assassination of Hitler is successful

What if the bomb at Hitler's meeting place killed him? How would it affect the war? Who would take over and how would he change the direction of Germany?
 
What if to prevent civil war Hermann Göring forms a coalition government with leaders like Rommel with the main goal of making peace with the west.

What if Germany then reaches out to the west and offers to voluntarily withdraw to their 1938 borders and allow the US/UK to occupy Germany but in turn the west would guarantee no Soviet troops are allowed to occupy Germany. If the west is hesitant Germany could then recognize an independent Poland and transfer weapons to them and offer to allow the Polish government in London free passage to Polish territory. The Poles wouldn't have much love for Germany in 1944, but I'm sure they weren't excited by the prospect of the Red Army rolling over their country and would think it was their best chance of having an independent Poland.

Would the US/UK turn down this offer and continue fighting Germany? If so they would be unnecessarily killing US/UK troops to help Stalin conquer Poland.
 
Germany's ability to wage organized war was already falling apart at this point, and I can't see how decapitating it's entire command structure would make that better. And the more Germany's war fighting ability crumbles... the less leverage they have to offer ANY surrender terms.

What if to prevent civil war Hermann Göring forms a coalition government with leaders like Rommel with the main goal of making peace with the west.

They get rejected out of hand. The policy of unconditional surrender was set in stone by 1944. This post reaks of trying to apply a Cold War mindset to World War 2 US and Britain, who largely viewed the Soviet Union as a valiant ally fighting for freedom while the Germans were a engine of tyranny and not vice-versa. The 'problem' Germany has under any kind of Valkyrie government is that they are fighting against a United States and Britain that would just see them as another faction of Nazis that overthrew the ruling faction, and that would be intolerable without the kind of ideological purge that unconditional surrender created.

An additional factor is that, overall, the Allies never had a particularly accurate idea on how or what the Soviets were doing. They flat out didn't believe Soviet claims about deep operations and what they were fielding, chalking a lot of that up to propaganda. Likewise, the German explanations for defeats were known to blatantly exaggerate all aspects to make themselves look better, so other than "Germans lost here badly enough to have to admit it in domestic media," that wasn't taken at face value either. Transparent German begging - since they certainly knew how dire it was - at the highest levels of peace talks would clue the Allies in that the Germans aren't facing a mere reversal of fortunes in the USSR. That's not going to encourage the Allies to give them a favorable deal, especially when it comes out as to why the Germans are now so terrified of losing to the Soviets.

"Oh hey, so we spent a lot of resources on killing millions of their civilians and now we don't have so much as a coherent front let alone enough troops on it to slow those tank armies down, so how about you cut us a break and give us those Panzers free right now, details to be concluded later?"
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Likely paralysis of German warmaking at the strategic level and civil war ending in an end of the war by the end of the year. Maybe the generals can pull off the coup, but even then all they get to do by the end is be in charge of the surrender and get imprisoned for their troubles and probably social excluded or outright murdered post war.
 
Vee Vass Stabbed In Der Back

Again.
By our own Generals!

The Fuhrer was a wonderful painter, one room, two coats, in an afternoon.

We always get stabbed in the back. No more wars. Next time, WE will do the stabbing!
 
I'm just going to take advantage of the fact that nobody has yet said exactly which meeting place or when Hitler gets assassinated :p

If this specifically refers to the July 20 plot, then yes, by that time, Germany is toast no matter what. It almost certainly is in any scenario with a POD after the U.S. enters the war. By that point, everybody involved was hellbent on ending the Nazi reign of terror and making sure they couldn't do it again. Thinking went that two times in twenty years was WAY too often to be having to do this.

