If Stauffenberg had killed Hitler on July 20th 1944

[Pink]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.