WI Hitler dies after the Fall of France

Seraphiel

Banned
So if Hitler dies right after the Fall of France (for natural reasons) what would happen to the Third Reich? Civil war? No Russian invasion?
 
Goering is in charge without much fuss. Goering would be less of a risk taker, would most likely avoid Barbarossa and wouldn't declare war on USA
 
Goering is in charge without much fuss. Goering would be less of a risk taker, would most likely avoid Barbarossa and wouldn't declare war on USA
Didn't Goering believe in the Lebensraum doctrine? I thought he was a nazi believer.
 
Goering is in no problem. As its after the fall of France Himmler has not yet acquired the level of power he had following Barbarossa; the invasion of Russia is what made the SS and Himmler the force we know them as today. The Wehrmact won't be backing anyone else either: Hitler just succeeded in knocking France out of the war and Britain appeared to be on its last leg. Remember this was the lowest point for the German resistance movement.

I can see a pretty smooth transfer of power to Goering, although what happens after is interesting. The OTL Barbarossa is out, preliminary planning only started following the fall of France at the order of Hitler; Goering too will likely focus exclusively on Britain, might see a better air campaign by the Luftwaffe without Hitler to demand focusing on cities after the British raid on Berlin. Still won't see a Seelowe though and Britain is unlikely to make peace.
 

Seraphiel

Banned
I utterly forgot about this.


If Goering takes power and doesnt go for Barbarossa could there be an eventual war with the US? When would the Third Reich fall, if ever? Also without Barbarossa would the Germanz still get into the Balkans? Oh and what about North Afric?
 
This begs the question of whether Deputy Fuhrer Rudolph Hess would have asserted himself in a power struggle with Herman Goering and other leading Nazis. Hess had not yet fallen from Hitler's good graces, but Bormann was already taking over some of Hess' former duties. As Deputy Fuhrer, Hess was not directly involved in foreign affairs and conduct of the war in 1939-41 which marginalized him within the Nazi regime.

After the defeat of France, Hitler awarded Goering the Grand Cross of the Iron Cross for his successful leadership. By decree on July 19, 1940, Hitler promoted Goering to the rank of Reich Marshal of the Greater German Reich, a special rank which made him senior to all other army and Luftwaffe field marshals. Goering as already Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe. In short, during the summer of 1940, Goering was at the peak of his power and influence within the Nazi regime.

Given his prominence in the German military hierarchy, the Nazi party, and the political leadership of the State, it is difficult to see anyone other than Goering emerging as the new Fuhrer in the summer of 1940. Hess was more of a sidekick/lackey to Hitler and his influence declined once the war started. Hess would have lost out to Goering.
 
Last edited:
Though an ardent Nazi, Goering was not a monk-like fanatical party leader like Hitler (or, before him, Lenin in Russia). Goering liked to eat meat, drink alcohol, and use morphine, and enjoyed the good life afforded him as part of Nazi Germany's political elite. However, I suspect that the responsibility of national leadership--and the necessity of projecting a certain heroic, self-sacrificing image during wartime--would have curbed Goering's excesses.

Given Hitler's boldness/recklessness, Goering could not help but be a more cautious wartime leader who actually listened to his military advisors on the German General Staff (at least outside his own area of expertise). It is difficult to see Goering, who emerged as a hero from WWI, opening a second front in the East against the USSR while Great Britain remained in the war as Hitler did. Loss in the Battle of Britain would have humbled Goering, who was leader of the Luftwaffe, at least somewhat. Some sort of armistice with Great Britain might have been possible, perhaps after serious German efforts to starve out the British Isles with unrestricted submarine warfare in 1940-42.

Stalin's USSR would have likely started a war with Nazi Germany by 1943-44. So Goering's Germany and Stalin's USSR would slug it out in Eastern and Central Europe, while the British Empire and USA would remain on the sidelines as spectators in the European theater. The Brits and Americans would be focused 100% on the War in the Pacific against the Japanese after December 7, 1941. The question of whether the Holocaust would have happened under Goering is difficult to speculate upon.
 
Last edited:
Though an ardent Nazi, Goering was not a monk-like fanatical party leader in the same way as Hitler (or, before him, Lenin in Russia). Goering liked to eat, drink, and use morphine, and enjoyed the good life afforded him by holding high-level political positions. However, I suspect that the responsibility of national leadership, and the necessity of projecting a certain heroic, self-sacrificing image during wartime, would have curbed Goering's excesses.

Given Hitler's boldness/recklessness, Goering could not help but be a more cautious wartime leader who actually listened to his military advisors on the German General Staff. It is difficult to see Goering, who emerged as hero from WWI, opening a second front in the East against the USSR while Great Britain remained in the war as Hitler did. Some sort of armistice with Great Britain might have been possible even if Germany failed to win the Battle of Britain, perhaps by attempting to starve out the British with unrestricted submarine warfare.

Goering might be more willing to offer some concessions that would make peace more appealing to the British and with Hitler gone those in Britain who favoured a deal might be more persuasive.
 
Goering might be more willing to offer some concessions that would make peace more appealing to the British and with Hitler gone those in Britain who favoured a deal might be more persuasive.

Goering may be willing to pursue peace, but it's highly unlikely Churchill will reciprocate. Given enough pressure from his cabinet members or others (Halifax etc.) and a sustained German effort maybe, but certainly not in 1940. Even with Hitler gone I cannot see Churchill making a sudden 180 on his policy of no surrender.
 
