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

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi rcocean,

You post, "I'm not too sure why he would lie about Himmler's peace conditions, since there would be no benefit to him."

I have given you a list of possibilities already - ego, prestige, money, mischievousness, malice, reputation, stupidity, advancement, to impress, to dig themselves out of a hole, compulsive dishonesty, etc., etc.

Take your pick.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi rcocean,

It is entirely your prerogative to challenge any massive generalizations I or anyone else here may make, but just now I am asking you a question in response to one of yours: "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?

So far you seem to expect us to take your word because you say you engage in "Reading history." This amounts to little more than you expecting to be believed just because you say so.

Cheers,

Sid.

[rcocean]

Under the rules of the blog, no one is expected to provide a source for "Gross Generalizations". This is because there ARE NO specific sources for "Gross Generalizations." They reside in the same realm as opinion and are NOT historical fact. If I were to say, "Stalin was better than Hitler" this is an opinion. And a "Gross generalization". And not supported by any specific source. But do you disagree?

That's how it is with "Gross generalizations".

[rcocean]

Deleted. Not useful to the discussion.

[rcocean]

to the moderator: If you wish to delete all my responses after #170, go ahead. After that its nothing more than worthless chit chat.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi rcocean,

If you don't want things you post to be questioned, then don't write them.

Nor does being off topic shield one from questions.

Finally, "gross generalizations" are as open to questioning as anything else.

You made a gross generalization that you refuse to justify with any evidence whatsoever.

It therefore falls by default.

We have also learnt something about the standards of evidence you find acceptable. Sourcing and evidence do not appear to figure prominently amongst them.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Rob Stuart]

to the moderator: If you wish to delete all my responses after #170, go ahead. After that its nothing more than worthless chit chat.

To the moderator: Please do not comply with rcocean's request, as deleting his posts would make other people's responses to them impossible to understand.

[rcocean]

Sid, I just want you to know that I'm putting you on ignore. No offense, but your posts are argumentative and add nothing to the subject being discussed. This is a research forum not a debating society, and reading your posts and responding to you, just draws me into answering rhetorical comments. So good luck and god bless.

[rcocean]

To the moderator: Please do not comply with rcocean's request, as deleting his posts would make other people's responses to them impossible to understand.

Disagree. 0+0=0

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi rcocean,

Keep on track and don't make contentious and apparently indefensible generalizations and you will have no problems from me.

To return to my last unanswered post:

"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?"

I remain mystified why you want to cut a deal with one of history's most obnoxious regimes and let the Germans off the hook of total defeat in wars largely started by themselves for a second time in 25 years. At that stage (the end of 1943) probably under two million Germans had died, but they had been responsible for the deaths of around 25 million others, the majority probably civilians and POWs in their own custody.

Why the light touch?

Cheers,

Sid.

[Rob Stuart]

I have a problem with the title and premise of this thread, i.e., FDR's Tragic Refusal to Deal with the German Resistance and Abandon "Unconditional Surrender". It would have made more sense to have titled this thread something like FDR's Tragic Refusal to Abandon "Unconditional Surrender", because:

1. There was no resistance movement in Japan. The Allies had no choice but to deal with the Japanese government itself. The Allies' choices were to stick with the demand for Japan's unconditional surrender or to offer terms Japan might accept, but even after the two atomic bombs were dropped and the USSR entered the war, the Japanese cabinet was still divided, with half of them determined to fight on unless certain conditions the Allies could never agree to were granted. Ultimately the Allies agreed to a somewhat diluted version of the most important Japanese condition, the preservation of the monarchy, and peace broke out.

2. With regard to Germany, the choices were also to stick with the demand for unconditional surrender or to offer terms which Germany might accept. However, there was of course no way that they would ever agree for Hitler or any other senior Nazi to remain in power. It's generally accepted now, I think, that Hirohito was no war criminal, but Hitler and his fellow thugs clearly were, and they would certainly never agree to peace terms which would have seen them tried for war crimes and executed. One might argue that if the Allies had publicly defined what they meant by unconditional surrender and listed the terms they would accept (or impose), then some brave souls in Germany would overthrow the Nazis and accept them, but the trouble is that had the Allies done so their less-than-unconditional terms would still be so harsh that virtually no one in Germany in a position to orchestrate a coup would say "Yeah, that sounds good", and go ahead. So, in my opinion there was no point in "dealing with" the German resistance, unless it was to provide them with poisons, bombs or other gear required to mount a coup, provided they were prepared to surrender unconditionally if their coup was successful.

[historygeek2021]

Unconditional surrender was the right decision. Have Japan and Germany started any wars since 1945? They learned their lesson the hard way, but they learned it nonetheless.

The real tragedy is that Truman didn't demand unconditional surrender from the Soviet Union. Then something like true world peace would have been attainable in the 1940s.

[Topspeed]

Unconditional surrender was the right decision. Have Japan and Germany started any wars since 1945? They learned their lesson the hard way, but they learned it nonetheless.

The real tragedy is that Truman didn't demand unconditional surrender from the Soviet Union. Then something like true world peace would have been attainable in the 1940s.

Wasn't this what A.Hitler was also after ?

[ljadw]

Unconditional surrender was the right decision. Have Japan and Germany started any wars since 1945? They learned their lesson the hard way, but they learned it nonetheless.

The real tragedy is that Truman didn't demand unconditional surrender from the Soviet Union. Then something like true world peace would have been attainable in the 1940s.

World peace is an illusion :if you want eternal peace,you will have eternal war .
Besides : why would world peace be good for the USA?

[Panzerspitze]

I think it's important to outline the terms of any "conditional surrender" by Germany, before going on about whatever tragic cost of insisting on "unconditional surrender". Because I bet a substantial percentage of the "conditional surrender" enthusiasts, on both the German and the Western Allies sides, deem(ed) a "conditional surrender" the equivalent of the latter acquiescing to Germany continuing the war on the Eastern Front, if not outright joining forces together against the Soviet Union. Heck, Stalin would think so too. FDR obviously would realize that too, with or without all the so-called Soviet "agents" in his staff/government.

So it's not so much about the loss of lives of American soldiers (as well as German military personnel and civilians), but about "saving" the West against the "Red Menace" communist "Mongol hordes". In essense, the talk of "conditional surrender" is really not much different from the gist of the long lines of apologist "what if" memoirs by German generals dreaming of getting a "separate peace" in the West, with or without Hitler. Guess what? The Allies not only wanted de-nazification of the German population, but also de-Prussianization of the German military. Was the latter something the "German Resistance" (how many July plotters had "von" in their last names) could stomach?