If Hitler died of illness before the Battle of Moscow, would it be good or bad for the Nazis?

[AdA]

If they play their cards right, sure. But in most crumbling dictatorships, the military trumps the secret police when it comes to a more overt power struggle. As long as it is more about political maneuver than armed conflict or leader assassination then yes, they are is a strong position. That is assuming they don’t break up in their own factions.

The SS didn't just run the secret police. They run the whole police.
And nazi Germany's was not a military dictatorship, it was a political dictatorship, where power is not directly connected to military strength. The Nazis gained control of Germany whiteout using the military, and could keep it without them, with the military just standing by and waiting to see who came out on top.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

They controlled the whole police capability in a paranoid police state. That could count more than military power.

Not in the face of the reserve army, luftwaffe, and navy. Plus a lot of the regular police, even if technically under SS command, wasn't necessarily behind the SS as some were involved with the assassination effort against Hitler later on. Goering would be the lesser evil compared to the SS.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

Obviously a lot would depend upon who took over. I believe Manstein said "He fought a corporal's war". Would the new Fuhrer allowed the generals more authority to run the war? A lot would also depend upon how "peaceful" the transfer of power was. Goering, Himmler, Goebbels and maybe Keitel would all be vying for power.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Obviously a lot would depend upon who took over. I believe Manstein said "He fought a corporal's war". Would the new Fuhrer allowed the generals more authority to run the war? A lot would also depend upon how "peaceful" the transfer of power was. Goering, Himmler, Goebbels and maybe Keitel would all be vying for power.

They might well have to if they have to cut a deal with the army to stay in power. Hitler was the only one besides maybe Goering who was both popular enough with the public to be too much trouble to coup. That and Hitler bribes the generals to stay in line. I wonder if Goering or whomever takes over is able to take over the bribery payments.

 

[Woooinion]

I think that Germany could have benefited from Hitler dying immediately after the surrender of France.

At that point, Germany has a lot to bring to the negotiation table, and having Hitler die could make Germany less of a diplomatic persona non grata.

It was Hitler who broke the treaties that were supposed to prevent the war.
It was Hitler who ordered the invasion of Poland.

Not to say that the other people in leadership weren't complicit. My suggestion is that it would be enough of a fig leaf for the still war weary members of the Allies to accept overtures.

If somewhat sane people took over in the power vacuum, someone could attempt to repeat a Franco-Prussian war style peace.
A normal war, with a normal settlement , not the insanity of WW2 ending in the ruins of Berlin, with Europe maimed for a generation.

Even if Germany didnt get to retake Alsace Loraine, just being allowed to keep the parts of Poland with large German minorities would be a huge gain.

Technically, this falls within the criteria of "Hitler dies before the Battle of Moscow".

...

I cant invision a scenario where Germany benefits from invading a USSR that isnt already in a civil war, or fighting another great power.
Best case Hell-miracle-scenario; they defeat the USSR after enervating their own economy and losing much of their man power.
Then they cant hold onto it because they'll be over stretched, in a world where everyone wants to stop them from consolidating.

Even if they somehow enslave the entire USSR to compensate, they'll soon be faced with the fact that slave labor is inferior to adavanced manufacturing, and insurmountably unstable.
Leaving alone the fact that no one will tolerate the mass-enslavement of Europeans in the 1940s, outside of POWs.
Everyone will be trying to push the maimed drunken giant over.

Germany needs peace before Hitler drags them into his fantasy war with Stalin.

 

[BELFAST]

I think that Germany could have benefited from Hitler dying immediately after the surrender of France.

At that point, Germany has a lot to bring to the negotiation table, and having Hitler die could make Germany less of a diplomatic persona non grata.

It was Hitler who broke the treaties that were supposed to prevent the war.
It was Hitler who ordered the invasion of Poland.

Not to say that the other people in leadership weren't complicit. My suggestion is that it would be enough of a fig leaf for the still war weary members of the Allies to accept overtures.

If somewhat sane people took over in the power vacuum, someone could attempt to repeat a Franco-Prussian war style peace.
A normal war, with a normal settlement , not the insanity of WW2 ending in the ruins of Berlin, with Europe maimed for a generation.

Even if Germany didnt get to retake Alsace Loraine, just being allowed to keep the parts of Poland with large German minorities would be a huge gain.

Technically, this falls within the criteria of "Hitler dies before the Battle of Moscow".

...

I cant invision a scenario where Germany benefits from invading a USSR that isnt already in a civil war, or fighting another great power.
Best case Hell-miracle-scenario; they defeat the USSR after enervating their own economy and losing much of their man power.
Then they cant hold onto it because they'll be over stretched, in a world where everyone wants to stop them from consolidating.

