Poll: When would it be best for hitler to be assinated

What would be the best time for hitler to be assinated.

  • Germany: Pre 1933

    Votes: 57 47.9%
  • Germany: 1933

    Votes: 8 6.7%
  • Germany: 1934-1938

    Votes: 28 23.5%
  • Germany: 1939

    Votes: 18 15.1%
  • Germany: 1940

    Votes: 6 5.0%
  • Germany:1941

    Votes: 7 5.9%
  • Germany:1942

    Votes: 5 4.2%
  • Germany:1943

    Votes: 4 3.4%
  • Germany:1944

    Votes: 5 4.2%
  • Germany:1945

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • World: pre 1933

    Votes: 23 19.3%
  • World 1933

    Votes: 7 5.9%
  • World 1934-1938

    Votes: 22 18.5%
  • World 1939

    Votes: 9 7.6%
  • World 1940

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • World 1941

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • World 1942

    Votes: 2 1.7%
  • World 1943

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • World 1944

    Votes: 3 2.5%
  • World 1945

    Votes: 3 2.5%

  • Total voters
    119

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Perfectgeneral, I agree that Goerg Elser assassination may be a fine (if suboptimal since WWII is already afoot) moment, but what the heck dates you are posting ? The Beer Hall Bomb was on November 8, 1939, not 1935.

:confused::eek:

I won't bother posting here. You don't read the posts properly. My bombing would be in 1935 (for the reasons I stated, but you clearly didn't read).
 

General Zod

Banned
On the other hand, in 1919 to 1921 Poland was a precarious, newly born nation who almost was conquered by the Soviets. So you might want to take that into account when trying to figure out how people voted.

Good point, but even then, German presence in the Corridor clustered in its southern neck, so a district-by-district plebiscite that sees a german victory in the land corridor between Pomerania and East Prussia is far from unreasonable. Most of the Polish majority clustered in the northwestern area of the Corridor, a potential Polish enclave. Therefore,a plebiscite may eaisly result in a land corridor for Germany, and an extraterritorial connection for Poland to the Enclave and Gdynia. The results of the Plebiscite would still be arbitrated by the Great Powers, and if most of the districts in the "neck" vote German, even if not all do, I still see germany and Birtain agreeing to create the land bridge for Germany, if Poland gets the extraterritorial railway and highway. Add editing the border in Upper SIlesia to the Percival-Demarinisa line (which the British-Italians originally proposed in 1921), and a sane fascist germany would fins the outcome satisfying.

Your chosen pod is after 5 years of Nazi Rule have done their damage? Why the frack would you do that?

Because the damage wrought by Nazism up to 1939 is relatively minor and with few truly damning long-term consequences, and I prefer to take the surety of the lesser evil (moderate fascist Germany since 1939) than risk an outcome that could be the best (surviving Weimar) or the absolute worst (Stalinist Germany since the early 1930s). From my PoV, pre-1933 death of Hitler PoD gives me no guarantee that it shall prevent a Communist Germany, quite the contrary, and pan-German 1930s Communism would suck worse for Germany and the world than even OTL Hitler, much so for a moderate Goring Germany. Therefore, IMO, it is better to kill Hitler in 1939 and take a sure lesser evil (moderate fascist Germany), than risk an outcome than could the best (suriving Weimar) or the worst (Communist Germany). Goering was born in 1893 and a shall have poor health (obese, drug addiction) so he likely dies in late 1950s or early 1960s. By that time, the Baby Boom generation is coming around and surely rebelling against the fascist regime, there shall be pressure from the pragmatic-reformist wing for liberalization to redress the economy and education and keep up the step with the USA, so in a few years (early to late 1960s) the regime collapses and Germany returns to democracy. In a decade (ealry to late 1970s) all traces of fascist regime shall disappear and Germany shall be a thriving democracy (just like other ex-fascist European countries) but with no loss of Pomerania, Silesia, Austria, Sudetenland, no division or Communist occupation. Killing Hitler in 1939 almost surely butterflies the Final Solution away (the Jews and Roma find themselves eventually subject to forced emigration) and the euthanasia program was stopped cold by Catholic opposition even under Hitler. The Nazi regime significantly damages education, but that shall be repaired partially first by reforms under the late regime and completely after return to democracy. WWII in Europe either doesn't happen or is fought by Germany in alliance with Western democracies against Stalin.

