WI Sane German Leader - Dec. 1941

Why bother replacing Hitler? Simply adds confusion. Here's a bit from a piece of work of my own which has as its POD Hitler declaring that Germany will give America all help short of war after Pearl Harbour. It's an extract from the Interlude between Book 1 (THE ROAD TO PEARL HARBOUR) and Book 2 (THE PACIFIC CONFLICT). The supposed author is a 1960s New Zealander writing a popular history of the 20th Century who, of course, has all the preconceptions of an alternate time ruling him.

"In a strange way, it was the crisis on the Eastern Front that may almost have caused Hitler to back Japan. That was the crucial sector, any possible conflict with America was only a minor pinprick. He can be imagined declaring war simply as the easiest way of dealing with this nuisance, so that he could get back to more important matters. To combine the European and Pacific conflicts, to create a true "World War" would have appealed to the failed artist in him. A Wagnerian backdrop, Hitler bestriding a world in turmoil- what a role! But in the end, he hesitated. Hitler returned to Berlin on December 9th, a session of the Reichstag being arranged for later that day at the Kroll Opera House. This was postponed till the 11th. Simple fatigue? Or an indication of his uncertainty about which way to go? It’s doubtful that even now he’d made his mind up. Possibly, he didn’t come to a final decision till he was in the Opera House.
In his memoirs, Ribbentrop claims the credit for keeping Germany out of the Pacific Conflict. He pointed out to Hitler that under the Tripartite Pact, Germany was only bound to go to war if Japan were attacked. Here Japan had been the aggressor, so Germany had no obligations. The treaty, which he had presented to Oshima, had no force, since it had not yet been formally signed. The idea that quibbles about treaties would have any influence on Hitler is ludicrous. Self interest (or national interest, it came to the same thing as far as he was concerned) governed his actions, not any concern with legality. In fact, it seems he came closest to deciding on war after his conversation with Ribbentrop, on December 10th, when an inaccurate report came from the charge d’affaires in Washington that America would declare war next day.
There were arguments for going to war, there were arguments against. America was already fighting an undeclared war, Roosevelt would continue piling provocation upon provocation till Germany had no alternative but to respond. Strike now at a time of one’s own choosing. Unleash the U-boat fleet which till now has been hampered by the wish to avoid a confrontation and catch the Americans on the hop. Show that we are a dependable ally. We have nothing to lose. What can America do against us? In 1917, they could land troops in France. Now it would have to be a direct sea borne invasion, with their forces forced to make a long, vulnerable, journey to England first. Besides, America is too soft to be a threat. Racially divided, unwilling to take risks. Would Japan have dared to do half to us of what they’ve done to America? Against this- we’re already fighting on one front, why add a second? America’s aid to Britain is an irritation, but one we can deal with in our own time. Why not wait on events?
In the end, personal attitudes probably governed Hitler’s response as much as any reasoned argument. Ambiguities. In some ways, he admired the Japanese. As allies, of course, it was necessary to discover that their social system and ideology had something Aryan about it. Yet he was capable of describing the Japanese as "lacquered monkeys" and their Emperor as "a companion piece for the late Czars." The dramatic blow, the lack of warning, the apparent unscrupulousness of the raid on Pearl Harbour , all appealed to him. "My heart swelled up when I heard of the first Japanese operations", he said. He congratulated Oshima. " You gave the right declaration of war. This method is the only proper one…one should strike- as hard as possible, and not waste time declaring war." But he would also tell his staff: "We are fighting the wrong people. We ought to have the Anglo-Saxon powers as our allies. Force of circumstance has compelled us. But it would be an error of world historical magnitude to join in with Asia. Ultimately only one can rule." He admitted that the attack came as "an immense relief" to him, distracting America from Europe. But if this meant the end of white supremacy in Asia, the price might be too high. Probably the racism, which was arguably Hitler’s dominant characteristic, finally decided things."

