Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Assasinate Hitler
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by vesturiiis (U13688567) on Wednesday, 1st July 2009
Had the bombing attempt of 1944 been succesfull
in killing Hitler would this have been a positive for the Allies and were there attempts on his life ordered by the Allied command?
Many attempts were thwarted within Germany but some feel he was in a perverse way better alive than dead especially as the war turned on the Axis side. -
Message 2
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Wednesday, 1st July 2009
as soon as the dwarf was dead the war was over - be it 1939 or 1944
the german general staff were never completely up for the war
adolf was the only driving factor - amazing that he could take the whole nation and army with him even when the russkies were at the gates of berlin
the officers had all taken their oath and unbelievably didnt break it
its amazing that 6 million jews died - but if one of them did the modern thing - a suicide attack - ie one person died - a generation would have been spared the slaughter oh ww2
anyone could have done it in his public years = pity there wasnt a religious zealot !!
st -
Message 3
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
"...as soon as the dwarf was dead the war was over - be it 1939 or 1944..."
I seriously doubt that. By 1944 most of the German High Command had become implicated in un-believably huge scale war crimes on the eastern front. How on Earth could these same generals have made a peace with the Soviet union ?
They could not.
Neither would the western allies make a separate peace.
So, the German High Command had until Operation Barbarossa to stop Hitler at the latest. Up until that point some kind of peace was possible.
Even by then many mass murders had been committed. But a peace where Germany was in control of the territory where the crimes were committed would have assisted with suppressing the news of them. -
Message 4
Posted by curiousdigger (U13776378) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
"By 1944 most of the German High Command had become implicated in un-believably huge scale war crimes on the eastern front. How on Earth could these same generals have made a peace with the Soviet union ?"
Good point, Tim Track.
Also, by 1944 Hitler had become increasingly difficult to get close to and thereby assasinate by suicide bomb as suggested. I do agree though, that the removal of Hitler prior to Barbarossa may have shortened the war considerably (although the outcome would probably have been very different!) -
Message 5
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
Had Hitler been assassinated, would FDR have altered his demand at Casablanca for unconditional surrender?
It can make for interesting speculation but I don't think it would have made any difference. Aside from questions of his health and running for re-election, FDR would have been hard pressed to justify any change in Allied war aims. So much blood and treasure had already been spent in beating back the Nazis, plus the general Momentum having favored the Allies for a year and now accelerating on the homestretch, as it were, sticking to unconditional surrender made the only sense there was. -
Message 6
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
Aside from questions of his health and running for re-election, FDR would have been hard pressed to justify any change in Allied war aims. So much blood and treasure had already been spent in beating back the NazisΒ I don't believe that the amount of blood and treasure mattered too much to FDR, especially given the fact that the war turned out to be that evasive solution to the Great Depression that FDR had been supposedly fighting for a decade or so by then. His CIA chief Allen Dulles has been negotiating with the SS General Karl Wolf to the very end of the war. But I personally don't believe that FDR would agree to any separate deal with the Germans under any circumstances, because he was on the hook by Stalin.
-
Message 7
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
correction: His CIA chief Allen DullesΒ the acronym had been still OSS at the time
-
Message 8
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
suvorovetz,
But I personally don't believe that FDR would agree to any separate deal with the Germans under any circumstances, because he was on the hook by Stalin.Β
How did Stalin have FDR on the hook? -
Message 9
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
How did Stalin have FDR on the hook?Β In addition to half of his cabinet allegedly being on NKVD pyroll - and whether or not the allegations were real, noone got to investigate - I've already mentioned to YOU before that there is a State Department report (800.51 W 89.USSR/247) about the secret agreement made in 1938 between FDR and Stalin to exchange military information. This agreement was not made known to members of Congress, and therefore was illegal. Moreover, there's no reason to believe that this agreement was revoked after Stalin had made a deal with Hitler in August, 1939. That could well mean that FDR was himslef in violation of Trading With The Enemy Act, which he so eagerly used on his opponents.
