Was there a pre-determined arrangment for division of Germany in case it surrendered before any Soviet forces...
Listening to the audiobook "D-day through German eyes", I thought: what if Germany had surrendered before any Soviet force entered its territory? A German soldier in the book says that his motivation after 1943 was to protect his motherland from communist enslavement, so I thought that maybe, from this standpoint, it would have been better to concentrate resistance on the eastern border and let Western forces invade deeper.
Was there any predetermined arrangement, official or non-official, to divide its territory into sectors in the case of Western powers occupying the whole of the country before the Soviets managed to enter it?
Would the Soviet sector have covered less ground than it did in actual history? Or it would have been the same, and there was no benefit from letting Western forces advance deeper?
P.S. My question is not about whether were was any possibility of a conditional surrender, or of surrender to only some of the Allies. I'm curious whether it was possible to escape communist rule by re-distributing the resistance effort to the East.
world-war-two
add a comment |
Listening to the audiobook "D-day through German eyes", I thought: what if Germany had surrendered before any Soviet force entered its territory? A German soldier in the book says that his motivation after 1943 was to protect his motherland from communist enslavement, so I thought that maybe, from this standpoint, it would have been better to concentrate resistance on the eastern border and let Western forces invade deeper.
Was there any predetermined arrangement, official or non-official, to divide its territory into sectors in the case of Western powers occupying the whole of the country before the Soviets managed to enter it?
Would the Soviet sector have covered less ground than it did in actual history? Or it would have been the same, and there was no benefit from letting Western forces advance deeper?
P.S. My question is not about whether were was any possibility of a conditional surrender, or of surrender to only some of the Allies. I'm curious whether it was possible to escape communist rule by re-distributing the resistance effort to the East.
world-war-two
add a comment |
Listening to the audiobook "D-day through German eyes", I thought: what if Germany had surrendered before any Soviet force entered its territory? A German soldier in the book says that his motivation after 1943 was to protect his motherland from communist enslavement, so I thought that maybe, from this standpoint, it would have been better to concentrate resistance on the eastern border and let Western forces invade deeper.
Was there any predetermined arrangement, official or non-official, to divide its territory into sectors in the case of Western powers occupying the whole of the country before the Soviets managed to enter it?
Would the Soviet sector have covered less ground than it did in actual history? Or it would have been the same, and there was no benefit from letting Western forces advance deeper?
P.S. My question is not about whether were was any possibility of a conditional surrender, or of surrender to only some of the Allies. I'm curious whether it was possible to escape communist rule by re-distributing the resistance effort to the East.
world-war-two
Listening to the audiobook "D-day through German eyes", I thought: what if Germany had surrendered before any Soviet force entered its territory? A German soldier in the book says that his motivation after 1943 was to protect his motherland from communist enslavement, so I thought that maybe, from this standpoint, it would have been better to concentrate resistance on the eastern border and let Western forces invade deeper.
Was there any predetermined arrangement, official or non-official, to divide its territory into sectors in the case of Western powers occupying the whole of the country before the Soviets managed to enter it?
Would the Soviet sector have covered less ground than it did in actual history? Or it would have been the same, and there was no benefit from letting Western forces advance deeper?
P.S. My question is not about whether were was any possibility of a conditional surrender, or of surrender to only some of the Allies. I'm curious whether it was possible to escape communist rule by re-distributing the resistance effort to the East.
world-war-two
world-war-two
edited 5 hours ago
CopperKettle
asked 6 hours ago
CopperKettleCopperKettle
4591413
4591413
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The boundaries of the occupation zones had been settled at the Yalta Conference between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. A basic plan for the zones had been made during 1944, by the European Advisory Commission, but it was modified at Yalta. The Yalta conference presumably announced that there would be occupation zones, but I doubt that their boundaries were published at the time.
In early July 1945, the troops of the various occupying powers moved to the agreed areas; before then, each part of Germany was occupied by whoever had got there first, and some US troops withdrew 200 miles to let the Soviets take over their assigned areas.
This agreement, and the compliance with it by the Allied forces, meant that letting the Western Allies advance further would not have made any difference. The areas that were agreed to be Soviet-controlled would have inevitably ended up that way, unless the Germans managed to repel the invasions.
