What if on July 20, 1944 Freidrich Albriecht was succesful in his assasination attempt to kill Hitler at the headquarters in Rostenburg? Hitler would not have seen the Battle of the Bulge or many of the major, strategic battles set against Germany to end the Nazi regime.

__________________
Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it- Sun Tzu

I assume you are referring to the Stauffenberg bomb. Had this attempt on Hitler’s life been successful, the results to the world would have been… minimal.

The plans of the conspirators were not realistic, they planned on asking for a separate peace with the West, or some kind of negotiated terms where Germany would keep parts of its newfound empire. All of these options were completely unacceptable to the Allies who had already decided on unconditional surrender as the only option. There would have been an internal power struggle between the plotters and their military allies, and the Nazi command, which would likely have been won by the Nazi leaders. By July 1944, the waxing and waning power of the individual members of the diodachi comprised of Himmler and Bormann competing for top position, though Bormann would not have made a grab for supreme leader, and Goering and Speer close behind. With the police (secret and otherwise) the SS and huge sections of the military still under Nazi control, as well as the economy and labour, the plotters would have had little hope of actually seizing the reins of power.

The was would have continued as it did, with Hitler as a Martyr and figurehead rather than as a living legend and figurehead. Were Himmler in charge, his understanding of military affairs was abominable, and he could not have helped the strategic situation. Indeed, by July 1944, nothing could have. The Battle of the Bulge would likely have happened anyways, or if not those forces would have been diverted to the East and ground up in the shredded that was the Russian front.

Himmler was also possessed with fantastic notions about the West and his relationship with the US, despite being as if not more reviled than Hitler, Himmler saw himself as an acceptable alternative to the West, and figured they might accept peace with him as leader. This all becomes clear through his actions in the last weeks of the war in 1945.

In the end the Russians would not have stopped advancing, the Anglo-US-Canadian forces would not have stopped attacking, the German soldiers (who by now were mostly fighting for their primary groups and their personal motives rather than ideology) would not have stopped fighting.

The war would probably have ended pretty much as it did, pretty much when it did, and the post-war would have been identical.


Now if you want to talk about Hitler being assassinated in 1941 or even 1942, then maybe there might be a change, but by July 1944, the fate of History was written out like a book for all to see, regardless of which Nazi was at the helm.

Hello after long time i am back
I think if hitler will be dead war will soon end and this would be bether for Germany. Distruction woud be smaler ...

I disagree.

First of all, the moral of German soldiers would have dropped. They had taken their oath on Hitler, now as Hitler was dead, they in fact weren't bound by a promise any more. Many would have vowed anew, but some would have resigned and deserted.

Secondly, there wouldn't have been any offensives in the west. Maybe the Wehrmacht would have - slowly stopped fighting in the west and concentrated all resistance against the Russians. This would have meant the western allies to reach Germany much faster.

Thirdly, the afterwar map was not drawn yet. A Germany without Hitler would have improved the position of the western Allies a great deal. Maybe Germany wouldn't have had to abandon all parts eastern of Oder/Neisse.

Fourthly, if the Wehrmacht had taken control, the mass murder in the KZ's would have stopped, especially the new holocaust at Hungarian Jews.

Fifthly, maybe there would have been a civil war for power in Germany, including a quick breakdown.

All in all, the war would have ended much sooner, with less loss of life, and a better result for the western powers.

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

While you are correct that Morale would have fallen, I do not think it is realistic to assume his death would cause disertions and/or surrender. Omar Bartov and several other have done extensive work on the motivation of German soldiers, and the loyalty oath to the Fuhrer was very low on the list of reasons why they fought and died so effectively to the very end. Unless Hitler,s death caused an implosion of the government, which is not likely, then Germany's forces would have kept fighting and dying as they had beforehand.

That also is not realistic. Once the word of unconditional surender became known, the Germany staff knew that there was no option ut to fight in both directions. There would still have been active operations on the fronts, ater all most of them wre locally planned anyways. yes the Ardennes offensive might not have happened, likely a far more modest counterthrust, but local offensives were continuous and necessary according to the German doctrine of Battle.

