Assuming Hitler dies after the Fall of France, how does the war continue after it seeing as France has just fallen. Lets assume someone similar to Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg comes to power. Do they offer terms to the Allies, or just halt further aggression and settle happily with there current holdings? Lets assume that Himmler is killed shortly after Hitlers death.
WI Hitler dies after Fall of France
- Thread starter YamSeng
- Start date
Presumeably, a grand bloodletting, to rival Stalin's 1937 purges. Given the major actors in the Nazi state, the most thoroughly ruthless SOB will rise to the top. Goebles, Goering or even Heydrich 
Of course, the Heer might also have a go at it as well. Stalin will be watching, hoping to take advantage of the chaos, perhaps moving further into Poland. I have a feeling Churchill will use rhe time to rebuild British attengrh and to begin planning the liberation of France.
Of course, the Heer might also have a go at it as well. Stalin will be watching, hoping to take advantage of the chaos, perhaps moving further into Poland. I have a feeling Churchill will use rhe time to rebuild British attengrh and to begin planning the liberation of France.Goering is basically against a rock and a hard place here, attacking the Soviets then is suicide, but it's really only a matter of time until one turns on the other, and if the Soviets have time to prepare a full scale invasion the Germans are still fucked.
Deleted member 1487
Yes, Goering's bio by Richard Overy flatly states Goering did not want war with the Soviets until the British were defeated and even then he wasn't all that interested in war in the East other than rhetorically to impress Hitler. The reality of invading the USSR was not something Goering was willing to tolerate, especially if he were in power, as it would impact his ability to rule and exploit Europe.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
Would Goering declare war on the US? I think war with the US would come eventually but it effects the war if the US gets in July 1942 vs December 1941.
So what happens in the east? Goering decides to build some Europe wide maginot line vs the USSR?
It is probably the best possible result for Nazi Germany. It butterflies away the invasion of Russia and a DoW on the US. Though Stalin is building up his army, I doubt he ever attacks a major power such as Germany. Without a German invasion, his people are divided and Stalin is too paranoid of internal enemies to make new ones.
Being that Goering is the likely heir apparent and he was the head of the Luftwaffe, you probably see a greater emphasis placed on air power and bomber fleets, probably a great breuilding of the Luftwaffe after failure in the BoB. It probably butterflies away the blitz.
Italy is still in the war, so Great Britain gets to have fun beating up on them. Goering, for political reasons, will probably offer the Italians similar assistance as OTL. This means that Germany probably still projects its power into the Balkans due to the Italian failure in Greece.
By 1943, the British are probably fought to a stand still in Africa and by 1944 are beginning to face the new generation of German aircraft (He177, Me262, Ar234). The British may have lendlease, but not like OTL. THere won't be a blitz nor an invasion of Russia.
There is probably some sort of peace in 1944 due to economic reasons all around. I can't imagine both sides bankrupting themselves over domination of the North African wastelands, as this would be the only theater where there would be real conflict. Without US intervention, I imagine that economically there is only so long the British can fight rallying support to "liberate France" which in this ATL is a fool's errand.
Of course, the US can always end up joining the war anyway, but a leader intent upon lessening instead of increasing the conflict, it seems like a reach.
Finally, in this ATL, the question is what ultimately happens to the Nazis and to Germans. I suppose they hold on like the USSR. They would be in control over some pretty powerful economies, and being the uncontested military poer of central Europe, would probably end up having a Cold War with the Russians to keep the Hungarians, Romanians, and Italians in their camp. I can see the US offering support to either side depending upon which way the wind is blowing, so neither power gains supremacy in Europe.
However, when Goering or any immediate nazi-successor dies, they are not going to have the cult following that Hitler did. Hitler had the government organized in such a fashion so all roads led back to him. Whomever takes over after him will make tons of concessions and will have much weaker central authority.
Of course, there is always the threat of a military coup and Germany becomes a glorified south american country.
Germany would eventually lose its European satellites, including France, and exist today as a much larger country, probably retaining large parts of Poland, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, and the Czeck Republic that it does not today. GDP may or may not be equal, though I actually think it will be less because bombing a country into a ground so it has to rebuild all its industry does wonders for modernization.
Being that Goering is the likely heir apparent and he was the head of the Luftwaffe, you probably see a greater emphasis placed on air power and bomber fleets, probably a great breuilding of the Luftwaffe after failure in the BoB. It probably butterflies away the blitz.