Ah! So any strategy intended to let Western forces advance further should have been implemented before February 1945 to be of any use. Interesting. Shame on me for not knowing this fact about the Yalta Conference. I wonder if there were any non-official arrangements before February 1945.
– CopperKettle
6 hours ago
@CopperKettle: Added some more. Basically, the Germans had no power to influence who would occupy which areas. That's implicit in an unconditional surrender.
– John Dallman
6 hours ago
They of course had no official power, but they had the option of maneuvering more of Western troops on their territory in order to give them more leverage. As they say, "possession is nine-tenths of the law"
– CopperKettle
5 hours ago
@CopperKettle: But since the Western Allies did hand over territory to the Soviets in accordance with the agreement, that would not have helped.
– John Dallman
5 hours ago
So maybe it would have been possible to influence the occupation arrangement by announcing unconditional surrender to Allies before February 1945, and letting more of Western allies on German territory beforehand. I was trying to understand the German's thinking.
– CopperKettle
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The requirement of unconditional surrender was decided by the Western Allies in January 1943 in Casablanca. Even earlier all Allies promised not to conclude
a separate peace.
There was no arrangement and no accepted plan of what to do with Germany before the beginning of 1944.
In the early 1944, when it became clear that Germany will be defeated soon,
there was a discussion what to do with Germany when it is defeated.
Various plans were discussed by the Allies.
See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Morgenthau's_memorandum.
According to Wikipedia,
The Morgenthau Plan was seized upon by the Nazi German government, and used as part of propaganda efforts in the final months of the war which aimed to convince Germans to fight on.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "324"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51246%2fwas-there-a-pre-determined-arrangment-for-division-of-germany-in-case-it-surrend%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The boundaries of the occupation zones had been settled at the Yalta Conference between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. A basic plan for the zones had been made during 1944, by the European Advisory Commission, but it was modified at Yalta. The Yalta conference presumably announced that there would be occupation zones, but I doubt that their boundaries were published at the time.
In early July 1945, the troops of the various occupying powers moved to the agreed areas; before then, each part of Germany was occupied by whoever had got there first, and some US troops withdrew 200 miles to let the Soviets take over their assigned areas.
This agreement, and the compliance with it by the Allied forces, meant that letting the Western Allies advance further would not have made any difference. The areas that were agreed to be Soviet-controlled would have inevitably ended up that way, unless the Germans managed to repel the invasions.
Ah! So any strategy intended to let Western forces advance further should have been implemented before February 1945 to be of any use. Interesting. Shame on me for not knowing this fact about the Yalta Conference. I wonder if there were any non-official arrangements before February 1945.
– CopperKettle
6 hours ago
@CopperKettle: Added some more. Basically, the Germans had no power to influence who would occupy which areas. That's implicit in an unconditional surrender.
– John Dallman
6 hours ago
They of course had no official power, but they had the option of maneuvering more of Western troops on their territory in order to give them more leverage. As they say, "possession is nine-tenths of the law"
– CopperKettle
5 hours ago
@CopperKettle: But since the Western Allies did hand over territory to the Soviets in accordance with the agreement, that would not have helped.
– John Dallman
5 hours ago
So maybe it would have been possible to influence the occupation arrangement by announcing unconditional surrender to Allies before February 1945, and letting more of Western allies on German territory beforehand. I was trying to understand the German's thinking.
– CopperKettle
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The boundaries of the occupation zones had been settled at the Yalta Conference between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. A basic plan for the zones had been made during 1944, by the European Advisory Commission, but it was modified at Yalta. The Yalta conference presumably announced that there would be occupation zones, but I doubt that their boundaries were published at the time.
In early July 1945, the troops of the various occupying powers moved to the agreed areas; before then, each part of Germany was occupied by whoever had got there first, and some US troops withdrew 200 miles to let the Soviets take over their assigned areas.
This agreement, and the compliance with it by the Allied forces, meant that letting the Western Allies advance further would not have made any difference. The areas that were agreed to be Soviet-controlled would have inevitably ended up that way, unless the Germans managed to repel the invasions.
Ah! So any strategy intended to let Western forces advance further should have been implemented before February 1945 to be of any use. Interesting. Shame on me for not knowing this fact about the Yalta Conference. I wonder if there were any non-official arrangements before February 1945.
– CopperKettle
6 hours ago
@CopperKettle: Added some more. Basically, the Germans had no power to influence who would occupy which areas. That's implicit in an unconditional surrender.
