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

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
Post Reply
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

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

#121

Post by stg 44 » 24 Mar 2021, 22:07

Sid Guttridge wrote:
24 Mar 2021, 19:15
Hi stg 44,

And there you show the problem.

An opposition, (not really an active resistance at that time), with no obvious mandate, authority or support, was trying to set terms that would divide the Allies before it would overthrow Hitler.

Bonhofer was arrested in 1943 and Moltke and Canaris in early 1944. All were later executed.

Cheers,

Sid.
Assuming Moltke and Canaris weren't arrested and they were able to get terms based on that offer do you really think the rest of the resistance wouldn't have taken it? I get why FDR dismissed it as a ploy, but it's not like Stalin wasn't launching his own negotiations in 1943.

Read the entire paper for context, but Dulles at least thought they were credible and making an offer which should be pursued; seems like the FDR admin was more concerned about total victory than ending the war early even with occupation or even trying to sow dissent in the German ranks by making an offer, waiting for the coup, and then reneging to provoke a civil war and shorten the overall war. Even that latter was a better option than what actually happened.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 20:27
Location: Reading, Pa

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

#122

Post by Takao » 24 Mar 2021, 22:32

stg 44 wrote:
24 Mar 2021, 22:07
Assuming Moltke and Canaris weren't arrested and they were able to get terms based on that offer do you really think the rest of the resistance wouldn't have taken it? I get why FDR dismissed it as a ploy, but it's not like Stalin wasn't launching his own negotiations in 1943.

Read the entire paper for context, but Dulles at least thought they were credible and making an offer which should be pursued; seems like the FDR admin was more concerned about total victory than ending the war early even with occupation or even trying to sow dissent in the German ranks by making an offer, waiting for the coup, and then reneging to provoke a civil war and shorten the overall war. Even that latter was a better option than what actually happened.
That is a pretty big assumption that Moltke and Canaris would get terms. Given their lack of a power base from which to work from. Further, given the various personalities in the opposition, some would have been OK with it, while others would not.

The FDR Admin was concerned with winning the war on Allied terms, not German ones...There is a difference. The FDR Admin was also unlikely to throw the Soviets under the proverbial bus.

Conversely, making an offer shows weakness...See, those fat, lazy Americans are ready to quit...This would probably redouble German efforts to resist. Or else, the Germans could throw the Americans under the bus, and go to the Soviets and say, look at what the Americans are doing, we have this offer of peace from them.

There are literally a million ways this can play out, just because you are fixated one one outcome, does not mean that it is the correct one, let alone a probable one.


Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

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

#123

Post by Sid Guttridge » 24 Mar 2021, 22:43

Hi Stg44,

You post, "Assuming Moltke and Canaris weren't arrested and they were able to get terms based on that offer do you really think the rest of the resistance wouldn't have taken it?" What offer? We are here talking about an attempt to set conditions by a small group of Germans of unknown strength and influence in a country going down to defeat anyway. There was no offer beyond Unconditional Surrender.

You post, ".....seems like the FDR admin was more concerned about total victory than ending the war early". Is this wrong? Remember, Germany had been let off the hook before total victory in 1918. That did nobody any good, as it turned out.

You post, "Even that latter was a better option than what actually happened." Why? It would have unnerved the Soviets and rightly made them suspicious, and they were the ones doing the actual fighting at the time. This was exactly the Allied dissension Hitler and Goebbels were hoping for to the end.

Cheers,

Sid.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 01:48

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

#124

Post by rcocean » 01 Apr 2021, 04:44

If you read the official history of the US foreign relations it states quite clearly that "Peace Feelers" 1943-1944 were made by German Generals like Canarias, diplomats in Istanbul, and even by Himmler via Sweden. All these peace offers were shot down by FDR since he had ZERO interest in anything short of unconditional surrender. Hull even had difficulty in getting FDR to get off his slogan when negotiating with Italy or trying to get Axis satellite countries out of the war.

