As Germany, what would you have done in 1943?

I don't think t here would have been a separate peace agreement but I do think Germany could have had a more favorable one if they had killed Hitler or even turned him over to the Russians.

Military wise there only options was to cede some ground (North Africa, Atlantic Ocean [cancel U-boat warfare]) and trying to buy time. If they manage to pull out of NA with the best of there forces and equipment then there is a decent chance Sicily could have been held or the invasion be cancelled altogether based on the opposing axis forces.

 

If

 

And,why do you tink that these forces would be committed in Sicily and not in the East ?

 

Why do you think the forces in NA were the best?

 

Im allowing more for the logistical side of things, Im assuming that while they might be able to rush the troops out of Tunisia they would need time to reorganize, Sicily being the likely place to retreat to would also be the likely place they start to reorganize. But that is just speculation on my part.

I think we may have a misunderstanding, I do not try and claim that the forces in NA were the best, .. If they manage to pull out of NA with the best of there forces and equipment.. ​I stated the 'best of there forces' meaning those in NA.

 

Today, I re-read this entire thread and I found it still useful but, for me, the most intriguing was the idea of partial surrender, to the western Allies.

All plans involving surrender to the western Allies and retreat to the German border involve at least two extremely painful choices:

1. which border: Weimar republic, The pre-war Germany plus Austria? Ribentrop-Mollotov borders, the future Potsdam border, with or without the Sudetenland etc.
2. how to address the problem of Volksdeutsche at the east?

Quite difficult, isn't it? For example:

1. Who would decide for the Germans how far to go?
2. Who would decide for the western Allies to scarify lives of own men against the USSR just to save the Reich?
3. On the other hand, penetration of the Red Army to any of these borders was possible after 1942-1943 winter. Why should western allies bother saving the Reich after all pain it caused?

 

I was hoping for a joint peace with all the allies.Hitler was a skillful diplomat.Everything is possible.

 

He was a skillful diplomat, But with several year's of war under his belt and ripping apart Europe his political clout was over with, Having Hitler still around would have made any peace agreement more difficult.

 

Why would the allies trust Hitler. Also since the Soviets would still likely win the west would risk losing out on any occupation of Germany.

 

Genghis Khan was a skillful diplomat too. :eyebrows:

 

"Would" "if" ? Is this thread turning into a hidden "what if"?

 

I see what you mean!
But, as usually, it is difficult to answer the question 'what would you have done if' without going through series of what-if scenarios.

 

Was he? I certainly wouldn't say so. He had accumulated a fair amount of "political capital" in the mid 30's and then proceeded to completely squander it. By the time the war started few trusted him and a couple years later I don't think any foreign government did.

Not really.

 

I also tend to agree Hitler was not a great diplomat. What he was, at least early in his career, he was a keen judge of opponent's and how to exploit them to his purpose. This can be mistaken for diplomatic ability.

 

Once Hitler took over the rest of Czechoslovakia any chance of diplomacy with the west was gone. How can you negotiate with some one who thinks lying is acceptable.

 

Not only thinks it's acceptable but demonstrates to the whole world he's willing to do it.

 

So then we can all agree that having Hitler around would have more then likely led to no peace agreement, Hell if I was FDR, Churchill or Stalin first thing I'd demand before any talks is Hitler stepping down and being placed in custody.

 

Exactly the Nazi 'diplomacy' has reduced their freedom of choice to zero much before the decisive 1943. What Roosevelt declared in Casablanca was what Churchill knew from the first day: the only two 'diplomatic' words he wanted to hear from Nazis were: (1) unconditional (2) surrender; nothing more and nothing less.

If I were in position to decide for Germany in 1943 that would have been exactly what was expected: unconditional surrender. To save lives.

For me that would have been an easy decision but, for any German that would have been extremely difficult choice because, otherwise smart decision had faithful consequence to Germany and to Germans as a nation: the loss of once great empire where Germans used to live together. Surrender would have been more than the end of the Lebensraum. The surrender necessarily has lead to the minimum sized Lebensraum.

Therefore the war had to drag.

 

If you can't,you should not go in politics

 

The occupation of Czechia did NOT change British politics