FDR's Tragic Refusal to Deal with the German Resistance and Abandon "Unconditional Surrender"

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3373
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: FDR's Tragic Refusal to Deal with the German Resistance and Abandon "Unconditional Surrender"

Post by stg 44 » 17 Aug 2021 02:50

Takao wrote:
16 Aug 2021 22:08
stg 44 wrote:
16 Aug 2021 16:13
Semantics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Mor ... Later_life
In 1945, when Harry S. Truman became President, Morgenthau insisted on accompanying Truman to Potsdam by threatening to quit if he was not allowed to; Truman accepted his resignation immediately.[39]
Beschloss' account (cited in my previous post in the book "The Conquerors") has some choice words that Truman used that basically amounted to a firing given that Morgenthau tried to strong arm him into allowing him to come to Potsdam.
Beschloss' account has Truman "on the fence" about Morgenthau's future. Only, when Morgenthau pressed the issue, did Truman push back.

stg 44 wrote:
16 Aug 2021 16:13
Given that you're only nitpicking what I've been posting I assume you're agreeing with the bulk of my posts.
I'm nitpicking simple mistakes that should not have been made.

If the simple stuff trips you up, your meatier conclusions are probably wrong also.

My brief replies on simple mistakes are not indicative of my agreement on your larger conclusions...my brief replies are indicative that I am on vacation, and am far more engrossed in sun, sand, and surf, than researching & posting long drawn out replies to AHF.
stg 44 wrote:
16 Aug 2021 16:13
Edit:
Actually rereading the section in Beschloss Morgenthau was going to be replaced after Potsdam anyway and was staying on until Truman could ease in his new pick after the conference, but Morgenthau was quite miffed he was being left out of Potsdam conference so forced the issue and Truman immediately accepted his resignation.
Reread Beschloss again.

Truman saying "Let me think this thing over", is hardly indicative that Morgenthau would be replaced. Morgenthau does come across as heavy-handed and conceited.
If those are the only critiques you have to offer, vacation or not, and frankly you should be waiting to respond if you think you have more substantive critiques to formulate, then you really don't have much to criticize on.
Takao wrote:
16 Aug 2021 22:10
of course, someone should mention that deciding the fate of Germany does not fall under the purview of the Treasury.
And yet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#JCS_1067
In occupied Germany Morgenthau left a direct legacy through what in OMGUS commonly were called "Morgenthau boys". These were US Treasury officials whom Dwight D. Eisenhower had "loaned" to the Army of occupation. These people ensured that the JCS 1067 was interpreted as strictly as possible. They were most active in the first crucial months of the occupation, but continued their activities for almost two years following the resignation of Morgenthau in mid-1945 and some time later also of their leader Colonel Bernard Bernstein, who was "the repository of the Morgenthau spirit in the army of occupation".[47]

Morgenthau had been able to wield considerable influence over Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067. JCS 1067 was a basis for US occupation policy until July 1947, and like the Morgenthau Plan, was intended to reduce German living standards.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3373
Joined: 03 Dec 2002 01:42
Location: illinois

Re: FDR's Tragic Refusal to Deal with the German Resistance and Abandon "Unconditional Surrender"

Post by stg 44 » 17 Aug 2021 02:55

ljadw wrote:
16 Aug 2021 18:32
stg 44 wrote:
16 Aug 2021 16:00
OpanaPointer wrote:
15 Aug 2021 16:45
You might be confusing FDR with Morgenthau. Morgenthau proposed that Germany be reduced to a purely agrarian society so they could not rearm.
FDR endorsed that plan until it was leaked and public backlash forced him to back away from it...publicly. He still endorsed it and it was written into the occupation policy as JCS 1067; it was only the death of FDR before war's end and the firing of Morgenthau in June 1945 after a fight with Truman that prevented it from lasting beyond 1947 as policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#JCS_1067
A Handbook for Military Government in Germany was ready in August 1944: it advocated a quick restoration of normal life for the German people and reconstruction of Germany. Henry Morgenthau, Jr. brought it to the attention of President Franklin D. Roosevelt who, after reading it, rejected it with the words:

"Too many people here and in England hold the view that the German people as a whole are not responsible for what has taken place – that only a few Nazis are responsible. That unfortunately is not based on fact. The German people must have it driven home to them that the whole nation has been engaged in a lawless conspiracy against the decencies of modern civilization."

A new document was drafted, the Joint Chiefs of Staff directive 1067 (JCS 1067). Here the US military government of occupation in Germany was ordered to "take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany [or] designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy" and it was also ordered that starvation, disease and civil unrest were to be kept below such levels where they would pose a danger to the troops of occupation.

