We all know about the failed July 20th, 1944 attempt on Hitler's life. But what if it had succeeded? What would've changed in our world?

If it succeeded? Taht´s a very good question. Well Hitler was dead then. Goerdeler, ex- mayor of Leipzig, and other men would have constituted a new government and would have tried to negotiate for peace at once. The SS would have partly made resistance but was too weak to give Himmler the power. Since there was no rule who should become the new "legitime" Führer, Himmler and Göring would have fought also against them. But both had nearly no supporters in the army. So the rests of the SS would have introduced into the army. The KZ´s would have been closed at once. The biggest criminals would have to flee or caught. The provisional government would have to rule a nation in a deep crise.
There would have been new elections to make/ reform the constitution. The human rights would be reinstalled.
There is a book called "Republik Schwarzenbek" IIRC. It is about a story which really happened. In the town Schwarzenbek the allies didn´t invade. They all thought it was the area of the other power! So for a few weeks this town was unoccupied. Asterix would say: We´re in the year 1945 AD. Total Germany is occupied by the allies. Total Germany? No...." In this town democratic elections were planned and a German resistance fighter was new provisional mayor. But back to the global view.
In the west German troops were fighting in France, but the allies did not have broken through the German defense lines. In Italy there was a nearly stalemate war. In the east the Russian troops were advancing but far away from the Reich´s border. Stalin just made his last ask for peace. So what would have happen. The new German government was conservative. So they would not have installed a Stalinistical system like Ulbricht did. They wanted peace. But for what costs? Surely they would have negotiated for everything. So what would have the allies done?
Stalin wanted to conquer Germany. He wanted to rule Europe. He was a brother in thinking of Hitler. But he was much more cautious and missed chances whenever he wasn´t really sure to win glorious. Now the division of Europe hasn´t been decided yet. Yalta was in february 1945. So he would not have rejected German asks for peace at once...
Churchill feared Stalin. He had plans to keep German troops armed, ready to fight against the Russians. He believed a new war would come. Ahgainst the Russians. Therefore the Germans should be weakend not too much. The US were thinking ambivalent. Some would have wanted to destroy Germany nearly (Morgenthau plan) others didn´t want to stop in Berlin.
France was occupied and played in this time no important diplomatical role. As well as several other states.
Germany was in a bad military situation. The war was lost, but the diplomatical situation was much better than 1919. Germany could have made seperate peaces with other smaller countries. They could play a much better diplomatical game. Germany would have to break the alliance of the US/ UK with Russia. It was only an alliance against Hitler and so doomed after his death. They wanted peace with all but in tendency they were much pro US/ UK than for Russia. So there were four possibilities:
1. The war was going to an end like we know it today.
2. Germany would have made peace with Russia, but keeping fighting in the west. And Ulbricht new "Generalsekretär". Thsi is the most unpropable variant.
3. Germany would have been able to make peace with the western allies. So the governments of the German controled states would have become democratic. The war with Russia would have continued. But the US/ UK were not eager to see the Germans as loosers meaning the Russians at the Rhine. So they would have supported germany directly or indirectly. Russia then wouldn´t have a chance to conquer Germany but also Germany not the power to take over Russia. When the western allies would have fought against the Soviets, Russia would have become a democratical nation. And no cold war!
4. Germany would have made peace with all sides. It would have become a state with a strong president similar to the US or France, or the contitution of today. Nevertheless Germany would have been undevided. Stalin could have conquered a few states but the main part of Europe would have remained democratical out of the iron curtain. OR the Russians would have taken over everything they occupied without Germany. Then the border of freedom would have only been the German border. However a division would have not occured.
The two last possibilities are the most propable. Nevertheless the consequences for Europe would have been much better than it was.

Adler

Originally posted by Adler17
f it succeeded? Taht´s a very good question. Well Hitler was dead then. Goerdeler, ex- mayor of Leipzig, and other men would have constituted a new government and would have tried to negotiate for peace at once. The SS would have partly made resistance but was too weak to give Himmler the power. Since there was no rule who should become the new "legitime" Führer, Himmler and Göring would have fought also against them. But both had nearly no supporters in the army. So the rests of the SS would have introduced into the army. The KZ´s would have been closed at once. The biggest criminals would have to flee or caught. The provisional government would have to rule a nation in a deep crise.
There would have been new elections to make/ reform the constitution. The human rights would be reinstalled.


