PDA

View Full Version : If Stauffenberg had killed Hitler on July 20th 1944



InExile
30 Dec 08,, 23:20
Thought this might be a good time to start such a thread;) and wasn't able to find another on this subject digging through the forum.

I am going to just make a few changes to the events that occured in the first few hours following the attempt. Colnel Brandt does not trip and move the briefcase and thus the bomb goes off from where it was intended and Hitler is killed. General Felligebel is able to get confirmation of this Olbricht before the communication lines are severed. So Valkyrie goes into effect a little after 12 noon instead of 4 PM. General Fromm backs the conspiracy.

I would assume that Berlin would be largely in the hands of the conspirators by the time Stauffenberg returned. Goebbels and other high ranking Nazis would be under arrest. Other arrests would take place all over Europe and several major cities would fall to forces loyal to the plot.

However the counter coup by the Nazis might start to play in almost the same way. The Wolf's lair would be secured and joined by Himmler; would start sending counter orders all over the Reich. Several SS units would move to act against the coup. Wehrmacht leaders loyal to Hitler like Guderian or Runstedt might try to rally the Army to fight the conspirators. The conspirators failure to secure the communication networks early , cost them dearly in the real timeline, I am assuming it does here to ; as anti coup messages are broadcast all over the Reich urging all Germans to resist the coup.

Finally I think its possible Major Remer (by all accounts a fanatical Nazi) might have still backed the regime in power, upon learing the truth about the nature of events. Thus the conspirators position in Berlin itself would have been jeopordized.

The key for the Conspirators would be; in order to prevent a costly civil war, or even a quick collapse of their coup would be; to nuetralize the SS leadership quickly and eliminate its leaders; to arrest and replace Pro Nazi Army leaders like Guderian and Remer; and push for a quick end to the war. Would it be too late for anything other than unconditional surrender or did Germany still have something to bargain with?

A lot of speculation, but think it makes for an interesting discussion :)

Johnny W
31 Dec 08,, 14:32
Interesting premise, although I think we did discuss something similar in the Valyrie movie thread.

If the Nazis were to regain power, who would have been the leader. Some of Hitler's underlings were scarier than Hitler himself, because they seemed more rational. Although Goring probably would have surrendered more quickly.

Another question is if the army rallies to fight the conspirators, how will this effect their operations in the field?

DRichards1968
01 Jan 09,, 17:05
Thought this might be a good time to start such a thread;) and wasn't able to find another on this subject digging through the forum.

I am going to just make a few changes to the events that occured in the first few hours following the attempt. Colnel Brandt does not trip and move the briefcase and thus the bomb goes off from where it was intended and Hitler is killed. General Felligebel is able to get confirmation of this Olbricht before the communication lines are severed. So Valkyrie goes into effect a little after 12 noon instead of 4 PM. General Fromm backs the conspiracy.

I would assume that Berlin would be largely in the hands of the conspirators by the time Stauffenberg returned. Goebbels and other high ranking Nazis would be under arrest. Other arrests would take place all over Europe and several major cities would fall to forces loyal to the plot.

However the counter coup by the Nazis might start to play in almost the same way. The Wolf's lair would be secured and joined by Himmler; would start sending counter orders all over the Reich. Several SS units would move to act against the coup. Wehrmacht leaders loyal to Hitler like Guderian or Runstedt might try to rally the Army to fight the conspirators. The conspirators failure to secure the communication networks early , cost them dearly in the real timeline, I am assuming it does here to ; as anti coup messages are broadcast all over the Reich urging all Germans to resist the coup.

Finally I think its possible Major Remer (by all accounts a fanatical Nazi) might have still backed the regime in power, upon learing the truth about the nature of events. Thus the conspirators position in Berlin itself would have been jeopordized.

The key for the Conspirators would be; in order to prevent a costly civil war, or even a quick collapse of their coup would be; to nuetralize the SS leadership quickly and eliminate its leaders; to arrest and replace Pro Nazi Army leaders like Guderian and Remer; and push for a quick end to the war. Would it be too late for anything other than unconditional surrender or did Germany still have something to bargain with?

A lot of speculation, but think it makes for an interesting discussion :)


I think that with Hitler dead and Goering (his official successor) under arrest, the Nazi regime would have fallen like a house of cards. Himmler was not popular with the German people and although there would have been initial anger and revulsion among the German people, there is no doubt in my mind that the conspirators would then have succeeded, especially if a popular general like Rommel openly backed them. I imagine some clashed between the Waffen SS and Wehrmacht forces, but this would not have lasted long. Even the SS would have gone over to the new regime as long as their position was safe.

DRichards1968
01 Jan 09,, 17:39
Interesting premise, although I think we did discuss something similar in the Valyrie movie thread.

If the Nazis were to regain power, who would have been the leader. Some of Hitler's underlings were scarier than Hitler himself, because they seemed more rational. Although Goring probably would have surrendered more quickly.

Another question is if the army rallies to fight the conspirators, how will this effect their operations in the field?

In the unlikely event of the conspirators being defeated, much would have depended on which of the Nazi leaders were still alive, but all of them would have concentrated on saving their own skins first. I imagine that someone like Goering would have left the military side of things in the hands of the generals and he wold have concentrated on hopeless attempts to split the allies through diplomacy. Upon this failure he would probably have sought a silent exit to Argentina, along with his family and plenty of valuables.

InExile
01 Jan 09,, 22:36
Considering the reaction of the allies; no doubt their first reaction would be to say it didn't make any difference and unconditional surrender was the only option available to Germany.

But this might have changed over time. Consider a non-Nazi government, agrees to renounce all conquests and withdraw from the occupied and satellite territories as soon as it became militarily feasible. Moreover Germany would be freed from the disasterous military leadership of Hitler; and German war policy would be directed by far more competant heads like Wizlebehn or Rommel. In such it might have been possible for Germany to hold off the allies for a lot longer.

Such a Government would agree to close all concentration and death camps, try the Nazi leadership for war crimes, dismantle the SS and agree to a policy of compensation and reparations.

Would it now be politically feasible to the allies to continue the relentless bombing of Germany, killing hundreds of thousands; when Germany continued to say that all it wanted was peace? Would the US and Britain allow the whole of Eastern Europe to fall to the Soviet Union; given the presence of a potential ally in the new German Leadership?

DRichards1968
02 Jan 09,, 18:33
Considering the reaction of the allies; no doubt their first reaction would be to say it didn't make any difference and unconditional surrender was the only option available to Germany.

But this might have changed over time. Consider a non-Nazi government, agrees to renounce all conquests and withdraw from the occupied and satellite territories as soon as it became militarily feasible. Moreover Germany would be freed from the disasterous military leadership of Hitler; and German war policy would be directed by far more competant heads like Wizlebehn or Rommel. In such it might have been possible for Germany to hold off the allies for a lot longer.

Such a Government would agree to close all concentration and death camps, try the Nazi leadership for war crimes, dismantle the SS and agree to a policy of compensation and reparations.

Would it now be politically feasible to the allies to continue the relentless bombing of Germany, killing hundreds of thousands; when Germany continued to say that all it wanted was peace? Would the US and Britain allow the whole of Eastern Europe to fall to the Soviet Union; given the presence of a potential ally in the new German Leadership?


I think Eisenhower would have concocted an 'unconditional surrender' that would have allowed the Germans a degree of sovereignty, much like happened in the case of Japan. I also believe that the Russians would not have been given as big a slice of the pie as they got, and their influence would have been considerably diminished as a consequence.

The Casablanca declaration of January 1943 was really a piece of propaganda to rally domestic support in the UK and USA behind the war, rather than a fanatical decision to destroy Germany, which is unfortunately the image that the Nazis portrayed to their own people. The Russians, unlike the Western allies, were fighting for their survival, so they didn't need to boost domestic support with any such declaration.

cape_royds
04 Jan 09,, 03:04
The main premise of the conspirators was that if Hitler were slain, a separate peace could be negotiated with the Western allies, while Germany's war continued with the USSR.

I think the conspirators, even if successful in overthrowing the government, would have soon been disappointed in such hopes.

Even those in the West such as Churchill, who were convinced of a future enmity with the USSR, were nevertheless also fully resolved to destroy German power.

The only distinction to be made on this score, between the various Western leaders concerns the question of whether any sort of German power was to ever again be restored.

Roosevelt, for his part, was comfortable with the notion of a permanently weakened Europe, with the USA and USSR left as the only remaining first-class world powers. Churchill, on the other hand, was eager to allow the recovery of Germany, in a suitably reconstituted form.

But no Western leader was willing to contemplate a separate peace with Germany in any respect along the lines of that envisioned by the July conspirators.

Bear in mind also that in July 1944 the atomic bomb was yet unproven, and therefore the Western allies were looking forward to Soviet participation in the final defeat of Japan. That's another reason for no separate peace.

The most for which the conspirators could have hoped was a quicker surrender to save German lives, with consequently a more orderly enemy occupation of Germany, that would have avoided the massive displacements and massacres of early '45.

The Poles and Czechs might also have ended up with a better deal. Hungary and Austria would have been spared some of the direct effects of battle.

But in other respects things could have become more complicated post-war:

--Germany would have been riven by another "stab in the back" controversy.
--Allied demands for reparations would have been much more insistent if Germany had not been reduced to such utter ruin.
--Plenty of room for inter-allied conflicts over the status of the Baltic States.
--the mutually hostile regimes in Rumania and Hungary would have remained in place and been perhaps unrestrained by foreign occupation.
--East Prussia would have still been inhabited by Germans, while the London Poles return to Warsaw, with the seeds of a furture war with Germany.

In short, there could very easily have been a messy series of regional "continuation wars," all with the possibility of escalation, that would make our historical post-Yalta situation seem idyllic.

beez26
04 Feb 09,, 07:24
Thought this might be a good time to start such a thread;) and wasn't able to find another on this subject digging through the forum.

I am going to just make a few changes to the events that occured in the first few hours following the attempt. Colnel Brandt does not trip and move the briefcase and thus the bomb goes off from where it was intended and Hitler is killed. General Felligebel is able to get confirmation of this Olbricht before the communication lines are severed. So Valkyrie goes into effect a little after 12 noon instead of 4 PM. General Fromm backs the conspiracy.

I would assume that Berlin would be largely in the hands of the conspirators by the time Stauffenberg returned. Goebbels and other high ranking Nazis would be under arrest. Other arrests would take place all over Europe and several major cities would fall to forces loyal to the plot.

However the counter coup by the Nazis might start to play in almost the same way. The Wolf's lair would be secured and joined by Himmler; would start sending counter orders all over the Reich. Several SS units would move to act against the coup. Wehrmacht leaders loyal to Hitler like Guderian or Runstedt might try to rally the Army to fight the conspirators. The conspirators failure to secure the communication networks early , cost them dearly in the real timeline, I am assuming it does here to ; as anti coup messages are broadcast all over the Reich urging all Germans to resist the coup.

Finally I think its possible Major Remer (by all accounts a fanatical Nazi) might have still backed the regime in power, upon learing the truth about the nature of events. Thus the conspirators position in Berlin itself would have been jeopordized.

The key for the Conspirators would be; in order to prevent a costly civil war, or even a quick collapse of their coup would be; to nuetralize the SS leadership quickly and eliminate its leaders; to arrest and replace Pro Nazi Army leaders like Guderian and Remer; and push for a quick end to the war. Would it be too late for anything other than unconditional surrender or did Germany still have something to bargain with?

A lot of speculation, but think it makes for an interesting discussion :)

Personally I think it would have exteneded the war. Hitler was probably the Allies best friend during the last two years of the war with his mistakes. I am not sure any of his replacements would have made the mistakes he did.

tankie
04 Feb 09,, 17:12
Personally I think it would have exteneded the war. Hitler was probably the Allies best friend during the last two years of the war with his mistakes. I am not sure any of his replacements would have made the mistakes he did.

I can see your point here , was there not a film portrayal with Lee Marvin sent to kill a high ranking General , the sniper with him saw hitler and was going to kill him instead of the General, but marvin stopped him saying we want hitler alive , not sure if it was based on fact tho ?

astralis
04 Feb 09,, 19:01
a dead hitler would still mean a german surrender by 1945. the soviets would probably pay more and the western allies would probably pay less for the victory, though.

pate
05 Feb 09,, 04:23
Now that is a lot of brass air fittings http://www.liangdianup.com/subpages/airfitting_1.htm there is just about every type
of air fitting that you could want. Wholesale prices too. I guess these could be used as small water pipe fitting also. I
used some of the parts to make my babington wvo burner.

