WI: Colonel Gersdorff successfully suicide bombs Hitler on 21 March 1943

[Tresckow]

A really overlooked point of divergence is Colonel Gersdorff, one of the only anti-Nazi conspirators to live past the regime, suicide bombing Adolf Hitler during a ceremony that included Goering, Himmler, Donitz, and Keitel. What I find most interesting is how the plot would’ve killed the two obvious candidates to succeed Hitler, leaving his succession wide open at a time when the war could end conditionally (Hitler dying that early changes everything for the WAllies)

thoughts?

 

[Catspoke]

I would think even if a military junta took over quickly, Germany would collapse rapidly, Allies like Rommania would bail out quickly, and production on the home front would devolve quickly. One Hamburg style bombing raid and the Germans surrender unconditionally.

 

[Draconis]

This is an interesting what if. Have there been other threads posted in the past concerning this idea?

Killing off Hitler and the main successors in March 1943. This is shortly after the Nazis have suffered the major defeat and losses at Stalingrad and the Africa Corp is in the process of being destroyed. So what would a junta of senior generals do? I don't think they'd be ready to agree to unconditional surrender. But what would they accept?

The Western Allies would demand at the very minimum a return to 1939 borders. And possibly full occupation and trials. I don't think Stalin would accept anything less then that either. And perhaps not even that.

What would an almost unconditional surrender look like? What conditions would the Allies offer in 1943 to a Germany that is asking for terms?

 

[Karelian]

What conditions would the Allies offer in 1943 to a Germany that is asking for terms?

None. There was zero reason to trust the German elites. Nazis were a sympthom of a terminal illness, but for the Allies the Prussian militarism itself was the disease.

 

[Tresckow]

None. There was zero reason to trust the German elites. Nazis were a sympthom of a terminal illness, but for the Allies the Prussian militarism itself was the disease.

Not if they agree to certain terms, namely pulling out of France and the Low Countries.

 

[ric350]

In ‘43 had there been any evidence of the death camps yet? If, not then peace negotiations may have been considered by the Wallies. But if the death camps are known, then I doubt it.

ric350

 

[Major Major]

Here's an approach to the question: Operation Flash, by Nitay Arbel.

 

[Catspoke]

Poland and Russia have suffered immensely already to beyond cruel treatment. The Germans could offer 1937 boundaries, complete disarmament and massive reparations, and supervised elections, then the Allies might agree to save many lives, and to avoid Europe becoming a battlefield.

 

[Mort the Reaper]

What would happen regarding Italy in this scenario?

 

[Catspoke]

What would happen regarding Italy in this scenario?

I would think the Italian would look to cut a deal as well and try to get ahead of a German deal.
Everyone knows defeat is at hand by March 43.

The Italian colonies will be lost,only question is Yugoslav border and what kind of government Yugoslavia has.

The Allies might be willing to offer 1937 borders, reparations, free elections, loss of colonies, loss of fleet, Mussolini and family disappears to Spain to get Italy out and changing sides.

I can't imagine with anyone but Hitler that the Germans would be so ruthless in taking down their Old Allies.

 

[jsb]

None. There was zero reason to trust the German elites. Nazis were a sympthom of a terminal illness, but for the Allies the Prussian militarism itself was the disease.

Are we missing that the allies could easily negotiate terms they had no intention of keeping, especially Stalin?

Why would the allies not hugely benefit from an armistice, ceasefire and withdraw to 39 borders......even if they did not intend to actually stay on them but to simply not agree to the final peace deal once they are in a far better position?

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

One long term knock-on:

What is the post-war cultural effect of the fact that the (arguably) greatest hero of WW II, the man who gave his life to strike down the Nazi monster, was a German soldier? The "good German" mythos gets an enormous boost.

Actually, there could be an immediate effect. The Allies did not trust anyone in Germany. The 20 July plotters were dismissed as mere opportunists - rats deserting a sinking ship. But Gersdorff can't be viewed in that way. Whatever his reasons, they were clearly selfless - and that reflects on the Schwarz Kapelle as a whole.

So that will make it harder for the Allies to continue to stonewall the Schwarz Kapelle.

 

[raharris1973]

Hitler dying that early changes everything for the WAllies

Why just for the WAllies? The Soviets, who still have miles of homeland to liberate, have every incentive to get the war done with, if it can be done on acceptable/advantageous terms.

 

[Tresckow]

Why just for the WAllies? The Soviets, who still have miles of homeland to liberate, have every incentive to get the war done with, if it can be done on acceptable/advantageous terms.

The hatred between Germany and Russia was much stronger than that between Germany and the west, though you do have a point about the slog that was the Eastern Front.

 

[Karelian]

Because there was a lot more riding on the Allied victory than just defeating Germany. The end goal of the Allied war effort was to destroy German militarism in all of it's forms and make sure Germany could never be in a position to threaten the European peace ever again. A particular end goal of the war effort was to make it clear to the German people they had been beaten fair and square and not 'stabbed in the back' like they claimed happened at the end of World War I.

Hear hear. No one wanted a round 3 twenty years later.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Hear hear. No one wanted a round 3 twenty years later.

