Military History buffs !

[Mr Moore]

I suspect there is a few military history buffs on this site, so I thought Id throw a hot potato in the air, catch.
WWII question.

This question has played on my mind for ages.

Hitler, as shown by his decision to invade Russia on the first day of summer, was a detriment to German strategy. This is demonstrated even better by his insistence that his armies be destroyed rather than withdraw later in the war.

So...

If Hitler had been " taken care of " in the 1944 July 20 plot, would that of changed the outcome for Germany in any major way.
By that I mean, I wonder if any major established German counter defence could of been made with what was left in the East and maybe any desperate deals that could of been struck with the west, bearing in mind Churchill was backed into a corner with appeasing Stalin and also, I for one suspect our war cabinet by then may of wanted a complete and absolute victory, knowing Germany was on her knees.

[deltawhisky]

Mr Moore,

Interesting counterfactual. So, if I am not mistaken, you are asking whether the outcome for Germany would have changed much, had Hitler been taken out of the equation.

I think one needs to consider the balance of power in order to think through this. Which actors were wielding and yielding the main power in this situation?

Was Churchill backed into a corner? Or was he making a rational decision to grant Stalin a level of freedom in establishing a strong hold over the Eastern Bloc?

Also, if the German leader had been taken out of the political equation, it is likely, 'imo', that the second and third in command would have immediately entered the equation and taken hold of the strategic situation.

I don't personally know what sort of underground rebels there were in Germany at this time. Was there a movement similar to the French resistance, in WW2?

I am not an expert in this field of politics, absolutely not, but you've certainly got me thinking. Interested to hear what yourself and others think.

Deltawhisky

[Son of Cigarsmoke]

I think the job would have been a lot harder for the allies if the German army was being controlled by officers who actualy knew what they were doing.

[Giulio]

I think the reaction of the allies would have been it did not make any difference as some of Hitler's underlings were scarier than Hitler...Goring his offical successor would maybe have tried to save his own skin and push for a quick end to the war, maybe concentrating on attempts to split the allies through diplomacy. If somehow a non-Nazi government got in with say popular Rommel giving them backing. If such a government agreed to renounce all operations and withdraw from occupied territories it might have been possible to hold off the allies for a lot longer

I think it would have been very difficult fot the allies to continue bombing Germany when it was know that the new leadership of Germany wanted to end the war.

Whatever happened the USA and USSR would be left as super powers with Europe very weak ....Roosevelt was comfortable with this but Churchill the wise man he was knew that Germany was needed in a suitable reconsituted way to allow europe to hold power in the region..

I like history by the way

[Deano]

Germany tried to split the Allies with 'diplomacy' in a multitude of ways when Hitler was alive and after too.

But as you say, Churchill knew a strong Germany was needed to keep the eastern super power out as much as possible.

[Mr Moore]

Great posts lads, interesting points, I wonder why [ I forget his name ], landed in Scotland tto broker a deal, under who's orders, and more importantly, why was he hidden away and brushed under the carpet by Churchill, when you would of thought it would of been a great politcal point score to air to the world and such a kick in the guts to German morale.

I always wonder why Churchill and the allies in general were so slow to react to what Stalins aims were after Germany fell and why the Americans stopped short of Berlin ?
The soviet advance to Berlin was virtually unopposed by Europe and America, Eisenhower in an effort to avoid diplomatic complexities, concentrated our forces in wiping out small factions of what was left of the German army whilst Stalin marched into the capital of Central Europe.
Apparently Churchill urged Eisenhower on to berlin, but to no avail.
Why was this not percieved by the western allies as early as say 1943.

Could it be that Eisenhower just wanted a quick end to the European theatre of war to concentrate on more pressing issues, if this is the case, the outcome of Operation Market Garden must surely have been a failure, unless you class as aiding Communist Russia into the heart of Europe as a viable outcome, but why did it take our Winston so long to figure it out.
You may think, so what, rash judgements and quick descisions are made in the heat of the moment, but really, come on, the war was over and the allies knew this, so after some point after Operation Market Garden was concieved, a descision was made to allow Russia a chunk of Europe and judging by Churchills late but pleading call to Eisenhower to get to Berlin, he must not of know of this descision.

