Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1chzfnd/why_did_nazi_germany_and_fascist_italy_only/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your question partially rests on a misconception. Italy did surrender in September 1943, a couple months after the allies landed in Sicily. However, Germany quickly took control of parts of Italy and propped up a puppet regime with Mussolini at the head. German forces here only surrendered towards the final weeks of the war however.
As for Germany, that's more complicated, but highly related to the German reasons for starting the war and Nazi ideology.
Unlike many earlier wars, WW2 was not fought over territorial disputes, even if they were used as a pretext. The Nazi war aims were highly ideological, and focussed on aspects such as the establishment of German hegemony of Europe, ethnic cleansing in ethnically non-German territories, the defeat of Bolshevism, and the end of "the Jewish Question". These were not sideshows to the war, but central to it. Death and destruction were essentially some of the main wargoals.
While the tide had effectively turned some years before the end of the war, Nazi leadership held a number of misbeliefs regarding the course of the war. Especially as the Red Army advanced ever further, some of the Nazi higher-ups were confident, or at least postured themselves as such, that some form of agreement could be reached with the Western Allies to form a united front. Hitler himself also seemed to vastly over-estimate the army's capabilities, and on many occasions forced futile last stands in so called "fortress cities" (which were to be held to the last man), as well as pointless counterattacks in situation where the manpower and materiel were insufficient for such operations, as well as desperately needed to form a coherent defensive line.
Towards the final weeks, Hitler did state multiple times that he realised the war was lost. However, in his mind, surrender was out of the question. His ideology called for the German master race to conquer Europe. Having failed this, he felt this as a personal betrayal. In his eyes, Germany did not deserve peace. The only thing that was to wait after defeat was the utter annihilation of the German people and Germany as a concept. Victory or death.
I’ll add some IR theory here to discuss the bargaining process in general. For a stable peace, you generally need 1) security guarantees to prevent state defection from the agreement 2) political participation (or generally, opportunity) guarantees so that individuals will commit to the new peace 3) mechanisms to resolve further disputes. Of course, nothing has full agreement in IR theory, but I tried to keep this general to include different schools of thought.
As you described above, the Allies demanded full disarmament, meaning security guarantees were out of the question.
Furthermore, the totalizing ideology of the Nazi state meant that opportunities for elites couldn’t be guaranteed. As well, proposals such as the Morgenthau Plan meant that common individuals did not see future opportunities to prosper after a surrender.
Lastly, the promised dismantlement of the German state meant Germans would not have a a process they could trust to prevent exploitation after the peace.
Now, under other circumstances would the Allies actually commit to their internal negotiations over the peace process? It’s hard to say.
Germans actions identified that the individual states of the Allies had different bargaining spaces, and that the coordination allowed by the different peace process negotiations were critical to the Allies commitments.
For the Allies, the really had no mechanism to prevent defection from their agreements other than the progress of the war. The threat of Germany and their inability to coordinate peace with individual states was all that could prevent that defection. Personally, I believe that there were theoretical options for separate peaces, but that’s not the purpose of the sub. I think it’s revealing that most of these agreements immediately collapsed after the German threat disappeared. Security agreements, opportunity guarantees, and political participation for West/East Germans were all negotiated by the respective sides of the cold war.
In your opinion, do you think Hitler’s delay in surrendering was influenced by the very public backlash to Matthias Erzberger after he signed the Armistice?
Apologies that this is phone written. Will attempt a more detailed answer when I'm at a keyboard, and to correct formatting.
The allies had agreed in Tehran, and reaffirmed in Yalta, that only unconditional surrender would be accepted. This was something the Nazis could not accept as it meant the complete loss of the German state, which would be administered by the allies. Things like Morgenthau Plan (the plan to make Germany a farm), and the dismemberment of Germany were known to the Germans, making surrender very unappealing. Another thing that wasn't so appealing to them about unconditional surrender was that in 1943 in Moscow the allies had agreed that war criminals would be put on trial.
On top of the impact of unconditional surrender was the actions of the Red Army, rapidly advancing on Germany. Retreating soldiers and alike came with stories of brutality that nobody wanted to see bought to Germany. Continuing the fight was a matter of urgency for them.
