Decapitation Strike on Nazis in March 1943

An internal assassination attempt on Hitler was planned for 21 March 1943 with Himmler and Goering present but faltered because of bad luck and a shorter tour than planned. Supposing that Hitler were held up at Zeughaus that day and Tresckow succeeded in his suicidal bomb attempt to kill all three, what effect does this have on the war?
 
Bormann vs the Wehrmacht.

Fortunately, Heydrich is dead, but Bormann was ruthless and powerful.

If Germany falls into civil war, then "West Germany" is likely Bavaria at most.

The Junkers are even more delusional about their prospects in 1943 than they were at the time of OTL Valkyrie.
 

Deleted member 1487

Bormann vs the Wehrmacht.

Fortunately, Heydrich is dead, but Bormann was ruthless and powerful.

If Germany falls into civil war, then "West Germany" is likely Bavaria at most.

The Junkers are even more delusional about their prospects in 1943 than they were at the time of OTL Valkyrie.
Borman's power relied completely on being the gatekeeper to Hitler. He'd have lost his entire power base with Hitler dead and was not well liked.
 
The RANKIN plans were not yet written in March 1943? I have no idea if the Brits had any ready plan to take advantage of the Wehrmacht collapsing into chaos. I doubt they had the ability to drop a full airborne brigade on the continent, or more than couple Commandos and maybe a US Ranger battalion. The US 29th ID was in the UK & had done some training for landing in France & there may have been a Commonwealth division capable of a hasty op to seize a lodgment. It may take weeks for the Allies to scratch together a seizure of a port from a confused or demoralized German garrison & follow up would not be fast. Between the two US Inf Div in the UK and Iceland, the Canadians & the Brits there may have been five combat ready divisions in reach, perhaps six. Not much to go on.

In the Med. the Italians are still months from removing Mussolini. In Tunisia the Germans are isolated somewhat from events in the Reich, and the Italians would bolster them a bit. So no immediate collapse there. This march assassination occurs when the German Op MORGENLUFT is winding down in Tunisia. Eisenhower may direct the British led 1st & 8th Armies to initate offensive ops ASAP to take advantage of any German problems in the coming weeks.

If the Brits manage to get it together and seize a port along the French coast sometime in late March or April then my guess is the Med becomes a secondary front while Op BOLERO is frantically ramped up and and any ready ground, air, or naval units in the US are prepped and shipped to the UK or directly to the lodgment in France. About the only thing going for the Brits here is the Germans had already withdrawn most combat ready mechanized forces from France to either the east or to the Mediterranean.
 
Hitler is dead, so is Goering, the designated successor. I don't know who could assert top authority after that. Himmler is also dead. Probably it is some lesser-known figure who is senior in the state apparatus, in part because the various intriguers block each other for the moment.

The Schwarz Kapelle will act within a few days. Many of the senior generals will be happy to see the Nazis put down.

At that point... the neo-German regime (my own term, saves typing) will try to negotiate an end to the war, and will be rebuffed, despite Germany's relatively strong position at this point. The Allies have committed to "unconditional surrender".

As to strategic options, the Germans really don't have any. The biggest remaining opportunity for them is to form the Russian Liberation Army immediately, instead of waiting till late 1944.
 
Firstly the new government would need to convince the W/Allies that they were no longer Nazis. About the only way to do that would be to surrender unconditionally...
 
Yes, but of the Nazi German government. If that government is no more, then what?

Go read the joint declaration. The policy applied to all the Axis powers. Over all it was applied with some minor face saving terms, like the Emperor of Japan remaining as a figurehead. Or the Italian government remaining as a entity, even tho the Allies administered occupied Italy and had control of the residual military. Understand the Allies saw little special about the NSDAP leaders and Germans in general for 90% of the war. They saw the nazis as a symptom, not the cause of the German problem, or the Facisim problem in general.
 
Gouvernments make all sorts of commitments. The Eurozone gouvernments all signed a treaty committing to no-bail outs and no making debts higher than 3% GPD. How did that work out?
In OTL there was never any compelling reason to walk back from "unconditional surrender", you can't just extrapolate from that to other TLs.
The key here IMO is Poland. You know the place that the UK went to war for in the beginning. Their gouvernment in exile can read a map as well as anyone and predict what will happen to Poland if the war is fought until Germany is fully occupied. Also knowing that at some point in the future the gouvernments in the US and UK will have to justify to their constituents sacrificing all those extra men rather than give Germany a few face-saving concessions.
To be clear: I am not suggesting that Germany could get terms anything even near the terms that the new German gouvernment would envision as "reasonable". What I think plausible though is a non-unconditional surrender. One that sees Germany under Allied occupation, but with a few conditions. Getting only Western Occupation forces for one. Something about borders. Perhaps some limit for future reparations. Some few concessions, that if weighed against fighting for two more years mainly for the benefit of the USSR will be offered/accepted.
 
