Unconditional surender - price to high ?

Probably the topic was covered long before but someone please provide links if that's the case.

Anyhow, Allies in 1942 demanded unconditional surrender of Axis powers as to regain "peace and democracy" in the world and partly because they wanted to appease uncle Stalin. Part about "peace and democracy" deserves thread of its own as democracy was last thing in mind of British colonial empire and (as history has shown) after WW2 British restored its colonial order for quite some decades in many countries that have even sent their troops to fight Germany in ww2. Same wise, American prosecutors accused Japanese PM Tojo of "occupying East Asian democracies" showing enviable amount of ignorance as democracies were nowhere to be found in east Asia at that time, only European colonies aside few indigenous states.

But nevermind that part, I am curious why would somebody fight Hitler to the end if it was somewhat conceivable that Hitlers support in Germany is falling as the military situation decays on the Eastern front ?

I can understand that Churchill had little remorse for nearly million dead German civilians in bombing raids on German cities but many British died in vain also and Britain has spent huge money for military during that period.

Had the message been in 1943 "Germany will lose the war, there is no need for Bolshevik occupation of Eastern Europe and we can recognize Gerrmany as a friend within it's borders if Hitler is deposed " I am quite convinced that would have been the case and that few million lives would be spared.

I realize that before Stalingrad this message would caught little sympathies in Germany but after Stalingrad debacle most could very well see that the end is in sight and would see sense. Afterall that would have also been in best "Allied" interest as war would probably end and uncle Joe would be kept at bay.

Thoughts ?

 

I suppose the first thing to point out is that "unconditional surrender" wasn’t put out as the allied policy until the Casablanca Conference of 1943, during or just after Stalingrad's defeat. And it included the promise that removal of the Nazi and Fascist leadership was the goal, not the complete annihilation of the German, Italian, or Japanese peoples. The Italians overthrew Mussolini and the Fascist party, and received less draconian terms than the Germans. The message was delieved post-Stalingrad, but the Goebbles controlled media kept that defeat largely out of the press and understanding of the German citizen at large.

While some like to claim that the statement came as a surprise to Churchill, that is untrue as the minutes of the meetings which he attended show he had agreed to the policy before FDR announced it. The timing of it, without his being able to confer with Parliment may have caught him by surprise, but not the policy itself. After WW1, both he and FDR both realized that the "cease-fire" proceeding the real peace treaty, and the treaty itself had left the Germans feeling "undefeated". No allied troops had marched down the Berlin streets, their own army had done so and been welcomed as returning heroes by the German populace. This time there was to be NO DOUBT who had won the conflict.

Unconditional surrender doesn't mean NO TERMS, it means accept our terms or fight on. Our (allied terms) were to overthrow the Axis leaders first, none but Italy did.

This was made as policy to reassure the absent Stalin (who was unable to attend) that the western allies would make no separate peace with Hitler, and it would be the complete demise of Hitler and Nazism which would be the goal.

 

You should also keep in mind that Hitler probably never entertained the idea of a surrender, when his generals would ask for one he would tell them to go down fighting in his name. The Sixth Army at Stalingrad is a famous case, Paulus wanted to retreat out of Stalingrad so they could regroup and attempt to retake the city as a fresher more well equipped force. Hitler wouldn't give him the order to retreat, he thought it impossible for Red Army to defeat the Wehrmacht.

It is true that the German people had little idea as to what was going on outside of Germany's borders. In The Forgotten Soldier Guy Sajer describes a society at ease with themselves, rations run rampant, the cities are being bombed on a daily basis, yet people still think the German armies are victories outside of the borders. Why? Because it was kept hidden from them, infact, some units within the Wehrmacht were oblivious to Stalingrad until days or even weeks after it fell!

Brndirt1: The German army specifically did indeed try to overthrow Nazism at Hitler, with the most prominent and well known case being Valkyrie. Citizen groups within Germany also tried to do the same thing during the rise and fall of Nazism. Any idea how much this influenced the Allies decision?

 

I would suppose the Venlo Incident in 1939 tainted all attempts by any anti-Hitler groups from being taken seriously. Or supported in any fashion.

There were a couple of other groups besides Valkyrie (which was the name of the operation), like the Kreslo/Kreslow (sp?) Circle; but they struggled to be acknowledged by the west mainly because of the Venlo "sting".

