March 21, 1943 assassination attempt succeeds

Anchises

Banned
In 1943 there were two attempts on Hitler's live.

170px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1976-130-51,_Rudolf-Christoph_v._Gersdorff.jpg


On March 21 this guy, Rudolf-Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff, was willing to kill Hitler in a suicide bombing after a previous attempt to blow up Hitler's plane failed.

An exhibition on captured Soviet weapons opened in Berlin and Freiherr von Gersdorff was the technical expert to explain the various weapons systems to the Nazi leaders. Hitler left early and von Gersdorff had to defuse his explosives IOTL.

What if Hitler would have stayed longer and von Gersdorff would have managed to gather around him all the Nazi leaders,present at the exibition before, his explosives detonate?

In the best case scenario Hitler, Göring, Himmler, Keitel and Dönitz would have been killed.

One guy would have gutted senior Nazi leadership. There was no plan for a Valkyrie-like coup attempt to my knowledge, so it is really unclear what would have happened next.

Who would gain power in Germany? How would the WAllies and the Soviets react? What course would WW2 take? Would this be the end of the Holocaust?
 
Last edited:
.... a previous attempt to blow up Hitler's plane failed.

The plotters were extremely unlucky that time. The bomb just didn't go off.

What if Hitler would have stayed longer and von Gersdorff would have managed to gather around him all the Nazi leaders present at the exibition before his explosives detonate?

Or, after the previous failure, forget the bomb and just use a pistol, concealed at first.

In the best case scenario Hitler, Göring, Himmler, Keitel and Dönitz would have been killed.

Adolf and Himmler probably would've been enough. Keital was no politician, nor Donitz and Goering's prestige was way down.

Who would gain power in Germany?

I'm sure the plot was known to a wider circle which must've had a plan, but don't recall details.

How would the WAllies and the Soviets react? What course would WW2 take? Would this be the end for the Holocaust?


The holocaust would've ended if Himmler went with adolf, and an anti-nazi regime appeared. The Soviets might've negotiated; though the western allies may not have.
 

Anchises

Banned
The plotters were extremely unlucky that time. The bomb just didn't go off.

Or, after the previous failure, forget the bomb and just use a pistol, concealed at first.

Adolf and Himmler probably would've been enough. Keital was no politician, nor Donitz and Goering's prestige was way down.

I'm sure the plot was known to a wider circle which must've had a plan, but don't recall details.

The holocaust would've ended if Himmler went with adolf, and an anti-nazi regime appeared. The Soviets might've negotiated; though the western allies may not have.

1) Yeah, due to the low temperature in the planes storage area.

2) Doesn't really matter how he succeeds. He might have had some reasons to not use a pistol.

3) I wouldn't underestimate Keitel, Göring or Dönitz. They could have served as a rallying point for Nazi loyalists. Göring still was the official successor.

4) I have seen a documentary about the military resistance. Several interviews with surviving members or their family were shown. IIRC their main goal in 1943 was to save the reputation of the Wehrmacht.

I am certain they had some ideas but even their far more developed Valkyrie plan had large holes.
 
1) Yeah, due to the low temperature in the planes storage area.

That was the reason? IIRC the bomb was designed so acid ate away at a wire, causing a hammer to strike the explosive and touch it off. It did strike but nothing happened.

2) Doesn't really matter how he succeeds. He might have had some reasons to not use a pistol.

Like a big explosion could kill Adolf and his entourage instantly, whereas someone might see him pull out a pistol and stop him. Still, it seems better to me.

3) I wouldn't underestimate Keitel, Göring or Dönitz. They could have served as a rallying point for Nazi loyalists. Göring still was the official successor.

Yeah but IIRC that was before his prestige and popularity declined a lot.

I am certain they had some ideas but even their far more developed Valkyrie plan had large holes.

Well, considering the straits the reich was in then, you'd think a new regime would have gotten adequate support, notably from those who knew best just how precarious the situation had become.
 
