Was there a pre-determined arrangment for division of Germany in case it surrendered before any Soviet forces...
Can I benefit from a feat effect whilst polymorphed?
How to write Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī?
Is the percentage symbol a constant?
Coworker asking me to not bring cakes due to self control issue. What should I do?
Using time travel without creating plot holes
What is an efficient way to digitize a family photo collection?
How unreachable are Jupiter's moons from Mars with the technology developed for going to Mars?
How do I avoid the "chosen hero" feeling?
Did ancient Germans take pride in leaving the land untouched?
Can you say "leftside right"?
What is formjacking?
How long does it take to mine rock?
How can I handle players killing my NPC outside of combat?
Expression for "unconsciously using words (or accents) used by a person you often talk with or listen to"?
Tikz: Perpendicular FROM a line
Boss asked me to sign a resignation paper without a date on it along with my new contract
Color of alien seas
filecontents: select rows of group to display
Is the Maximum Use License for Everybody (MULE) a FOSS license?
Is it possible to have the same planeswalker from different editions in a Commander deck?
In a post apocalypse world, with no power and few survivors, would Satnav still work?
What is the meaning of "usr"?
Would water spill from a bowl in a Bag of Holding?
How do I add a strong "onion flavor" to the biryani (in restaurant style)?
Was there a pre-determined arrangment for division of Germany in case it surrendered before any Soviet forces entered its territory?
Was the Italian campaign a strategic mistake?Why were the Germans and Russians so fixated on an unlikely “separate peace” in 1945?How did the KPD relate to the German state during the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?Was there Western tactical air support during the Battle for Berlin?What concessions did Hitler demand from the Poles before 1939?Is this Hitler's account of seemingly counterproductive British radio war propaganda true?
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
asked 2 hours ago
CopperKettleCopperKettle
4391413
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
asked 2 hours ago
CopperKettleCopperKettle
4391413
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
asked 2 hours ago
CopperKettleCopperKettle
4391413
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
asked 2 hours ago
CopperKettleCopperKettle
4391413
asked 2 hours ago
CopperKettleCopperKettle
4391413
edited 1 hour ago
CopperKettle
asked 2 hours ago
CopperKettleCopperKettle
4391413
asked 2 hours ago
CopperKettleCopperKettle
4391413
asked 2 hours ago
CopperKettleCopperKettle
4391413
4391413
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.
answered 2 hours ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17k35478
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
2 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
2 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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.
answered 2 hours ago
AlexAlex
26.9k151102
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.
answered 2 hours ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17k35478
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
2 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
2 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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.
answered 2 hours ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17k35478
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
2 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
2 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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.
answered 2 hours ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17k35478
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.
answered 2 hours ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17k35478
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17k35478
answered 2 hours ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17k35478
answered 2 hours ago
John DallmanJohn Dallman
17k35478
17k35478
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
2 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
2 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
2 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
2 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
2 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
2 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
2 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
2 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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
1 hour 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.
answered 2 hours ago
AlexAlex
26.9k151102
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.
answered 2 hours ago
AlexAlex
26.9k151102
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.
answered 2 hours ago
AlexAlex
26.9k151102
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.
answered 2 hours ago
AlexAlex
26.9k151102
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
AlexAlex
26.9k151102
answered 2 hours ago
AlexAlex
26.9k151102
answered 2 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