Huh? I don't know if you want to use this stuff as a water pipe to smoke what ever it is you've got there....

Pink
22 Feb 09,, 10:38
Pro Nazi Army leaders like Guderian Guderian was loyal to Hitler. After all it was Hitler that allowed Guderian to develope his PanzerWaffe. But a Nazi? I'd have to disagree with you on that. Guderian was purely a military man who cared very little for politics. Clearly he had responsibility though as he will undoubtably have been aware of slave labour and the deportation of Jews, but that doesn't make him a Nazi.

Triple C
26 Feb 09,, 06:45
a dead hitler would still mean a german surrender by 1945. the soviets would probably pay more and the western allies would probably pay less for the victory, though.

Agreed. I think if the German mutineers offered terms to Roosevelt and Churchill, they would be roughly disabused.

clackers
26 Feb 09,, 12:34
Guderian was loyal to Hitler. After all it was Hitler that allowed Guderian to develope his PanzerWaffe. But a Nazi? I'd have to disagree with you on that. Guderian was purely a military man who cared very little for politics. Clearly he had responsibility though as he will undoubtably have been aware of slave labour and the deportation of Jews, but that doesn't make him a Nazi.

You must have read Guderian's book, Pink, which is a great attempt to sanitize his past, which includes being one of the three generals on the tribunal of the show trials of Stauffenberg's plotters.

As Williamson and Murray say on p72 of "A War To Be Won":

" ... his postwar memoirs, perhaps the most self-serving by any German general, which is saying a great deal. .... Guderian was also an enthusiastic Nazi whose loyalty to the regime would lead to his appointment as the army's chief-of-staff in the aftermath of the failed 20 July 1944 coup."

clackers
26 Feb 09,, 12:41
Agreed. I think if the German mutineers offered terms to Roosevelt and Churchill, they would be roughly disabused.

That's right, Triple C ... after January 1943 no separate peace offer from either Hitler or say, Ludwig Beck, would have been acceptable ...

Pink
27 Feb 09,, 21:28
You must have read Guderian's book, Pink, which is a great attempt to sanitize his past, which includes being one of the three generals on the tribunal of the show trials of Stauffenberg's plotters.

As Williamson and Murray say on p72 of "A War To Be Won":

" ... his postwar memoirs, perhaps the most self-serving by any German general, which is saying a great deal. .... Guderian was also an enthusiastic Nazi whose loyalty to the regime would lead to his appointment as the army's chief-of-staff in the aftermath of the failed 20 July 1944 coup."I use books for reference only. I don't read them like a novel, If you get my meaning. I've read a few articles now and can't find any evidence of Nazi party membership, do you know different?

I hear fully what you are saying and he certainly has guilt in that he turned a blind eye and like so many, didn't want to see. I make no excuse for him!

clackers
03 Mar 09,, 03:08
I use books for reference only. I don't read them like a novel, If you get my meaning.

No Pink, I don't, I'm afraid.

You might enjoy your skimming, but the details in between are actually kind of important too! :))

If you're only into web articles, here are some of those too:

Most German generals who cooperated with Hitler and the Nazi Party were not card carrying members of the party themselves (including the second Fuhrer ... Karl Doenitz) ... that would be too obvious.

See Cape Royd and Bigfella's posts on the delicate relationship between Adolf and the Army: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showpost.php?p=618346&postcount=268

Even then, the OKW's Walter Warlimont noted that Guderian " ... politically sought a closer association with the Party than was customary among the officers"
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.php?id=7977



" ... As a result of the July Plot Guderian demanded the resignation of any officer who did not fully support the ideals of the Nazi Party. Over the next few months Guderian sat with Gerd von Rundstedt and Wilhelm Keitel on the Army Court of Honour that expelled hundreds of officers suspected of being opposed to the policies of Adolf Hitler. This removed them from court martial jurisdiction and turned them over to Roland Freisler and his People's Court."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERguderian.htm

And:


Guderian's long-term sympathies for Adolf Hitler as a person and the National Socialists as a movement. Guderian's endorsement of the cause of the Freikorps in 1919 was followed by his occasional attendance at Nazi Party meetings after Hitler took power; numerous personal meetings and dinners with Hitler; and, his insertion of flattering prose about Hitler in his Achtung! Panzer in 1937.[10] He ignored or repressed the reality of the Kristallnacht, the development of the concentration camp system and the Holocaust, as well as the sordid behavior of some elements of the Wehrmacht in the East, beginning in Poland. He showed little interest in protecting Polish and Soviet prisoners of war and citizens, or protesting their treatment; and was inattentive to the depredations of the Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front. Guderian consistently refused to do more than listen to the anti-Hitler resistance, which fit with his servile radio broadcast and issuance of written orders after becoming Chief of Staff of the OKH in July 1944, in which he demanded a National Socialist officer corps and told General Staff officers they should "exhibit the thoughts of the Fuehrer" (p. 190); his "half hearted" encouragement of attempts to begin peace negotiations; and, his early 1950s leadership of a group of former German military leaders and Nazis who sought to rearm and reunify Germany." http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.php?id=7977

There is of course an additional particularly selfish reason for Guderian choosing to purge his fellow officers and inspect factories ignoring their slave labour that goes beyond all claims of simply obeying orders, upholding officer oaths, etc etc ... he was 'on the take' from the Nazis.

Like other key figures in Germany, he accepted " ... a huge gift of money from Hitler in 1942 and then took possession of a large estate in Poland, evicting the family that had owned it."

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/hart1.html

Pink
03 Mar 09,, 09:00
No Pink, I don't, I'm afraid.

You might enjoy your skimming, but the details in between are actually kind of important too! :))Yeh I read "It" and "and" and "the" too but I like the big words best;):))



If you're only into web articles, here are some of those too:
I use the web, but don't need to really as I've acquired a library over the years.


Most German generals who cooperated with Hitler and the Nazi Party were not card carrying members of the party themselves (including the second Fuhrer ... Karl Doenitz) ... that would be too obvious.Good point! I wonder why, As so many saw it as a career necessity.


See Cape Royd and Bigfella's posts on the delicate relationship between Adolf and the Army: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showpost.php?p=618346&postcount=268

Even then, the OKW's Walter Warlimont noted that Guderian " ... politically sought a closer association with the Party than was customary among the officers"
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.php?id=7977Thanks:)





" ... As a result of the July Plot Guderian demanded the resignation of any officer who did not fully support the ideals of the Nazi Party. Over the next few months Guderian sat with Gerd von Rundstedt and Wilhelm Keitel on the Army Court of Honour that expelled hundreds of officers suspected of being opposed to the policies of Adolf Hitler. This removed them from court martial jurisdiction and turned them over to Roland Freisler and his People's Court."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERguderian.htm

And:


Guderian's long-term sympathies for Adolf Hitler as a person and the National Socialists as a movement. Guderian's endorsement of the cause of the Freikorps in 1919 was followed by his occasional attendance at Nazi Party meetings after Hitler took power; numerous personal meetings and dinners with Hitler; and, his insertion of flattering prose about Hitler in his Achtung! Panzer in 1937.[10] He ignored or repressed the reality of the Kristallnacht, the development of the concentration camp system and the Holocaust, as well as the sordid behavior of some elements of the Wehrmacht in the East, beginning in Poland. He showed little interest in protecting Polish and Soviet prisoners of war and citizens, or protesting their treatment; and was inattentive to the depredations of the Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front. Guderian consistently refused to do more than listen to the anti-Hitler resistance, which fit with his servile radio broadcast and issuance of written orders after becoming Chief of Staff of the OKH in July 1944, in which he demanded a National Socialist officer corps and told General Staff officers they should "exhibit the thoughts of the Fuehrer" (p. 190); his "half hearted" encouragement of attempts to begin peace negotiations; and, his early 1950s leadership of a group of former German military leaders and Nazis who sought to rearm and reunify Germany." http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.php?id=7977

There is of course an additional particularly selfish reason for Guderian choosing to purge his fellow officers and inspect factories ignoring their slave labour that goes beyond all claims of simply obeying orders, upholding officer oaths, etc etc ... he was 'on the take' from the Nazis.

Like other key figures in Germany, he accepted " ... a huge gift of money from Hitler in 1942 and then took possession of a large estate in Poland, evicting the family that had owned it."

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/hart1.html Well that clears that up, Thanks for the info. How about Rundstedt?

Pink
03 Mar 09,, 21:40
his early 1950s leadership of a group of former German military leaders and Nazis who sought to rearm and reunify Germany."
This was a common aspiration amongst Germans at this time. The Bundeswehr which was given its name by Hasso von Manteuffel (an ex-Wehrmacht general and commander of the Gross Deutchland div), was formed in 1955. After NATO approval Chancellor Konrad Adenauer gave the green light, After it became apparent that the GDR was secretly rearming with Soviet approval.


From wiki

"the seeds of a new West German force started in 1950 when former high-ranking German officers were tasked by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer to discuss the options for West German rearmament. The results of a meeting in the monastery of Himmerod formed the conceptual base to build the new armed forces in West Germany. The "Amt Blank" (Bureau Blank, named after its director Theodor Blank), the predecessor of the later Federal Ministry of Defense, was formed the same year to prepare the establishment of the future forces"

So in that respect Guderian was not out of step. However, his and other Germans dreaming of a unified Germany with the added recovery of territories lost to Poland clearly were out of step and not on the cards at all.

clackers
04 Mar 09,, 11:02
Good point! I wonder why, As so many saw it as a career necessity.

I think you'll find not many of the Army generals ever did... it was an organization that predated the Nazis and even Hitler favourites like Dietl, Rommel, Guderian, von Manstein and Model weren't card carriers.

On the other hand, the rival SS was very political, and perhaps nearly all of its generals were party members ... Sepp Dietrich, Himmler, Hausser, Meyer and Peiper, for instance.

clackers
04 Mar 09,, 11:30
Well that clears that up, Thanks for the info. How about Rundstedt?

The late, great American Eastern Front expert Earl Ziemke wrote an essay on him in Corelli Barnett's Hitler's Generals, and saw him as an elderly traditional Prussian officer who thought that the Army should be above party politics. He hated his rival Reichenau, who perhaps like Guderian, was " ... a brilliant, energetic and a radical nonconformist who was believed to be so close to being a Nazi that whether he was an actual Party member or not was immaterial ..."

Yet von Rundstedt was genuinely upset by the July 20 plot, and served without hesitation on the tribunal with Guderian and Keitel to make sure that officers were sent to the People's Court for hanging rather than die a soldier's death by firing squad. Unlike a real court martial, the tribunal heard no evidence from witnesses and relied only on Gestapo testimony. For this Rundstedt was awarded the Swords to his Knight's Cross.

Like Guderian and others, von Rundstedt was also bought by the Fuhrer. He had monthly tax free deposits made to a bank account, and on his sixty-fourth birthday in 1941 was presented by Hitler with a bonus 250,000 Reichsmark cheque.

clackers
04 Mar 09,, 11:45
So in that respect Guderian was not out of step. However, his and other Germans dreaming of a unified Germany with the added recovery of territories lost to Poland clearly were out of step and not on the cards at all.

Well, as that H-Net review points out that new army was going to name a barracks after him in the 1960s when " ... Subsequent media attention and public discussion focused considerable attention on unresolved and embarrassing aspects of Guderian's career, and the Bundeswehr ultimately abandoned the naming notion despite his amazing military achievements."

Pink
04 Mar 09,, 16:32
Regardless of government or country, preferential treatment during times of war is hardly a German or Nazi phenomenon. Haliburton in Iraq is a major recent example of the gravy train in full swing...

clackers
04 Mar 09,, 23:16
No, Pink, corporations are legally free to make money out of other peoples' sufferings, individual officers can actually have ethics and choose to serve their country without lining their pockets.

Let's look at your country's army as an example.

In old age, Montgomery had to put up with journalists watching him as he stood politely in the queue at the pension office.

Neither was the half-pension of a retired Field Marshall enough for Lord Alanbrooke (Britain's highest ranked soldier) and his wife to get by, and they had to move into the cottage beside their own house ... he later had to sell some of his beloved ornithological books as well ...

