WI: A Hitler With the Mind of a Child

Inspired by the story "Winterberry"

Suppose Hitler after the July 20th Bombing had been wounded enough to be reduced to the mind of a child. The Allies still win at the same time and capture him. How would the world react to an Adolf Hitler who acts, thinks, and talks like a seven or eight year old? What would happen to him-would he be brought to trial?
 
First, Hitler would literally be in no position to lead the nation, so the outcome of the war would be completely different. The German leadership wanted to surrender oh so badly in the closing days of Nazi Germany in the hopes of having something left to rule over when the dust cleared, but Hitler would hear none of it. He was literally the only reason that the Nazi's didn't surrender to the Allies while they still had a chance. If Hitler is rendered incapable of ruling, then the war would end completely differently. When the Germans surrender (probably a conditional surrender), Hitler would remain in the still-Nazi Germany. In the aftermath of the war, he's probably kept alive by the Nazi leadership for use as a propaganda tool, appearing in propaganda films and giving speeches on the radio to keep up morale; in addition to being the glue that holds the various factions of the Nazi Party from fragmenting and going off to accomplish their own agendas. Any actual leadership following that incident would probably be handled by still-competent subordinates like Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels who try to manage the nation as best they can while still giving off the illusion that Hitler is the man calling the shots.
 
I think he meant in a relative sense.

Anyway, by July 20, 1944, the Allies are not accepting anything other than unconditional surrender, the Soviets certainly aren't, and why would they take it anyway? Normandy's already happened, and the entire Ostheer has been rolled over in Bagration. And obviously there is no way that Goering and Himmler would unconditional surrender.
 
I think he meant in a relative sense.

Anyway, by July 20, 1944, the Allies are not accepting anything other than unconditional surrender, the Soviets certainly aren't, and why would they take it anyway? Normandy's already happened, and the entire Ostheer has been rolled over in Bagration. And obviously there is no way that Goering and Himmler would unconditional surrender.

Himmler was actually ready to negotiate, but it's uncertain how far he would have gotten. If he had started earlier, maybe he could do something. All in all, Hitler's being reduced to that state would affect not only him, but also the attitudes of his subordinates (especially Himmler, who was almost blindly loyal to Hitler). Maybe their attitudes change if their great leader isn't in a position to lead anymore.

good joke :confused:

Thank you :)

but actually it was sarcasm
 
First, Hitler would literally be in no position to lead the nation, so the outcome of the war would be completely different. The German leadership wanted to surrender oh so badly in the closing days of Nazi Germany in the hopes of having something left to rule over when the dust cleared, but Hitler would hear none of it. He was literally the only reason that the Nazi's didn't surrender to the Allies while they still had a chance. If Hitler is rendered incapable of ruling, then the war would end completely differently. When the Germans surrender (probably a conditional surrender), Hitler would remain in the still-Nazi Germany. In the aftermath of the war, he's probably kept alive by the Nazi leadership for use as a propaganda tool, appearing in propaganda films and giving speeches on the radio to keep up morale; in addition to being the glue that holds the various factions of the Nazi Party from fragmenting and going off to accomplish their own agendas. Any actual leadership following that incident would probably be handled by still-competent subordinates like Himmler, Goring, and Goebbels who try to manage the nation as best they can while still giving off the illusion that Hitler is the man calling the shots.

More or less. Goering and Himmler, toward the end, were both more intelligent than Hitler. If Goering could be persuaded to surrender to American troops (granted, after Hitler called for his arrest), he can be persuaded to see reason and surrender, at least to the West, on the condition that he himself is not tried for crimes.
 
More or less. Goering and Himmler, toward the end, were both more intelligent than Hitler. If Goering could be persuaded to surrender to American troops (granted, after Hitler called for his arrest), he can be persuaded to see reason and surrender, at least to the West, on the condition that he himself is not tried for crimes.

I think it was either Himmler or Goebbels that wanted to play on the West's fear of Communism to save their own bacon. The idea was that the Nazis would convince the Western allies that they were the only ones capable of stopping Stalin from spreading Communism to Europe, and that they should form an alliance to destroy the Soviet Union and save the world from the Communists.

