20th of July 1944

Adler17 said:
But if the Germans fought further? The last heavy mistakes Hitler made, Bulge and Budapest, the Me 262 and some other wouldn´t have happened.

Why not? And why are you so sure that a military government would do any better then Hitler did? Military governments of all eras have terrible records for decision making. Even if your bizare view that a 'democratic' government would quickly be installed is acepted, then it's hard to see why such a government wouldn't also make serious mistakes. The established and stable democratic governments in charge of the western Allies sure made more then a few serious blunders.
 
Case said:
Why not? And why are you so sure that a military government would do any better then Hitler did? Military governments of all eras have terrible records for decision making. Even if your bizare view that a 'democratic' government would quickly be installed is acepted, then it's hard to see why such a government wouldn't also make serious mistakes. The established and stable democratic governments in charge of the western Allies sure made more then a few serious blunders.

I doubt the military government would have done much better. I do agree however that they could have prolonged the war for a month or three. Battle of the Bulge- Hitlers idea, Budepest offensive- Hitlers idea- no retreat orders- Hitlers idea. Germany also had troops tied down in Norway and Italy the generals wanted to bring home. The Russians lost alot of men at the Seelow heights in April 45- imagine if an additional army was available to the Germans. The Battle of the Bulge more or less drained Germanys last reserves and fuel reserves for the army and Luftwaffe. In the event they plot managed to kill Hitler and the war dragged on until august 45 Germany would have been nuked. I also think the Nazis would still have been in power- just with a leader under the Armies thumb. The alternative could have been civil war.
 
Who should follow Hitler as a Nazi leader? Hitler never made any suggestions for the case of his death, although he was asked several times to do so. Göring? He had no power. Himmler,well his SS was a power but too weak to cope with the Wehrmacht. Also in the case of firing on Wehrmacht troops even the SS would not be so reliable. Also he was not very popular. Goebbels? He was a joke and there were many jokes about him in Germany (dear god make me blind to see Goebbels as Arian). Also he had no power. And the assasins knew about the danger. The reserver army, full of resistance fighters would have acted so fast that only a civil war would bring a Nazi to power again.
To the military situation: Zardnaar is desribing Hitler´s errors very good. But now the situation: In the Normandy the US and Brits were landed but were until now unable to gain more land. In Italy there was a defence war- the Germans retreated very slowly against a huge supremacy. Sitzkrieg instead of Blitzkrieg. In the east the Russians were nearing the Polish border and in the air the US and Brits sent thousands of bombers into the Reich.
These bombers to start at this point were not unbeatable. General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland had a plan to beat them. Also the use of the Me 262 from August as fighter and not bomber would have been a costly time for the US and British bomber command. Perhaps so costly to stop the offensives. This would also mean the loss of the air superiority in the west and a much more difficultier way to Germany. The next point is the east. Russia had tremendous ammounts on troops there but lost huge numbers every month. When they finally captured Berlin they were unable to move much further and the counterstrike of even only one intact army would have been enough to smash them behind the Oder river and perhaps out of Germany as well. They were too exhausted with long supply routes. Also the use of free fighters from the stopped battle over the Reich and troops from Italy and perhaps Norway would have lead to tough fightings. I don´t see the Russians taken Berlin in 1945...
The last point is the nuke. Okay, The US had this weapon- but did you have enough Uranium? No! The US needed German Uranium of the last boat to Japan to complet the four bombs. So the US had difficulties in building a second bomb, not to mention the third. So even if the US managed to build a second bomb it is highly unrealistic that they used it against Germany. Germany wanted peace then. Germany was bombed and for years no danger for the other nations. Germany was making a democratic government. So why not making peace?
Stalin would be worried by the tremendous losses and the possibility of a German seperate peace with the western allies. He indeed asked for peace in mid 1944 secretly! He was overcautious. But even if he didn´t ask the losses would made him worry to ask. That would be enough for the western allies to make also peace.
Germany couldn´t win the war in 1944. But they could go out of the war without the unconditional surrender.

