terms. After that, the USA forces are too powerful, and what the USA says goes. But in the summer, the forces on land are fairly even, so without the British...

(3) The USA needs to wake up and realise just what Stalin is. This is the difficult one, as they were fixated on giving away half of Europe to Russia, and on Russian involvement in the Far East.
It also is necessary in order to allow British pressure for a conditinal surrender to work. There were some in the US government who seemed to see victory over Britain a secondary war aim.... Britain still has military clout in the summer of 44, but no economic leverage.

At this point, what could be arranged was a surrender with certain conditions.
Say something like
Germany returns to pre-war borders - at best.
Germans in places like Poland and Czechoslvakia get the choice of moving to Germany, or shutting up. Pressure on them to relocate.
Prosecution of all war criminals by the allies.
Disarming of Germany until such time as the allies deem them fit to have an army again.

Basically the Western allies get to take over Germany, meeting up with Russia in Poland. Whats Stalin going to do, if he's just suffered a major defeat? As long as the USA/Britain hang tough, he doesnt have any bargaining chips at that point.

Its not very likely, but not impossible.
 

Markus

Banned
Depends on the conditions. Full occupation by all four allied powers and complete demilitarisation are not negotiable, a guarantee of the 1933-borders could be possible, though Danzig and East Prussia might be problematic.

And why exclude the USSR? They have an interest to ends the war too. They are nearly blead white, so if the Germans allow them to occupy the rest of eastern without a fight all the better.
 
1. Were are the U.S. and UK going to stop? The Elbe? If so, fine. Otherwise there will be hell to pay as far as Soviet involvement in

2. the war against Japan. In all the recent debate about the end game against Japan in another thread one thing that is not even questioned was the impact of the Soviets going after the Kwantung Army. It was that action combined with the Bombs that gave the Peace Party in Japan the window to surrender. The Soviet intervention in the Pacific War was not what "lost" China. The utter inability of Kuomintang to act in even a mildly compentent manner, despite the support of the U.S., when facing the CCP was the reason that Mao wound up ruling China.

3. Unconditional Surrender had been drummed into every American. It was accepted as the only way to be sure that American boys wouldn't be dying in the Argonne AGAIN in 1960. It was a given that you had to crush the Nazis and the Japanese. The U.S. had spent several years, using the very best film makers on Earth to shape that message and serve it up in every single media.

As far as how much of a disaster accepting a conditional end in the ETO would have created in the PTO that would seem to require no comment at all. The Japanese were, even after the fall of Okinawa, deluding themselves with the belief that they could keep their gains in China and give the Emperor veto power over anything they agreed to at a peace table.

4. How many are going to be arrested? Most of the Heer senior leadership was guilty as sin. The Heer wasn't going to take their own people in hand. How could you trust that sort of people to "clean things up" on their own? The evidence that they would do something as dreadful as the camps would make fairly clear that they need to be dealt with in a signficiant way.


Also, how bad IS Germany? It is worth remembering that we are not talking about American and British voters who have seen Germany as a fried and ally against the Red Menace for four decades or so. This was the second time in a generation that the U.S. had been forced to cross the Atlantic to deal with the "Krauts". Most Americans, and virtually every British subject, knew someone (or knew someone who had a family member) who had died in the Great War fighting the "Huns". My grandmother almost had a stroke when I took German as my foreign Language elective in the 1970's because "the Germans are bad people".

Overall, these sorts of POD need to account for how the people of the era viewed the Reich and generally fail to do so. I try to always use "the Reich" when discussing WW II Germany because it is indicitive of how the West looked at Germany. It was a monolith, Nazi to the core, fascist, evil, untrustworthy in every way. "Left the job undone in 1918; not going to make that mistake again" was a common belief.

Was that true? Good question and perhaps one for a separate thread, but it WAS how the West looked at the country. Any review of this sort of a POD has to keep that in constant view.

Excellent post, nothing to add really. QFT.
 

