Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hitler Assassinated

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by strathnaver View Post
    If Hitler is killed in July 1944 one would have to hope that some of the rest of the Nazi inner circle were taken out as well , Gobbels, Goering ,
    Himmler thses chaps were true belivers in the cause.
    Well, wasn't part of the plan the arrest/killing of the "inner circle" of Hitler faithful?

    I could imagine Goering not being that important; he was already out of favor with Hitler by 1944 for his many failures. Himmler would be the most dangerous, along with Gobbels and Bormann.

    If the July plot had succeeded and Beck had indeed taking control of the government, it is an interesting situation to ponder. The Allies had already declared their dedication to "unconditional surrender", but its easy to imagine that the Allies would not be above negotiating with a non-Nazi German government.

    That being said, it also depends on what the USSR would do. Stalin had been vert suspicious of Allied motives, believing the Allies were allowing Germany to bleed Russia dry before they moved in. Any negotiations could affect Stalin wildly; either he could begin his own negotiations with Germany pre-emptively (perhaps gaining crontrol over the pre-war Poland, Rumania, etc.), or he could sense blood in the water and attempt to conquer all of Germany.

    Leave a comment:


  • copenhagen
    replied
    Originally posted by craven View Post
    If Hitler is assasinated who becomes the leader of Germany? I am not sure the regular German army would just tow the line as they did with Hitler with someone they did not find acceptable and by this time they were not to thrilled with most of the Nazi higher ups. I am thinking Germany could of pulled off a negotiated surrender that still leads to there occupation but with less Soviet control of Eastern Europe. Churchill would of been very supportive of it.
    The idea was to have Ludwig August Theodor Beck as a kind've regent in the event that Valyrie had worked>

    Leave a comment:


  • copenhagen
    replied
    Originally posted by apteryx View Post
    David Irving made the point: "If only someone had thought to bring a pistol"....
    Apparently it was decided that shooting him unarmed was dishonourable so it was ruled out as was recruiting enough soldiers to attack his motorcade and SS bodyguards. This was considered too fraught with unknown variables. So the bomb was chosen. Two days earlier Stauffenberg got in the actual bunker with a bomb but at the time they wanted to get Himmler aswell but he wasnt there so he was ordered not too. If hed said sod it and done it anyway it would've worked because the bunker would've intensified the blast and Himmler rarely attended briefings anyway. The fact that was on JUly 20 it was too hot and the briefing was moved to the outside where the blast was less intense because of the building design and of course the table leg. The rest they say is history.

    One of the best attempts was by Major General Henning von Tresckow who managed to get abomb on Hitlers plane in 1943 after Hitler visited Smolensk on the Russian front. It was hidden in a Cognac bottle as a gift for a friend in Berlin. It failed to detonate because they think the cold in the cargo hold effected the detonator.

    Leave a comment:


  • strathnaver
    replied

    If Hitler is killed in July 1944 one would have to hope that some of the rest of the Nazi inner circle were taken out as well , Gobbels, Goering ,
    Himmler thses chaps were true belivers in the cause . So if they survive the hopes of the German underground movement would have been dashed faster than they were .

    Leave a comment:


  • LtCol
    replied
    Keep in mind that the members of the assasination plot thought with Hitler death the conditions for peace would have changed. Also in 1936 (I think) the Germany Army swore an oath to Hitler to support him...dead the Army would have been released from that oath and owed nothing to the NAZI's. I'm not for sure that the Western Allies could have rejected an offer of peace, for polical reasons. Stalin would have gone along for the same reason France went along with the United States in the Treaty of Paris of 1783.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Exorcist
    replied
    Originally posted by vonVillemar View Post
    I watched a serie in which children of Albert Speer and historians thought that the there never was the "plan". It was invented by Speer during Nuremburg trials to save his own neck... and it worked!
    I think it's very likely that Speer wanted Hitler dead in early 1945, but lacked real means (and possibly courage) to kill him. However I think Speer managed to save some lives (or atleast some infrastructure) as he was still alive as armament minister... and not dead by failed assasination attemp.
    Still, the irony would have been so delicious;
    Imagine the headline- "Hitler and entire entourage killed in a sealed bunker by the same Zyklon B that was used in the Death Camps"

    Apparently, there is a limit to the amount of poetry that this world can handle.