Adler
 
He never made specific suggestions, but Goering was the official sucessor to Hitler in the Nazi party until his "betrayal" in 1945. Not that it would have garunteed sucession, but nonetheless.

As for the rest, I'm stunned as to why people assume that if the Germans changed their tactics and strategy, that the allies would just blithely continue ignoring this. If we assume that the strategic situation changes, we have to assume that the allies strategy would also change. It was not set in stone as some seem to think...

Two remaining points though, it was barely weeks away from the Russians overunning the Romanian oilfields, which would have had an affect. The second I'll neglect to make as it's like talking to a wall :rolleyes:
 
Even if Hitler had of been killed I think the Nazis would have stayed in power. Himmler and Georing (police and SS) weren't touched and Goebbles was only put under house arrest (but to no avail as they forgot to cut his telephone line.)

Too many people; even those in on the plot, were too scared to take action. All over Europe SS and Gestapo leaders were arrested in the hours following the explosion, only to be released after the plot was revealed as a failure.

Also, who would have lead the Wehrmacht if they fought on? Keitel and Jodl would have to go and so would several other 'yes men'. Recall Brautisch?
 
I doubt if Hitler was killed any of the "big" Nazis would have made it (Goebbels, Himler, Goering)- if one of them would have it would have been Himmler (SS, he was also the most pragmatic out of the Nazi bigwigs, probably would have been happy to play Mr President and he often listened to the Generals and I suspect knew of the plot as well).

Adler perhaps eventually Germany would have become a democratic state but while the war lasted it would have been a military dictatorship. July the 20th was to late to turn the tide (June 6th was that last day). At best I think Germany could have got a negotiated surrender. Even a German unconditional surrender would have saved millions from the camps, bombing, frontline etc. July the 20th was still to late for the ME 262- they still didn't have reliable engines by then so Hitlers decision to make them a fighter/bomber probably didn't delay them entering service by a single day. Ploesti still would have fallen but the reserves used in the Ardennes could have been deployed east. Some of Germanys best formations were wasted in 45 tied down defending Italy and in Hungary. Adler 17 was right about the state of the Russian Army- over extended and alot of units were under strength. They didn't need additional uranium to nuke Germany. Two A Bombs- one each for Germany and Japan but Germanys surrender meant the Japanese got both of them.
 
BTW just in case somebody mentions the Germans only tried to kill Hitler once they started to lose the war are wrong. There were several attempts in 38-39 before the war started. The next 2 best known ones were probably the bomb in wine bottle on Hitlers FW Condor (bomb failed to detonate) and a suicidal German officer blowing himself up while Hitler inspected the new uniforms (Allied bombing destroyed the uniforms in a rail yard)
 
The engines were not reliable but don´t forget the psychological influence by the use of the new fighters so early. General Spaatz was worried in August only because of a few Me 262 attacking his bombers. What if the Germans used them not in dozens but in hundreds? An example: In March 1945 1200 bombers and 1200 fighters were attacking Berlin and intercepted by only 18 Me 262. 25 US bombers didn´t survive this attack. The Germans had no casualities. The effort of this plane in 1944 would have been much higher. Perhaps too high to maintain the air offensive.. The Uranium the US had was perhaps enough to build one bomb, perhaps a second one. So the first bomb had to be a trial one and would not been able to use in combat. The second one, which is much more questionable to be realized so fast, would be hardly used against a nation which wants peace! (Even though Japan also asked for peace and would have surrendered anyway but that´s another question...) No, I doubt the US would have used such a weapon against the Germans in that situation.
There were many assassin trials from 1933 until 1945 (Speer). None was successful. Also the assassins of July 20th tried the assasination before (Tresckow and the Cognac bottle that didn´t explode in Hitler´s plane). I wonder how they all failed...