Typo

Banned
What would it take? Give back all lands taken in the west except, maybe, Luxembourg? Give back all French lands except the Alsace and the Lowlands?
haha hows that suppose to be a surrender?
 
It would depend on when Hitler is removed. After D-Day the chances are very small, that the allies would even consider such a proposal. The result would be like Japan, which had to surrender unconditionaly but afterwards the allies agree on some points, like to spare the emperor. Germany would also have to surrender, but might lose less territory, after all even IOTL there was disagreement about wether the eastern or the western Neisse should be choosen for the Oder-Neisse-Line, if Germany did surrender the allies are likely to chose the eastern Neisse.

If Germany offers a surrender prior to D-Day it would look different. I would assume that the could demand the borders of 1933. An occupation and supervision of the de-nazification and democratization would still be non-negotiable.
 
Churchill would be adamantly against it, though FDR may cave in if the public gets tired of the war especially

This is possible, though it would also be a reverse for FDR from the Casablance conference where he unilaterally announced the policy.

Churchill may not be reversing his position from that conference if he does come out against conditional surrender (Roosevelt having kindly taken the decision out of his hands in early '43).
 
Depends when and how much the Germans are willing to give up. Personally, given British policy and US moralism, I suspect there is probably no way a German army junta could get a negotiated peace without accepting (1) complete return to pre-1938 German borders, (2) some form of temporary military occupation of Germany to ensure compliance, (3) the right of the allies to extradite, try, and punish deposed Nazi leadership - and others believed culpable in decisions to start the war or wage "war crimes" including members of the army and navy, and (4) reinstitution of democratic republican rule and at least some of the Versailles limitations of German military. And this is before Barbarossa and the Holocaust. After 1942-43 it is probably impossible.

The best chance for the anti-nazi junta would be in 1939-1940 (prior to Barbarossa), but this early on the Army might find it impossible to politically swallow such terms. On the plus side, it would help that the Nazis were still allies of the USSR, keeping the Soviets out of the equation. Perhaps the army could try to argue that their coup was both anti nazi and anti-communist and try to appeal to moderate conservatives in the UK and US.
 
In reality the western allies did accept a sort of part capitulation on May 4 ,by accepting the surrender of German forces in Holland,North west -Germany and Denmark as of May 5, 8.00 German Summertime.
 

Deleted member 1487

The only point at which both sides would be agreeable to a peace sans hitler and the nazis is 1944 before D-day and Bagration. The Germans were still powerful enough to cause some serious pain to the Allies and a sincere peace proposal would, I imagine, be contemplated by the Allies, all of them (especially if the germans are able to make their proposal public in the west). Now what they actually would except is going to be something different than what the Germans are actually willing to give up. It is likely that they are not going to get what they want by a long shot. They would be lucky as hell just to get pre-1938 borders. Occupation is a given, including by the Russians, no matter how much that pains the Germans. I see the military being forbidden and war criminals beginning given over for international tribunals. Such a peace would behoove the Germans, as the majority of their war deaths, civilian and military, came after June 6th, 1944. Whether they recognize that is another issue.

Pretty much a negotiated peace is going to look like an unconditional surrender. There probably would be little of Germany pre-'38 that gets taken away if they surrender promptly. Austria and the Sudeten are gone, and the Sudeten is likely to be ethnically cleansed under Russian supervision. In fact, most of Eastern Europe is going to be ethnically cleasned of Germans. I don't think that the historic situation with the rapes in Eastern Germany is likely to happen if the Russians occupy rather than conquer Germany. Sure some crime is going to happen, as it did with the Western Allies, but not to the extent that it did OTL.

Instead of Germany getting split up, I could see it being whole for the most part, just with no army and foreign bases all over the country.

One caveat though. I think that the new leadership in Germany is likely to cover up the Holocaust. Anyone with knowledge of it is likely to be killed and forests planted over the locations. This is likely to take away some of the western calls for punishment and would be a smart, if brutal and inhumane move.
 
Top