Forums

I have another questing cooking .....

As war gamers we all know, after '42 it's bound to go bad playing the Axis. It can only go worse....
After 43, it seems to be too late and only results in more human sacrifice. So when should it have been stopped.

Whatever can be pin-pointed as the turning point (Stalingrad?), there must have been period well before '45 one should have surrendered.

Even this could have been well before "Stalingrad".

1. Would an end of hostilities ever been accepted (i.e. as long the Axis where "winning")? - or would Chirchill and other Allied/Soviet commanders NEVER have accepted?

2. Would a surrender -other then unconditionally - have been accepted, let's say after the turning point (Stalingrad?).

3. Even knowing only an unconditionally surrender would be acceptable to the Allies/Soviets, when would it have been looked for?

February-March, 1942. That would have satisfied the treaty requirements with Japan and left them isolated.
Remember Hitler made several overtures toward negoiating a peace with the Allies. He was NEVER going to surrender, but he had acomplished most of his war goals as laid out in Mein Kampf by spring of '41. There is no way to know how 'offical' Hess's trip was. Keep in mind that a considerable portion of the UK wanted peace. Churchill was keeping the war going by sheer will on his part.
Churchill knew that the only chance of survival the UK had was America. Only America had the industrial capacity and manpower to save England.
The Anti-war movement in the USA was many times stronger in '41 then it is today or was during Vietnam. FDR was re-elected on a pledge of not going to war.
Germany declared war on the USA on December 08, 1941.
If they hadn't FDR WOULD NOT have gotten Congress to declare war on Germany. The 1940 census had 40+% of American identifing themselves as being germanic. Germany was greatly respected and well thought of. Hitler was admired as a strong and energetic leader. Read some of the press of the time.
If Germany hadn't declared war on the USA, we would NOT have gone to war against Germany. Churchill would have had to give up his crusade. If Germany had allowed England to keep Egypt, It's likely that the British would have gone for that sort of deal, not having the USA to fall back on. Hitler would have had his revenge for WW1 and 'living room' in Poland. Eventually Hitler would have attacked the Soviets, if they didn't attack him first. Stalin claimed a lot of things, but the facts are that he had his armies deployed in offensive positions, which is a big part of the reason the germans went thru them so fast in the summer of '41.
If Hitler had offerred to negoiate a deal with an England standing alone in Europe and getting an ass wooopin in Asia and N. Africia, I suspect the Brits would have made the best of a bad deal and taken it. It would have been foolish to do anything else.

Sept 2, 1939

I pretty much agree with Grumbler's comments. The day Hitler declared war on the USA was the day he sealed his fate. At the time of Pearl Harbor America was overwhelmingly isolationist (about 80% is a figure I've read). It was an incredible act of hubris on Hitler's part and showed his glaring ignorance of America's potential to wage war.

I have no doubt that Roosevelt wanted to enter the war and come to the aid of Britain. Strong arguments have been made that he manipulated the Japanese into attacking America as a means of accomplishing this goal. However, the attack on Pearl Harbor did not guarantee this. America would not have gone to war with Germany without some serious provocation. Even though Germany had a tripartite alliance with Italy and Japan this did not obligate the Americans to declare war on Germany or Italy. Hitler should have told his Japanese allies, "Sorry guys, you're on your own". But once war was declared Roosevelt identified Germany as the main enemy and directed most of America's resources to the defeat of the Nazis.

From a military point of view I firmly believe that Hitler lost his best chance to win the war when he let Britain rescue 300,000 of its troops from the beaches of Dunkirk. If he had forced these troops to surrender Britain would have either negotiated a peace or been ripe for invasion.
With Britain out of the war the British Isles could no longer be used as a springboard for invading the continent. With his western flank secure he could have moved most of his troops from the Western Front to the Eastern Front for the invasion of the Soviet Union. These extra troops could have tipped the balance against the Soviets in the first critical year of the war against Russia.

i'm kinda with earlman..Germany should never have started that conflict...should have waited for stalin to do it...since imo it was his ambition all along. Then german sympathies wich are not it would seem rare in places like the states would have worked in their favor i think. I am tempted to believe hitler really did set out to destroy germany. At least he seemed to do nothing but bring its total destruction after it was clear his adventure was over

Sorry to sound argumentative folks but in the main going from some of the suggestions already made you're barking up the wrong tree.