Adler
 
Adler17 said:
The engines were not reliable but don´t forget the psychological influence by the use of the new fighters so early. General Spaatz was worried in August only because of a few Me 262 attacking his bombers. What if the Germans used them not in dozens but in hundreds? An example: In March 1945 1200 bombers and 1200 fighters were attacking Berlin and intercepted by only 18 Me 262. 25 US bombers didn´t survive this attack. The Germans had no casualities. The effort of this plane in 1944 would have been much higher. Perhaps too high to maintain the air offensive.. The Uranium the US had was perhaps enough to build one bomb, perhaps a second one. So the first bomb had to be a trial one and would not been able to use in combat. The second one, which is much more questionable to be realized so fast, would be hardly used against a nation which wants peace! (Even though Japan also asked for peace and would have surrendered anyway but that´s another question...) No, I doubt the US would have used such a weapon against the Germans in that situation.
There were many assassin trials from 1933 until 1945 (Speer). None was successful. Also the assassins of July 20th tried the assasination before (Tresckow and the Cognac bottle that didn´t explode in Hitler´s plane). I wonder how they all failed...

Adler

Well the most ME262 they got into the air at any one time was 20. Although over 1200 were built only around 200 were deployed- and they were short of fuel an pilots. Even without Hitlers interference I don't see how they could have got more ME 262's into the air quick enough to make a difference. The Ardennes were the last gasp of the Luftwaffe except for a few scattered operations here and there. Assuming the pilots and fuel weren't wasted in this battle you are still looking at January/February 1945 before they could have used them - to late to change the outcome of the war. If the ME262 was somehow deployed in mid 44 you would still need to solve the 10 hour engine lifetime problem. Hitlers order to make it a fighter bomber was to allow it to bomb the D-Day beacheads- the only plane the Germans had that could do it reliably. Looking at Omaha beach it wasn't really a bad decision to do so.

I suppose Germans make good soldiers but poor assassins. That and luck for mister A Hitler.
 
Adler17 said:
There were many assassin trials from 1933 until 1945 (Speer). None was successful. Also the assassins of July 20th tried the assasination before (Tresckow and the Cognac bottle that didn´t explode in Hitler´s plane). I wonder how they all failed...

Adler

Fate is what I reckon. The German people had happily followed Hitler into a dictatorship and then a war. They deserved to go down with him.
 
It was a bad decision. The plane was fighter not a bomber and as such it was needed. The beechheads would not have existed when Hitler used the Panzer divisions well...
The Germans were not cheering when ww2 broke out. Indeed they were asking if this would be good idea. Hitler was not elected becuase of his political ideas but despite them. Don´t forget this, rilnator.

Adler
 
Adler17 said:
It was a bad decision. The plane was fighter not a bomber and as such it was needed. The beechheads would not have existed when Hitler used the Panzer divisions well...
The Germans were not cheering when ww2 broke out. Indeed they were asking if this would be good idea. Hitler was not elected becuase of his political ideas but despite them. Don´t forget this, rilnator.

Adler

Yes but a few bombers getting through to the beach could make a huge difference. The panzers got nailed by allied air powers. It would have been a wild burst of optimism to suggest the ME 262 could gain air superiority on D- Day. It could however bomb the beachheads. Looking at it in that light Hitlers decision wasn't a bad one. They didn't know when D-Day would happen so not having the ME 262 ready in time wasn't Hitlers fault. No other German plane would have made it through the allied airpower to the beaches.
 
