"Okay so Hitler is dead...." Topic

Reading up on the attempted assassination and coup, (and ignoring the Tom Cruise movie), I am left thinking the following:

1: The "plan" was for the conspirators/High Command to remove Hitler and the Nazis, from power, declare a new government and request peace terms/sue for peace…

The question I have is "What made them think the Allies would've gone for it?" The allied powers had literally pretty much said "No conditional surrenders"….and I don't think the Russians were so eager to still have a powerful (although less powerful) Germany.

So what was their plan for terms for surrender?…and what were the chances of the Allies accepting it???…

Thanks for any info on the subject….

Probably no chance at all of anything but unconditional surrender. Roosevelt and (perhaps to a lesser extent) Churchill were determined that there would be no later claims of "stabbed in back," etc., as there had been after WW1. Certainly Stalin would have insisted there could be no separate peace with the West only. I don't remember exactly when the Allies agreed upon exactly how they would divide up Germany, but once that was agreed, it was to apply no matter where the fronts were when surrender came. (However, had Stalin gotten even farther west than he did, getting him out again might not have been easy.)

Here, amongst other things, are their goals;

link

As for the chances that the Allies would agree? Nil I'd say.

And what was the #2 point you were thinking?

Desperate men in desperate times will grab at the most tenuous straws. Germany was doomed so why not try to salvage something from the flames. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. And who knew that history would unfold as it has. Perhaps a post-Nazi Germany could have joined the Western Allies and turned on Soviet Russia. It's not "unthinkable" (or maybe it is – Moohaha!).
Rod Robertson.

Likely the German officers in the coup bought in to the idea that the West would recognise that it was in its interests to. have a strong Germany fighting the Russians . They were deluded because the Americans just did not see that the Soviets were an existential threat to the USA. The British were probably more inclined to see Stalin as a threat, but were in no mood for a deal with Germany after the bombing campaign that had killed 50,000 civilians in the UK.
Hitler and Goebbels were also deluded, thinking that the death of Roosevelt would bring to power in the US a govt that would be sympathetic to their anti Jewish policies. Basically the people at the top if Germany were living in a delusion whether they were pro or anti Nazi.

As in most cases, most people likely didn't give a damn.

There could have even been a full on civil war dividing Germany. Just because the conspirators seized power does not mean all the SS units in the field would just roll over and accept it. It was a fanatical movement with zealous followers. There's a reason the Nazi movement gained so much power in the first place before they took over. They would have had support from a not-inconsiderable portion of the civilian population as well. Killing the leaders does not kill the idea.

So, you'd have Germany suddenly collapsing in on itself. It wouldn't be total chaos, but enough co-hesion would be lost that the allies could make significant gains. There would probably be a bit of lag on the part of the Western Allies before they could make good on the opportunity, but the Russians would likely storm through. Within months I could see the Western Allies accepting the surrender from the "Heer" forces in Germany, mostly so they could move in to stop Russia from gobbling up much of Europe.

@Tango, Churchill appreciated the threat, but then he saw the world in nineteenth century terms….so he too was self deluding, it just happens that on Russia he was right. The Americans rolled over to Stalin because they did not see that after the war the world would never be the same. It took a couple of years for the US to fully realise that it could not walk away from the situation and allow Russia a free hand. So when the West should have stood up over Czechoslovakia, Hungary and particularly Poland, the Soviets were allowed to get away with rigging elections and murdering opponents to install puppet regimes..

I think were Hitler dead and the Germans approached the allies with a "Status Quo Antebellum" treaty, there'd be some haggling about reparations but ultimately they'd deal. It might have worked for Napoleon in 1813 too, if he'd ever made that offer.

So Churchill and Roosevelt would simply forget about Tehran and the commitments they made?

Sure …if it was in their interests to do so. I just don't see another German government being able to offer terms in July of 1944 that the western allies would accept. Plus if civil war did break out, the fronts might collapse and Germany's bargaining leverage would have been lost.

No, Roosevelt was not going to leave the Germans any excuse to later say they didn't really lose.

So Churchill and Roosevelt would simply forget about Tehran and the commitments they made?

Well it wouldn't have been the first or last time that happened! And dear old Uncle Joe didn't exactly stick to his end of the bargain either.

The reason I think Both Roosevelt and probably Chuchill would take the Status Quo Antebellum deal is domestic politics. It'd be awful hard to justify to voters any casualties after you'd been offered everything you started the war for and refused it.