Other than the Ruhr Occupation, France harbored no hostile intentions towards Germany. Poland did, I admit. But France and Czechoslovakia wouldn't go to war to help Poland.

That was far from clear to 1920s and 1930s Germans, given the Little Entente. Anyway, Germany would need an amount of military supremacy to intimidate France from interfering and Czechoslovakia and Poland into giving back the Sudetenland, Danzig, a land connection to East Prussia, and Upper Silesia, even if Britain and Italy are friendly to Germany. And besides, military parity with France plus Poland and czechosloavakia does not make Germany the master of the continent, since France plus Britain may still be superior. It is France and its clients that need to be cowed, or order to have the latter be forced to give back what they stole. They won't do it willingly. Diplomacy alone won't cut it.

Why would Mussolini or the British do this?

For Mussolini: strong guarantees for Italian South Tyrol, German support for his claims in Yugoslavia and Ethiopia. For the British: they have a strong vested interest in having a detente with a strong, satisfied Germany to balance the Soviets.

Indeed. This is why the Ukraine remains part of Russia, and why Austria and the Sudetenland are still parts of Germany.

Last time I checked, Russia and Ukraine were different nations, and ethnic cleansings can settle any ethnic dspute for good.

The rest of your post displays some rampant nationalism, which is ironic given that you're an American.

ROTFL

Dude, wrong labeling, I'm Italian. My strong geopolitical sympathies for Germany and America both come from the idea that they are the best posed to accomplish great supranational-imperial unifications of their respective continents, and provide effective world leadership. Something I find supremely important.
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
Killing Hitler early and you have the chance of something that will suck for Germany(communist Germany, or Reichswehr junta ruled Germany) or something very good for Germany(surviving Weimar). Killing him in the 30s and you are guaranteed to get something that will suck for Germany(Goring-ruled Germany). It would not redemocratize while that bastard was alive, yes he was less ideological than Hitler and Himmler but he was still a totalitarian. He probably dies in the 50s, Germany shuffles through various military dictators for a while, and eventually returns to democracy.

I'll take my chances and kill Hitler young. Greater risk but greater potential for good. Though preferably I would at the same time cause the survival of a certain German politician of the Weimar period;).

Because the damage wrought by Nazism up to 1939 is relatively minor and with few truly damning long-term consequences, and I prefer to take the surety of the lesser evil (moderate fascist Germany since 1939) than risk an outcome that could be the best (surviving Weimar) or the absolute worst (Stalinist Germany since the early 1930s). From my PoV, pre-1933 death of Hitler PoD gives me no guarantee that it shall prevent a Communist Germany, quite the contrary, and pan-German 1930s Communism would suck worse for Germany and the world than even OTL Hitler, much so for a moderate Goring Germany. Therefore, IMO, it is better to kill Hitler in 1939 and take a sure lesser evil (moderate fascist Germany), than risk an outcome than could the best (suriving Weimar) or the worst (Communist Germany). Goering was born in 1893 and a shall have poor health (obese, drug addiction) so he likely dies in late 1950s or early 1960s. By that time, the Baby Boom generation is coming around and surely rebelling against the fascist regime, there shall be pressure from the pragmatic-reformist wing for liberalization to redress the economy and education and keep up the step with the USA, so in a few years (early to late 1960s) the regime collapses and Germany returns to democracy. In a decade (ealry to late 1970s) all traces of fascist regime shall disappear and Germany shall be a thriving democracy (just like other ex-fascist European countries) but with no loss of Pomerania, Silesia, Austria, Sudetenland, no division or Communist occupation. Killing Hitler in 1939 almost surely butterflies the Final Solution away (the Jews and Roma find themselves eventually subject to forced emigration) and the euthanasia program was stopped cold by Catholic opposition even under Hitler. The Nazi regime significantly damages education, but that shall be repaired partially first by reforms under the late regime and completely after return to democracy. WWII in Europe either doesn't happen or is fought by Germany in alliance with Western democracies against Stalin.
 
Last edited:
In fairness the German communists were, if anything, even more deranged than the Nazis.