Some of the allied leadership (including Churchill and I believe Patton) wanted to go after Stalin right after they defeated the Nazis. If the Germans could convince them to ally with them, then WW2 would be much longer and much bloodier as the Germans would then have to slug it back over land that they already conquered with their new allies and then try to break Moscow and Stalingrad again.
 
I think it was either Himmler or Goebbels that wanted to play on the West's fear of Communism to save their own bacon. The idea was that the Nazis would convince the Western allies that they were the only ones capable of stopping Stalin from spreading Communism to Europe, and that they should form an alliance to destroy the Soviet Union and save the world from the Communists.

Some of the allied leadership (including Churchill and I believe Patton) wanted to go after Stalin right after they defeated the Nazis. If the Germans could convince them to ally with them, then WW2 would be much longer and much bloodier as the Germans would then have to slug it back over land that they already conquered with their new allies and then try to break Moscow and Stalingrad again.

FDR's not going to go with a war against Stalin (he'll get butchered in the 1944 elections if he does, or his successor will be butchered in 1946 and 1948). If Churchill and the bombed-out ruins of Germany decide to go it alone, the only result is the Peoples Republics of France and Spain, and perhaps Soviet Sealion.

Unless, of course, Britain gets the Bomb.
 
FDR's not going to go with a war against Stalin (he'll get butchered in the 1944 elections if he does, or his successor will be butchered in 1946 and 1948). If Churchill and the bombed-out ruins of Germany decide to go it alone, the only result is the Peoples Republics of France and Spain, and perhaps Soviet Sealion.

Unless, of course, Britain gets the Bomb.

That is unless the Allies try to talk Stalin into ending the war in the east after they make a seperate peace with Germany and then prop up the Nazis to try to prevent Stalin's influence from spreading beyond Eastern Europe. That might work as well. They pretty much did that in OTL, the difference here being that they have an established government already as opposed to having to try to form one from the ruins of the Nazi state. The Allies might also only promise protection and support if the Nazi government abandons their final solution project, which, given the choice between life with limited ability to manuver versus total destruction, the Germans would probably go with Allied protection while trying to find loopholes and ways around their restrictions.
 
Again, why would Himmler/Goering surrender? They'd get hung for war crimes 100 times over. And propping up the Nazi state simply isn't going to happen, even to stop Stalin. Even if you take out the Final Solution, the Commissar Order and the Einsatzgruppen's work in the East would make it at BEST a diplomatic disaster - Stalin would likely DOW on the Wallies instantly. And we have the whole thing of "People's Republic of Europa + Soviet Sealion" as the result.
 
Last edited:
Again, why would Himmler/Goering surrender? They'd get hung for war crimes 100 times over. And propping up the Nazi state simply isn't going to happen, even to stop Stalin. Even if you take out the Final Solution, the Commissar Order and the Einsatzgruppen's work in the East would make it at BEST a diplomatic disaster - Stalin would likely DOW on the Wallies instantly. And we have the whole thing of "People's Republic of Europa + Soviet Sealion" as the result.

It's easy to say that in retrospect, but put yourself in the shoes of the leaders of WW2 back when it was still raging. They had no idea what the post-war world was going to look like, and even they probably didn't have the same in-depth knowledge of the era as we do now, and they were living in it. They had no idea what Stalin's plans were. Plus, the allies were also sort of afraid of Stalin, only allying with him because he happened to be at war with the Nazis too. The enemy of my enemy. Plus, it's not like the allies were the most moralistic people around either. They might have been persuaded to drop the ball and let the Nazis continue to keep things running in Germany if they thought it meant keeping Stalin contained in Eastern Europe. They've backed oppressive dictatorships before.

As for the Nazis, their country was collapsing around them and they knew that their days were numbered unless they could stop the war. Ideology be damned. Even in OTL with Hitler still running things at full force, Heinrich I-love-Hitler Himmler went behind the furher's back to seek a negotiated peace, and Goering even tried to take over the Reich when he demanded that response from Hitler while Hitler refused to come out of his hole. Goebbels was the only one that remained loyal, and his sanity was always somewhat questionable. If faced with the prospect of total destruction, even the Nazis would look for a way to save themselves. It's called self-preservation, live to fight another day.
 
