Would assassinating Hitler have ended the war

Festus

Some of you may know and some may not but Rebellion Software is releasing a "reboot" of Sniper Elite in May 2012.

Apparently there is a bonus level "Assassinate the Fuhrer"

It's probably all marketing ploy and no doubt some may get a kick out of having a pop but I think there is a serious question there.

There were attempts on his life that failed, and I'm sure there were many who wished they took the chance and even more who wished they had the chance.

So, would a successful attempt on his life late in the war have preceipitated its end, or would a more competent military leader have taken his place thereby creating the possibility of Germany either winning the war or negotiating a peace with the Allies and the Soviets that would have left Germany in control of much of Europe.

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.

Apologies if this has been discussed before - just point me at the thread.

Judgement Day

Of course it would have ended the war earlier. Only the utterly deluded like Hitler thought after the success of the D-Day landings that the war could still be won. It's just a damn shame that millions more were condemned to death by the failure of botched assassination attempts.

Manach

It depends on which year the bid succeeded.
My premise is that the Soviets were the key in defeating the Nazi's - based on books such as "Total War" about the Eastern Front. Assuming that there was no halting the invasion in 1941, given the strategic surprise it achieved and the perceived poor condition of the Red army based on the Finnish 39/40 war, then any assassination that occurred around then could have placed a leader in power which would have been able to have knocked-out the Soviets. 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.

goose2005

It depends on who took over after the assassination and when it happened. Actually, some of Hitler's decisions were so bad that assassinating him after the French surrendered could have won the war for Germany.

Anonymous2.0

No, Hitler was just a puppet. The same crowd that caused WW2 is now causing WW3. Nazis did not actually lose WW2 - the German people lost WW2. Many of the top Nazis escaped and infiltrated the top echelons of USA government under Operation "Paperclip" and they are now using their deeply entrenched positions to wage a global war.

The following film explains why assassinating Hitler would not have changed the outcome of the war:
>Clip removed- moderator<

jonniebgood1

Anonymous2.0 wrote: »

No, Hitler was just a puppet. The same crowd that caused WW2 is now causing WW3. Nazis did not actually lose WW2 - the German people lost WW2. Many of the top Nazis escaped and infiltrated the top echelons of USA government under Operation "Paperclip" and they are now using their deeply entrenched positions to wage a global war.

The following film explains why assassinating Hitler would not have changed the outcome of the war:
>Clip removed- moderator<

Infraction for posting rubbish.

I am unsure where this thread is going. It is based on a hypothetical suggestion from a computer game. The replies need to be based on fact, i.e. based on the situation in the war at whatever time is in question. It is an interesting premise and answers need to be as per no. 02, 03 & 04 rather than conspiracy stuff. As there is the possibility of a debate based on history the thread will stay open for the moment and will be monitored as it progresses.

Moderator.

sgb

Very hypothetical question. When the USA entered WW2 the outcome was in inevitable, so if hitler was assasanated the outcome would still be an Allied victory

Reekwind

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

Manach

Reekwind wrote: »

Just like that?

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

Fair Points.
1 - However, the Germans had gone against such odds before and won in the East. As well, the Germans at that stage of the war were still excellent at the Blitzkreig style war and could maneuver around their Soviet opponents. (based on AFAIR the autobiography of Heinz Guerdein who pressed heavily for a push to Moscow.)
Finally, forcing the leadership to flee Moscow would have shattered the aura of invincibility of Stalin.

2 - I'd partially agree. Even as far back as 1939, the Wehrmacht had committed war crimes against regular Polish troops who had surrender, with no Waffen involvement. However, if a less fanatical type was in command and had restricted some of the behaviour it could have lead to more Russians joining the invading forces and tipping the balance in their favour.

al28283

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.