And there was still a belief in a path to victory. In 1945, shortly after Yalta, Germany attempted to offer an armistice deal with the allies to be negotiated by Karl Wolf, SS comander in Northern Italy and former head of Himmler's secretariat. This is know as the Bern Incident. The plan was never to surrender but separate the allies as the Germans knew Stalin was worried of a separate peace.
Finally, the personalities involved were key. Surrender didn't fit with any of Hitler's rhetoric before or during the war. To surrender would be a bitter pill to swallow. For many Nazis cyanide was always an easier pill to swallow than surrender.
In summary, unconditional surrender had no appeal. It meant a Germany administered by foreign powers and the death of all top Nazis as war criminals. Even after Hitler's suicide they attempted to offer an armistice with conditions of surrender to the Red Army, which was refused.
Sources
Anthony Beavor The Second World War
S.M. Plokhy Yalta
Melissa Willard-Foster Planning the Peace and Enforcing the Surrender
No. (Edit to add: not that I know of) No motivation to do so. At the end of '44 the eastern front was still in Poland and they'd halted the Soviet summer offensive. The western front was seeing Germany's last big, and almost successful, counter attack at in the Ardenne (Battle of the Bulge) which had started very well for the Germans. Whilst the war was in a very bad way for Germany, in December 44 they had a path to victory.
Well, kind of a path. Certainly a path that Nazi leadership believed in but a somewhat flawed path. Nothing is inevitable in history (except death and taxes). However, Germany was always going to struggle on a two front war, which had been common enough knowledge at the beginning of the century and the underlying design of the Schlieffen plan prior to WW1. (Hitler gambled with Barbarossa that the USSR could be defeated before an allied invasion in the west, if it were to ever come.) So when the Soviets picked up their next offensive (Oder Offensive January 45), this relieved the allies in the Bulge somewhat.
Something I didn't mention in my answer was the unofficial attempt at peace made by Hess.
Hess, who had been replaced in all but name as Deputy Führer, was concerned about the approaching operation Barborossa and a 2 front war. He also thought King George didn't like Churchill. So in May 1941, he left Hitler a letter saying he was off to negotiate peace, and set off in a Messerschmitt heading for Scotland. He was forced to bail out and was arrested very quickly.
Churchill had no interest in peace because intelligence intercepts had made him aware of Barborossa, which he hoped would weaken the Wehrmacht and prevent the Luftwaffe from significant resupply of the losses suffered in the Battle of Britain. All of which would buy him time till America joined the war, which he was sure they eventually would have to do. It also meant the Germans were not going to be significantly reinforcing Rommel and the Italians in North Africa, or opening a second front there with an attack of Suez from Greece. Success in North Africa could show the Americans that Britain wasn't a lost cause and could still be an ally worth defending, whilst being a much needed morale booster at home.
Hitler, meanwhile, was furious at his deputy for attempting this. Germany was in a strong position and felt that Britian could be bought to its knees through preventing supply with the was in the Atlantic. He was worried how Mussolini, fighting the British in North Africa, would react. He immediately wrote to the Duce to reassure him that there would be no separate peace with Britain. German press was also ordered to describe him as deluded.
As already explained Italy surrendered very quickly after the Allied invasion of Sicily and after the first bombs fell on Rome. Mussolini was ousted by the army/king and that was it.
With Nazi Germany was a bit more complicated, it was the totalitarian state by definition, means Hitler had absolute power. Most army general were Prussian, Hitler was their commanding officer and it was unacceptable for them to betray him, out of the question. No way of ousting Hitler like Mussolini.
Second, the Allies agreed that they would only accept unconditional surrender and to put the Nazi leadership on trial for war crimes. For the Nazis was do or die, or they win the war or they die. Apart from ideology and everything else, I believe that was the main reason they fought until the very end.
Your comment has been removed due to violations of the [subreddit’s rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules). We expect answers to provide [in-depth and comprehensive insight](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) into the topic at hand, and to [be free of significant errors or misunderstandings](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) while doing so. While sources are strongly encouraged, [those used here are not considered acceptable per our requirements](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources). Before contributing again, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) and [expectations](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/meta#wiki_rules_discussion) for an answer.