-
Message 10
Posted by stalteriisok (U3212540) on Thursday, 2nd July 2009
hi Tim
even when the russians were in the gardens of the bunker the germans still fought to the death - it was ONLY when hitler died that any type of surrender was attempted
in 1939 the general staff cringed at invading poland - cringed even more at taking on France and britain - even more at Barbarossa
at any point u pick - there was no one who could have kept germany in the war - who would have done it - the generals - von manstein - model - guderian ?? all brilliant generals who were against the war
give me one name who could have led the third reich !! - goebbels - himmler ??
none of the nazi sychophants had the will or personality to dominate the general staff or german people to push a lost cause
no - as soon as adolf went so did the war
mind u - if the generals had taken over at - stalingrad for instance - we would probably still be fighting
st -
Message 11
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
the question certainly might have been if Hitler was killed either by Georg Elser in 1938 or by a rogue "suicide-plotter" in 1939 is whether the pro-Russia faction of the Army would have taken charge or a strident anti-Communist faction - remember if this had have happened about the time of the Winter War (which I reckon would have happened even if WW2 wasn't ongoing) then the Wehrmacht with the BEF might have been advancing thru Poland and Finland to attack the SU - resulting in an independant Ukraine and Baltic states by 1945 rather than 1992.
-
Message 12
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 3rd July 2009
then the Wehrmacht with the BEF might have been advancing thru Poland and Finland to attack the SU - resulting in an independant Ukraine and Baltic states by 1945 rather than 1992Β With what? Wehrmacht invaded Poland with the amount of munitions barely enough to sustain the one-front campaign for about a month (see Muller-Hillebrandt). Hitler would never have dared to invade Poland without the Pact with Stalin, because it was impossible.
-
Message 13
Posted by Grand Falcon Railroad (U3267675) on Monday, 6th July 2009
What I meant was that Germany in tandem with France and UK forces could have in theory decided a "preventative strike" against the SU was worth the effort to get rid of Stalin - put it this way if they could have then a UN-style force orf Germany, UK, France, Poland, Finland, Hungary, Czechs etc. against the SU in 1939 would have been an awesome strikeforce - I know it's bit far fetched but the UK was pretty close to sending an "expeditionary force" to aid Finland.....
-
Message 14
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 6th July 2009
What I meant was that Germany in tandem with France and UK forces could have in theory decided a "preventative strike" against the SU was worth the effort to get rid of StalinΒ I think the anti-Stalin block would only have possible if Poland was on board, rather than "overboard."
-
Message 15
Posted by Thomas_B (U1667093) on Monday, 6th July 2009
Hello Grand Falcon Railroad,
"What I meant was that Germany in tandem with France and UK forces could have in theory decided a "preventative strike" against the SU was worth the effort to get rid of Stalin - put it this way if they could have then a UN-style force orf Germany, UK, France, Poland, Finland, Hungary, Czechs etc. against the SU in 1939 would have been an awesome strikeforce - I know it's bit far fetched but the UK was pretty close to sending an "expeditionary force" to aid Finland."
Sorry, but even just to see the above mentioned as an theoretic opinion, there would had been no way for such an undertaking with Hitlers Germany. And this Germany within an "UN-style force" is quite unbelievable, because they had nothing in common with any articel from the UN Constitution and this plan had only worked if:
- France had given back Alsace-Lorraine
- Poland had given back West-Prussia and Posen and Danzig Free State
- Czechoslovakia had given the "Sudetenland"
and all this without attention towards the Versailles treaty.
An "tandem" between Germany and France was in that time impossible, because neither the attempds of the German Government of the Weimar Republic would had been able to create such an alliance as it has been founded by Charles De Gaulle and Conrad Adenauer in the early 1960s. There was more "revange-thinking" on the German and "war-fear" on the French side, since Hitler came to power. The Reichswehr of the German Republic was too weak to had been able to join a war against any country in any thinkable alliance. It took Hitler at least five years to re-armed the German Forces for warfare. -
Message 16
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
Stalter "...give me one name who could have led the third reich !! - goebbels - himmler ??..."
Oh, I agree. But that is the problem with a negotiated peace. Who does the negotiating ?
If the July bomb plot had worked, who would have taken over ? I doubt anyone could. So the German hierarchy might collapse. But that would have lead to a quicker, more chaotic defeat for Germany, not a negotiated settlement.
Of course, you can say that is better than what happended.
The point remains, just who would have surrendered ? You must identify who could and would have taken over at any given point in time. You must then identify their relationship to previous Nazi atrocities. Then you must decide on the likelihood of them voluntarily ending the war. -
Message 17
Posted by vesturiiis (U13688567) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
To lead the third reich (sans AH) wouldn't Goering be a natural (crazy) choice.
I don't see the Germans captulating just becaus AH was gone.
With Russia on their tail it would not be gameover but probably a quicker negotiated settlement... -
Message 18
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
vesturiiis,
With Russia on their tail it would not be gameover but probably a quicker negotiated settlement...Β
Assuming, of course, FDR could be persuaded to change from his unconditional surrender demand.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.