No such worries on the German side for a Monty equivalent like von Manstein, or an Alanbrooke equivalent like Keitel ... with their marshall's batons came wealth for them and their families ... if they complied with Nazi crimes ...

Pink
05 Mar 09,, 00:11
No, Pink, corporations are legally free to make money out of other peoples' sufferingsThat's a very disappointing answer, No to mention morally corrupt and slightly surreal!



individual officers can actually have ethics and choose to serve their country without lining their pockets.Quite and there are many, But I don't see what this has to do with my point.



Let's look at your country's army as an example.If you insist!


In old age, Montgomery had to put up with journalists watching him as he stood politely in the queue at the pension office.Well it has to be an improvement on being shot at by the Germans:)


Neither was the half-pension of a retired Field Marshall enough for Lord Alanbrooke (Britain's highest ranked soldier) and his wife to get by, and they had to move into the cottage beside their own house ... he later had to sell some of his beloved ornithological books as well ...My heart bleeds:rolleyes:


No such worries on the German side for a Monty equivalent like von Manstein, or an Alanbrooke equivalent like Keitel ... with their marshall's batons came wealth for them and their families ... if they complied with Nazi crimes We don't disagree here........:confused: what the hell has this got to with Haliburton?.............You're sounding awefully American for an Ozzie!:redface:

clackers
05 Mar 09,, 12:03
I'm afraid you have missed my point entirely, Pink.

Companies like Haliburton are obligated by their stockholders to apply to be part of any military gravy train. The ethics runs a poor second. When Douglas MacArthur left Bataan with secret Phillippine Government payments, he had been their professional soldier for hire ... a mercenary. Siemens, Rolls-Royce and Mitsubishi all made money from warfare, if you think that somehow only American companies are guilty of cashing in on tragedy.

But the concerns of a career soldier are meant to be different from a Blackwater CEO.

Only personal ambitions kept the German Field Marshalls with their snouts in the trough ... instead of seeing what was happening to the country they were supposed to be serving, and either resigning and letting others replace them, or even braver, joining a Resistance movement, they kept on accepting their regular bribes on top of their army salaries and looked the other way.

Pink
05 Mar 09,, 19:03
I'm afraid you have missed my point entirely, PinkI think you've missed my point actually.


Companies like Haliburton are obligated by their stockholders to apply to be part of any military gravy train. The ethics runs a poor secondThats true!.....But clearly you don't know that there was only one company that applied for numerous US military logistic contracts in Iraq. Other companies would have tendered for the contract, only they weren't asked to. This bizarre behaviour becomes easy to understand when one realises that the Vice President (Dick Cheney)of the day was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000.


When Douglas MacArthur left Bataan with secret Phillippine Government payments, he had been their professional soldier for hire ... a mercenary. Siemens, Rolls-Royce and Mitsubishi all made money from warfare, if you think that somehow only American companies are guilty of cashing in on tragedy. Yeh I accept that, it wasn't the point I was making though


But the concerns of a career soldier are meant to be different from a Blackwater CEO.Blackwater in Iraq:rolleyes:, don't get me started on that, that was a joke.


Only personal ambitions kept the German Field Marshalls with their snouts in the trough ... instead of seeing what was happening to the country they were supposed to be serving, and either resigning and letting others replace them, or even braver, joining a Resistance movement, they kept on accepting their regular bribes on top of their army salaries and looked the other wayThats right, which is why I brought up Haliburton and its direct association with the people awarding the contracts

Big K
06 Mar 09,, 11:22
Would Russians stop after the death of Hitler?

Johnny W
06 Mar 09,, 13:04
I think you've missed my point actually.

Thats true!.....But clearly you don't know that there was only one company that applied for numerous US military logistic contracts in Iraq. Other companies would have tendered for the contract, only they weren't asked to. This bizarre behaviour becomes easy to understand when one realises that the Vice President (Dick Cheney)of the day was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000.



I don't think you are correct on this one. Looking at most of the services that were provided, Haliburton was the only company fully prepared to provide them in the time frame the military required. I did some research on this a few years ago (sorry don't have the sources on file anymore), but since Haliburton was experienced in providing the services the military required in the area (middle east) that they were required, Haliburton was in effect the only company immediately ready to meet military requirements.

IMO, any anger over the Haliburton contracts should be directed at the lack of preparation for a scenario in which these services would be provided. With the military cutbacks in the 90's, it was known that such services as Haliburton provided would be required if a military buildup became necessary, and yet the military had only one option for those services. They should have had more than one company prepared to provide the services.

Triple C
06 Mar 09,, 13:10
Would Russians stop after the death of Hitler?

They won't. Germany the nation was the threat and the Soviets wanted to neutralize it once and for all.

Big K
06 Mar 09,, 22:10
They won't. Germany the nation was the threat and the Soviets wanted to neutralize it once and for all.

Do you believe that Stalin believes anything about any kind of idealism such as ultranationalism or even komunism?

Stalin wouldnt stop because he now have a chance of creating an immense area of influence.

he knew that evey area "liberalised" by Red Army will become his minion. thats why he prevented Red Army to enter Warshaw while Germans are crushing early revolted West-sided resistance of Warshaw (Gen. Bor Koromowski)

at the same time also Stalin was resisting Churchill's attempts push Turks in to the war. of course that is not the reason why Turks did not enter the war but Stalin knew that if Turks can open a front of Balkans he would be prevented to create his own Balkans.

as a result, yes i also think that Stalin would not stop.

thats my point.

Pink
07 Mar 09,, 00:49
Thanks for showing me the mechanics guys:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Triple C
07 Mar 09,, 04:41
Do you believe that Stalin believes anything about any kind of idealism such as ultranationalism or even komunism?

Stalin wouldnt stop because he now have a chance of creating an immense area of influence.

he knew that evey area "liberalised" by Red Army will become his minion. thats why he prevented Red Army to enter Warshaw while Germans are crushing early revolted West-sided resistance of Warshaw (Gen. Bor Koromowski)


Exactly.

But there are other geo-strategic matters that Stalin wanted to wrote the quietus to, and to a certain extend FDR and Churchill concured in that view: an over-mighty Germany that can overwhelm the combined forces of Europe disrupted the balance of power. While post-war, both USA and USSR became precisely that, it was hoped that some new form of the Concert of Powers could be ressurrected to control conflict in Europe.

cape_royds
07 Mar 09,, 05:01
Only personal ambitions kept the German Field Marshalls with their snouts in the trough ... instead of seeing what was happening to the country they were supposed to be serving, and either resigning and letting others replace them, or even braver, joining a Resistance movement, they kept on accepting their regular bribes on top of their army salaries and looked the other way.

Many of these generals came from aristocratic backgrounds, so the receipt of benefices from the ruler as a reward for good service might not have been seen by them as a form of corruption. All that might have seemed improper was that they had to accept such honours from the hand of a plebian usurper.

Big K
07 Mar 09,, 12:52
Exactly.

But there are other geo-strategic matters that Stalin wanted to wrote the quietus to, and to a certain extend FDR and Churchill concured in that view: an over-mighty Germany that can overwhelm the combined forces of Europe disrupted the balance of power. While post-war, both USA and USSR became precisely that, it was hoped that some new form of the Concert of Powers could be ressurrected to control conflict in Europe.

i wonder

1-if Allies would accept and cease-fire with a Germany after an succesful assasination of Hitler.
2-what would be the position of USSR if such cease-fire occured between the Allies and Germany?

Triple C
07 Mar 09,, 14:25
Big K,

The allies won't take any deals. Taking out Germany the war-waging nation was the objective. The Allies believed (and I concurr) that the Nazi party and all of its past and present supporters must be written off to secure lasting peace in Europe, since it was for the second time that Germany tried to take over Europe in less than forty years.

I do not think, even IF the western allies negotiated, that Germany's position would be much improved. Aid to Germany from the west was out of the question, and at late 1944 nothing can stop the Red Army. Even if there was no continued US-UK onslaught in the west, Russia would steamroll over Germany from the East anyway.

Cape Royds,

Many German generals owed their careers to Hitler in the first place. Also note that every Weimar German soldier took an oath to uphold and protect the democratic constitution from unlawful encroachment. They needed to wilfully renege on their oath to serve under Hitler.

Pink
09 Mar 09,, 00:34
German military thinking during the 1st World war and after starts to become clearer when their obsession with Darwens theory of evolution is brought into the equation. They simply considered that natural selection would decide who would win......and if that involved killing millions in the process, well so be it. Quite sick but true!

Big K
09 Mar 09,, 01:38
German military thinking during the 1st World war and after starts to become clearer when their obsession with Darwens theory of evolution is brought into the equation. They simply considered that natural selection would decide who would win......and if that involved killing millions in the process, well so be it. Quite sick but true!

i do not believe this kind of thinking, this is a bit naive.

for me it is simply a big game for power, the rest is what they(leaders) use in order to control&convince their people.

zraver
09 Mar 09,, 05:10
German military thinking during the 1st World war and after starts to become clearer when their obsession with Darwens theory of evolution is brought into the equation. They simply considered that natural selection would decide who would win......and if that involved killing millions in the process, well so be it. Quite sick but true!

Your argument reflects on part of the Nazi party but not Germany as whole except as Germany being European and a colonial power and thus subscribing to a form a social Darwinism not at all uncommon in England, France, Belgium Portugal, and Italy in addition to Germany. In fact given the small size of Germany's colonial possessions and their limited economic value Germany doesn't really belong on that list. Rather look at the power who took such large chunks of the rest world like British actions in India/Africa or Portuguese and Belgian actions in Africa. Other contenders are the America and Russia with their respective continental expansions.

Pink
09 Mar 09,, 10:03
Your argument reflects on part of the Nazi party but not Germany as whole except as Germany being European and a colonial power and thus subscribing to a form a social Darwinism not at all uncommon in England, France, Belgium Portugal, and Italy in addition to Germany. In fact given the small size of Germany's colonial possessions and their limited economic value Germany doesn't really belong on that list. Rather look at the power who took such large chunks of the rest world like British actions in India/Africa or Portuguese and Belgian actions in Africa. Other contenders are the America and Russia with their respective continental expansions.

My reference concerns high ranking German officers during the 1st world war. Who after starting the war, justified its brutality and slaughter (and therefore continuing it)as some form of natural selection process.
To me thats a distortion of Darwen theory and not one that any other Nation adhered to.

Bigfella
09 Mar 09,, 10:32
My reference concerns high ranking German officers during the 1st world war. Who after starting the war, justified its brutality and slaughter (and therefore continuing it)as some form of natural selection process.
To me thats a distortion of Darwen theory and not one that any other Nation adhered to.


Pink,

I wouldn't get to hung up on any particular theory as being the cause or even inspiration for brutality & slaughter. When people & institutions decide that brutality & slaughter are the order of the day then an appropriate worldview is always available.

When Europeans hacked & slaved their way through generation after generation of South & Central Americans they had neither heard of nor needed Darwin. They were doing the work of God & 'civilization' if they bothered to justify it at all (and they often didn't feel the need).

In the Carribean the British set ap a system of death camps that would make comrade Stalin blush. In the name of commerce - the slave & sugar trades - they stole millions of people from Africa & transported those who lived to the New World. On the plantations of the Carribean the average life expectancy was about 7 years. Fortunately the supply of cheap labor was plentiful.

I haven't read much about the justification for the charnel house of the Belgian Congo, but I suspect that the murder & mutilation of millions there was loosley connected to the rubber trade & to the impluse of a small colonial elite to dominate a large native population.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Humans will always find a handy justification for the unjustifiable. If it is Darwin this week it will be something or someone else next week. As the guys from PE say 'don't believe the hype'.

zraver
09 Mar 09,, 17:48
My reference concerns high ranking German officers during the 1st world war. Who after starting the war, justified its brutality and slaughter (and therefore continuing it)as some form of natural selection process.
To me thats a distortion of Darwen theory and not one that any other Nation adhered to.

American westward expansion and African slavery
British African slavery and virtual slavery of plantation workers in India
Spanish economendia (sp?) system)
Portuguese factory forts
Roman Latafundia
Russian Gulag


the list is long, listen to Bigfella.

Pink
09 Mar 09,, 21:53
Pink,

I wouldn't get to hung up on any particular theory as being the cause or even inspiration for brutality & slaughter. When people & institutions decide that brutality & slaughter are the order of the day then an appropriate worldview is always available.