They deliberately and specifically embarked on a policy of unofficial cooperation with the Nazis against the Socialist and other entirely respectable centrist and respectable leftist parties, respectable defined as committed to democratic elections. I say deranged because, unlike the Nazis, they appear to never have considered what would happen if the Nazis actually took power or perhaps convinced themselves the state would fall or some such nonsense.

The poll needs to be corrected as different dates come with different beneficiaries. Hard enough to choose without having to evaluate precisely who the beneficiary would be.
 
In fairness the German communists were, if anything, even more deranged than the Nazis.

They deliberately and specifically embarked on a policy of unofficial cooperation with the Nazis against the Socialist and other entirely respectable centrist and respectable leftist parties, respectable defined as committed to democratic elections. I say deranged because, unlike the Nazis, they appear to never have considered what would happen if the Nazis actually took power or perhaps convinced themselves the state would fall or some such nonsense.

It is not fair, neither accurate to blame the KPD for this. The enmity between the SPD and KPD was mutual and natural. The KPD blamed the SPD for working with strike-breakers and helping to cause the death of Liebknecht and Luxemburg, not pushing for a real workers' state and helping capitalist exploitation to continue and in turn the SPD blamed the KPD for wanting to turn Germany into a brutal party dictatorship and threatening a progressive republic.

The criticism that one party should mediate its position just works either way, it doesn't have any useful implications. It's the holder of one position wanting the other to become more like it, the only one being served by it interchangeably the one who is being imitated.

If leaders of either party had actually tried to court the other as an ally I rather think they would have been shooting themselves in the foot. Allying with one other group who your own group hates is not going to make you popular. I can draw out and invert the implication of your 'respectable' description- why would 'respectable' parties want to work with red gutter-trash anyway?

The Nazis and the KPD in any case regarded each other with utter contempt. There were nothing more than the most isolated incidents of 'querfront', and of course the Third Period tu quoque would be that the Social Democrats were collaborating with the more moderate conservatives and creating the ground-conditions for fascism by not helping to destroy the capitalism that sat at its foundation. Hitler's speeches about Jewish-Bolshevism were sincere. If they were not I think you would have to seriously reinterpret the character of Hitler from what is understood. The two may have benefited each other by providing a visible enemy, and they both helped to destabilise Weimar, but that they were secret partners collaborating to destroy the republic is a conspiracy theory.

They possessed ideologies which may not be 'polar opposites' (I would reject trying to find such opposites in such a stupid 'world's smallest political quiz' distortion and reduction) but were fundamentally antithetical. The Marxist view is by nature long-term and political alliances are strategic considerations, not choosing who is contemporarily the lesser evil. Any reader of alternate history should be aware that helping the one you have the best affinity for, destroying the one you hate the most may not be the best way to ensure your victory or that of your ideology. The kill Hitler--> Red Alert occurs is in fact a reflection of this trope.

You may consider Marxism a derangement... God knows enough people do- but it is wrong to suggest tactics which only serve reformist political objectives (a quantitatively better situation for society) to a party which is revolutionary (and wants a fundamentally, qualitatively better situation for society).

If you consistently enter into alliances with Social Democrats for the sake of them being the better kind of what you are going to get at best is a stable Social Democracy. A continuation of capitalism, as a Marxist would regard it.
We Marxists regard Brüning and Hitler, Braun included, as component parts of one and the same system. The question as to which one of them is the “lesser evil” has no sense, for the system we are fighting against needs all these elements. But these elements are momentarily involved in conflicts with one another and the party of the proletariat must take advantage of these conflicts in the interest of the revolution.
This quote is from Trotsky. Naturally his is not the KPD's position- his essay is directed as an attack on it- but I feel it accurately describes some common ground.

I think you are pontificating with the benefit of hindsight. Without the benefit of hindsight, the Third Period theory that essentially 'Capitalism simply must be falling, if it has to resort to putting THESE madmen in power' does have an intuitive appeal. Of course the strategy was completely wrong and Trotsky was right in writing
Should fascism come to power, it will ride over your skulls and spines like a terrific tank.

There are plenty of people who made wrong predictions about Hitler. Fascism was a new phenomenon.

I hope I have been clear and been able to shed some light on this for you.
I think we would agree that the KPD failed to help to prevent Nazi rule because of an egregiously deficient analysis of the situation in Germany.
 
Top