Let us imagine that he was very successful = Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Keitel and Donitz. That would leave a vacuum.

so it could go either one of two different ways:

Kaltenbrunner (SS) takes over = it gets worse!
Army takes over: (who?) Manstein, Guderian, old guard?
Old government people come back?

March 1943 is before Kursk, so if Kursk gets cancelled, there is a chance that the eastern front will fizzle.

Overlord is only being planned. Could it be called off to see what Germany would do?

Interesting topic

Ivan
 
We will probably see at least a short civil war between the SS und the Werhmacht,probably decided by the latter if they can avoid being pinned as the ones to kill Hitler. because face it,the führer was still popular at the time,and "we killed the tyrant" won't fly. The 20 july plot of a full year (which was full of catastrophes) later saw its perpetrators face very real outrage,and they were widely considered traitor scum even long after the war.

also,don't be too optimistic about the war ending and atrocities too even if the "moderates" win. the national conservative anti-nazi circles still supported the general idea of "conquer the east" and "get those jews away from us",even if not with the radical consequence of the Nazis. Again,even the stauffenberg group a full year later,in a much worse position,pictured utterly outlandish demands for peace,or even wanted to continue the war.
 

Anchises

Banned
That was the reason? IIRC the bomb was designed so acid ate away at a wire, causing a hammer to strike the explosive and touch it off. It did strike but nothing happened.

Like a big explosion could kill Adolf and his entourage instantly, whereas someone might see him pull out a pistol and stop him. Still, it seems better to me.

Yeah but IIRC that was before his prestige and popularity declined a lot.

Well, considering the straits the reich was in then, you'd think a new regime would have gotten adequate support, notably from those who knew best just how precarious the situation had become.

1) IIRC it is suspected that the bomb went off but nothing happened because something critical was frozen due to the low temperatures. There is no safe information what actually happened though.

2) Probably. The British mines von Gersdorff used also were probably easier to conceal.

3) Inofficially he was demoted but officially he was still the successor. Assuming that Hitler and Himmler dies this is still worth a lot in the chaos bound to follow.

With Hitler, Himmler, Göring, Keitel and Dönitz dead there is no one with the official authority to assume command.

4) One might think so but even during Valkyrie a lot of officers were indecisive.

Let us imagine that he was very successful = Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Keitel and Donitz. That would leave a vacuum.

so it could go either one of two different ways:

Kaltenbrunner (SS) takes over = it gets worse!
Army takes over: (who?) Manstein, Guderian, old guard?
Old government people come back?

March 1943 is before Kursk, so if Kursk gets cancelled, there is a chance that the eastern front will fizzle.

Overlord is only being planned. Could it be called off to see what Germany would do?

Interesting topic

Ivan

I really don't see Kaltenbrunner taking over alone. The SS in 1943 simply wasn't influential enough and it is not guaranteed that the whole Waffen-SS falls in line behind him. He would probably work with other Nazis to establish an ideologically pure National Socialist government.


Imho this POD is really interesting. Potentially a lot of people could live compared to OTL could live. The Germans still hold a few valuable cards in potential peace negotiations and the worst years of the Holocaust might not happen.

A post-war world could be really interesting for a number of reasons.
 
also,don't be too optimistic about the war ending and atrocities too even if the "moderates" win. the national conservative anti-nazi circles still supported the general idea of "conquer the east" and "get those jews away from us",even if not with the radical consequence of the Nazis. Again,even the stauffenberg group a full year later,in a much worse position,pictured utterly outlandish demands for peace,or even wanted to continue the war.

Very much agreed. Remember this comes after the demand for unconditional surrender at Casablanca.

Really it's an issue with a lot of Hitler assassination timelines. The only peace terms the Allies would be willing accept are ones ANY German government would be unable to sign unless the tanks were outside the door.
 