You know in the West the Germans were running in flocks to the Americans, expecting to march along side to the defence of Germany against the Soviet invasion.
Im not saying that was very clever of them, but such was the obvious conclusion to the whole of Europe if Russia was to reach the hub of the continent that even the German soldiers could see it.

Apologies for the spelling errors, I got carried away.

[Mr Moore]

Im not anti Russian by the way, if there are any Russians on this forum.

I think Rommel was the only German in the entire Wiermach [ excuse spelling ] that recieved any recognition by Churchill.
I think he called him a gentleman, along with some other praises.

[celsis]

I suspect there is a few military history buffs on this site, so I thought Id throw a hot potato in the air, catch.
WWII question.

This question has played on my mind for ages.

Hitler, as shown by his decision to invade Russia on the first day of summer, was a detriment to German strategy. This is demonstrated even better by his insistence that his armies be destroyed rather than withdraw later in the war.

So...

If Hitler had been " taken care of " in the 1944 July 20 plot, would that of changed the outcome for Germany in any major way.
By that I mean, I wonder if any major established German counter defence could of been made with what was left in the East and maybe any desperate deals that could of been struck with the west, bearing in mind Churchill was backed into a corner with appeasing Stalin and also, I for one suspect our war cabinet by then may of wanted a complete and absolute victory, knowing Germany was on her knees.

In July 1944, Himmler was straining at the leash for a last stand against the Russians. G?ring had been written off after Stalingrad and the Wehrmacht generals were well aware the end was coming soon.

Would he end of the war have been hastened if Hitler had died? Hard to say. Churchill was insisting on unconditional surrender and there is no way the Germans would have acceeded to that while the Russians were moving towards the Reich.

Trying to get into Churchill's mind is hard as he was a contrary sob. I prefer to think that he saw Russia as a bigger threat by then than the Nazis and he was agreeable to conceeding eastern European territories in order to satisfy Stalins lust for land. Make no mistake, if Hitler had died and the Allies had teamed up with the Axis forces against the Russians, the war would've lasted another two or three years and probably would've been fought to a stalemate.

Also, if a peace had been accepted by the allies, this would have given the Nazis time to clean up their, shall we say, indiscretions, in eastern Europe.

Personally, I feel that the death of Hitler would not have any effect on shortening the war had the Nazis not surrendered unconditionally. D Day had been a success and the allies were slowly moving across Europe and the Germans were in retreat. If you couple that with the fact that the Nazis had to do something about the camps before any surrender, I doubt there would've been a surrender.

Remember that by July 1944, Germany itself was under threat and the Germans have a great feeling for "Heimat" or homeland. After the humiliation of Versailles in 1918, I doubt that an unconditional surrender would have been forthcoming while the "heimat" was under threat.

To finish, had there been a surrender or a pact, Naziism would have survived, That, in itself, was a good reaon to prosecute the war to its logical conclusion.

[TJ:01]

Got to say I think the colours were nailed to the mast in this situation. A fascinating topic though with lots of 'what ifs' for history buffs. By July 1944 I feel it would have been too late for Germany - disposing of Hitler probably would have quickened the end to the war. Also don't forget relations with the Russians didn't really sour until Truman took over the US presidency in 1945 - partly due to the new US administration having a distrust. In fact Churchill commented that when America told Stalin they had a nuclear bomb to use on Japan that he didn't think Stalin even realised what he'd been told because of the way it was put to him.

[yankeefan]

great posts guys, but as stated earlier germany may have put up a tougher fight if the generals on the ground would have been listened to as opposed to hitler. as it was they were tough to handle. as any veteran of that conflick will attest to.

[Mr Moore]

Agreed.
And not only the generals, the whole German machine was well oiled for military conquest. The backstaff of the country brimmed with new concepts to war, doctrines and technological advances. Blitzkrieg, bieng one of the more famous concepts of strategy.
Its probably safe to assume that the modern army of today and warfare in general has roots set firmly in the German army of the last world war.