– John Dallman
6 hours ago
They of course had no official power, but they had the option of maneuvering more of Western troops on their territory in order to give them more leverage. As they say, "possession is nine-tenths of the law"
– CopperKettle
5 hours ago
@CopperKettle: But since the Western Allies did hand over territory to the Soviets in accordance with the agreement, that would not have helped.
– John Dallman
5 hours ago
So maybe it would have been possible to influence the occupation arrangement by announcing unconditional surrender to Allies before February 1945, and letting more of Western allies on German territory beforehand. I was trying to understand the German's thinking.
– CopperKettle
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The boundaries of the occupation zones had been settled at the Yalta Conference between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. A basic plan for the zones had been made during 1944, by the European Advisory Commission, but it was modified at Yalta. The Yalta conference presumably announced that there would be occupation zones, but I doubt that their boundaries were published at the time.
In early July 1945, the troops of the various occupying powers moved to the agreed areas; before then, each part of Germany was occupied by whoever had got there first, and some US troops withdrew 200 miles to let the Soviets take over their assigned areas.
This agreement, and the compliance with it by the Allied forces, meant that letting the Western Allies advance further would not have made any difference. The areas that were agreed to be Soviet-controlled would have inevitably ended up that way, unless the Germans managed to repel the invasions.
The boundaries of the occupation zones had been settled at the Yalta Conference between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. A basic plan for the zones had been made during 1944, by the European Advisory Commission, but it was modified at Yalta. The Yalta conference presumably announced that there would be occupation zones, but I doubt that their boundaries were published at the time.
In early July 1945, the troops of the various occupying powers moved to the agreed areas; before then, each part of Germany was occupied by whoever had got there first, and some US troops withdrew 200 miles to let the Soviets take over their assigned areas.
This agreement, and the compliance with it by the Allied forces, meant that letting the Western Allies advance further would not have made any difference. The areas that were agreed to be Soviet-controlled would have inevitably ended up that way, unless the Germans managed to repel the invasions.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17.1k35478
17.1k35478
Ah! So any strategy intended to let Western forces advance further should have been implemented before February 1945 to be of any use. Interesting. Shame on me for not knowing this fact about the Yalta Conference. I wonder if there were any non-official arrangements before February 1945.
– CopperKettle
6 hours ago
@CopperKettle: Added some more. Basically, the Germans had no power to influence who would occupy which areas. That's implicit in an unconditional surrender.
– John Dallman
6 hours ago
They of course had no official power, but they had the option of maneuvering more of Western troops on their territory in order to give them more leverage. As they say, "possession is nine-tenths of the law"
– CopperKettle
5 hours ago
@CopperKettle: But since the Western Allies did hand over territory to the Soviets in accordance with the agreement, that would not have helped.
– John Dallman
5 hours ago
So maybe it would have been possible to influence the occupation arrangement by announcing unconditional surrender to Allies before February 1945, and letting more of Western allies on German territory beforehand. I was trying to understand the German's thinking.
– CopperKettle
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Ah! So any strategy intended to let Western forces advance further should have been implemented before February 1945 to be of any use. Interesting. Shame on me for not knowing this fact about the Yalta Conference. I wonder if there were any non-official arrangements before February 1945.
– CopperKettle
6 hours ago
@CopperKettle: Added some more. Basically, the Germans had no power to influence who would occupy which areas. That's implicit in an unconditional surrender.
– John Dallman
6 hours ago
They of course had no official power, but they had the option of maneuvering more of Western troops on their territory in order to give them more leverage. As they say, "possession is nine-tenths of the law"
– CopperKettle
5 hours ago
@CopperKettle: But since the Western Allies did hand over territory to the Soviets in accordance with the agreement, that would not have helped.
– John Dallman
5 hours ago
So maybe it would have been possible to influence the occupation arrangement by announcing unconditional surrender to Allies before February 1945, and letting more of Western allies on German territory beforehand. I was trying to understand the German's thinking.
– CopperKettle
4 hours ago
Ah! So any strategy intended to let Western forces advance further should have been implemented before February 1945 to be of any use. Interesting. Shame on me for not knowing this fact about the Yalta Conference. I wonder if there were any non-official arrangements before February 1945.
