Discussion:
Would Stalin insist on unconditional surrender in 1943?
(too old to reply)
Rich Rostrom
2018-09-11 08:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Supposing that Operation FLASH (the timebomb on
Hitler's plane in March 1943) had succeded...

The Schwarz Kapelle believed that with Hitler gone,
they could displace the Nazi regime with a coup
d'état. We'll assume they were right, and that they
achieve such a coup within three months of FLASH (by
June 1943).

The first goal of the SK in power would be to
extricate Germany from the war; but they would not
surrender unconditionally, as demanded by the Allies.
Instead they would seek peace on a negotiated basis.

It is generally believed that the Allies would reject
any such overture from Germany, even from a new regime
which repudiated Nazism. WW I had been concluded on a
similar basis, and within a few years, Germany had
resumed its bad behavior.

Thus it was generally believed by Allied leaders that
Germany had to be completely conquered and forcibly
reformed to purge its militaristic and aggressive
tendencies.

However... As of summer 1943, the US and Britain had
not engaged Germany on land in a major way. Their
contribution to the ground war was limited to the
North African campaign and the invasion of Sicily,
both peripheral theaters.

Meanwhile, the USSR had for two years fought
desperately against the main strength of the German
army, inflicting (and suffering) far greater
casualties.

From Stalin's point of view, this revealed the secret
US/UK plan: let the USSR do the fighting, and then
move in at the last minute to take control of the
victory.

Is it possible that (in the situation assumed above),
Stalin would conclude that the US and UK were
implacably determined on unconditional surrender,
_and_ _would_ _fight_ _to_ _the_ _last_ _Soviet_ _to_
_achieve_ _it_?

IOW, unconditional surrender would be achieved at the
Soviets' cost.

Or he might suspect that British-American determination
to achieve unconditional surrender might disappear at
the end of the war; the US/UK finding that the new
regime was acceptable, and making a deal with them to
exclude the USSR.

There are other configurations.

But the main idea is that Stalin might prefer an
immediate peace with limited gains but no further
cost. (E.g. Germany agrees that the USSR can
occupy and vassalize Romania.) Added bonus attraction:
Germany keeps fighting the US/UK.


Might Stalin therefore decide that an immediate deal
was preferable? Particularly if the neo-German regime
offered a good deal?
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
pyotr filipivich
2018-09-11 16:41:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Supposing that Operation FLASH (the timebomb on
Hitler's plane in March 1943) had succeded...
The Schwarz Kapelle believed that with Hitler gone,
they could displace the Nazi regime with a coup
d'état. We'll assume they were right, and that they
achieve such a coup within three months of FLASH (by
June 1943).
The first goal of the SK in power would be to
extricate Germany from the war; but they would not
surrender unconditionally, as demanded by the Allies.
Instead they would seek peace on a negotiated basis.
Interesting question: what does the SK Government do about the War
in the East?
Not sure that they can just "hold fast" any better than the NASDAP
government had. Would they decide to pull back to the "Frontier of
1941?" Could a general withdrawal be accomplished without major
catastrophes?
I'm pretty sure there would be a faction in the Army of the mind
"They are giving up the Lebensraum Our Brave Boys fought to gain and
defend! Did Our Boys Shed their Blood in Vain?" as well.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Rich Rostrom
2018-09-12 22:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Rich Rostrom
The first goal of the SK in power would be to
extricate Germany from the war; but they would not
surrender unconditionally, as demanded by the Allies.
Instead they would seek peace on a negotiated basis.
Interesting question: what does the SK Government do
about the War in the East?
Go on the defensive; pull back from the Orel and Kharkov
salients, and from the Taman bridgehead east of Crimea.

Amass reserves for sharp counterattacks against Soviet
spearheads, like Manstein's "backhand blow".
Post by pyotr filipivich
Not sure that they can just "hold fast" any better
than the NASDAP government had. Would they decide
to pull back to the "Frontier of 1941?"
Unilaterally? Immediately? No. Withdrawal is a carrot
to offer Stalin.
Post by pyotr filipivich
Could a general withdrawal be accomplished without
major catastrophes?
I would think so... The Germans evacuated the Rzhev
salient and pulled Army Group A from the Caucasus
with minimal difficulty.
Post by pyotr filipivich
I'm pretty sure there would be a faction in the
Army of the mind "They are giving up the Lebensraum
Our Brave Boys fought to gain and defend! Did Our
Boys Shed their Blood in Vain?" as well.
By this time most of the Army is sick as hell of
fighting in the East, and is well aware that
"standfast" = "stand and die".
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.
pyotr filipivich
2018-09-13 03:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by pyotr filipivich
Post by Rich Rostrom
The first goal of the SK in power would be to
extricate Germany from the war; but they would not
surrender unconditionally, as demanded by the Allies.
Instead they would seek peace on a negotiated basis.
Interesting question: what does the SK Government do
about the War in the East?
Go on the defensive; pull back from the Orel and Kharkov
salients, and from the Taman bridgehead east of Crimea.
Amass reserves for sharp counterattacks against Soviet
spearheads, like Manstein's "backhand blow".
Post by pyotr filipivich
Not sure that they can just "hold fast" any better
than the NASDAP government had. Would they decide
to pull back to the "Frontier of 1941?"
Unilaterally? Immediately? No. Withdrawal is a carrot
to offer Stalin.
Post by pyotr filipivich
Could a general withdrawal be accomplished without
major catastrophes?
I would think so... The Germans evacuated the Rzhev
salient and pulled Army Group A from the Caucasus
with minimal difficulty.
Looking at the time line: if Hitler is dead in March, probability
that the battle of Kursk does not take place, or at least not as
directed in OTL. That means, among other things, no lost of men and
material, so the possibility of using them to hold the line is
increased.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by pyotr filipivich
I'm pretty sure there would be a faction in the
Army of the mind "They are giving up the Lebensraum
Our Brave Boys fought to gain and defend! Did Our
Boys Shed their Blood in Vain?" as well.
By this time most of the Army is sick as hell of
fighting in the East, and is well aware that
"standfast" = "stand and die".
Good points. So not in the Army, but perhaps politicians in the
Reichstag? OTOH, not likely to be happening even under a "reformed"
Third Reich Government.
--
pyotr filipivich.
For Sale: Uncirculated Roman Drachmas, feature Julius Ceaser's Portrait,
several dated 44 BCE. Comes with Certificate of Authenticity.
Loading...