In March 1944, the Joint Chief of Staff wrote FDR a memo asking the Unconditional surrender formula be rescinded, and some sort of conditions be announced that would encourage average Germans to surrender and counteract Goebbels statements that the Allies wanted to destroy Germany and Germans. This too was rejected. When he heard of the July plot and Coup attempt FDR didn't change his policy. He simply didn't care.

Never at anytime did FDR try to encourage a German Resistance and a conditional peace. Never was he interested in "Going over the heads" of the Nazi Government to encourage Germans to surrender in exchange for a softer peace. Never was FDR interested in weakening German morale by giving them a reason to surrender. FDR didn't even want to work with UK/USSR to refine the surrender formula as a propaganda tool. Its all there in the Official Histories. Just read it.

I suppose you can support this sort of "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policy as long as its not your friends or family getting maimed or dying. Certainly FDR didn't have any sympathy for the people who died to force an "Unconditional Surrender". As shown by the criminal Morgenthau Plan, he hated Germany (not just Nazis), and was quite indifferent to how many Americans go killed. Those are just the facts. Not one person who knew FDR relays a conversation where FDR expresses regret or concern over all the Americans getting killed. He had the same attitude toward WW1 - which he regarded as a "Splendid War".

rcocean
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 01:48

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

#125

Post by rcocean » 01 Apr 2021, 04:52

Churchill was no different. He loved war and he never expressed any real concern AT THE TIME, in the policy of Unconditional surrender. Its true he was more nuanced and flexible then FDR in its application, but there's no evidence that he or Eden made a concerted effort to change the policy.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#126

Post by Michael Kenny » 01 Apr 2021, 07:44

rcocean wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 04:44

I suppose you can support this sort of "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policy as long as its not your friends or family getting maimed or dying. Certainly FDR didn't have any sympathy for the people who died to force an "Unconditional Surrender". As shown by the criminal Morgenthau Plan, he hated Germany (not just Nazis), and was quite indifferent to how many Americans go killed. Those are just the facts.
No they are your extreme distortion of certain facts. I do not understand how any rational politician would accept risk repeating the mistake of the 1919 settlement of WW1. If you sacrifice your soldiers in one global contact and then have to repeat it 20 years later because the loser wants a rematch then why would you be inclined to risk it happening again?
There is only one man who we know for certain wanted war and that was Hitler. It is unfortunate for those who allowed themselves to be fooled by the warmonger but it would be much more unfortunate for a great many more people if there was any chance of a third attempt. You reap what you sow.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

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

#127

Post by daveshoup2MD » 01 Apr 2021, 08:15

Michael Kenny wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 07:44
rcocean wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 04:44

I suppose you can support this sort of "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" policy as long as its not your friends or family getting maimed or dying. Certainly FDR didn't have any sympathy for the people who died to force an "Unconditional Surrender". As shown by the criminal Morgenthau Plan, he hated Germany (not just Nazis), and was quite indifferent to how many Americans go killed. Those are just the facts.
No they are your extreme distortion of certain facts. I do not understand how any rational politician would accept risk repeating the mistake of the 1919 settlement of WW1. If you sacrifice your soldiers in one global contact and then have to repeat it 20 years later because the loser wants a rematch then why would you be inclined to risk it happening again?
There is only one man who we know for certain wanted war and that was Hitler. It is unfortunate for those who allowed themselves to be fooled by the warmonger but it would be much more unfortunate for a great many more people if there was any chance of a third attempt. You reap what you sow.
The entire US leadership - with the exception of Cordell Hull - had lived through WW I in positions of great responsibility, and Hull had seen active service in the S-A war; given the events of 1919-39, none of them wanted to have to see a third generation go through it again in (presumably) the early 1960s, in an era that even in the 1940s it took no great foresight to see would be rife with various biologists', chemists', and physicists' nightmares.

Your point is well made; always interesting how often these basic realities are overlooked. ;)

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

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

#128

Post by Sid Guttridge » 01 Apr 2021, 08:26

Hi rcocean,

I wondered how long it would take for the unimplemented Morgenthau Plan to emerge!

