What if Hitler dies in July or August of 1940?

OK, So the Nazis had pretty much won the war in Western Europe by that point. The only thing that really lost them the overall war was their bringing in two powers against them that could have easily remained non-belligerent against Nazi Germany for the foreseeable future.


I don't know who the actual designated Nazi successor would've been at that moment in history, but it seems unlikely they would've been stupid enough to launch Barbarossa under the circumstances that Hitler did. Further, would the UK have been more inclined to make peace with a different leader?

Also, Hitler's reputation as hugely successful conqueror would've seemed assured had he died shortly after the conquest of France, no?

This board seems to be biased toward the idea that it would've been difficult for the Nazis to "win" in a decisive sense given the historical realities, but that's because of Hitler's personality and the realities of the USSR and the USA aligned against them.

I think this scenario avoids that, because a reasonable successor could've been content with the restoration of Germany as the dominant power in Western Europe and the consolidations of the gains of '39-'40.
 
OK, So the Nazis had pretty much won the war in Western Europe by that point.

They'd won the war against France, but Britain was still in the fight. If you consider the might of the British Empire the war was far from won.

The only thing that really lost them the overall war was their bringing in two powers against them that could have easily remained non-belligerent against Nazi Germany for the foreseeable future.

Stalin would have attacked Germany when the Soviet Union had unquestionable military superiority, so the Soviets could probably only be kept out until 1943-44. If Germany keeps up it's policy of unrestricted submarine warfare then the US will also enter eventually.

I don't know who the actual designated Nazi successor would've been at that moment in history, but it seems unlikely they would've been stupid enough to launch Barbarossa under the circumstances that Hitler did. Further, would the UK have been more inclined to make peace with a different leader?

Rudolph Hess, they guy who flew to Britian to try and make peace. Bascially just as Crazy as Hitler.

This board seems to be biased toward the idea that it would've been difficult for the Nazis to "win" in a decisive sense given the historical realities, but that's because of Hitler's personality and the realities of the USSR and the USA aligned against them.

I think this scenario avoids that, because a reasonable successor could've been content with the restoration of Germany as the dominant power in Western Europe and the consolidations of the gains of '39-'40.

You're right about how the Nazis will always lose the war due to the alignment of the Soviet Union and the USA against them but those aren't going to change just because another Nazi gets the crown or any leader who doesn't immediately make a peace agrreing to revert back to 1939 borders. In Stalins case even that won't change anything.
 
I agree with OP, I don't think that Germany was doomed to lose.
I've always found it rather amazing how these so called "world wars" were basicly Germany vs everyone, how hard they fought and how long they lasted.

I think that IF Hitler died in June 1940 and was replaced with a highly competent ruler then they ought to be able to do much better than OTL.
Maybe if such a leader could settle on a pre 1918 border in the east and only claim that in a peace treaty, then Britain might settle for that, especially if low intensity war drags on for a long time, while the soviets arm themselves and build up their military to superpower strengths.

That might take the heat of the germans a little and turn peoples attention towards the communist threat. Later in the annals of history WWII is remembered as just another war between Germany and France, which was won quickly and decisively by the germans.

Also I don't think that the USA joining the war was inevitable, sure FDR was looking for an excuse to declare a war, but in the end and even after Pearl Harbor it was Germany that declared war on USA.

Imagine if someone competent had been in charge in Germany, and not that insane asshole that we call Hitler, someone that would have used Pearl Harbor as an opportunity to declare war on Japan and send the sincerest of condolences to the american people for their loss.
I think it would have been hard for FDR to rally up public support for a war against germany if something like that had happened.

Then, when the soviets finally feel ready to attack the germans, which I have a feeling would be never, then Germany might even have achieved peace in the west and be ready to fight the soviets with all their might in a defensive war, maybe they would even receive aid from the allies.

Which do you think that the western allies would prefer, a single communist state ruling the majority of the european continent, or a nazi dominated pre 1918 borders Germany?

I think that this is especially plausible if the successor to Hitler is more tolerant and less inclined to send millions of skilled workers to the death camps, that is the less of a nazi he is, the better.
 
oh and I believe I forgot to mention it, but of course there being a compotent successor is a huge IF, and from Red's post I understand that's not the case. Anyway, for the sake of the arguement then lets just assume for my post that Hitler and Rudolph Hess were fucking each other on a plane which crashed :D and that someone competent took over.
 