How does any of this affect the economy (which was IIRC was near to collapsing when Barbarossa kicked off)?
 
If Goering really wants to pursue a war with the UK, US entry is inevitable. Sooner or later, a U-boat will sink enough wrong ships to get Congress annoyed enough to do something about it. But this might not be until 1943, or maybe even later.

Yet, in the meantime, the UK is still receiving "all aid short of war" from the US, so it's unlikely that they'll want to agree a peace deal. Africa is still limited by logistics, although the capture of Malta is plausible.

I don't know what happens in the east after 1942, assuming no 1941 Barbarossa, but the Soviet build-up and reorganisation might be reaching truly scary scales by then. It's generally assumed that Stalin will move on Hitler at some stage, but, being a cautious type, this might not be until 1944, if at all. :confused:
 
Goering may be willing to pursue peace, but it's highly unlikely Churchill will reciprocate. Given enough pressure from his cabinet members or others (Halifax etc.) and a sustained German effort maybe, but certainly not in 1940. Even with Hitler gone I cannot see Churchill making a sudden 180 on his policy of no surrender.

It would certainly depend on the nature of the armistice deal proposed. With Hitler gone, it would be easier for British politicians to deal once again with Germany. A cease-fire in place, with a non-aggression pact, might be the most that could be agreed upon by a Churchill-led government. Recognition of German conquests in Europe by the British might be a bridge too far, even if the Germans gave guarantees concerning British imperial possessions.
 
Last edited:
Its hard to imagine Britain making any peace deal or even a cease fire that allows the Germans to stay right across the channel in Holland, Belgium or France. Britain is going to want political independence for those countries, her long term security depends on it.

Any general peace would have to be 1914 boundries in the west, but a free hand for Germany in Poland and the east, a free hand for Germany in the Balkans except for Greece, no German colonies restored (Britain just can't allow submarines bases all over the world). Limitations on future German naval size. Italy paid off with British Somaliland and joint occupation of Tunisia with France.

Its actually a decent peace for Germany, it puts her in a position that is really better than 1914 and I think someone like Goering would take that and sit back and enjoy the benefits of being in charge and at peace.
 
I think Goering would want to make peace.
He never believed that Germany could Germany could win the war.
I could see him sending Albert Kesselring to Libya instead of the battle of Britain.
From Goerings point of view he was rich and powerful and continuing the war was not going to gain him much and risk him losing every thing.
 
Its hard to imagine Britain making any peace deal or even a cease fire that allows the Germans to stay right across the channel in Holland, Belgium or France. Britain is going to want political independence for those countries, her long term security depends on it.

Any general peace would have to be 1914 boundries in the west, but a free hand for Germany in Poland and the east, a free hand for Germany in the Balkans except for Greece, no German colonies restored (Britain just can't allow submarines bases all over the world). Limitations on future German naval size. Italy paid off with British Somaliland and joint occupation of Tunisia with France.

Its actually a decent peace for Germany, it puts her in a position that is really better than 1914 and I think someone like Goering would take that and sit back and enjoy the benefits of being in charge and at peace.

Britain would be negotiating from weakness, so I doubt a victorious Germany would accept any limitations on its navy or boundaries. Assuming the Battle of Britain goes as it did in OTL, Germany would likely switch to unrestricted submarine warfare to put renewed pressure on Britain. Germany would not get her former African colonies back, which were lost in 1918-19, but Britain would have to accept German dominance on the European Continent.
 
Britain, especially after the Battle of Britain is won has no need to accept any terms that don't guarantee her security in the future, Britain was winning the submarine war anyway by the time Barbarossa rolled around, was beating the Italians, cleaning up east Africa. All the dominions were mobilized, Britain had her colonies and all USA support short of war. There was no reason to believe even if the Germans didn't invade the Soviet Unoin that they wouldn't continue to hold Egypt and win the battle of the North Atlantic and then wait around for diplomatic conditions to change, i.e. some event that draws the USA in or some fureture Soviet conflict.

So while the Germans might not want to evacuate most of Belgium, Holland, France, Denmark and Norway as part of a peace deal, no way Britain would accept contined German occupation of those places, so perhaps the likely result is the war continues on.

So if Goering find he can't win the Battle of Britain, can't win the Battle of Atlantic, can't take Egypt and doesn't figure invading the USSR is worth the risk, I think he has to seek a compromise peace, otherwise like Hitler invading the USSR might be the best choice of many bad choices.
 
Although its a foregone conclusion that Germany cannot directly defeat Britain, it's certainly not unimaginable that Goering may have a more favourable view of attacking Britain indirectly via Africa. After all he and other Nazi bigwigs may see it as a means of promoting pacifists in Britain to force Churchill to the sidelines and secure-if not peace-at least some form of ceasefire. Again this won't be possible in 1940, but I cannot see why Germany couldn't place some intense pressure on British Egypt. Even placing the Suez under fire will rattle some British nerves.

American entry depends on how far either side is willing to push it. Roosevelt was lucky in OTL with Hitler declaring war as no significant amount saw Germany as a threat to the US proper at the time. ITTL it will take some blunders on the part of the Kriegsmarine to develop that animosity necessary to give Roosevelt the support needed to push for war as Goering is unlikely to go the way of Hitler and put all his chips into the pot. If Britain stays in the war until at least 1942, however, expect the undeclared shooting war between the USN and Kriegsmarine to still break out in 1941.
 
Top