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

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
ljadw
Member
Posts: 11998
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 26 Apr 2021 12:15

Andrew Arthy wrote:
03 Apr 2021 02:38
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
Would this businessman not be Dahlerus ?
Thus, we have an unknown Swedish businessman,claiming he met Himmler and claiming that Himmler ( with or without the knowledge and approval of Hitler ) tried to have separate negotiations with Britain .

rcocean
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

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

Post by rcocean » 26 Apr 2021 15:31

There were numerous "peace feelers" from various German groups. Not just Himmler through Hewitt. For example this if from the Foreign Relations of the USA 1944:

Text or a Telegram From Mr. Eden to Viscount Halifax Dated
December 31st, 1943
On December 22nd the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs28 informed His Majesty's Ambassador,28 after emphasizing that he was giving the information privately as news and not in any sense as a
communication from his Government, that he had received the following information from the Roumanian Minister at Ankara30 who had had it from the Roumanian Minister for Foreign Affairs.2.
The German Minister in Bucharest32 had called in uniform onthe Roumanian Minister for Foreign Affairs a few nights previously and, while the latter took notes, made a statement to the following effect:

Germany is prepared to accept peace on the following terms:
(a) Surrender of fleet, submarines, merchant fleet and Air Force.
(b) Complete military disarmament.
(c) Evacuation of all occupied territories.
(d) Undertaking never to ask for return of colonies.

Basically Himmler, the army, the "German underground" were willing to make peace in December 43, Jan 44 on terms that would've reduced Germany to a 3rd rate power incapable of further aggression.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11998
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 26 Apr 2021 16:08

Nothing new:
See Richard Breitman: A Deal with the Nazi Dictatorship ?Himmler's Alleged Deal Emissaries in Autumn 1943 .(1995 )
What von Killinger said to the Romanian Foreign Minister, with as aim that this would be leaked to London, was only a clever/desperate attempt to create discord within the opponents of Germany .
He made the demand that the army would not surrender,that Germany would not be occupied, that its leaders would not be punished and he did not specify if his proposal also applied to the Soviets .
The Soviets would not accept his proposals, neither would Poland and Benesj,thus his conditions were unacceptable .

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9491
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 26 Apr 2021 17:13

Hi rcocean,

Doubtless a lot of Germans wanted to get out of the war. The problem is that none of those mentioned seem to have been in a position to arrange this. Although others may claim to represent Himmler, there seems to be no actual evidence that they were. And even if Himmler was making peaces overtures at the end of 1943, is he the sort of German one could be seen doing deals with?

Cheers,

Sid.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

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

Post by rcocean » 26 Apr 2021 17:31

Richard Breitman: A Deal with the Nazi Dictatorship. Thanks for this information. Very interesting although not very persuasive. The author hammers away at the fact that there is no "contemporaneous records" but why should there be? And why should one man's memory in 1946 be any better than Kesten's? The fact that Kesten "Typed his diary" after the fact, sounds very impressive, but is actually meaningless. Whey would Kesten fake a diary? why would he fake Conditions of surrender? Maybe he had handwritten notes and typed them up after the war. And his conditions tie closely to what Ambassador to Sweden was reporting to the USA.

As for what von Killinger said to the Romanian Foreign Minister, there's nothing in the article about that. And its simply irrelevant. The Germans were putting out peace feelers and were willing to accept drastic conditions. We know that from what the German Underground and dissident Army officers were writing and saying at the time. That Himmler was willing to talk to Kersten about a negotiated peace, never mind all the details, is very significant.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

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

Post by rcocean » 26 Apr 2021 17:39

BTW, the author is simply playing a game that many historians do. Whenever they don't like something, its "Where is the source? "Where are the contemporaneous records" or "X disagrees with that. How can we trust it?" Meanwhile, stuff they do like, is simply accepted.