Even if all you say is true, it doesn't make Roosevelt wrong. Remember, Germany declared war on the USA, not the other way around.

It also doesn't conjour a substantive "German Resistance" out of thin air! Himmler and Canaris were definitely not singing from the same hymn sheet!

Your position seems to be that it was Roosevelt's responsibility to save the Germans from the consequences of their own actions using US casualties as the justification.

You basically seem to want the outcome of WWII to resemble the outcome of the Vietnam War - strike a deal, cut and run leaving any allies in the lurch and the mess unresolved.

Cheers,

Sid.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 01:48

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

#129

Post by rcocean » 01 Apr 2021, 16:47

Sid Guttridge wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 08:26
Hi rcocean,

I wondered how long it would take for the unimplemented Morgenthau Plan to emerge! Even if all you say is true, it doesn't make Roosevelt wrong. Remember, Germany declared war on the USA, not the other way around.

Your position seems to be that it was Roosevelt's responsibility to save the Germans from the consequences of their own actions using US casualties as the justification.
This sort of response puzzled me. It wasn't FDR's "Responsibility to save the Germans" - it was FDR"s responsibility to save American lives by not supporting an Unconditional Policy that played into the hands of Goebbels, stiffened German Resistance, and destroyed any possibility of a surrender before May 1945. I wonder how may family members of the 110,000 American who died in NW Europe June 44 to May 1945, would have exchanged their sons/brother/Father's life to have Germany surrender Unconditionally instead of Conditionally. As I wrote, its easy to be the tough guy "Kill 'em all baby. Teach those krauts a lesson", when its not you or your friends dying.

It you read the Official Foreign Policy history, you'll se that in Nov '43 Himmler was willing to work out a surrender. Himmler was willing to accept the terms of 1919. Withdrawal to Germany's 1933 borders, disarmament and some sort of reparations. The Allied reply was a sneer that "Himmler was just trying to save his own skin". No doubt true, but irrelevant.

As for the Morgenthau Plan being "unimpemented" - that certainly wasn't due to FDR. I suggest you read the "Conquerors" by Bechloss.

rcocean
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: 30 Mar 2008, 01:48

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

#130

Post by rcocean » 01 Apr 2021, 16:54

The entire US leadership - with the exception of Cordell Hull - had lived through WW I in positions of great responsibility, and Hull had seen active service in the S-A war; given the events of 1919-39, none of them wanted to have to see a third generation go through it again in (presumably) the early 1960s, in an era that even in the 1940s it took no great foresight to see would be rife with various biologists', chemists', and physicists' nightmares.
None of them wanted to go through it again. Well, we went through it a second time because they allowed Hitler to rearm, and then declared war on Hitler in 1939, when they couldn't win the war. And because Stalin decided to Ally himself with Hitler instead of Chamberlin and the allies. I seriously, doubt we needed "Unconditional Surrender" to teach the Germans not to start another world war or for the Allies to not let rearm and repeat all the errors of 1935-1939. That's simply childish.

It should be noted that many people in the State Department, Hoover and many other Republican/Democrat leaders didn't support Unconditional Surrender and neither did the JCS. Macarthur certainly didn't and wanted to retain the Emperor. FDR surrounded himself with men like Stimson, Knox, and Hull who hated the Germans in WW1, and hated them in WW2. Or with people like Hopkins and Morgenthau who hated the Germans for other reasons. So, its not like the policy was shared by the "Entire US leadership".

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

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

#131

Post by stg 44 » 01 Apr 2021, 17:12

rcocean wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 16:54
The entire US leadership - with the exception of Cordell Hull - had lived through WW I in positions of great responsibility, and Hull had seen active service in the S-A war; given the events of 1919-39, none of them wanted to have to see a third generation go through it again in (presumably) the early 1960s, in an era that even in the 1940s it took no great foresight to see would be rife with various biologists', chemists', and physicists' nightmares.
None of them wanted to go through it again. Well, we went through it a second time because they allowed Hitler to rearm, and then declared war on Hitler in 1939, when they couldn't win the war. And because Stalin decided to Ally himself with Hitler instead of Chamberlin and the allies. I seriously, doubt we needed "Unconditional Surrender" to teach the Germans not to start another world war or for the Allies to not let rearm and repeat all the errors of 1935-1939. That's simply childish.