– CopperKettle
6 hours ago
Ah! So any strategy intended to let Western forces advance further should have been implemented before February 1945 to be of any use. Interesting. Shame on me for not knowing this fact about the Yalta Conference. I wonder if there were any non-official arrangements before February 1945.
– CopperKettle
6 hours ago
@CopperKettle: Added some more. Basically, the Germans had no power to influence who would occupy which areas. That's implicit in an unconditional surrender.
– John Dallman
6 hours ago
@CopperKettle: Added some more. Basically, the Germans had no power to influence who would occupy which areas. That's implicit in an unconditional surrender.
– John Dallman
6 hours ago
They of course had no official power, but they had the option of maneuvering more of Western troops on their territory in order to give them more leverage. As they say, "possession is nine-tenths of the law"
– CopperKettle
5 hours ago
They of course had no official power, but they had the option of maneuvering more of Western troops on their territory in order to give them more leverage. As they say, "possession is nine-tenths of the law"
– CopperKettle
5 hours ago
@CopperKettle: But since the Western Allies did hand over territory to the Soviets in accordance with the agreement, that would not have helped.
– John Dallman
5 hours ago
@CopperKettle: But since the Western Allies did hand over territory to the Soviets in accordance with the agreement, that would not have helped.
– John Dallman
5 hours ago
So maybe it would have been possible to influence the occupation arrangement by announcing unconditional surrender to Allies before February 1945, and letting more of Western allies on German territory beforehand. I was trying to understand the German's thinking.
– CopperKettle
4 hours ago
So maybe it would have been possible to influence the occupation arrangement by announcing unconditional surrender to Allies before February 1945, and letting more of Western allies on German territory beforehand. I was trying to understand the German's thinking.
– CopperKettle
4 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
The requirement of unconditional surrender was decided by the Western Allies in January 1943 in Casablanca. Even earlier all Allies promised not to conclude
a separate peace.
There was no arrangement and no accepted plan of what to do with Germany before the beginning of 1944.
In the early 1944, when it became clear that Germany will be defeated soon,
there was a discussion what to do with Germany when it is defeated.
Various plans were discussed by the Allies.
See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Morgenthau's_memorandum.
According to Wikipedia,
The Morgenthau Plan was seized upon by the Nazi German government, and used as part of propaganda efforts in the final months of the war which aimed to convince Germans to fight on.
add a comment |
The requirement of unconditional surrender was decided by the Western Allies in January 1943 in Casablanca. Even earlier all Allies promised not to conclude
a separate peace.
There was no arrangement and no accepted plan of what to do with Germany before the beginning of 1944.
In the early 1944, when it became clear that Germany will be defeated soon,
there was a discussion what to do with Germany when it is defeated.
Various plans were discussed by the Allies.
See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Morgenthau's_memorandum.
According to Wikipedia,
The Morgenthau Plan was seized upon by the Nazi German government, and used as part of propaganda efforts in the final months of the war which aimed to convince Germans to fight on.
add a comment |
The requirement of unconditional surrender was decided by the Western Allies in January 1943 in Casablanca. Even earlier all Allies promised not to conclude
a separate peace.
There was no arrangement and no accepted plan of what to do with Germany before the beginning of 1944.
In the early 1944, when it became clear that Germany will be defeated soon,
there was a discussion what to do with Germany when it is defeated.
Various plans were discussed by the Allies.
See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Morgenthau's_memorandum.
According to Wikipedia,
The Morgenthau Plan was seized upon by the Nazi German government, and used as part of propaganda efforts in the final months of the war which aimed to convince Germans to fight on.
The requirement of unconditional surrender was decided by the Western Allies in January 1943 in Casablanca. Even earlier all Allies promised not to conclude
a separate peace.
There was no arrangement and no accepted plan of what to do with Germany before the beginning of 1944.
In the early 1944, when it became clear that Germany will be defeated soon,
there was a discussion what to do with Germany when it is defeated.
Various plans were discussed by the Allies.
See, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan#Morgenthau's_memorandum.
According to Wikipedia,
The Morgenthau Plan was seized upon by the Nazi German government, and used as part of propaganda efforts in the final months of the war which aimed to convince Germans to fight on.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
AlexAlex
26.9k151102
26.9k151102
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to History Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f51246%2fwas-there-a-pre-determined-arrangment-for-division-of-germany-in-case-it-surrend%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown