Von Stauffenberg kills Hitler in '44 - would it have made a difference?

Great Debates
1

Inspired by the Tom Cruise is a Nazi! thread.

Von Stauffenberg came very close to killing Hitler in 1944. According to the Wiki article on Von Stauffenberg, if he had been able to arm the second bomb, or even if he had left it in the briefcase, or if the meeting had been in the Führerbunker, or even if he’d been able to get the briefcase on the other side of the table-leg, Hitler likely would have been killed

But would it have made a difference by that time?

Churchill and Roosevelt had already announced at the North Africa conference that they would only accept unconditional surrender, because they had concluded they were dealing with a criminal regime. The Normandy landing had gone well, and Bradley was about to start the Cobra break-out - the western Allies wouldn’t have been likely to call it off at that stage.

The Red Army had recovered from the purges, defeated the German Army at Stalingrad, and was grinding west - and after the travails of the Eastern Front, Uncle Joe wasn’t likely to be content just by pushing the German Army across the German border.

So, would a military coup following Hitler’s assasination really have changed the course of the war?

2

[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
[BSo, would a military coup following Hitler’s assasination really have changed the course of the war?
[/QUOTE]

The critical battles of the war, Normandy/Falaise and Bagration, were at that point (July 20, 1944) already underway. Those two campaigns ended any hope Germany could achieve any measure of military success.

The Soviets were not in July 1944, “grinding” west; they were launching probably the most successful attack in the history of warfare. They were moving FAST, destroying German units by the hundreds, and killing five Germans for every loss. In two months they took over an amount of land almost as big as Poland, killed 300,000 Germans (to only 60,000 lost of their own) and wounded or captured half a million more. And this was after a very successful winter offensive. Germany had remained on the offensive after Stalingrad, and until 1944 was still keeping the Russians well in check. It was Operation Bagration that broke the tide; from the German perspective it was a catastrophe of essentially fatal proportions, a vastly worse and more consequential defeat than Stalingrad. They were on a massive roll. Asking them to accept peace terms would be like me offering you a draw in a chess match after you took all my peices and I only had a king and a couple of pawns to face your queen, rooks, and knights.

So in effect, Hitler’s assassination came almost precisely at the point at which the Allies were in about as good a position as they had ever been. The Allies and Soviets certainly would not have reduced their demand of unconditional surrender after it became apparent that half the German army was on its way to annihilation. In July 1944, things are looking pretty damned good, so why would they compromise? The only way they back down from that position is if Germany

  1. Offers extremely generous peace terms well before summer 1944, when the outcome of the war was still not clear, or

  2. Successfully (a) repels the Bagration offensive, (b) repels the Normandy offensive and at least holds the Russians a little bit in check, or (c) suddenly invents nuclear bombs or Transformers or something.

By the time they’d have gotten a post-Hitler government sorted out it would have been obvious that they were not going to repel either invasion and that Germany was, to put it in technical military terms, “as fucked up as a football bat.” The only way things change is if the new German government surrenders immediately, which doesn’t strike me as likely. The German government was made up, for the most part, of fanatical Nazis.

3

Well to me the big Question is how successful are the plotters? They want to kill Hitler AND seize the government of Nazi Germany AND make Peace with the Anglo-Amer-Franco Allies AND continue to fight the USSR. So to the OP Hitler is dead : Who comes to power?

A.
The conspirators expected to set up a provisional government under Ludwig Beck. Their idea, vaguely formed & as we understand it, was to make peace with the Allies but continue the War with the USSR (sometimes the idea is that the Allies some how switch sides and warn off the USSR or the USSR decides to negotiate and stops before invading Germany -as you note and I agree that wasn’t going to happen). Assume for a second they do Kill Alois’s boy and the Army and SS Units stay loyal to the new government en mass, the Allies agree to an Armistice (with no punitive war reparations on Germany & the “New Germans” get to keep their army and war industry in tact). Uh-huh OK. To me that plan still means best case the Provisional Government falls, roughly in Fall of '45 to the Red Army*.

B.
The Nazi government was a state built around a Dictator and a Party structure to support him. Himmler, Goebells, Muller and other Party apparatchiks would still be there. The SS , personally loyal to Hitler would still be around. I think it isn’t impossible that Hitler would have had a Nazi successor and the plotters killed for treason.

*In both scenario’s (despite what I say in no.1) I think Hitler prolonged a hopeless situation and almost certainly a different man would have surrendered Germany earlier –perhaps in a Japan–like scenario an ‘unconditional surrender’ with a few conditions in early 45. By July 20, 1944 *THAT *may have been the big difference

4

[QUOTE=RickJay]
The Soviets were not in July 1944, “grinding” west; they were launching probably the most successful attack in the history of warfare. They were moving FAST, destroying German units by the hundreds, and killing five Germans for every loss.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not disagreeing with you - I meant to say they were grinding up the Germans, heading west. You’ve provided the details I lacked in my OP. Thank you.

