# How late into WWII could Germany have managed a negotiated peace/surrender? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 19, 2015, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924 "2015-06-19T04:25:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ryan\_Liam](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ryan_liam/32/3965_2.png) [@Ryan\_Liam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ryan_Liam)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924/21 "2015-06-19T19:12:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I have to disagree with both of these. I don’t think a negotiated peace between Britain and Germany was impossible. Hitler wanted it after France fell and there were certainly prominent Britons who were willing as well. By Hitler’s standards the terms would have been fairly reasonable: British recognition of German control of the continent and no British interference with German rule in exchange for Britain retaining her independence and empire and no German interference with those. Basically, an end to the war with both sides agreeing to ignore the ongoing existence of the other. > > The only thing which prevented this from happening was Churchill and his supporters. Churchill wanted to keep fighting and he was in a position to get his way. But it’s not impossible to imagine a minor change of circumstances - even Churchill, in private, was willing to contemplate the possibility of a negotiated peace if Germany’s successes had continued. It has always been British policy to prevent one power dominating the continent. ---
**Author:** ![Arrogance\_Ex\_Machina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/arrogance_ex_machina/32/192_2.png) [@Arrogance\_Ex\_Machina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arrogance_Ex_Machina)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924/22 "2015-06-19T19:14:26Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > By the END of the war the Soviets had a very good military. They had some good generals and were well equipped and certainly well experienced. > > But the end is not the same as the beginning. I agree - if you want to see how well the Soviets did early in the war when they held the initiative and were against an army that had no tanks, almost no planes and poor artillery that was constantly low on ammo, you can look at the casualty figures for [Winter War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War). ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924/23 "2015-06-19T19:58:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I have to disagree with both of these. I don’t think a negotiated peace between Britain and Germany was impossible. Hitler wanted it after France fell and there were certainly prominent Britons who were willing as well. By Hitler’s standards the terms would have been fairly reasonable: British recognition of German control of the continent and no British interference with German rule in exchange for Britain retaining her independence and empire and no German interference with those. Basically, an end to the war with both sides agreeing to ignore the ongoing existence of the other. > > The only thing which prevented this from happening was Churchill and his supporters. Churchill wanted to keep fighting and he was in a position to get his way. But it’s not impossible to imagine a minor change of circumstances - even Churchill, in private, was willing to contemplate the possibility of a negotiated peace if Germany’s successes had continued. I must disagree with your disagreement. (;)). Firstly, any settlement negotiated peace between the Brits and the Germans would be like the many peaces of the French Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars, a lull. The British have never tolerated there being a single dominant power on the continent. , they would not have started in 1940. Everybody knew that. Churchill had zero influence on that issue, he was only the messenger. > [@](#): > > War between Germany and America was, in my opinion, even less inevitable. The majority of Americans didn’t see Germany as a threat. They felt Britain and France could contain Germany and the Atlantic Ocean kept America safe regardless. So most Americans felt that Hitler and Germany could be ignored. (It was only after the sudden defeat of France in the summer of 1940 that the American mood changed and Germany began being seen as a threat.) There was only a small minority which disagreed and saw Germany as a serious threat to America prior to 1940. But Roosevelt happened to be one of that minority and he acted on it as much as possible. However, as above, it’s not hard to imagine a minor change of circumstances which either removed Roosevelt from power or made him unable to act on his beliefs regarding Germany. Yes. However, the US was not going to tolerate a dominant Germany for long. Even if you remove Roosevelt from the equation, you have interventionist gaining ground stedily. Wendell Wilkie, won the Republican nomination after the fall of France (chiefly because of his interventionist views; and lost the General election in part due to his waffling on the issue). By 1941, the majority of Americans were of the view that the US should support British even if it lead to war. Already there was broad support for a massive build up of the armed forces.Even sans Pearl Harbour,war would have come in weeks. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924/24 "2015-06-19T20:18:45Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > After Leningrad and Stalingrad, I can’t imagine the Soviets being willing to negotiated with the Germans. They wanted revenge. Or would vengeance be more appropriate? Only the most minor nitpick, but after Stalingrad and the destruction of Paulus’ Sixth Army, Leningrad was still suffering hellishly from the siege. (I just checked, and Leningrad endured two more years of siege.) A deal would have ended that… I think there would have been a huge demand for peace. Yes, Stalin, being a dictator, can ignore public desires and even public demands… But absolutely would he have? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924/25 "2015-06-19T22:18:30Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Yes, Stalin, being a dictator, can ignore public desires and even public demands… But absolutely would he have? Most likely. Stalin didn’t really like Leningrad. It was the former capital under the Russian Empire and was Russia’s most European city. So Stalin suspected Leningrad’s loyalty to his regime (of course, Stalin suspected everyone’s loyalty a little). Which meant he didn’t see the population of Leningrad being weakened as a problem. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924/26 "2015-06-19T23:08:24Z")
> [@](#): > > How late into WWII could Germany have managed a negotiated peace/surrender? I’d go with prior to June 22nd, 1941. I think after Operation Barbarossa that peace was pretty much out of the question unless Germany had actually managed to knock the Russians out in their first lunge (which they didn’t). I don’t see Stalin et al accepting peace after the invasion. Prior to that, however, I think that Britain might have eventually come to the peace table if they were all alone with no allies and their empire falling apart. Things progressed to quickly for that to really be an option, but I think had Germany decided to consolidate their gains in Western Europe and kept the peace with Russia (and the US), the UK would eventually have had to come to the peace table. ---
**Author:** ![Nelson\_Pike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Nelson\_Pike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nelson_Pike)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924/27 "2015-06-20T03:30:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So the stories of them being under equipped to the point two men went forward with one rifle and one clip where the second soldier was expected to scavenge the rifle and ammo from dead soldiers was not true? Was not true. The 1941 Red Army was armed to the teeth with plentiful weapons and ammo of every kind. The main deficiencies were obsolete tanks and combat aircraft. The tank problem was progressively remedied with the introduction of the T-34 tank at some date in the 1941 campaign before the weather turned bad. This tank was so good that it would have rendered all others obsolete except for the fact that many were not initially radio-equipped. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Officers shooting anyone who retreated is not true? This is true. So what? > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The Soviets needing massive support from the US in terms of things like trucks so they could build weapons was not true? This is true, but the USSR did not get a single truck in 1941, yet inflicted a decisive defeat of Germany in the Battle of Moscow, the first in the war for the Germans, and one which came close to disaster for them. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Germans having a 10:1 kill ratio at the outset was not true? 10:1 might be a bit high, but possibly well over 5:1 in 1941. Most people are unaware of the fact that the Germans lost over 900 _dead per day_ throughout the 1941 campaign in the East. That is the equivalent of an entire division on two weeks, a rate of loss Germany was less able to cope with than the Russians. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Seems to me the Soviets were steamrolled at the outset. It was only by virtue of their size and the willingness of Stalin to feed the meat grinder that let them absorb the blow. > > But a mighty blow it was and the Soviets seriously sucked as a military at the outset. No military so well equipped and manned by such tenacious soldiers who survived surprise attack by a veteran army also well-equipped and well-manned can be considered to have sucked. Yes, they were steamrollered in the beginning, but they slowed the Germans down enough to defeat them not only at Moscow, but also elsewhere as at Rostov in the southern sector, and they kept the Germans out of Leningrad, forcing them to tie up 100s k troops there until the summer of 1944. The 1941 Red Army should be considered the second greatest in all history up until that time. By 1944 it was in first place, a position it may not have lost until after the Cold War. ---
**Author:** ![Dissonance](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/85f322/32.png) [@Dissonance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dissonance)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924/28 "2015-06-20T14:49:40Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So the stories of them being under equipped to the point two men went forward with one rifle and one clip where the second