It should be noted that many people in the State Department, Hoover and many other Republican/Democrat leaders didn't support Unconditional Surrender and neither did the JCS. Macarthur certainly didn't and wanted to retain the Emperor. FDR surrounded himself with men like Stimson, Knox, and Hull who hated the Germans in WW1, and hated them in WW2. Or with people like Hopkins and Morgenthau who hated the Germans for other reasons. So, its not like the policy was shared by the "Entire US leadership".
Don't forget the role of the Soviet agents riddling the FDR administration, including Henry Dexter White:
https://www.amazon.com/Haunted-Wood-Esp ... 0375755365

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Dexter_White#Legacy

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#132

Post by Michael Kenny » 01 Apr 2021, 17:12

rcocean wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 16:47
it was FDR"s responsibility to save American lives by not supporting an Unconditional Policy that played into the hands of Goebbels
You seem to believe the Allies should take into consideration how the Germans felt about Allies strategy. Maybe they should have invited a German representative to comment and amend their plans?
Let us look at the reality. Germany had destroyed Europe in 1914-18 and when she was defeated (and she most certainly was defeated) was allowed to enter a mindset that believed she was not defeated militarily and it was all the fault of the global Communist-Jewish cabal. A precursor of the 1945 fantasy that Germany was on the verge of developing new weaponry that was going to deliver them victory. The mindset that Germany could never be beaten in a 'fair fight' and thus any defeat she suffered was not really a defeat but a pause until the final offensive could not be allowed to take root again. Given the result it seems it was a correct decision.

rcocean wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 16:47
stiffened German Resistance, and destroyed any possibility of a surrender before May 1945. I wonder how may family members of the 110,000 American who died in NW Europe June 44 to May 1945, would have exchanged their sons/brother/Father's life to have Germany surrender Unconditionally instead of Conditionally. As I wrote, its easy to be the tough guy "Kill 'em all baby. Teach those krauts a lesson", when its not you or your friends dying.



It was Germans doing the dying 1944-45. The bulk of her casualties were inflicted in the last year and were so enormous that no one knows the exact number. Millions died and the blame lies squarely on the shoulder of the German politicians and Generals who did not do anything to end the senseless slaughter.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

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

#133

Post by Sid Guttridge » 01 Apr 2021, 18:24

Hi rcocean,

You write, it was not FDR's "Responsibility to save the Germans". That was the impression I got from your posts. Anyway, thanks for clearing that one up.

You post,"It was FDR"s responsibility to save American lives by not supporting an Unconditional Policy that played into the hands of Goebbels, stiffened German Resistance, and destroyed any possibility of a surrender before May 1945."

No. Having had war declared on the USA, it was up to FDR to expend US lives wisely in the pursuit of victory, not to save US lives regardless of cost or consequences. A US surrender on 13 December 1941 would have achieved that aim.

You post, "I wonder how may family members of the 110,000 American who died in NW Europe June 44 to May 1945, would have exchanged their sons/brother/Father's life to have Germany surrender Unconditionally instead of Conditionally." Most, I would imagine. On the other hand ask them and the families of 12 million other servicemen in December 1941 if it was worth risking a 3% chance of death to achieve an Unconditional victory over Germany and Japan and you would probably get a different answer. You would probably also get a different answer from the 97% who survived after the event.

The dead were a tiny fraction (0.3%) of the US population. If you just canvas their families, you are ignoring 99% of the US population.

And don't forget the lives of those lost before June 1944. They were fighting for Victory, not a compromise peace. Conditional surrender might be regarded as a waste of their lives.

