Changed histories: Hitler dead in 1940

I think i'll let myself out then.

..Come to think of it, this is the first forum i was directed to by google, so in a sense yes, i did click the first place i came too, as this seemed best.
 
Last edited:
It is desirable to fix exactly when Hitler dies. I am assuming that your intention is that he dies between the start of the attack on Norway and the fall of France. The first question is who takes over. The later Hitler dies, the better it is for Goering. The Luftwaffe was very successful in both campaigns and I suspect that that would make Goering almost certain to be accepted from late May. The only obvious significant change in the military operations from 10th May to 25th June might involve the famous halt order before Dunkirk. However, it is not at all obvious who did what and whether the panzers could have reached Dunkirk. In fact there must also be butterfly effects but we cannot predict them. So let's assume that we reach 25th June 1940 more or less as OTL but with Goering in charge (although not so firmly in charge). What happens next?

A major problem is that we need to understand Hermann Goering. The popular view is that he was lazy, stupid and addicted to drugs. Maybe. It is also possible that OTL he realised that he was always going to be kept as Hitler's servant and lost some desire to push for his visions. Perhaps taking power would have given him the energy to try to change the world according to his ideas rather than Hitler's. Unfortunately, it is hard to guess exactly what he would have tried to achieve. He might have been biased towards military operations against Britain rather than against the USSR because the Luftwaffe would be the main instrument used against Britain. He might also have been less keen to gamble on a quick victory against the USSR than Hitler as few people in history have gambled more than Hitler. Another question is whether he could have talked more convincingly to American newsmen. Hitler's word was not widely accepted by 1940, so could honest Hermann have presented the gentler face of Nazism?

Finally, in the probable event that Germany loses its war, we can be certain that there will be many saying that Hitler would have done it all so much better.
 
Last edited:
I think this is what you're looking for
writing-fiction-for-dummies.jpg


Don't feel bad, I own this book and hope one day to write a novel myself. Cheers
 
Doesn't Matter

I don't think it matters, after septembre 3rd 1939, Germany was going down. only the details would change.
 
I don't think it matters, after septembre 3rd 1939, Germany was going down. only the details would change.
That sounds plausible. May I try to fill in the details.

Clearly Sealion was not possible, the Blitz would not have broken British morale and it was too late to build enough submarines to win the Battle of the Atlantic. Germany should lose WW2 if the USA becomes involved following nuclear attack in 1945 if nothing else works. Possibilities include something quite similar to OTL following a German attack on the USSR or that the USA enters the war at some point and that subsequently Stalin attacks Germany in 1943-4 to produce a similar 1945 to OTL except that Stalin's reputation for statesmanship is higher and that the USSR has suffered fewer loses or that Stalin just watches until the A-bombs are used. Popular AH divergences include Germany defeating the USSR in 1941-2. There has been plenty of (electronic) ink spilled on whether that is possible. The USA can still win using A-bombs if it has joined the war but might not know that in 1944, especially if there has not been a Pearl Harbor to produce unity. Normally nobody suggests a passive German strategy of not attacking the USSR and pulling the submarines away from American warships to limit risks of incidents because that is not Hitler's character. However, without Hitler, that strategy might leave Britain very tired by 1944.

However, it is not at all clear how some of the above worlds will develop postwar. As I mentioned, even in the OTL-like example, German politics would be different if Hitler was remembered as a genius.
 
Honestly, I think it would be best if you just focused on writing the best story you can. There's an unwritten rule (I think) that if a story is about the story, all plausibility aspects are allowed to slide. If you focus on writing in the history, you will need to study the history of every corner of the world and how it would be affected by Hitler's death. We could give you some broad opinions, bu anything else is out of our ob descriptions, and, really unless you look at the facts and write it yourself, it won' be your story.
 
What does OTL mean?


It stands for "original time line", which you'd already know if you'd done an research beyond a single google search or had read a few threads here before posting.

Also, i'm glad to see that there are some reasonable answers now

I was always glad when someone else did my homework too.

Have you decided yet when in mid-1940 Hitler dies? There are big differences between him having a "brain aneurism" on May 1st, June 1st, or July 1st.

Also, as your use the phrase "brain aneurism" suggests, if you're planning on actually writing a novel, you'll need to pay attention to things like grammar, capitalization, spelling, and so on. The graduate students who slog through the slush piles of unsolicited manuscripts which publishing houses receive daily immediately throw out a manuscript when they spot a spelling error.

Readman's suggestion that you get a copy of "Writing Fiction for Dummies" is one you should heed. I'll point out again that the site has a writer's forum where you can get more specialized help.
 
Top