 

Excuse me but what were the terms and where they realistic ?

People who responded didn't address two things:
a) Allied situation has gone from bad to worse with new world Super power and occupation of entire eastern Europe
b) how come no "unconditional surrender" was declared on Soviet Union when it occupied eastern half of Poland ?

The third I would say that USA received lots of casualties, I don't have exact figures but it was several hundred thousand casualties. It was not necessary for USA to wage war on Hitler as it did not threaten them (although idiot declared war) directly and I would question logic of Mr. Roosvelt when accepting such casualties. Furthermore Hitler helped "depose" British empire and "impose" American empire by draining British resources and make them sell territory or loan huge credits. So, in fact, USA should thank Nazis for it's propulsion into worlds No. 1 superpower.

Besides of that I must copy/paste text from another discussion with which I utterly agree.

Most people associate Hitler with Prussian military tradition. But Nazi don't have much in common with Prussia for three reasons:
a) Hitler despised Prussian aristocracy, probably because he wasn't one
b) Prussian history was also based around honor, something Nazis utterly thrashed when murdering hundreds of thousands of (probably innocent) people. Butchering on such scale was not recorded in Prussian military history.
c) Prussian aristocracy (just about entire General staff) was against attack on France and they were almost certainly against attack on Russia

Nazi received lots of votes in Prussian territory because England ensured their physical separation from rest of Germany after WW1.

Lunatic Hitler, unconditional surrender and Soviet desire for revenge did unfortunately destroy Prussia - land of honour, hard work and discipline (something todays world utterly lacks)

Excuse the rant

 

Realistic??? In at least one sense clearly as they were ultimatly accepted.

ReallY? That's not at all clear. In one sense the only two superpowers were both "allies". If you mean the western allies while Soviet activities were doubltess disconcerting at times they weren't activly trying to conquere western countries. I'd call that better than being bombed and having your ships sunk on a regular basis.

???? I'm not sure this really has any relevance to the topic but as a first aproximation try the west was never at war with the USSR.

Declaring war and attacking US ships is a pretty direct threat. Then there's the question of whether a Europe dominated by the Nazi's would be in the interest of the US in the grand scheme of things. For the above and other reasons it was clearly necessary and in the best interest of the US to wage war against Hitler and the Nazis.

 

Addressing only this portion. As FDR stated in his communication about "Unconditional Surrender", after the Casablanca Conference;" …In our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders..."

With this in mind it would seem possible that the terms which were given to the Italians seven months later (Sept. ’43), after they had arrested Mussolini and dismissed all the Fascist party members from the Italian government posts would not be largely unlike those which might have been offered to the Germans, if they had arrested Hitler, dismissed the Nazis from power, and approached the Allies and asked for them. Instead, immediately after the announcement of "Unconditional Surrender" being the only method of ending the war, Goebbels went on the radio and declared a "total war" and enlisted women into the industrial production of war materials.

However, the Italians had the advantage of a respected king still on a throne, and a Pope; both still holding some authority, and a Parliament with parties other than just the Fascists. There was NO-ONE in Germany with the authority to dismiss or arrest Hitler or the Nazis. That said, I would have to assume that the terms would only differ in minor details as Germany would be the largest of the remaining Axis in Europe.

Goto:

Avalon Project - Armistice with Italy: September 3 - November 17, 1943

For the details of all the terms given to all the other European Axis members;

Goto:

Avalon Project - World War II : Documents

One can be certain of a few things surely, the Germans would NOT be allowed to march back into Germany with their rifles on their shoulders and their helmets on their heads, to be "confiscated" by the German authorities on faith. They would NOT be allowed to bring to trial their own war criminals as they had post-WW1, when out of about 900 defendants less than twenty were actually tried, and those even found guilty were given sentences of "time served" while they awaited trial. BTW, they were given parades and fetes by the adoring German populace when released.

These errors were not going to be repeated. The USSR doesn't belong in this conversation, in the least.

 

The Western allies, particularly the USA, might have been open to some kind of conditional surrender. But the British, and particularly the Russians, were totally opposed to that, and Stalin was adamant that it was to be unconditional surrender of Germany, or nothing.