How do you know that? It could have ending been a militar dictatorship. In fact, I believe it's more probable a dictatorship than a democracy, but I'm not sure.


There is a book called "Republik Schwarzenbek" IIRC. It is about a story which really happened. In the town Schwarzenbek the allies didn´t invade. They all thought it was the area of the other power! So for a few weeks this town was unoccupied. Asterix would say: We´re in the year 1945 AD. Total Germany is occupied by the allies. Total Germany? No...." In this town democratic elections were planned and a German resistance fighter was new provisional mayor. But back to the global view.


One town is something, the entire nation is a very different thing


In the west German troops were fighting in France, but the allies did not have broken through the German defense lines. In Italy there was a nearly stalemate war. In the east the Russian troops were advancing but far away from the Reich´s border. Stalin just made his last ask for peace. So what would have happen. The new German government was conservative. So they would not have installed a Stalinistical system like Ulbricht did. They wanted peace. But for what costs? Surely they would have negotiated for everything. So what would have the allies done?
Stalin wanted to conquer Germany. He wanted to rule Europe. He was a brother in thinking of Hitler. But he was much more cautious and missed chances whenever he wasn´t really sure to win glorious. Now the division of Europe hasn´t been decided yet. Yalta was in february 1945. So he would not have rejected German asks for peace at once...
Churchill feared Stalin. He had plans to keep German troops armed, ready to fight against the Russians. He believed a new war would come. Ahgainst the Russians. Therefore the Germans should be weakend not too much. The US were thinking ambivalent. Some would have wanted to destroy Germany nearly (Morgenthau plan) others didn´t want to stop in Berlin.
France was occupied and played in this time no important diplomatical role. As well as several other states.
Germany was in a bad military situation. The war was lost, but the diplomatical situation was much better than 1919. Germany could have made seperate peaces with other smaller countries. They could play a much better diplomatical game. Germany would have to break the alliance of the US/ UK with Russia. It was only an alliance against Hitler and so doomed after his death. They wanted peace with all but in tendency they were much pro US/ UK than for Russia. So there were four possibilities:
1. The war was going to an end like we know it today.
2. Germany would have made peace with Russia, but keeping fighting in the west. And Ulbricht new "Generalsekretär". Thsi is the most unpropable variant.
3. Germany would have been able to make peace with the western allies. So the governments of the German controled states would have become democratic. The war with Russia would have continued. But the US/ UK were not eager to see the Germans as loosers meaning the Russians at the Rhine. So they would have supported germany directly or indirectly. Russia then wouldn´t have a chance to conquer Germany but also Germany not the power to take over Russia. When the western allies would have fought against the Soviets, Russia would have become a democratical nation. And no cold war!
4. Germany would have made peace with all sides. It would have become a state with a strong president similar to the US or France, or the contitution of today. Nevertheless Germany would have been undevided. Stalin could have conquered a few states but the main part of Europe would have remained democratical out of the iron curtain. OR the Russians would have taken over everything they occupied without Germany. Then the border of freedom would have only been the German border. However a division would have not occured.
The two last possibilities are the most propable. Nevertheless the consequences for Europe would have been much better than it was.

Adler

The allies had some oportunities to sign a separate peace teatry, but, lord thanks, it didn't happen. I think that 1) would have been the most probably outcome. USA thought USSR was a needed ally in the war against Japan.