    Leave a comment:


  • craven
    replied
    If Hitler is assasinated who becomes the leader of Germany? I am not sure the regular German army would just tow the line as they did with Hitler with someone they did not find acceptable and by this time they were not to thrilled with most of the Nazi higher ups. I am thinking Germany could of pulled off a negotiated surrender that still leads to there occupation but with less Soviet control of Eastern Europe. Churchill would of been very supportive of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Magister
    replied
    Killing Hitler in July 1944 would not insure that moderate Germans would take control. Hitler certainly had a fanatical following and there were those that, while not fanatical, understood that their fortunes, and lives, were tied to his. Assuming that the German moderates prevailed, it remained to be seen if they would surrender unconditionally. The war against Japan lasted as long as it did because of their unwillingness to surrender unconditionally. I believe the Germans would have had a similar unwillingness. After all, it was the German government that replaced the Kaiser in 1918 that agreed to the armistice on the terms dictated by the Allies which gave rise to the notion that the German army was somehow betrayed. Never mind that they were in retreat on the western front. A moderate post-Hitler government would have been mindful of this and may have held out for better terms.

    Leave a comment:


  • vonVillemar
    replied
    Originally posted by Sign&Print Name View Post
    What surprised me was that Armaments Minister Albert Speer plotted to kill Hitler towards the end of the war. With the Allies closing in on Germany from both sides, Hitler planned a scorched earth policy that would affect Germany itself. Speer thought this was abhorrent and began to plot against Hitler. One option was to drop Tabun-a nerve agent down the air vent of Hitler's Berlin bunker. The whole plot was revealed to an Allied interrogator by an associate of Speer's. Which is probably why Speer was spared the death penalty after the Nuremburg trials, never mind him telling Goering to go fly a kite and apologising for his actions as Armaments Minister.
    I watched a serie in which children of Albert Speer and historians thought that the there never was the "plan". It was invented by Speer during Nuremburg trials to save his own neck... and it worked!
    I think it's very likely that Speer wanted Hitler dead in early 1945, but lacked real means (and possibly courage) to kill him. However I think Speer managed to save some lives (or atleast some infrastructure) as he was still alive as armament minister... and not dead by failed assasination attemp.

    Leave a comment:


  • Carl Schwamberg
    replied
    Originally posted by apteryx View Post
    I'm not sure that the holocaust was part of the equation then - hence nothing to forget - I grew up in a holocaust world in the sense that it wasn't pushed. It seems to be a relatively recent (post '67) concern.
    It was understood then. The national leaders had accquired a sense of what was actually going on. British spies operating thru Sweden and Spain had obtained some documentation. Over several years the Gestapo and SS had sent enough messages by radio for the British ULTRA analysts to confirm many details. It was also difficult to dismiss every story originating in the USSR as communist propaganda. Particularly when British or US liasion or diplomatic personnel witnessed the aftermath of the event.

    The average American or Brit did not have a clear picture of the death camps. But the general idea of the nazis or the European Facists as being bad news for many ethinic groups was grasped. Since the 1930s refugees from many targeted groups, in addition to Jews, had been relating their storys of how hundreds of thousands of people had vanished 'into the Night and Fog' of the police state. US businessmen returning from Europe before 1941 had their share of stories how their business contacts or employees had been first abused by the racial laws and then disappeared. "Gangsters" were a common term used by Americans to describe the nazis or German leaders in the years before Germany was overrun. This seems to have represented the idea that the nazis or Facists were a larger version of a Chicago gang that had taken over Europe. A amoral group who murdered and stole on a larger scale. The realitiy of the death camps and forced labor system was a shock more from the scale and intensity. A general sense of the abusve nature of the nazis and the nature of their police state existed before 1944.

