Was unconditional surrender necessary ?

Fiction, movies, alternate history, humor, and other non-research topics related to WWII.

Moderator: Commissar D, the Evil

User avatar
Commissar D, the Evil
Moderator
Posts: 4823
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by Commissar D, the Evil » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:30 am

Hi Sid, my information is that the post-war zones of Allied occupation were worked out in November, 1944, by the European Advisory Commission consisting of American, British and Soviet diplomats.
Apparently, the German High Command learned of the occupation plan from a captured copy in January 1945. Captured with it was a letter that spoke of unconditional surrender and the dismemberment of Germany.
Remember that it wasn't until Jauary 20th that Soviet forces actually set foot on German territory. The question of Poland's borders is a complicated one and I'll post later on that.
Best Regards, David
Death is lighter than a Feather, Duty is heavier than a Mountain....

ReconPAL
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:34 am
Location: Indian Mills, New Jersey, USA

Was Unconditional Surrender Necessary

Post by ReconPAL » Fri Dec 20, 2002 2:53 pm

At Yalta, Sid. Roosevelt bargained away the boundary lines to get the Russians to buy into the United Nations thing. Specific details were leaked after the surrender in the railroad car. Interesting; after all that killing and destruction, Jodl. Keitel and Donetz surrendered unconditionally. Interesting. When Guderian tried to get Hitler to set up the old defenses on the borders before the Russians had crossed the Oder he was laughed at and sacked. Interesting. Paul
To those who served

sid guttridge
on "time out"
Posts: 8055
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am

Post by sid guttridge » Fri Dec 27, 2002 6:17 am

Hi Guys,

So am I right in thinking from this that the Germans only knew about the details of the likely boundary revisions in the east from about February 1945? By which time the de facto front had already reached or crossed them in many places and the Nazi regime was already engaged in evacuating German civilians from these areas anyway?

Does this mean that only German resistance after this date may be partly attributed to the reality of the unconditional surrender results?

Cheers,

Sid.

ReconPAL
Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2002 8:34 am
Location: Indian Mills, New Jersey, USA

Was Unconditional Surrender Necessary

Post by ReconPAL » Sat Dec 28, 2002 8:31 am

Re: Sid G's post 12/27 I don't think that the boundary lines were a factor in the decisions; that was the point of my reference to Guderian's suggestion to Hitler after he rehabilitated him to put the recently assembled Volksturm (1 mil?) in a defensive line with the retreating forces along the old pre 1941 defensive line along the German, Polish border and fight it out. I understand that one of his replies to Hitler which was seconded by Manstein on this was that unless that was done a breakthrough at any point would isolate the fortress positions and make it impossible to stablize the front. It seems to me that is exactly what happened. But, why did they not test the resolve of the Allies on unconditional surrender? Italy had done it successfully. They sent representatives to Portugal to discuss it with the Brits? And the Japanese did it you might even say "with class" a little later. This baffles me. Thomas Mann, the author and a German thought it was a Faustian bargain of the leadership. Interesting. Paul
To those who served

Guillermo
Contributor
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2002 9:18 am

Re: Was Unconditional Surrender Policy Necessary

Post by Guillermo » Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:02 pm

Guillermo wrote:There's a picture of a German destroyed tank, I believe somewhere near the Oder river, that had the following words painted on it:

"KAMPF KAMPF KAMPF!"

Guillermo
Looking for this picture, anyone?

Thanks.

Post Reply