However, there were many assassination plots to kill Hitler: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler

An interesting POD, for example, would be if he is assassinated in 1943. In this case, I foresee a brief power struggle at the higher levels of the Nazi leadership followed quickly by the Heer winning it and setting up a military dictatorship. If Hitler is killed, than Goering would have the strongest legal claim to the throne as deputy Furher, but actually exercising it is a different matter. Hitler (like most dictators) went out of his way to make himself as central to the government's function as he could and obscure the succession process to try to make himself irreplaceable. The Heer never overthrew him because of those defenses. There was also the fact that he was the undisputed head of the German state at that time, and that they all swore a personal oath to him. The generals felt it would be a slur on their honor to break such an oath and overthrow the government.

If Hitler is already dead (removing all those pesky obstacles) and it looks like Goering, Himmler, or Goebbels (the three people outside of Heer leadership who had a serious chance to succeed a dead Hitler) are at risk of taking the throne, I foresee the army taking power and executing all three other men. They had the most men with guns, so they have an advantage.

The possible butterflies here are interesting, but only in the way that Gingrich's Civil War novel is-the campaigns look different, but the actual outcome remains the same. Hitler did a lot of flat out illogical stuff against the better advice of his generals, as we all know. Getting rid of Goering and putting someone competent in charge would also be helpful.

Hitler kept a grossly excessive amount of men in Norway against the screaming objections of the Generals. Four hundred thousand, to be precise. I think a Heer dictatorship would be smart enough to draw that down to something more reasonable (say, 150,000, to go up on the off chance the allies actually invade Norway) and use those men for more pressing priorities. A quarter million men could have made a serious difference for the Germans at various points in the late war.

Another interesting one is what a different Luftwaffe leadership would do once Goering was executed. He did a lot of stuff that really hurt the German war effort, but one notable thing was that he took the FW190s and put them on ground attack duty on the Eastern Front. In fairness, it was a very good ground attack machine, but the place it could have made a massive difference is if it had been used to end the allies' strategic bombing campaign. The attrition the allies took against the small numbers of FW190s that were on Reich air defense duty ended the raids until the Mustang was introduced. Basically everyone under Goering knew the FW190s were being misused, to the point where a group of fighter pilots led by Adolf Galland tried to remove him over that and other issues. A different Luftwaffe leadership might act much more sensibly. This could avoid a lot of damage to Germany's industrial base and civilian morale. One wonders if it might have led to a delay of D-Day if the Butcher Bird got deployed in France to fight a purely defensive campaign to keep German air superiority over France. That would have been a pretty cost effective way of defending the coastline, rather than garrisoning it with huge numbers of troops that were needed to deal with more immediate problems on the Eastern Front. D-Day OTL was the maximum level of risk the allies were willing to take on with such a huge operation that would lose them so much hardware and men if it failed. While it will happen eventually, the FW190 might succeed in putting it on the back burner for a while by denying the allies the air superiority crucial to any successful large amphibious op.

Finally, a Heer dictatorship would have fully mobilized the German economy for war. No more trying to fight WWII with refrigerators.

The Holocaust probably gets stopped or at least has its pace reduced, so I guess that's nice :eek:

In the end, it only changes the cosmetics of WWII rather than the bones. Germany is eventually going to unconditionally surrender, probably after being nuked repeatedly.

Interesting to think about, though.
 
I'm just going to take advantage of the fact that nobody has yet said exactly which meeting place or when Hitler gets assassinated :p

If this specifically refers to the July 20 plot, then yes, by that time, Germany is toast no matter what. It almost certainly is in any scenario with a POD after the U.S. enters the war. By that point, everybody involved was hellbent on ending the Nazi reign of terror and making sure they couldn't do it again. Thinking went that two times in twenty years was WAY too often to be having to do this.

However, there were many assassination plots to kill Hitler: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler

An interesting POD, for example, would be if he is assassinated in 1943. In this case, I foresee a brief power struggle at the higher levels of the Nazi leadership followed quickly by the Heer winning it and setting up a military dictatorship. If Hitler is killed, than Goering would have the strongest legal claim to the throne as deputy Furher, but actually exercising it is a different matter. Hitler (like most dictators) went out of his way to make himself as central to the government's function as he could and obscure the succession process to try to make himself irreplaceable. The Heer never overthrew him because of those defenses. There was also the fact that he was the undisputed head of the German state at that time, and that they all swore a personal oath to him. The generals felt it would be a slur on their honor to break such an oath and overthrow the government.