Prunesquallor said:

Why bother replacing Hitler? Simply adds confusion. Here's a bit from a piece of work of my own which has as its POD Hitler declaring that Germany will give America all help short of war after Pearl Harbour. It's an extract from the Interlude between Book 1 (THE ROAD TO PEARL HARBOUR) and Book 2 (THE PACIFIC CONFLICT). The supposed author is a 1960s New Zealander writing a popular history of the 20th Century who, of course, has all the preconceptions of an alternate time ruling him.

"In a strange way, it was the crisis on the Eastern Front that may almost have caused Hitler to back Japan. That was the crucial sector, any possible conflict with America was only a minor pinprick. He can be imagined declaring war simply as the easiest way of dealing with this nuisance, so that he could get back to more important matters. To combine the European and Pacific conflicts, to create a true "World War" would have appealed to the failed artist in him. A Wagnerian backdrop, Hitler bestriding a world in turmoil- what a role! But in the end, he hesitated. Hitler returned to Berlin on December 9th, a session of the Reichstag being arranged for later that day at the Kroll Opera House. This was postponed till the 11th. Simple fatigue? Or an indication of his uncertainty about which way to go? It’s doubtful that even now he’d made his mind up. Possibly, he didn’t come to a final decision till he was in the Opera House.
In his memoirs, Ribbentrop claims the credit for keeping Germany out of the Pacific Conflict. He pointed out to Hitler that under the Tripartite Pact, Germany was only bound to go to war if Japan were attacked. Here Japan had been the aggressor, so Germany had no obligations. The treaty, which he had presented to Oshima, had no force, since it had not yet been formally signed. The idea that quibbles about treaties would have any influence on Hitler is ludicrous. Self interest (or national interest, it came to the same thing as far as he was concerned) governed his actions, not any concern with legality. In fact, it seems he came closest to deciding on war after his conversation with Ribbentrop, on December 10th, when an inaccurate report came from the charge d’affaires in Washington that America would declare war next day.
There were arguments for going to war, there were arguments against. America was already fighting an undeclared war, Roosevelt would continue piling provocation upon provocation till Germany had no alternative but to respond. Strike now at a time of one’s own choosing. Unleash the U-boat fleet which till now has been hampered by the wish to avoid a confrontation and catch the Americans on the hop. Show that we are a dependable ally. We have nothing to lose. What can America do against us? In 1917, they could land troops in France. Now it would have to be a direct sea borne invasion, with their forces forced to make a long, vulnerable, journey to England first. Besides, America is too soft to be a threat. Racially divided, unwilling to take risks. Would Japan have dared to do half to us of what they’ve done to America? Against this- we’re already fighting on one front, why add a second? America’s aid to Britain is an irritation, but one we can deal with in our own time. Why not wait on events?
In the end, personal attitudes probably governed Hitler’s response as much as any reasoned argument. Ambiguities. In some ways, he admired the Japanese. As allies, of course, it was necessary to discover that their social system and ideology had something Aryan about it. Yet he was capable of describing the Japanese as "lacquered monkeys" and their Emperor as "a companion piece for the late Czars." The dramatic blow, the lack of warning, the apparent unscrupulousness of the raid on Pearl Harbour , all appealed to him. "My heart swelled up when I heard of the first Japanese operations", he said. He congratulated Oshima. " You gave the right declaration of war. This method is the only proper one…one should strike- as hard as possible, and not waste time declaring war." But he would also tell his staff: "We are fighting the wrong people. We ought to have the Anglo-Saxon powers as our allies. Force of circumstance has compelled us. But it would be an error of world historical magnitude to join in with Asia. Ultimately only one can rule." He admitted that the attack came as "an immense relief" to him, distracting America from Europe. But if this meant the end of white supremacy in Asia, the price might be too high. Probably the racism, which was arguably Hitler’s dominant characteristic, finally decided things."

Click to expand...

