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?
1. I would say no. If anything a new ruler may have stepped out of the way of the generals causing the war to last longer. I.E. not leaving Paulus stuck in Stalingrad till the last man and many other “fortress” orders.
2. The holocost would have continued. The upper ranks of the Nazis were ate up with antisemitism. Antisemitism was also not merely hatred of the Jews, it was a belief that they caused Germany to lose the last war and secretly controlled everything. Hitler certainly did not create antisemitism, it was quite healthy before he joined the Nazi party.
Those are very interesting questions, imponderable in some respects. My opinions:
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?
Depends on how many years earlier. Without Hitler or someone like him who was a sparkplug, a warhead, as it were, Germany might have never developed the ultra nationalist leanings, (maybe mandates would be a better word) that led them to seek territory and conquest and persecution of the Jews (and other ginned-up outcast groups) out of the terrible depression it was going through from the late 20’s into the 30’s. Germany was badly humilated in WW1 and the after-effects of losing the war and particularly the oppressive reparations it was forced to endure might have led it into much more of a meek stance. One can imagine that only a few programming switches had to be flipped for Germany to go warlike, but without the fiery charisma of a Hitler, it may well have never developed as it did. Now if Hitler had been assasinated AFTER the Nazi party came to power, and after the Nazi regime had established itself and above all, started the war, then the German march to war might have been a lot more successful. As is, they ran over most of Europe. I believe that few historians would argue that the Nazis in large part defeated themselves with the overreach into Russia in 1941.
2: Would the holocaust come to an end or would it have continued?
The holocaust was a massive national project but it was founded upon the ultra nationalism sparked by Hitler and arguably was so audaciously evil that perhaps only a Hitler might have imagined it and worked to pursue it as a reality.
So most of my answer is, it would depend upon where things sat at the moment Hitler had been assassinated. If it was 1940, the war might have been more successful for Germany. Before the Russian adventure, Germany really had had few setbacks. Maybe Germany “lost” the Battle of Britain, but that was merely failing to achieve a goal. It started and ended and chewed up some pilots and some planes. No doubt, it was a negative to their morale. But once they decided they “lost”, the bleeding stopped and they turned their attention elsewhere. Russia and the battle for Russia was a cancer that ate up more and more German resources over time. Furthermore, it activated the Russian military against Germany and that might have never happened had Germany left Russia more or less alone.
Prior to Hitler attacking Russia, Russia was an Axis power.
Communism likely would have spread throughout most of Europe before the US would have had any justification to intervene.
Assassination isn’t the solution for solving international disputes as long as national politics placed the leaders into power. National leaders might conveniently focus the thinking of a body politic with one or a handful of people, but the real conflicts involve bodies of people and how they think as a group.
There were a number of times some of his generals plotted to remove him. There was one plan that was to occur right before they invaded Poland. There would have been no war and no holocaust.
Most of the Wehrmacht officers were professionals and were at odds with the political elements of the Nazi government. This is only speculation, but it does pose interesting, “what ifs”.
Most of the Wehrmacht officers were professionals and were at odds with the political elements of the Nazi government. This is only speculation, but it does pose interesting, “what ifs”.
If he had been killed after invading the USSR, it would have made no difference. The remaining German leadership may have surrendered w/o Hitler's insistence on a fight to the death, ending the war sooner rather than later. The German military knew the war was lost after Stalingrad.
If Hitler had been assassinated before invading the USSR, Germany may have beaten Britain, giving Germany North Africa & the Middle East, all that oil, & no opponent at its back as it invaded East. Hitler canceled the invasion of Britain to prepare to invade the USSR.
With Britain out of the war, antagonism between Germany & the US would have decreased. With a dead Hitler, Germany might not have declared war on the US in Dec. 1941, if ever. With no base of operation (Britain) in Europe, FDR may have been satisfied to remain neutral in Europe while fighting the Japanese. A US war in the Atlantic would have been considerably more difficult with Britain & probably Ireland in German hands.
German generals had begged Hitler to wait a year before invading the USSR, to rearm & rebuild the German military. Hitler's premature invasion East probably cost him the war.
The Holocaust would have likely continued w/o Hitler as the Nazis would retain power after Hitler, & war production depended on slave labor.
Actually the general’s plot was before the planned invasion of Czechoslovakia, which France and the UK through inept diplomacy made unnecessary.
Britain was at least neutralized to the point where they were no threat to take on Germany, until the US entered the war. So it made sense for Hitler to turn attention to Russia, before Stalin could complete his buildup, which was slated to be around 43-44. That’s why Stalin was so hesitant to do anything that might provoke Hitler, he was trying to buy as much time as he could.
I don't think he had a good military mind but instead he just presumed his enemies were weak and indecisive. Early on in rearmament, the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia he was right. But I don't believe that he was perceptive so much that he was a one trick pony who believed that he was the only wolf in the world of scared sheep. He even believed that the American war effort would fall into chaos and we would sue for peace when FDR died.
Hitler was ticked at what happened at Munich, he had been denied his chance to show off the Nazi military, which he was itching to do.....so he knew he had to make the demands on Poland so severe, that there was no way that the Allies were going to acquiesce next time.
I believe what is meant by Hitler’s right call is the Battle of Moscow. The German generals wanted to retreat in response to the Soviet counter offensive, while Hitler demanded they remain in their positions and fight. Hitler’s call led to the blunting of the Soviet offensive. In hindsight a retreat would have led to a complete rout of the German forces in front of Moscow.
Wasn’t there more then forty known plots to assassinate Hitler? Some as far back as 1939? Not to forget. Many times during his parades through German towns people had the chance to shoot him. Would killing Hitler have prevent the holocaust? Only if he was killed before it started. When did the nazis start killing so called mentally retarded people? Not to forget forced sterilization. He would have to been killed before 1935 to prevent the holocaust. If not earlier.
Correct, he felt cheated. The generals did not want to go to war in 38. However long standing hatred for Poland among the military, even more so than Hitler, saw no opposition to the invasion of Poland in 39.
In 1943 Stalin had an assassination squad in Berlin, which he recalled, for the same reason!
It wouldn’t have mattered who replaced Hitler, Germany did not have the economic wherewithal to win the war. It’s economy could not compete with the United States alone. I do not have the figures handy, but even the UK’s economy was outproducing Germany. They were doomed from the start.
“It wouldn’t have mattered who replaced Hitler, Germany did not have the economic wherewithal to win the war.”
Correct
However that idiot Hitler didn’t realize that. He was throwing every resource into the battle they had, actually believing a victory was possible.
The concern was that if one of the competent generals took over, he might go for a stalemate to drag the war out until the public demanded an end. And it might have worked. Don’t forget that the English turned Churchill out even before the war ended. Even in this country people were starting to ask, “when will our boys come home?”
In his speech of September 1, Hitler named his line of succession in this order: Goering, then Hess. But I suspect Himmler would make his move as well, and certainly if Himmler gains power, the Holocaust would indeed not be stopped.
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.