StarDestroyer.Net BBS

It's alt-hist I know, feel free to move if needed.

I saw Valkyrie agian the other day, and whilst I know that the rebels never got as far in real life as they did in the film.

My question is this: what if that bomb succeeded in killing Hitler? How would the rest of the war gone and what would the post-war Europe have looked like?

The likely outcome of a successful assassination is that German Government appeals to the Allies for a surrender with terms, to which the Allies repeat again the unanimous decision they came to that Germany must totally capitulate with NO terms or conditions whatsoever. The war goes on because no one is going to surrender 12 million German soldiers as long as they can still fight.

Really the July 20th Conspirators were extremely optimistic. Replacing the Nazi Administration with a slightly-less Nazi Administration is not going to stop or even slow the Allies down. Realize that this was the same exact thing that happened in 1918 with the Kaiser's government and it didn't stop another war from happening. Which was the precise reason the Allies were not going to stop short of total surrender. They needed to rebuild the German government from the ground up and trusted no one *in* Germany to do it.

This is to speculative to belong in history under our history rules, that said when this topic ends up in OT or Testing any kind of conclusions on if Stauffenberg had succeeded must be taken with large grains of salt. The general view is that the allies would have simply exploited the chaos to snap up armies and units. However there are several countervailing believes on the subject. Personally my own belief is that if stauffenberg had succeeded and this is the important bit had put Rommel in charge, a Rommel who wanted to end the war then a negotiated peace could have come about had he moved quickly and decisively enough. He had the pure raw Charisma and intimate knowledge having been their Field Marshall less than a few months ago to get his soldiers to stand down and foster everything possible to prevent action from breaking out. All he needs is the allies agreeing to a ceasefire greater than a single day and he could work his way into something.

For example how well would the Americans react if Rommel offered whatever is left of the German Navy and the U-boat fleet which was largely useless to the Americans in the Pacific. Such an offer will cost him if the allies continue the war but might win the public support needed to get a two or three week cease fire in place that will ensure peace of some kind will break out. That's something major but what about something much less minor like taking a lesson from WWI and instituting a Winter peace situation have his troops trade ratios and booze with the units they were fighting not so long ago, offer token gifts like say maps for already passed minefields recently captured prisoners and other offers of good faith that an American, British or Canadian officer would make them hesitate to attack again.

He just needs to stop the fighting for a bare week before public opinion and the press could be worked into something larger and longer term. Getting the ceasefire is the big thing, Rommels not the only one who could do it, but the one with the most good will to win a hearing.

The only agreement the allies would accept is an immediate surrender of all German war vessels and combat aircraft, in allied ports and airfields, combined with an unimpeded right of ground advance to Berlin pending the signing of an unconditional surrender. The only subject negotiations might take place, after said surrender, would be the specifics of how the allies would ensure food distribution in Germany. Stopping the fighting to negotiate is absurd, the Germans are LOOSING, giving them time is not going to happen. Even in WW1 the demand was for massive concessions just to stop fighting, and with no time at all given for the Germans to even talk it over among themselves. Doing anything but demanding an advance to Berlin is just playing end of WW1 over again, and its too late for that. Had the Germans killed Hitler in 1943 when the Italian campaign was a joke, the Russians didn't yet clearly have the initiative in the east and Overlord was months away some kind of scope for negotiations might have existed, though the western allies would still insist on an occupation of all of Germany, its just slightly possible they would have agreed to keep the Russians out. By July 1944 the allies were preparing to breakout from Normandy and people were already speculating the war would be over by Christmas. It was too late for negotiations to be even remotely credible.

I don't think the Germans would have swallowed allowing Russia to march on Berlin or even East Prussia. Maybe a few of them would have, but the July 20th plotters would have almost certainly fallen victim to infighting when they realize the allies are serious on the unconditional bit. That was one of the major problems with the entire plot, it didn't have a single strong leader, and it didn't have any means of strongly securing Berlin nor of dealing with the SS and other top Nazis. Perhaps the only thing that would encourage them to an unconditional surrender would have been the very threat of a counter coup.

With Hitler's death, an SS coup-d'etat is likely. Himmler was so ideologically committed to the Final Solution that he would allow no interference with its execution, and he's got a very organised apparatus in his hands ready to seize the machinery of state power. By contrast, the July 20th group did not seem to have anything near to a coherent plan much less an organised shadow government ready to assume the reigns. The probable outcome: Himmler, with Goebbels at his side, swiftly mobilises the SS and proclaims himself the new Chancellor, claiming legitimacy in the sacred name of the late, beloved Fuhrer —who obviously was felled by a "Jewish" conspiracy. The assassination group are swiftly rounded up, tried and executed (Rommel included) and the war continues until Nazi Germany is totally crushed. In other words, history proceeds on the course it did take, just without Hitler for that last year, and it will be uglier and bloodier before Zhukov's troops raise the Red Banner over the smoldering ruins of Berlin.