I think that by waiting past June 6, 1944 nothing would stop the Allies from unconditional surrender. With troops on the continent the Allies were ready to go all the way. They also wanted the Russians to help in the war against Japan which projected a million casualties or more.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Also, if Hitler had been defeated, Nazi apologists writing today would have had a friggen field day.

Think "good italian bad german" and "good wehrmacht bad SS" is bad? It'd be "good nazi bad hitler"

The reason I think Both Roosevelt and probably Chuchill would take the Status Quo Antebellum deal is domestic politics. It'd be awful hard to justify to voters any casualties after you'd been offered everything you started the war for and refused it.

Quite the opposite. At least in the US, once you have roused the population to all-out war, it is VERY difficult to real them back in with anything less than a complete victory. A vanquished foe keeps the wartime government in power. Anything less is a path to becoming the minority party.

Lewisgunner, I thought everyone, including the US and Canada saw the USSR as a threat? I could be quite wrong on this.

This is the post-war view, but was not at all the view at that time.

The US was shipping arms to the Soviets in vast quantities. Good stuff, too. We pretty much gave them the pick of the crop -- whatever they wanted, we sent. And raw materials. And technical knowledge (like how to produce high-octane aviation gas).

Diplomatically we were not trying to hold the Russians back. Rather we were pushing the Soviets, as our allies, to get IN to the war against Japan as hard as we could.

Those who suggest we might have accepted the Germans' help in facing off against the Soviets (as some prominent Germans thought we might) have/had no sense of the American leadership's perspective at that time. We saw the Soviets as allies, and did all we could to make them stronger and more successful in their war (our war) against the Germans.

Within months I could see the Western Allies accepting the surrender from the "Heer" forces in Germany, mostly so they could move in to stop Russia from gobbling up much of Europe.

The borders of the Soviet zone of occupation vs. the British, US and French zones had all be negotiated at the Tehran conference. There was no purpose or use in rushing forward to accept anyone's surrender. We withdrew from those territories that we had occupied that were slated to be in the Soviet zone, and the Soviets withdrew from territories slated to be in the US, British or French zones. We also turned over to the Red Army any prisoners who surrendered to us who had been fighting against the Soviets, so the German notion of escaping to the west to surrender had little actual value in most cases (although in all the confusion of the final collapse it was certainly possible to get lost in the shuffle).

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

I have fought what-if games between the West and the USSR in the past based on this sort of idea.

I.e. Hitler gets whacked, the Germans collapse in the East while trying to negotiate with just the West, and the incensed USSR makes for the Rhine, encountering both Western and post-Nazi forces in so doing.

Depending IIRC on die rolls, the Reds and Germans always fought each other, the West and Reds might fight each other, and the West and Germans might fight each other with the former likelier to engage than the latter.

A likelier background than any formal political realignment.

Depends. You can never be sure. We didn't insist on unconditional surrender with Japan (we left the Emperor as head of state. Depends on when the coup took place. After France 1940, probably the last chance provided the Generals abolished the Nazi government Could they do that? Hard to do. After 1943 No, in fact the chaos probably would have precipitated a Russian drive tot he channel.

Still you never know.

My gut feeling is that the West would have listened as ending the war would save so many lives. Not sure about the East though as they I think would have insisted on their pound of flesh. Couldn't blame them TBH having heard on various documentaries about the atrocities the Germans inflicted on the Russian population.

Then there is the old concentration camp question as someone would still have had to have been accountable.

I can't see Churchill letting the Germans off with anything but a full surrender.

Certainly no-one in the Allies would have gone for the plotters demands for 1914 borders (ie Greater Germany) which were the terms they were wanting from memory.

That essentially would have been a defeat for the Allies – ie Germany obtaining its primary war aim of annexation of extra lands.

Fundamentally, those involved in the plot to kill Hitler in 44 were not really offering anything other than removal of a cult of personality, they were still demanding huge benefits for Germany. Result – requirement for unconditional surrender would still stand.

Certain cleverer ones with cleaner hands, in terms of Nazi activity, who were in the plot might have been able to bargain their actions into better personal treatment, mitigation or defence at Nuremburg, or positions in the post-war apparatus ie 'we are friendly Germans' – but that's post-surrender issues.

Could make for some interesting wargames though… Heer vs SS.