When Europeans hacked & slaved their way through generation after generation of South & Central Americans they had neither heard of nor needed Darwin. They were doing the work of God & 'civilization' if they bothered to justify it at all (and they often didn't feel the need).

In the Carribean the British set ap a system of death camps that would make comrade Stalin blush. In the name of commerce - the slave & sugar trades - they stole millions of people from Africa & transported those who lived to the New World. On the plantations of the Carribean the average life expectancy was about 7 years. Fortunately the supply of cheap labor was plentiful.

I haven't read much about the justification for the charnel house of the Belgian Congo, but I suspect that the murder & mutilation of millions there was loosley connected to the rubber trade & to the impluse of a small colonial elite to dominate a large native population.

I could go on, but you get the idea. Humans will always find a handy justification for the unjustifiable. If it is Darwin this week it will be something or someone else next week. As the guys from PE say 'don't believe the hype'.True! I was just making the point that they chose Darwin (and possibly spencer)as an excuse to further their own ends.......and that this line of thought in Germany didn't start with Hitler, it existed prior to him! To a large degree I think Hitler was the tool used (excuse) by the German state to carry out mass murder and a clensing of the German nation, not to mention the expansion of it...

Pink
09 Mar 09,, 21:56
American westward expansion and African slavery
British African slavery and virtual slavery of plantation workers in India
Spanish economendia (sp?) system)
Portuguese factory forts
Roman Latafundia
Russian Gulag


the list is long, listen to Bigfella.I am doing. I'm no interlectual but I believe strongly in debate....even when I'm wrong and walking completely up the wrong path;):))

Bigfella
10 Mar 09,, 08:31
True! I was just making the point that they chose Darwin (and possibly spencer)as an excuse to further their own ends.......and that this line of thought in Germany didn't start with Hitler, it existed prior to him! To a large degree I think Hitler was the tool used (excuse) by the German state to carry out mass murder and a clensing of the German nation, not to mention the expansion of it...


OK Pink, I see where you are coming from.

Don't entirely agree with you about Hitler. I think that powerful conservative elements saw him as a means to shore up their destruction of Weimar democracy. I also think they broadly agreed with his plans to defeat and /or conquer any competeing land power in Europe.

Once Hitler came to power, however, the influence of the 'state' as it existed before him declined as he placed his own people in positions of power. The state rapidly became his tool, not the reverse. The military retained greater independence, but even that was constrained.

While I think that the military & many of the traditional powerbrokers in Germany were supportive of Hitler's plans to cripple France & Russia, Hitler took those MUCH further than they would have. I don't think many Germans were especially committed to the idea of occuplying & colonizing all of European Russia. Even fewer were interested in exterminating Jews. The old German 'state' would have seen the danger in Hitler's grandiose plans & the utter waste of resources (human & material) in even expelling, let alone exterminating Jews. Under Bismarck German Jews had represented a disproportionately productive element of society. It would never have occoured to them to do what Hitler did.

Had the 'state' had much power over Hitler the 3rd Reich would have looked radically different.

Pink
10 Mar 09,, 17:50
I agree, the ruling elite thought they could control Hitler and then found out they couldn't.
Also, clearly many Germans didn't follow Darwins theory. Stauffenberg was a practicing Roman catholic and so clearly didn't support Natural selection.
But as a Prussian Aristocrat even he was not against the Invasion of Poland and the enslavement of its people. Its also important to note his Iron cross awarded during the battle of france and his support of Germanies expansion in the east during 1941.

Had Stauffenbergs attempt on Hitlers life succeeded , one of the new governments terms of surrender to the allies was a 1914 German border in the east, so clearly they had aspirations too of a greater Germany

Pink
10 Mar 09,, 18:33
I don't think you are correct on this one. Looking at most of the services that were provided, Haliburton was the only company fully prepared to provide them in the time frame the military required. I did some research on this a few years ago (sorry don't have the sources on file anymore), but since Haliburton was experienced in providing the services the military required in the area (middle east) that they were required, Haliburton was in effect the only company immediately ready to meet military requirements.
IMO, any anger over the Haliburton contracts should be directed at the lack of preparation for a scenario in which these services would be provided. With the military cutbacks in the 90's, it was known that such services as Haliburton provided would be required if a military buildup became necessary, and yet the military had only one option for those services. They should have had more than one company prepared to provide the services

It was probably the only company with an inbuilt "Iraq invasion early warning system " ;):))

wabpilot
14 Jun 11,, 02:47
Agreed. I think if the German mutineers offered terms to Roosevelt and Churchill, they would be roughly disabused.It was obvious inside the Democratic Party that Franklin Roosevelt was not well. Further, Henry Wallace, Stalin's biggest ally within the United States Government was not trusted by his fellow Democrats. Herbert Hoover thought Wallace was a communist. On July 21, 1944, the Democrats nominated Harry S. Truman, over Wallace for the Vice Presidency. Within the party it was widely assumed that Truman was the next President given Roosevelt's infirmity.

If we assume that on July 20, 1944, Stauffenberg had been successful and sometime thereafter, someone other than Adolf Hitler was Chancellor, there is a very different political dynamic in the United States. Truman is a skilled geo-politician who is deeply distrustful of the USSR and communists in general. The GOP is anti-Roosevelt and just about everything FDR stands for. A peace offer rejected in the heat of the 1944 Presidential campaign could alter the outcome putting Thomas Dewey in the White House. Dewey only lost 54 - 46%. FDR turning down a peace deal could have altered that election certainly if Dewey had chosen to campaign on a peace platform.

Had Dewey won on a peace platform, would he have negotiated a deal with the Stauffenberg plotters? His primary foreign policy adviser, John Foster was certainly more pro-nazi than his younger brother Allen. But, it was Allen Dulles who had at least some links to Abwehr's Admiral Canaris. A very interesting what if, I think.

astralis
14 Jun 11,, 03:34
wab,


A peace offer rejected in the heat of the 1944 Presidential campaign could alter the outcome putting Thomas Dewey in the White House

stauffenberg's legacy has been burnished a little bit too brightly, i think. if hitler was assassinated in july 1944 there would almost certainly have been a very nasty internecine war between the army and the SS.

given the greater numbers of the Army, my bet is on the Army winning out. they were not going to take unconditional surrender well, either-- most of them were conservative right-wingers of the old Prussian school, and probably would have tried to settle for 1939 borders, which by then would be absolutely unacceptable to the allies.

of course if any new German government would have tried to propose anything by fall 1944, even the western democracies would have shrugged it off. it was pretty obvious which way the war was going by then and by early fall 1944 the allies, if anything, were suffering from over-confidence. plenty of americans thought, with pretty good cause, that the war would be wrapped up by x-mas, maybe even thanksgiving, with one hard push. the battle of the bulge was a real nasty surprise.

Bigfella
14 Jun 11,, 10:25
It was obvious inside the Democratic Party that Franklin Roosevelt was not well. Further, Henry Wallace, Stalin's biggest ally within the United States Government was not trusted by his fellow Democrats. Herbert Hoover thought Wallace was a communist. On July 21, 1944, the Democrats nominated Harry S. Truman, over Wallace for the Vice Presidency. Within the party it was widely assumed that Truman was the next President given Roosevelt's infirmity.

If we assume that on July 20, 1944, Stauffenberg had been successful and sometime thereafter, someone other than Adolf Hitler was Chancellor, there is a very different political dynamic in the United States. Truman is a skilled geo-politician who is deeply distrustful of the USSR and communists in general. The GOP is anti-Roosevelt and just about everything FDR stands for. A peace offer rejected in the heat of the 1944 Presidential campaign could alter the outcome putting Thomas Dewey in the White House. Dewey only lost 54 - 46%. FDR turning down a peace deal could have altered that election certainly if Dewey had chosen to campaign on a peace platform.

Had Dewey won on a peace platform, would he have negotiated a deal with the Stauffenberg plotters? His primary foreign policy adviser, John Foster was certainly more pro-nazi than his younger brother Allen. But, it was Allen Dulles who had at least some links to Abwehr's Admiral Canaris. A very interesting what if, I think.

WABpilot,

Astralis is right. The Nazis & their allies in the military would not just have rolled over and there is no guarantee as to the outcome. So any peace proposal would be a while in coming. Further, a mini-civil war in Germany would boost Allied morale, not lower it to the point where a peace deal with an apparently defeated opponent looked even remotely appealing. Can you imagine the risk the GOP would be taking? FDR's campaign writes itself - 'The GOP is selling out or boys', 'Dewey wants to deal wiht the nazis', 'Dewey wants to salvage defeat from the jaws of victory', 'They declared war on us & Dewey wants to surrender to them'...and so forth. that 46%-54% split would look close by comparison.

Just one point on the highlighted bit - did we know that then? I thought Truman was seen as a bit of a hick - an image he was happy to cultivate when it suited him.

astralis
14 Jun 11,, 14:52
BF,

the interesting thing is that if hitler dies jul 44 i just don't see too many changes for the allies. the german generals would probably have more compassion for their fellow citizens than hitler-- that means that the resources for the battle of the bulge would get funneled east instead of west.

rule by committee probably guarantees that those resources are distributed evenly instead of massed, all of which just means the russians might be delayed by a few weeks and suffer tens of thousands more dead, and the reverse for the western democracies. OTOH, that time would probably also allow thousands of soon-to-be-east germans to make a break for the west.

maybe slightly better results at the yalta conference but the rough outline of the post-war world was already decided at cairo/tehran.


Just one point on the highlighted bit - did we know that then? I thought Truman was seen as a bit of a hick - an image he was happy to cultivate when it suited him.

that's a good point. truman wasn't taken very seriously for the longest time, recall the "dewey wins" thing.

Mihais
14 Jun 11,, 20:21
By the time Stauffenberg got so unlucky it may have not made a difference to the allies,but it might have been for the Germans and Eastern Europe,Poland included.
While the Germans would have evacuated France on their own will,even Allied pressure could not had extracted a bigger toll than historically happened.More Germans resources in East and more importantly,a much improved leadership, means the Soviet advance is either halted or slowed significantly without really compromising German chances to halt the allies on the Rhine and Westwall.Even surrender to the Allies still means the Soviets are at the borders of Poland and Romania,with German forces still in the Baltic states.
I see no way Yalta goes the same way.Soviets on the Vistula instead of Oder is a world of difference for Churchill and even Roosevelt could not have handled that much for free.

wabpilot
15 Jun 11,, 01:08
Just one point on the highlighted bit - did we know that then? I thought Truman was seen as a bit of a hick - an image he was happy to cultivate when it suited him. What is important is the Democrats knew what Truman was. That's why they replaced Wallace. I am not convinced that a peace offer from the Stauffenberg plotters would have been rejected out of hand. Truman is far too skilled a geo-politician to reject it out of hand. Dewey is far too dangerous an adversary with contacts deep in the OSS who were Canaris' American contacts.

Bigfella
15 Jun 11,, 03:49
What is important is the Democrats knew what Truman was. That's why they replaced Wallace. I am not convinced that a peace offer from the Stauffenberg plotters would have been rejected out of hand. Truman is far too skilled a geo-politician to reject it out of hand. Dewey is far too dangerous an adversary with contacts deep in the OSS who were Canaris' American contacts.

Did they know that Truman was a skilled 'geo-politician' or just a skilled player on Capitol Hill with broad electoral appeal? Also keep in mind that the Truman who became President in 1945 had been VP or VP nominate for 10 months with the knowledge that Roosevelt was very unwell. Plenty of time to expand one's knowledge of the world & hone one's geo-political ideas.

clackers
15 Jun 11,, 05:29
Dealing with the Hitler plotters would have been dealing with the same officer class that had taken Germany into two World Wars.

Clement Attlee, the deputy Prime Minister of Britain, had warned Cabinet against this back in 1943. He thought it had been an error in 1918 to allow the Prussian Junker class to remain as a bulwark against Bolshevism.

Roosevelt agreed that the militarist virus had to be eradicated. As he told Congress, "When Hitler and the Nazis go out, the Prussian military clique must go with them."

As Christopher Clark notes in "Iron Kingdom", his superb history of Prussia, "For Roosevelt (as for Attlee), it followed that the traditional Prussian military authorities were no less of a threat to peace than the Nazis. There could thus be no negotiated armistice with the military command, even in the event that the Nazi regime were to be deposed from within or to collapse. In this way, the idea of Prussianism made an important contribution to the policy of unconditional surrender adopted by the Allies at the Casablanca conference of January 1943".

