# Why didn't Germany make peace in 1944



## The Basket (Nov 6, 2016)

I've been watching and reading a lot about the German high command and one issue comes up why did Germany keep fighting until Germany was destroyed. That is totally nonsensical. To prove what? Honour? Courage? Strength? Fear?
It was Doenitz who surrendered only after Hitler's death. This is not a question whether Stalin would have accepted it why the Germans didn't even try. 
My view is the 'stab in the back' mentality was too strong. That Hitler was not a reasonable man. That the crimes of the regime were too great. But to destroy ones owns country knowingly and one owns people purposefully is still debating today. The battle of the bulge is a clear example of total military nonsense which has no clear objective only that moonbeams are wish dreams. And in the end Hitler was commanding forces that were fantasy. 
Had 20th July plot succeeded and Hitler was killed then Germany wasn't yet occupied, still functioned as a state and a military and therefore could have made a noble peace....perhaps. and saved millions of lives and saved Germany in the process.
Your view?


----------



## Thorlifter (Nov 6, 2016)

I think it was several factors.

1) I agree that Hitler wasn't reasonable, but I think it goes farther than that. I don't believe he was in his right mind from drug abuse.
2) I think the Nazi's started to believe their own press about being supermen and the 1000 year Reich.
3) Hitler's generals were reluctant/afraid to tell him the truth so his fantasy plans were agreed with.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 6, 2016)

An example.
War is lost. So let go defensive.
Sicily good example. Instead of fighting in Sicily let's retreat all our forces to Italy. But no...they fight in Sicily and don't achieve victory and lose all men and materials which couldn't be evacuated. That's plain not thinking. Had Germany instead of fighting had retreat to solid defences then who knows. But they are still launching offensives. Still trying to be aggressive.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 6, 2016)

".... Hitler was not a reasonable man".

You're too kind, sir , he was a mad, sadistic, germanic genius. And his Military General Staff weren't made of the stern stuff needed to stand up to him. The 'plotters' were incompetents ... but Hitler could have been assassinated by anyone close to him .... and prepared to die performing the act.

The reality was that the German Military was _very, very good at managed retreats_ .... making them costly and time-consuming as the Allies discovered time and time again .... and the democratic Allies were for the most part _timid ._... Patton and a few others the exception ... and the Germans recognized the timidity. But Hitler was first and foremost a politician .... a demigod. His military 'genius' wasn't military genius. Had he been less idealogical he would have captured Moscow, he wouldn't have got trapped at Stalingrad. He would have played to the strengths that he had ..... great military, vastly expanded territory, etc. etc. and in that mode gone entirely defensive.

But Hitler was a mad, sadistic, germanic genius ... and what was to be ... was.

I too have been reading ... just finished the monumental "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by Wm Shirer. This book, published in the mid-1950's by an on-the-spot journalist and broadcaster, is the most insightful look at the period, the regime, and Herr Hitler that I have invested my time in. Highly recommended but very long.


----------



## stona (Nov 6, 2016)

The Basket said:


> I've been watching and reading a lot about the German high command and one issue comes up why did Germany keep fighting until Germany was destroyed.



CASABLANCA.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Nov 6, 2016)

My point is that if the Germans offered the western powers France and Italy in return for peace to continue the war with USSR then that's something the west would have to think about. Just because you say dont mean you do it.
To my knowledge the Germans never left territory it wasn't losing. It never would have occurred to them to build a defensive line to fight behind because the Prussian fighting tactics is always about attack. Battle of the Bulge is actually following a crazy German logic which simply would never occurred to western ideas. 

To say it was more honourable to follow a madman and see your country burn to the ground in my view was never truly answered by the Generals. It wasn't honour it was lunacy. Germany existed after WW1. The German state didn't exist after WW2. The fact that Germany exists today is due to the benevolence of its conquerors. The land wasn't salted or the people sold to slavery. 
Japan was allowed to keep its emperor and sovereign integrity before a Soviet land grab by surrender solely to usa. Also the Japanese military could say they were not defeated but had to surrender to save it's civilian population. The Germans fought like the Japanese to the last bitter end but the Japanese actually surrendered well before any invasion and was still military able to actually defend against an invasion albeit badly.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 6, 2016)

Germany was scared of Russia.

They picked a fight and steamrolled Russia in the early days and this euphoria would soon fade away to the cold, hard realization that Russia was going to grind them to dust.

By 1944 there was no way out. The Soviet Union was an ally of the western nations and there would be no way to keep the Russians out of a conditional armistice and total surrender would put Germany at the Soviet Union's mercy.