You also have to think of the political costs, particularly in Britain. London and Rotterdam got bombed just to conclude a negotiated peace against the Nazi regime? Especially when the atrocities in the East come out, and they WILL come out. And it's not like the Final Solution only happened after June 20, 1944.

But really, think about this, the Wallies refused to support even a non-Nazi provisional government, even though it likely would have ended the war a year early.

And again, this doesn't change the fact that if the Wallies concluded a negotiated peace with a surviving Nazi government, it is very likely that Stalin DOWs on the spot.

Any timeline with a militarily victorious Allies propping up Nazi Germany is ASB.
 
That is unless the Allies try to talk Stalin into ending the war in the east after they make a seperate peace with Germany and then prop up the Nazis to try to prevent Stalin's influence from spreading beyond Eastern Europe. That might work as well. They pretty much did that in OTL, the difference here being that they have an established government already as opposed to having to try to form one from the ruins of the Nazi state. The Allies might also only promise protection and support if the Nazi government abandons their final solution project, which, given the choice between life with limited ability to manuver versus total destruction, the Germans would probably go with Allied protection while trying to find loopholes and ways around their restrictions.

This makes no sense. D-Day was put into play because we wanted to reach Berlin before the USSR. By 1944, the Western Allies would be VERY HARD PRESSED to suddenly aid a Germany that has already lost the war at this point. Whoever replaces Hitler won't be a moderate, it'll be another extreme member of the Nazi Party. If the US and Allies start backing Nazi Germany in 1944, the only thing that changes is that World War 2 just expands.
 
You also have to think of the political costs, particularly in Britain. London and Rotterdam got bombed just to conclude a negotiated peace against the Nazi regime? Especially when the atrocities in the East come out, and they WILL come out. And it's not like the Final Solution only happened after June 20, 1944.

But really, think about this, the Wallies refused to support even a non-Nazi provisional government, even though it likely would have ended the war a year early.

And again, this doesn't change the fact that if the Wallies concluded a negotiated peace with a surviving Nazi government, it is very likely that Stalin DOWs on the spot.

Any timeline with a militarily victorious Allies propping up Nazi Germany is ASB.

How about one where the current leadership is taken away for war crimes while the allies pluck out new young men to serve as the puppets of a new Nazi regime that is forced to denounce the crimes of the old Party guard while changing the message and being forced to play nice while under guns? If the US thinks it's alright, then Brittain and France aren't in much of a position to complain considering how much they owe the Americans in debt, as well as their fear of what Stalin might do to them if he decides to continue west once he takes Germany. The British might not like it, but they might be placated to see the current Nazi leadership hanged. Besides, Churchill was advocating attacking Stalin anyway, and if Stalin DOW's, then the US would have no choice but to have to fight him too, like a few of the allied leaders wanted to.
 
How about one where the current leadership is taken away for war crimes while the allies pluck out new young men to serve as the puppets of a new Nazi regime that is forced to denounce the crimes of the old Party guard while changing the message and being forced to play nice while under guns?

Again, this makes no sense. If anything, the bombing would've been covered up by Party leaders. In the end, the situation will hardly change. The Soviets will reach Berlin before the Anglo-Americans. The Western Front doesn't exist in a vacuum. The Soviets were going to keep heading west until they linked up with the Anglo-American forces.

If the US thinks it's alright, then Brittain and France aren't in much of a position to complain considering how much they owe the Americans in debt, as well as their fear of what Stalin might do to them if he decides to continue west once he takes Germany. The British might not like it, but they might be placated to see the current Nazi leadership hanged. Besides, Churchill was advocating attacking Stalin anyway, and if Stalin DOW's, then the US would have no choice but to have to fight him too, like a few of the allied leaders wanted to.

This is still incredibly ASB.
 
If Hitler is captured, he dies before trial and before ever seeing a prison or holding cell. End of story.
 
Actually the Soviets wanted a fair trial for the Nazi war criminals in order to increase their influence in postward affairs among other things...
 
Top