Markus Reichardt wrote an alternative history "The Valkyrie Option" which has that plot succeed. I enjoyed reading that ebook. One of the things that was interesting was seeing the new German government come to terms with the fact that they had very few options in their negotiations with the West.

Does anyone know of other alternative histories when the one of the plots against Hitler succeed?

Thank you
 

Anchises

Banned
We will probably see at least a short civil war between the SS und the Werhmacht,probably decided by the latter if they can avoid being pinned as the ones to kill Hitler. because face it,the führer was still popular at the time,and "we killed the tyrant" won't fly. The 20 july plot of a full year (which was full of catastrophes) later saw its perpetrators face very real outrage,and they were widely considered traitor scum even long after the war.

also,don't be too optimistic about the war ending and atrocities too even if the "moderates" win. the national conservative anti-nazi circles still supported the general idea of "conquer the east" and "get those jews away from us",even if not with the radical consequence of the Nazis. Again,even the stauffenberg group a full year later,in a much worse position,pictured utterly outlandish demands for peace,or even wanted to continue the war.

Ehhh, if Himmler dies I really don't see a civil war happening between the SS and Wehrmacht. Sure, some blood might be spilled but without Himmler in 1943 the SS can't really challenge the Wehrmacht.

The National Conservatives certainly weren't saints. They were undemocratic, imperialistic and antisemitic sure. The atrocities of the Nazi regime were part of what motivated their resistance (besides losing). If they end up in power (which isn't guaranteed) the Holocaust won't continue.

Very much agreed. Remember this comes after the demand for unconditional surrender at Casablanca.

Really it's an issue with a lot of Hitler assassination timelines. The only peace terms the Allies would be willing accept are ones ANY German government would be unable to sign unless the tanks were outside the door.

Well the NatCons certainly don't get the "peace in the West free hand in the East" deal they want. That is sure.

But in 1943 there are options.

Stalin might consider a machiavellian peace. He knows that defeating the Germans will cost him millions of soldiers, this is pre-Kursk after all. He could settle for pre-war borders, sure he is going to step the Germans in the back but if the WAllies and Germany exhaust each other he is the laughing third man.

If this happens the WAllies might rethink unconditional surrender because conditional surrender sounds a lot more attractive without the Soviet front...
 
The Allies are not going to agree to any peace terms that the successors to Hitler would agree to. Until the end nobody was really talking to a return to the 1938 borders, and the Poles, Russians, Czechs, etc were not going to give up demands for reparations and trials of "criminals". Even the Valkyrie plotters were squishy on things like undoing the Anschluß, Sudentenland, etc. Absent Grofaz, the Germans are going to do better militarily. In 1943 the germans are in a position to deal with Stalin if he wants to, but would not go back to the pre-1939 borders and I doubt Stalin would accept loss of "Soviet" territory, even the Baltic States and Eastern Poland. IMHO those Jews already in the death camps would mostly end up dead, conditions in slave labor camps might improve a little maybe. The massive efforts to round up and deport Jews to the death camps would stop, both because the killing machinery was not continuing and because it was a drain on the economy. However the ghettoization and plundering of the Jews in occupied territory would continue. All of this assumes that Himmler and the Ss fanatics don't win out, if they do the Holocaust continues.

By 1943 Hitler's death does not result in the war ending with a "conservative" government in an unoccupied Germany, very likely joined with Austria. Jews and others destined for the camps probably survive in larger numbers, but the more effective Wehrmacht results in more deaths of others, and atomic mushrooms sprout in Germany.
 
Ehhh, if Himmler dies I really don't see a civil war happening between the SS and Wehrmacht. Sure, some blood might be spilled but without Himmler in 1943 the SS can't really challenge the Wehrmacht.

The National Conservatives certainly weren't saints. They were undemocratic, imperialistic and antisemitic sure. The atrocities of the Nazi regime were part of what motivated their resistance (besides losing). If they end up in power (which isn't guaranteed) the Holocaust won't continue.