I can see him staying neutral but not backing the US. It was too free, was backing up GB and would certainly do so no matter what, was too easy on Jews and even Blacks( According to Hitler, I guess he thought both should have been exterminated in the US). Hitler would think that he would be backing the "Tool of the Jews" (He said something like that about the US) and he could never do that.

Walter_Kaufmann said:

The entire purpose of the following is to demonstrate how the month of December, 1941 and into the spring of 1942, could best be handled by a sane, pragmatic German leader (I couldn’t think of one off the top of my head so I made one up for the purpose of the essay/story). The purspose is NOT to suggest the most plausible alternate route for the war, but rather to suggest just one of an infinite number of possible routes:


November 30, 1941.

While urinating, Adolf Hitler misses the toilet. He doesn’t notice as it is nearly one A.M. and he is practically sleep-walking. He flushes the toilet, slips on the pool of urine, and winds up unconscious, face down in a puddle of his own piss.

With Hitler in a coma, there is mass confusion. No one knows quite for sure who’s in command. Everyone’s at least slightly afraid to take the job, lest the Fuhrer wake up. In the end, a virtual unknown, a Wehrmacht General by the name of Kurt Fleischer, assumes power, but not after killing his most dangerous foe, Heinrich Himmler, in an “accident.”

Unlike Himmler and Hitler, however, Fleischer is a pragmatic nationalist. His interests lie solely in the advancement of Germany, rather than the advancement of the Nazi Party. Not a Nazi Party member, Fleischer had become increasingly disillusioned with der Fuhrer. With the war, Hitler was now hurting Fleischer’s beloved Germany. Something had to be done, and soon. Like Hitler, however, Fleischer is an excellent orator, a man who commands respect. He has already proven himself an excellent soldier commanding a brigade in the invasions of Poland and France.

December 5, 1941.

Kurt Fleischer announces to the German people that: “I speak to you today in order that you should hear my voice and should know that I am now in charge of the High Command of the Armed Forces. Do not worry. We shall win this war and Germany’s sons will return home with pride. Be patient, my friends, and victory shall be ours.”’

December 7, 1941.

The attack on Pearl Harbor goes off as in OTL. Fleischer is surprised by the attack and takes the first opportunity available to condemn the “cowardice of the attack upon the brave American forces by the yellow hordes of the Far East.” Yellow is meant as both a personal jab at the Japanese and as an adjective to further highlight the “cowardice” of the attack.

Fleischer orders an immediate withdrawal from the recently negotiated Berlin Pact. Likewise, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia also leave the Pact. Japan now stands in front of the United States with no allies except its puppet governments in Manchukuo and Nanking.

December 8, 1941.

The United States of America officially enters World War Two by declaring war on the Empire of Japan. Kurt Fleischer issues another speech of condolence to the American people, hinting at the possibility of German backing in their war against the Empire of Japan.

December 11, 1941.

After nearly three solid days of meetings and discussions, Fleischer announces the intentions of the German Reich: They will declare war on the Empire of Japan. Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop goes into a fit of rage. Everything he has worked for, that is, the Berlin Pact, is disintegrating. Fleischer responds by firing von Ribbentrop and reappointing Konstantin von Neurath.

The reasoning behind the declaration of war is sound. Were Germany to do nothing, she would risk the chance of war with America, and, thus, risk the chance of having to fight a two-front war. However, by declaring war on Japan, not only does Germany make it impossible for the United States to declare war on the Reich, but it loses nothing as the Japanese and Germans would have operated completely independently of one another, anyhow. It is minimal risk and maximum gain, at worst, to declare war on Japan. It would be an enormous risk and minimum gain, at best, to do nothing or declare war on the United States.

More to follow...

- Cease Fire on the Western Front
- Reinvigorated Eastern Campaign
- (Relatively) Happy End of the Final Solution
- Nazi Coup Attempt
- Partial DeNazification of Germany​

Maybe this should be in the Writer's Forum... Oh well, whenever I post there I never get any responses. Hopefully, I'll get some here.

