Replies

Phoenix8: "The unconditional surrender idea was a boneheaded move by an ailing democratic/socialistic President and was an unnecessary huge mistake."

Casablanca Conference, January 1943:
Girard (France), FDR (USA), De Gaulle (France), Churchill (UK)

Pres. Roosevelt was 60 years old at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943 when he and Churchill first announced their policy of "Unconditional Surrender" for all Axis powers.
In that, FDR followed the examples of:

George Washington at the 1783 Battle of Yorktown
Ulysses Grant at the 1865 Appomattox Court House.

What FDR wanted most to avoid was Woodrow Wilson's mamby-pamby First World War "Peace Without Victory" and "14 Points" that only set the predicates for the Second World War.

As for Churchill, of course, he well understood the problems resulting from demands for "Unconditional Surrender", but he also understood the high value of clarity and simplicity of purpose which "Unconditional Surrender" provided.
And Churchill knew that "Unconditional" for Americans does not mean the same thing it would for Axis or Communist powers.
For Americans, "Unconditional" came with a lot of conditions in terms of human rights and democratic government.

The key point for both FDR and Churchill is that "Unconditional Surrender" kept any of the Allied powers from negotiating separate peace terms with any of the Axis powers, and that was no small matter.

It's also worth noting that no other Allied leader, such as Joseph Stalin or Charles De Gaulle, expressed opposition to FDR's "Unconditional Surrender" policy.

Phoenix8: "In my opinion you (all) give too much rigidity in your arguments.
With too much value on formal agreements and public announcements of Diplomatic efforts.
For a thousand years it’s been know the REAL action occur behind the scene with Machiavellian moves and whispers behind closed doors.
Things are then reported to the public afterwards and in a light that the victor desires.
Ohh and agreements and pacts can be broken.
There is no reason why a conditional peace couldn’t have been arranged.
The Soviets ended their non-aggression pact with Japan a full year in advance through a legal loophole on the pact.
Germany launched Barbarossa in 1941 and violated their Non- aggression pact.
Pacts are just promises and words on paper.
Actions are the only thing that really matter."

Sorry, but none of that argument makes any sense to me, so what, exactly, are you trying to tell us?

I had a much longer reply and lost it with my clumsy fingers trying to close a window and hitting “X”.

will have to read a greatly shortened abridged version:
FDR age? Big deal. 1940s average life expectancy was 63. H was old and sick and dumb

grant? He also had a 2 to 1 advantage in men and food, 9 to 1 ad on weapons. Victory Had little to do with his unconditional surrender demands.

Churchill!!! What?? That’s nonsense:
“ At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, Winston Churchill was initially surprised and hesitant about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s announcement of the “unconditional surrender” demand for the Axis powers. Churchill had not been consulted beforehand and was concerned about the implications, particularly how it might prolong the war by hardening German and Japanese resistance. However, he quickly aligned with Roosevelt’s stance in public, recognizing its political and strategic value in unifying the Allies and reassuring the Soviet Union of a firm commitment to total victory. Privately, Churchill expressed reservations but supported the policy to maintain Allied unity.”

De Gaul and Stalin—I mentioned Stalin last time. Not repeating myself. De Gaul was a man without a country, of course he went along.

Also like last one I admitted the ONLY valid Excuse for the FDR blunder was the possibility of separate peace. That was shown to be a misjudged fear after the war. besides after army group center was destroyed in 1944 the Western Allies would have won on their own so there was not even that one single valid reason not to negotiate with terms.

Finally that my argument made no sense is a YOU thing not a ME thing.
I was showing how unconditional surrender could and should have been discarded that pacts are things routinely discarded..again I find myself repeating things with you.