Interesting to think about, though.
Do you think perhaps that the bribes that Hitler paid his Generals, had anything to do with the Generals being reluctant to break their oaths?
What is stopping another German leader from making such payments?
Was this shame at the stain upon the Generals honour, the same as the one that Paul Von Hindenburg, (a monarchist ) would have felt if he had faced a situation where he had to consider breaking his oath to his Emporer?
 
Last edited:
An interesting POD, for example, would be if he is assassinated in 1943. In this case, I foresee a brief power struggle at the higher levels of the Nazi leadership followed quickly by the Heer winning it and setting up a military dictatorship.

If this happens and the new German leadership starts shopping for a peace treaty would all three of the US/UK/USSR be adamant about pressing forward with unconditional surrender? Stalin accepted FDR's unconditional surrender policy at Casablanca. But he was an opportunist and if he thought he could get a breather and allow Germany and the western allies to exhaust themselves against each other while he built up his military he might think it wise to make a deal. He could always invade again if the situation opened up.
 
Himmler overthrows Goering. He begins to purge the military. German officers on the Western Front surrender. Which moves the WAllies move faster. They take Prague. The German war machine collapses. December 16, 1944 is VE Day. The Soviets declare war on Japan and invade Manchukuo on March 16, 1945. The Wallied European veterans arrive in the Pacific Theater in April. Okinawa surrenders on May 12, 1945. The bombing and blockade of Japan are more intense. Herohito surrenders on August 3, 1945. After the war, Czechoslavika comes in an end in 1945. There is a not so velvet divorce as Soviet occupied Slovakia breaks away. The Czech Republic and West Germany are the front line NATO nations. China is Soviet occupied. Jaing flees to Taiwan in 1946. There is no who lost China, which helps Truman. The PRC is a Soviet satellite. There is no Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution. The Soviets put Deng in power, so China will be less dependent on Soviet aid. China's economy develops as it did OTL.There is no playing the China card. US China relations open up under Reagan, after much lobbying by corporations who want to cash on the lucrative China trade. The atomic bomb is a military secret until 1949, when the Soviets announce they have developed one.
 

Deleted member 1487

If this happens and the new German leadership starts shopping for a peace treaty would all three of the US/UK/USSR be adamant about pressing forward with unconditional surrender? Stalin accepted FDR's unconditional surrender policy at Casablanca. But he was an opportunist and if he thought he could get a breather and allow Germany and the western allies to exhaust themselves against each other while he built up his military he might think it wise to make a deal. He could always invade again if the situation opened up.
Nah because then LL ends if he quits and then he cannot easily build up on his own resources to get back in the war; its far better to fight to liberate his territory on US LL than wait and try to do it on his own resources and ensure US/UK perfidy later. He was afraid then the Wallies would then cut a deal and leave the Germans breathing room against him or actually join in against him if he gave them any reason to. Stalin was uber-paranoid and wasn't going to change the set up of the alliance while it was working to his benefit and risk playing some game and having it go against him. Plus he was heavily relying on LL food for his military, so he's not giving that up.
 
Is it totally unrealistic to believe that with Hitler dead, and with the new leaders [whomever they might be] at least able to think rationally and logically, that they wouldn't take a deep breath, study the overall situation, and then decide that their best alternative is to allow the WAllies to occupy as much territory as possible, before the Red Army does? They had to know that they were beaten, no matter what they did. So they simply withdraw, from the western front, all of their armies, and begin to send them east. Yes, I know, its not that simple, but however clumsily it is done, it can get done, even if it takes 3 months to do. And with no opposition, except perhaps a few diehard SS units, are the Allies really not going to advance into, and occupy all of Germany, just because of some agreement with the Russians. Churchill, for one, didn't trust Stalin. Perhaps they even occupy, by October, parts of Poland and East Prussia.
 