By which point the allies would have found a way to combat it in some way :) Contary to belief sometimes, when you change one sides theories or strategy, we can also assume that the other would adapt also. At most, any changes in the strategy of the Luftwaffe in 1945 would merely result in short delays until ways were found round this. The Allied high command were not entirely stupid. In many ways though we have a discrepancy here, we have claims that the allied bomber offensive could have been halted or delayed a lot. But by often the same people we are told the allied bomber offensive was having virtually no affect on the war and/or German production anyway. Just a thought, after this miraculous defeat of the allied air forces, then what? :p

D-day is an interesting one, evidence from Lehr armoured division suggests strongly that moving against the beaches during the day was unwise to say the least. That presumably was part of the thinking of the likes of Runstedt when they suggested a mass counter-attack after the allies were established. Further we have to give the allies some credit in this issue, their camoflaging of the attacks played a vital role in preventing the deployment of Panzers. It was not just Hitler who opposed the deployment after all, some prominent Wermacht generals were against it too, a fact that is often forgotten in favour of the usual "Hitler was asleep" we see in movies.

Atom bomb, you answered your own point for me. They did, they might have.

Oh and on the Hitler was asleep theory, I read today something about the battles in africa during October 1942. After Montgomery had finally decimated Rommel's forces through attrition, Rommel sent an urgent despatch to Hitler asking to retreat to Fuka Pass to reform. Unfortunately the signal arrived late in the day in the Fuhrer's headquarters, after Hitler was asleep. Fussmann, the officer to recieve the despatch decided not to wake Hitler.

Unfortunately, the night before Hitler had sent an order to Rommel ordering him to stand and fight where he was. Delays in this recieving this at Rommel's HQ meant that the message arrived the next morning, after he had sent the above order. Rommel, believing it was a reply to his request had no choice but to obey. When the problem was discovered, Hitler was livid as (for a change) he agreed with Rommel's wish to withdraw. By then though it was too late, and the Afrika Korps was mauled further. Fussmann was promptly court-martialled, reduced in rank to private and posted to a labour battalion for his act.

History books though more often than not record the event as Hitler issuing yet another "fight and die where you stand" order. :rolleyes:
 
Adler17 said:
Who should follow Hitler as a Nazi leader? Hitler never made any suggestions for the case of his death, although he was asked several times to do so. Göring? He had no power. Himmler,well his SS was a power but too weak to cope with the Wehrmacht. Also in the case of firing on Wehrmacht troops even the SS would not be so reliable. Also he was not very popular. Goebbels? He was a joke and there were many jokes about him in Germany (dear god make me blind to see Goebbels as Arian). Also he had no power. And the assasins knew about the danger. The reserver army, full of resistance fighters would have acted so fast that only a civil war would bring a Nazi to power again.
To the military situation: Zardnaar is desribing Hitler´s errors very good. But now the situation: In the Normandy the US and Brits were landed but were until now unable to gain more land. In Italy there was a defence war- the Germans retreated very slowly against a huge supremacy. Sitzkrieg instead of Blitzkrieg. In the east the Russians were nearing the Polish border and in the air the US and Brits sent thousands of bombers into the Reich.
These bombers to start at this point were not unbeatable. General der Jagdflieger Adolf Galland had a plan to beat them. Also the use of the Me 262 from August as fighter and not bomber would have been a costly time for the US and British bomber command. Perhaps so costly to stop the offensives. This would also mean the loss of the air superiority in the west and a much more difficultier way to Germany. The next point is the east. Russia had tremendous ammounts on troops there but lost huge numbers every month. When they finally captured Berlin they were unable to move much further and the counterstrike of even only one intact army would have been enough to smash them behind the Oder river and perhaps out of Germany as well. They were too exhausted with long supply routes. Also the use of free fighters from the stopped battle over the Reich and troops from Italy and perhaps Norway would have lead to tough fightings. I don´t see the Russians taken Berlin in 1945...
The last point is the nuke. Okay, The US had this weapon- but did you have enough Uranium? No! The US needed German Uranium of the last boat to Japan to complet the four bombs. So the US had difficulties in building a second bomb, not to mention the third. So even if the US managed to build a second bomb it is highly unrealistic that they used it against Germany. Germany wanted peace then. Germany was bombed and for years no danger for the other nations. Germany was making a democratic government. So why not making peace?
Stalin would be worried by the tremendous losses and the possibility of a German seperate peace with the western allies. He indeed asked for peace in mid 1944 secretly! He was overcautious. But even if he didn´t ask the losses would made him worry to ask. That would be enough for the western allies to make also peace.
Germany couldn´t win the war in 1944. But they could go out of the war without the unconditional surrender.

