FDR's Tragic Refusal to Deal with the German Resistance and Abandon "Unconditional Surrender"

[Takao]

Unconditional Resistance...

Is apparently conditional...

[rcocean]

The Under Secretary of State (Stettmius)™ to the Secretary of State
London, April 13,1944. [Keceived April 13—4:31 p. m.]
S-50325.™
Conversing this morning with General Eisenhower and General Smith they raised with me and expressed the con-
sidered opinion that the term "Unconditional surrender" should be clarified by announcing the principles on which the treatment of a
defeated Germany would be based.

This seemed to them highly desirable in view of the accumulated evidence that German propaganda is interpreting the words "Unconditional surrender" to strengthen the morale of the German Army and people. In order to offset this the Generals thought it very necessary to create, if possible, through our own propaganda:

A. A mood of acceptance of unconditional surrender in the German Army such as would make possible a collapse of resistance
similar to that which took place in Tunisia; and
B. To create a mood in the German General Staff as a result of which necessary political steps might be undertaken by a German
Badoglio79 for unconditional surrender. It was suggested that the following trend of propaganda would be of great use as far as possible in advance of D day:

(a). Tri-Party American-Anglo-Russian statement to define unconditional surrender and the guarantee of promotion of law and order;
(b). A summary of Anglo-American principles upon which the Anglo American Military Government will be conducted. The Anglo-American statement might be followed by a political directive which would include:

Para 1. Methods of demilitarization;
Para 2. Purge of Nazis from the government machine;
Para 3. Seizure of war criminals;
Para 4. Orderly transfers of population;
Para 5. Restoration of religious and trade unions freedom.

Once we have a bridgehead the Commander in Chief should make a statement calling for surrender and at the same time recapitu-
late the terms of other declarations. It was said that a period of at least 4 weeks would be necessary to make effective these declarations in the minds of the German people. General Smith rather than General Eisenhower felt that governmental statements must be followed, at the appropriate time, by a declaration from the Supreme Commander to the German Commander in the west,80 which would presumably not be made until after the bridgehead is well established and the west wall broken. This in General Smith's opinion would be the psychological moment for the call to surrender, reciting in soldierly language, the principal points of
the Tri-Party declarations and the principles of the Anglo-American Military Government. General Smith expressed the opinion that from all available evidence, in default of such declarations, it would be impossible to exploit the crisis in the German Army which will undoubtedly arise immediately after a successful Allied landing.

[Michael Kenny]

It is also a fact that the Germans did not fight to the last man or the last bullet. I know there are many who would like to fool the general public into believing Berlin was the last enclave a but over 100 German divisions were bottled up between the Allied Armies and they all surrendered unconditionally.

[rcocean]

"You haven't addressed, let alone answered my earlier request for a verifiable source:"

Official history of the state department. Go look it up. I have to provide the basis for my historical assertions. I don't have to give you the page number. Learn something on your own.

[Michael Kenny]

they allowed Hitler to rearm, and then declared war on Hitler in 1939,

Usual distortion of reality trotted out by the apologists. The idea that it was The Allies who 'started it' is as valid a defence as a burglar claiming in court he was innocent because it was the homeowner who attacked him for no good reason as he peacefully rummaged through the wife's underwear drawer.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi rcocean,

You post, "Official history of the state department. Go look it up..........I don't have to give you the page number."

So, you are basically expecting us to accept your opinion without any traceable evidence whatsoever?

That is not consistent with, "I have to provide the basis for my historical assertions."

I have searched the Library of Congress Catalog for "Official history of the state department". No such title seems to exist.

You appear to owe us an explanation.

You post, "You would appear to not be reading other people's posts responding to me. Apparently." Indeed, I do not necessarily do so. (I wouldn't want to intrude too much on your private grief!).

However, that is not the issue.

You posted "Sid Guttridge wrote: The US declared war on the Germans in 1939?" The simple fact is that I did not post that either as a statement or a question. Nor has anyone else attributed that to me. A simple apology or explanation for the error would have sufficed.

