November 15 Stauffenberg birthday

[eagle7-31]

Claus von Stauffenberg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

too bad he did not just put the second bomb in the briefcase, it would have doubled the explosion and killed Hitler and everyone else in the room. Stauffenberg was a solider. Killing Hitler was a job for a professional assassin or at least to have been planned by one.

 

[JGalt]

Claus von Stauffenberg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

too bad he did not just put the second bomb in the briefcase, it would have doubled the explosion and killed Hitler and everyone else in the room. Stauffenberg was a solider. Killing Hitler was a job for a professional assassin or at least to have been planned by one.

Whether or not we should be glad the bombing attempt failed, is debatable. Had Stauffenberg been successful, it might have created a martyr out of Hitler and solidified the German people.


Claus Von Stauffenberg & Operation Valkyrie | The Plot To Kill Hitler | HistoryExtra

 

[eagle7-31]

Whether or not we should be glad the bombing attempt failed, is debatable. Had Stauffenberg been successful, it might have created a martyr out of Hitler and solidified the German people.


Claus Von Stauffenberg & Operation Valkyrie | The Plot To Kill Hitler | HistoryExtra

Short term maybe but the Holocaust would still have been made public and that would have made a difference. Of course had one of the earlier plots had been successful like in 1938 during the Checz crisis (Canaris got word to the British about that plot but Brits did not believe it apparently) a whole lot of lives would have been saved.

 

[odanny]

Whether or not we should be glad the bombing attempt failed, is debatable.

So you're happy the bomb did not kill Hitler, huh? You think Germany would have been more committed without Hitler? Uh…..no.

 

[DudleySmith]

Whether or not we should be glad the bombing attempt failed, is debatable. Had Stauffenberg been successful, it might have created a martyr out of Hitler and solidified the German people.


Claus Von Stauffenberg & Operation Valkyrie | The Plot To Kill Hitler | HistoryExtra

It might have led to a more competent Fuehrer taking his place, also not a good thing. Hitler's main rival in the 1933 elections was a far right dictator as well, which is why Hitler shot him himself. Germany was going radically right whether Hitler won or lost, lived or died. The times made Hitler, he didn't make the times.

 

[the watcher]

If there was no Hitler what would we call people that don't agree with us?

 

[whitehall]

Apparently the conspirators had enough support among themselves to simply walk over and put a bullet in Hitler's head but they made up an elaborate plan that involved timing and a briefcase bomb. KISS, keep it simple stupid.

 

[Polishprince]

So you're happy the bomb did not kill Hitler, huh? You think Germany would have been more committed without Hitler? Uh…..no.

It is sort of difficult to say what would have happened if Mr. Hitler was successfully whacked in July 1944.

Who would have taken over ? Goering? Goebbels? Bormann? Himmler?

Any of those characters may well have been more radical, unpredictable and unstable than the Big H.

 

[odanny]

It is sort of difficult to say what would have happened if Mr. Hitler was successfully whacked in July 1944.

Who would have taken over ? Goering? Goebbels? Bormann? Himmler?

Any of those characters may well have been more radical, unpredictable and unstable than the Big H.

Operation Valkyrie had a chain of command in place to take over, the question remains as to whether or not they would have been obeyed or themselves overthrown.

 

[Mushroom]

It is sort of difficult to say what would have happened if Mr. Hitler was successfully whacked in July 1944.

Whether or not we should be glad the bombing attempt failed, is debatable. Had Stauffenberg been successful, it might have created a martyr out of Hitler and solidified the German people.

It might have led to a more competent Fuehrer taking his place, also not a good thing.

That is one of the biggest "What If" questions of the war. But first, one must look at what Europe looked like at that point in time.

Now much of what their goals were remain up in the air, but many tend to believe that they ultimately would have accepted a status pro quo ante bellum. That means that all forces stop and return to the borders prior to the outbreak of war. And that, would have been very interesting, and might have even split the Allied Powers.

Now it must be remembered, that at that time the strongest official recognition of the Allied Powers was the "Declaration of United Nations" in 1942, where they said there would be no separate peace. The Yalta Conference of February 1945 of course had not been held yet, and that is where they set up the partitions of post-war Germany. That is where the first demands for an occupation formally arose. Also Yalta is where the occupations of most of Eastern Europe by the Soviets was established.

Now what would have happened if the new leaders had called for a cease fire? Ordering all forces back 100 miles from current battle lines, and then simply had them dig in place as they tried to negotiate an armistice then a peace treaty setting borders back to 1 September 1939? Moving all German forces from Italy, and from all occupied nations? I could actually see the US, UK, and France giving that serious consideration. As well as Poland, as they had a government in exile and that would have saved them from occupation by the Soviets.

However, the wild card then becomes the Soviets. They were already hoping to gain Eastern Europe, but they were also badly mauled in the years prior to July 1944. They might have agreed and used the time afterwards to rebuild their forces, or refused and insist the war continue to the conclusion.

