Operation Valkyrie (what if)

[wautd]

Say the assassination on Hitler succeeded, what would happen next?

- What were the chances of a successful coup? Where the conspirators overly optimistic or did they had a decent chance with Hitler out of the picture?

- In case the coup still fails, which of the nazi's would be most likely Hitlers successor? I assume Goebbels due to his large political power, but Himmler might try to go for it as well. If I'm not mistaken, the nazis had their fair share of bickering between themselves, so perhaps Nazi Germany would collapse on its own with Hitler dead.

[Mr Bean]

- In case the coup still fails, which of the nazi's would be most likely Hitlers successor? I assume Goebbels due to his large political power, but Himmler might try to go for it as well. If I'm not mistaken, the nazis had their fair share of bickering between themselves, so perhaps Nazi Germany would collapse on its own with Hitler dead.

There's a short list of names if not Donitz as happened in history, prehaps the coup goes badly enough that Rommel remains unstained and gets picked as the new figure-head leader of Germany while Himmler takes the real power or some such public/private combo.

[MKSheppard]

For Valkyrie to have a chance of succeeding; it can't happen on 20 July. It's got to happen in the earlier two abortive attempts by Stauffenberg; and nail the nazi trifecta of Hitler, Goering, and Himmler at once; if one of them survives, the plot is lost.

Thanas can probably go into much greater detail on Valkyrie than me for obvious reasons

[CaptHawkeye]

Yeah, Hitler's posse would have no problem at all "succeeding the Furher" if he died. In order for the operation to work you really did need to bag Himmler, Hitler, and Goering all at once. Goebbels would be nice too but I don't think he had the stature to run the Reich on his own.

I'm pretty sure Hitler named Goering his official successor in the event of his assassination. That may have been back before 1940 however, when Goering was at the peak of his career and Hitler had nothing but admiration for him. As time went on Hitler and Goering didn't get along so well and Hitler subtly shifted his respect to Himmler.

Their are certain problems to be had with Hitler's death. If Hitler is killed, he might just become a martyr. The effect of this will be greatly compounded if Goering or Himmler seize control. They'll use Hitler as a national rallying icon. It probably won't make the war last any longer, but it won't be much shorter either.

Albrecht yelled in the movie it would be convenient to kill Hitler and set up the new regime "before the Russians reach fucking Berlin." and he was probably right. By the middle of 1944 the Soviets were set on reaching Germany and totally annihilating the self-governing German state. Promises of a truce from a new government might not have stayed them. They *might* get favorable listeners in the Western Allies, but then again, they might not have any luck there either. Himmler tried to personally negotiate with the Allies mid-1945 but Eisenhower pretty much gave him the bird.

[Sea Skimmer]

A change in leadership would have probably just made the war go on longer, since the Bulge offensive wouldn’t waste the last German armored reserves in a hopeless attack. Instead they’d be around to counter attack allied offensives in 1945. No one in Germany was going to surrender unconditionally in 1944, and even in 1945 they’d never stop fighting the Russians until Berlin fell. It just wouldn’t happen, but the coup plotters unrealistically through they had a chance of a separate peace with the western allies. They really didn’t grasp how much Roosevelt was willing to ignore how bad Stalin was. Churchill was much less fond of Stalin, but still wasn’t going to give a separate peace a seconds thought either. The idea of letting Nazi Germany survive in any form, let alone an armed form was just inherently unacceptable and rightly so.

It’s really hard to see any time when a peace could have been reached during the war, except maybe if a coup took place in early 1940 and then unilaterally withdrew from Poland. Even then they might not get a treaty, because the British would demand Germany make Russia give back its chunk of Poland too.

[Thanas]

Most german historians are in agreement that if the coup succeeded, Germany most likely would have unconditionally surrendered to the western allies.

[MKSheppard]

Most german historians are in agreement that if the coup succeeded, Germany most likely would have unconditionally surrendered to the western allies.

The problem is, as Stuart once put it: "Is anyone going to answer the phone?"

[Samuel]

Most german historians are in agreement that if the coup succeeded, Germany most likely would have unconditionally surrendered to the western allies.

The problem is, as Stuart once put it: "Is anyone going to answer the phone?"

We accepted their surrender later- as long as they agree to surrender unconditionally, what would be the problem?

[CaptHawkeye]

Most german historians are in agreement that if the coup succeeded, Germany most likely would have unconditionally surrendered to the western allies.

The problem is, as Stuart once put it: "Is anyone going to answer the phone?"

We accepted their surrender later- as long as they agree to surrender unconditionally, what would be the problem?