But that’s my point - I can’t see how a coup would have helped the German position. Wouldn’t the Allies just have shrugged their shoulders, repeated “unconditional surrender is the only outcome”, and kept on going?

5

It could have made a tremendous difference.

Hitler is killed. The Wehrmacht successfully seizes power from the Gestapo & the Waffen-SS. They name Rommel supreme commander of all German forces. He immediately calls for a ceasefire and sues for a negotiated peace with the allies. America, not having suffered a ‘German’ Pearl Harbor, is willing to accept a German conditional surrender (immediate succession of hostilities, return to post-war borders, and reasonably appropriate reparations).

Stalin however not only demands unconditional surrender but an occupation of Germany by Russian forces. The allies, already highly suspicious of the Soviets, are unwilling to allow Germany (and half of Europe) to be seized by them. The new German leadership, having vanquished and renounced Hitler themselves, would now be seen in a positive light by the allied forces and peoples. The Germans, already fearing and hating the Russians more than anyone, would see their opportunity of preventing a Soviet takeover (and essentially destruction) of their country by siding with the US, British and French, splitting the Allies.

In essense, WWII could have simply transformed into WWIII.

Of course then the Xindi Nazis, with their advanced technology, could have nuked Moscow and-- oh wait… :smiley:

6

Probably the best Germany could hope for at that point in time is they agree to capitulate on the Western front, allowing the U.S./U.K. to take all of Germany so that East Germany doesn’t become part of the Soviet Bloc.

However, that’s not really a realistic scenario. For one, the conspirators didn’t want to capitulate entirely to the U.S./U.K., they wanted an armistice and a single front war with the Russians (which they certainly would have lost.) On top of that, every indication is that Roosevelt was big on giving the key Allied nations their zones of control within postwar Germany. While I think Churchill recognized that eventually whatever part of postwar Germany the USSR controlled would eventually become part of the Soviet Empire, I think Roosevelt has always (correctly) been portrayed as much more trusting of Stalin. Furthermore, for a lot of reasons (many of them totally justified) Stalin wanted some control of postwar Germany, and it is very doubtful the U.S./U.K. would agree to cut the USSR out of a zone of control in postwar Germany. And of course it wasn’t just a matter of Roosevelt trusting Stalin, until 1946-1947 there was genuine cooperation between the USSR and the rest of the Allies, and while certain persons within the Allied powers recognized the USSR would be a future opponent, I think the war effort had genuinely put aside that concern (note that it was Truman who honored Roosevelt’s agreements at Yalta and moved U.S. forces back to the agreed upon lines established at Yalta when Churchill wanted to keep those areas out of Soviet hands.)

7

[Friday Night Hijack] Von Stauffenberg was a pussy and it serves him right to be portrayed by Tom Cruise. This is what happens when you assign someone who expects to survive the bombing the job of setting the bomb. Had he been less of a puss he’d’ve made damned sure the bomb was placed correctly when it went off and, class, the best way of doing that is…?

A human being is the only intelligent ordinance delivery system but you have to make sure he stays with the bomb to the moment of delivery to make adjustments. This is something our terrorist enemies know. The Japanese in WWII, too. Hell, even Randy Quaid in “Independence Day” knew it. Von Stauffenberg? If he knew it, and a moment’s thought woulda told him, he chickened out. [/Friday Night Hijack]

8

I’m thinking that by the time von Stauffenberg got around to playing briefcase bingo, the powers in Europe had had quite enough of Germany’s aggression-peace-aggression-peace tactics.

German re-militarized the Rhineland, then wanted to sign a non-aggression pact (which never materialized). Germany annexed the Sudetenland, then signed the Munich Agreement where they promised no further aggression. Somehow I doubt that the reaction to yet another peace offering by Nazi Germany would have been one of welcome and trust, even had the strategic situation been otherwise.

9

[QUOTE=Hail Ants]
It could have made a tremendous difference.

Hitler is killed. The Wehrmacht successfully seizes power from the Gestapo & the Waffen-SS. They name Rommel supreme commander of all German forces. He immediately calls for a ceasefire and sues for a negotiated peace with the allies. America, not having suffered a ‘German’ Pearl Harbor, is willing to accept a German conditional surrender (immediate succession of hostilities, return to post-war borders, and reasonably appropriate reparations).

.. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]

Apart from the fact that Rommel was pretty much sitting on the fence about the plot(he knew about it but refused to commit himself to it or report it until he knew which side would win.)Rommel was not considered by the Wermacht in general to be an outstanding tactical leader and indeed compared to those who had spent most of the war on the ost front he wasnt,compared to your Guderians and Models he was very much minor league.
So there would have been no chance at all of his being made Sup.Cmdr. of the german forces.

The unconditional surrender was not negotiable by any of the three major allies,it was set in stone and the U.S. would not have broken ranks as any attempt to do so would have destroyed any future American credibility in any sort of international negotiations whether in trade ,finance,arms ,anything at all in fact for a long ,long time to come .

I doubt if Hitlers death would have caused the coup to be successful as the bestest and the mostest of Das Heer were too busy fighting for their lives on all three fronts to have the time or to even risk arresting badly needed fighting SS divisions, and the homeland forces were virtually all retreads,no match at all for the psychopaths of the Alleimagne SS and Gestapo.

Hitler was at that time micro controlling land forces down to quite small unit levels and his" stand where you are until dead" tactics greatly aided the allies ,a bit like a boxer having to stand still and let his opponent punch him rather then ducking the blow and then retaliating,likewise his using the first production jet planes for ground attack instead of against bomber formations and his map manouvering of
phantom units were all godsends .

Hitler dying would have meant that some of the finest generals in the world would again have the freedom to govern military tactics which would almost certainly have prolonged the war and have meant increased casualties on our side but probably lessened those of the Axis .
The outcome would still have been the same however.

As a matter of interest the British had an assasination mission planned to kill Hitler in the Eagles Lair that had a fair chance of success ,though the survivability of the mission on exfiltration would have been of a low order but it was cancelled late in the day for the very reasons given above.

10

The most likely result would have been Himmler taking over. He probably would have done a more rational job running the war then Hitler historically did and it might have extended the war for another year or two (or at least long enough for the atom bomb to be used).

11

[QUOTE=Hail Ants]
Hitler is killed. The Wehrmacht successfully seizes power from the Gestapo & the Waffen-SS. They name Rommel supreme commander of all German forces. He immediately calls for a ceasefire and sues for a negotiated peace with the allies. America, not having suffered a ‘German’ Pearl Harbor, is willing to accept a German conditional surrender (immediate succession of hostilities, return to post-war borders, and reasonably appropriate reparations).

Stalin however not only demands unconditional surrender but an occupation of Germany by Russian forces. The allies, already highly suspicious of the Soviets, are unwilling to allow Germany (and half of Europe) to be seized by them. The new German leadership, having vanquished and renounced Hitler themselves, would now be seen in a positive light by the allied forces and peoples. The Germans, already fearing and hating the Russians more than anyone, would see their opportunity of preventing a Soviet takeover (and essentially destruction) of their country by siding with the US, British and French, splitting the Allies.
[/QUOTE]
I think Hail Ants hypothesis is disturbingly likely; the only thing that bound the Western and Eastern Allied powers together was a combined fear of the Axis Powers. By '44 the U.S. was fighting and winning major battles in the Pacific theater (thereby taking the stress off of the Soviet Union from a Japanese invasion of Upper Manchuria and parts west), and had Germany capitulated to one side or the other–and given the options, they would have picked the Western Allies, specifically Britain and the United States–that would have immediately evoked tensions and perhaps even open conflict between the not-yet-established in Eastern Europe Soviets, and the staunchly anti-Communist nations of Northern Europe, Great Britain, and the United States. Indeed, up to and during the fall of Berlin there was great concern and tapdancing about who would get their first and how they’d handle contact between the US/British forces and the Red Army. The British had already been in open conflict with post-Menshevik USSR (1917 on), and there were many refugees in Central and Western European nations that had only just escaped Stalin’s bloody post-Leninist purges and the sweeping “readjustments” and “internments” that became the GULAG system of concentration camps that would eventually dwarf anything the Germans did.

With Hitler dead, the Reichskriegsministrerium would likely have collapsed, or at least seriously lost power, and the Wehrmacht High Command would have sued for peace to the Western Allies, even at a loss of land and the cost of reparations, as the senior professional military staff knew exactly how hopeless the war was for the materiel-strapped Germany. With Germany capitulated, the U.S. and Britain would have faced off against the Red Army, and at best come to an uneasy stalemate. Where the lines would have ended up is anyone’s guess, but I’d expect that there’d be at the very minimum some shooting between the Red Army and the Western powers before it settled out, instead of the uncertain peace and eventual Cold War along the agreed upon division of authority lines that ended up become the borders of the Iron Curtain.

Stranger

12

Frankly, I very much doubt that Von Stauffenburg wanted to prolong the war.

13

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
Frankly, I very much doubt that Von Stauffenburg wanted to prolong the war.
[/QUOTE]

I agree but the Germans were still operating under the self induced delusion that they could make a seperate peace with the Anglo-Americans and then fight as allies against the Soviet Union,they totally believed this at all levels in their society .

