Which assassination attempt on Hitler, if successful, would have changed the course of history most.

I am thinking here of 3 assassination attempts on Hitler.

1) November 1939. Hitler was giving a speech in Munich to celebrate the Munich Putsch of 1923, and left shortly before a bomb exploded.

2) March 1943. A bomb on a place carrying Hitler from a meeting in Russia failed to explode.

3) The Stauffenberg bomb plot of July 1944.


Which one of these would have most dramatically impacted on the the course of events, if successful?

1) If Hitler had been assassinated in 1939, then Manstein's plan would not have received Hitler's backing, and the invasion of France may have bogged down into a stalemate. The Nazis may well have been overthrown, perhaps leading to peace after a protracted stalemate in the west, and possibly leaving Germany with some of their gains in the East. Alternatively, Goring may have more proactively pursued an alliance with the Soviet Union. He was in any case opposed to war with them. Also, the Jews would have been spared the murderous fate which overcame them, which could not have happened without Hitler.

A German alliance with the Soviet Union would have unforeseeable but no doubt unfortunate results for the Western Allies

2) Hitler being killed in March 1943 would result in Manstein being able to exercise his command in the Ukraine as he wished. There would be a more competent mobile defence, and more timely and effective counterattacks. Would this have persuaded Stalin into a separate peace, negotiated with a more receptive Goring? Or would Germany have collapsed into civil war?

3) The Stauffenberg bomb plot would again have resulted in generally less calamitous defeats for the Germans under more competent leadership than Hitler's but would no doubt have not changed the ultimate outcome of the war. Stalin would probably be less interested in a separate peace with the Germans at this point in view of his string of victories and the near certainty of the final outcome.
 
diffidently the first one, the others are to late but wasint there one around the time after the battle of France and before Barbarossa, im not sure.
 
The third one might perversely make de-Nazification harder after the war. It might be obvious to people who know the facts that war was already lost in 1944 but to many in the general public it will look like the plotters turned a bad situation into a disastrous one and still had to accept unconditional surrender.
 
I don't think Goring had the stones to attack Poland after the British and French guarantee so if the 39 scenario happened, I don't think there's a war (for a while anyways).

In 43 and 44 I think the Germans will be looking for a way out. The US is in now, and most rational Germans knew it was over.

Negotiating in 43 they might be able to keep the Sudetenland and the Polish corridor, but they would have had to release Austria.

Negotiating in 44 they'd be lucky to maintain their original borders.

I think the unconditional surrender would have been waved to stop the bloodshed.
 
The '39 one, obviously.

Hitler being killed in March 1943 would result in Manstein being able to exercise his command in the Ukraine as he wished. There would be a more competent mobile defence, and more timely and effective counterattacks.

Citadel was, among others, Manstein's idea so that isn't likely to change. While many generals had arguments about the specific nature of the when and where an attack should be launched, there was no strong advocacy for a completely defensive war in the east. This is something that very much gained traction in post war writings, and there is no indication from contemporary sources that it was a serious position by anyone who mattered in the spring of 1943. In fact, without Hitler it is possible that it goes even worse as Citadel doesn't get called off and the Germans are still bleeding themselves to pieces against the Soviets defenses when the Soviet counter-offensive tears into them.

Even ignoring that issue, the idea that a defensive posture would improve German performance is dubious. The reality is that the Germans did an atrocious job of predicting where Soviet offensives would fall, and were always scrambling on the back foot once the Red Army seized the initiative. German offensive plans also delayed and weakened Soviet offensive forces, and channeled their attacks into areas of German strength. The defensive preparations the Soviets committed to Kursk for example precluded them launching major offensive operations elsewhere from March until July. Given that Glantz points out the Russians actually had significant superiority in forces around Kursk 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. Von Manstein after the war may have blamed Kursk for squandering the German advantage but in fact it's pretty clear from the colossal Soviet forces arrayed against them that they never had that advantage in the first place. Thus it has to be considered that things might go worse for the Germans once they let the Russians have free reign on where and when they strike. Possibly much worse.

And this is without going into the disruption the power struggle would have had on their war effort.
 
Last edited:
My choices would be:
Elser in 8/11/39 while to late to stop the war, Poland already divided, and Finlands Winter war about to start. However, Elsers bomb was so huge that it would kill at least 120 nazis, not just Hitler, but Himmler, Hess, Goebels, Borman, Heydrich... leaving Reich to Wermacht control fighting war only against Britain and France, without USSR or USA.

"War prevented" scenario: If Maurice Bavaude in 9/11/38 shoots Hitler on the street. It happened after Sudeten anexation, but before Chehoslovakia invasion. This leaves Hess with entire Nazi party in power.