The British and the Russians both remembered the conditional surrender negotiated at the end of World War 1. This only bred German resentment and outrage at the Versailles treaty restrictions, which were draconian and a profound insult to German national pride. This paved the way for the rise of Hitler (who felt the humiliation of Germany most of all) and the Nazis, whose main platform was to restore Germany to its ranks among the great powers. This he did but of course, promptly dropped Germany back into another world war.
The allies knew all of this and this was certainly an important factor in the demand for unconditional surrender - there could be no vestige of the third reich left over to start a third world war.

The Russians above all nations, suffered the most during world war 2. Estimates of Russian war dead, civilian and military, range from 20 to 30 million. Moreover Germany had been an ally of Russia until June 22, 1941, and the shock of the German attack was something even Stalin refused to believe for days after it started. So it can easily be seen that after all the destruction, misery and death the German armies had unleashed in the east, that Stalin in particular, was of no mind to settle for any less than the unconditional surrender of Germany.

 

A minor quibble.

I believe at least some estimates place the Chinese losses into the same range.

 

Err, excuse me but I didn't get this one.

Only blind people saw Bolsheviks as long term allies. How long it took for cold war to break out ?

You are probably right on this one but not quite applicable to USA as Germany never bombed USA - although not saying it wouldn't had it had a chance.

Oh yeah and how come ?
Soviets conquered as much territory as Germany by 1940 - yet France and GB didn't declare war on them and consequentially "unconditional surrender". Hmm...interesting and I thought Hitler was a bad guy.

I love this one it sounds like material for court proceedings...

It's questionable whether "best interest" justifies half-million dead.
WikiAnswers - How many US soldiers died in World War 2
History was as it was - I don't have anything against that but I wonder whether few sunken ships justifies this kind of loss. And if you really look at it, USA indirectly declared war on Germany by deciding to supply GB via ships.

Tks. brndirt1 I really appreciate the info.

Ok, I can understand the concept of Victor's justice but I think this kind of explanation simply isn't moral nor just. Firstly all Allied members combined committed bigger crimes, horror and tragedy than Germany and no one was ever sentenced for anything. Germany (and any other country) always had and always will have the right to celebrate it's heroes like Wittman, Peiper, Ulrich Rudel etc.

Well, it might. By looking at the globe USSR was bigger occupator than Germany ever was. So if we declare "unconditional surrender" to all aggressive/militaristic/expansionist nations I find the policy quite immoral.
Not to justify Goebels and his "Total war". Although I think he declared it on the Soviets after destruction of sixth Army rather than on the Allies.

I would agree on this one.

Cheers

 

Shouldn't this be self-explanatory? It was simply realpolitik at work. If you have to ally an ideological enemy when it is a matter of survival you are going to do it. It would have been foolish of Hitler to reject a non-aggression pact with Russia while he was busy with France and Britain, just like it would have been foolish of France and Britain to declare war on the USSR while they were already at war with Germany. Both actions would more or less have been diplomatic suicides. I fail to see what's righteous in that.

 

Cripes, another Nazi German apologist. Where the heck do they come from?

Look, the biggest sufferer in WWII was allied civilians. Followed by allied military. Followed by axis military. And THEN followed by axis civilians. This is even after including self-inflicted casualties (such as the holocaust) into the axis civilian figure. You don't get this sort of statistics out of nowhere. The contention that the allies were just as bad, or even worse than the axis, is totally ahistorical, and ridiculously wrong.

File:WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Half a million US military dead is really a drop in a bucket in the grand scale of the overall conflict. Not entering the war would have been a huge mistake.

 

Be careful with this kind of statement, Nazi apologist's or Nazism deniers are not tolerated at this forum, the facts in terms of the Nazi role in mass murders, enslavement and war is clear and there simply is no comparing the allied war crimes to the Nazi's.

 

The terms were realistic because that's what they finally settled for. They'd have been better off settling for them earlier rather than later but that was their decision.

And your point is? PLS note that for the most part the conflict between the west and the Soviets avoided invading each others countries. The same can hardly be said for the Nazis.

I sugest you look at what was happening in prior to that date and how close said activities were to the countries involved.

If you look at the realistic alternatives then it isn't very questionable.

Strawman. It wasn't just "a few sunken ships". Shipping supplies to GB isn't any where near the same as declaring war. Now supplying GB with intel and attacking German subs is really pushing the line but that's a different matter.

