The Allies' attitude towards a Beck-Goerdeler government at the end of 1943

[Carl Schwamberger]

... Or did both US political parties believe that it was acceptable to ignore the views of 40% of Americans on this issue?

My take is they did not think it acceptable to ignore 60% + of the citizens.

[Juan G. C.]

Allied leaders dismissed it, but in early 1944 around 40% of Americans voters were in favor of an armistice under these conditions; i.e. the Germany Army overthrew Hitler and proposed peace. It declined over the course of the year and then shot back up as the Bulge Offensive occurred in December.

I found this very interesting. What is the source of this information? Thanks.

See American Popular Opinion and the War Against Germany: The Issue of Negotiated Peace, 1942 by Richard W. Steele,The Journal of American History, Dec., 1978, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Dec., 1978), pp. 704-723

Thank you very much!

[History Learner]

If the March, 1943 attempt on Hitler (and Himmler) worked, I think very strongly the Germans could've pulled off a favorable diplomatic end to the war.

I think that for this to actually occur you're going to need MASSIVE US popular/public pressure on FDR, since FDR would be highly disinclined to voluntarily go down this route.

Maybe not, as 1944 is an election year. FDR can remain opposed, but if the majority of Congress get behind peace and the GOP runs on a peace platform and win, his opinion loses out. As far as peace terms, no polling was done on what exactly the shape of such a peace would look like. Roughly 20% of the public-whether it was in addition to the 40% or a subset of the same I know not-was willing to accept a treaty with Hitler himself and based upon current lines; in early 1944, that meant all of Europe and large portions of the USSR.....

[History Learner]

I think overall the best way to achieve this is the March, 1943 attempt on Hitler to be successful. From there, the Germans remain on the strategic defensive in the East and the proposals before Stalin that Summer to go on the offensive are probably accepted; the Soviets will gain ground but at an insane cost. Between that and Stalin's paranoia (heightened by the inevitable peace overtures made to the Anglo-Americans) probably means a Peace in the East. With the Communists out, it's like the Western Powers will follow suit.

[Futurist]

If the March, 1943 attempt on Hitler (and Himmler) worked, I think very strongly the Germans could've pulled off a favorable diplomatic end to the war.

I think that for this to actually occur you're going to need MASSIVE US popular/public pressure on FDR, since FDR would be highly disinclined to voluntarily go down this route.

Maybe not, as 1944 is an election year. FDR can remain opposed, but if the majority of Congress get behind peace and the GOP runs on a peace platform and win, his opinion loses out. As far as peace terms, no polling was done on what exactly the shape of such a peace would look like. Roughly 20% of the public-whether it was in addition to the 40% or a subset of the same I know not-was willing to accept a treaty with Hitler himself and based upon current lines; in early 1944, that meant all of Europe and large portions of the USSR.....

I suspect that the GOP's 1944 platform would have to remain somewhat hawkish to win over some of that remaining 60% of Americans, though.

[Futurist]

I think overall the best way to achieve this is the March, 1943 attempt on Hitler to be successful. From there, the Germans remain on the strategic defensive in the East and the proposals before Stalin that Summer to go on the offensive are probably accepted; the Soviets will gain ground but at an insane cost. Between that and Stalin's paranoia (heightened by the inevitable peace overtures made to the Anglo-Americans) probably means a Peace in the East. With the Communists out, it's like the Western Powers will follow suit.

How ironic--killing Hitler in March 1943 would have saved a lot of Jewish deaths in the Holocaust, but could have also been significantly worse for the Allies.

Anyway, when's the latest realistic time that you think that a Nazi-Soviet separate peace is actually plausible/realistic?

[History Learner]

If the March, 1943 attempt on Hitler (and Himmler) worked, I think very strongly the Germans could've pulled off a favorable diplomatic end to the war.

I think that for this to actually occur you're going to need MASSIVE US popular/public pressure on FDR, since FDR would be highly disinclined to voluntarily go down this route.

Maybe not, as 1944 is an election year. FDR can remain opposed, but if the majority of Congress get behind peace and the GOP runs on a peace platform and win, his opinion loses out. As far as peace terms, no polling was done on what exactly the shape of such a peace would look like. Roughly 20% of the public-whether it was in addition to the 40% or a subset of the same I know not-was willing to accept a treaty with Hitler himself and based upon current lines; in early 1944, that meant all of Europe and large portions of the USSR.....

I suspect that the GOP's 1944 platform would have to remain somewhat hawkish to win over some of that remaining 60% of Americans, though.

That's only if you assume that 60% was unmalleable in opinion. In early 1944, 40% wanted peace despite clear successes in North Africa and Italy combined with Russian victories in Ukraine based up rising casualties and weariness with wartime restrictions. If the Russians have been removed from the war and casualties are higher going into 1944 (transfers from the Eastern Front to Italy), is it really that unlikely that those in the 60% column will not respond to these changed strategic conditions and switch their opinions? We did, after all, see the opposite occur historically: after the smashing success in Normandy and in Belarus, the Pro-Peace faction collapsed until briefly revived via the Ardennes Offensive.

[Futurist]

Good point!

[daveshoup2MD]

I want to discuss what would have been the attitude of the Allies towards a new german government after a coup d'etat against the Nazi regime at the end of 1943.