I don't know who the actual designated Nazi successor would've been at that moment in history, but it seems unlikely they would've been stupid enough to launch Barbarossa under the circumstances that Hitler did.

My take is that....

Hilter's NAZI ideaology successor would have been Heydrich or Himmler (though Heydrich may have been already killed by the Czech resistance).
But.... there is a relatively good chance that the German General staff would have over ruled Himmler or Heydrich as a successor and created a military junta.

The junta still launches Barbossa (got to get Stalin before he gets you) but the junta is less hard core NAZI. The invasion does not bring massive and senseless NAZI ideaology fueled atrocities against Russians, Ukrainian, Belorussian etc civilians.

The result... hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens fight with the Germans. The Soviet government collapses due to internal revolts and German military victories. Western Soviet Union becomes German colonies. With the Soviets knocked out, Britain agrees to a negotiated cease fire.
 
Why was Stalin going to eventually turn on Hitler? In OT, he was stunned when Hitler turned on HIM, as they'd been cooperating up until the launching of the invasion in June '41. I understand Zhukov had been designing a pre-emptive strike but only because of his suspicion of a Nazi invasion. Had Hess or a new regime made it clear they had NO plans in the foreseeable future to invade, I don't see why Stalin wants to turn on Germany. He was a cynical realist at heart, not an ideologue like Hitler.


I didn't forget the UK's involvement, but they could've done practically nothing in an offensive sense to bring down Nazi Germany without another major power's help. They could defend THEMSELVES from invasion sure, but they couldn't win a war that way, nor did Churchill intend for them to.

The strain on Britain would've become serious enough without the entry of the USSR or USA that I can't see how they avoid having to at least enter negotiations after a while.

And like another poster mentioned, what if Hess had started an openly CONCILIATORY policy toward the U.S., with no declaration of war after Pearl Harbor? How does FDR get a "Defeat Germany first" strategy with no overtly hostile Nazi leader and no second front in the form of USSR military involvement? They'd likely concentrate on the Pacific War and that's it.
 
Why was Stalin going to eventually turn on Hitler? In OT, he was stunned when Hitler turned on HIM, as they'd been cooperating up until the launching of the invasion in June '41

I think Stalin was stunned that Hitler had turned on him so quickly, he was not stunned by the attack per se. Stalin was going to eventually turn on Hiter because at the end of the day, there could only be one dominate power and only one dominate political system in continental Europe.

Then factor in that there were many ethnic Germans in the Baltic states and that Estonia and Latvia had cultural ties to Germany. Though Germany let Stalin have them, if Stalin wanted to keep them for the long term, right wing Germany had to go.
 
I agree Stalin was going to attack as soon as he had superiority. But apparently some people in the German military (aka Fatboy, to use BW's word :D) managed to fool themselves into thinking that Germany could outproduce Russia. <_< Or maybe that German tech would improve with more time. Something like that. The point being its possible that they may decide to take the risk of waiting a year longer before declaring war on the Soviet Union.

And then they will be completely and utterly screwed. More so than rl that is.
 
Why was Stalin going to eventually turn on Hitler?

A question I often want to ask--was about to again in this thread but you beat me to it!:)
It's apparently an article of faith among so many here that of course Stalin is just as evil as Hitler and therefore he must sooner or later go on a world-conquering spree.:rolleyes:

Cryptic above gives some good reasons why, aside from being a cartoon villain, Stalin would, one would suppose, surely attack eventually. An even better reason is that Stalin is the leader of a world revolutionary movement dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism and the dictatorship of the proletariat globally. This is supposed to be why the USSR exists. And whether Soviet leaders actually are fire-eating revolutionaries or not, their reputation as such must scare a lot of Western bourgeois regimes.

Now actually, I think this conventional wisdom around here is dead wrong--Stalin would never have launched an attack on a major power. And it's not because he was a good man at heart or anything like that. Nor is it merely that actual Bolshevik doctrine was not at all about conquering the world by the armed force of any nation, even one formed to be the bastion of world revolution--ultimately Marxist revolution is supposed to be a do-it-yourself sort of thing. That's true too, but that's not why Stalin would never attack.

