Operation Foxley

I'm interested in the forums opinion of a article for BBC History by Professor Duncan Anderson.

He speculates how the Eastern and Western fronts would have been fought had Hitler had been assassinated.

BBC - History - World Wars: Killing Hitler

 

I personally am of the opinion that Churchill, or others above the SOE's Foxley were wise in putting the stop to this plan. It was undertaken in good faith, but the elimination of Hitler at that time was disadvantageous to the Allies.

His interferrence and bumbling in the military field was to "our" benefit, he literally crippled his own command structure and the fighting ability of the troops. Then add to the problem that if he was "dead/assassinated" and then the Third Reich still went on to military defeat, this MIGHT leave the possibility open of another "stab in the back" myth to take root.

I can just hear it now; "if only Der Fuehrer was still alive, we wouldn't be in this fix now". Just what the world didn't need in the forties, another myth to support the idea of the ganged-up on, down-trodden German nation. Nope, stopping Operation Foxley was the right step at the time, and even in retrospect the best option.

Just my opinion of course.

 

British TV had an hour long documentary programme on this Operation. It might of been in the BBC 'Timewatch' series but I can't be sure.

 

Just to complicate matters further, what would have happened if some of the other attempts had been successful?

In particular these two:

Georg Elser . November 1939

Fabian von Schlabrendorff . March 1943

We could start quoting the post above it...

 

Hi;
Eliminate Hitler in 1944? Risky business indeed! That would leave the surviving NAZI's and the Wehrmacht in a power struggle with the outcome uncertain. Moreover-Hitler's disasterous defensive policies would have come to an end possibly making Eisenhower and Zhukov's jobs much harder.
ON THE OTHER HAND; it is possible that men of common sense and decency might have come to power in Germany thus saving millions of lives.
If it were my call my instincts would tell me to kill the crazy SOB. But would a clearheaded examination of the facts back this move?
JeffinMNUSA

 

It is my own opinion that if Georg Elser's bomb had succeeded the Second World War might not have taken place as it did historically at all. This was, of course well before Hitler had started making his truely outrageous aggressive moves to the west,north, or east.

I'm not so certain about the March attempt, the "unconditional surrender" doctrine had just be announced, and wouldn't be repealed that easily at that time. I wonder if that one (if successful) would have made all that much difference in the long haul. Certainly fewer humans (military and civilian) would have died in the next period of time, but I wonder if the outcome for Germany would have been all that different.

 

In March 1943 Germany was already defeated. I guess that was obvious to everyone in the "Ostfront" and even for Rommel.

Doctrine of unconditional surrender, IMHO there were two answers:

A) To resist, to impose conditions. Doomed to failure. It´s a matter of fact.

B) A little late for not sending reinforcements to North Africa, at least that can be removed from there (still can navigate at night between Tunis and Sicily), and taken to the Eastern Front.

Stop building submarines, not build "V" weapons , produce only fighters. Do not launch Citadel ... AND:

Shooting just enough to look you resist the landings in Sicily, leaving the Italians to surrender.. and the Allies reach the Brenner pass and the port of Marseille in the summer of 1943, as soon as possible. And repair the roads and railways in France and Austria to enable easy access to Berlin from the west.

I wonder the Wermacht Staff would have choose option A) especially if Göreing, another genius, had got the supreme command.

 

With Goering in charge in 1943, i'm sure history would indeed have taken a different turn.
Goering was much less megomaniacal then Hitler, and never had wanted the war. (Thanks to Von Ribbentrop's machinations, talks between Britain and Germany regarding Poland broke down and Hitler ordered the invasion. Goering promptly telephoned Ribbeontrop with the sarcastic message "Congratulations, you got your bloody war!")
Georring was only slightly less megomaniacal then Hitler and actually also, rather lazy in many ways. While he would certainly have been delighted to be the new Fuehrer, i'm inclined to think he would have picked a commander in chief for the Wehrmacht, probably from the Army, someone with proven ability such as Von Manstein or maybe even Albert Kesselring (whom he knew well, as the latter had also been a luftwaffe comander).

There are many quotes that even Hitler recognized by 1943 the war could not be won by Germany (he even told Erich Hartman, the me-109 ace, that "the war cannot be won from a military standpoint.") Certainly Goering was smart enough to realize that too (which i think explains his lax attitude as the war progressed). He would have tried to negotiate a peace with the Western allies, at least, but almost certainly would have been rebuffed, so Goerring, wanting to hang onto his newfound status, would doubtless have continued the war.

The chances of Goering allowing the surrender of territory as proposed by the author of the article, were slight, however putting a really first-class General like Manstein in charge at this point in the war would definitely have made things harder for the allies. But Hitler or no Hitler, the most likely outcome would have been to prolong the war for one or two months.

 

A little out of topic, (Posted by brndirt1)


Lost Prison Interview with Hermann Goring: The Reichsmarschall's Revelations