WI shortly after the start of operation barbarossa Hitler is assasinated

[Fredrick II Barbarossa]

SO WI 3 months into Operation Barbarossa something happens whatever it may be that leads to hitler dying. Who takes charge of nazi germany and how differently does world war ii go?

[Soundgarden]

Goering would've been Hitler's successor and would've surrendered Nazi Germany as late as 1942. Face it, Hitler was Nazi Germany. I can't see anybody run it the same way he did. Plus, the US wouldn't have gotten involved in the European portion of WW2. The Final Solution wouldn't have taken place(I don't think).

[jmc247]

Originally Posted by Soundgarden

Goering would've been Hitler's successor and would've surrendered Nazi Germany as late as 1942. Face it, Hitler was Nazi Germany. I can't see anybody run it the same way he did. Plus, the US wouldn't have gotten involved in the European portion of WW2. The Final Solution wouldn't have taken place(I don't think).

With Hitler dead Goering will go for the first deal he can with Stalin to end the fighting which will probably come toward the end of 1941 if not earlier.

There is no guarentee Goering even declares war on the US. Goering was tactically incompetent, but not stetegically incompetent. Nor was he nearly as ambitious as Hitler.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by Fredrick II Barbarossa

SO WI 3 months into Operation Barbarossa something happens whatever it may be that leads to hitler dying. Who takes charge of nazi germany and how differently does world war ii go?

Barbarossa after the first two weeks saw both sides improvising, but the absence of Hitler means that Germany's strategic brains, such as they were, are dead. By default this makes the USSR-UK-USA coalition far more irresistible, with the primary limitations being the Soviets needing to recover from their earlier mistakes and the WAllies having no troops in Europe.

[ccdsah]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Barbarossa after the first two weeks saw both sides improvising, but the absence of Hitler means that Germany's strategic brains, such as they were, are dead. By default this makes the USSR-UK-USA coalition far more irresistible, with the primary limitations being the Soviets needing to recover from their earlier mistakes and the WAllies having no troops in Europe.

So you really think Hitler was the best strategic mind Germany had to offer at the time???

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by ccdsah

So you really think Hitler was the best strategic mind Germany had to offer at the time???

Yes, and I think that this is the most damning verdict on the whole Nazi war machine.

[LSCatilina]

Originally Posted by ccdsah

So you really think Hitler was the best strategic mind Germany had to offer at the time???

Well, you had probably far better. They are not going to be head of state of a Nazi Germany or even take part of the strategic decisions.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by LSCatilina

Well, you had probably far better. They are not going to be head of state of a Nazi Germany or even take part of the strategic decisions.

Arguably if we judge by the German Empire, there really wasn't anything of a strategic concept among the German *generals* in either war. And at least Hitler was able to deliver Germany an unbroken string of major victories right up to the trio of Tikhvin, Rostov, and Moscow. And after that to put Germany a second time closer to victory than it ever should have been. Hitler was a strategist of some skill in terms of exploiting the weakness of his enemies, what he failed to see was that the USSR was not Poland, and Stalin was not Reynaud.

[jmc247]

Hitler's greatest stretegic weakness was not knowing when to quit or more to the point being mentally too inflexible to quit.

Goering was lazy, tactically inept and would never have conquered that much of Europe if he was making the decisions, but by the same token fat man had something little man Adolf didn't have and that was a willingness to end the war with something much less then German domination of Russia.

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by jmc247

Hitler's greatest stretegic weakness was not knowing when to quit or more to the point being mentally too inflexible to quit.

Goering was lazy, tactically inept and would never have conquered that much of Europe if he was making the decisions, but by the same token fat man had something little man Adolf didn't have and that was a willingness to end the war with something much less then German domination of Russia.

Nazi Germany's problem was precisely that it entrusted its entire strategic vision to one man, a task that progressively overwhelmed Hitler and would really have overwhelmed anyone. But in Hitler's case you have the Catch-22 of Hitler knowing his generals were afraid of his ideas and his ideas resulting in the smashing and completely unexpected victory of 1940, which would make anyone an egomaniacal asshole, but especially Hitler.

[Vault Dweller]

I can see Goering, if he's secure in his position, offering the Soviets a "Brest-Litovsk mark 2" settlement. The big question is whether Stalin would accept.

[Flying Sorcerer]

The German generals were dedicated nationalists who believed that Bolshevism was a mortal threat to the German way of life and Western civilization. With Goering nominally in charge they probably would have demanded a greater say in the prosecution of the war in the east. If Goering were pushed aside by someone more ruthless like Bormann or ideologically committed like Himmler, the overall direction of the war might have been more professional and competent. Manstein and others believed that the war on the eastern fron was salvageable (at least to the extent that total collapse was avoidable) as late as spring 1943 so there probably wouldn't have been many military voices calling for a negotiated settlement in late '41, early '42.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by Fredrick II Barbarossa

SO WI 3 months into Operation Barbarossa something happens whatever it may be that leads to hitler dying. Who takes charge of nazi germany and how differently does world war ii go?

