Von Fritsch stops WW2

I have read in alot of histories of Nazi Germany that before the reunion with Austria that there was only one man that could have forced Hitler out and stopped WW2, Colonel General Werner Freiherr von Fritsch. But he was forced out of his command of the German Army by trumped up charges of homosexuality that were completely baseless and false. Forced out mainly because he disapproved of Nazism and Hitler's policies towards expansion. He was in favor of the Anschluss with Austria and the reoccupation of the Rhineland and also the expansion of the Army but only for the security of Germany's borders. For a few years prior to his resigning, Himmler and Heydrich had tried to cook up several plots to discredit him including one that said he was the leader of a military coup that was planned in 1935. None of them worked until the homosexuality charge which mainly succeeded because of Fritsch's growing opposition to Nazifying the Army. In the real history Fritsch was in a room with Hitler, Goering, and his accuser and became so enraged that he could not even speak to defend himself and resigned later on against the advice of all his friends in the Army. He was later killed in Poland with his old regiment.

But let's say that he doesn't resign. Instead after years of fending off Himmler and Heydrich he still becomes enraged and starts to carry a gun.(which in real life, he did) With all these plots to unseat him, he is going to defend himself if the Gestapo or the SS come for him. Futile or not, he's going to put up a fight. So he goes to the meeting with Hitler and Goering and is confronted with his accuser and the charges of homosexuality, whereupon he pulls his pistol and shoots all three men in the room. He couldn't believe that the Fuhrer would believe such lies and Goering was also angling for his job, so he takes care of all three problems with one shot so to speak. He then picks up the phone, calls General Ludwig Beck(Chief of Staff) and tells him to mobilize the Army and arrest all SS officers, especially Himmler and Heydrich. He has the backing of the Army and the will to use it. Beck had been at him for years to stand up to Hitler, so Beck is on his side. Guderian, von Manstein and others also like and respect von Fritsch and will follow his orders along with most of the rest of the officers and men in the Army. The Defense Minister, von Blomberg, at the same time is accused of marrying a whore, and has already stepped down, so he may inclined to go along with what has happened and rid Germany of the Nazi rule.

So now what? German civil war? Or does Germany still unite with Austria but then stays within it's borders? No demands on Czechoslovakia? No demands on Poland? No World War 2?

One thing I believe is certain, von Fritsch would stop the anti-semitic nonsense going on at this time. He, in real life, had always stood up for former Jewish soldiers who had served Germany during WW1. The Nazi excesses regarding the Jews disgusted him to no end.

I got this idea from a footnote in William Shirer's Rise And Fall Of Third Reich where Shirer describes von Fritsch standing next to him at some sort of parade and keeping a running, sarcastic comment going about the Nazis and their policies. From Shirer, and other authors, I get the sense that von Fritsch hated the Nazis with a passion.

 

Thanks. Now let's see where can take this and what sort of answers we get.

 

At least one German had some sense in his brain... lol

Your what-if is amazing, speechless. I believe that WWII could've been held off, according to your info in your post.

 

I was thinking about this scenario overnight.

If the Nazis had been deposed and Germany had stopped with the Anschluss, there would not have been World War II as we know it. But might there still have been war?

What of Stalin? Clearly he had his ambitions, since he gobbled up the Baltic States and half of Poland, as well as starting a war with Finland. Would Stalin have been as aggressive without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? In any case, I think Germany would have continued to build its armaments, simply out of fear of the Soviet Union.

If Russia had started an armed expansion westwards, there might have been war between the French, British and Germans on one side, and the Soviet Union on the other. Though I think without Hitler taking on the West, Stalin would have been reluctant to start anything.

Then there's Japan. The Japanese Empire had its own disputes with the US, and may have gone to war anyway. But with no European war, the British, Dutch and Americans would have had far greater forces to commit to the Far East.

So maybe there might still have been a war, but probably a less destructive one.

 

IMO what happened in Europe played little in the decision of Japan going to war or not. After all they were in a war on the Asian mainland since 31 - 35. This resulted in the US embargo, which more or less force Japan into a more expansive war into the South Pacific. The question would be how many resources could the Europeans use in the Pacific if that war went as history has it. Would the Dutch, France, UK have more forces in place in Dec 41?

HP

 

The Japanese, historically, were influenced by what was happening in Europe. They were not forced into a "more expansive" war in the Pacific by the US embargo; they could have opted to negotiated their way out of an aggressive war, for instance. Furthermore, the reason the embargo was so effective (and the reason the NEI refused to sell them oil) was because they had aligned themselves with the European Axis by signing the Tripartite Pact. In fact, the only reason the Japanese felt they had any chance of limiting (and thus avoiding defeat in a "total" war) the Pacific war was because both Britain and the US were distracted by, and obliged to fight, the Axis in Europe. It's fairly likely that had there been no European war in 1939, there would have been no Pacific war in 1941.