This statment appears to be based on some fictional version of events.

This statement is not correct either.

That's far from clear. Depending on how you define it you might be able to make a case for it but at this point I'll consider this another rather questionable opinion.

You don't seem to understand the concept. Unconditional surrender meant that we were going to be the ones that determined the terms to those countries we were at war with. It's been the exception rather than the rule in most conflicts and in WWII was due to the repugnance of the Axis regimes. Note that Finland didn't get the same treatment.

 

Nazi Germany under Hitler would NEVER surrendered. The Nazis came to power on the theme of renunciation of the Versailles Treaty. Thus, they could never volunteeraily surrender. They were simply psychologically incapable of doing so. The total destruction of Germany was guaranteed by the fanaticism of the Nazis.

Secondly, the Nazis brought upon their fate by their murder, rape, and pillaging of Europe. Not since Attila the Hun had Europe seen such bloodlust and utter disdain for the lives of innocents. The Germans made a conscious decision to wage total war and the allies merely returned the favor.

What I say next will offend some, but I believe it. The Germans deserved their fate. They deserved to suffer. They deserved to see their culture destroyed. After what they did to the Jews, Gypsis, Slavs, and the invasion of most of Europe, they deserved the punishment that the allies meted out.

I don't say this lightly or mean to insult anyone. I understand that it sounds awful from a moral standpoint. But this is war we are talking about. People die in scores in war. Why should I pity the deaths of axis civilians when some poor SOB's are dying in Papua New Guinea or Kursk because of decisions made by THE AXIS LEADERS?

Life is life. I don't distinguish between civilians and soldiers. Civilians are as much a part of war as a soldier is because they are the very backbone of the society that created and supports the military. It makes perfect sense to wage war on civilians from a military standpoint. It may sicken us from a moral standpoint and if at all possible we should refrain from it. But if the other side insists upon it, then we are obligated out of pure self preservation to do unto them as they did unto to us.

Nothing about war is moral or heroic. It does contain heroes, but war itself is not some epic poem. Ask any soldier who has served in combat. There is nothing redemptive about it.

I don't understand waxing about high minded principles in something as base and degrading as war.. It makes absolutely no sense. No matter how many times you state it, no amount of sanctimonous platitudes can lessen the awful reality of war--large scale killing of human beings whose life and dreams came to a violent end

Picking out select events in war for condemnation is asinine. War is an atrocity. Every action taken by warring nations are intended to kill or inflict pain upon another. How can anyone intelligently argue about "atrocities" in something as inherently cruel and brutal as war?

It seems to me that Mr. Rudel should be railing against Hitler and Tojo for the starting the damn war than at Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt/Truman for ending it.If the former never made the decisions to attack Poland and Pearl Harbor respectfully and instead chose to live in peace, 50 million people would have had the chance to live out their lives.

If my post comes across as harsh and unforgiving, it is because I have come to realize that is what war means to me. At some level, I feel pity for all who died or will die in war. But when someone puts you into a position to have to kill them or another, I resent that. I bitterly resent Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini for making the Allies destroy three magnificent cultures. I bitterly resent these men for the destruction of 50 million lives of all nationalities.I resent their careless disposable of living, breathing human beings who merely wanted to make a living and love their families.


I study WWII because I find it fascinating. I find the people and events that make upn the conflict to be a fascinating exhibition of man's courage, cruelty, and genius.It is a war that has shaped all of our lives for better or worse.

But I can never forget that it was an event that destroyed or ruined tens of millions of lives. Real people governed by real emotions who loved and were loved by other real human beings.In talking about this conflict, we should never, ever forget that war is at its core a failure of human beings to deal with each other in a just, humane, and compassionate manner.

 

I have to disagree:the Alliesmade no distinction between Hitler and the German people(that was one of the reasons for the air attacks on the German cities ):the Germans deserved their fate:they choosed Hitler and followed him:there would be no negociations with Stauffenberg nly unconditional surrender .

 

"war is an atrocity":yes,but it is innate on mankind,and it will never disappear.
That's why it is foolish to wage war on moral grounds,that will only prolonge war and make it only more atroce .
WWI was fought to end all wars :we have seen the results.
WW II was fought to make the world save for democracy :we have seen the results.
And why must the world made safe for democracy ? One is a statesman,or a missionary .