I should point out that your Post #139 does not reject Unconditional Surrender at all. It just recommends a unilateral, fuller explanation by the Allies of what Unconditional Surrender entailed.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Andrew Arthy]

Hi,

The source is easily accessible online, and is searchable: https://history.state.gov/search?q=%22u ... y=date-asc

The Himmler extract is from 26 December 1943, and reads as follows:

"The British Minister has informed me that according to the Swedish Government an unnamed pro-Nazi Swedish businessman has recently had talks in Berlin with a member of the German Foreign Office and Himmler. The Swedish Government has advised the British Government that Himmler indicated in these conversations that he was ready to send one army officer and one party official to meet the British to obtain definition of the term unconditional surrender.

The British Minister has been instructed to inform Molotov of the above and to ask Soviet approval of the British Government’s intended reply to the Swedish Government that unconditional surrender requires no definition.

The British Minister has put this in writing to Molotov but has so far not received a reply." [https://history.state.gov/historicaldoc ... 43v01/d517]

There is another Himmler surrender reference here: https://history.state.gov/historicaldoc ... 44v01/d259

Cheers,
Andrew A.
Air War Publications - www.airwarpublications.com/earticles

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Andrew Arthy,

Thank you very much.

That should advance the conversation and avoid any of us embarrassing ourselves any further.

Cheers,

Sid.

[rcocean]

Cheers,
Andrew A.
Air War Publications - www.airwarpublications.com/earticles

Yes. And you can get even more detail by looking up the actual Foreign relations book that is not extracted online. Thanks for your effort.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi rcocean,

So, back on subject.

Are you proposing Himmler was part of the "German Resistance" and a fit and reliable partner in peace negotiations?

This apparent approach by him is only two months after his notorious "Posen Speech" where, addressing a high ranking SS audience, he explicitly mentions his and their role in their ongoing attempt to exterminate the Jews.

Cheers,

Sid.

[daveshoup2MD]

Who does "we" in the sentence above refer to? The United States?

I have no idea why you're obsessing about this trivial matter. You seem to think its some sort of "Contest" and you feel you're "Losing". The key to understanding what "We" refers to, if my use of the word "They" in as in "They let Hitler Rearm". "They" obviously refers to England/France , and "we" in reference to 1939 refers also to the allies. Yes, I know its hard to understand something written on the fly. But I'm not going to spend time re-editing. I have to assume people are knowledgeable.

But thanks for pointing out that the USA didn't declare war on Germany in Sept 1939. You learn something new every day here at Axis History forum! This is my last response. So, declare Victory and lets move on.

Thanks for clarifying. Considering the question is about FDR and US/Allied policy in 1942-45 onwards, as opposed to Anglo-French policy in 1939, perhaps you'll forgive my confusion at what point you were trying to make.

[daveshoup2MD]

Hi rcocean,

So, back on subject.

Are you proposing Himmler was part of the "German Resistance" and a fit and reliable partner in peace negotiations?

This apparent approach by him is only two months after his notorious "Posen Speech" where, addressing a high ranking SS audience, he explicitly mentions his and their role in their ongoing attempt to exterminate the Jews.

Cheers,

Sid.

Interesting question. Be rather like "negotiating" with Max von Baden or Wilhelm Groener in 1916...

[daveshoup2MD]

[

Thanks for clarifying. Considering the question is about FDR and US/Allied policy in 1942-45 onwards, as opposed to Anglo-French policy in 1939, perhaps you'll forgive my confusion at what point you were trying to make.

You win! Happy now?

Just seeking clarity.

So Sid has a fair question - As of December, 1943, would you consider Heinrich Himmler as part of the "German Resistance" and a fit and reliable partner in peace negotiations?

[MarkF617]

I think one, very important, fact is being missed here. The plot to kill Hitler failed. This means any negotiation would have to be with Hitler, not one of his croneys or resistance member. There are no conditions that would be acceptable to both Hitler and the Western Allies. About the only terms Hitler would ask for is to stop the war and join fighting the Soviets or at least stop fighting Germany so they could concentrate on destroying communism. Hitler was either going to Win or go down fighting to the ladt German with or without unconditional surrender.

Thanks

Mark

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Several posts that did not add to the discussion were removed.

To clarify:

• Comments about other members are not allowed (see Be respectful)
• Gatekeeping is now allowed (see Be respectful)
• When asked for a source, enough information must be provided to allow others to identify the source (see Back up your claims)