Did "unconditional surrender" lengthen the war in Europe?

I read that some historians believe that FDR insisting (publicly) on unconditional surrender discouraged anti-hitler machinations from leaders in the German army? Thoughts? Any truth to this? Makes sense, but we'll probably never know.

Commerical Compilation from a Chicago April Sunday in 1989 - YouTube

 

Although the Germans used unconditional surrender in their propaganda, both Nazis like Himmler and Goring and the anti-Nazi conspirators believed they could make a deal with the western Allies, in the latter case after the removal of Hitler. Himmler for one continued right up until the end - and beyond, as a prisoner he sought to meet with Allied leaders.

 

Why have you included a link to 1989 tv adverts to your post ?

 

Subtle plug for my non-ww2 history pursuits.

 

Hitler was a firm believer in last minute miracles like the one that saved Frederick the Great. He would never have surrendered.

Neither would the Japanese who were ven more fanactical. They would have women and children charge any invader with spears rather than surrender.

 

It wasn't just FDR's idea, of course.
Can't access the Casablanca papers in the Avalon Project just now, but I think this quote from a contemporary source illustrates the reasoning-
"Absolute victory in this war will give greater opportunities to the world because the winning of the war in itself is proving that concerted action can accomplish things. Surely we can make strides toward a greater freedom from want than the world has yet enjoyed. Surely by unanimous action in driving out the outlaws and keeping them under heel forever we can attain a freedom from fear of violence."
Avalon Project - A Decade of American Foreign Policy 1941-1949 - Address by the President Before the Canadian Parliament at Ottawa, August 25, 1943 (Excerpts)

 

Of course, it lengthened the war! If the Allies had wanted to end it earlier, then they would have said so. The July 20th plot would have had a lot more German support if the Allies had stated that Hitler & Co. had to go before they would agree to anything.
However, "unconditional surrender" was necessary because of the Holocaust, which the Allied leaders pretty much knew about. The term "unconditional surrender", tied with the stupid leaking of the Morgenthau Plan definitely led to the Germans fighting harder.

 

I'd say that that is only generally true. There were reasonable factions within the Japanese establishment who saw the writing on the wall (maybe even the emporor himself?), but it would have been suicide to speak out too loudly against the militaristic nationalists.

 

Anyone who thinks the war could have ended on terms other than unconditional surrender should at least take a stab at suggesting terms the Allies and Germany or Japan could agree on.

 

It is a very commonly-seen statement. Personally I do wonder. Obviously the Nazi leadership played up the propaganda aspect of this to keep their troops inspired, and in that sense it did help prolong the war. But in terms of an earlier surrender that would have required a more rational leadership in Germany, which really really wasn't the case. Hitler wanted to burn his own nation rather than lose the war