soldier was expected to scavenge the rifle and ammo from dead soldiers was not true? I have no idea how this story got to be applied to the USSR in WW2. The story is about Tsarist Russia in WW1. Stalin had heavily industrialized the country at great cost in human lives in the 1930s, to the point that the USSR produced more land war materials than any other nation in WW2, including the US. The Soviets were issuing PPSh-41 submachine guns like candy, over 6 million were produced. Tsarist Russia in 1914 was a backwards agricultural society that could not produce enough rifles or ammunition to equip its own men. The Soviet Union in 1939 was a heavily industrialized country that had no problems issuing rifles by the millions or supplying rounds of ammunition in the billions. It had the largest tank pool of any nation on earth in 1941 of ~20,000 tanks. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The Soviets needing massive support from the US in terms of things like trucks so they could build weapons was not true? No, it’s not true. They didn’t “need” it. It most certainly was extremely helpful, but US Lend-Lease did not even begin until November 1941, and the German Army was in full retreat before Moscow in the first week of December. The amount of Lend-Lease aid didn’t really start to pick up to a torrential pace until 1943. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Germans having a 10:1 kill ratio at the outset was not true? > > Seems to me the Soviets were steamrolled at the outset. It was only by virtue of their size and the willingness of Stalin to feed the meat grinder that let them absorb the blow. One in 5 Germans sent East had become a casualty by 1 November 1941. Think about that for a minute, it’s certainly something the German general staff did. Barbarossa may have been wildly successful but it had been extremely costly, unlike Poland or France, which had come at little cost. From [Ziemke, _Moscow to Stalingrad: Decision in the East_](http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-EF-Decision/USA-EF-Decision-2.html): > [@](#): > > The chiefs of staff, for their part, reminded Halder of some things he already knew very well. German casualties stood, as of 1 November, at 686,000 men–20 percent of the 3.4 million, including replacements, committed since June, the equivalent of one regiment in every division. Of half-a-million motor vehicles on the Eastern Front, a third were worn out or damaged beyond repair; only a third were fully serviceable. Panzer divisions were down to 35 percent of their original tank strengths. The OKH itself rated the 136 divisions on the Eastern Front as equivalent to no more than 83 full-strength divisions. All of these conditions could only get worse if operations continued–and one other, namely, that of logistics, would get much worse. Every mile the armies moved eastward put an added strain on the railroads. Winter clothing for the troops was already having to be left in storage because it could not be brought forward without cutting off other supplies. German equipment could not run on the Soviet railroads until the tracks were relaid to the standard gauge; and in the entire territory occupied thus far only 500 Soviet locomotives and 21,000 cars had been captured, barely a tenth of what was needed. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > But a mighty blow it was and the Soviets seriously sucked as a military at the outset. Yet they magically transformed overnight into a military that had for the first time in the war put the entire German Army on the defensive or into retreat by the beginning of December _after_ this mighty blow? > [@filmstar-en](#): > > I suspect it might have been earlier, once Germany attacked Russia the character of the war changed completely from expanding the Third Reich through conquest and occupation in the West to a ‘War of Annihilation’ in the East, which was also visited upon the civilian population. There was pretty much no going back on the Severity Order and the Commissar Order, issued in October 1941. It did not leave any room for negotiation, none of the usual deal making and territory trading between nations that had characterised conflicts in the past. The [Commissar Order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissar_Order) was issued on June 6, 1941, before Barbarossa was even launched. ---
**Author:** ![ufel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/b4bc9f/32.png) [@ufel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ufel)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924/29 "2015-06-20T21:15:45Z")
why didn’t we (or the jews) just send assassins after the big biz supporters of the Nazis, as well as the big time leaders of the Nazi party, already in the 30’?? If they’d killed 50 such in a month, that would have been the end of it, almost certainly. For sure, if you’d killed 500 of them in a year. that sort of punk has no fighting heart. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2015, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924/30 "2015-06-20T21:26:31Z")
The regime was very well protected by secret police organizations. There was a series on the “All-Hitler, All the Time” cable channel called “Hitler’s Bodyguards.” Assassination was very unlikely. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-late-into-wwii-could-germany-have-managed-a-negotiated-peace-surrender/722924.md?page=1)