Adler
gobbels had no power?, in hitler political testament he was to take power of germany.
Gobbels wa brilliant in rallying popular public morale w/ his propaganda. and as hitler once said "everythig is about propaganda".
in my opinion gobbels was a more able man than goring or himmler.
 
I thought the will signed power onto Doenitz? :confused:
 
Adler17 said:
I admit it was able to bomb the beaches. But it would have been better to use it as fighter later the war regaining the air supremacy.

Adler

The ME 262 was never going to regain air supremacy- to little, to late compared to the American production rates. Mustangs could shoot it down (with difficulty I admit). By some miracle if the Germans got it into the air 6 months or a year earlier they still would have lost but bomber command would probably had to resort to night bombing more.

Its hard to know what effect the allied bombing had on Germany. Some people regard it as a failure do to the fact German production actually peaked in late 44 even with the bombing. How higher it would have gone is anyones guess. The bombing did cripple German ability to resupply. Fuel production was decimated and factorys had trouble getting materials due to bombed railway lines and roads. The bombing of German cities is a bit more controversal (sp?) In most cases I think it was justified- it was total war where even the civilians weren't safe and factorys were located in cities. Back then precision bombing didn't exist or was difficult to do except at low altitude (death from flak) so bombing cities was the only realistic option. Germany invented terror bombing so IMHO the reaped what they sowed but Dresden was a war crime. By 1940 standards everyone done it so either everyones innocent or everyones guilty.
 
privatehudson said:
I thought the will signed power onto Doenitz? :confused:
it did, Goebels got the chancellory seat. himmler nor goring were mentioned in it.


President of the Reich: Donitz
Chancellor of the Reich: Dr Goebbels
Party Minister: Bormann
Foreign Minister: Seyss-Inquart
Minister of the Interior: Gauleiter Giesler
Minister of War: Donitz
Supreme Commander of the Army: Schorner
Supreme Commander of the Navy: Donitz
Supreme Commander of the Air Force: Greim
Reichsfuhrer of the S.S. and Head of the German Police: Gauleiter Hanke
Trade: Funk
Agriculture: Backe
Justice: Thierack
Culture: Dr Scheel
Propaganda: Dr Naumann
Finance: Schwerin-Crossigk
Labor: Dr Hupfauer
Munitions: Saur
Leader of the German Labor Front and Minister without Portfolio: Dr Ley.
 
First Dönitz got the message that Goebbels was suggested the Chancellor when he got the news he was the new president- after Goebbels death. Goebbels had a big talent in making his speeches but not any power over military units.
The Me 262 was indeed too few and too late to stop it. But in 1944? It COULD be ONE point to stop the bombing runs. Indeed the allies would have to invent new strategies but so the price for the unconditional surrender arizes more and more. Perhaps too costly...

Adler
 
The Me 262 was indeed too few and too late to stop it. But in 1944? It COULD be ONE point to stop the bombing runs. Indeed the allies would have to invent new strategies but so the price for the unconditional surrender arizes more and more. Perhaps too costly

I'm sorry, but then what? :confused: If the allies temporarily halted their bomber offensive, what good would that achieve? You've frequently remarked that you believe the offensive was of little practical use anyway, so humour me, what good do you believe halting the offensive would have done from a military standpoint?

Personally I think the allies could have quite quickly consolidated their resources into forward fighter bases on the continent to both secure more the bombers and engage the 262's in the ways that they had discovered anyway namely shooting them down near their home bases to the extent that the Luftwaffe had to provide fighter cover for their fighters.... again. That and the fact that the 262's engines were not exactly designed for long term usage would limit their impact to say the least.
 
Top Bottom