And here's the thing about diaries. Just because its contemporaneous doesn't mean its true either. I can write ANYTHING in my diary. And I can re-write my diary next week or next month to make me look better or someone else look bad. Hey my boss said "XYZ". well, maybe he did or maybe he didn't. I suppose if I make myself look bad, that has some credibility. But even a contemporaneous diary is probably more valid than oral testimony unless the person knows they're under penalty of perjury or will fact checked up the wazoo. Look at all the whoopers Old harry Truman told in his old age! So, there is rarely a "Well, this is proved beyond a reasonable doubt" in history. There's some doubt about EVERYTHING. Almost.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 11998
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

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

Post by ljadw » 26 Apr 2021 18:01

rcocean wrote:
26 Apr 2021 17:31
Richard Breitman: A Deal with the Nazi Dictatorship. Thanks for this information. Very interesting although not very persuasive. The author hammers away at the fact that there is no "contemporaneous records" but why should there be? And why should one man's memory in 1946 be any better than Kesten's? The fact that Kesten "Typed his diary" after the fact, sounds very impressive, but is actually meaningless. Whey would Kesten fake a diary? why would he fake Conditions of surrender? Maybe he had handwritten notes and typed them up after the war. And his conditions tie closely to what Ambassador to Sweden was reporting to the USA.

As for what von Killinger said to the Romanian Foreign Minister, there's nothing in the article about that. And its simply irrelevant. The Germans were putting out peace feelers and were willing to accept drastic conditions. We know that from what the German Underground and dissident Army officers were writing and saying at the time. That Himmler was willing to talk to Kersten about a negotiated peace, never mind all the details, is very significant.
If what Kersten and said was reliable, there would have been proofs for it and David Irving and Stormfront would have mentioned it .
The Germans were putting out peace feelers,because they were losing and to create discord among the allies .They were not willing to accept drastic conditions . They knew what the conditions of the Wallies were and they refused them . Til May 8 1945 .It is not on the losers to say on what conditions they would give up .
Besides, even if there was a negotiated surrender of the Germans to the Wallies, the outcome would still be the same : the Soviets in Berlin .
Last point : every one who lived in WWII would tell you that a negotiated ,separate peace /surrender was out of the question : Neville Chamberlain said in September 1939 : we will fight till Nazism is totally destroyed,and Himmler was the personification of Nazism .
WWII was an ideological war, from the first day on .

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3301
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

Post by Takao » 26 Apr 2021 19:22

rcocean wrote:
26 Apr 2021 15:31
There were numerous "peace feelers" from various German groups. Not just Himmler through Hewitt. For example this if from the Foreign Relations of the USA 1944:

Text or a Telegram From Mr. Eden to Viscount Halifax Dated
December 31st, 1943
On December 22nd the Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs28 informed His Majesty's Ambassador,28 after emphasizing that he was giving the information privately as news and not in any sense as a
communication from his Government, that he had received the following information from the Roumanian Minister at Ankara30 who had had it from the Roumanian Minister for Foreign Affairs.2.
The German Minister in Bucharest32 had called in uniform onthe Roumanian Minister for Foreign Affairs a few nights previously and, while the latter took notes, made a statement to the following effect:

Germany is prepared to accept peace on the following terms:
(a) Surrender of fleet, submarines, merchant fleet and Air Force.
(b) Complete military disarmament.
(c) Evacuation of all occupied territories.
(d) Undertaking never to ask for return of colonies.

Basically Himmler, the army, the "German underground" were willing to make peace in December 43, Jan 44 on terms that would've reduced Germany to a 3rd rate power incapable of further aggression.
Funny how Himmler, the army, and the "German underground" were all "unofficially" willing to make peace...Because all lacked lacked the clout to "officially" make peace. Hence all the back door, hush-hush, unofficial channels.

Shame, that they chose not to pursue peace through official channels.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9491
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 26 Apr 2021 20:30

Hi rcocean,

Asking for sources is not "a game played by historians". It is the absolute bedrock of any serious investigation into anything anywhere. Without sources there is no traceable evidence.

To believe otherwise is either to have dismally low standards of evidence, or to subscribe to conspiracy theorism.