    When I was a child back in the 1950s & 60s the term Holocoaust was not used. "Hilters Roundup" or "Deportation" were a couple of the terms I remember. When the term Holocouast came into vogue in the 1970s the character of the way people viewed those events changed as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daemon of Decay
    replied
    Originally posted by Carl Schwamberg View Post
    The Unconditional Surrender policy was aimed at Facism in general, it applied to Italy and Japan as well, and to German militarism specifically. It was not aimed at Hitler personally. While hitler was recognized as the key German leader there was not the same obssesion with him as these days. The Allied leaders accepted the Unconditional Surrender policy as a key part of the foundation of establishing some sort of future peace globally. They were recalling how the half measures and failures of the Versailles Treaty represented a larger failure to suppress militarism in Europe twentyfive years earlier.
    But it was also accepted by the Allies and Soviets because both sides feared that the other would seek a seperate peace with the Nazis. Stalin was always paranoid that the US and British were letting the Germans weaken and destroy the USSR before they would sweep in and defeat both/join with the Germans against communism, or would settle for a negotiated peace.

    Likewise, one of the reasons D-Day was so important for the Allies is that Stalin had been calling for another front in Europe for a while: the Allies feared that the Germans and Soviets would settle for a peace and leave the allies to fight alone.

    Leave a comment:


  • apteryx
    replied
    Originally posted by panzer3 View Post
    Hi,

    As carl rightly points out in his first reply it was not Hitler personally but the Nazi Germany that was fought against. Let us face it - it was 1944 Germany's fall was a question of time and yes - the Allies had agreed they would not stop until Germany's unconditional surrender. So even assuming the plot succeeded and the plotters overcame the whole SS and gestapo super-efficient state apparatus they would have noone to turn to for peace talks. Stalin was on the move and determined to get as far as he could to the heart of Europe - as far west as he could. His war was not just to beat Germany, it was to conquer as large chunk of Europe as he possibly could. He was playing va-banque and would not be stopped. And certainly he would not even think of peace-talking with Germany.

    Even if the Germans tried to negotiate with the Western Allies I think nothing short of unconditional surrender was an offer they could possibly accept. The USA after having been forced into this war were also keen on ensuring world supremacy. With a negotiated peace with Germany that would be very unlikely.

    Even if the Western allies decided to say, 'OK, we forgive the holocaust, and other violence, we do not mind leaving the threat at France's boarder as it was and so on Stalin would only be happy to go on with his conquest of Europe up to the Rhine.

    Regs,

    PIotr
    I'm not sure that the holocaust was part of the equation then - hence nothing to forget - I grew up in a holocaust world in the sense that it wasn't pushed. It seems to be a relatively recent (post '67) concern.

    Leave a comment:


  • BooBoo130
    replied
    Very well put panzer3.

    Leave a comment:


  • panzer3
    replied
    Hitler vs Germany

    Hi,

    As carl rightly points out in his first reply it was not Hitler personally but the Nazi Germany that was fought against. Let us face it - it was 1944 Germany's fall was a question of time and yes - the Allies had agreed they would not stop until Germany's unconditional surrender. So even assuming the plot succeeded and the plotters overcame the whole SS and gestapo super-efficient state apparatus they would have noone to turn to for peace talks. Stalin was on the move and determined to get as far as he could to the heart of Europe - as far west as he could. His war was not just to beat Germany, it was to conquer as large chunk of Europe as he possibly could. He was playing va-banque and would not be stopped. And certainly he would not even think of peace-talking with Germany.

    Even if the Germans tried to negotiate with the Western Allies I think nothing short of unconditional surrender was an offer they could possibly accept. The USA after having been forced into this war were also keen on ensuring world supremacy. With a negotiated peace with Germany that would be very unlikely.

    Even if the Western allies decided to say, 'OK, we forgive the holocaust, and other violence, we do not mind leaving the threat at France's boarder as it was and so on Stalin would only be happy to go on with his conquest of Europe up to the Rhine.

    Regs,

    PIotr

    Leave a comment:


  • piero1971
    replied
    there was a swiss student that tried to assassinate Hitler. he was rehabiitated this year

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Bavaud

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X