I doubt pulling out of Russia would have ended the war on the Eastern front. The Russians wouldn't cease hostilities with Germany once they had them on the run. I imagine it simply would have brought the Russians to Berlin much earlier. The question then is whether or not the Russians would have stopped there

Reekwind

Manach wrote: »

Fair Points.
1 - However, the Germans had gone against such odds before and won in the East. As well, the Germans at that stage of the war were still excellent at the Blitzkreig style war and could maneuver around their Soviet opponents. (based on AFAIR the autobiography of Heinz Guerdein who pressed heavily for a push to Moscow.)
Finally, forcing the leadership to flee Moscow would have shattered the aura of invincibility of Stalin

Again, points:

1) The situation facing Germany in 1943 was fundamentally different from that of 1941. They had lost a huge and irreplaceable chunk of their forces and were facing a foe much better equipped, capable and ready than the surprised and scattered Red Army of Barbarossa. More importantly, two years of war had failed to address the fundamental Nazi weakness - the USSR was still outproducing the German economy. In a long or short war Berlin could not win

2) By 1942 it was the Soviets, not the Germans, who were masters of mobile warfare. The coming years would see them conduct Blitzkrieg-esque manoeuvres on an unprecedented scale - think Uranus, Smolensk, Bagration, Oder-Vistula, etc.

3) What "aura of invincibility"? This was November 1941, remember, and virtually the entire standing Red Army had just been wiped out. Besides, Stalin's importance as a public figure was minor; his appearances in Moscow probably strengthened the local will to resist but were not all that important. In contrast, the propaganda machine was important but for this it didn't really matter where Stalin actually was

2 - I'd partially agree. Even as far back as 1939, the Wehrmacht had committed war crimes against regular Polish troops who had surrender, with no Waffen involvement. However, if a less fanatical type was in command and had restricted some of the behaviour it could have lead to more Russians joining the invading forces and tipping the balance in their favour.

My problem with this type of alt-history is that it relies on fundamentally changing the nature of the actors involved. Sure, maybe (maybe) the Germans would have behaved differently if they'd acted like complete gents but that was never going to happen. The factors that conditioned the Wehrmacht's behaviours - military or economic necessity, acceptance of collective punishment, a racial contempt of the Slavs, etc - were not something alien grafted onto the Wehrmacht by the Nazis

Manach

The year I mentioned is 1941, so the German military capacity is still world class in moving and trapping large formations of enemy troops.

Looking at Soviet propaganda from the period, Stalin had been built up to be a type of wise and superior being guiding his people. By abandoning the heart of old Russia, Moscow, this would have shaken that image among the population.
Even in 1812, the autocratic Czar had to head off possible threats to his throne because of his decision to leave Moscow.

Prior to the out-break of the war, from the 30s onward, the German and Soviet governments had covertly co-operated. Both by allowing German troops to train on Soviet soil and the massive transfers of raw-materials for technology that was agreed at the highest levels. Right up to the invasion, there were German government sponsored engineers working in Russia as part such deals. This automatic contempt was put to one side to their mutual benefit.

More on topic - when do you reckon would have been the ideal time for Hitler to have been assassinated for the Allies?

Reekwind

Manach wrote: »

The year I mentioned is 1941, so the German military capacity is still world class in moving and trapping large formations of enemy troops

And how is that going to change without Hitler? The only major point of controversy there is the decision to take Kiev before Moscow, something that makes perfect military and economic sense

Otherwise the Germans are stuck in the exact same unwinnable position: unable to knock the Soviets out (and anyone who seriously thinks that Typhoon was feasible should check how far Guderian came to completing the encirclement of the city) and thus doomed to a long war that they cannot win

Looking at Soviet propaganda from the period, Stalin had been built up to be a type of wise and superior being guiding his people. By abandoning the heart of old Russia, Moscow, this would have shaken that image among the population.

My point was that the Soviet propaganda machine could say whatever they like. If they claimed that Stalin was still in the city fighting the fascist invaders with a PPSh in one hand and a copy of Das Kapital in the other then who is going to disagree?

And even if the city did fall, I see no reason to assume that Soviet resistance would suddenly crumble. The Soviet state, and the authority of the CP, was not based on Stalin alone. Indeed the cult of Stalin was just over a decade old at this point. The Soviets could, and did, resort to much older and more powerful emotional levers - both the modern (the legacy of October 1917) and the ancient (a more base nationalism). Neither the extensive state or CP apparatus is going to dissolve if Moscow is taken. Which it wouldn't have been

It's worth noting that that is a critical difference between the two sides. While Hitler was genuinely central to the Nazi state (the Führerprinzip), Stalin ruled by committee. The Soviet state could have continued to operate, albeit perhaps not as effectively, without Stalin or Moscow

More on topic - when do you reckon would have been the ideal time for Hitler to have been assassinated for the Allies?