The wild-card in this scenario is Martin Bormann. The actual Deputy Fuhrer and Hitler's secretary, he has the Nazi bureaucracy at his fingertips, has the gauliters under his control, has Hitler's papers, and is in tight with the industrialists and bankers. He can easily blackmail his way to power in the wake of an SS coup and force Himmler to accept a partnership.

Keep in mind that a succesfull July 20th plot would have included the entire armies of the west and one army group of the east at first. I find it very hard to believe that Himmler would have managed much, especially considering he had no real troops of his own to deploy independently.

Also, at least one high-ranking Waffen SS commander would have followed Rommel, or at least that is what his biographer claims. Not sure about the veracity of that claim though, it just reads too much like a Good German variation.

Which officer was this? I'm genuinely curious, since I thought all the Waffen SS was fanatically loyal to Himmler. As for the OP though...Germany would either be:

A. Taken over by Himmler and the SS (not likely unless the conspirators self-destruct).

B. Self-Destruct and lose the war quicker (most likely in my opinion)

C. Somehow the July Plotters hold on to the leadership of Germany, and manage to get a surrender agreement with the Allies (preferably keeping the Soviets out of their country).

D. The July Plotters keep control, but can't get a negotiated settlement. Probably leading to the same end to the war (maybe quicker, maybe not). But the Holocaust shouldn't be as bad, especially if they get rid of Himmler (a necessity to keep power).

I think that B is the most likely. Then again, this is Alt-History, and I'm not a historian, so take all of that with a grain of salt.

Skywalker_T-65 wrote:Which officer was this?

Wilhelm Bittrich, commander of the II SS Panzerkorps.

I'm genuinely curious, since I thought all the Waffen SS was fanatically loyal to Himmler.

Like all things in Nazi Germany, it is a bit more complex than that and varied according to the character of the officers themselves.


As for what happened had they managed to get control, I think they would have tried to negotiate. If that failed, the war would have gone on (though fought smarter) and at the end I think we would have a complete concentration on the eastern fronts in order to surrender to the allies.

As for who would lead them? Beck. He had the leadership and trust of most of the officers and was regarded as a highly capable and honorable man.

Fascinating...so the consensus is that the war would not have ended any faster? And that it might actually have gone worse for Germany if Himmler siezed power. Could someone more knowledgeable than I elaborate on why that might be?

1944 was too late for any anti-Hitler plot to manage to preserve any Nazi-less variation of the Third Reich, since WWII was already clearly in the Allies' favor and they would not allow another repeat of 1918. The last moment when Hitler's opponents could have gotten rid of him and still maintain the Reich (minus the Nazis) was in 1938, at the height of the Sudetenland crisis. Had Britain and France stuck their necks out for Czechoslovakia for a while longer, the scared Heer would have thrown Hitler out and purged the remaining Nazis from power. I think it would have been a messy affair, though.

Force Lord wrote:The last moment when Hitler's opponents could have gotten rid of him and still maintain the Reich (minus the Nazis) was in 1938, at the height of the Sudetenland crisis.

What about 1940, in the wake of an attempted Sealion? When Staff College wargamed it post-war they predicted that the first wave would have got ashore and there would have been sufficient barges surviving to at least attempt an evacuation, I wonder if a bit more initial luck might have lead Hitler to order the second wave ashore. Given the inevitable outcome of this, would the scale of the defeat have been enough to trigger a coup, despite the reputation for success Hitler had built up through the previous couple of years?

The problem with attempting Sealion is that you're pretty clearly not dealing with the Hitler we know anymore. Which opens a whole new can of worms about another what if subject. This is usually what happens in these threads and while i'm no mod, I can see this getting flushed soon.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Force Lord wrote:The last moment when Hitler's opponents could have gotten rid of him and still maintain the Reich (minus the Nazis) was in 1938, at the height of the Sudetenland crisis.

What about 1940, in the wake of an attempted Sealion? When Staff College wargamed it post-war they predicted that the first wave would have got ashore and there would have been sufficient barges surviving to at least attempt an evacuation, I wonder if a bit more initial luck might have lead Hitler to order the second wave ashore. Given the inevitable outcome of this, would the scale of the defeat have been enough to trigger a coup, despite the reputation for success Hitler had built up through the previous couple of years?