You post, "It you read the Official Foreign Policy history, you'll se that in Nov '43 Himmler was willing to work out a surrender. Himmler was willing to accept the terms of 1919. Withdrawal to Germany's 1933 borders, disarmament and some sort of reparations." That would be the same Himmler who was even then overseeing the genocide of millions of Jews? You will have to give us the actual quote, source and page number.

You post, "As for the Morgenthau Plan being "unimplemented" - that certainly wasn't due to FDR." So, he can't be blamed for something into which you appear to be saying he had no input.

On the other hand Himmler, who you seem to regard as a trustworthy partner in peace efforts, not only had planned the genocide of Jews and others, but implemented it! The fact that you are advancing him as Germany's peace interlocutor only goes to show that there was no "German Resistance" to speak of with whom to do a conditional peace deal,even if it was desireable!

Your position still seems to be that the Germans should have been saved from the consequences of their own actions, using US casualties as the justification, without regard to wider consequences.

Cheers,

Sid.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

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

#134

Post by daveshoup2MD » 01 Apr 2021, 20:46

rcocean wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 16:54
The entire US leadership - with the exception of Cordell Hull - had lived through WW I in positions of great responsibility, and Hull had seen active service in the S-A war; given the events of 1919-39, none of them wanted to have to see a third generation go through it again in (presumably) the early 1960s, in an era that even in the 1940s it took no great foresight to see would be rife with various biologists', chemists', and physicists' nightmares.
None of them wanted to go through it again. Well, we went through it a second time because they allowed Hitler to rearm, and then declared war on Hitler in 1939, when they couldn't win the war. And because Stalin decided to Ally himself with Hitler instead of Chamberlin and the allies. I seriously, doubt we needed "Unconditional Surrender" to teach the Germans not to start another world war or for the Allies to not let rearm and repeat all the errors of 1935-1939. That's simply childish.

It should be noted that many people in the State Department, Hoover and many other Republican/Democrat leaders didn't support Unconditional Surrender and neither did the JCS. Macarthur certainly didn't and wanted to retain the Emperor. FDR surrounded himself with men like Stimson, Knox, and Hull who hated the Germans in WW1, and hated them in WW2. Or with people like Hopkins and Morgenthau who hated the Germans for other reasons. So, its not like the policy was shared by the "Entire US leadership".
The US declared war on the Germans in 1939?

Okay...

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020, 19:10
Location: Coral and brass

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

#135

Post by daveshoup2MD » 01 Apr 2021, 20:48

Michael Kenny wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 17:12
rcocean wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 16:47
it was FDR"s responsibility to save American lives by not supporting an Unconditional Policy that played into the hands of Goebbels
You seem to believe the Allies should take into consideration how the Germans felt about Allies strategy. Maybe they should have invited a German representative to comment and amend their plans?
Let us look at the reality. Germany had destroyed Europe in 1914-18 and when she was defeated (and she most certainly was defeated) was allowed to enter a mindset that believed she was not defeated militarily and it was all the fault of the global Communist-Jewish cabal. A precursor of the 1945 fantasy that Germany was on the verge of developing new weaponry that was going to deliver them victory. The mindset that Germany could never be beaten in a 'fair fight' and thus any defeat she suffered was not really a defeat but a pause until the final offensive could not be allowed to take root again. Given the result it seems it was a correct decision.

rcocean wrote:
01 Apr 2021, 16:47
stiffened German Resistance, and destroyed any possibility of a surrender before May 1945. I wonder how may family members of the 110,000 American who died in NW Europe June 44 to May 1945, would have exchanged their sons/brother/Father's life to have Germany surrender Unconditionally instead of Conditionally. As I wrote, its easy to be the tough guy "Kill 'em all baby. Teach those krauts a lesson", when its not you or your friends dying.



It was Germans doing the dying 1944-45. The bulk of her casualties were inflicted in the last year and were so enormous that no one knows the exact number. Millions died and the blame lies squarely on the shoulder of the German politicians and Generals who did not do anything to end the senseless slaughter.
Cogently said.

Post Reply

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”