He wouldn't attack for reasons related to why none of the revolutionary movements he got control of through Third International channels ever accomplished much. Because in general, Leninist leaders liked to play it safe, and in particular Stalin defined "playing it safe" as whatever kept himself in charge.

So--Stalin did indeed devote a lot of the Soviet Union's resources to a huge military buildup, one that had no rational purpose, one would think, but to conquer Europe with. (Well, it turned out that the Soviets needed all that and more just to hold back a German onslaught. Who knew?) And then, just as things seemed to be shaping up nicely, he purged the military leadership. He purged the inventors, engineers, and technicians who had been building his war machine for him. Why? Because any organized force competent enough to take on the challenge of invading Europe is going to also have the capability of considering a coup against him.

That's what I figure would be going on if no one attacked Russia for the next 14 years after 1940, assuming Stalin dies at the same time as OTL. He'd get everything lined up, then sweep it off the board and start over. He'd procrastinate and never get around to actually launching the attack.

OTOH if someone attacked him--well, as OTL, he might be taken by surprise and shocked. But after a a week or so of drunken funk (per OTL) he'd come back to work, take control back from Molotov (or whoever he'd eventually replace him--OTL Molotov did survive Stalin and eventually died a natural death in the 1960s so perhaps it would always be Molotov) and find that despite the general devastation the enemy inflicted, he still had lots of force left, and he'd start deploying it. (Actually Molotov already did that for him, but the Boss gets the credit, and can double down rather more decisively too). Then the Soviet steamroller finally gets going.

...The strain on Britain would've become serious enough without the entry of the USSR or USA that I can't see how they avoid having to at least enter negotiations after a while.

But only if the Germans continue the war will Britain be under strain. If the new German leadership, whoever they may be, doesn't make substantial changes in their policy immediately, everyone will continue on the assumption that they are essentially interchangeable with Hitler.

If the successor regime does not launch Barbarossa, what exactly will they do with all their accumulating might? They've already conquered Europe; they can't reach Britain. How do they apply strain to Britain?

Mainly by submarine warfare, it seems, and an ongoing Blitz. These are the kinds of excuses FDR needs to continue his "Germany first" policies.

The German leadership would probably be thrown off balance by Hitler's many impressive victories, plus 7 or more years of Nazi propaganda, plus their own inherent arrogance, and judge they need to play the hand that Hitler dealt.

And like another poster mentioned, what if Hess had started an openly CONCILIATORY policy toward the U.S., with no declaration of war after Pearl Harbor? How does FDR get a "Defeat Germany first" strategy with no overtly hostile Nazi leader and no second front in the form of USSR military involvement? They'd likely concentrate on the Pacific War and that's it.

OK, now you're confusing me. Is Hess or whoever at war with Britain, or not at this point?

If he's not, the "Defeat Germany first" platform is irrelevant; now there is no war to win.

If he is--he's still trying to cut Britain from world trade, so his protests of Japan's deplorable attacks on the USA ring a bit hollow.
 
The most probable successor to Hitler would be Herman Goring, I believe that he was Hitler's most prominent underling and even a nominated successor (correct me if I'm wrong on this;)). In 1945 he got himself in Hitler's bad books by sending a telegram to Hitler in the bunker asking if he wanted him to take over running the Reich as Hitler was now trapped in Berlin. Got arrested for his trouble and removed from the succession.

Hess was by 1940 largely irrelevant, prominent only in a ceremonial role. It was his declining influence with der Furher that prompted his trip to Scotland. Even before that most of the Nazi court regarded him as irrelevant and more than a little crazy. Neither Himmler nor Heydrich would have been powerful enough to prevent Goring becoming Furher despite controlling a small army: Goring on the otherhand controlled a large airforce!:p
 
It's somewhat assumed Goering would take control of Germany if Hitler died between 40-45...

Goering is a prick but he's not 1/5 the monster Hitler, Heydrich or Himmler are. With him in command it's quite possible he makes an offer Britain and France can't refuse i.e. immediate cessation of hostilities... releasing France and the Low Countries and maybe even releasing rump Polish and Czech states. This would be Germany's 'vengeance' for Versailles and imo Churchill would be hard pressed to refuse such an offer after Dunkirk especially since this would clearly be a 'different' Germany than under Hitler...
 
Top