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

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

Judgement Day

The simple fact is that the only way Hitler could have won WWII after the USA entered it was to develop the A-bomb first. Imagine a scenario where the first A bombs been dropped on Moscow by German planes - he could have held the entire World to ransom. If one bomb on Moscow wasn't enough he could have made examples of a few more cities and then the Third Reich would still be in place today.

Ellis Dee

One of the first thing that anyone studying history at university level learns is that historians are supposed to focus on what happened, or in von Ranke's dictum "Wie es gewesen ist", rather than on what would/might have happened if, if, if --- The latter is pretty pointless speculation, rather like devising alternative timelines for a science fiction movie.:rolleyes:

However, it is a historical fact that Hitler frequently interfered in both tactical and strategic military decisions, countermanding the decisions of generals and planners of proven ability, and in that sense triggered military disasters for Germany. His anti-Semitic policies led to large numbers of talented scientists leaving Germany, and some of them helped build the atom bomb - for the USA.:)

MarchDub

Ellis Dee wrote: »

One of the first thing that anyone studying history at university level learns is that historians are supposed to focus on what happened, or in von Ranke's dictum "Wie es gewesen ist", rather than on what would/might have happened if, if, if --- The latter is pretty pointless speculation, rather like devising alternative timelines for a science fiction movie.:rolleyes:

+1
Thanks!

al28283

Ellis Dee wrote: »

One of the first thing that anyone studying history at university level learns is that historians are supposed to focus on what happened, or in von Ranke's dictum "Wie es gewesen ist", rather than on what would/might have happened if, if, if --- The latter is pretty pointless speculation, rather like devising alternative timelines for a science fiction movie.:rolleyes:

But that's exactly what this thread is about so it's completely valid to do so here :rolleyes:

Chuck Stone

Ellis Dee wrote: »

pretty pointless speculation, rather like devising alternative timelines for a science fiction movie.:rolleyes:

Very true.

Imho after D Day the war was a geopolitical strategic battle between the US/UK and the Soviets so the assassination of Hitler would have made little difference. I'd even have doubts as to whether a complete German surrender would have been accepted.

jonniebgood1

The objections to this threads premise are noted.

On balance whilst I have no objections to the discussion I will move it to the Military > WWII forum where it is more suited. The reason for this is a more speculative discussion can continue on military possibilities along the lines of the OP's hypothetical situation in the military forum without the same need for basing such opinions on historical fact as in this forum.

H&H Moderator.

Manach

Ellis Dee wrote: »

One of the first thing that anyone studying history at university level learns is that historians are supposed to focus on what happened, or in von Ranke's dictum "Wie es gewesen ist", rather than on what would/might have happened if, if, if --- The latter is pretty pointless speculation, rather like devising alternative timelines for a science fiction movie.:rolleyes:

Older than von Ranke is Thucydides. To him the aim of history is to be a lesson to future generations, to be judged useful. To do that tools are needed. Instances the typical ones are primary source analysis. Another one is counterfactual history This is in fact used at a degree level in History - which were part of my curriculum -to aid understanding of what actually happened and what might have easily have otherwise occurred (perhaps as an antidote to the fallacy of hindsight bias).
There can be valid criticism made of it, that it veers at times into ungrounded speculation but historians such as Neil Fergusson have employed it.
Thus counterfactual analyis is valid part of the historians toolbox.

Jawgap

The simple answer to the question is no. The Allies were committed to the total and unconditional surrender of Germany and the Axis. Unless whoever replaced an assassinated Fuhrer agreed to this, it's likely the war might actually have been lengthened given that the generals would be freed of AH's meddling and able to conduct in depth defensive operations.

Even the July 20th Plotters didn't plan on just surrendering Germany in the event of them being successful. One of their objectives was a negotiated peace with the Allies

TerrorFirmer

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.