So the gamble was to fight to a stalemate - which was not realistic thinking, in my opinion, as it was obvious that Germany could not hope to stem the Red tide from the east and the avalanche of U.S. material from the west.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 6, 2016)

Scared of Russia for a very good reason.
I could also say that in 1942 the great summer offensive in the east was the capture of Baku in Azerbaijan. Now the rational response to this is
'Are you bonkers, Mien Führer?'
'do you even know where Baku is!!!!???'
To accept Baku as a legitimate goal even in 1942 is just crazy. The Germans were so short of manpower they had to use Romanian Hungarian and Italian armies to fill gaps. In 1942 the Wehrmacht was still working brilliantly but they were throwing it away on loony ideas. Stalingrad was only the symptoms. The common sense train left years before.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 6, 2016)

Had the Germans not brutalized the civilians on their sweep into Russia and had they treated the masses of captured Russian soldiers in a more humane fashion (and even accepting the thousands that wanted to volunteer to fight the Communists)...then they would have most likely had the support of the populace in resisting the Communists AND a much weaker resistance by Red Army troops. However, this was the German's undoing, as it steeled the Russian's resolve to fight and became a point of revenge that would come back to visit the Germans as their fortunes turned.


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 6, 2016)

Don't forget that at that time German civilians could be, and were sent to the guillotine for "defeatist talk" which had a pretty open ended definition.
In the military, punishment battalions , were almost death sentences also, was waiting for any soldier that didn't show the right attitude.
You had to be very careful who you talked to, and what you said. Freedom of speech as we know it, didn't exist.

That had to stifle any resistance to the official party line.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2016)

Also don't forget, the allies rightfully would never accept anything but unconditional surrender. There was no terms to be had, and therefor no "noble peace" for Germany to have.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 7, 2016)

I think the term unconditional surrender is not totally correct.
When Japan surrendered they were allowed to keep the emperor.
In my view the Germans could have driven a wedge between the allies. If Hitler had been killed on July 20th and he could have been...then I think whatever government came after could have been reasoned with. Even if the Germans allowed the Americans and British to walk unopposed all the way to Berlin.
The Hitler regime was simply not going to do what was required. The 20th July plot was right that only killing Hitler could save Germany. 

But again 1942...well before the fall of berlin....the ride to Baku. The intelligence failures and the drive towards Stalingrad. All megalomania which could have been rectified. Hitler was only firing his generals in 42.
Walther Kurt von Seydlitz-Kurzbach was a German general who surrendered at Stalingrad. The name Seydlitz should ring a few bells for you Prussian fans! Seydlitz would form the League of German officers which was a Soviet organisation which called for the removal of Hitler. Seydlitz is branded a traitor and sentenced to death by Hitler. But then again after Stalingrad I doubt he would support Nazism.
Wilhelm Josef Ritter von Thoma was also a critic and was a British POW held at Trent Park. He was offered the chance to go on the radio and denounce Hitler but declined.
The main failing of the German general was to differentiate between Hitler and Germany. And loyalty to Hitler personally. 
If I go back to Baku it's a clear sign of madness which is reality out the window replaced by megalomania and dreams. I haven't mentioned the atrocities which were well known and the Generals may have not pulled the trigger but they knew.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 7, 2016)

It would have been difficult to split the allies on the issue of unconditional surrender. In the allied perspective, the germans had embarked on aggressive wars of conquest twice in a generation, lied, ripped every treaty and deal ever made with them and were just not to be trusted under any circumstance. They had flouted the rules of war, brought utter suffering to millions. it would be a fickle allied alliance indeed to agree to a negotiated peace under those background issues. there were serious discussions in the US of reducing the German economy to that of a subsistence agrarian nation (the Morgenthau plan). Once the plans for post war Germany had been worked out, specifically that Germany would be occupied by the victorious allies, that the german leadership would be held to account (there were various interpretations of that, stalin wanted to just shoot 100000 her officers and political leaders. Churchill was against having a trial. Only certain members of the US contingent supported a trial based on some set of rules) .

All the allies agreed that a strict program of de-nazification was needed, and that re-admission for germany as a nation could only occur after a complete overhaul of german society had been brought about. it was realised by most of the allies that the attrocities the germans were responsible for did not simply arise because of the rotten, crazy, corrupt leadership at the top. it arose because of deep seated, systemic failures in German society itself. The allies did a reasonable job in overhauling german society, the Russians far less so, but none of this reform would have worked nearly as well as it did if the germans had retained some sense of survival of the old german state and status quo after the war . 

With that thinking the allies were never going to parley with the Nazis. but its more complicated than that even. Britain still clung to a better deal for Poland, moreover, it was realised if the Allies pulled out of war early, the Russians would gain complete control of both Central and eastern Europe combined . this was unacceptable to the western nations.

With Japan the situation was completely different. It is untrue that the allies ever made peace, subject to the emperor being spared. It was merely indicated that he would be respected. he came within an ace of being hanged actually. only Macarthurs intervention saved him really.


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 15, 2016)

The precise numbers vary, but nearly all sources of German Casualties show nearly half the total casualties occurred from August 1944 to the end of the War, about 2.3 Million. Astonishing when you think by August, the Allies were firmly in France, Cobra had started. Operation Bagration had destroyed Army Group Center. Rome had fallen. There was simply no way to victory and obvious the Allies were committed to finish to the end. Why didn't the General Staff rise up and put an end to it?