@Adler I truely doubt that the west would of been able to fight the USSR and turn them into a Democratic government

remember they at the time had the largest number of tanks not to mention one of the most powerful, they weren't considered a super power for nothing

had Germany made peace with the west and they allied against the Soviets, the USSR would of probably ally with Japan and they wouldn't have stopped at Germany, if France join an anti-Soviet alliance they would of been easly over runned, of course I'm sure that the west wouldn't have done this, but if they did the Soviets would of occupied all of France, Italy, Germany, all of east Europe, probably parts of China, maybe Turkey (since historically the Russians have always wanted to controlled Constantinople), they would of either occupied Spain and Portugal or made them forced "allies"

this would of made the rest of the world more actively join/help the allies, the British would remain unoccupied because of allied naval and air superiority but still devastated, atomic weapons would of been falling all over Europe. The Soviets would of probably independently developed there own atomic weapons causing even more devastation. The American homeland and that of other allied nations would of also been devastated. The Soviets might of eventually been stopped and completely defeated but the death toll would of been in the billions, creating an almost unimaginible holocaust all due to the fact that the west distrusted the Soviets motives and future ambitions so much that they took a preemptive strike that evenually resulted in the destruction of most of the world

of course this is just my wild theory :crazyeye: on if the allies made peace and an anti-Soviet alliance with Germany, there could be many different possible outcomes

In the plans of the German assassins of Hitler they indeed planned a democracy and not a military dictatorship. Thereare books about the plans the assassins had. And German generals were not so interested to lead Germany. A military dictaorship was unpropable.
This one town was only a historical example. A what happened if. I know you can´t conclude on the whole nation from one town. Nevertheless it can be a hint how it could have been.
The allies had ever to deal with Hitler. That´s why they didn´t make peace. But now, when Hitler was dead? And Japan, well it was beaten. The most part of their navy damaged and sunk without the possibility to beat the US forces. So the Soviets were not needed to beat Japan but Germany. And the main point is, they were commies. And Stalin was not the good guy, he was an even worse man as Hitler. So there were differences the western allies knew. Churchill himself though about ww3 shortly after ww2 against the Russians. Well he was right but this war was very cold and ended in Berlin on November 9th 1989...
To revolutionary: The USSR had a huge ammount of tanks and land forces. But nevertheless they were too exhausted when they took Berlin in 1945. They were not able to move much farer. Indeed a single intyct German army could have driven them out of Berlin and behind the Oder. And whyt about the allied air superiority? Then the Russians had to cope with a huge air power able to weaken the enemy troops. They had to fight against huge air assaults. Fighter bombers would have attacked the tanks. Not to forget the industrial potential. Instead of inferiror Sherman tanks the US would have mass produced Panther. Instead of P 51 fighters Me 262 jets. A war against the Russians was winnable. And the nuke the Russians didn´t have before 1948 IIRC. They needed the US technology. So no the Russians were vulnerable in the case of war. But the most propable situation would have been a peace on all sides. Then I agree.

Adler

Originally posted by Adler17
In the plans of the German assassins of Hitler they indeed planned a democracy and not a military dictatorship. Thereare books about the plans the assassins had. And German generals were not so interested to lead Germany. A military dictaorship was unpropable.

But I don't know if the wannabe-assains were powerful enough to keep the power after the death of Hitler.


The allies had ever to deal with Hitler. That´s why they didn´t make peace. But now, when Hitler was dead? And Japan, well it was beaten. The most part of their navy damaged and sunk without the possibility to beat the US forces. So the Soviets were not needed to beat Japan but Germany. And the main point is, they were commies. And Stalin was not the good guy, he was an even worse man as Hitler. So there were differences the western allies knew. Churchill himself though about ww3 shortly after ww2 against the Russians. Well he was right but this war was very cold and ended in Berlin on November 9th 1989...

When I'm saying that the American believed Russia to be a needed ally to attack Japan, I'm quoting Truman's autobiography (vol I)... Americans were expecting to take more than 300.000 casualities if they were to attack Japan alone.

Question:

If Hitler had been assassinated (let's assume the first attempt), the Nazi system destroyed, the SS rounded up and peace declared, would Germany have been allowed to keep the possessions it lost during the First World War but regained during the Second?

(This considering that she would still have been in a position of power and would have had options in negotiation other than total surrender.)