Click to expand...

Seems like a very clever move by him. Most Germans (outside of some fools inside the Nazi Party) were not happy about starting a war with the US. Many had relitives in the US (which meant they had an idea about how rich the US was) and they remembered what happened after the US got involved in WWI. I think the Army would be thrilled not having to worry about the US landing troops in France via England, the Kriegsmarine would be happy that they would no longer have to worry too much about the USN, and the Luftwaffe doesn't have to worry about the USAAF sending planes to GB to either give to the RAF (If US neutral) or worse still along side GB(if war with US). Disbanding the SS would actually be popular with his Wehrmacht buddies as they were seen as a rival to the Whermacht. According to them the best solution is to put those soldiers into the REAL army AKA the Werhmacht.

"Hitler’s speech to the Reichstag, on December 11th , was, for some reason, not recorded on film or broadcast on radio. Perhaps this is why it’s usually accounted his finest performance, as elderly bores can now say, with no evidence against them, "Ah, had you but heard the Fuhrer on December 11th…" Like all of his speeches, it reads badly. Disorganised, it gives the impression that the speaker hasn’t quite made up his mind what he’s going to say next. Yet, this was probably its strength. Hitler had much more in common with a Homeric Bard, stringing together chunks of previously composed lines, feeling his way to his listeners, than to a classical orator. As he stepped on to the rostrum, no one in the audience knew quite what to expect. There were rumours that Hitler, on the 8th, had ordered his submarines to attack U.S. shipping wherever found. Could it be true? Would he drag America into the European Conflict? They waited. Peace or war?

He started with a long, venomous, attack on Roosevelt. For a long time Hitler had managed to retain a most un-natural degree of self restraint in the face of what he saw as gross provocation on Roosevelt’s part. Now he could let himself go. He appears to have developed a genuine hatred for Roosevelt, unlike his attitude towards Churchill. He saw Churchill as the unworthy inheritor of a great tradition, Roosevelt as the fitting culmination of a mongrel society. He began. Hitler had served four years in the trenches. Roosevelt, a rich man’s son, had ,in contrast, spent the war (possibly through no fault of his own) in a comfortable desk job in Washington. "I shared the fate of millions, and Franklin Roosevelt only that of the so called upper ten thousand." Had he been a front line soldier, he would have been far less enthusiastic about trying to involve America in another war. Perhaps he couldn’t be blamed for his lack of active service, but what he could be blamed for was his blatant hypocrisy. Trying to bring about a war, he portrays himself as a victim. "First he incites war, then falsifies the causes, then odiously wraps himself in a cloak of Christian hypocrisy and slowly but surely leads mankind to war, not without calling on God to witness the purity of his actions.."

He spoke of Roosevelt’s anti-German acts, of his dealings with England, of the operations which the American Navy had been carrying out in the Atlantic- all totally against international law. He gave an account of the Greer incident, where a German submarine had fired two torpedoes at an American destroyer, an act which Roosevelt had described as "piracy." He pointed out that the Greer had been operating against the submarine in conjunction with British naval vessels, and thus had absolutely no right to claim neutral status.

What was Roosevelt’s personal motivation for all this? Simply an attempt to cover up the complete bankruptcy of his policies by (in time honoured fashion) shifting American attention to foreign affairs. "Roosevelt took over a state with an economy in decline as a result of democratic influences, and I too became head of a state which also, thanks to democracy, was facing disaster. The United States had thirteen million unemployed, Germany seven million and seven more on short time. In both states, national finances were in ruins. Yet, whereas in Germany under National Socialism, we achieved a tremendous revival, Roosevelt’s "New Deal" did not succeed in producing the slightest improvement…. His legislation was all wrong. There can be no doubt that a continuation of this economic policy would have undone this President, had peace continued, for all his political skills. In a European state he would surely have come in the end before a state court on a charge of deliberate waste of the national wealth; and he would scarcely have escaped at the hands of a civil court on a charge of criminal business methods." This was why Roosevelt had acted thus. And who was backing him? Who benefits? A Jewish dominated administration which even now is shipping arms to the Bolshevik hordes of the East! (By this time the audience were in no doubts, it would be war.) America calls itself a democracy, it has rejected (for now) the true concept of leadership. "It is for this reason that I address the American people, not their so-called President. It is to the American People, not to Herr Roosevelt, that I offer…" (here, he paused, before maliciously using Roosevelt’s own formulation) "… ALL HELP SHORT OF WAR.!"