Italy is still in the war, so Great Britain gets to have fun beating up on them. Goering, for political reasons, will probably offer the Italians similar assistance as OTL. This means that Germany probably still projects its power into the Balkans due to the Italian failure in Greece.
By 1943, the British are probably fought to a stand still in Africa and by 1944 are beginning to face the new generation of German aircraft (He177, Me262, Ar234). The British may have lendlease, but not like OTL. THere won't be a blitz nor an invasion of Russia.
There is probably some sort of peace in 1944 due to economic reasons all around. I can't imagine both sides bankrupting themselves over domination of the North African wastelands, as this would be the only theater where there would be real conflict. Without US intervention, I imagine that economically there is only so long the British can fight rallying support to "liberate France" which in this ATL is a fool's errand.
Of course, the US can always end up joining the war anyway, but a leader intent upon lessening instead of increasing the conflict, it seems like a reach.
Finally, in this ATL, the question is what ultimately happens to the Nazis and to Germans. I suppose they hold on like the USSR. They would be in control over some pretty powerful economies, and being the uncontested military poer of central Europe, would probably end up having a Cold War with the Russians to keep the Hungarians, Romanians, and Italians in their camp. I can see the US offering support to either side depending upon which way the wind is blowing, so neither power gains supremacy in Europe.
However, when Goering or any immediate nazi-successor dies, they are not going to have the cult following that Hitler did. Hitler had the government organized in such a fashion so all roads led back to him. Whomever takes over after him will make tons of concessions and will have much weaker central authority.
Of course, there is always the threat of a military coup and Germany becomes a glorified south american country.
Germany would eventually lose its European satellites, including France, and exist today as a much larger country, probably retaining large parts of Poland, Luxembourg, France, Denmark, and the Czeck Republic that it does not today. GDP may or may not be equal, though I actually think it will be less because bombing a country into a ground so it has to rebuild all its industry does wonders for modernization.
Last edited:
Not really. There is less desperation in this timeline, so it probably breaks even. Without a daylight allied air campaign, even helicopters might be mass produced by 1944. However, this is not a given.
Further, the HE177 is not a Wunderwaffe, though a Germany not being bombed to death would see value in a high speed bomber.
It costs money.
Except that the return on investment for this is low, and by default the Germans will require about 100 divisions in reserve simply to dissuade the Russians from attacking. A standing army that strong is expensive to equip, train, and etc. Further, Germany is blockaded and not going to want to blow all their money which they would need to trade with the USSR for raw materials.
Yes, because Churchill has to worry about taxpayers too. Eventually, people don't want to fight a war that is going absolutely nowhere when they are on the losing side. Britain would be slowly bleeding to death and occupied in the Pacific. The Germans would be shooting them out of the sky and probably by 1944 beginning their own strategic bombing offensive in Britain if the British upped their raids in 1943.
The better question is what the Germans would have to give up to secure peace. If they captured the Suez and, control of the Suez for the British in exchange for lifting the blockade would probably be sufficient. Presuming the Germans and Italians can even get that far without committing a politically unacceptable degree of resources.
Deleted member 1487
Broken window fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
Germany rebuilding its industry in the 1940s-50s has no bearing no their modern industrial technology; industry, outside of the former USSR, constantly replaced worn out and obsolete technology as is profitable. Looking at Switzerland, which was not bombed out, shows that modern Germany is behind where it would be without WW2 in terms of GDP growth; losing millions of people and 25% of their territory not counting East Germany and problems with Soviet influence there, not to mention having to spend resources rebuilding their looted/destroyed industry instead of progressing, seriously hurt the Germany economy. Having a larger internal market and without something like 9-10 million dead after June 1940, plus not hurting the economy by shifting to war production on the scale it did from 1941-45 and losing most of that industry after the war due to reparations, then it would undoubtedly be much stronger economy, not least of which would be having a much larger agricultural sector to modernize, many more workers, an earlier captive external market, no industry to replace wholesale, and of course no communist East Germany to modernize to the tune of well over $1 Trillion.