True. And that included the Schwarz Kapelle. IMO, anyway, few if any of the Schwarz Kapelle envisioned Germany launching any more wars. Germany lost the first war, and was losing the second as they had anticipated. In both cases, despite early victories, and with enormous losses. They'd had a belly full of war. The Allied paranoia about "Prussianism" was misguided.

This does not mean that the SK didn't have a seriously. inflated view of Germany's "rights" or bargaining position.

 

[JamesHunter]

True. And that included the Schwarz Kapelle. IMO, anyway, few if any of the Schwarz Kapelle envisioned Germany launching any more wars. Germany lost the first war, and was losing the second as they had anticipated. In both cases, despite early victories, and with enormous losses. They'd had a belly full of war. The Allied paranoia about "Prussianism" was misguided.

This does not mean that the SK didn't have a seriously. inflated view of Germany's "rights" or bargaining position.

True. In many ways its a bad time for this. Its to late to negotiate anything but at the same time its probably to early for "Mother of God we have to surrender." Germany has suffered reverses and a nasty defeat but it possibly wouldn't be clear they're done for until after Kursk later in the year.

Certainly that battle will never happen as the Heer will quickly pull back to defensive lines but long term they can't hold off the Soviet's for very long.

The bigger question is what the remaining Nazi's do. Thanks the the decap and the leader principle they'll be functionally leaderless but once it becomes clear a Heer officer did the killing some may seek revenge. The Heer also doesn't control the death camps and while shutting them down will be seen as a pragmatic move doing so means dealing with the SS.

I could see a German civil war (all be it an uncoordinated one) as the other Axis powers bail and then surrender in late 1943/ early 1944 when the Russian's breakthrough whatever ostwall the Heer creates.

 

[JohnBull]

This is an interesting what if. Have there been other threads posted in the past concerning this idea?

Killing off Hitler and the main successors in March 1943. This is shortly after the Nazis have suffered the major defeat and losses at Stalingrad and the Africa Corp is in the process of being destroyed. So what would a junta of senior generals do? I don't think they'd be ready to agree to unconditional surrender. But what would they accept?

The Western Allies would demand at the very minimum a return to 1939 borders. And possibly full occupation and trials. I don't think Stalin would accept anything less then that either. And perhaps not even that.

What would an almost unconditional surrender look like? What conditions would the Allies offer in 1943 to a Germany that is asking for terms?

I agree. They would ask for surrender, not because German was military defeated, but as the new government would see themselves in a completely pointless war. I think the Allies would welcome the peace as they were dealing with a government that actually killed their enemy, the Nazist regime.

So Germany would probably keep the 1939 borders and Danzig upon a plebiscite result. Occupation and new government would make sure denazification would occur, so this ATL Germany might be similar to OTL West Germany, maybe a bit more conservative and assertive.

 

[Captain Homicide]

Martin Bormann may take a leap and declare himself the new Fuhrer.

Technically after Rudolf Hess (who was after Goering in the line of succession) went to Britain in 1941 Bormann essentially replaced his position so he would be the logical next person to replace Hitler if Goering and Himmler died. Whether or not he would succeed is a different story.

 

[RedSword12]

The German aristocracy idolized the Teutonic Knights for their campaigns against Eastern Europe. They used this heritage to justify their claims that Germany was a civilized nation and Eastern Europe was full of barbaric Slavs. Germany, both the Kaiserreich and the Third Reich, traced it's military heritage back to virtues ostensibly created by the Teutonic Knights. Even in the interwar period, during the ostensibly peaceful Weimar Republic, German nationalists drew on this history to justify a revanchist war against Poland.

Prussia came about as a result of the Northern Crusades in the 13th Century, which was the settlement of Eastern Europe by Germans, courtesy of the Teutonic Knights.

While some of the German aristocracy opposed the war before it started, after it started, they were in no hurry to cede back territory they thought was rightfully German, particularly Western Poland. After Hitler won his streak of victories in 1939-40, they fell in line. After he began losing in 1943, they became restless again. To them, Hitler was a Bohemian Corporal who was treating German military tradition like a joke. He was not a man of high noble birth, of Prussian descent, he was a uncivilized brigand from Austria. Some of the aristocrats, especially Stauffenberg, had no objections to putting a boot on the backs of the Poles. If they were still winning the war, they would never have raised a hand to Hitler.

If the Allies allowed the Germans to keep Polish territory as part of some kind of peace, then that'd send a message saying that wars of aggression are justified. I don't think it'd be too crazy that the Germans, later down the line, would've used that Teutonic heritage to justify something else that couldn't be justified otherwise.

While the Prussian aristocracy had no problem with Hitler while he was being militarily successful, I'm beginning to think the popular perception of Prussian militarism is more of a myth than anything, cooked up by the Germans themselves and propaganda. But since the Allies believed Prussian militarism to be the cause of the war, I agree that the Allies would probably not accept a peace offer by the conspirators unless it was unconditional surrender, which imho would have been unthinkable for the German army and government. If the Nazis are replaced by a government headed by the Wehrmacht, I doubt the Allies will perceive it that differently, and they would be right.