Mihais
15 Jun 11,, 07:32
Clackers,it hardly changes the issue.Fact is the Cold War is still coming and the same Junker class was used a decade later to re-build the German Army and to train NATO forces on how to fight the Soviets best.
Stauffenberg and his team offer the Allies Germany and the rest of Europe,and to the Polish government in exile their country.Whether or not Germany is changed to the same extent is debatable.The Nazis would be gone,but that was it.
Rossevelt has only a few months to live and Churchill is the man that thought at Operation Unthinkable.In the long term who's view will pervade:Churchill's or Attlee's?

Skywatcher
15 Jun 11,, 20:37
One can always neutralize the Junkers politically after the lines have stabilized and peace is signed. (You could try getting the Catholics and Rhine industrialists to take on more influence, but that might be a dangerous game)

wabpilot
16 Jun 11,, 02:41
Did they know that Truman was a skilled 'geo-politician' or just a skilled player on Capitol Hill with broad electoral appeal? Also keep in mind that the Truman who became President in 1945 had been VP or VP nominate for 10 months with the knowledge that Roosevelt was very unwell. Plenty of time to expand one's knowledge of the world & hone one's geo-political ideas.Truman's geo-political training came early and lasted for years. He was a National Guard Captain in the WWI. He served in France during our brief fighting there. He came home, but instead of demobilizing like most of America, Truman served in the Guard. There, he studied the politics and terrain of the wars he was likely to fight. In 1939 and again in 1941 he came close to resigning his seat and returning to Missouri to take command of his National Guard unit. Both times he was talked out of it by the old masters within the Democratic Party. Had Truman resigned as his patriotic tendencies lead him, I suspect we would remember him only as a talented National Guard General, perhaps in the same manner we remember Walter Smith, Lucius Clay or Joe Stillwell. Good men in a fight, retired honorably. Unlike Roosevelt, Truman was a geo-politician who saw Joe Stalin for what he was and not as a great friend and ally. Unlike Henry Wallace, Truman saw the horrors of communism and was dedicated to fighting it. Thus, Truman laid the ground work for Eisenhower's re-militarization of West Germany.

How much influence would he have had on Roosevelt if Stauffenberg had killed Hitler? Another what if. Roosevelt was certainly not among Truman's admirers, nor was he inclined to pay him much attention. Roosevelt knew what Truman was, a replacement chosen by the party and not Franklin or Eleanor. While Truman was a liberal by any description, he was not a socialist or communist sympathizer. FDR was not a communist, but he was not at all troubled by communism. Wallace, Roosevelt's hand picked successor was at the very least a communist sympathizer and probably a communist.

A Stauffenberg October surprise of a peace plan is definitely an interesting what if. I do not think the GOP would have immediately refused a peace offer. Indeed, Allen Dulles was in communication with Wilhelm Canaris. I think Dewey knew that a peace offer was possible if Stauffenberg was successful. I suspect Roosevelt was not so in the loop. Dulles, both Allen and John Foster deeply distrusted Henry Wallace. Herbert Hoover had made clear that whatever Franklin found out, he would pass to Wallace who would tell the Soviets. What I don't know is how well informed Truman was. Dewey was an enormous patriot, he might not have campaigned at all on a peace initiative. He never mentioned Roosevelt's infirmity. (A fact that could probably have made the 5 point swing necessary to for Dewey to win.) Fascinating what if though. I certainly don't think the situation is as cut and dried as you and others like to make it out.

clackers
16 Jun 11,, 07:42
Clackers,it hardly changes the issue.Fact is the Cold War is still coming and the same Junker class was used a decade later to re-build the German Army and to train NATO forces on how to fight the Soviets best.
Stauffenberg and his team offer the Allies Germany and the rest of Europe,and to the Polish government in exile their country.Whether or not Germany is changed to the same extent is debatable.The Nazis would be gone,but that was it.
Rossevelt has only a few months to live and Churchill is the man that thought at Operation Unthinkable.In the long term who's view will pervade:Churchill's or Attlee's?

The Prussians were broken by WW2, Mihais ... the Reich partitioned between four countries, Berlin and its surrounds under Communist control. It's the end of their power.

Churchill would have been happy to use German soldiers against the Soviets, but this was not at the expense of unconditional surrender, the principle that the Allies agreed on well before Operation Valkyrie. As Churchill himself told the Parliament: "The core of Germany is Prussia. There is the source of the recurring pestilence."

If you read the February 1947 law of the Allied Control Council that formally abolishes the state, after both FDR and Churchill are gone, it's clear that the Soviets, Americans, British and French still held the Junkers accountable, fairly or unfairly, for Germany's failure in the 19th Century to follow a more Western 'route to a relatively liberal and untroubled political maturity.'

Mihais
16 Jun 11,, 08:54
We're not talking about what happened,but different circumstances.There is hardly a possibility for the Soviets to get anything in terms of influence in Europe or parts of Germany.1947 comes after East Prussia was no longer German,having been ethnically cleansed while West Prussia was in the Soviet sphere.Prussia at the time ceased to exist before its death was pronounced.

clackers
17 Jun 11,, 06:06
Stauffenberg's actions don't save anything, Mihais, if the intention is somehow to keep fighting on one front ... they would make the Soviet occupation of the rest of Germany up to the Rhine just as violent and crime-filled as the East Prussians actually experienced. The Germans, including the SS, fled to the American, British and French sectors in 1945 to avoid surrendering to the Russians, with good reason.

The best action for the German nation to take at any time before or after July 20, 1944 is give the unconditional surrender the Allies have insisted on since Casablanca.

Historically, with Churchill's assent the Soviets turned south in the middle of 1944 and spent the rest of the year driving into the Balkans, away from Germany, leaving Greece for the British.

Mihais
17 Jun 11,, 18:56
Americans&Brits can walk from Paris to Prague or Bucharest faster than the Soviets can fight their way across Vistula or the FNG Line.And with Roosevelt dead,the Soviets have little to bargain with.

1979
19 Jun 11,, 18:53
iirc Stauffenberg wanted Germany to keep her 1914 borders.File:German colonial.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:German_colonial.PNG)

clackers
22 Jun 11,, 08:34
Americans&Brits can walk from Paris to Prague or Bucharest faster than the Soviets can fight their way across Vistula or the FNG Line.And with Roosevelt dead,the Soviets have little to bargain with.

A separate peace was out of the question, Mihais. If anyone was more suspected of being receptive to one, it was the Soviets. And the Americans and British who were decrypting all the Japanese diplomatic communications kept track of the very real efforts by Japan throughout the war to get Germany and the Soviet Union to stop fighting each other and concentrate on the West.

It was fear this might happen, or that the Soviet Union would not later join the war against Japan, that partly motivated both the decision to do Overlord in 1944 despite British objections and the later de facto acceptance of a Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

Bigfella
22 Jun 11,, 09:37
A separate peace was out of the question, Mihais. If anyone was more suspected of being receptive to one, it was the Soviets. And the Americans and British who were decrypting all the Japanese diplomatic communications kept track of the very real efforts by Japan to get Germany and the Soviet Union to stop fighting each other and concentrate on the West.

It was fear this might happen, or that the Soviet Union would not later join the war against Japan, that partly motivated both the decision to do Overlord in 1944 despite British objections and the later de facto acceptance of a Soviet sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

I think that point has been overlooked here Clackers. people seem to assume that the US was certain that the A-Bomb would work & that it would end the war. Neither was the case. The US had to make sure that Stalin would be prepared to commit forces to a final attack on Japan if needed. Even if this was strictly limited to tying up japanese troops & aircraft on the mainland or forcing Japan to defend its northwest coast it would still have saved American lives. Indeed, there are those on this board who strongly argue that August Storm was a crucial element in Japan surrendering when it did. Imagine if Stalin just decided to let the US do all the dying & grab manchuria when Japan fell. Is any US President going to risk the sacrifice of tens (or perhaps hundreds) of thousands of American lives just to change the borders of the 'iron curtain' by a few hundred kilometers? Don't bet on it.

1979
25 Jun 11,, 05:44
How about the people in Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek... what are Stauffenberg followers going to do about that ?

Mihais
25 Jun 11,, 10:12
You know that's cheating,don't you?

Kansas Bear
25 Jun 11,, 14:30
How about the people in Treblinka, Sobibor, Majdanek... what are Stauffenberg followers going to do about that ?

Assuming Stauffenberg and company were able to maintain control over the Reich, I would imagine that concentration camps would be further down the list. Though, it does pose an intriguing question.

irvbell
27 Aug 11,, 02:52
I guesstimate that it would have saved some 4 million lives. There is little question but that if Hitler had been killed the coup would have been successful. Himmler was evil and maniacal but he was also a spineless and gutless wimp. How 4 million? 1 million Jews (about half consisting of Hungarian Jews), 1 million Germans (military and civilian) 1 million Russian (ditto) and 1 million Poles, French, Brits, Americans, Italians and a few other ethnic groups.

snapper
27 Aug 11,, 03:09
I must side with Mihais I fear. Certainly Churchill was already concerned about Soviet intentions in E.Europe when M. Stauffenberg failed. The problem would have been persuading the Yanks but I would rate that as 'more than possible' depending on who was in charge of the remains of the Reich. Himmler never but Doenetz possible...

clackers
31 Aug 11,, 12:38
I think that whoever succeeded Hitler (probably Goering, maybe Himmler) would have wiped out the plotters and sought a separate peace with the West, but with the Unconditional Surrender agreement between the Allies, that wasn't going to happen.

kato
31 Aug 11,, 13:03
Himmler never but Doenetz possible...

whoever succeeded Hitler (probably Goering, maybe Himmler)
Himmler was never in the line of succession. The line of succession (officially, since '38/'39) was Göring, after him Hess (removed in '41), after Hess a "person to be designated by the 'senate'". Göring was only removed from the line on April 29th '45; Himmler attempted to install himself in Göring's position and was kicked out of office for that, Hitler then installed Dönitz to Göring's position before killing himself.

clackers
01 Sep 11,, 12:28
Himmler was never in the line of succession. The line of succession (officially, since '38/'39) was Göring, after him Hess (removed in '41), after Hess a "person to be designated by the 'senate'".

Hitler's successor was unlikely to decided by these prior, formal arrangements, Kato. Like the results of most coups, they would be decided by who could muster internal power rapidly, and it would never have been Hess, who always lacked suitable allies. The same applies to Doenitz, a Hitler acolyte who was a surprising choice by the Fuehrer in 1945, and would certainly not have been the new leader in July 1944.

Himmler had both the Gestapo and the SS, but Goering an already established, very wide power base by a number of portfolios accumulated over the years (including being in charge of the nation's largest police force, and starting the Gestapo), so if you were a bookmaker you'd have to install him as favourite. As comical as he seems to us, he was a ruthless man who with bugging of the players in German society was quite the J. Edgar Hoover of his day, making him indispensable to Hitler early on in the Party's history. His dandyesque behaviour concealed a sharp intellect ... for instance, he impressed observers when he was in the dock at Nuremberg.

Mihais
01 Sep 11,, 12:52
I think that whoever succeeded Hitler (probably Goering, maybe Himmler) would have wiped out the plotters and sought a separate peace with the West, but with the Unconditional Surrender agreement between the Allies, that wasn't going to happen.

The person that would have most likely followed Hitler was FM von Kluge.He was at the time the best positioned man to strike a deal with the allies,and that's what the Germans were searching for,regardless of Allied intents.No Nazi was going to gain the favor of the Army.For a start,there was a highly probable conflict between the Army and the Nazi structures and at the same time a conflict between various factions in the Party.The army at the time wasn't going to be split.
About the peace,keep in mind that Polish AK rises even sooner in that scenario and that British troops were going to Warsaw under whatever pretext was needed,with or without Americans.You can have unconditional surrender,but with Stalin beyond Vistula.

1979
01 Sep 11,, 12:53
keitel buys the farm too ?

Mihais
01 Sep 11,, 12:59
You mean Ja-Keitel?I think you remember the universal disregard combat officers held for the sicophants in OKW.

1979
01 Sep 11,, 13:09
okw and okh clashed many times over operational decisions but orders were carried out even when the officers knew they were wrong.

clackers
01 Sep 11,, 13:10
The person that would have most likely followed Hitler was FM von Kluge.