Even with a less efficient economic system, though Goering strikes me as a more hands off guy willing to let industry do what they want so long as they deliver growth and don't bother him with work, its going to be better than the Soviet system due to retaining private industry and market economics, plus not cutting itself off from the world economy (they cannot afford to as they have no domestic oil sources, not to mention all the other things they cannot make at home), so will having to respond to market pressures to innovate. Where they will be hurt is in terms of education, having purged many of their best people and education in general. Without the Holocaust though, as it began officially in 1941 with Barbarossa and without Hitler ordering it its not likely to happen, would the racial laws eventually be eased? Goering, though anti-semitic, was never as bad as the SS guys and Hitler, proving repeatedly to be very flexible in his notions of race when people proved useful to him (Milch, Wilberg).
Germany won't be the forefront of science that it was pre-Nazi era again, but it would be seriously helped by her intelligensia not being poached by the world powers after WW2, which when combined with the pre-war exodus of intellectuals, modern Germany still hasn't recovered from that loss; this Germany can coast on its retained scientists, but its future is dependent on what happens with its education system and the repressiveness of the Goering and post-Goering governments. This Germany, despite the horrible government system, could in the long run with better management than Hitler and Goering offered actually end up being much stronger than modern Germany; of course that depends on the softening of the system toward political repression and ideological purity. I don't see the SS as getting anywhere near the same power without Hitler around; Goering strikes me more as an institutionalist, so if he retained control of the bureaucracy he isn't going to want to push the Nazi revolution and destruction of German government institutions for ideological reasons; so long as he controls those institutions as Führer, he has no personal incentive to replace them with ideologically pure ones that Hitler felt the need to. Especially without a wider war that gives him the opportunity to get away with it.
Deleted member 1487
If Goering isn't moving East the Soviets probably get into the Axis to keep Germany's border secure and dissuade the US from entering on Britain's side.
Germany is going to go full bore on Britain proper, helping a bit in the Mediterranean. Probably the Blitz happens, but doesn't stop. Germany remains on the aerial offensive until Britain quits. By 1940-41 Goering would it in it to win it and keep all of Germany's gains in Europe to look powerful at home. If the US doesn't enter the war Britain cannot and will not stay in the war forever, so would probably exist in 1943-44 without hope of victory, just endless debt to the US and Germany bombing of their cities. Probably in this scenario Bomber Command attacks Germany as the Luftwaffe bombs Britain, so we get a full on strategic exchange for years with Germany having the early advantage. The Blitz never winds down without Barbarossa, it just continues and picks up with more losses to RAF night fighters. The LW would be very interesting in this scenario without the OTL pressures, as they could afford to sustain it without a war in the East. Of course if the US enters the war or Britain bombs Soviet oil from Iraq, then things get really interesting.
If there is no war with the Soviets and Sealion is out of the question the Axis should concentrate on taking out Gibraltar and Suez, forcing Brits to detour around africa to reach asia and to capture the whole Med eventually.
This would enable the Italian navy to be a potential threat in the atlantic and british isles.
How about Japanese expeditionary fleet operating in the atlantic?
This would enable the Italian navy to be a potential threat in the atlantic and british isles.
How about Japanese expeditionary fleet operating in the atlantic?
Not always. Germany's industry was stuck in the 19th century in many ways. The FW190 for example was built in dozens of separate facilities, including 19th century carriage workshops. It was a big reason why despite bombing whole cities into the stone age, German production could not be stopped.
Japan likewise for a period was the world's second largest economy. Lean Production in many ways is a cultural phenomena made possible because of post world war conditions. If you keep old infrastructure, like the US, it helps int he short term but it creates long term structural issues.
SO, I am aware of broken windows, but my contention Germany needed a revolution in production or they were going to stagnate like Great Britain.
Yes, as a wary-cobelligerant, doesn't mean they are jumping headlong into war against Britain, though Goering might essentially pay off the Eastern Hordes to do so. WOuldn't be the first time in history.
The Blitz was a Hitler move. Why would Goering do that in the middle of accomplishing his military objectives against the RAF?
Deleted member 1487
If there is no war with the Soviets and Sealion is out of the question the Axis should concentrate on taking out Gibraltar and Suez, forcing Brits to detour around africa to reach asia and to capture the whole Med eventually.
This would enable the Italian navy to be a potential threat in the atlantic and british isles.
How about Japanese expeditionary fleet operating in the atlantic?
The British did route around Africa because the Central Mediterranean was too dangerous. They only sent convoys to Malta through the Med.