This would never have happened ,even before we over ran the concentration camps and saw the results .

As I said before the unconditional surrender decision was written in stone ,it was non negotiable.

As an example the AngloAmerican forces stopped at the Elbe even though by that time they could have cake walked it further into the Reich but whatever ground we took would have been handed over to the Russians on the cessation of hostilities and our forces would have withdrawn to the previously agreed areas .
Eisenhower correctly decided not to bother going forward to save our own people from unnecessary casualties.

To have broken the agreement would most certainly have resulted in war with Russia .
The Americans wanted to get the war over with and get on with their lives and the Brits who had entered the war three years earlier then them and who had taken heavy military and civilian casualties in relation to their comparatively small population did not have enough effective manpower left to continue the war for too much longer .

Even before D Day British fighting units were being disbanded and cannibalised to bring other units up to strength and support troops that had not earlier been considered as young or fit enough for front line service were recategorised for just that duty.
Even fighting on until 1946 ,whether Germans or Russians ,would have meant us having to send Boy Scout troops into the front line.
(before the more literal minded jump in as oft times before that was a humourus exaggeration to underline my point )

Unlike the common Hollywood portrayals D-Day was primarily an AngloCanadian operation though from then on the Americans were the prime movers of the allied cause in the Western European theatre of operations.
The British casualty crisis was kept very much a secret from the Axis for obvious reasons,from the Russians also for obvious reasons and from the Americans as much as was possible without endangering forward planning so that Britain could still carry some weight in the post war planning decision making.

A seperate peace ?no way ,no chance .
Seeing Bin Laden at a hog roast would be more likely.

14

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]

Unlike the common Hollywood portrayals D-Day was primarily an AngloCanadian operation though from then on the Americans were the prime movers of the allied cause in the Western European theatre of operations.
[/QUOTE]

From a strictly numeric standpoint, American troops landing at Normandy totalled 73,000, British troops totalled 62,000, and Canadian troops totalled 21,000.

15

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
From a strictly numeric standpoint, American troops landing at Normandy totalled 73,000, British troops totalled 62,000, and Canadian troops totalled 21,000.
[/QUOTE]

So American ground forces totalled 73,000 and Anglo Canadian forces numbered 83,000,but when you factor in the naval and airforces the AngloCanadian commitment is even more predominant.

Dont get me wrong even as a Brit until recently I believed that you yanks played a larger part in Overlord then we did and couldnt have been more surprised to find out that my impression was incorrect .
Another surprising statistic that Im not sure that I really believe is that more British bomber crew were killed over Germany then the fatalities from all three American armed services for the entire duration of the war in the European theatre.

As a Brit I consider you Yanks to be our best friends and I will never ,ever downgrade your help and friendship to us over many years so I hope you dont think that I was trying to get a dig in against you guys.

16

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
I agree but the Germans were still operating under the self induced delusion that they could make a seperate peace with the Anglo-Americans and then fight as allies against the Soviet Union,they totally believed this at all levels in their society .

This would never have happened ,even before we over ran the concentration camps and saw the results.
[/QUOTE]

Possibly not, but the Germans probably oculd have surrendered - to the western forces alone.

17

[QUOTE=Lust4Life]
So American ground forces totalled 73,000 and Anglo Canadian forces numbered 83,000,but when you factor in the naval and airforces the AngloCanadian commitment is even more predominant.
[/QUOTE]

You also may have forgotten that we Americans delibertaltey chose the worst and most heavilly defended landing sites. While all units encountered some resistance, the mass slaughters occurred on the American beach-heads.

18

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
You also may have forgotten that we Americans deliberately chose the worst and most heavily defended landing sites. While all units encountered some resistance, the mass slaughters occurred on the American beach-heads.
[/QUOTE]
That only came true on one of the US beaches (Omaha); the other (Utah) was a cake walk and the troops landing there suffered less casualties than they did on their last training run - 197 out of 23,000. Even at Omaha the casualties were 2,300 on the first day or around 10% - bad but hardly a “mass slaughter”. Furthermore your contention that the US were deliberately taking on the toughest defence is untrue; they though the unit manning Omaha was the weak 716th Static division but were unaware that a few days before the invasion it had been replaced by the much tougher 352nd Infantry.

19

Welp, it seems you are correct concerning that.

20

For some reason, even the among the Brits, people seem to think Britain was some sort of weakling in WWII. From what I’ve read, it seems this is far from the truth. I think I even heard a stat (no cite sorry - and it could be wrong) the Britain produced more tanks than Germany in 1941.

Either way, Britain was no weak sister in WWII.

Blinkingduck (a Yank)