These "wannabe assasins" had the power of the home army. This should have been enough to cope with the SS units in the Reich. The units at the front however wouldnt have the chance to intervene for either side.
Truman was an idiot! He didn´t even know where Germany really was when he became president. He also believed Stalin was a good guy and only his party was so awful... There is another discussion about him but back to the Russians and Japan. For what were the Russians needed? To conquer Manchuria. Not more. They were useless.
Yoshi: Your question is good. If Germany would have been made peace the areas in the west were lost. I can only imagine a referendum in Alsace- Lorraine for which nation they shoudl decide. In the East however it might be other way. In referendums parts of the lost areas would have decided to become part of the Reich. However I don´t think these referendums were able to make. The allies wouldn´t be very glad to see Germany in a position to keep parts of Silesia or the Sudetenland. However the most probable peace would have been a treaty on the status qou of 1937.

Adler

but what about the allied agreement about unconditional surrender? at the time the allies knew perfectly well that they were winning

I also doubt that they would of allowed Germeny to keep any of its gained terrtory except those that wanted to stay under their rule

I think thta whilst opinion was against teh Germans the leaders had at least enough sense to realise the mistakes they made with versailles. i think that the treaty wouldnt have been reapted but they would have lost a lot of the land the conquered

The allied agreement of unconditional surrender was later than July 1944 IIRC. But even if it existed the base because they agreed was missing. I doubt they would have kept this demand. The territories which didn´t want to stay under German control would have been independent from Germany. That was clear. The only difficulty I see is the Polish corridor which devided East Prussia (and Danzig) from the rest of Germany. But I doubt Germany could have kept it.

Adler

Would the Holocaust have ended maybe? Doubt it, antisemetism was still popular.

Originally posted by Adler17
The allied agreement of unconditional surrender was later than July 1944 IIRC.

Nope. The annoucement that the Allies would settle for nothing less then unconditional surrender was first made at the 1943 Casablanca conference, and confirmed at the Tehran conference later that year.

Personally, I think claims that Allied reflections on the results of the Versilles treaty would have lead to more generous peace terms in 1944 are completly wrong. IMO, the lesson the Allied leaders took from Versilles and its aftermath was the need to crush Germany totally and rebuild German society from the ground up in order to stamp out German militarism for once and for all. Too many people had died as a result of wars started by Germany for the Germans to have been given any quarter in 1944. It really was unconditional surrender or no surrender.

The Allied public were out for German blood (as evidenced by their enthusastic support for the bomber offencive) and were prepared to see things through untill the bitter end. The Allied leadership shared this view, which by 20 July 1944 was butressed by the knowledge that Germany faced certain defeat (indeed, they expected the war to be over by the end of the year). As a result, the German generals would have had no chips to bargin with had they suceeded in killing Hitler.

Incidently, the structure of the Nazi government forms an important issue here. Hitler had deliberatly structured the government so that all decisions were made by himself, and he was the only person fully informed about Germany's true situation. With Hitler dead, Germany would have been plunged into administrative chaos, especially given the high likelyhood of some kind of civil war breaking out.

I think administrative chaos would be putting it gently.

First Hiter made the last decision- if it was a dispute between his lower charges. He appointed several men for one area to be dealt with (with other areas they had). So he could controle them easily. If he was dead there would have been a chaos indeed. But not so bad as Case say. Within a few days or at least weeks this chaos would be completely solved.
The German resistance made assassins on Hitler throughout the war and also in times Germany was winning. But all failed.
Case say the allies would have occupied Germany even if Hitler was dead. Well this would be not impossible. But with the tensions the allies had under themselves the Germans would be able to break them, at least to a point they would agree to a negotiated peace. I always said this was possible. As the Russians had Stalin and wanted to make Europe communistic this was against everything the western allies were fighting for. That´s why they would have agreed to a diplomatic peace when Germany would have been able to devide the Russians from the other allies. Not an impossible task. And the main point because they wanted Germany see occupied, Hitler, was dead. So no, it was more propable to see a negotiated peace after all.
To the KZs: The German assassins wanted to stop the holocaust at once. This would have happened shortly after the assasination. civilleader the antisemitism in Germany wasn´t as strong as you say. If Hitler made the murdering public he would have been Führer for the longest time. That´s why he kept it secret. There would have been demonstrations and after a few months he would have to flee. I know about some German who knew about it and some others who don´t. This I pointed out already. And remember Hitler became Kanzler not because but despite the antisemitism.