The fact that a self-governing German state still exists. The Allies answered the call of a "new government" in Germany during the last World War when the German Revolution forced the Kaiser to abdicate. That led to the establishment of the Weimar Republic. The Weimar Republic completely failed to control the overwhelming nationalist sentiment that led Germany to World War 2. Why should the Allies think a new internal regime in Nazi Germany would do any better?

The Allies need to stamp the Nazis and their culture of violence out of existence. They could not trust a coup-Government to do that.

[lord Martiya]

I'm with you, on this.

Their are certain problems to be had with Hitler's death. If Hitler is killed, he might just become a martyr.

And that's exactly the reason why the British plans to assassinate Hitler were never activated (yes, they analized all the odds and concluded that they were capable to kill him but it would do more harm than good).

[Sea Skimmer]

We accepted their surrender later- as long as they agree to surrender unconditionally, what would be the problem?

You missed the to the western allies part. The Germans might try to surrender to the US and Britain, but they would keep fighting the Soviets. As the western allies saw the Germans as nothing but treacherous scum by 1944 and had signed multiple agreements with the Soviets specifically not to agree to any kind of separate peace they are highly unlikely to accept such a stab in the back agreement. Especially since by June 20th they already had more then a million men ashore in France. All German forces must surrender at once for anything to happen, and I highly doubt any German officer is going to hand over about 2.5 million German troops to the Russians when they can still fight. Operation Bagration might start to change the Germans minds quickly, but if they cease fighting then, the Russia may well win the race to Berlin.

[Mr Bean]

What happens if Germany strips the country bare of everything behind the front line on the Western front and puts everything on the Soviet front and surrenders right up until the Rhine? Lets say the plot goes off on July 7th and they nab the top three. With the landings a month old and the allies bogged down in Hedgrow fighting. Lets say the bulk of German forces retreat to the Rhine and dig in, surrendering all of France to the allies and offering to surrender Germany itself if they will take possession of the entire country provided they set up their defensive lines on the Germany/Poland old border.

Could they offer a sweet enough deal to swing American Public opinion say?

[Buritot]

Huh. The Rhine line may have been what Germany generals would have liked... kind of... but that would have neither sit with the population nor their pride. You remember the Stab-in-the-back legend after WWI? Pretty much the same would have happened then. Furthermore you would still have a population mostly unaware of the Nazi atrocities. happening in and our of Germany. There had been hardly mention of concentration camps during Hitlers reign and even during the allied occupation most didn't believe or seem to grasp the dimensions to which their armies had been involved.

Furthermore the Allied Talks no one knew about would have prevented any possibility of Germany not being razed.
The collaborators of Stauffenberg wanted a more moderate policy. They were by no means any kind of democratic or liberal. They wanted to quit while they were ahead. Stauffenberg appreciated Hitlers withdrawal from the Treaty of Versailles. Only after various pogroms and the Eastern Front came to be (especially after 1942) he became doubtful.
There is also Goebbels. Killing Hitler, Himmler and Goering would have been great, but letting Goebbels live would have been detrimental. He had a way with words that was close to otherworldly. If you listen to him on records and don't keep your wits it is entirely likely you find yourself cheering him on after he finished his speech. It is eerie and frightening.

The most historical impact would have made a coup d'etat prior to Hitlers turn east. Simply killing him and his posse wouldn't have been enough, either - the wholly conservative military would have simply offed the treasoners and moved on with its agenda. So without the military backing up an assassination there would have been no success in changing much of the outcome of WWII.

[Thanas]

That is doubtful. Von Brauchitsch and a large number of generals were quite skeptical about the chance of success and had no great desire to go along with it.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Pretty much the only time that a coup against Hitler could have led to a negotiated peace would have been before the USSR and US entered the war; June 22nd 1941 is when Germany is screwed as we know it. There's simply no other way for it to be. Obviously the best solution for Germany would have been had Hitler been removed in a coup between the annexation of Bohemia (the rest of Czechoslovakia) and the invasion of Poland. The new government could have probably preserved the peace and kept all German gains. An agreement could later be negotiated, perhaps, with both the Soviets and the Poles for the division of the east and the western states would be less likely to object to anything involving Poland. I might well imagine the right Polish leadership trading Danzig and the corridor for Lithuania and Courland, with Slovakia divided between Poland and Hungary and the Soviets getting Estonia, Livonia, and Romania and Finland in their sphere of influence. But that might not be seen as a good enough deal by Stalin... He'd probably still accept it as a reasonable prelude to continue Soviet military preparations for the inevitable confrontation with Germany that would result from this.

[Thanas]

No, the best moment would have been if the Reichswehr Generals had not mostly been cowards and gone ahead with the planned coup in 1933.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No, the best moment would have been if the Reichswehr Generals had not mostly been cowards and gone ahead with the planned coup in 1933.