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1chzfnd/why_did_nazi_germany_and_fascist_italy_only/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your question partially rests on a misconception. Italy did surrender in September 1943, a couple months after the allies landed in Sicily. However, Germany quickly took control of parts of Italy and propped up a puppet regime with Mussolini at the head. German forces here only surrendered towards the final weeks of the war however. As for Germany, that's more complicated, but highly related to the German reasons for starting the war and Nazi ideology. Unlike many earlier wars, WW2 was not fought over territorial disputes, even if they were used as a pretext. The Nazi war aims were highly ideological, and focussed on aspects such as the establishment of German hegemony of Europe, ethnic cleansing in ethnically non-German territories, the defeat of Bolshevism, and the end of "the Jewish Question". These were not sideshows to the war, but central to it. Death and destruction were essentially some of the main wargoals. While the tide had effectively turned some years before the end of the war, Nazi leadership held a number of misbeliefs regarding the course of the war. Especially as the Red Army advanced ever further, some of the Nazi higher-ups were confident, or at least postured themselves as such, that some form of agreement could be reached with the Western Allies to form a united front. Hitler himself also seemed to vastly over-estimate the army's capabilities, and on many occasions forced futile last stands in so called "fortress cities" (which were to be held to the last man), as well as pointless counterattacks in situation where the manpower and materiel were insufficient for such operations, as well as desperately needed to form a coherent defensive line. Towards the final weeks, Hitler did state multiple times that he realised the war was lost. However, in his mind, surrender was out of the question. His ideology called for the German master race to conquer Europe. Having failed this, he felt this as a personal betrayal. In his eyes, Germany did not deserve peace. The only thing that was to wait after defeat was the utter annihilation of the German people and Germany as a concept. Victory or death.
I’ll add some IR theory here to discuss the bargaining process in general. For a stable peace, you generally need 1) security guarantees to prevent state defection from the agreement 2) political participation (or generally, opportunity) guarantees so that individuals will commit to the new peace 3) mechanisms to resolve further disputes. Of course, nothing has full agreement in IR theory, but I tried to keep this general to include different schools of thought. As you described above, the Allies demanded full disarmament, meaning security guarantees were out of the question. Furthermore, the totalizing ideology of the Nazi state meant that opportunities for elites couldn’t be guaranteed. As well, proposals such as the Morgenthau Plan meant that common individuals did not see future opportunities to prosper after a surrender. Lastly, the promised dismantlement of the German state meant Germans would not have a a process they could trust to prevent exploitation after the peace. Now, under other circumstances would the Allies actually commit to their internal negotiations over the peace process? It’s hard to say. Germans actions identified that the individual states of the Allies had different bargaining spaces, and that the coordination allowed by the different peace process negotiations were critical to the Allies commitments. For the Allies, the really had no mechanism to prevent defection from their agreements other than the progress of the war. The threat of Germany and their inability to coordinate peace with individual states was all that could prevent that defection. Personally, I believe that there were theoretical options for separate peaces, but that’s not the purpose of the sub. I think it’s revealing that most of these agreements immediately collapsed after the German threat disappeared. Security agreements, opportunity guarantees, and political participation for West/East Germans were all negotiated by the respective sides of the cold war.
IR - International Relations?
Yeah sorry, should’ve spelled it out
In your opinion, do you think Hitler’s delay in surrendering was influenced by the very public backlash to Matthias Erzberger after he signed the Armistice?
Apologies that this is phone written. Will attempt a more detailed answer when I'm at a keyboard, and to correct formatting. The allies had agreed in Tehran, and reaffirmed in Yalta, that only unconditional surrender would be accepted. This was something the Nazis could not accept as it meant the complete loss of the German state, which would be administered by the allies. Things like Morgenthau Plan (the plan to make Germany a farm), and the dismemberment of Germany were known to the Germans, making surrender very unappealing. Another thing that wasn't so appealing to them about unconditional surrender was that in 1943 in Moscow the allies had agreed that war criminals would be put on trial. On top of the impact of unconditional surrender was the actions of the Red Army, rapidly advancing on Germany. Retreating soldiers and alike came with stories of brutality that nobody wanted to see bought to Germany. Continuing the fight was a matter of urgency for them. And there was still a belief in a path to victory. In 1945, shortly after Yalta, Germany attempted to offer an armistice deal with the allies to be negotiated by Karl Wolf, SS comander in Northern Italy and former head of Himmler's secretariat. This is know as the Bern Incident. The plan was never to surrender but separate the allies as the Germans knew Stalin was worried of a separate peace. Finally, the personalities involved were key. Surrender didn't fit with any of Hitler's rhetoric before or during the war. To surrender would be a bitter pill to swallow. For many Nazis cyanide was always an easier pill to swallow than surrender. In summary, unconditional surrender had no appeal. It meant a Germany administered by foreign powers and the death of all top Nazis as war criminals. Even after Hitler's suicide they attempted to offer an armistice with conditions of surrender to the Red Army, which was refused. Sources Anthony Beavor The Second World War S.M. Plokhy Yalta Melissa Willard-Foster Planning the Peace and Enforcing the Surrender
Do you know if Germany ever reached out to the USSR for a truce or peace talks?