The directive was formally issued to Eisenhower in the spring of 1945, and it applied only to the US zone (although attempts had been made to get the other Allies to accept it). The occupation directive remained secret until October 17, 1945. It was made known to the public two months after the US had succeeded in incorporating much of it into the Potsdam Agreement.[44]

On May 10, 1945, Truman signed JCS 1067.[45] Ignoring the amendments to JCS 1067 that had been inserted by McCloy of the War Department, Morgenthau told his staff that it was a big day for the Treasury, and that he hoped that "someone doesn't recognize it as the Morgenthau Plan".[46]

[45] Department of State Bulletin, October 21, 1945, pp. 596–607.

[46] Beschloss 2002, p. 233.
Beschloss, Michael R (2002), The Conquerors: Roosevelt, Truman and the Destruction of Hitler's Germany, 1941–1945, New York: Simon & Shuster
In occupied Germany Morgenthau left a direct legacy through what in OMGUS commonly were called "Morgenthau boys". These were US Treasury officials whom Dwight D. Eisenhower had "loaned" to the Army of occupation. These people ensured that the JCS 1067 was interpreted as strictly as possible. They were most active in the first crucial months of the occupation, but continued their activities for almost two years following the resignation of Morgenthau in mid-1945 and some time later also of their leader Colonel Bernard Bernstein, who was "the repository of the Morgenthau spirit in the army of occupation".[47]

Morgenthau had been able to wield considerable influence over Joint Chiefs of Staff Directive 1067. JCS 1067 was a basis for US occupation policy until July 1947, and like the Morgenthau Plan, was intended to reduce German living standards. The production of oil, rubber, merchant ships, and aircraft were prohibited. Occupation forces were not to assist with economic development apart from the agricultural sector.
OpanaPointer wrote:
15 Aug 2021 16:45
FDR nixed the idea. He wanted Germany to be a buffer state against the Soviets.
He did not. Up until his death he largely thought he could work with Stalin, which is why he gave half of it to the Soviets.
Not that I want to defend him, but FDR gave nothing away to Stalin .
Stalin was already master of eastern Europe before the death of FDR .
And, this was a good thing for the US : the US were able to decrease their forces in Europe to 2 divisions,if they had to occupy Eastern Europe, much more divisions would be needed .
The only way FDR could prevent the Soviet domination of Eastern Europe was to start a war with the USSR .
FDR was not interested in the future of Eastern Europe as the people who lived there were not Americans and could not vote for/against him .
What I posted about was a 1943 peace deal that left Russia well to the east. At that point Russia controlled nothing beyond her borders of 1939 and in fact would have to participate in a peace deal to get back her lost territories beyond the Dniepr. L-L was the major chip the US had to play.
Relatives of the people there could vote against him and were a considerable vote in key states.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 13806
Joined: 13 Jul 2009 17:50

Re: FDR's Tragic Refusal to Deal with the German Resistance and Abandon "Unconditional Surrender"

Post by ljadw » 17 Aug 2021 11:29

Peace deal with Hitler or another German in 1943,was totally out of the question :the American people and Congress wanted unconditional surrender and the US forces parading Unter den Linden .As US could not occupy Germany on its own, it needed the help of the Soviets ,which meant the Soviets parading Unter den Linden .
And relatives of the people living in Poland,etc,would not accept a separate peace and would vote against him .
From American side the aim of the war was the destruction of Nazism and of Germany as a great power . Both aims were inseparable .It was the same with Japan .
The war could only end with a Carthaginian Peace .
Hitler was considered as a criminal,from the moment he started a war .All Germans were also considered as criminals, unless they could prove their innocence .There was no distinction between Nazis and Germans .
A separate peace would result in the survival of Germany as a great power and in WW 3 in 1970 .
After saying in 1941 and 1942 : there is only one good German : a dead one, one could not conclude a separate peace with another German in 1943 and Britain and the occupied countries on the continent would not accept a separate peace .
Besides, even if such a separate peace was possible, there remains the WHY : why should US conclude a separate peace ?
If Germany was still strong,it would not give up its conquests .
If Germany was weak, the Soviets would parade Unter den Linden .
Whatever the outcome of the war, the countries of Eastern Europe would lose their independence .

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 5129
Joined: 16 May 2010 14:12
Location: United States of America

Re: FDR's Tragic Refusal to Deal with the German Resistance and Abandon "Unconditional Surrender"

Post by OpanaPointer » 18 Aug 2021 17:35

FDR was famous for seeming to agree with almost everybody while not agreeing with them at all.
Come visit our sites:
hyperwarHyperwar
World War II Resources

Bellum se ipsum alet, mostly Doritos.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3772
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: FDR's Tragic Refusal to Deal with the German Resistance and Abandon "Unconditional Surrender"

Post by Takao » 19 Aug 2021 11:49

stg 44 wrote:
17 Aug 2021 02:50
If those are the only critiques you have to offer, vacation or not, and frankly you should be waiting to respond if you think you have more substantive critiques to formulate, then you really don't have much to criticize on.
I was not planning on responding, until I read this part
stg 44 wrote:
16 Aug 2021 16:13
Given that you're only nitpicking what I've been posting I assume you're agreeing with the bulk of my posts.
Which prompted me to respond to disabuse you of that silly notion.

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”