Replies

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.

Phoenix8: "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:"

I make similar mistakes often enough to be very sympathetic.
Curiously, more often than not, my replacement version turns out, not only shorter, but also clearer and more to the point.
So there's that...

Phoenix8: "FDR age?
Big deal.
1940s average life expectancy was 63.
H was old and sick and dumb"

Over the years, FDR has been accused of many things, with "devious" perhaps a polite summary of them.
But FDR was never accused of being "dumb", just the opposite, if anything, he's thought of unkindly as an evil genius.

As for "sick", FDR was no sicklier in 1943 than he was when he first ran for President in 1932.
Yes, by the time of the Yalta Conference in February 1945, FDR was on his last legs, so to speak, but that was far from true at Casablanca in January 1943.

Again, FDR's reasons for declaring "Unconditional Surrender" as the Allies' goal were:

To inspire Americans by references to George Washington (1781) and Ulysses Grant (1865)
To unite the Allies behind a single, simple goal.
To prevent the muddled mess of negotiations which ended the First World War and, arguably, led directly to WWII.

Phoenix8: "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."

"Unconditional Surrender" Grant forced the surrender of three different Confederate armies:

Fort Donelson (February 1862)
Grant's army of 25,000 defeated 16,000 Confederates dug in behind fortifications.
In military doctrine, such attacks are said to require 3 to 1 attacker's advantage.
Vicksburg (May–July 1863)
Grant's army of 77,000 defeated Pemberton's 33,000 dug in on the cliffs of Vicksburg.
However, there were at least another 60,000 Confederate troops nearby that could have come to Pemberton's aid, but refused.
Those included Joe Johnston's Department of the West and Braxton Bragg's Army of Tennessee.
Plus! there were another 50,000 Confederate troops west of the Mississippi (in Missouri, Arkansas & Louisiana) that could have been brought to the fight, but weren't.
Appomattox Campaign (April 1865)
Lee's remnant army of 28,000 surrendered to Grant's 120,000.
At Gettysburg in 1863, Lee's army of 90,000 (including slaves) attacked Mead's Union army of ~95,000 and lost.
Since Gettysburg, Lee's army fought on defense and shrank, while the Union army fought on offense and grew stronger.
At the same time as Lee's surrender, CSA Gen. Joe Johnston commanded another 90,000 Confederate troops from North Carolina to Florida, who then surrendered (April 26) to Sherman's army of 60,000.
Point is: the overall numbers were not as lopsided as some snapshots might suggest.

Finally, "Unconditional Surrender" Grant actually offered several conditions to his defeated enemies, including food, parole and, in the end, the opportunity to keep their horses, side arms and other personal property.
Sherman & Johnson negotiated several additional conditions which, while immediately rejected in Washington, were de facto soon adopted, except for the matter of slavery.

Phoenix8: "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... "

The fact remains that neither Churchill, nor Stalin, nor De Gaulle, nor any other Allied leader opposed FDR's "Unconditional Surrender" WWII goal.
And for excellent reasons.

Phoenix8: "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."

In fact, there were several separate peace feelers from the Soviets to the Germans and visa versa during the war.
Setting aside the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in the war's early years (after June 1941) Soviets wanted peace and the Germans rejected them, while in later years (after 1943) it was the reverse.
Indeed, Stalin himself grew increasingly concerned about Western Allies making separate deals with Germans, despite FDR's "Unconditional Surrender" terms.
So, it was not a minor issue.

Phoenix8: "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."

WWII's "Unconditional Surrenders" created the world we have today, dominated by Western-type democracies.
Anything else would have left the world in the same condition as in 1919, at the end of the First World War, when Woodrow Wilson's "Peace Without Victory" and "14 Points" helped create conditions that made WWII inevitable.

That's the real bottom line.