This is my biggest issue. Why do you assume the persecutions would end? there has been extensive research done on the conduct of German solduiers, and all have concluded that the myth about the separation of the war crimes from the regular forces was just that, a myth. The wehrmacht had no ideological problems with the camps, or the Einstatzgruppen, and it is very unlikely that they would have wanted to (or been able to) reign them in.

To assume that a change of regime would necessitate the end of the Holocaust is unrealistic.

On the Holocaust...

It actually did not take a fortune teller for Himmler to understand he was in deep ****.

Actually Himmler had already in autumn 1944 decided to stop the Holocaust...??!

November 1944

The gassings in Auschwitz are being suspended.
Heinrich Himmler gives order to disassemble the killing institutions and to destroy the gas chambers and crematories.

linz.ac.at/Auschwitz/HTML/Zeittafel(Tab).html

1944 November 2 Himmler's order of October 26 arrives at Auschwitz: "I forbid any further annihilation of Jews." Upon his further orders, all but one of the crematoriums are dismantled, the burning pits covered up and planted over with grass, and the gas pipes and other equipment shipped to concentration camps in Germany. The single remaining crematorium is for the disposal of those who die of natural causes and the gassing of about 200 surviving members of the Sonderkommando. The final solution is formally over. Yet tens of thousands of Jews will continue to die of brutality and neglect.

http://www.humanitas-international.o...e/1944tbse.htm

In October 1944, Heinrich Himmler ordered gassing with Zyklon B to be stopped, according to a guide book sold at Auschwitz; the last "selection" of prisoners was on October 30, 1944. This decision, according to the guidebook, was prompted by the liberation of Majdanek and the discovery by the Russians of the incriminating evidence of 500 cans of Zyklon B and three remaining gas chambers with blue stains on the walls, left by the gas. His decision was also influenced by the camp uprising in October 1944 when Crematorium IV was blown up by Jewish inmates. They used dynamite that had been smuggled in by women prisoners who worked in factories outside the camp.

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland...irkenau03.html

__________________

[quote]Originally posted by Kai-Petri:
[QB] On the Holocaust...

It actually did not take a fortune teller for Himmler to understand he was in deep ****.

Actually Himmler had already in autumn 1944 decided to stop the Holocaust...??!
[quote]

Yes Himmler did call off the gassings, thought not the Holocaust per se, as shootings and death marches continued until the very end.

However his rasons for doing this were staggering. He certainly did not do it out of any moral issue, rather he thought by giving this order he would make himself look good as a possible post-war leader of Germany which would be acceptable to the Victorious allies.

I disagree...

Allowedly I don't know Bartov's study, but the main motivation for the German soldiers was to protect Germany as entity and civilians from complete annihilation, as the Russians were feared to do in revenge, and also the westerners. Goebbels cleverly used the Morgenthau plan for propaganda - after a successful assassination of Hitler, they would get rid of him. Whereas the western powers would not have altered the unconditional surrender demand, concessions for a better after-war scenario to Germany are perfectly possible. And there would never have been a Jalta like this. Thus it IS possible that the war would have ended much sooner (and less bloody) in the west.


Even though that the vast majority of the Wehrmacht TOLERATED these crimes without any resistance, many ACCEPTED it without a moral problem, and a minority took part actively, the INITIATIVE for the mass murders came from Hitler and the SS troops. Without Hitler, whose orders to obey and to hide behind, the mass murder industry would have collapsed. It is perfeclty possible that a Wehrmacht leadership would have gone back to the old, honorable rules. Do you see any reason why a new government would have provided Eichmann one single more train to transport Jews to Auschwitz?

About Himmler: Yes, he gave this order, but Eichmann refused. It was his great task to get all the Jews, and he would fulfil it to please his great Führer, end of discussion! Without a Hitler in power, Eichmann would at least have stopped, and probably suffered a not very friendly fate.