The hall erupted, it was some time before order could be restored and Hitler continue. He justified his own behaviour and his association with Japan. The Japanese are a great people, a warrior race, who could not be expected to accept the curtailment of their destiny, shut up on four little islands. One might ask who benefits from the persecution of Japan? The Jew! Who " is able to undermine the Peoples of Europe and bring them up to be bastards without a race, but could hardly do the same to an Asiatic national state like Japan… The Japanese Government, which has been negotiating with Roosevelt for years, has at last become tired of being mocked by him in such an unworthy way." At other times, the spectacle of Roosevelt’s discomfiture might have given us a deep satisfaction. Nevertheless, blood calls to blood, and thanks to Roosevelt’s folly, a whole continent is in danger of being lost to the White Race. This cannot be.

He spoke of the German role in the founding of America, of soldiers like Von Steuben, Frederick the Great’s old general, who had trained Washington’s army that defeated the British, of scientists like Steinmetz with his crucial role in the building of the American electrical industry, of the fact that after the Revolution it had been decided by only one vote not to accept German as the national language, of the millions of German immigrants who had crossed the Atlantic to become part of the new America. How many men of German descent now lay at the bottom of Pearl Harbour, thanks to Herr Roosevelt? He spoke of his own desire for peace. Time and again, he’d offered England terms. The attack on Russia had been forced on him, Stalin had been preparing for war. He had nothing against the British Empire, a great civilising force. The Third Reich was no threat to anyone. It had no need of possessions, colonies, markets, outside Europe. "From the Ukraine, we can supply the coal, the steel, the wood, for all Europe. We have the advantages now of a continental hegemony. We have no aims outside Europe,. What we want is peace to exploit the Ukraine, our Indian Empire, properly."

He spoke of his own place in history. "I can only be grateful to Providence that it entrusted me with the leadership in this historic struggle which for the next five hundred or a thousand years, will be described as decisive, not only for the history of Germany, but for the whole of Europe, and indeed the whole world. A historical revision on a unique scale has been imposed upon us as by the Creator." He believed that God had chosen him, as one who could lead Germany out of the depths, back to the heights, yet still possess sufficient humility to see himself merely as God’s instrument. Another man, one who lacked true insight into history, might have reacted differently to Roosevelt’s insults and injuries. Yet he could see that, in the long run, Roosevelt and his gang were of no importance, merely the froth on the waves, unable to alter the tide.

He gave a warning to the American Jews (this may have been the only sincerely felt bit of the whole performance.) He would not advise them to try to get America into the war in Europe. Europe was heading towards "a final solution" (endlosung) "of the Jewish Problem." So far, it had been handled humanely, despite the fact that Germany had every right to take revenge for the centuries of mischief wrought by the Jews. Soon Europe would be "Judenfrei" , free of the Jews. The whole business had been conducted in the spirit of the Aryan, who scorns to harm further a defeated enemy- a spirit totally alien to the Jew, who will exploit every advantage, a usurer by nature, not a warrior. But if the intrigues of the Jews ever did succeed in setting America and Germany at odds, it would be impossible to control the righteous anger of the German People. The European Jew would pay dearly for the machinations of the American.