Many volumes have been written on why Germany continued. Reading Mein Kampf tells you that from the beginning Hitler started an ideological war, you can't apply logic. In my opinion completely different from the Napoleonic Wars. 

Unconditional surrender meant the Hitler and the High Command knew they would pay the consequences. 

Why was there only one serious attempt carried out to assassinate Hitler and overthrow the Nazis?

Why didn't the civilian population break down?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2016)

Actually there was more than 10 attempts to assassinate Hitler within the Reich.

Reactions: Old Old:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 16, 2016)

As adler points out there were many attempts at hitler's assassination.

however that's not the point. Almost to the end, most common germans supported hitler, were grim in their determination to hold out whatever the cost, and believed Hitlers claims that everything was going to plan and final victory not far away. the further up the food chain, the less people believed him. 

There are also serious threats of terror to worry about. People could be hanged or shot if caught doing the smallest things against the law. Spreading defeatism was punishable by death.

The problems in German society stem from their belief in strong military leadership, a lack of belief in democratic principles or the value of the rule of law. getting things done was seen as more important over the means you used to get there. inherent racism, a sense of privilege and superiority were centuries old and needed to be dealt with systematically. it was, and the Germany that emerged post war was fundamentally different to the one that existed pre-war.

If you have a nation solidly behind you, ready and capable to fight to the end, and a leadership that still clings tenaciously to the idea that victory was possible, the idea that a negotiated peace might be possible is even more remote.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Graeme (Nov 16, 2016)

The Basket said:


> ...then I think whatever government came after could have been reasoned with.



Just finished reading Antony Beevor's tome on WW2 - I'm no historian but I think he's right about "unrealistic". Never were the US and GB ever gonna let the Eastern Front conflict to continue...


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 16, 2016)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Actually there was more than 10 attempts to assassinate Hitler within the Reich.



yes there were several attempts, but only the July '44 plot was planned seriously. Treskow's '43attempt was the only other attempt to be close being to organized. Other than the July plot, the attempts were small or individual actions, without a complete plan on what to do if it succeeded. The Plot before Munich deflated quickly after the appeasement was signed. IMHO Beck in '38 had the last chance to overthrow the regime prior to the invasion of Czechoslovakia. He had legitimate reasons to stop aggression.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2016)

pinehilljoe said:


> yes there were several attempts, but only the July '44 plot was planned seriously. Treskow's '43attempt was the only other attempt to be close being to organized. Other than the July plot, the attempts were small or individual actions, without a complete plan on what to do if it succeeded. The Plot before Munich deflated quickly after the appeasement was signed. IMHO Beck in '38 had the last chance to overthrow the regime prior to the invasion of Czechoslovakia. He had legitimate reasons to stop aggression.



You are looking at it through hindsight. Put yourself in the shoes of people living in fear for their lives...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 16, 2016)

Rated "Old"...

Huh?


----------



## The Basket (Nov 25, 2016)

Had the war continued then Germany could have been atom bombed.
This may have been a game changer.
Interesting idea. In WW1 the Germans would have been fed a constant propaganda diet of victory and how well war was going. So the surrender would have been a shock as only last week it was all ok. So this in part would have led to the 'stab in the back myth.


----------



## stona (Nov 25, 2016)

Groves was asked, post war, about the possibility of using 'the bomb' against Germany.
He said that Roosevelt, who was very disturbed by the 'Battle of the Bulge' asked him about the possibility around this time. Groves gave the President a list of reasons why it would be a difficult, though not impossible, task. Not least was the absence of any B-29s in Europe, and the inability to camouflage the 'specials' among any significant number of the type.
Groves concluded.

_"The bombing of Germany with atomic bombs was, I would say, never seriously considered to the extent of making definite plans but on this occasion I told the President, Mr. Roosevelt, why it would be very unfortunate from my standpoint, I added that of course if the President — if the war demanded it and the President so desired, we would bomb Germany and I was so certain personally that the war in Europe would be over before we would be ready that you might say I didn’t give it too much consideration."
_
As far as the British attitude can be discerned, and they would have had to approve the bomb's use, the possibility of using nuclear weapons against Germany, as a deterrent to the V-2 attacks, was discussed with Churchill in August 1944. I don't believe the British would have had any objections, on principle, to its use against Germany.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pinehilljoe (Nov 25, 2016)

If the War in Europe was still raging after Trinity, I don't think there would be any question about the Bomb being used. A cover story for B-29 in the UK could have been used. If Truman were handed a weapon that could end 6 years of killing, he would have used it. Just like with Japan, all the accounts after Trinity show there was no debate on using it, nothing could have stopped the use of a weapon that promised to end the War. There were discussions of using the Bomb tactically for Operation Olympic, I don't think the close proximity of friendly troops in Europe to the IP would have changed a decision.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michaelmaltby (Nov 25, 2016)

"... I don't think the close proximity of friendly troops in Europe to the IP would have changed a decision."

It didn't stop the testing with troops in the dessert after the war, did it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## parsifal (Nov 25, 2016)

The allies could be as profligate with the lives of their personnel as any of the others if the needs of the nation required it

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

