MovieChat Forums > Valkyrie (2008) Discussion > Roosevelt Demanded Unconditional Surrend...

Roosevelt Demanded Unconditional Surrender Even If Hitler Was Killed

posted 9 years ago by bloody-3
13 replies | jump to latest

Stauffenberg and the other traitors were under the delusion that if their plot succeeded they could make peace with the UK/USA but continue fighting the USSR. But when they contacted the Roosevelt administration through neutral channels such as Switzerland they were told it didn't matter if Hitler was killed or imprisoned there would be no separate peace deal and the policy of unconditional surrender still stood. Roosevelt was a great admirer of Stalin and had no intention of ending the alliance. He publicly stated in 1943 after the Teheran conference that "Stalin is my brother". www.jrbooksonline.com/fdr-scandal-page/fdr.html The plotters were aware of this but still went ahead with their stupid plan.

[–] whiskeyTango-06 9 years ago

exactly right.

[–] davidmrenton 9 years ago

in contrast Churchill didn't want nuremburg, he wanted most German Officers shot after the war and wanted to continue a new ,actual invasion (not cold War) against Russia.That's why Churchill a cool mofo.

[–] Doc80 8 years ago

Yeah, wasting the lives of millions of men in order to stroke his ego makes someone cool? An invasion of the USSR/Russia would have been a disaster of epic proportions. There is a reason why no one has ever successfully invaded it after all.

[–] RoyWilliamsbeatsCoachK 8 years ago

It would not be to "waste millions of lives" it would be to liberate Eastern Europe from Communist domination.

WW2 was started to liberate Poland, but Poland was never liberated, just changed from Nazi oppression to Soviet oppression.

[–] Doc80 8 years ago

Yes it would have been because Russia has never been successfully invaded. Attempting said invasion would cost the lives of millions.

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

Who's talking about invading Russia? Just pushing them out from where they didn't belong. But, yes, it would have been a major slaughter likely ending in some kind of stalemate.

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] sawarrior 7 years ago

Who's talking about invading Russia? Just pushing them out from where they didn't belong. But, yes, it would have been a major slaughter likely ending in some kind of stalemate.

Russia has never been successfully invaded. Attempting said invasion would cost the lives of millions.

All it would have taken was not to conquer them, but to push them back where they belonged. And that would have been doable with Germany on our side and the fact that we were only a couple of months away from having the A-Bomb. we couldn't have lost.

[–] ghoolsby 8 years ago

Both Germany and Japan tried to communicate with the allies for surrender terms but it was often difficult or impossible. Part of the reason the United Nations was formed was to give a clear communication channel among all nations and for an international body to govern military conduct of all parties, even the group that's winning.

[–] InfoBabe 8 years ago

We weren't fighting Russia. They were our allies. Eisenhower et al agreed to stop pushing forward and allow Russia to take Berlin. Their attitude was, let them take the prize. They deserve it for all they suffered. Russia demanded it and it was hard to argue.

[–] bloody-3 8 years ago

This same ally committed the Katyn massacre of Polish officers - www.katyn.org.au
This same ally committed many other war crimes such as the mass rape of 1 million German women - www.hellstormdocumentary.com
It was the policy of unconditional surrender that was insisted on by Roosevelt and Churchill that prolonged the war and allowed Stalin to advance as far as he did. The war started over Poland when Britain and France declared war on Germany when they invaded on September 1 1939. However, these 2 countries did not declare war on the Soviet Union when that country invaded Poland on September 17 1939 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
Then in 1945 Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to hand over Poland to Stalin at the Yalta conference making a mockery of the reason for going to war in the first place. What is wrong with a negotiated peace ?
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10192

[–] InfoBabe 8 years ago

In spite of all that, Russia was an ally and we were not attacking them. Yes, some in Germany tried to negotiate a peace, not sure Hitler knew about it. I wonder what Germany would have done with the concentration camps with the furnaces. Would the negotiated peace hold? Himmler wanted the war over because they were losing. The military, same reason except many of them never liked Hitler. Many were from the upper classes and thought Hitler was joke, sort of like Trump.

[–] bloody-3 7 years ago

Hitler offered peace terms to the Allies in 1939, 1940 and 1941. It was Churchill who kept the war going -
www.veteranstoday.com/2015/09/24/churchill-was-a-mass-murderer-and-worshipped-mammon/
Allied propaganda always says it is a war about democracy and against dictatorship. Churchill willingly sided with Stalin's Soviet Union which was not democratic and a dictatorship. He did this because he wanted to not because he had to. Churchill wrote to Stalin in June 1940 after France surrendered asking him to bring the Soviet Union into the war on Britain's side. This was a year before the soviet-nazi war broke out. It just goes to show you how morally bankrupt Churchill was.
In May 1941 Hitler offered to withdraw all German troops from France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Greece and Yugoslavia in return for peace with the British Empire so he could concentrate on fighting Stalin. Britain did not have to suffer any territorial loss or occupation. This peace offer was rejected by Churchill -
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10192

[–] tbonesays 7 years ago

you can't actually be that stupid.