As others have said Goring takes over although he was already being sidelined by later 1941 so that's not a certainty.

Three months into Barbarossa is September 1941. The campaign was still going well and there would be no reason to halt. Goring was a Nazi who hated the Soviets and had no problem with the genoicide that was taking place and being planned for the future.

I think he would assess the situation and go for Moscow. If and when the offensive breaks down outside Moscow and the Soviets counter attack you would have Goring giving in to the pressure of his generals to retreat. This retreat could become a rout in some places but the line would eventually stabilize as the Soviets outran their logistics.

He wouldn't declare war on the US on December 11th and so the Americans continue to support the Allies with everything but troops. Perhaps Roosevelt would eventually persuade congress to enter the war in early 1942 or engineer a provocation in the Atlantic.

Goring would see that the war was unwinnable in the east and would try to find a way out by early 1942. Stalin would certainly go for it.

He would then try again for a peace with Britain. Perhaps with Russia out of the war, no direct US involvement, the Japanese victories in the east and the fall of Tobruk to Rommel the British may force Churchill to step down and he would be replaced by either Eden or Cripps and there may be an opportunity to make peace if the Germans are able to devote more resources to the Med and scare the British into losing their whole Empire if they don't make terms.

[jmc247]

Originally Posted by Devolved

As others have said Goring takes over although he was already being sidelined by later 1941 so that's not a certainty.

Three months into Barbarossa is September 1941. The campaign was still going well and there would be no reason to halt. Goring was a Nazi who hated the Soviets and had no problem with the genoicide that was taking place and being planned for the future.

I think he would assess the situation and go for Moscow. If and when the offensive breaks down outside Moscow and the Soviets counter attack you would have Goring giving in to the pressure of his generals to retreat. This retreat could become a rout in some places but the line would eventually stabilize as the Soviets outran their logistics.

He wouldn't declare war on the US on December 11th and so the Americans continue to support the Allies with everything but troops. Perhaps Roosevelt would eventually persuade congress to enter the war in early 1942 or engineer a provocation in the Atlantic.

Goring would see that the war was unwinnable in the east and would try to find a way out by early 1942. Stalin would certainly go for it.

He would then try again for a peace with Britain. Perhaps with Russia out of the war, no direct US involvement, the Japanese victories in the east and the fall of Tobruk to Rommel the British may force Churchill to step down and he would be replaced by either Eden or Cripps and there may be an opportunity to make peace if the Germans are able to devote more resources to the Med and scare the British into losing their whole Empire if they don't make terms.

With the Russians out of the war and America focused on Japan there would be mass U-Boat production and the war the UK was fighting would get mighty expensive. By 1943 to save the British Empire from bankruptcy I see a decient peace deal happening where German troops leave France and the Low Countries.

[Gannt the chartist]

September 41 the wheels are already off Barbarossa (not that it was ever viable) and its just a long road of bones from here to the Fuhrerbunker no matter who is in it.

Someone in Berlin will point out that neither the NSDAP not the German Volk are the personal possessions of the dearly beloved but mainly DEAD Adolf and unless I get my cut there will be trouble. Whether than comes from the ones we have heard of (i.e. the ones with troops available) or a collection of Gauleiter does not matter - there will be no smooth succession. For example do you really think Goering will keep LAH as his personal close protection unit? when he replaces them with Para’s what will faithful Heinrich think? what will clever Joe tell him to think? Do they all trust those aristocratic fools at OKH , do they need troops to prevent a coup by reactionaries in the Army?

Do not expect a smooth transition or clear decision making for some weeks.

OKH right now has not got the faintest idea of what to do next, Halder thinks he does but is having doubts. Brauchitsch does what he is told by the last guy to see him is ill and on at least two senior party leader’s hit lists. The Army Group Commanders have clear views on what to do next, Reinforce ME and attack in MY sector. As do the main Panzer Group Commanders (reinforce me etc etc.).

You have 2 weeks until the mud sets in.

There are three choices - surrender to Stalin, not likely. Attack - Probable, Defend in Place.

Attack - nothing in this that changes the outcome of Typhoon and noone to issue the stand fast order which everyone seems to admit was a good idea.

