"Reichsmarschall - the Führer is dead. Long live the Führer!"

That's pretty interesting.
I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but is it possible that he went from asset to liability to asset again? Could he have been useful early in the war having established the state and reformed the army, then been a liability as he micromanaged the war into a quicker defeat, then become somewhat of an asset again mostly as a rallying figure whilst in the bunker?

Hitler was never a military asset to Germany. In the latter part of the war - without Hitler, Germany could have fought better, but would have surrendered.

So no Barbarossa then. If negotiations are refused does he just keep going with the British and leave Molotov-Ribbentrop intact?

This assumes Hitler is dead in late 1940-early 1941. Goering's war policy would be to continue the blitz on Britain, trying to force Britain to make peace. (As head of the Luftwaffe that's his obvious choice.) A lot more damage, but Churchill isn't bending.
 
Hitler was never a military asset to Germany. In the latter part of the war - without Hitler, Germany could have fought better, but would have surrendered.

Well maybe he wasn't any good at directing military strategy, but I meant that his original "asset" status would involve him being bold and politically powerful enough to break the Treaty of Versailles and subsequent agreements made in the appeasement period etc.
 
Top