Once it was known that the Allies were demanding unconditional surrender the fate of the war was sealed. Whilst they still had troops to field Germany would never surrender unconditionally.

Unconditional surrender meant being at the mercy of the Russians; this was in all respects unacceptable. One only has to remember what Germany went through during the 20s and early 30s as a result of communist agitation to know that they would never, never allow the Russians a free ride. It matters not a jot who was leading the Germans, indeed Donitz refused to surrender (and became hated in some areas of western Germany because of this), until he could hold the Russians no longer. Of course the war was lost but by 1944 the main mission (as viewed by those outside of Hitler's immediate circle) was not victory under arms but to save as many people as they could from the advancing Russians.

A failure to understand this most basic premise cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. Attitudes such as Ike's "The only good German is a dead German" hardly helped and cause me to be reminded of a wartime cartoon.

The issue of the early victory in France is a red herring. The 300,000+ troops saved at Dunkirk and those later evacuated from Normandy (some of whom had to fight their way out past French troops) were of no consequence in determining whether or not Britain could continue the war. Four years later these troops would be leading the liberation of Europe or would be in the Far East but in 1940 that was not the issue.

Short of developing atomic weapons Germany could never have defeated the UK. That is not the same as saying that the UK could in turn beat Germany far from it; although I do believe that left to their own devises it would have been Germany that would probably made the first move towards the negotiating table.

By 1941 the war in the Atlantic had been won - yes it took the various participants another two years to recognise that but nevertheless it was true in an objective sense. With supplies coming in the UK wouldn't starve. The German's never developed a bomber force effective enough to bring the UK to it's knees and any suggestion of invasion was simple stupid. As for Sealion, the German's called it, "Reader's Haven Bound Command", the German's were simply faced with an impossible task. The UK being where it was geographically was in a position to interdict Germany at will and yet remain safe behind the waves. The obvious conclusion is that everything else being equal, as time went by Germany could only get weaker in comparison to the UK. This is with or without Russia, with or without the USA ... anything. Germany was and always has been at a massive strategic disadvantage for no other reason than it's geographical position and of course when it's fighting a maritime power such as the UK was the result was inevitable.

But no, there would be no surrender with Russians on the doorstep.

Sorry I tend to ramble on, I'll leave with a quote from Donitz (although he never meant to be heard). Sat behind his desk in his office the day Britain declared war on Germany an aid brought in the news. As the aid left, he turned to look at Donitz. Donitz cradled his head in his hands and was heard to say, every so softly, "That this should happen to me again".


[edited to correct spelling and the more obvious grammar errors]

Periander, I completely agree with that. But to add just one thing, it shouldn't be forgotten that the western allies had shown themselves completely unreliable in the first world war. The germans did throw in the towel but their peace offer was a CONDITIONAL peace offering. Which the allies accepted and then chose to ignore and offer the 'dictate' of Versailles instead. So even a conditional surrender by the germans was unlikely to happen.

Narwan

True, but don't forget circumstances changed between the armistice and the peace treaty being signed. The Imperial Navy fearing that the diplomats were selling them down the river (which they weren't) scuttled the Fleet at Scapa.

Scuttling is an act of war - IIRC in that by scuttling you are denying a victor his rightful spoils and all that. Anyway whatever the reason, it is an act of war by common usage and law.

By committing an Act of War during an armistice the Germans were knocked on to the back foot politically and essentially stuffed themselves.

Again though it should be noted that as in WW2, Ike in particular was responsible for much of the post war misery that could have been avoided by earlier cooperation with the defeated Germans it was President Wilson who insisted that essentiall the German state should be punsihed so hard it would take a generation to get back on its feet.

A very, very short sighted policy.