Even if they somehow enslave the entire USSR to compensate, they'll soon be faced with the fact that slave labor is inferior to adavanced manufacturing, and insurmountably unstable.
Leaving alone the fact that no one will tolerate the mass-enslavement of Europeans in the 1940s, outside of POWs.
Everyone will be trying to push the maimed drunken giant over.

Germany needs peace before Hitler drags them into his fantasy war with Stalin.

That is a better position time for Hitler to die.
Hard to see Churchill accepting any peace with Germany short of Germany surrendering.
The Germans could surrender to Petain and get a better deal than from the British.
That might mean the French taking the Channel islands.
That would mean the French de facto controlling Europe for the Atlantic to warsaw.
I do not the British would like that.
Germany surrendering still leaves half of Poland under Soviet control.
Germany's problem is they are running out of oil and are short of food to feed Germany and all the land they occupy.
The need for oil is why Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941.
Germany might be able to avoid a war with America if there is no battle of the Atlantic or battle of Britain.
An even better time for Hitler to die would be after the 1937 Munich deal after Germany takes the Sudetenland.
Now if Germany gets rid of fascist economics and abandons autarky then the Nation socialists could survive as the government of Germany at least until Stalin decides to invade.
The British and French would not want Stalin taking Germany so would need to go to war to defend Germany.

 

[Retro_Reaction]

The heer junta would be smart enough to avoid turning anti Semitism into genocide. A Madagascar homeland support for Palestine. Help the anti communist russians instead of enslaving them to starve. A hess style peace would at least be proposed;.

I am not one hundred percent on the anti Semitic issue.

However, I fundamentally disagree on the idea that a Germany led by a military junta would be any more peaceful to the Slavic population of Eastern Europe.
The idea of Lebensraum was directly rooted in the defeat of Germany due to blockade and a drive for autarky. Germany’s borders simply did not have the resources to maintain a modern Germany when cut off from the wider world.

I think this is a misconception that a lot of people have. The Nazi's Brutality wasn't just part of their ideology, it was certainly justified by it, but there is just simply no way to run a total war with the resources that germany had without the brutal occupation policies they inflicted. They essentially looted the land to keep their war machine running, and while Russians, Cossacks, Ukrainians etc never got national autonomy, they were still vital to the day to day running of each village, tax collection and even fighting the war with hilfiswillingers making up a huge percentage of some units.

Up until the 1980s and the widespread adoption of GMO grains and modern herbicides; I believe only ten countries on earth produce enough food to feed themselves, the three I can confirm are Australia, Canada and the USA, I wouldn't be surprised if the other 7 are also part of the allies. Every soldier the Nazis had fighting was not working on farms back home and was essentially a net loss, meaning it had to be made up by stripping resources from the local population.

I'm not justifying the Nazi policies, I just think that the material and logistical realities of war are often overlooked. I don't think any Western European country, no matter their political outlook, that was blockaded from resources could have successfully fought the war in the USSR without resorting to brutality.

 

[AdA]

Not in the face of the reserve army, luftwaffe, and navy. Plus a lot of the regular police, even if technically under SS command, wasn't necessarily behind the SS as some were involved with the assassination effort against Hitler later on. Goering would be the lesser evil compared to the SS.

I don't think it would come to a fight. Not in 1941. It would all be done in a short, contained burst of political maneuvering with which hunts rather than battles. In Nazism manipulation of the people counted more than pure repression. It was not purely built on murders, but also on lies. The SS would be the better liars, and had the police state lie making machine up and running in their hands for years.

 

[electric guy 25]

If I was to regard the original poster's question as what if Hitler died during the Kiev mop up of natural causes

All I can say for sure is that Goering becomes leader, as per Hitler's wishes, which at least to that point would hold enough public support to not tip the cart in the war effort

The question we come across is would Goering pursue the historical Briansk offensive and final dead on feet push to Moscow

Stalin, more than once to that point had put a toe in the water for peace at the outset of the war. With the Germans completely capturing the Kiev military district, Stalin may take the opportunity due to the change in German leadership to see if Goering would be receptive to a peace treaty

Most historians regard Goering as less of a true believer in the need for total racial end of humanity war in the east. Flush with victory at Kiev and perhaps wanting to establish his own military legend as leader of Germany, he might be even more inclined that Hitler was to list to the false promises of Guderian and Halder that the army could capture Moscow by the end of the year... or alternatively he could see the war as largely won and accept a favorable peace to give himself a free hand to try and decide the campaign against the western allies. My best guess is the former and we see a slightly less clumsy version of the original end of 1941 timeline

 

[marktaha]

I think he'd have given the generals a free hand to take Moscow and then been willing to essentially declare victory and make a deal.