Well the NatCons certainly don't get the "peace in the West free hand in the East" deal they want. That is sure.

But in 1943 there are options.

Stalin might consider a machiavellian peace. He knows that defeating the Germans will cost him millions of soldiers, this is pre-Kursk after all. He could settle for pre-war borders, sure he is going to step the Germans in the back but if the WAllies and Germany exhaust each other he is the laughing third man.

If this happens the WAllies might rethink unconditional surrender because conditional surrender sounds a lot more attractive without the Soviet front...

A Machiavellian peace would be one in which the choice is made with ruthless pragmatism... and I'm far from convinced abandoning a war that even in March 1943 was shifting in favour of the Soviets is the pragmatic position.
 

Anchises

Banned
A Machiavellian peace would be one in which the choice is made with ruthless pragmatism... and I'm far from convinced abandoning a war that even in March 1943 was shifting in favour of the Soviets is the pragmatic position.

If they get a good deal out of it why not? A return to the status quo ante and plenty of time to prepare a nasty "backstabbing" and as an added bonus the Capitalists and Fascists are weakening each other.

Evidently Stalin had no intentions for peaceful cooperation with the WAllies. Conserving strength would be a smart move. 1943/44/45 inflicted terrible losses on the Soviets that really screwed their starting position for the Cold War. Letting the Americans bleed on the shores of France while the Russians can start rebuilding is well worth the loss of Lend and Lease imho.
 
March 1943 is before Kursk, so if Kursk gets cancelled, there is a chance that the eastern front will fizzle.

Huh? Why would that happen? Even if Citadel falls through, most of the German generals were themselves committed to an attack and needed no urging from Hitler to reach that decision. So far from fizzling, an attack is liable to be mounted somewhere at sometime on the Eastern Front.

Even if, for some reason, we assume that the German military does a 180, the idea of the Eastern Front promptly fizzling rather ignores the glaring problem of the Red Army. The defensive preparations the Soviets committed to Kursk for precluded them launching major offensive operations elsewhere from March until July. German offensive plans also delayed and weakened Soviet offensive forces, and channeled their attacks into areas of German strength. Given that the Russians actually already had significant superiority in forces in March, its entirely possible that if there had been no threat of a German offensive they would have attacked much earlier, and with success, starting a major push west months before it happened historically. Thus it has to be considered that things could go worse for the Germans once they let the Russians have free reign on where and when they strike. Possibly much worse.

1943/44/45 inflicted terrible losses on the Soviets that really screwed their starting position for the Cold War. Letting the Americans bleed on the shores of France while the Russians can start rebuilding is well worth the loss of Lend and Lease imho.

The losses which "screwed the Soviets starting position for the Cold War" were those inflicted in 1941-42, not those in '43-45, which was overall a time of economic recovery for the USSR. Those were eminently sustainable. Instead, the securing of Eastern Europe in 1944 made the USSR even more powerful then it would have been otherwise. Given Stalin's recognition post-Stalingrad and especially post-Kursk that he has the upper-hand, he doesn't really have much incentive to strike a deal.
 

Anchises

Banned
The losses which "screwed the Soviets starting position for the Cold War" were those inflicted in 1941-42, not those in '43-45, which was overall a time of economic recovery for the USSR. Those were eminently sustainable. Instead, the securing of Eastern Europe in 1944 made the USSR even more powerful then it would have been otherwise. Given Stalin's recognition post-Stalingrad and especially post-Kursk that he has the upper-hand, he doesn't really have much incentive to strike a deal.

How were even more losses after the losses of 1941-42 sustainable regarding the Soviet position in the Cold War?

And Stalin could still secure Eastern Europe by pulling a Halifax, a short peace/ceasefire as a breather, while WAllies and Nazis fight and then swooping into Eastern Europe with much smaller losses.
 
How were even more losses after the losses of 1941-42 sustainable regarding the Soviet position in the Cold War?