Cheers,

Sid

P.S. One of the classic conspiracy theorist lines is, "Why would X lie or fake something?". People just do for any number of reasons, such as ego, prestige, money, mischievousness, malice, reputation, stupidity, advancement, to impress, to dig themselves out of a hole, compulsive dishonesty, etc., etc. Take your pick. That is one reason why we need traceable sources and why AHF prescribes that we should provide them. That is one thing that makes it the Axis History Forum and not the Axis Fantasy Forum.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

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

Post by rcocean » 26 Apr 2021 20:33

Ideological war? Lets put the USSR and the Nazis aside because I don't want to make it too complex. Let me simply focus on the UK and USA. There's no question that for some on the Allied side FOR SOME, WW 2 was about ideology aka the destruction of Hitler. But the destruction of Hitler doesn't preclude a negotiated peace. In fact that was Chamberlin's strategy - if Joe Kennedy is to believed from his private family letters. (Cf: Hostage to Fortune) The September 1939 declaration of war was to followed by a blockade resulting in massive German wheat/gasoline shortages, a failed Nazi assault on the Maginot line, and then the overthrow of Hitler by the Generals or other elements in Germany.

There were TWO American/British ideologies. The First saw the war as a fight to the finish against Nazism, the second a fight to the finish against Germany. One hated the Nazis, the other hated the Nazis AND The German people. FDR was in the 2nd group. His April 1, 1944 letter to the JCS on Unconditional Surrender and his support for the Morgenthau plan makes it clear he wanted not just Hitler - but Germany destroyed. The Germans were to lose hunks of territory, be broken up into several smaller states, and their industry wiped out. "Let them eat out of soup kitchens" as he told his Cabinet in the Fall of 1944. Nazis or German Generals, FDR had no use for either group.

The question is: Was that good for the USA or Europe?

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9491
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 26 Apr 2021 20:38

Hi rcocean,

And yet the Morgenthau Plan was never put into effect by Roosevelt.

That being so, what is your point?

You post, "The September 1939 declaration of war was to followed by a blockade resulting in massive German wheat/gasoline shortages, a failed Nazi assault on the Maginot line, and then the overthrow of Hitler by the Generals or other elements in Germany."

Again, as that never happened, what is your point?

Cheers,

Sid.
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 26 Apr 2021 20:40, edited 1 time in total.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

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

Post by rcocean » 26 Apr 2021 20:40

Sid, I have nothing against rigorous objective history. My point is that most historians are "rigorously objective" when when casting doubt on a source they dislike, and much more generous and understanding when a source helps them make their point. I can perfectly understand why people would be skeptical of Kersten claiming to have helped Jews during ww 2 and deserving of praise. I'm not too sure why he would lie about Himmler's peace conditions, since there would be no benefit to him. That's not "Conspiracy" that's common sense.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 9491
Joined: 12 Jun 2008 11:19

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

Post by Sid Guttridge » 26 Apr 2021 20:43

Hi rcocean,

You post, "My point is that most historians are "rigorously objective" when when casting doubt on a source they dislike, and much more generous and understanding when a source helps them make their point."

Your evidence for this massive generalization is what, exactly?

History, like science, has a method. If one doesn't follow either method, one is neither a historian, nor a scientist.

Cheers,

Sid.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

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

Post by rcocean » 26 Apr 2021 20:49

Go read "The conquerors" by Bechloss. It goes into quite a bit of detail on the Morgenthau Plan and FDR. I'm not too sure why I should applaud a historical figure because he was stopped from putting a criminal plan into effect. Or was only able to do 50% of what he wanted. According to Speer, Hitler heard about the impact of nuclear weapons and went into raptures about dropping one on the UK, but I suppose since he never did it, I should give Hitler points for never implementing it! :lol:
Last edited by rcocean on 26 Apr 2021 22:54, edited 1 time in total.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Mar 2008 00:48

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

Post by rcocean » 26 Apr 2021 20:50

I have the same support for "massive generalizations" that you do. Reading history. Do you want me to start asking you to support your generalization? My main interest in discussing Unconditional Surrender, however you and others keep off-topic comments and I have followed your example.
Last edited by rcocean on 26 Apr 2021 20:52, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”