Adler

Originally posted by Adler17
If he was dead there would have been a chaos indeed. But not so bad as Case say. Within a few days or at least weeks this chaos would be completely solved.

Why not? Even with Hitler alive the German beurocracy collapsed in 1944. With the only man who knew what was going on dead, the collapse would have been quicker and more severe. Such a collapse couldn't have happened at a worse time - by late July both the western and eastern fronts had collapsed, with Allied armies chargeing at what was literally their fastest possible speed towards the German borders. Historically these advances were only checked by Allied logistical difficulties and the German buerocracy managing to lash together some combat forces. Take out the buerocracy and add a civil war, and the Allies would have been in Berlin well before Christmas, much as they were expecting to be on 20 July 1944.

Case say the allies would have occupied Germany even if Hitler was dead. Well this would be not impossible. But with the tensions the allies had under themselves the Germans would be able to break them, at least to a point they would agree to a negotiated peace. I always said this was possible. As the Russians had Stalin and wanted to make Europe communistic this was against everything the western allies were fighting for.

As the Western Allies did almost nothing to protect their allies in Eastern Europe from communism, I can't see any reason why they'd side with Germany against the USSR!

Inadvertantly, you seem to share Hitler's views on the fragility of the Allies alliance. Hitler was totally wrong about this, and I'm afraid that you are as well. Whatever their thoughts about the Soviets*, the Western Allies never deviated from their commitment to inflicting total defeat on Germany via imposing unconditional surrender. The western allies weren't the slightest bit interested in saving Germans or Eastern Europe from communism, as was clearly demonstrated by the very generous consessions they agreed to at Yalta. All they were interested in was crushing Germany and making sure that the Germans learned a lesson from the experiance.


*These views were actually rather positive - the essentially irrelevant Churchill was the only senior British or American politican to view the Soviets as a threat, and even he was more then willing to keep them on side by cutting deals at the expense of Eastern Europe (ie, the pre-Yalta division of the Balkans into British and Soviet spheres of influence).

They wanted to occupy Hiltler Germany. And without Hitler... Hitler was the only peace which could connect these allies at least for long. Remember after a few month Truman also dropped the nukes because of Stalin! They didn´t protect their Eastern allies because they needed Stalin´s help. But now? Hitler was dead, Germany beaten and no longer a danger. Stalin? Well he wanted only to capture Europe. Why not help him? No. Although Churchill was the only politician who was really aware of Stalin most of the generals were. Eisenhower, Patton,... They all wanted to go further. Germany was a heavy cannon on board the ship of the line Europe but untied, so damaging the whole ship. Who should tie this cannon? Stalin or the Free world? No the differences WERE too big. But suitable for another Germany as Hitlergermany. If in 1944 peace could be made the situation of 1937 could be there but much improved. Germany and the Eastern European states democratically tied in a system like the EU and NATO- against Russia. Roosevelt had an ear for Churchill He could convince him to make a negotiated peace. No. They only agreed in sharing Europe because they needed Stalin. But now he wasn´t needed anymore, yes he was much more a danger for the peace. And remeber Yalta was in 1945 and not 1944.
About the danger of a civil war the assains were aware. But do you really think the SS would have made scuh a resistance, even if they were able? Too many Germans were no Nazis any longer, if they were. They would have no support in the population. Some minor fightings would have been the only consequence in that way. And the army? the generals had still the command. And nearly all agreed to help the assains if they killed Hitler. No. this was not a big chance for the allies to break through the lines. It could have been much worse for the allies if they would not have agreed. That they win the war was already clear, but the price not. They paid already a high price, but what about the misdecisions Hitler made and now not? Now competent generals fighting? No Budapest or Adennes. Me 262 ready for combat half a year earlier. No the price to pay would have been much higher. But I don´t know if the allies were ready to pay that price.
I also think we can´t convince each other in this dispute. I think we both said our arguments. Unless there is anything new we should terminate this discussion. I fear it will lead to nothing more.

Adler