"Beerhalle putch" scenario: The biggest butterflies would happen if Adolf and Max change places. Qoute: "...during 8–9 November 1923. About two thousand Nazis marched to the centre of Munich, where they confronted the police, which resulted in the death of 16 Nazis and four police officers.Hitler himself was not wounded during the clash, although he locked his left arm with the right arm of Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter who, when he was shot and killed, pulled Hitler to the pavement with him."

And by far the best, "Tandey takes a shot" scenario: "...At the French village of Marcoing. The story is set on 28 September 1918, while Tandey was serving with the 5th Duke of Wellington's Regiment, and relates that a weary German soldier wandered into Tandey's line of fire...The enemy soldier was wounded and did not even attempt to raise his own rifle. Tandey chose not to shoot. The German soldier saw him lower his rifle and nodded his thanks before wandering off. That soldier is purported to have been Adolf Hitler."

1943. or 1944. assasination were to little to late. They would have not change anything. After Teheran Conference allies would insist on Japan style unconditional surrender, occupation, denazification and demilitarization, while neonazis would have a field day of "Stab in the back 2.0" theories.
 
Last edited:
In that case I still think Goring really pushes to end the war.
Can he make an offer that's good enough to the British and French yet also acceptable domestically to be implementable? Poland has already been invaded, starting the war, and carved up so at the very least Germany will have to give up the western part they're currently occupying. Following the violation of the Munich Agreement I think the Allies would also be pushing for a reversal of the annexation of Czechoslovakia.

There's also the question of how secure his position is since IIRC at this stage he hadn't yet been designated as Hitler's successor. I think he would have been one of the most, if not most, senior party officials left and the one that was most acceptable to the military and industrialists but he wouldn't have Hitler's absolute control. With the planning for the invasion of France already well under way oftentimes these types of things begin to pick up a momentum all of their own, they're already at war so Goring may decide to follow through on it, with or without pressure from the military, on the theory that better to gain a victory and advantageous negotiating position.
 
You may be right. It would be interesting to see how Goring would have handled the Army. Would he give them more rope then Hitler did? Would he be more tepid and hold them back more?
 
Can he make an offer that's good enough to the British and French yet also acceptable domestically to be implementable? Poland has already been invaded, starting the war, and carved up so at the very least Germany will have to give up the western part they're currently occupying. Following the violation of the Munich Agreement I think the Allies would also be pushing for a reversal of the annexation of Czechoslovakia.

There's also the question of how secure his position is since IIRC at this stage he hadn't yet been designated as Hitler's successor. I think he would have been one of the most, if not most, senior party officials left and the one that was most acceptable to the military and industrialists but he wouldn't have Hitler's absolute control. With the planning for the invasion of France already well under way oftentimes these types of things begin to pick up a momentum all of their own, they're already at war so Goring may decide to follow through on it, with or without pressure from the military, on the theory that better to gain a victory and advantageous negotiating position.

Goring was designated as Hitler's successor in September of 39 so that wouldn't be an obstacle to him taking power. I do think that Goring would have to continue the war at first even if he didn't really want to- any peace deal acceptable to the Allies would be painted by Goring's domestic enemies as a cowardly betrayal of the Fuhrer's legacy. I do think he'd go along with the original, Schlieffen-like plan for France that most of the generals supported, which probably results in the French campaign failing to break through the way the Germans did OTL and getting bogged down into a stalemate. Mussolini stays neutral.

As this situation goes on, the German war economy is going to start to run into serious problems without the spoils of Western Europe to keep it going (and a campaign against the USSR is out of the question). However, I do think that a continued Western Front stalemate (reminiscent of WWI) would exhaust the British and French public's appetite for conflict as well and sometime around 1941 all sides are going to be ready to come to the table.
 
I am thinking here of 3 assassination attempts on Hitler.

1) November 1939. Hitler was giving a speech in Munich to celebrate the Munich Putsch of 1923, and left shortly before a bomb exploded.

Much easier war for Russia. Goring was not intuitive and he was even less of a listener to good advice than the "lunatic"; despite the latter's well-known propensity for ignoring common sense suggestions.

2) March 1943. A bomb on a place carrying Hitler from a meeting in Russia failed to explode.

Interesting. A lot of German talent was with him. Not sure if this is worse than "39.

3) The Stauffenberg bomb plot of July 1944.

Again interesting as to how long it would take the maniac, Himmler, to consolidate his brief reign before the whole situation collapses into chaos around him.

Which one of these would have most dramatically impacted on the the course of events, if successful?

1) If Hitler had been assassinated in 1939, then Manstein's plan would not have received Hitler's backing, and the invasion of France may have bogged down into a stalemate. The Nazis may well have been overthrown, perhaps leading to peace after a protracted stalemate in the west, and possibly leaving Germany with some of their gains in the East. Alternatively, Goring may have more proactively pursued an alliance with the Soviet Union. He was in any case opposed to war with them. Also, the Jews would have been spared the murderous fate which overcame them, which could not have happened without Hitler.