The Waffen SS was another example of a soldiering role that had changed, and I'm not talking of the war crimes that were committed by other groups that were not assigned to regular divisions.

The Germans had advanced scouts in all units. Their military developed and defined airborne tactics. All other paratroop were patterned after German example. They were inserted in places where regular army couldn't be readily deployed, or where massive firepower by small units could suppress and destroy. There was also an OSS type organization responsible for clandestine operations in neutrals, such as Sweden, Switzerland, Africa, South America, and Middle-east.

Obviously the first British SAS units that did come after was on a par with Germanys new elite forces, but its still amazing how militarily and industrialy advanced Germany was at the end of the 1930's, and more importantly, how bloody fast they devloped in those short years
after WW 1

All this said, you can never take Russia out of the equation, even If things had gone politicaly different for Germany early on in the war.

He is not the first man to take on Russia in Russia.
Napoleons great military force also withered to nothing on the baron steepes of Russia.

[deltawhisky]

Very interesting indeed. One thing I agree on with all the posts is the significance of Russia. The later stages of WW2, and the further years, were characterised by the big S word - the Superpowers.

The political world was shaped by the power of Russia, DE and UK. And the superpowers were not just influential in shaping the military-strategic situation - remember the power of their industrial and growing economic might. It was these years and decades to come that have shaped, and are still shaping, the world as it is today.

(Over-Use of shape / shaped / shaping, for which I apologise).

[celsis]

Very interesting indeed. One thing I agree on with all the posts is the significance of Russia. The later stages of WW2, and the further years, were characterised by the big S word - the Superpowers.

The political world was shaped by the power of Russia, DE and UK. And the superpowers were not just influential in shaping the military-strategic situation - remember the power of their industrial and growing economic might. It was these years and decades to come that have shaped, and are still shaping, the world as it is today.

(Over-Use of shape / shaped / shaping, for which I apologise).

I honestly think we are heading for smaller states with more strategic alliances. The days of superpowers are coming to an end with the start of peak oil. Soon, it will be impossible to transport thousands of soldiers anywhere and the alternative will be 'keep it local' or nuke everyone/thing!

On the laternative side is the fact there must be hundreds of scientists beavering away in a mountain somewhere, looking for an alternative to crude oil. If they don't find it, the Itlaians may, once again, become a superpower!

[deltawhisky]

Who knows whether the era of the alliance is going to return. Is it not already doing so with more contemporary alliances and associations between states, such as NATO?

The modern era is going to be about adaptability to change. Moving away from oil might not necessarily mean moving away from superpower-dom --- but I deffo see your point, Mr Celsis.

There is currently a tonne and a half of research about resources such as oil, and them running out and cheesing nation states off. Have a think about these two options --

a) scarcity is leading to conflict, leading to alliances etc

b) scarcity and other green issues are leading to cooperation and communication between states.

Interesting stuff! Light a stick and have a good ol' think!

[celsis]

Who knows whether the era of the alliance is going to return. Is it not already doing so with more contemporary alliances and associations between states, such as NATO?

The modern era is going to be about adaptability to change. Moving away from oil might not necessarily mean moving away from superpower-dom --- but I deffo see your point, Mr Celsis.

There is currently a tonne and a half of research about resources such as oil, and them running out and cheesing nation states off. Have a think about these two options --

a) scarcity is leading to conflict, leading to alliances etc

b) scarcity and other green issues are leading to cooperation and communication between states.

Interesting stuff! Light a stick and have a good ol' think!

I think the problem with NATO is that most people see it as being controlled by the US. The UK is a (very) junior partner. The UK aren't even allowed to fire their very expensive nukes wthout the double key possessed by the US!

Nope, I still think that the US and Russia will continue to be the big players but that smaller nations will conceive alliances to counter their influences.

As a world power, the UK is finished and as soon the politicians figure that out, the better off we'll all be.