Mihais, he and the rest of the plotters and their circle, such as Rommel, would most likely have been executed, possibly by a tribunal including Guderian and Rundstedt.

The Stauffenberg guys were amateurish and lacked the necessary domestic or international support for their coup to succeed, no matter the outcome of the bomb.

Mihais
01 Sep 11,, 15:39
By whom?.IIRC, von Witzleben in Paris arrested every Nazi in sight and the army soldiers carried the orders without question.It took Hitler in person to convince Major Remer to keep the line.And also remember that the oath was to Hitler,not to any other Nazi leader.

1979
01 Sep 11,, 17:13
iirc von Witzleben was the old guy who waved his marshal baton, complain that it does not have troops and went home.

Mihais
02 Sep 11,, 00:06
I stand corrected.Witzleben was a FM.The one I talked about was von Stulpnagel.Soryy.

1979
02 Sep 11,, 14:43
also in Vienna but cant remember who was in charge there.

Falcon_16
03 Sep 11,, 19:19
One thing is clear, if Stauffenberg had managed to kill Hitler, Germany would have been more lucky about east borders comparing to 1945,May. They might avoid from being divided because there was chance that Russians would stop without entering inner German territory after Germany's surrender.

Doktor
03 Sep 11,, 23:08
If Germany swept territories with UK the Russians would still enter her inner land. They have accumulated so much anger they would march through the Canal.

Falcon_16
04 Sep 11,, 01:37
If Germany swept territories with UK the Russians would still enter her inner land. They have accumulated so much anger they would march through the Canal.
I agree with you except one point, as I said there 'might' be a chance to save eastern Germany but still the consequences would have been better than real storyline for Germans don't you think?

I'm saying this imagining Germany had declared immediate ceasefire and retreat from all the areas that she occupied before and stating that nazism has ended once and for all in order to ease anger focused on them. In my opinion it was the only thing that could have saved them in 1944. At least, if Germans had convinced the allies (England, USA, France) to stop the war they could fight Soviets one on one and this situation would have bought valuable time for Germans.

Officer of Engineers
04 Sep 11,, 04:35
I'm saying this imagining Germany had declared immediate ceasefire and retreat from all the areas that she occupied before and stating that nazism has ended once and for all in order to ease anger focused on them.Germany killed 30 million people and you're expecting to get away scottfree? Not going to happened.

clackers
04 Sep 11,, 09:17
By whom?.IIRC, von Witzleben in Paris arrested every Nazi in sight and the army soldiers carried the orders without question.It took Hitler in person to convince Major Remer to keep the line.And also remember that the oath was to Hitler,not to any other Nazi leader.

Their oath wasn't to assassins, either, Mihais. They would not be appointing Lee Harvey Oswald as President for his work.

These were lightweight guys who were never going to win over the civil service, the population, the armed forces, or the senior Nazis ... they were always going to die as traitors.

Remer was a mere battalion commander, and neither FM Witzleben or General Ludwig Beck, the man the conspirators were trying to replace Hitler with, were serving officers.

Canadian Peter Hoffmann has written extensively on the history of the German Resistance, and on the doomed Valkyrie plot that had no authority, he's written:

The coup d'etat had little to set against the formidable constitutional and physical resources of the Wolfschanze command centre, which also controlled the fighting fronts and their supply. The odds were that they would have lost the battle for control of the Reich if Hitler had been dead and succeeded by Goering. The Berlin conspirators controlled only a few secondary command centres and training troops of the Home Army; they controlled even these forces uncertainly. Had Goering succeeded Hitler, it would have been probably just as difficult as it turned out to be on 20 July to move any troops into Berlin. With Goebbels still in office, the coup d'etat party would equally have failed to gain control of the radio stations and transmitters which are so important to a modern dictatorship. There would probably not even have been a civil war, although there might have been altercations between Army and SS units here and there ... Had Goering emerged quickly as Hitler's successor, the officers in the [occupied territories] military districts would very likely have transferred their loyalties to him at once.

... there is, search as one might, no evidence to suggest any modification of Allied war aims in case a more acceptable government were installed in Germany. The military balance would not have changed at all in favour of Germany. Thus the ultimate outcome of the war would have been the same. But the war would very likely have been concluded as much as half a year before 8 May 1945. (in If the Allies Had Fallen, Frontline Books)

clackers
04 Sep 11,, 09:18
Germany killed 30 million people and you're expecting to get away scottfree? Not going to happened.

Quite right, OoE, the Soviets were after savage revenge and would not take a gentlemanly, Western, liberal view of the losing side.

Mihais
04 Sep 11,, 10:00
Their oath wasn't to assassins, either, Mihais. They would not be appointing Lee Harvey Oswald as President for his work.

These were lightweight guys who were never going to win over the civil service, the population, the armed forces, or the senior Nazis ... they were always going to die as traitors.

Remer was a mere battalion commander, and neither FM Witzleben or General Ludwig Beck, the man the conspirators were trying to replace Hitler with, were serving officers.

Canadian Peter Hoffmann has written extensively on the history of the German Resistance, and on the doomed Valkyrie plot that had no authority, he's written:

The coup d'etat had little to set against the formidable constitutional and physical resources of the Wolfschanze command centre, which also controlled the fighting fronts and their supply. The odds were that they would have lost the battle for control of the Reich if Hitler had been dead and succeeded by Goering. The Berlin conspirators controlled only a few secondary command centres and training troops of the Home Army; they controlled even these forces uncertainly. Had Goering succeeded Hitler, it would have been probably just as difficult as it turned out to be on 20 July to move any troops into Berlin. With Goebbels still in office, the coup d'etat party would equally have failed to gain control of the radio stations and transmitters which are so important to a modern dictatorship. There would probably not even have been a civil war, although there might have been altercations between Army and SS units here and there ... Had Goering emerged quickly as Hitler's successor, the officers in the [occupied territories] military districts would very likely have transferred their loyalties to him at once.

... there is, search as one might, no evidence to suggest any modification of Allied war aims in case a more acceptable government were installed in Germany. The military balance would not have changed at all in favour of Germany. Thus the ultimate outcome of the war would have been the same. But the war would very likely have been concluded as much as half a year before 8 May 1945. (in If the Allies Had Fallen, Frontline Books)


Their duty was towards Germany.Anyone but Hitler does not matter.It's simple as that.
Again,what are we talking here?Stauffenberg leading the Wehrmacht to victory or the Wehrmacht officers trying to end the war.The purpose by July 1944 is not to prevent defeat,but to prevent a complete Soviet victory,and the Allies are the tools.
Simply quoting Allied agreements during the war means little.The balance of power WOULD be changed,the politics would be changed.The Soviets cannot physically conquer anything west of Vistula until early 1945.The Germans and the Axis won't lay their arms to anyone but the British&Americans.Either the Allies advance to meet the Reds on the Vistula and Pruth,or the war becomes a single front war,using whatever resources existed.It cannot defeat a Soviet advance,but it would create an awkward situation.

Falcon_16
04 Sep 11,, 11:12
Germany killed 30 million people and you're expecting to get away scottfree? Not going to happened.
I'm not expecting Germany to get away so cheaply. After Germany's surrender (immediately after Hitler's assasination) everything could have happened. The first and the biggest chance was to convince western allies to stop the war. I agree you cannot convince Soviets without extreme compromises this also would force 'allies' policies to change maybe USA would have put pressure on Soviets to stop the war in return of a large area of German territory but not Berlin. In the worst way, do you think Germans would have lost the 1v1 battle easily against Soviets within a year? Longer the war goes on, longer Germany's chances rise in my opinion. It's just a comparison to real timeline.

1979
05 Sep 11,, 19:39
The first and the biggest chance was to convince western allies to stop the war.

Than Germany would rearm and start a new war in 1960-1970.

After Germany's surrender

Stauffenberg was not bent on surrender, he wanted a armistice with better terms than the one Germany got in November 1918.

BB61Vet
05 Sep 11,, 19:55
I like to think that Von Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators were trying to eliminate the Nazi party in general. Adolf's control over the Nazis was so tight that there was little or no competent leadership to replace him once he'd been killed. By eliminating the Nazis and changing the political winds in Germany, I agree that the group was trying to position for a better armistice deal, but their entire plan was kill Adolf, control/quash the party, then surrender.

clackers
06 Sep 11,, 12:39
Their duty was towards Germany.Anyone but Hitler does not matter.It's simple as that.

Obviously, I don't agree with you, Mihais, and neither do historians.

The plotters lacked de jure legitimacy and de facto power. The first factor isn't necessary in a successful coup, but the second is.

If you read about them, you'll find they were a somewhat eccentric group without mainstream connections, the Allied refusal to assist them extended back to 1938, and they certainly couldn't take on the Nazi Government.

Goering, Himmler and Goebbels are too well established, and their orders are going to be obeyed by the security apparatus, not orders from someone irrelevant like the sacked General Beck.

Their well-meaning but weird mixture of conservative, Christian, upper-class values put them at odds with the values of rest of the German population, which accepted the Gestapo crackdown on citizens' lives after the coup attempt and still cooperated with the government in its final days as the country was being occupied from two directions.


It cannot defeat a Soviet advance,but it would create an awkward situation.

The awkward situation would be for nations like Austria, West Germany and Greece, which were only spared from Soviet rule because of the agreements at the Allied conferences.

We wouldn't want their populations to suffer under Bolshevik rule as the rest of the Eastern Europe had to after 1945, but that's the consequence of a hypothetical separate peace!

Falcon_16
06 Sep 11,, 23:34
Than Germany would rearm and start a new war in 1960-1970.
Thats a different point. If my scenerio was to come true, then you must behave without insultation against Germans. With that way you can prevent extremist movements and accumulation of hate. But we can't know what would happen that far to be honest.


Stauffenberg was not bent on surrender, he wanted a armistice with better terms than the one Germany got in November 1918.
He maybe thought like that but this changes nothing. After some though negotiations I would expect Germany's surrender. I don't think Soviets would have stopped despite their surrender but as said before, in a situation of 1v1 battle everything would be different. Germany probably would lose the battle but would not experience being totally beaten from both sides. (they could've held Berlin at least)

1979
07 Sep 11,, 07:46
Thats a different point. If my scenerio was to come true, then you must behave without insultation against Germans. With that way you can prevent extremist movements and accumulation of hate. But we can't know what would happen that far to be honest.

I do not follow , are u sugesting more generous terms than what they received in the forest of Compičgne ?


He maybe thought like that but this changes nothing. After some though negotiations I would expect Germany's surrender. I don't think Soviets would have stopped despite their surrender but as said before, in a situation of 1v1 battle everything would be different. Germany probably would lose the battle but would not experience being totally beaten from both sides. (they could've held Berlin at least)

if negotiations fail, the battle of hurtgen forest would be fought as it was.

Falcon_16
07 Sep 11,, 18:04
I do not follow , are u sugesting more generous terms than what they received in the forest of Compičgne ?
Why do you think Germany re-armed and attacked Europe ? My answer is because allies didn't respect the WWI losers. They forced them to pay war reparations which were very extreme that no one could efford to pay.. They disarmed them and occupied their territories. Where is the generosity in this? millions of German people voted for Hitler isn't that a fact something engrossing? If I know correct, after second world war allies didn't force Germany to pay reparations and learned that they never should ''exclude'' Germany from Europe. You cannot buid peace with forcing,insulting somebody. If you do time for payback will be only matter of time. Furthermore, I am not the only one suggesting generous terms but allies did already after WWII because everyone learns from mistakes. At least They didn't insult German people but only pointed out the nazis. If Stauffenberg had managed to kill Hitler Germany could even have signed better treaty from the real one. They could also have a chance to fight Soviets 1v1 if Soviets had wanted to continue the war.


if negotiations fail, the battle of hurtgen forest would be fought as it was.
I don't think negotiations would fail at all mate. No such possiblity as Germany surrounded from every sides, new guys at charge would most likely try to agree a treaty with western allies.

astralis
07 Sep 11,, 18:29
falcon,


respect the WWI losers. They forced them to pay war reparations which were very extreme that no one could efford to pay.. They disarmed them and occupied their territories. Where is the generosity in this?

this is a popular misconception. WWI reparations were not particularly heavy for germany-- much of it was forgiven or inflated away.

in WWII, as well, the allies disarmed the germans and occupied their territory.

the reason why Germany re-armed and attacked europe was because 1.) the Germans were defeated but not crushed in WWI, and 2.) the collapse of the world economic system allowed for extremist ideas to take hold of Germany.


millions of German people voted for Hitler isn't that a fact something engrossing?

another misconception is that Hitler "used democracy to destroy democracy". no, Hitler actively subverted democracy while claiming he was popularly elected in free and fair elections. he wasn't.