A decent read, but Goring was as inept politically as well as militarily. I see him being arrested and shot as a junta takes over. Who is on the junta, becomes the question?

A German alliance with the Soviet Union would have unforeseeable but no doubt unfortunate results for the Western Allies.

Germany becomes a Russian satellite? That would be terrible. Stalin was bad enough without German help.

2) Hitler being killed in March 1943 would result in Manstein being able to exercise his command in the Ukraine as he wished. There would be a more competent mobile defence, and more timely and effective counterattacks. Would this have persuaded Stalin into a separate peace, negotiated with a more receptive Goring? Or would Germany have collapsed into civil war?

Don't underestimate Zhukov or the Stavka. I expect a similar to RTL outcome with a few different details. Goring is still shot for incompetence.

3) The Stauffenberg bomb plot would again have resulted in generally less calamitous defeats for the Germans under more competent leadership than Hitler's but would no doubt have not changed the ultimate outcome of the war. Stalin would probably be less interested in a separate peace with the Germans at this point in view of his string of victories and the near certainty of the final outcome.

The Russians reach the Rhine as Himmler displays his military genius on an even larger scale.
 
The response to the response to July 20 Bomb Plot threads I have is: why wouldn't the plotters be smart enough to kill Himmler asap? Or whichever Wehrmacht forrces remain under his command after just ignore all his orders
 
The response to the response to July 20 Bomb Plot threads I have is: why wouldn't the plotters be smart enough to kill Himmler asap? Or whichever Wehrmacht forrces remain under his command after just ignore all his orders

The July 20 plotters were pretty stupid in a lot of ways, but they actually did originally plan to only set off a bomb when they had Hitler and Himmler together. They only went ahead with the final attempt at Rastenburg when just Hitler was there because they believed the Gestapo was on the verge of discovering them and they wouldn't get another chance.
 
diffidently the first one, the others are to late but wasint there one around the time after the battle of France and before Barbarossa, im not sure.
There was a plan to kill Hitler shortly after the surrender of France (I don't remember the date), it would have taken place during a review of German troops parading thru Paris, it would have been very similar to the way Anwar Sadat was assassinated.
 
In November 1943, there was a plot to kill Hitler using a suicide bomb carried by the uniform model when Hitler was going go and inspect the new uniforms personally.

The truly important thing however is that Hitler, Himmler and Goring, the big 3 nazis, were all going to be present, meaning all 3 could be killed.

It failed because the night previous to the scheduled event, the uniforms that would be used by the model were destroyed by allied bombings.

Had it succeeded its almost a guarantee that the July 20 guys would had taken over in 1943 with nigh no opposition ans pave the wave to purge the worst nazis.

It would also possibly soften tge Wallies "no deal with nazis" stance as this would be a new government.

The Soviet Front was relatively stable. They would had attempted to negotiate a separate peace, which might had been possible.

A deal for allowing the Wallies to waltz unopposed into Germany while the Germans held off the Soviets might be cut.

A lot would change in this scenario, the Iron Curtain and overall Soviet Empire might be prevented. Stalin would be pissed, but with Germam armies still in the USSR and united Allies telling him he has no legitimate claims other than the restoration of pre-Barbarossa borders, would be forced to back down.

It might even have butterflies for the Pacific War too, a Stalin denied of any European conquests and revenge on Germany, might be spiteful enough to immediately join the war against Japan and conquer all he can in Asia. How this plays out is anyone's guess, a sort of iron curtain might fall in Asia instead, even if Japan surrenders super early because of this, Stalin is not going to stop and the Wallies wont go to war with him over Asian contests of an enemy they are at war with too (the stunt with Germany would only work because there were still german armies in the USSR at that time, in Asia the Wallies had no presence to stop Soviet grabs)
 

Anchises

Banned
The Elser attempt hands down.

Problem is that people tend to really underestimate Göring.

The Manstein plan had prominent backers (von Rundstedt, von Tresckow etc.) and it is not that unlikely that Göring would have heard about it and decided to use it.

Sure the Mechelen incident might be butterflied away but all the important pieces are still in place.

The Strategic situation prevents Germany from successfuly waging a drawn out war.

If someone (to gain favor with the new Führer/fast track his career) tells Goering about the New Plan/Manstein Plan and explains the strategic situation Goering is just as likely as Hitler to agree.

Especially if someone sugarcoats the plan by repeatedly mentioning the importance of Luftwaffe cover and points out the possibility to subjugate the OKH early on.

Göring had a high i.q., was a nasty political infighter and a surprisingly good orator.

With Göring in control WW2 might have been just as (or even more) devastating as OTL.
 
In all cases internal chaos in Germany makes Allies' job easier. With first POD there is no fall of France but German collapse within 2 years instead.
 
Top