He returned to the question of the war with Britain. He offered again peace, on the basis of the status quo. He wanted no colonies, no territories outside Europe. His Italian Ally also wished nothing, not even Ethiopia which the British had grabbed- though he did think British forces should evacuate that country. No reparations, no demands. He had no wish to impose a Carthaginian peace, a new Versailles. However, he feared that his sincerely meant offer would not be accepted. In the past, Britain had been ruled by the likes of Pitt the Younger and Wellington. Now, it had for Prime Minister, a drunken, senile, buffoon. Half American, half British- and inheriting the good qualities of neither of these great heritages. He asked, pointedly, what was going to happen in the Far East now? Britain had been unable to harm Germany in any way, even before Japan entered the war. She could not keep up a full scale war on two fronts. If Churchill intended to continue fighting Germany, then America would have to carry the lion’s share of the Pacific War. Was America expected to fight to save the British Empire? Let America judge Churchill’s honesty by his response to Hitler’s profered peace. He warned the United States that Churchill was willing to carry on till the last American. Britain was pinning its hopes on American help, that the New World would intervene to redress the balance of the Old. If the American People genuinely wished for peace in Europe, then let them make it quite clear that the British could expect no more aid. When the British realised they could no longer expect others to pull their chestnuts out of the fire, then they would cease meddling in Europe. Perhaps they would get back to what they were good at, the management of a colonial empire.

He concluded on a quieter note. A meeting would be arranged with the American charge d’affaires, concerning the nature of the help which Germany would give America. Originally, he confessed, he had considered maintaining a strict neutrality. Japan, he still believed, to a very large extent had been pushed into war by Roosevelt and his clique. But on reflection, he now saw this option as being no more than the policy of the Levite who passed on the other side. To chose inaction, on moral grounds, is no more than a way of gilding decadence and lack of will. The ties of race meant that positive action was called for. But, he added, if this time the hand of friendship were rejected, it would not be offered again. However, he had far too much faith in the good sense of the American People- as opposed to Herr Roosevelt- to believe this would be the case. He stepped down from the rostrum to deafening applause.

He left the platform, soaking with sweat, as he invariably was after one of his long speeches. He had abandoned the ally whom he had promised to support (though this was not known at the time) and given this a cover of high moral purpose. He had paid back all of Roosevelt’s injuries and vilified him in terms which would be repeated in the American press from coast to coast. He had provided a rallying point for all of the anti-Roosevelt groups in America. He had begun to drive a breech between Britain and America. He had rendered the question of future American aid to Britain problematic. With a mixture of truths, half truths, and downright lies, he had constructed a justification for his past career. It had been a magnificent performance. As he passed Goebbels, who had been watching from the wings, he chortled, "That really gave them something to think about, didn’t it?" For really, this speech was so successful because it meant so little to Hitler. Discounting, as he did, American involvement in European affairs, he could concentrate on his artistry. But also, it was his farewell to the world stage. He had resisted the temptation to extend the war. Rather like Kenneth Grahame’s Mr Toad, in the end, to the astonishment of the onlookers, he had behaved in a quiet, modest, and sensible (for him) fashion. In a sense, this was the last of the old Hitler."

This is my supposed speech for Hitler. I think it's entirely possible. If he could make a deal with Stalin in 1939, he could do any sort of turnaround. And he's not really backing America, he's offering "all help short of war". It's just a phrase. I have the "help" limited to sending a converted submarine, one of the Milch Cow class, to New York with a cargo of various minor bits of technology- most of which had been intended for the Japanese. Not especially important, but effective with American public opinion. I still can't see how to transfer my footnotes with the text.

I think such an offer would be seen as the useless gesture it is. The US by this time was so pro-Britain (who would now be fighting with us in the Pacific) that it's unlikely the US would accept anything from Hitler. The US is still going to send arms and money to Britain to help them in the fight against Germany, and US warships have already fought some skirmishes against U-boats. I'd think Hitler's 'grand gesture' would be followed later by more speeches condemning us as we continue to arm Britain....