If Stauffenberg had managed to kill Hitler Germany could even have signed better treaty from the real one.

no, Germany wouldn't. the Allies would only accept unconditional surrender.


They could also have a chance to fight Soviets 1v1 if Soviets had wanted to continue the war.

see the above. the most Stauffenberg, or more accurately the military government that took over, could have done would be send more Germans to fight the Soviets instead of the Western Allies. that would have saved quite a few Germans from their domination by the Soviets later, but that was it.

no way the Allies would have signed a separate peace with Germany by 1944. there was nothing in it for them.

Mihais
07 Sep 11,, 18:52
Obviously, I don't agree with you, Mihais, and neither do historians.

The plotters lacked de jure legitimacy and de facto power. The first factor isn't necessary in a successful coup, but the second is.

I'm not asking for unanimity.I abhore it.What the historians miss is that in times of crisis Prussian army takes the lead.Active officers did removed Nazi rule without a fuss where a)CO's had more guts than the average and b) they thought Hitler dead.Remind me please when did they swore an oath to Goebbels or Goering?


If you read about them, you'll find they were a somewhat eccentric group without mainstream connections, the Allied refusal to assist them extended back to 1938, and they certainly couldn't take on the Nazi Government.

Goering, Himmler and Goebbels are too well established, and their orders are going to be obeyed by the security apparatus, not orders from someone irrelevant like the sacked General Beck.

Their well-meaning but weird mixture of conservative, Christian, upper-class values put them at odds with the values of rest of the German population, which accepted the Gestapo crackdown on citizens' lives after the coup attempt and still cooperated with the government in its final days as the country was being occupied from two directions.

They don't have to.They probably overestimated their abilities and their power.The active FM's and generals will.What's the Gestapo against the Wehrmacht?As shown in Paris,a bunch of guys getting arrested.As for the German nation,it obeyed the legitimate leader at the time,Hitler.No Hitler,a new legitimacy has to be found.There is a precedent.The Kaiser became a figurehead with the Reichswehr ruling the Reich in WW1.Nazi second echelon has zero chances.




The awkward situation would be for nations like Austria, West Germany and Greece, which were only spared from Soviet rule because of the agreements at the Allied conferences.

We wouldn't want their populations to suffer under Bolshevik rule as the rest of the Eastern Europe had to after 1945, but that's the consequence of a hypothetical separate peace!
As a matter of fact I have serious doubts the Soviets would be able to take much in the case of a hypothetical separate peace.Lot's of potential Seelows between Warsaw and Berlin.But that's not my point.The coup gives the Allies the chance to win the war by themselves.No need to offer the Soviets anything but status quo antebellum.That's pretty much what they had by July 1944.

astralis
07 Sep 11,, 19:16
mihais,


As a matter of fact I have serious doubts the Soviets would be able to take much in the case of a hypothetical separate peace.Lot's of potential Seelows between Warsaw and Berlin.But that's not my point.The coup gives the Allies the chance to win the war by themselves.No need to offer the Soviets anything but status quo antebellum.That's pretty much what they had by July 1944.

wasn't going to happen, either, although no way the Allies would have gone for a separate peace. Operation Bagration was a punch far harder to the Germans than Stalingrad, and pretty much showed that even if the Allies didn't do anything the Russians had the ability to grind their way to the Channel if need be.

Mihais
07 Sep 11,, 19:48
Ok,''what if'' hat on.Premise:the impossible happens and the Allies stop on the German border,leaving them alone.Hitler is dead
Day 1.Von Manstein becomes Oberbefehlshaber Ost.
Day2.All German troops in the Balkans,Italy and the West pour East.That's close to 80 divisions.
Day3. Human resources policy becomes reasonable.That means men and weapon don't go into new formations,but into restoring veteran units to combat strength.All 88's from the Flak turn into AT guns.No need for Flak anymore.

I could keep Von Manstein busy for a week.He'll find a new trick everyday.And he has time until January to dig ditches.A certain Gotthard Heinrici also knows a bit or two about preventing Soviet God of War from taking its toll from mortal men.
The Soviets might still push them back.Only they'll lose 5-6 more men and equipment.Frankly,they don't have men anymore.They could waste the Germans at a ratio of 2 or 3/1 when they managed big encirclement operations.All these were gifts from Adolf.Christmas is however over,not that atheists believed in Christmas.And the front is also much shorter,which benefits the defender.And I just built a real defense.

Red Army may advance 500 km in a several months(take Poland by the end of 1945).Then there will be no Red Army anymore.There will be no Wehrmacht either.But there will be no need for it by then.

1979
07 Sep 11,, 21:09
THE BALKANS FRONT (UNDER OKW COMMAND)



HEERESGRUPPE “F”:

And OB “Southeast”:

OKW Reserves:

1 Geb.Div.

18 SS-PzGR.Div. “H.Wessel” (refitting)

8 SS-Cav.Div. “Florian Geyer” (forming)

98 Inf.Div. (in transit)

SECOND PANZER ARMY (PzAOK 2):

LXIX (69) z.b.V. Korps:

1 Kos.Cav.Div.

373 (Kroat.) Inf.Div.

XV (15) Gebirgskorps:

1 Res.Ski-Jag.Regt.

392 (Kroat.) Inf.Div.

264 Inf.Div.

1 Regt. “Brandenburg”

4 Regt. “Brandenburg”

92 Mot.Inf.Regt.

V (05) Gebirgskorps-SS:

13 SS-Geb.Div. “Kroat#1”

HQ: (Russ.) Schutz Kps.

7 SS-Geb.Div. “Prinz Eugen”

369 Inf.Div.

118 Jag.Div.

XXI (21) Gebirgskorps:

2 Regt. “Brandenburg”

5 SS-Police Regt.

F.K.1040

181 Inf.Div.

297 Inf.Div.

21 SS-Geb.Div. “Albanian#1” (refitting)

I (01) (Bulg) Corps:

22 (Bulg) Inf.Div.

24 (Bulg) Inf.Div.

25 (Bulg) Inf.Div.

27 (Bulg) Inf.Div.

Heeresgruppe “E”:

(Acting as an AOK under HGrp.”F”)

HGrp.Reserves:

18 SS-Police Geb.Jag.Regt.

Sturm Div. “Rhodes”

XXII (22) Gebirgskorps:

104 Jag.Div.

Festung Regt. 966

LXVIII (68) Armeekorps:

117 Jag.Div.

41 Festung Div.

11 Luft.Fld.Div.

Kdt.v.Crete:

22 Inf.Div.

133 Festung Div.

II (02) (Bulg) Corps:

7 (Bulg) Inf.Div.

16 (Bulg) Inf.Div.

28 (Bulg) Inf.Div.

O.F.K. 395:

Festung Regt. 963

4 SS-PzGR.Div. “Polizei”

Befh.i.Op.Geb. Ost-Ungarn:

1 SS-Cav.Div. (refitting)

73 Inf.Div. (forming)



THE ITALIAN FRONT (UNDER OKW COMMAND)



HEERESGRUPPE “C”:

And OB – “Southwest”:

HGrp.Reserves:

715 Inf.Div. (in transit)

FOURTEENTH ARMY (AOK 14):

AOK Reserves:

65 Inf.Div.

92 Inf.Div.

362 Inf.Div. (in transit)

19 Luft.Fld.Div. (most)

XIV (14) Panzerkorps:

162 Inf.Div.

90 PzGR.Div.

29 PzGR.Div.

20 Luft.Fld.Div.

I (01) Fschjag.korps:

3 PzGR.Div. (remnants)

26 Pz.Div.

4 Fschjag.Div.

356 Inf.Div.

TENTH ARMY (AOK 10):

AOK Reserves:

114 Jag.Div. (in transit)

LXXVI (76) Panzerkorps:

16 SS-PzGR.Div. “RFSS”

135 Festung Bde.

42 Jag.Div.

19 Luft.Fld.Div. (part)

Befh.Venetianische Kuste:

Festung Einh.

Befh.Op.Zone Adriat. Kustenland:

Al.Regt.”Brandenburg”



not impressed...:whome:

Falcon_16
07 Sep 11,, 21:14
falcon,
this is a popular misconception. WWI reparations were not particularly heavy for germany-- much of it was forgiven or inflated away.
in WWII, as well, the allies disarmed the germans and occupied their territory.
the reason why Germany re-armed and attacked europe was because 1.) the Germans were defeated but not crushed in WWI, and 2.) the collapse of the world economic system allowed for extremist ideas to take hold of Germany.
I'm quite sure of what I am saying mate. WW1 reparations for Germany were heavy enough. Equivalent to 100k tons of gold. (=64 billion$, 93 years ago) You're correct that reparations payments reduced up to %50 at last because of 1929 crisis but not because they started to love them, that was only because Germany had no money remaining to pay it... Not only reparations but also ''war guilt'' clause was on German shoulders and they were responsible for all loss and damage... This clause itself was insulting enough.
In WWII, allies disarmed and occupied Germany's lands thats okay but you somehow don't say the facts that experienced after these. After a big scale of war it is understandable to disarm your opponent for a short time but without harming their national pride. Secondly they had to occupy Germany's lands because Germans didn't surrender until the end. Maybe Soviets insisted on staying where they took (East Germany) from axis but instead allies especially European partners of Germany decided that Germany shouldn't be excluded from European system thus European Coal and Steel Community was the fact of what I'm saying. They thought that coal resource in 'Ruhr' region causes war between France and Germany, this causes a full scale war between Europe and uniticity becomes an empty dream. The idea was clear: Germany should become great partner of European and western world. So that things were completely different if we were to compare it WWI.

1-) True.. Hate knows no bounds however. You may chain them but as history taught us they'll strike sooner or later crushed or only defeated, just no matter...
2-) True again... But not exactly. I do believe hitler's power and popularity rose up because of crisis while German people believed in him recover their lost national pride. Do you really believe only the crisis was the key reason of Nazi's show up?


another misconception is that Hitler "used democracy to destroy democracy". no, Hitler actively subverted democracy while claiming he was popularly elected in free and fair elections. he wasn't.
It seems you misunderstand me. While me either don't believe there was true democracy in Germany at that time but you cannot underestimate amount of votes he got. Don't forget chain of events let him rise and majority of Germans more than loved him for a purpose.


no, Germany wouldn't. the Allies would only accept unconditional surrender.
Yeah no problem with western allies Germany would be willing to accept terms. But not to Soviets I guess... Even it happens, would Soviets accept Germany's unconditional surrender before they invade Berlin? Or would Germans let them take Berlin without a tough battle?



no way the Allies would have signed a separate peace with Germany by 1944. there was nothing in it for them.
for the real-timeline yes thats correct.
but you cannot know whats in it for them if you change it.
If I were you, I wouldn't believe their bounds that much. History shows us interests and benefits would change in a single moment.

Mihais
07 Sep 11,, 21:55
not impressed...:whome:

Great accounting.With the ones in France,we might get even more than 80 Divs. :Dancing-Banana: :biggrin:
Over a 100,with those trapped in Kurland and whatever occupation troops existed in Holland and Norway.''We'' might even keep Romania and Ploiesti in game. :biggrin:
Definetely no problem keeping the Carpathians.
In all,instead of the ragged 60 or so divs. Guderian had in January '45 the Germans would pose close to 200 combat ready or close to that status.Let's not forget the armored assets that don't get lost in the West,Romania or Hungary.

Doktor
07 Sep 11,, 22:00
It seems you misunderstand me. While me either don't believe there was true democracy in Germany at that time but you cannot underestimate amount of votes he got. Don't forget chain of events let him rise and majority of Germans more than loved him for a purpose.

Wonder why. All the ballots were like this one?

26277

Triple C
08 Sep 11,, 01:12
Mihais,

I will leave the military stuff to more qualified WABers, but I can tell you that politically, the July plotter's proposal was absolutely unacceptable to Western Allies. The political and military leaders would settle for nothing except total victory, even if it means the Western Allies would suffer tens of thousands more casualties, because they were the men who believed the Versailles Treaty was too lenient and neutralizing German military threat meant the utter destruction of Militarismus. No one wanted the resurgence of another stabbed-in the-back legend after the war.

