Posted on 06/04/2012 7:00:24 PM PDT by InvisibleChurch
I have 2 questions regarding WW2. 1: Had Hitler been assassinated years earlier, would the war have lasted longer because better military minds might have held more sway or would the leaders have decided to cut their losses and surrendered? 2: Would the holocaust come to an end or would it have continued?
That depends on who came to power after Hitler.
That depends on who came to power after Hitler.
That depends on who came to power after Hitler.
That depends on who came to power after Hitler.
If he's killed after that winter vacation the Krauts took in Russia, they sue for peace, and everything stops, IMHO ............................................ FRegards
Actually, the power of the Reich lives on only now it’s called islam.
Years before when?
The question is, what does Stalin do? He wanted Europe...I don’t think he would have been too thrilled with just letting Germany be.
Once the process starts it won’t stop until some limit is reached. The invasion accelerated the Soviet mobilization for total war and the economy was in its service. Plus, Stalin had been humiliated and practically immobilized by the attack which he was being warned about by many sources including the US. He had to have been pretty pissed at Hitler for showing him to be as much a fool as Chamberlain.
It more depends on how early they got him. He had charisma and the longer he was able to forge his popularity, the more powerful the Nazis became. Take him out early—no Nazis and no war. Ya think?
Fortunately Islam does NOT have the power of the Reich. If it had we would be in deep shiite. Nazism essentially lost because it did not have the numbers to overwhelm Russia. Islam has little more than numbers, very few brains.
Adolph Galland, who was the commander of the Luftwaffe fighter command and was also a 100+ victories ace had some interesting things to say about Hitler.
Before he became probably near insane, Hitler had a very good military mind. Galland said he often made the right call over the objections of his generals.
Somewhere along the way he became so inflexible that he was harming them greatly. For instance when they wanted to use the ME-262 as a fighter Hitler countered them and insisted in it being a blitz bomber. They could have had it nearly a year earlier as a fighter and it might have made the difference.
Galland said even there Hitler was not entirely wrong as you will not win a war on defense but also if your cities are being bombed into non existence you would be far better off destroying those bombers before trying to take the offensive again.
If another member of the inner circle of the Nazi party had taken over, I think they would have continued the death camps.
I think if Admiral Doenitz who really did take over for Hitler was in charge, they would have been stopped and Doenitz would have tried for peace but it probably was just not possible until Germany had been defeated.
Years before his suicude, say if he was killed after the invasion but before the defeat of the russian invasion.
Germany was very close to forcing Stalin’s ouster....my thought is, if Moscow was taken, there would have been a revolt that resulted in Stalin’s overthrow, and perhaps even the emergence of Vlasov, as the de facto leader of Russian resistance. Vlasov was an opportunist, he only collaborated with the Nazis to buy time, in the hope that Stalin was deposed.
The war would have been shorter. If someone had taken over, he would have wanted to end the war because Germany was doomed by the Spring of 1942. Many Germans knew that. That is when the huge bombing of Germany started. The US would have won the war even if Germany had better jet fighters. We had the BOMB.
as a multi std infested megalomaniac, the likely answer is better strategic minds(who were in place) would have been promoted before the set backs so on balance removing Hitler before 1943 would have been a net negative. The question to ask is once the usa entered would a rational power sue for peace? The winning of he cold war was in fact the Russians suing for peace with out the paper work.
Back to ww2. Hitler’s strategic blunders. dis-allocation of resources and waste of experience/knowledge, with in a confined industrial base, all makes a boxed in advisory.
So a deranged leader with unlimited power, literally playing live chess vs professional warriors.
I wouldn’t change anything, you might get a competent, strategic leader, non infested, and willing to stick with the ruskies.
I morn the deaths, but look at not just ww2 but 1951-1980.
I saw on another thread here today, a good point, one of the reasons Hitler emerged was that WWI was never fought on German soil, they were spared for the most part the horrors of war, and it gave credence to the “stabbed in the back” line.
Now if the same thing happened again, where Germany was allowed to surrender without experiencing the horrors of war, would it have created an environment that would have allowed another fanatic, like Hitler to rise again?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.