Defend- yeah well that’s fine for a couple of weeks until 3rd,13th, 19th, 20th. 24th 32nd Armies attack at a time and place of their choosing around 700,000 men 5,000 guns and 1200 tanks, these are the forces not encircled during the preliminaries to Typhoon. Result at best a stalemate until the deep winter Russian attack which will probably do about as well as OTL.

What most people seem to miss is that from Smolensk on the Germans were not controlling the pace of the war in the East. They were reacting to a series of Soviet offensives until Friderikus in May 42. Not well handled, not effective except at killing Germans which is always something but continuous. The only pause in this story is Blue which succeeded in wiping 5 complete armies off the German Order of Battle and Zitadelle where the Russians waited. after that its turtles all the way down.

[ivanotter]

I think Goering was strictly opportunistic, but rather clever at it.

Goering taking over in September 1941: Yes, I agree, he will settle with Britain as much as he can. I also think he could have made a deal with Halifax, but maybe not with Churchill.

On Russia: Not so sure. I think it was one of the few things Gioering was really passionate about. He had some exposure to Weimar republic and the days after the armistice.

Just maybe, he would have pursued the war in the East.

How would he have done it:
1) Leave it to Paulus or someone else and taking another shot of heroin
2) Try to run the show - maybe not a bad idea if it were Goering the flier, not Goering the heroin pusher

Anothert contender for the throne after Hitler is obviously Himmler.

A bit too pedestrian and that will mean major stuff up (until Heydrich kills him off and takes the baton)

Ivan

[historyfool]

Originally Posted by ivanotter

Anothert contender for the throne after Hitler is obviously Himmler.

For the thousandth time he is not and never was until the very end. The man was absolutly hated by the army, has at this point no force to resist the army and wasn´t even particulary respected by his direct subordinates. He was for them only valuable as access to the Führer. Men like Heydrich, Schellenberg or Hausser for sure won´t support him if he tries to take power, though I don´t think even Himmler would be so stupid to try.
At this point of time Göring will be the most likely candidate, though only as a compromise between army and party with limited actual power, since most alternatives would be unacceptable to one side, even less capable or simply to junior at this point.

[Paul V McNutt]

I think there is a power struggle. One important question, would Hitler's replacement declare war on the US?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Paul V McNutt

I think there is a power struggle. One important question, would Hitler's replacement declare war on the US?

Paul

I think it highly unlikely. They won't have the security that Hitler had to make such an extreme step. Nor, since this would be after it is certain that the Russian conflict will go on at least another year, regardless of what happens, they will be concentrating on that.

The other option is that once Stalin hears Hitler is dead he tries again at a separate peace and that the Germans accept. Unlikely however as they still think their winning plus an insecure leader won't feel comfortable making peace with the regime's hated enemy.

The other thing, with the Hitler cult is that with him dead there might be a crisis of confidence inside Germany itself?

Presuming after a period of internal turmoil a new leader gains control we are likely to see a war still badly run but probably significantly better than under Hitler. There will continue to be bad decisions, driven by ego, bigotry and stupidity, including by the much vaulted army. However their not going to be as massively suicidal as OTL so especially with a later, or possibly no, dow by the US its going to be a longer and bloodier war.

Steve

Steve

[deathscompanion1]

Originally Posted by stevep

Paul

I think it highly unlikely. They won't have the security that Hitler had to make such an extreme step. Nor, since this would be after it is certain that the Russian conflict will go on at least another year, regardless of what happens, they will be concentrating on that.

The other option is that once Stalin hears Hitler is dead he tries again at a separate peace and that the Germans accept. Unlikely however as they still think their winning plus an insecure leader won't feel comfortable making peace with the regime's hated enemy.

The other thing, with the Hitler cult is that with him dead there might be a crisis of confidence inside Germany itself?

Presuming after a period of internal turmoil a new leader gains control we are likely to see a war still badly run but probably significantly better than under Hitler. There will continue to be bad decisions, driven by ego, bigotry and stupidity, including by the much vaulted army. However their not going to be as massively suicidal as OTL so especially with a later, or possibly no, dow by the US its going to be a longer and bloodier war.

Steve

Steve

More Russian soldiers would die, but the world might actually be better.

Hear me out, the holocaust happened because of rabid antisemitism but also because hitler approved of it and gave promotions to the most radical, with Hitler dead in 1941 most of the high level of the party will focus on removing each other, and fighting the russians, also there was some debate about Slavs Hitler ended it saying they must go to, it's possible that they might not be ruled out of the reich so while the famine would still happen outright extermination might not, especially if the germans focus on winning the war.

So by lets say 1946-7 the Soviets have reached the German Border, The americans are in the war and have launched D-Day, Goering organises a surrender, No mass exterminations, but the longer war and the famines might equal this. The USSR will have much less control over eastern europe.

Or it could go OTL but worse.