Yes, but of the Nazi German government. If that government is no more, then what?
Still unconditional surrender. There was a strong point of view at the time that the Nazi government was merely a symptom of the inherent Prussian militarism which had been allowed to survive post-Great War, after getting dragged into things for a second time they were going to make damn sure there wasn't a third. Combine it was the German Resistance's quite frankly insane demands and they're going to get turned down flat.
 

Deleted member 1487

Still unconditional surrender. There was a strong point of view at the time that the Nazi government was merely a symptom of the inherent Prussian militarism which had been allowed to survive post-Great War, after getting dragged into things for a second time they were going to make damn sure there wasn't a third. Combine it was the German Resistance's quite frankly insane demands and they're going to get turned down flat.
What's interesting is that even some political elements in Germany believed that too. Adenauer apparently in 1919 thought Prussia needed to be dissolved and the Rheinland made into a separate German federal state (within the Germany) and post-WW2 thought Germany should never again have a capital in Berlin; it has come out even that Adenauer wanted to trade West Berlin for parts of Thuringia and Saxony, which JFK rejected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Adenauer#After_World_War_II_and_the_founding_of_the_CDU
Reflecting his background as a Catholic Rhinelander who had long chafed under Prussian rule, Adenauer believed that Prussianism was the root cause of National Socialism, and that only by driving out Prussianism could Germany become a democracy.[28] In a December 1946 letter, Adenauer wrote that the Prussian state in the early 19th century had become an "almost God-like entity" that valued state power over the rights of individuals.[28] Adenauer's dislike of Prussia even led him to oppose Berlin as a future capital.[29] Adenauer's Sonderweg view of German history, with National Socialism as a natural outgrowth out of Prussianism, sharply contrasted with the views of the Social Democratic leader Kurt Schumacher, who saw National Socialism as a natural outgrowth of capitalism.[30] These two radically differing views of recent German history led Adenauer and Schumacher in turn to recommend very different solutions for a better future. For Schumacher, to banish National Socialism meant replacing the capitalist system with a Marxist socialist system, whereas, for Adenauer, banishing National Socialism meant purging Prussianism.
 
What's interesting is that even some political elements in Germany believed that too. Adenauer apparently in 1919 thought Prussia needed to be dissolved ...

The solution the Russians took, eliminating the Junkers, deGermanizing half of Prussia in favor of the Poles, and eliminating every other overt aspect of Prussian militarism.
 
So, at the end of September the Red Armies offensives have damaged the German position in the east, Italy has lost territory-removed Mussolini-is in Armisitce talks or surrendered, the Allies have a port and growing lodgement in France, and German offers of a cease fire have been rejected in favor of capitulation. What are the good options for the new German government at this point?
 

Deleted member 1487

The solution the Russians took, eliminating the Junkers, deGermanizing half of Prussia in favor of the Poles, and eliminating every other overt aspect of Prussian militarism.
Got to create Communism in Germany somehow and given how conservative East Germany was prior to the Soviet occupation it could only come after wiping out the vestiges of tradition. Plus they wanted to weaken Germany in general.

So, at the end of September the Red Armies offensives have damaged the German position in the east, Italy has lost territory-removed Mussolini-is in Armisitce talks or surrendered, the Allies have a port and growing lodgement in France, and German offers of a cease fire have been rejected in favor of capitulation. What are the good options for the new German government at this point?
At that point it really is more about reconciling themselves and the public to the idea that unconditional surrender was coming no matter what, as was defeat; at what point would they accept that they needed to just surrender to end the death and destruction?
 
Be hell to be a surviving NSDAP leader from this point on. Every other German would be trying to distance themselves from party affairs, and the Blame Game would be a growing thing.
 

Deleted member 1487

Be hell to be a surviving NSDAP leader from this point on. Every other German would be trying to distance themselves from party affairs, and the Blame Game would be a growing thing.
I think IOTL there were still something like 30% of Germans during the occupation that still expressed Nazi beliefs and faith in Hitler. Might be a 'stabbed in the back' narrative about Hitler being betrayed by the losing generals.
 
Top