 

I agree. Without the non-Aggression Pact between Germany and the USSR, Stalin is a little more hesitant to annex territory belonging to other countries. And without Germany right on his border, there's no need for him to do so?

And with a reasonable German government under von Fritsch, or someone installed by him and the Army, after the Nazis had been dealt with, would there have been demands on Czechoslovakia about the Sudetenland or to Poland about Danzig and the Corridor? Maybe Poland situation would still cause friction because most Germans, even the moderate ones in the Social Democrats, looked at Poland with loathing.

Oh, and after von Fritsch stages his coup, I do believe he would've installed someone else to rule. From what I've read about him, he wouldn't have wanted to rule the country. He was devoted to the Army and almost nothing else. Maybe a return of the monarchy?

If it helps, a couple of links about Von Fritsch:

Werner von Fritsch

Werner von Fritsch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scant information to be sure.

 

Well, speculation always has its limits. Who in 1930 would have foreseen the rise of Hitler and his Nazis?

This military coup led by von Fritsch would occur in 1938, correct? In 1938, the Nazi ideology had gained a sufficient number to be a threat even if the party was stopped. If, after the coup, von Fritsch or his appointed leader, if that person did not stop the Nazis, the German population would be quite divided. If he did stop the Nazis, by ruthlessly oppressing and crushing the Nazis, then the government would become militaristic again, which could, again lead to war. You can guess, but I think there are too little facts to guess anywhere near accurately as to Germany's future.

As to Soviet Russia's future, I really, very heavily doubt Stalin would work up the courage to actually invade Poland without Hitler. He might jostle around the Baltic States, and push around Finland, but the Western Allies would definitely not let him mess with Poland. What probably would happen is Stalin would turn his focus to the east. A war with Japan would be highly likely, in which case I believe Russia would easily win. Territorial gains could be made in that area, making Russia a larger power in the East.

As for Japan, I doubt they would involve the United States, or the Allies. They would probably have a couple extra years to tackle China, and maybe even finish it off militarily. In that case, I have no idea how they would control a huge, hateful population in a huge country. They probably could never really "finish" China, with the Chinese retreating to the west. Japan would also fight for imperial possessions in the rest of Asia, but not at the risk of starting a war with the Allies. If Russia did invade, the Japanese would not fare too well at all.

In this case, the future is completely undecided. Germany could definitely become a superpower, and maybe the Russians, if they could make advances in the East. However, the United States would be still highly isolationist, a little behind in military technology, and barely militarized. America would be a looming potentially strong nation, but, unlike history, would not be a leader in global affairs, and not the most powerful military. France would remain a power, but I doubt it was going to go anywhere fast.

As for the end of imperialism, I believe without a definitive World War 2, the end of imperialism would be far off, decades off, indeed, meaning that the British would also have the potential to be a superpower, although India would probably have rebelled soon anyway.

 

I think by the late thirties the lunatics were well in the driving seat and Japan was incapable of negotiating anything that didn't immediately disintegrate in a welter of assassinations.

 

Maybe in regards to developing themselves into a industrialized nation that would one day build color TV's and that's about it, regardless of Hitler.

They had attacked and occupied Manchuria way before 1939. They had proven their interest of expansion by siding wih the allies in WWI so as to obtain Tsingtau, furher territories in China and the south Pacific. They had been expanding and following an agressive policy since 1892 e.g. Taiwan, way even before WWI.
It was Manchuria /China that caused the embargo in the first place - and sooner or later they would have confronted the western colonyholders such as England, France and Holland. And the US would certainly have not just stood by and watched.

Regards
Kruska

 

Hello SOAR21,

a very good post indeed.

Germany under Fritsch or whoever, would in the end have gotten into the same situation as the Kaiser in 1914. An emerging Germany looked and judged upon by the other European nations as a thread to their own interests and positions.

Regards
Kruska

 

That's a very superficial analysis of Japanese foreign policy during the period in question. No doubt there would have been domestic difficulties in negotiating anything with the West, but the IJA was definitely in charge of Japanese foreign policy and had the leadership of the IJA decided it was in their best interests, negotiations over the US embargoes could very well have led to different results than historically. The IJA was quite capable of dealing harshly with the fanatics who carried out political assassinations, it never did because they saw these events as useful to their own agenda. So no, negotiations were possible.