I'd be worried about the ability of a Germany still potentially bound by most of the Versailles provisions to resist the RKKA when Stalin does finally decide it's time to strike west, honestly. How far do you think they would have gone with rearmament?

[Samuel]

No, the best moment would have been if the Reichswehr Generals had not mostly been cowards and gone ahead with the planned coup in 1933.

I'd be worried about the ability of a Germany still potentially bound by most of the Versailles provisions to resist the RKKA when Stalin does finally decide it's time to strike west, honestly. How far do you think they would have gone with rearmament?

You mean with all of Western Europe united by the threat of the communist horde? Isn't that the worst position possible for the USSR? The Allies would drop the treaty provisions if the USSR started to show signs of planned aggression to try to counter it.

I'm pretty sure Stas thought it was impossible both due to material constraints and the fact that the USSR was still industrializing. Do we have any sources that show that Stalin was planning a push west in the near future?

[K. A. Pital]

I'm pretty sure Stas thought it was impossible both due to material constraints and the fact that the USSR was still industrializing.

It definetely was. If Stalin was sufficiently delusional, he could've pushed the RKKA onward regardless of it's readiness, but that would've been such an epic fucking disaster mirroring 1941. The only thing that was worth such a strike would be preventing the German assault deep into Russia - doubtlessly that would save the USSR from great devastation - but that implies a Nazi Germany actively militarizing and threatening the USSR still.

Moreover, why a Versallies bound Germany would be resisting Russia? If the USSR attacks Poland unilaterally (a non-Nazi Germany, and especially one bound by Versaillies, would find it hard to assault Poland at all and do so successfully would be nigh impossible), it just gets into a war with France and Britain. Endgame for the USSR - it would have to stomp through myriads of nations with their armies to even begin to assault their foes, with no Navy to speak of and no long-range bombardment capabilities.

Suffice to say, such a line is more than militarily suicidal...

The absence of Nazi Germany in Europe removes the causes of World War II decisively, because a weak Germany would not try to play East and West against each other, neither be strong enough to assault any of the parties. No collective security treaties would even be needed, because the case for them would be lost. No agreements between USSR and France and Britain would even be discussed.

[Thanas]

No, the best moment would have been if the Reichswehr Generals had not mostly been cowards and gone ahead with the planned coup in 1933.

I'd be worried about the ability of a Germany still potentially bound by most of the Versailles provisions to resist the RKKA when Stalin does finally decide it's time to strike west, honestly. How far do you think they would have gone with rearmament?

I see no reason why Germany would not rearm - the generals wanted it and if they were pushing for it in return to having elections (if they do not haul the Kaiser back) I see no reason why the reichswehr should not be expanded. Of course, this time the rearmament may be a little more sane and not bankrupt the state....

And truth to be told, the people involved in this coup (who coincidentally also were among the July 20th plot, like Beck) always struck me as more competent than Hitler's goons, with the possible exception of Speer and Dönitz. But I see no reason why the latter should be tossed out with them.

[Surlethe]

If the coup had succeeded before or soon after June 6 '44, would it have been possible for Germany to throw the western allies into the channel and then sue for peace?

[Thanas]

...with what are they going to throw them into the channel? If the coup had succeeded immediately before June 6, it would not have mattered a bit to the Normandy situation.

The allies simply had that much material superiority. A coup is not suddenly going to conjure up two or three tank divisions out of thin air. What might have happened is that Rommel would have gotten permission to have more reserves near the front.

I am however not quite qualified to say the effect of such a deployment, maybe Skimmer or Shep can answer that.

[Surlethe]

I had been under the impression that Hitler did not permit Rommel to use the tank divisions stationed at Calais until significantly after the western allies had consolidated their beachhead, and that if he had been able to employ them Rommel could have stifled the advance. But that could be entirely wrong.

[CaptHawkeye]

An open attack on the beach with conventional forces is just the sort of thing the Allies would have loved. The Allied Naval Force consisted of countless fire support ships and no less than 10 battleships. A Panzer Attack on the beach would have gotten raped. Which would have made the advance through the Bocage easier.

The Rommel Cultist belief that the invasion would have failed "if only Rommel had control" is utter bullshit. German commanders feared placing their forces close to the beach for good reason. The Allies flattened the area all around the landing zones. Non-prepared positions and forces (like basically anyone not sitting underneath 10ft of concrete) would have been annihilated.

[The Spartan]

I had been under the impression that Hitler did not permit Rommel to use the tank divisions stationed at Calais until significantly after the western allies had consolidated their beachhead, and that if he had been able to employ them Rommel could have stifled the advance. But that could be entirely wrong.

Except, in the end, would they have been able to do anything but delay the inevitable? Particularly with the Soviets chewing up resources on the Eastern Front as they did and the sheer amount of stuff that was thrown at them on every front.