Do you think perhaps that the bribes that Hitler paid his Generals, had anything to do with the Generals being reluctant to break their oaths?
What is stopping another German leader from making such payments?
Was this shame at the stain upon the Generals honour, the same as the one that Paul Von Hindenburg, (a monarchist ) would have felt if he had faced a situation where he had to consider breaking his oath to his Emporer?

I should clarify. I'm not trying to further the clean Heer myth because it's exactly that.

At the same time, the Prussian ideals seemed to have a tremendous impact on the will of the generals to overthrow Hitler, based on the literature I've read.

Such things are powerful; it wasn't as powerful as the brainwashing the Japanese were subjected to, but you know what the IJA was willing to do in the name of loyalty to Hirohito.

It took total military and political defeat to break through the ingrained codes of behavior held by Hindenburg, Imperial Japan, and OTL Nazi Germany.

I really do think it would have happened as I said.

The payments wouldn't have been a counterincentive because the Heer could simply have gifted themselves even greater sums of money if inclined.
 
Himmler overthrows Goering. He begins to purge the military. German officers on the Western Front surrender. Which moves the WAllies move faster. They take Prague. The German war machine collapses. December 16, 1944 is VE Day. The Soviets declare war on Japan and invade Manchukuo on March 16, 1945. The Wallied European veterans arrive in the Pacific Theater in April. Okinawa surrenders on May 12, 1945. The bombing and blockade of Japan are more intense. Herohito surrenders on August 3, 1945. After the war, Czechoslavika comes in an end in 1945. There is a not so velvet divorce as Soviet occupied Slovakia breaks away. The Czech Republic and West Germany are the front line NATO nations. China is Soviet occupied. Jaing flees to Taiwan in 1946. There is no who lost China, which helps Truman. The PRC is a Soviet satellite. There is no Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution. The Soviets put Deng in power, so China will be less dependent on Soviet aid. China's economy develops as it did OTL.There is no playing the China card. US China relations open up under Reagan, after much lobbying by corporations who want to cash on the lucrative China trade. The atomic bomb is a military secret until 1949, when the Soviets announce they have developed one.

I considered Himmler, but I think the odds of him winning a power struggle are tiny. He just didn't have that big of a force compared to the military, and they hated him with a burning passion. There is also a high probability that he would purge the Heer leadership to consolidate his position. I think they would fight to the death to keep that from happening.
 
I should clarify. I'm not trying to further the clean Heer myth because it's exactly that.

At the same time, the Prussian ideals seemed to have a tremendous impact on the will of the generals to overthrow Hitler, based on the literature I've read.

Such things are powerful; it wasn't as powerful as the brainwashing the Japanese were subjected to, but you know what the IJA was willing to do in the name of loyalty to Hirohito.

It took total military and political defeat to break through the ingrained codes of behavior held by Hindenburg, Imperial Japan, and OTL Nazi Germany.

I really do think it would have happened as I said.

The payments wouldn't have been a counterincentive because the Heer could simply have gifted themselves even greater sums of money if inclined.
I don't see any reason to believe that you are promoting a clean Heer. I do have a problem in that you appear to be butterflying away anything you regard as being a mistake, without considering that there may be reasons why some of those mistakes happened. It is my experience that making misteaks is being human.
At least part of the problem with the IJA is that frequently officers were quite prepared to act without any authorisation from above. No one for example blames the Emperor for the attack on the Panay, its believed that the decision came from further down.
I also have a problem with this idea of yours, that the German Generals could have had loyalty to Hitler, but there was some imponderable something that would have prevented same officers transferring that loyalty to someone else.
Although maybe your belief in their motivations is the missing ingrediant.
 
Top