David Howery said:

I think such an offer would be seen as the useless gesture it is. The US by this time was so pro-Britain (who would now be fighting with us in the Pacific) that it's unlikely the US would accept anything from Hitler. The US is still going to send arms and money to Britain to help them in the fight against Germany, and US warships have already fought some skirmishes against U-boats. I'd think Hitler's 'grand gesture' would be followed later by more speeches condemning us as we continue to arm Britain....

Click to expand...

Ageed, and speculations about what Hitler would do if he weren't nuts is about as meaningful as speculating what water would be like if it weren't wet. A sane Hitler is so completely different from OTL that it isn't the same Hitler so to speak.

David Howery said:

I think such an offer would be seen as the useless gesture it is. The US by this time was so pro-Britain (who would now be fighting with us in the Pacific) that it's unlikely the US would accept anything from Hitler. The US is still going to send arms and money to Britain to help them in the fight against Germany, and US warships have already fought some skirmishes against U-boats. I'd think Hitler's 'grand gesture' would be followed later by more speeches condemning us as we continue to arm Britain....

Click to expand...

That's assuming that somehow ASBs made Hitler sane. But that wasn't what I proposed. I proposed sending HItler into a coma and the government being taken over by a sane Wehrmacht general. If you have a sane leader, who is even willing to make a few concessions here or there, FDR would have a hard time convincing Congress to declare war on Germany.

I think that Walter's scenario, with the possible exception related to why other Nazi's didn't grap power is pretty good.

If we suppose that Fleicher is a fairly charismatic and compelling general, then I think that America's entry depends on what is done with England and France.

Norman said:

I think that Walter's scenario, with the possible exception related to why other Nazi's didn't grap power is pretty good.

Click to expand...

I thought so, too. How would you suggest avoiding the other Nazis grabbing power? I thought that was lagging a little bit, but I was in a rush.

I may have to cringe when I look at this in the morning, having just come back from the pub after knocking back too many Newcastle Brown Ales but-
What do you mean by sane? Hitler was mad by my standards. But so is any Fundamentalist Christian, Orthodox Jew, devout Roman Catholic, Scientologist, fan of J.K. Rowling,etc. He was also a consumate politician. His career had shown an incredible capacity to move from side to side depending on temporary needs. He was quite capable of extending a (totally useless) helping hand to America.

DH> Every country has its necessary myths. The French go on about the Resistance- despite the fact that the German occupation only worked through French collaboration. The Russians go on about how they smashed the German Army- ignoring the fact that Stalin's Russia was an enthusiastic German ally till June 1941. The British go on about standing alone in 1940- ignoring the fact they stood alone after an incredible series of cock ups. The Americans see themselves as saving Europe through their magnanimity- despite the fact they only entered the European War after Hitler declared war on America. The US was totally pro British? Come off it. You've still got all these people producing books about how the "New Dealers" led us into war against America's real interests. If, the Pacific Fleet apparently crippled, Hitler had offered support of any sort, do you really believe American public opinion would have stood for diverting resources in Britain's direction?

Prunesquallor said:

What do you mean by sane? Hitler was mad by my standards. But so is any Fundamentalist Christian, Orthodox Jew, devout Roman Catholic, Scientologist, fan of J.K. Rowling,etc. He was also a consumate politician. His career had shown an incredible capacity to move from side to side depending on temporary needs. He was quite capable of extending a (totally useless) helping hand to America.

Click to expand...

I mean a sane leader, one who's not crazy. I DO NOT want Hitler. I never suggested changing Hitler's personality or anything. I want a completely different, sane leader in charge of Germany, like I wrote earlier. Leaving Hitler leaves way too many complications.

Leaving aside the possibility that no sane person ever seeks power- why do you wish to replace Hitler (leaving aside the fact he's a psychopath)? The key point here is Hitler's declaration of war on America. Was he bound to do this? I don't believe so.