The point was to annihilate the Junker political system and to destroy once and for all the German believe in their innate military superiority. No allied statesmen or military leader expected the Germans to accept unconditional surrender declared in Casablanca, and in a sense, that was the point: to throw the gauntlet at Nazi Germany's doorsteps and to vanquish the myth of Teutonic invincibility. To that end, any kind of negotiated peace was out of the question.

1979
08 Sep 11,, 09:27
Great accounting.With the ones in France,we might get even more than 80 Divs. :Dancing-Banana: :biggrin:
Over a 100,with those trapped in Kurland and whatever occupation troops existed in Holland and Norway.''We'' might even keep Romania and Ploiesti in game. :biggrin:
Definetely no problem keeping the Carpathians.
In all,instead of the ragged 60 or so divs. Guderian had in January '45 the Germans would pose close to 200 combat ready or close to that status.Let's not forget the armored assets that don't get lost in the West,Romania or Hungary.

did u count them ?
i recalled reading a conversation between Antonescu and Hitler in which the latter complained that the balkans immobilized 20 German divisions .
there are another 12 (bulgarian, croatian, albanian ) and several regiments .

the Italian front had 17-18 div.
but my comment was not related to quantity but quality.

Falcon_16
08 Sep 11,, 18:06
Wonder why. All the ballots were like this one?

yes I think so but you know what it make me laugh when I see it:tongue:

''ja'' section is twice bigger than ''nein'' and I've seen before they put an Adolf picture on left side of ballots thats funny.

I see your point by the way, I have nothing against to say to you and tricky democracy in Germany on 1938.

But it is normal to see Hitler's influence at elections on 1938 while he had all the power needed. Turn back some years and you'll see some tricks done by Hitler but you can't see a manipulation that far.

clackers
11 Sep 11,, 12:56
Great accounting.With the ones in France,we might get even more than 80 Divs. :Dancing-Banana: :biggrin:
Over a 100,with those trapped in Kurland and whatever occupation troops existed in Holland and Norway.''We'' might even keep Romania and Ploiesti in game. :biggrin:
Definetely no problem keeping the Carpathians.
In all,instead of the ragged 60 or so divs. Guderian had in January '45 the Germans would pose close to 200 combat ready or close to that status.Let's not forget the armored assets that don't get lost in the West,Romania or Hungary.

Such wishful thinking, Mihais! :)

Realistically, the Soviets take until 1946 to win in extra savage fighting and thanks to their decision to fight on, the Germans are treated the way medieval cities were after an unnecessarily long siege ... the whole population suffers what the East Prussians experienced after this attack: East Prussian Offensive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Prussian_Offensive)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1976-072-09%2C_Ostpreu%C3%9Fen%2C_Fl%C3%BCchtlingtreck.jpg/220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1976-072-09%2C_Ostpreu%C3%9Fen%2C_Fl%C3%BCchtlingtreck.jpg

Mihais
11 Sep 11,, 17:07
Read the historians that actually studied the defensive battles(how,when,where and with what results)on the Eastern Front.Then look at the map and the force ratio.Consider whether the Soviets would be willing to meet the Americans on the Rhine with women and children under arms.After that we'll talk about realism.
In the worst case there won't be anyone left to rape the womenfolk :biggrin:

And sorry for catching me in a foul mood,but what do you mean by ''wishfull thinking''?

1979
11 Sep 11,, 18:34
Mihais

the Germans lost 9.135.500 men by fall of 1944 (dead, missing, or disabled) and there were going to lose more with or without Hitler. in 1945 they had 2,33 million soldiers.
(in June 44 it was 3,370,000 Axis- 2,520,000 German)


the soviets lost 25.375.790 men by the end of 1944 (dead, missing, or disabled) and entered in 1945 with 6.5 million soldiers. ( in June 44 it was 6.425.000)

it is not a ratio that favors the defender.

Mihais
11 Sep 11,, 19:11
Well,I didn't knew about the last 500,but I knew the millions:biggrin:.The question is how many of the remaining Soviets would die trying to kill the remaining Germans on the remaining territory.

1979
11 Sep 11,, 19:17
cant be more than 1944 (IE 6.5 million casualties of which 1.4 million KIA,MIA,pow )

clackers
14 Sep 11,, 13:44
And sorry for catching me in a foul mood,but what do you mean by ''wishfull thinking''?

According to Wiki, "the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality or reality."

To take myself as an example, predicting my football team will win this weekend! ;)


Read the historians that actually studied the defensive battles(how,when,where and with what results)on the Eastern Front.

I have indeed read Erickson, Glantz and Ziemke ... not sure what your sources are.

Leading up to the Valkyrie plot, check out:

The campaign that cleared the Ukraine of Manstein's Army Group South linked here: Dnieper Campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper%E2%80%93Carpathian_Offensive)

Large portions of 1st Panzer, 6th, 8th and 17th Armies were shattered. Bessarabia and Moldavia were lost from Romania, and German troops had to occupy Hungary to stop it defecting.

Model's Army Group North was defeated and withdrew to the Panther Line described here: Leningrad Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad%E2%80%93Novgorod_Offensive)

Over a million casualties are inflicted on the Axis in the first three months of 1944, and then Finland is knocked out of the war by Leonid Govorov, to be followed by Operation Bagration, and before the bomb went off in Hitler's bunker, Konev's 1st Ukrainian Front defeated Army Group North Ukraine in an immense battle involving nearly two million that pushed the Heer back to the Vistula River described here: Lvov Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lvov-Sandomierz_Offensive)

Now check out what happened after the bomb blast.

Your own nation was finished just four weeks later described in this link: Jassy Kishinev Offensive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jassy%E2%80%93Kishinev_Offensive_(August_1944)) in a gigantic one-sided battle in which the German Sixth Army was destroyed for a second time, and the 8th Army withdrew shattered into Hungary.

That's the situation facing the new German leader (Goering?) in the autumn of 1944. Of the Axis allies, only Hungary remains at the end of the year, and another army group (North) is now completely cut off.

The Ostheer is like the Wehrmacht on every other front other than Italy at this time, a shambles.

clackers
14 Sep 11,, 13:49
Mihais

the Germans lost 9.135.500 men by fall of 1944 (dead, missing, or disabled) and there were going to lose more with or without Hitler. in 1945 they had 2,33 million soldiers.
(in June 44 it was 3,370,000 Axis- 2,520,000 German)


the soviets lost 25.375.790 men by the end of 1944 (dead, missing, or disabled) and entered in 1945 with 6.5 million soldiers. ( in June 44 it was 6.425.000)

it is not a ratio that favors the defender.

We should also add the losses of the Axis allies during the War in the East, 1979, thought to be 1.725 million, mainly Hungarian and Romanian.

1979
14 Sep 11,, 15:20
I left that part out clakers because i'm certain we and Hungary did not have that many soldiers to begin with.

Romania lost about 94.000 in combat versus the allies and the axis and another 200.000 died in soviet captivity.

the twist is that Romanian citizens forcibly conscripted in the Hungarian army, were counted as Hungarians by the soviets (even thou probably only half of them were of Magyar origin) when taken POW.

Hungarian number of dead is similar (100.000 combat and 200.000 captivity)
see above.
For a country with half the population of Romania, the losses were staggering.

the issue of Hungarian prisoners of war is somewhat more complicated , according to their own estimates they had 200.000 men mia and pow in the soviet union, that number however does not include the number of soldiers interned by the soviets when they occupied Hungary in the winter of 1944/1945.

1979
14 Sep 11,, 15:53
Russian sources give a much lower number of romanian and hungarian soldiers who died in captivity, this could be for several reasons,
a) the prisoners died in the period before being transferred to POW camps. (similar to the Germans at Stalingrad)
b) soviet deception.
c) the prisoners remain in ussr after the war.

either way they never returned home.

In terms of soldiers discharged because of wounds , my estimate is 300.000-350.000 romanians for the eastern front .

clackers
15 Sep 11,, 12:10
I left that part out clakers because i'm certain we and Hungary did not have that many soldiers to begin with.

Romania lost about 94.000 in combat versus the allies and the axis and another 200.000 died in soviet captivity.

the twist is that Romanian citizens forcibly conscripted in the Hungarian army, were counted as Hungarians by the soviets (even thou probably only half of them were of Magyar origin) when taken POW.

Hungarian number of dead is similar (100.000 combat and 200.000 captivity)
see above.
For a country with half the population of Romania, the losses were staggering.

Interesting ... Keith Bonn's Slaughterhouse: The Handbook of the Eastern Front gives the number of Romanian dead, missing and taken prisoner as 681,800, and Hungarian as 863,700.

Doktor
15 Sep 11,, 13:09
Interesting ... Keith Bonn's Slaughterhouse: The Handbook of the Eastern Front gives the number of Romanian dead, missing and taken prisoner as 681,800, and Hungarian as 863,700.

Is he calculating civilian deaths, too?

1979
15 Sep 11,, 14:52
it is probably dead ,mising,taken prisoners and disabled.
In the summer of 1941 the number of soldiers conscripted in the romanian army was around 680.000, by the end of the war it stood at over 1.2 milion ( generaly 100.000 -150.000 were conscripted each year ) .
By the fall of 1944 the romanian army had around 500.000 men, so close to 700.000 were lost by all causes until than.
with that clarification the number regarding Romania seams to be correct.

The numbers regarding Hungary are a bit hard to swallow because they mean near total anihilation of all soldiers Hungary concripted.

clackers
20 Sep 11,, 06:55
I'm interested to understand what you understand the numbers to be, 1979 ... the contribution of the Axis allies is a topic that gets unfairly neglected.

1979
20 Sep 11,, 16:24
the ratio 1 killed to 3 wounded in combat holds true for the axis minors considering the whole war not independent operations.

one thing that stands out is that even as devastating as it was, the battle of STALINGRAD only amounts to a small percentage of the total casualties suffered by the axis minors throughout the war.

another thing that gets overlooked is the fact that soviets took prisoners of war even after armed hostilities has ceased . for instance after 23 aug 1944 Romanian troops no longer fired on the soviets and were at a shooting war with German troops on our soil , the red army kept taking romanian pow well into September when the armistice was put in paper.

clackers
21 Sep 11,, 11:51
For what it's worth, Colonel General Grigori Krivosheyev thought that 350,000 Hungarians died and a further 513,700 were captured, of whom 54,700 died in Soviet captivity.

He estimated that 480,000 Rumanian soldiers died, with a further 201,800 captured (and 40,000 dying in Soviet camps).

Doktor
21 Sep 11,, 11:54
another thing that gets overlooked is the fact that soviets took prisoners of war even after armed hostilities has ceased . for instance after 23 aug 1944 Romanian troops no longer fired on the soviets and were at a shooting war with German troops on our soil , the red army kept taking romanian pow well into September when the armistice was put in paper.

Well, Romanians were shooting towards Soviets first, now towards Nazis... If they are POW they can't switch sides again huh?

1979
21 Sep 11,, 13:28
we conscripted 1.2 mil soldiers during the war (>7% percent of our population at the end of 1941 including territories liberated from USSR)

480.000 is probably casualties not dead, otherwise we would have more wounded than conscripts ( 480*3= 1.44 millions )

even with a ratio of 1 wounded to 1 killed it does not hold water.

Hungary had a population of about 12 millions after the second Vienna award so in order to sustain 350,000 dead and 513,700 captured they have to mobilize also 7% while leaving no room for wounded.

krivoshev figures regarding the axis simply do not add up.

Edit : finally managed to dig up a Hungarian document in English
despite growing up near the border with them , the hungarian language is not my strong point.

http://www.epa.hu/00400/00463/00007/pdf/155_stark.pdf

1979
21 Sep 11,, 13:59
Well, Romanians were shooting towards Soviets first, now towards Nazis... If they are POW they can't switch sides again huh?:rolleyes::biggrin:

seams like something along the lines of Stalin"s thinking.

clackers
22 Sep 11,, 06:11
http://www.epa.hu/00400/00463/00007/pdf/155_stark.pdf

Thanks for the link, 1979!

For various reasons, it's almost impossible to get a true picture of Eastern Front casualties, and Krivosheyev unfortunately can only be considered as the best of a bad bunch ...