 

[BELFAST]

If I was to regard the original poster's question as what if Hitler died during the Kiev mop up of natural causes

All I can say for sure is that Goering becomes leader, as per Hitler's wishes, which at least to that point would hold enough public support to not tip the cart in the war effort

The question we come across is would Goering pursue the historical Briansk offensive and final dead on feet push to Moscow

Stalin, more than once to that point had put a toe in the water for peace at the outset of the war. With the Germans completely capturing the Kiev military district, Stalin may take the opportunity due to the change in German leadership to see if Goering would be receptive to a peace treaty

Most historians regard Goering as less of a true believer in the need for total racial end of humanity war in the east. Flush with victory at Kiev and perhaps wanting to establish his own military legend as leader of Germany, he might be even more inclined that Hitler was to list to the false promises of Guderian and Halder that the army could capture Moscow by the end of the year... or alternatively he could see the war as largely won and accept a favorable peace to give himself a free hand to try and decide the campaign against the western allies. My best guess is the former and we see a slightly less clumsy version of the original end of 1941 timeline

Göring I think would accept a deal from Stalin.
That would buy the national socialists a few years more years than OTL at least.
Germany now has access to good farmland and oil from what is left of the Soviet Union.
The Germans will have a big job upgrade road and railways in the new lands.
With upgraded railways, the Germans might have a chance of supplying the armies in the eastern front enough to hold what they have taken if Stalin goes on the offensive later.

 

[Retro_Reaction]

Göring I think would accept a deal from Stalin.
That would buy the national socialists a few years more years than OTL at least.
Germany now has access to good farmland and oil from what is left of the Soviet Union.
The Germans will have a big job upgrade road and railways in the new lands.
With upgraded railways, the Germans might have a chance of supplying the armies in the eastern front enough to hold what they have taken if Stalin goes on the offensive later.

I think the problem with peace talks, is that it needs both parties to see it as mutually beneficial.

If the Nazis are winning then peace is beneficial to the Soviets because it stops them, but the Nazis have nothing to lose by continuing the war. If the Nazis are losing then peace is beneficial to them since it’ll stop them losing gains, but the Soviets receive no benefit from ceasing their war.
The post WW2 geopolitical realities of not being able to defeat an insurgent enemy due to not being able to cut off supplies and grind their manpower/logistics to dust for fear of nuclear war, resulting in endless conflicts and making peace talks viable alternatives for both parties doesn’t exist by 1941/1942.

 

[James Ricker]

Hitler ordered I'm a group center to hold its ground during the Russian winter offensive
If army group center tried to retreat, with the German logistical situation at the time army group center would have been destroyed a few years earlier than in OTL.In OTL the Soviets came pretty close to cutting off a good portion of army group center

 

[BELFAST]

I think the problem with peace talks, is that it needs both parties to see it as mutually beneficial.

If the Nazis are winning then peace is beneficial to the Soviets because it stops them, but the Nazis have nothing to lose by continuing the war. If the Nazis are losing then peace is beneficial to them since it’ll stop them losing gains, but the Soviets receive no benefit from ceasing their war.
The post WW2 geopolitical realities of not being able to defeat an insurgent enemy due to not being able to cut off supplies and grind their manpower/logistics to dust for fear of nuclear war, resulting in endless conflicts and making peace talks viable alternatives for both parties doesn’t exist by 1941/1942.

Germany might seem to be winning as the approached Moscow but were at the end of long supply lines and in danger of complete collapse.
A good time for a peace deal for the Germans.
Soviets are not in good shape either and to them, the Germans are looking unstoppable. So a good time for a peace deal for them.
Göring is not going to declare war on America.

 

[Jürgen]

Honestly I can only really see Göring among the Nazi replace Hitler in 1941, SS could in theory do a lot thing but the problem is that if SS do that, it would be seen a illegitimate and the army would have to intervene and would likely set up a “neutral” candidate (which likely means a member of the army). Of course Göring would have to compromise he lacked the legitimacy of Hitler.

We would see atrocities going on, but with the German civil service and Nazi leadership playing a game of chairs. The scum at top have changed and the nature and scale of the atrocities will change according to the new personalities which will be in charge. Maybe one of the new guys want a “independent“ Ukraine as example that will make the Regime change their actions there. Maybe someone think it’s better to wait with the Final Solution until after the victory and the Jewish Genocide will mainly be local massacres by military forces.