As long as Churchill was in charge and Britain percieved Germany as out to dominate Europe, Hitler was never going to get a peace treaty out of London. Period. All bets were off by 1939.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Fascinating...so the consensus is that the war would not have ended any faster?

I do not share that point of view. I think there are too many variables at play here.

Force Lord wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:

Force Lord wrote:The last moment when Hitler's opponents could have gotten rid of him and still maintain the Reich (minus the Nazis) was in 1938, at the height of the Sudetenland crisis.

What about 1940, in the wake of an attempted Sealion? When Staff College wargamed it post-war they predicted that the first wave would have got ashore and there would have been sufficient barges surviving to at least attempt an evacuation, I wonder if a bit more initial luck might have lead Hitler to order the second wave ashore. Given the inevitable outcome of this, would the scale of the defeat have been enough to trigger a coup, despite the reputation for success Hitler had built up through the previous couple of years?

As long as Churchill was in charge and Britain percieved Germany as out to dominate Europe, Hitler was never going to get a peace treaty out of London. Period. All bets were off by 1939.

Edit button ran out. Dang it.

I'd rather not discuss about Sealion, for obvious reasons, though I believe that, if it was really attempted, Hitler would still be in a strong enough position to dissuade any coup attempts.

IIRC, back in 1939, after the invasion of Poland, when Hitler said he was going to invade France, Halder and Brauchitsch attempted to organize a picked force from the front and have it march on Berlin because they thought an invasion of France would lead to disaster (note that France had fought Germany for 4 years in WWI and people expected a repetition, and Manstein had not yet suggested the Ardennes route). The plan failed because Friedrich Fromm, who commanded the Ersatzheer, refused to collaborate on the grounds that the troops would not obey a putsch attempt against Hitler. That was before France fell and Hitler's popularity in Germany went through the roof.

I don't think the war would have necessarily ended quicker. Too many variables like Thanas said. For example, the fact that if Himmler managed to take power (not very likely but still) he would have continued in much the same way as Hitler. And you can be darn sure that even the July Plotters would never have let the Soviets in without a fight. So really, the war ending depends on either Germany collapsing because of a power vacuum or infighting of the Plotters...or a negotiated surrender to the Western Allies. I could see the Plotters (once they realized the war was lost) agreeing to surrender as long as the Soviets are kept out of German lands. But that's just me...and I'm hardly a historian (though I am going to go to college to learn more).

There is also another thing none of you have considered. If Hitler is killed by a coup and than Germany loses the war afterward (as is inevitable) than he would stand a high chance of becoming a martyr figure. Basically a repeat of the old WW1 talk that the soldiers could have won the war but the conspiracy and treason within the government ruined things. "Oh if they had not killed the firer he would have thought up wonderweapons..." And while this would be obviously false, it would still provide motivation and generations of neo Nazis to come. And in the long run (present day) that would arguably have been a much worse outcome.

Thanas wrote:Like all things in Nazi Germany, it is a bit more complex than that and varied according to the character of the officers themselves.

I sometimes think that flowcharts and Venn diagrammes are necessary to illustrate the twisty internal politics of the Nazi state.

*shrug* certainly true, but it is the same for every state. Heck, just try and find out about how US politicians think about every issuse....systems always appear complex if put under a microscope.

In the naive model, Nazi Germany is portrayed as an ideological tyranny- in theory everyone in the top echelons believed the same things and was working for the same goals.

Obviously, this isn't true, but in a democracy, even the naive model expects a certain amount of tension and disagreement. So the complexity may come as more of a surprise to the casual observer in the Third Reich than it would in, say, the Third Republic.

Actually, the only thing that might have a remote chance of saving Germany would have been Winston Churchill dying of natural causes before 10 May 1940.

With anyone other than Churchill in lead of Great Britain, a ceasefire and negotiated peace with them would have been possible when Hitler asked for it.

That's a bit outside the scope though - one might as well say it would have been saved had the Wehrmacht putsched after Schleicher or 1938.

Thanas wrote:That's a bit outside the scope though - one might as well say it would have been saved had the Wehrmacht putsched after Schleicher or 1938.

You're right, I'm a bit out. But my point is that every single one of the scenarios - Hitler in power, Stauffenberg succeeding, a Himmler counter-coup - would only have a minor chance of succeeding in "saving Germany" if Churchill wasn't there.

That man's dedication to fighting the Nazis was practically what kept Britain going, and what secured American help and later, intervention. He is the most dominant variable in each scenario. Remove him from the equation early enough (best case: before he became Chancellor), and much becomes possible.

Ah, yes. Understood.

I am not so sure the British would have surrendered- it becomes more plausible but very far from certain.