This then throws up a whole slew of alternate outcomes. The war might have continued, but any anti-war movements in the Allied countries might have gained power as they had an offer to end on favorable conditions and refused. The Allies might even have reached an unofficial accommodation with Germany, and set up along a demilitarized zone right on the border but not crossing into Germany. Which would have left the Soviets alone, with Germany now no longer split on two fronts.

And if any of those happened, the Soviets would likely not have felt a need to attend a future conference along the lines of Yalta and Potsdam, which is where unconditional surrender for Japan and the declaration of war against them by the Soviets was agreed upon.

And if any of those happened, I can see an outcome not unlike WWI. With Germany still unified, no occupation, and then it would be much like the Cold War, but earlier. With a hostile Soviet Union on the border of Germany, and the Iron Curtain on the German-Polish border.

When considering outcomes, one absolutely has to consider the positions of the forces at that time, and exactly what agreements the Allies had reached at that point in time. But the "Western Powers" might well have accepted a cease fire, so long as Hitler was dead, Mussolini was out of power, and they could regain most of Europe with no further fighting. And even if the Soviets insisted on continuing, I could throw up a dozen other scenarios that might follow.

 

[DudleySmith]

It is sort of difficult to say what would have happened if Mr. Hitler was successfully whacked in July 1944.

Who would have taken over ? Goering? Goebbels? Bormann? Himmler?

Any of those characters may well have been more radical, unpredictable and unstable than the Big H.

They were mostly dire enemies of each other; most likely they would have been arresting and/or killing each other, and one of the Generals would have been selected by the other Generals to take over. Of the 4, Himmler would have been the most capable, but it's doubtful he had any friends among the General Staff and the Army. Most likely they would have put some General like Rommel or Jodl in office.

 

[DudleySmith]

In the event of a peace offering, in exchange for liberating France, Norway , and Denmark, Churchill could very well have persuaded FDR to take the offer; we had yet to break out of Normandy at that time, and it was still a very costly front in lives.

Churchill was under no delusions about Stalin, and would also have gotten FDR cut off the Lend-Lease aid to Stalin in that event, without which he couldn't launch any major offensives against Germany.Stalin would then most likely would have turned his forces back to the East, though, with a different result against the Japanese and China, hoping to lop off as much territory as he could grab.

What would be the fate of Poland and other eastern European countries, like Romania and Slovakia is hard to guess; I don't see Churchill giving up Poland to either Germany or Stalin, and given the Polish and Slavic vote in the U.S. it's highly unlikely FDR would agree to any annexations either.

 

[elektra]

If there was no Hitler what would we call people that don't agree with us?

Germans

 

[Mushroom]

Churchill was under no delusions about Stalin, and would also have gotten FDR cut off the Lend-Lease aid to Stalin in that event, without which he couldn't launch any major offensives against Germany.Stalin would then most likely would have turned his forces back to the East, though, with a different result against the Japanese and China, hoping to lop off as much territory as he could grab.

Actually, that is not likely what would happen.

Back in 1942, the Allied Powers and other nations signed the "Declaration of United Nations".

A JOINT DECLARATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, CHINA, AUSTRALIA, BELGIUM, CANADA, COSTA RICA, CUBA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, HONDURAS, INDIA, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PANAMA, POLAND, SOUTH AFRICA, YUGOSLAVIA

The Governments signatory hereto,

Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of Great Britain dated August 14, 1941, known as the Atlantic Charter,

Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom, and to preserve human rights and justice in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world,

Declare:

(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government is at war.

(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies.

The foregoing declaration may be adhered to by other nations which are, or which may be, rendering material assistance and contributions in the struggle for victory over Hitlerism.

So they would not have cut off lend-lease, or try to throw the Soviets under the bus. But it must be noted that "Hitlerism" is stated specifically, and that in addition to the "Tripartite Pact" are the only mention of who the enemies are.

Now in July 1944, Italy was already out. And if this coup in Germany not only removed Hitler, but also the NSDAP and renounced the Tripartite Pact (in addition to returning to pre-war borders), then the alliance would have effectively accomplished it's "charter mission", and it could be argued that members could accept an armistice or peace treaty at that point.

However, the war would still not have been over, because there was still Japan. And depending on how things went between the Western Powers - Germany - Soviets, that could have ultimately ended in a two or three way standoff. Fast forward less than 5 years, and two of the three sides would have been nuclear powers. And Germany would likely have remained a militaristic nation, led by a junta of military leaders.

But do not think that even cutting off lend-lease would have made a major impact on the Soviets. The vast majority of what was sent to the Soviets was logistical (trains and trucks), food, and cotton. None of which was a major part of prosecuting the war that they were not producing themselves by July 1944. Plus, it would not have ended because it was a treaty, and it stated until all Tripartite Pact members were defeated.

That includes Japan.

One thing that must be recognized, is that both the US and USSR were very meticulous in abiding by their treaties. They may bend them a bit or use loopholes, but neither country ever had a reputation for violating them or just ripping them up without cause.