A coup in the fourth quarter of 1943 with what forces, exactly? The July 1944 plot failed, even with the command and control structure with the Replacement Army in the hands of the conspirators; what could have been done differently in 1943?

Unless the military as a whole was prepared to act against the government and the SS, etc., however gallantly the conspirators might go to the deaths, they were not going to overthrow the government.

Even if Hitler had been assassinated in 1943 or 1944, it seems "unlikely" that Goering, Himmler, et al would not have retained power. They'd held it for a decade, at that point, after all...

The time for a coup in Germany had been in 1933.

[historygeek2021]

We discussed the public opinion point previously here:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=253448&hilit=steele&start=225

Key points:

(1) Support for "peace with the Germany army" (i.e., not Hitler) never reached 40%. It hovered below it at a few points but never reached 40%.
(2) What does "peace with the German army" mean? Does it mean Germany gets to keep everything it conquered? Germany gets off scot-free without paying reparations or submitting to occupation? Who knows.
(3) It's just one poll right? Dewey defeated Truman according to the polls of that era.
(4) What prominent US politicians were advocating for peace with Germany in 1943? In 1944? Anyone? Since the USA isn't a direct democracy, public opinion doesn't mean anything if the leaders who are actually elected have no intention of carrying out the voters' desire (which any American in this thread should know happens every single election).
(5) Even before Pearl Harbor, the isolationists in the Republican Party failed to win their own party in the 1940 elections, let alone the White House, Congress or Senate, all of which went to the interventionist Democrats.
(6) Before Pearl Harbor, 70% of the American public favored war to an Allied defeat. https://archive.org/details/unset0000un ... 5/mode/2up

[daveshoup2MD]

We discussed the public opinion point previously here:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=253448&hilit=steele&start=225

Key points:

(1) Support for "peace with the Germany army" (i.e., not Hitler) never reached 40%. It hovered below it at a few points but never reached 40%.
(2) What does "peace with the German army" mean? Does it mean Germany gets to keep everything it conquered? Germany gets off scot-free without paying reparations or submitting to occupation? Who knows.
(3) It's just one poll right? Dewey defeated Truman according to the polls of that era.
(4) What prominent US politicians were advocating for peace with Germany in 1943? In 1944? Anyone? Since the USA isn't a direct democracy, public opinion doesn't mean anything if the leaders who are actually elected have no intention of carrying out the voters' desire (which any American in this thread should know happens every single election).
(5) Even before Pearl Harbor, the isolationists in the Republican Party failed to win their own party in the 1940 elections, let alone the White House, Congress or Senate, all of which went to the interventionist Democrats.
(6) Before Pearl Harbor, 70% of the American public favored war to an Allied defeat. https://archive.org/details/unset0000un ... 5/mode/2up

Good post. The other point worth making is the vast majority of adult voters in the US in 1941-45 had lived through 1917-18, and saw Nazi Germany as an outgrowth of the armistice in 1918, as opposed to unconditional surrender. No one in the US in the 1940s wanted to have to go back and solve the problem for good in the 1960s.

[Carl Schwamberger]

... (5) Even before Pearl Harbor, the isolationists in the Republican Party failed to win their own party in the 1940 elections, let alone the White House, Congress or Senate, all of which went to the interventionist Democrats. ...

Reading that reminded of one of the points in The Warhawks', a survey of the rise of the interventionists in US politics 1938 through 1941. That is the interventionists, and Isolationists for that matter cut deeply across party lines. One of the several reasons Roosevelt put Republicans Knox & Stimson into the Sec Navy & Sec Defense positions is they accepted intervention. Conversely his New Dealers often had to be persuaded and beaten into accepting and supporting the interventionist policy. Communists, Socialists, and other leftwing groups were largely isolationists until 22 June 1941. Students in Ivy League colleges 1939-1941 tended towards Isolationism. Their Professors leaned towards intervention, particularly if a Great War veteran. Favored businessmen like Henry Ford or Irene DuPont were all for Neutrality and isolationism. Others who were cut out of their European business by nazi occupation & ecomomic policy found themselves turning towards the Warhawks stance. As I've heard from assorted business managers & academics; 'Polls are good for judging what the people who took the poll think.'

[daveshoup2MD]

... (5) Even before Pearl Harbor, the isolationists in the Republican Party failed to win their own party in the 1940 elections, let alone the White House, Congress or Senate, all of which went to the interventionist Democrats. ...

Reading that reminded of one of the points in The Warhawks', a survey of the rise of the interventionists in US politics 1938 through 1941. That is the interventionists, and Isolationists for that matter cut deeply across party lines. One of the several reasons Roosevelt put Republicans Knox & Stimson into the Sec Navy & Sec Defense positions is they accepted intervention. Conversely his New Dealers often had to be persuaded and beaten into accepting and supporting the interventionist policy. Communists, Socialists, and other leftwing groups were largely isolationists until 22 June 1941. Students in Ivy League colleges 1939-1941 tended towards Isolationism. Their Professors leaned towards intervention, particularly if a Great War veteran. Favored businessmen like Henry Ford or Irene DuPont were all for Neutrality and isolationism. Others who were cut out of their European business by nazi occupation & ecomomic policy found themselves turning towards the Warhawks stance. As I've heard from assorted business managers & academics; 'Polls are good for judging what the people who took the poll think.'

Lies, damned lies, and statistics!