Deleted member 1487
No, Germany much like today was using smaller production companies rather than the huge factories the US and USSR used for cheap mass production. Germany was a highly flexible, high tech industry that could adapt easily to changing demands and focused less on finished products and more on large industrial requirements, sourcing from smaller firms. That is no way means they were outmoded at all just focused on different market niches. Today Germany still has this industrial layout and no one would call then outmoded; in fact the US large manufacturing has been outsourced or automated, while Germany have retained its industry.
Except Germany had never fallen behind despite being late to the show; they learned from British mistakes and were constantly on the forefront of technological innovation, which is why they were using the flexible industrial model instead of large scale mass production that larger countries could use due to their large internal markets, which Germany could not rely on. They relied on world markets, so had to be flexible to stay in tune with demand. That civilian production ethos was retained in war production, though the Nazi war industry plan was trying to get onto the Soviet/US model for armaments. That is why Germany would be well off after the war, because their industry was well set up to rapidly convert to civilian production when the fighting ends. If Britain is out of the war by 1942-43 Germany can get away from military production pretty quickly if needed. Even IOTL after WW2 Wolfsburg was churning out VW Beetles by 1946.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Beetle#Post-war_production_and_boom
The Red Air Force is going to appear over Britain if Britain attacks the USSR.
The Blitz and BoB were conceived of by both Goering and Hitler. Check of Germany and the Second World War series.
Admiral Beez
Banned
Smartest move is to repeat 1871, smash the French, let them know who's boss, sign armistice and then withdraw.
Yes, but I don't think this layout is exactly the same, as many of the factories were modernized and rebuilt.
But, let me ask you this. What would Japan's GDP today be by your logic if they weren't bombed into smithereens? I think there is much to be said of having post-ww2 infrastructure as compared to pre-ww2 infrastructure.
But Beetles were made during the war, even as recon vehicles.
Which is why I can't see the USSR allowing itself to become a co-belligerant unless the payoff would be real good. They would be stuck being Germany's ally, because GB and the US surround them.
Yes, but Goering was trying to curry Hitler's favor. With Hitler out of the way, I don't see him stopping the Luftwaffe from trying to accomplish military objectives because a british bomb fell on a Berlin zoo animal.
Deleted member 1487
To a degree that would have happened had the British cut a deal in 1940, but the Germans couldn't leave if the British stayed in the war. The French agreed to the OTL armistice on the assumption that things would change in the actual peace agreement once Britain cut their own deal, but the British never quit. Of course Britain couldn't accept a deal that would leave Germany with a dominant position on the continent and Germany couldn't accept less than that after Versailles and conquering France.
Deleted member 1487
Which ones and how were they modernized? New machine tools? You make the assumption it wouldn't have happened anyway and in the meantime aren't factoring in all the lost production and wealth that would have been gained without it all being taken away and not rebuilt for years. Plus the deskilling caused by Germany using slave labor and drafting their workforce seriously hurt their technical edge in production, which they had to rebuild after the war. Plus too the Allies didn't teach Germany new economics or methods, they used their experience to rebuild the German economy. The Marshall Plan gave German $1.5 Billion to buy things from US factories, while reparations cost Germany $10 Billion in intellectual property (patents including magnetic tape recording) and untold billions in lost machinery.
Japan and Germany were two different and incomparable economies. Japan benefited much more from losing WW2 in terms of learning modern Western business practices, while Germany was at the forefront of industry in 1939. Germany lost its position as #2, while Japan picked it up thanks to being united under the US, not having to have a military, unlike Germany, and getting major access to US industrial experts; Germany did not get access to US industrial expertise, they had their own and used it to rebuild. Don't use Japan's situation to describe Germany, they are not at all similar.
Kubelwagen's were not Beetles; some of the guts were the same, but the actual bodies were different and needed to use different machinery.
Well they tried to join the Axis IOTL in a non-belligerent role and Germany seemed okay with that as the Axis treaty text said signers were not obligated to participate in existing wars. If the British attack Soviet oil to hurt Germany, then Stalin gets involved, but as already a co-belligerent in that was an unofficial ally supplying Germany and was already cut off from Western trade due to Soviet policies. So the USSR actually gains by being allied to Germany, as they get access to Germany's modern industrial output, which they needed to modernize themselves; remember a large part of Soviet industry in the 1920s and even 1930s came from Germany.
Bombing British cities had started before that. The bombardment of London had little to do with tit-for-tat exchanges, but rather terror bombing after the BoB failed; it was a strategy to force the public to demand the government surrender/negotiate. It was a calculated policy, not a whim by Hitler.