Walter_Kaufmann said:

That's assuming that somehow ASBs made Hitler sane. But that wasn't what I proposed. I proposed sending HItler into a coma and the government being taken over by a sane Wehrmacht general. If you have a sane leader, who is even willing to make a few concessions here or there, FDR would have a hard time convincing Congress to declare war on Germany.

Click to expand...

Agreed, particularly if Germany made it clear that the war with the USSR is its main goal. If it were to make concessions like withdrawing from France it could make it very hard for the US and UK to fight it. The problem is that the German general staff would be very relctant to do so. However it might agree if the US and UK is willing to make a seperate peace and is willing to help Germany against the USSR.

Walter_Kaufmann said:

I thought so, too. How would you suggest avoiding the other Nazis grabbing power? I thought that was lagging a little bit, but I was in a rush.

Click to expand...

Himmler and Hitler is dead so the main Nazi would be Goering. Maybe he is threatened by the Army. Since Hitler would be dead the oath would be void. If the OTL general is willing to give Rommel the Ministry of War he might jump on board and he was considered a hero in Germany.

Prunesquallor said:

Leaving aside the possibility that no sane person ever seeks power- why do you wish to replace Hitler (leaving aside the fact he's a psychopath)? The key point here is Hitler's declaration of war on America. Was he bound to do this? I don't believe so.

Click to expand...

But, Hitler is too, well, insane, to pull this off. He will eventually do something which causes the United States to declare war on him. Also, this is assuming a personality change since he basically declared war on America on a whim. Actually, he was hoping to open a second front in the USSR, but any sane person could have seen that was not going to happen. Anyways, the whole point of this thread is that I would like to replace Hitler with a sane leader.

Brilliantlight said:

If it were to make concessions like withdrawing from France it could make it very hard for the US and UK to fight it. The problem is that the German general staff would be very relctant to do so. However it might agree if the US and UK is willing to make a seperate peace and is willing to help Germany against the USSR.

Click to expand...

Hmm...I was thinking something a little less drastic. I was thinking that Fleischer offers support in the war against Japan (which, admittedly, will be slight, maybe a batallion or a brigade at most) and the immediate end to the unofficial naval war against the United States in exchange for, say, ending the Lend-Lease program to the Soviet Union, or maybe ending partisan support in France. Maybe, we'll withdraw from Norway as well, if you promise to cut down on the number of shipments to Britain. And while you're at it, maybe you'd consider sending someone to try to help negotiate a peace between the two of us, after all, we never had any problem with the British...

Good POD and idea in general, Walter! I like it! For Germany to have the least chance of success in the war, Hitler would have to be either removed, as you propose, or otherwise very weakened politically, so that the OKW/OKH can run things efficiently.

Brilliantlight said:

Himmler and Hitler is dead so the main Nazi would be Goering. (...) If the OTL general is willing to give Rommel the Ministry of War he might jump on board and he was considered a hero in Germany.

Click to expand...

Yes, but would Göring have the actual support to succeed Hitler? Hm, Rommel was disliked by many of his colleagues, so I think the Ministry of War would have gone to, oh, I don't know, Halder, Rundstedt, Bock, Jodl or even Guderian.

Best regards!

- Mr.Bluenote.

One thing to remember, Hitler isn't dead! Let's say that our general is a hero of the thrid reich, exterely charismatic, and has just been largely responsible for some incredible feat.

Right before his Pissfall, Hitler has publically awarded him some high medal, patted him on the back, and stated that he wished he had more generals like him. Then, while in that military district, accidently falls and is knocked into a coma, leaving his body under the care of Fleischer, everybosy rushes to Hitler's side, and while they are there, some action occurs that either 1) buts Goering in an extremely bad light, or 2) which eliminates the entire upper elite of the party.

Mr.Bluenote said:

Yes, but would Göring have the actual support to succeed Hitler? - Mr.Bluenote.

Click to expand...

If you eliminate Hitler, Himmler and Goring who is left? Goebels? ?Rittentop? Not likely. After you take out Himmler and Hitler there isn't too much left for a new leader.