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

Eichmann did it his way. I even think Himmler was mad at him for gathering the Hungarian jews and sending them to the death camps.

Otto Winkelmann

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/...elmann-02.html

On 25 August 1944, I received a teletype from Reichsführer Himmler. The teletype said that there must be an immediate halt to all deportations of Jews to Germany.

I made representations to Reichsführer Himmler on account of these foot marches. Reichsführer Himmler immediately, in my presence, contacted Gruppenführer Mueller from the Head Office for Reich Security on the matter. I myself heard Reichsführer Himmler ordering a ban on all further foot marches. Those who had been sent off on these marches were to be removed by vehicle. I gathered from this conversation of Reichsführer Himmler with the Head Office for Reich Security - Mueller - that the foot marches had taken place with the knowledge of the Head Office for Reich Security.

__________________

Well, back to the main theme:

I think if Hitler had died there were several men who would have wanted to be the next Führer and civil war would start. People like Göring and Himmler would not stand back in such a situation, I think.

__________________

good point kai. i think that hitler death would have led to a struggle for government power and a obssession with getting into office which would have sent the government into an uproar thus wouldnt the soldiers and generals in time collapse also?

__________________
Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it- Sun Tzu

Minimal? Not at all. You are forgetting the littel detail of Hitler being the central brain of the war. He runned the war and he was the one willing to fight it to the bitter end.

This is true. The plan was bad and the conspirators' beiliefs unrealistic. The Allies had already agreed on unconditional surrender. The Allies were not going to make peace with the nazis nor with the general staff (which was as bad to them as were the nazis).

Completely true. However, a civil war between Göring, Bormann and Himmler is NOT a minimal effect.

Yes, but ambitious and incredibly powerful Himmler would have seeked power for himself against ANYONE.

And here is the main point of NOT agreeing. Hitler, a martyr, for a few months, maybe. But the war would have changed radically. Himmler was indeed a very lousy military leader. Hitler was not lousy, but very stubborn and unrealistic. Without Hitler, the General Staff would have got rid of their obstacle number one. Hitler was the one who didn't send reserves, who didn't allow them to shorten the front nor counterattack where and when needed. Hitler was too, the one who belived that germany should fight until winning or dying trying. Battle of the Bulge? Who was the one who insisted in this wrong and too ambitious strike? It wasn't the General Staff.

True.

Not really. They were fighting because Hitler wanted to. They would have fought the Russians to save their country and its people from communism and revange, but they didn't have a reason to fight in the Balcans, in France, in Italy, Norway nor the Atlantic.

Identical? Without Hitler? Yeah...

Completely agreed.

Agreed too.

This is true. However, the Wehrmacht of the plotters wouldn't have been able to defeat Himmler. And Himmler would have insisted in killing Jews.

Not maybe, there WOULD HAVE BEEN a civil war, knowing the ambition and ruthlessness of some nazi leaders.

Completely true.

But Hitler represented the continuation of the war and he ruled a police-state to have anyone who wouldn't fight shot. As simple as that.

Even with that. The General Staff WOULD NOT HAVE fought to the bitter end.

You have certainly not heard about the innumerable complains of the generals about all those things (and I am not saying that the regular Army was not guilty of war crimes, as it was as nazified as any other German organisation at the time).

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

A few comments & questions about Friedrich's statements:


"a civil war between Göring, Bormann and Himmler is NOT a minimal effect."

Bormann's power was 100% founded in Hitler. Without Hitler, he would have been the first one to be removed. Neither was too much of Görings power left at this time - which force was there to fight for him? The Luftwaffe?
It would have been a fight between Himmler's SS and Wehrmacht troops, supporting the conspirators.

"Yes, but ambitious and incredibly powerful Himmler would have seeked power for himself against ANYONE."

Agreed.

"the Wehrmacht of the plotters wouldn't have been able to defeat Himmler. And Himmler would have insisted in killing Jews."

