if hitler was overthrown




 
--
 
April 20th, 2005  
behemoth79
 
 

Topic: if hitler was overthrown


Do you guys think WWII would have ended any differently should Rommel and his friends have been successful in their coup against hitler? or was it too late?
April 20th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
The war almost certainly would have ended in July 1944 for Germany, at least on the Western Front. The Eastern Front however was a lot less certain as by that time the Soviets had the Germans on the run.
April 20th, 2005  
Farseer
 
It would have depended who would have become next leader of Germany. Most probably Stalin would never have accepted peace because he had his chance to take all of Eastern Europe under his grasp. Western Allies would have negotiated peace with such harsh terms, but I think that they were mainly tied with Stalin because their (foolisg?) declaration that they will demand unconditional surrender from the Axis.

If someone like Rommel, person with great reputation in Germany would have risen into power with able goverment (like Speer was thought to remain as minister of armaments, Manstein becoming Head of Staff) it could have even make German situation much more easier. With still having most of it allies fighting at her side situation could have given chance for some stand-off battles.

Still is it more likely that it would have strive Germany into Civil War or at least let some of her allies chance to make peace with the Allies. Then it would have been only matter of time when all fronts would collapse.
--
April 20th, 2005  
Zucchini
 
You still would have the Nazi party.

I don't think the war would have ended immediately. An essentially unconditional surrender would have been rejected by German hardliners. Those guys always seem to insist upon getting their brains bashed in before wising up.
April 20th, 2005  
behemoth79
 
 
i feel that if the leader of Germany was smarter in a military sense (like Rommel) from the beginning, Germany would have won. The German defeat wasnt caused by Allied successes but morely on mistakes made by Hitler. Dunkirk and the early and rapid invasion of Russia being a few examples. Hitler was a great politician but he should have let his generals do the fighting. So if Hitler was overthrown by Rommel, i think it would have helped out the German cause and they might have even pulled off a victory even that late in the War.
April 20th, 2005  
Zucchini
 
There is no way.

The Germans were going down. People underestimate how good the Russians were at the outset, and how fast they were getting better.

And the same is true of the Americans.

When the Japanese asked the Germans how to repel an American invasion the Germans responded that it was impossible to repel an American invasion.
April 20th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
I agree that the Germans as much lost the war as the Allies won it. If Germany had done several things differently they could have won the war, including defeating the Soviet Union. By 1944 though there was no way whatsoever for Germany to win and I'm fairly certain that had Hitler died Stalin would have kept on coming regardless. I'm less certain about the Western Allies and I'm fairly sure some deal could have been worked out had Hitler and the Nazi Party been no longer in power.
April 20th, 2005  
Zucchini
 
Japan avoided invasion of most of their country, but they definitely did not get anything in the surrender in terms of survival for their military as a viable entity, which is one of the things the hardliners were pushing hard to get.

The US would have kept right on hammering if they had not given their military up entirely.

I don't think they would have accepted less from the Germans.
April 20th, 2005  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zucchini
Japan avoided invasion of most of their country, but they definitely did not get anything in the surrender in terms of survival for their military as a viable entity, which is one of the things the hardliners were pushing hard to get.

The US would have kept right on hammering if they had not given their military up entirely.

I don't think they would have accepted less from the Germans.
See the thing is though that the Germans never attacked the US, so there was no personal 'revenge' factor as there was most certainly was after Pearl Harbor. The Americans were in Europe to defeat Nazi Germany. If Hitler had been killed and the Nazis overthrown I think it would have made a BIG difference to the Western Allies. For the USSR on the other hand it most definitely WAS personal and that is the key difference between the US and the USSR. With the Pacific Theatre still raging I think the US might have accepted a conditional surrender from Germany, providing the terms were right. The BIG sticking point to this would be how it would look to the Soviets. It might seem like a betrayal to them and the Western Allies would have to decide whether it was worth the risk of alienating the USSR. With hindsight it would have been given the Cold War that happened after WW2 had ended.
April 21st, 2005  
Damien435
 
 
My understanding is that all the way back in 1942 the allies had decided to settle for nothing short of an unconditional surrender from Germany, Hitler I believe was determined to hold out as long as possible, this being why he continually pulled troops off the eastern front and put them on the western front, to slow down the allies. His theory was that it was 2500 miles to the eastern front and only 500 miles from Normandy to the Rhine (or is it Berlin?) so he could afford to place fewer troops on the eastern front and still hold out. (Of course he also thought that FDR's death was a sign that victory for Germany was imminent.) Had Hitler been overthrown I believe the people who overthrown him would have made a deal with the western allies (Britain and America). Germany would surrender to the western allies under the condition that they (US and GB) would not allow any parts of Germany to fall under the control of the communists. Stalin was after all considered to be the enemy in the 1930's, not Hitler.