her associates, or live under the threat of such coercion; and that the   
only true basis of the enduring peace is willing cooperation of free   
  peoples in a world relieved of the menace of aggression.  
 
                                                            
 
 
THe assumption in all these cases is I think complete victory, for I doubt   
wheter anything short of that would induce either Hitler, or the German   
miltary staff, to accept any terms which would not enable them to   
re-assert their power over their neighbours at the earliest possible   
opportunity.  My impression too in any case is that it is both physically   
and psycholgically impossible for a war not like the present to end in any   
German dedeat which would not be a collapse. Their armies are so stretched   
out that once they begin to break it will be sheer disaster; and what is   
more theirs spirit has been so overstrainted that once defeat is certain   
  it will go as it did in the last war, and even more so.   
 
                                                            
 
 
To come to your earlier queries. You ask whether it might be possible to   
remove Hitler in a situation short of complete victory.  I think that it   
is quite possible to enisage a situation in which the German army, with or   
without the cooperation of other elements in Germany, would not hesitate   
to get rid of Hitler and the Nazi party if the foresaw the possibility of   
defeat and thought that this would enable them to get better terms of   
peace.  But the menace to the world has not been the Nazi party alone so   
much as the intimate combination of that party with its crude ideals and   
the Prussian military machine with its long tradition of aggression.  Any   
peace which only got rid of the party leaders but left the military   
machine in a position to say  that it had saved Germany and her power   
would not be very long lived. I might add incidentally that Artical VIII   
of the Atlantic Charter, by which we are committed to the disarmament of   
the aggressor nations, rules out any kind of peace that the Germany   
                miltary leaders could accept                
 
                                                            
 
 
As regard to your second question whether one could or should distinguish   
between Hiterlism and Nazism, if by thatt you mean that we should in our   
propaganda go for Hitler rather than for the party and its principle, I   
should be doubtful of the tactical expediency of such a course.  Hitler is   
still , so it would seem, the hero of the bulk of the German population.    
On the other hand the Nazi party, and still more the Gestapo, are generally  
 loathed.  In practice I imagine that the two will go down together,  
whether to a military coup d'etat or to a ntional upprising.
 
                                                            
 
 
THat brings me to the much wider question whether one can distinguish   
between the good and the evil features of Nazism and how far it is   
possible to destroy Nazism in toto.  We are, of course, dealing with a   
whole complex of factors, both the universal and paeculiar to Germany and   
perhaps the best thing I could do