Because they were purely in manpower and far lower too boot, below replacement capacity. All Soviet economic losses were suffered in 1941-42, when the Soviets were losing territory, and the massive resources within them, to the Germans.

And Stalin could still secure Eastern Europe by pulling a Halifax, a short peace/ceasefire as a breather, while WAllies and Nazis fight and then swooping into Eastern Europe with much smaller losses.

I think Stalin's a canny enough man to realize that respite could work both ways and that if he can make peace with Nazis Germany, so too can the WAllies, so it's more to his benefit to push the advantage he knows he has now rather then waiting on maybe still having the advantage in a years or so time. Pushing the advantage would also cause the Soviets to grow stronger as it re/takes land, gains access to more resources, and weakens the Germans as their forces are destroyed and they lose resources. This is leaving aside the fact that Hitler's successors (even the Nazis ones) were as uninterested in making peace with the Soviets as Hitler was.

Not to mention that negotiations will take a considerable amount of time and if the Germans mount an early-Citadel-esque attack, they'll fail and then succumb to the Soviet counter-offensive months ahead of time. Alternatively, they call off Citadel and the Soviets are the ones who are able to take the offensive, except with success given their superiority in forces. Either would rather ruin Stalin's already-limited taste for any compromise peace.
 
Last edited:

Anchises

Banned
Because they were purely in manpower and far lower too boot, below replacement capacity. All Soviet economic losses were suffered in 1941-42, when the Soviets were losing territory, and the massive resources within them, to the Germans.



I think Stalin's a canny enough man to realize that respite could work both ways and that if he can make peace with Nazis Germany, so too can the WAllies, so it's more to his benefit to push the advantage he knows he has now rather then waiting on maybe still having the advantage in a years or so time. Pushing the advantage would also cause the Soviets to grow stronger as it re/takes land, gains access to more resources, and weakens the Germans as their forces are destroyed and they lose resources. This is leaving aside the fact that Hitler's successors (even the Nazis ones) were as uninterested in making peace with the Soviets as Hitler was.

Not to mention that negotiations will take a considerable amount of time and if the Germans mount an early-Citadel-esque attack, they'll fail and then succumb to the Soviet counter-offensive months ahead of time. Alternatively, they call off Citadel and the Soviets are the ones who are able to take the offensive, except with success given their superiority in forces. Either would rather ruin Stalin's already-limited taste for any compromise peace.

1) Fair enough but don't you think the massibe manpower losses also hampered the Soviet economy in the post-war era?

2) Good points. On the other hand Stalin was paranoid, I don't think it is outlandish to assume that he could try to preempt a peace between the WAllies and the new German government.

His view here is clouded from ideology and I don't think that he would trust the Capitalists.
 
1) Fair enough but don't you think the massibe manpower losses also hampered the Soviet economy in the post-war era?

To a limited degree but I think they were offset by the liberation of Soviet territory and conquest of Eastern Europe. I think the manpower losses of 1941-42, which constitute the majority, were the greater weight as well as the economic losses of the time were much more severe and those weren't completely made good until 1955 or so (although some sectors recovered much faster then others).

2) Good points. On the other hand Stalin was paranoid, I don't think it is outlandish to assume that he could try to preempt a peace between the WAllies and the new German government.

His view here is clouded from ideology and I don't think that he would trust the Capitalists.

He didn't trust the capitalists as it was, yet he still stuck with them. While it is true that Stalin never believed cooperation after the war was possible on anything but the most temporary basis, but during the war he certainly believed that so long as they were in it together against Germany the alliance could last. But just as much part of the problem is that I doubt that Hitler's successors, whether they be fellow Nazis or the conservatives, would be willing to concede to even his most minimal demands (which was the return to the 1941 borders and the Germans paying everything they promised in the '39-'40 trade deals) and events on the frontline are liable to get away from them.

It's not an outright impossibility, but I do think it's extremely improbable.
 
Top