No, he didn't even with Hitler in power - a last attempt to save his ass.

"They were fighting because Hitler wanted to. They would have fought the Russians to save their country and its people from communism and revange, but they didn't have a reason to fight in the Balcans, in France, in Italy, Norway nor the Atlantic."
"Completely true."

"You have certainly not heard about the innumerable complains of the generals about all those things (and I am not saying that the regular Army was not guilty of war crimes, as it was as nazified as any other German organisation at the time)."


All in all, you seem to have a rather postivie opinion about Stauffenberg succeeding in the assassination here, as the likely civil war would have finished the war earlier. But this is in very hard contrast to what you have written on the very same topic, last year:
http://www.ww2forums.com/cgi-bin/ubb...=000089#000000

Please can you explain?

__________________
If someone tries to remove the speck in your right eye, will you turn to him the other also?

With the Red Army 100 kilometres from Auschwitz... It wasn't because Himmler wanted in his heart stop killing the Jews...

About Hitler being completely behind of that, it is true. However, it was Himmler the real brain and engine. With a victorious Himmler, the killing wouldn't have stopped. Remember that most of the racial crimes of Germany were Himmler's ideas and not directly ordered by Hitler. Himmler was far more racist and anti-semitic than Hitler.

This is true. But it doesn't contradict my statements. You must accept that they would have at least tried! Bormann's power depended on Hitler. Agreed, but he could have used the moral issue of him being the closest to him. And Göring was the ofitial successor... I didn't say they would have won.

This is what would have happened.



A man can read and analise thousands of facts and theories and a year and slightly modify his view...

(I am not going to discuss what I said a year ago...) [img]tongue.gif[/img]

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

what if the attempt on hitlers life had succeeded? I agree with knightmove. the soldiers would have either dropped or their morale would be so low, and the allied forces' so high that the war would have ended more quickly and the major battles would be different in a way. the germans probably would have fallen back a lot more or something.

__________________
You are about to embark on the great crusade towards which we have striven these many months - Eisenhower

As for the stability of national socialism in the brains of the Germans:

Without the Führer alive, National-Socialism ideology impressively vanished almost without a trace out of the German society. The past-war Werwolf-partisan movement was a joke compared to, let's say other ideological partisan movements fighting for thier ideas even after military defeat. National-Socialism was in fact "Hilerism" and it deflagrated once Herr Hitler was no more. No mass grievance and desperation about the lost Führer amongst the ordinary Germans. The majority of Germans were simple sick of the war, escalating from a major morale blow after Stalingrad 1943 to the outright wish that the war should be over (=lost) a.s.a.p. in 1945.

The dictatory "Führer principle" would have left a huge vaccuum for those coming after Hitler.

Of course there are no Gallop-polls in a dictatory at war, but by mid-1944 the average German, who would have certainly voted for Herrn Hitler in free elections in 1938, who enthausatically cheered the Führer in summer 1940, would have been rather dissapointed by the Führer promising nothing but wonder-weapons and endsieg and "total war". Basically, by mi-1944 the imperssion was that Herr Hitler f***ed everything up what he gained.


WRT the Wehrmacht continuing to run Auschwitz without Hitler, his Nazi-bunch and their SS in charge any more: Well, Bartov sure as hell doesn't support THAT, and I wonder if there is anything suggesting this. I am very aware of the Wehrmacht leadership and units' willing participation in the Holocaust, however one still needs to realize the existing difference between the average Heinz out of 10 million who served in the Wehrmacht compared to the SS-bureaucrats and SD-men at the pitch.

The Wehrmacht was a tool of Hitler's extermination policy, but it wasn't the initiator. In consequence, a neo-Wehrmacht (that would have been Manstein in charge as C-i-C after the overthrow) continuing the gas chambers would mean that it was a genuine German and not the Nazis wish to physically eliminate the European Jewry.

Cheers,

[ 22. October 2003, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: AndyW ]

__________________
"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!"
(President Merkin Muffley in "Dr. Strangelove")