Would assassinating Hitler have ended the war

Festus wrote: »

My thoughts are that it would not have been a good move precisely because a more competent military leader would have pulled out of Russia and concentrated on the Western front

Just like that?

After Winter 1942 (being generous, I would usually argue Winter 1941) Germany has lost the war. Or at least lost the opportunity to win the war. It doesn't matter what Hitler does and it doesn't matter what happens in the West; after 1942 the balance of power has swung firmly towards the Soviets. The Red Army is in the ascendency and the best case scenario for Germany is wearing their opponents down to a bloody stalemate

The composition of the German leadership is irrelevant: there would be no separate peace with Moscow. The latter wouldn't accept it and the former almost certainly wouldn't propose it. The Eastern Front was a war of annihilation

Manach wrote:

Either by driving towards and taking Moscow or else by arriving as "liberators" to the vast swathes of Communist Russia where the Soviet regime was loathed.

1) Any drive towards Moscow would have been impossible with 600k Soviet soldiers sitting on the Nazi flank. Never mind the assumption that just reaching the Soviet capital would be enough to seize what was probably the most heavily fortified city in Europe at the time. Try a Stalingrad in Winter '41

2) The Wehrmacht's reputation of treating Soviet citizens was not due to Hitler sitting in Berlin. German officers were more than happy to participate in drawing up genocidal schemes (such as the Hunger Plan) while the vile behaviour of the soldiers on the ground needed little encouragement from above. At the end of the day, a non-Hitler German regime facing the same pressures as the historical one is unlikely to react all that differently

Reekwind wrote: »

Any time really but it's not something that would have radically changed history. The impact the Nazi government would have been catastrophic but after 1941 the basic course of the war was set. Failure to take Moscow (and I'm already on record in asserting that Barbarossa was unwinnable) would have fixed Nazi Germany into a war of annihilation in the East. Hitler's death probably would have sparked off a round of bitter infighting (its intensity dependent on how close the Red Army was to Berlin) but that would only have hastened the inevitable

Not entirely true. Hitler was in favor of both daring and grandiose 'do or die' scenarios and it was that very risk taking that destroyed the German front in the East. Sometimes Hitlers daring plans work; the rapid fall of France being a prime example; but it was a catastrophe in the SU. The Germans still made remarkable headway but from late 1942, when Blitzkrieg had simply failed, Hitlers meddling with the war front became increasingly worse, and its affect far more pronounced as resources of both manpower, armour and fuel started to become scare and reserves of lesser quality. Hitler, on several occasions, chose to engage in head on clashes when other, less costly tactical engagements could have yielded better results. One of the alternatives to the disastrous battle of Kursk was an operation to draw in and encircle 20% of the Red Armys available manpower and push it into the sea ala Dunkirk, thereby giving the Germans the chance to reestablish a solid front and strip the Soviets of their offensive capability for the coming months. Hitler preferred the titanic clash at Kursk, which meant 800,000 German soldiers attacking head on Soviet positions with up to 5 defensive belts, as well as massive superiority in men and guns. It's not to say that the Sea of Asov plan would have definitely worked but from mid-1942 onwards, the German war direction gradually turned into a shambles where excellent tactical direction could not make up for poor strategic planning. Had Hitler been removed in even the spring of 1942, the German war effort would have taken an entirely different direction. Not to say a victorious one, but one far better than the one conducted in reality, one where you would probably see more of a concentration of defense in depth and grinding down the Red Army then continuing to insist on grandiose offensives on a front that could not afford the cost of those battles. The Germans fought some excellent defensive battles before the collapse of AGC in June 1944 in the south and blunted some very large Russian offensives.

The one point (post-1939) that I can think of where Hitler's input was genuinely critical is in his endorsement of Manstein's daring plan for the invasion of France. Had the General Staff's plan (a less ambitious rerun of WWI) been enacted then the war would probably have been confined to northern France and ended with a collapse of the German economy in 1942. Hitler, to his credit, always saw a bigger picture than his generals and it was he who pushed strongly for the much riskier push through the Ardennes

I don't think this is true either. Blitzkrieg won the French campaign above all else, though a conventional assault would have taken longer and possibly cost a great deal more. The French actually had greater resources in terms of firepower and armor, but hopelessly outdated tactical doctrine. Even their armour was generally better, with plenty of accounts available of German Panzer I and IIs (bulk of German armour in France) being unable to even penetrate the Char B. But German concentration of armor was far superior, and worked perfectly in tandem with aerial assault - the French had their armor dispersed along the line, and their aerial ability proved poor in comparison to the Luftwaffe. The British and French suffered horrific losses in mounting bombing runs on key bridges against German opposition and AA defense. German tanks also all had radios, in comparison French tanks only had one per 4 or 5 tanks.

The German army was simply vastly superior on a tactical level, and even a conventional invasion would have succeeded. The French were just hopelessly outdated in their tactical deployment and planning.

The same thing happened in the SU in 1941 and 1942. German tanks at that time were inferior to the latest T34 models and head on, the T34 was more than a match, but German tactical direction and crew training was infinitely better and they ran rings around the Red Army. Only after some extremely painful lessons, the loss of millions of men and thousands upon thousands of tanks, did the Red Army start to gain the upper hand. They could suffer those losses with such massive reserves of manpower, industry,and vast tracts of land beyond German reach. France did not have that luxury, and in 1940 could never have beaten the Wehrmacht.