 

The Japanese were most certainly bent on aggressive expansionist policies and certainly used military force much too freely, but Manchuria was in 1931, the war with China started in 1937, to claim the US embargoes in 1940-41, were "caused" by either event is absurd. The most that can be said along these lines was that Japan's signing of the Tripartite Pact in 1940, and the occupation of southern Indochina in 1941, finally tried the patience of the US to the breaking point. Japan may have been destined for an eventual war with the West, but the question of timing was definitely strongly influenced, if not outright controlled, by events in Europe. Your example of Japan's alliance during WW I is just one outstanding example. Japan also withdrew forces from Chinese territory in response to pressure from France, Germany, and Russia in 1907, and withdrew it's occupation troops from Siberia in response to pressure from the League of Nations and the US in 1922. So no, the historical Pacific War was not a foregone conclusion at any time. Japan was not acting in the late 1930's in anything like a military or political vacume, without reference to events elsewhere, and notably in Europe, any more than any other country. History had proven that Japan was an opportunistic aggressor, and the European war was seen as an ideal opportunity to press it's aggressive policies with a fair chance of a successful conclusion. Had there been no war in Europe, it's extremely likely there would have been no war in the Pacific, at least in the historical time frame.

 

To forward this is absurd when at the same time one acknowledges that the Japanese invasion of Manchuria was in 1931, and the attack on China started in 1937.

Taiwan Expedition of (1874) there was no war in Europe at that time.

S J War (Aug.1894 –April 1895) there was no war in Europe at that time.

The Boxer Rebellion (1899–1900)there was no war in Europe at that time.

Russo-Jap. War (1904 –1905)there was no war in Europe at that time.

Inter-war years
By November 1918, more than 70,000 Japanese troops had occupied all ports and major towns in the Russian Maritime Provinces and eastern Siberia.

Invasion of Manchuria in (1931) there was no war in Europe at that time.

War on China in (1937) there was no war in Europe at that time - besides the Spanish civil war.

Japanese troops march into Indochina July 1940

To claim the US embargoes in 1940-41, were only "caused" by Japan's signing of the Tripartite Pact in 1940 and the invasion of Indochina in 1941
is neglecting 50 years of Japanese agression in Asia and therefore absurd.

Kruska

 

Kruska

You forget the Balkans are part of Europe, there is nearly always some sort of conflict, if not a fully fledged war, going on in that unfortunate region. Also Italy and the Papal State (the Vatican was created by the 1929 treaty) were probably officially at war from 1870 until the Pius XI-Mussolini treaty of 1929.

I agree that Fritsch in control would not mean a pacifist Germany, Versailles had utterly failed to create a stable balance and by 1938 everybody was rearming as fast as possible. IMO while Poland is still the most likely candidate for detonating the unstable mixture the Balcans come a close second.
WW2 would have happened anyway but probably not in 1939 and without Hitler's racist policies and megalomania may have turned out quite different.

 

You really need to study more Japanese history, particularly the period 1930 to 1941.

The fact that Japan was aggressively expansionist from 1874 to 1931 without the benefit of a war in Europe, and therefore, it must not have acted with reference to the war in Europe in 1939-41 is NOT a logical conclusion. The events in the Pacific during the late 1930's and early 1940's, and in particular the timing of the Pacific War, was directly related to European events of that period.

See; http://ibiblio.org/pha/monos/ These documents describe the Japanese leadership's decisions relative to the drift to war, and clearly refer to events in Europe as the decisive factors in most of their decisions.

Specifically, the Japanese decided to occupy French Indochina because of the defeat of France (June, 1940), and this led directly to a series of American embargoes. The Fall of France also prompted the US to pass the Two-Ocean Navy Act, which the Japanese cited as one of the major factors in the timing of their decision to attack the western Allies. Japan also signed the Tripartite Pact because Germany's early victories caused them to believe that the Axis would eventually defeat Britain; this was a major factor in both the Japanese decision to go to war, and the US increasing diplomatic pressure on Japan. The early successes of the Axis also encouraged a belief in Japan, and particularly among the Japanese militarists, that if they did not participate in the fighting in some way (i.e. by attacking British or Soviet interests, or attacking the US), they would "miss the bus" and be left out of the division of spoils at the final Axis victory.

Simply put, it is incorrect, not to say revisionist, to claim that Japan completely ignored the European war in making and executing it's plans for the prosecution of the Pacific war. There is plenty of historic evidence to believe that peace in Europe would have resulted in a delay in the Pacific war for a period of years, if not decades.

 

It's a lot more complicated than that. Radical elements were pretty much doing what they pleased in the Kwantung Army, and the Kwantung army was in turn pretty much leading the rest of the IJA round by the nose. Sure, if the leadership of the IJA had decided to put its foot down it could have pushed through a negotiated non-aggressive deal, but with radicals driving the agenda of the IJA that's as relevant as saying that if Hitler had decided to invite Jews into the SS he could have got the rest of the party to swallow it. It seems an unlikely scenario given the General Staff and the Minister of War couldn't even keep their troops from starting a war with China.

 

I never said or stated that Japan completely ignored the European war.
Your statement therefore is absurd.

To bring in the term revisionist is not only absurd but malicious - you are totally out of tollerance and a disgrace to his forum.

Kruska