Replies

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.

FDR—not only was he getting old for the time but he was a long sufferer of polio which weakened him— “Mens sana in corpore sane”..eh? Yes we agree he was an evil genius, I was being flippant with the word dumb. But I do believe he wasn't as sharp in 1943 as before. “ FDR had a history of polio, which left him paralyzed from the waist down since 1921, and he relied on leg braces, a wheelchair, or assistance to move. Beyond polio, he suffered from chronic conditions, including hypertension and heart issues, which were not fully understood or well-managed at the time due to the era's medical limitations.” I believe poor heart conditions can effect thought ability can they not? ————————————- Washington, Grant etc. Ok firstly it's so odd we are talking about Washington as an example to defend the principle of U.Sur in WW2. 1. He was a general in a civil war in the Romantic Era. You are comparing apples to oranges. 2. Washington was not actually an adherent to U. Sur: “ As a military leader, he prioritized victory and the survival of the Continental Army, but he was not dogmatic about demanding unconditional surrender in every case. His approach balanced firmness with flexibility” The U Sur demand of FDR in WW2 were anything but flexible, they were like a rusted span of iron wedged in 10 feet of solidified concrete. ———————— On the example of surrender of 3 southern armies I'm unimpressed. Those were SPECIFIC examples of tactical battles on the field that might have resulted in surrender anyway with conditions. You are not really suggesting massive quantitative advantages are inconsequential are you? In fact not having enough things was far more important than U Sur: “ At Appomattox, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, roughly 26,000 men, was exhausted, starving, and surrounded, with minimal supplies and low morale. On April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered to Grant, effectively ending the Civil War in Virginia.” “ At Appomattox, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia had critically low weapons and ammunition, with many soldiers unarmed or carrying unserviceable rifles due to losses and supply shortages.” ______________________ The reasons why the Allies supported FDR rigid and unfortunate idea of (strict) UN Surr is we were literally supplying the others With the means to fight. If they didn't go along with FDR he might cut them off or reduced it:

————————————— On separate peace between Germany and the USSR—- Yet they didn't did they? The reason is that while both socialist they were at distinct natural odds with each other as one favored nationalism and the other a world order. (sounds familiar doesn't it?) In fact a German-Soviet pact was a PERFECT match and would have almost guaranteed victory..and still they didn't. In 1941 when German forces launched spearheads deep into the USSR they were shocked at the miles and miles of loaded wagons, trains and trucks carrying goods to Germany. Grain, coal, rubber, ores into the Reich. Hitler was biting the hand that was feeding him so to say. An actual “potato train” from the USSR to Germany, later 1940:

Yet Hitler STILL risked it all and attacked. Why? because they HATED each other.

“Hitler viewed communism as a mortal enemy of National Socialism” “ By 1942, both leaders were locked into a fight to the death, driven by ideology, mistrust, and the war's momentum. The highest likelihood might have been in late 1941, but even then, it was slim—perhaps a 5–10% chance at most, based on Stalin's desperation and Hitler's fleeting interest in pausing the Eastern Front.” And Goebbels, whom I see as the intellectual force behind Hitler, hated communism perhaps even more.

Actually this is a good reason WHY conditional surrender terms from the Western Allies to Germany might have worked. They feared and hated communism and would have likely surrendered with terms (like keeping their army intact on the east on pre-1941 border) to have kept them out. No, in retrospect there was little chance of a separate peace. And the idea of the US or UK making a separate peace from each other isn't worthy of discussion. ————————————- Unconditional surrender in fact was a DISASTER in WW2: 1. It left Japan prostrate allowing the CCP to win in China. This allowed the USA to suffer the Korean and Vietnamese wars, genocides in China, genocides in Cambodia etc “ deaths attributed to communist regimes in Asia since World War II is 35–78 million, with a midpoint of ~55 million” 2. It left Germany in the same state allowing Communism to run wild in Eastern Europe. Ushering in the Cold War and nearly nuclear Armageddon etc. Sir we will never agree. 🙀 And let's not forget my original thesis; Unconditional Surrender demands did not cause ALL deaths and suffering, it allowed NEEDLESS deaths and suffering to continue past what was necessary. Well, well past.