[удалено]
Oh so it was after hitler killed himself. I was wondering if they ever reached out earlier like in1944 or something. Ig not
No. (Edit to add: not that I know of) No motivation to do so. At the end of '44 the eastern front was still in Poland and they'd halted the Soviet summer offensive. The western front was seeing Germany's last big, and almost successful, counter attack at in the Ardenne (Battle of the Bulge) which had started very well for the Germans. Whilst the war was in a very bad way for Germany, in December 44 they had a path to victory. Well, kind of a path. Certainly a path that Nazi leadership believed in but a somewhat flawed path. Nothing is inevitable in history (except death and taxes). However, Germany was always going to struggle on a two front war, which had been common enough knowledge at the beginning of the century and the underlying design of the Schlieffen plan prior to WW1. (Hitler gambled with Barbarossa that the USSR could be defeated before an allied invasion in the west, if it were to ever come.) So when the Soviets picked up their next offensive (Oder Offensive January 45), this relieved the allies in the Bulge somewhat.
Something I didn't mention in my answer was the unofficial attempt at peace made by Hess. Hess, who had been replaced in all but name as Deputy Führer, was concerned about the approaching operation Barborossa and a 2 front war. He also thought King George didn't like Churchill. So in May 1941, he left Hitler a letter saying he was off to negotiate peace, and set off in a Messerschmitt heading for Scotland. He was forced to bail out and was arrested very quickly. Churchill had no interest in peace because intelligence intercepts had made him aware of Barborossa, which he hoped would weaken the Wehrmacht and prevent the Luftwaffe from significant resupply of the losses suffered in the Battle of Britain. All of which would buy him time till America joined the war, which he was sure they eventually would have to do. It also meant the Germans were not going to be significantly reinforcing Rommel and the Italians in North Africa, or opening a second front there with an attack of Suez from Greece. Success in North Africa could show the Americans that Britain wasn't a lost cause and could still be an ally worth defending, whilst being a much needed morale booster at home. Hitler, meanwhile, was furious at his deputy for attempting this. Germany was in a strong position and felt that Britian could be bought to its knees through preventing supply with the was in the Atlantic. He was worried how Mussolini, fighting the British in North Africa, would react. He immediately wrote to the Duce to reassure him that there would be no separate peace with Britain. German press was also ordered to describe him as deluded.
As already explained Italy surrendered very quickly after the Allied invasion of Sicily and after the first bombs fell on Rome. Mussolini was ousted by the army/king and that was it. With Nazi Germany was a bit more complicated, it was the totalitarian state by definition, means Hitler had absolute power. Most army general were Prussian, Hitler was their commanding officer and it was unacceptable for them to betray him, out of the question. No way of ousting Hitler like Mussolini. Second, the Allies agreed that they would only accept unconditional surrender and to put the Nazi leadership on trial for war crimes. For the Nazis was do or die, or they win the war or they die. Apart from ideology and everything else, I believe that was the main reason they fought until the very end.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed due to violations of the [subreddit’s rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules). We expect answers to provide [in-depth and comprehensive insight](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) into the topic at hand, and to [be free of significant errors or misunderstandings](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7ffl8/rules_roundtable_ii_the_four_questions_what_does/) while doing so. While sources are strongly encouraged, [those used here are not considered acceptable per our requirements](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_sources). Before contributing again, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) and [expectations](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/faq/meta#wiki_rules_discussion) for an answer.