Reekwind

TerrorFirmer wrote: »

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

Probably. And they would have still lost. I think I referred above to the possibility of a 'bloody stalemate' being the best that Germany could have hoped for after 1941. But what's the point of that? The opening of the Western Front and, unrelated, slow collapse of the German economy makes this a bitter option

If Hitler was right about anything it was the need for a short and devastating campaign in '41. A real roll of the dice. Both he and his generals knew that Germany would not, could not, win a long war in the East. Once this premise is accepted that most of Hitler's follies* become a lot more understandable... and the blame-shifting of his generals more irrelevant

*And let's not forget the victories. Kiev was the single greatest Wehrmacht triumph of the war

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

Blitzkrieg is a word. The Germans, no matter how advanced their doctrinal base, scored such a stunning success in France because the Allies were entirely flatflooted and caught out of position. In those crucial first few days the German advance faced almost no real resistance. It was the equivalent of scoring an open goal

It's beyond question that such an advance, and rapid French capitulation, would have been impossible had the Wehrmacht instead run smack straight into the deep prepared and well armed mass of the main Allied armies. There was a reason why Halder, who knew a thing or two about planning successful offensives, was operating on the assumption that a year of fighting would merely produce a short thrust to secure some bases along the Channel

(And it's often forgotten that the French also fielded dedicated armour divisions... they just had such a surplus of tanks that they could afford to also distribute some amongst the infantry)

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

You're talking tactics in a discussion on strategy. Barbarossa is an entirely different scenario from Fall Gelb. The big common factor was the importance in Berlin achieving complete strategic surprise

Epilnogis

Yes, it's killing the most strongest point of the Nazis. It's like how the Germans were getting defeated in a long process, as soon as Adolf Hitler committed suicide. It was all over.

al28283

Epilnogis wrote: »

Yes, it's killing the most strongest point of the Nazis. It's like how the Germans were getting defeated in a long process, as soon as Adolf Hitler committed suicide. It was all over.

Hitler comitted suicide because it was all over, the Russians were practilly at his door

Epilnogis

al28283 wrote: »

Hitler comitted suicide because it was all over, the Russians were practilly at his door

The Russians were looking for him, but yes. He basically had no escape. My point still stands though.

the_syco

Would assassination of a man with a diseased mind suffering from Parkinson’s disease and maybe something else have ended the war?

Maybe.

Before he started the war; probably would have just prolonged the inevitable war given Germany's state at that time: some other strong man may have emerged.

If the British and French had not surrendered the largely German populated Czech region of Sudetenland 1938, Franz Halder would have probably killed Hitler.

Once the war started, I'm sure one of his lookalikes would have been used for the public face, and the war continued on by Göring and/or Himmler.

They may not been as overconfident due to victories in 1940-1941, and may have been prepared for a long war with Russia lasting through the winter as opposed to what happened.

al28283

Epilnogis wrote: »

My point still stands though.

how?

Reekwind

the_syco wrote: »

They may not been as overconfident due to victories in 1940-1941, and may have been prepared for a long war with Russia lasting through the winter as opposed to what happened.

If the German leadership had seriously contemplated along war in the East then they would never have launched Barbarossa. That campaign was always intended to be short and sharp, with the Soviets predicted to collapse within six weeks. This is the way that it had to be. The Germans weren't stupid, they knew that in a long war with the USSR there could only ever be one winner. Hence the sense of panic that swept the Nazi leadership in winter 1941 as the enormity of Typhoon's failure sunk it

nuac

Anonymous2.0 wrote: »

No, Hitler was just a puppet. The same crowd that caused WW2 is now causing WW3. Nazis did not actually lose WW2 - the German people lost WW2. Many of the top Nazis escaped and infiltrated the top echelons of USA government under Operation "Paperclip" and they are now using their deeply entrenched positions to wage a global war.

The following film explains why assassinating Hitler would not have changed the outcome of the war:
>Clip removed- moderator<

You are right of course. Some of those German scientists even pretended to have landed on the moon in 1969 to screw a NASA budget out of the US taxpayer.

and BTW Michael Flatley was and is a secret German agent using Riverdance to exhaust the entire world thru Irish dancing and of course those are not his real legs and........and................. ( gotta go, time for my pills and complan