"What if Rommel had succeeded in arresting Hitler?" Topic

Interesting question…

link

Armand

Hopefully the Germans would have surrendered. Thousands of lives would have been saved, just from the stopping of the strategic bombing campaign. There's also a lot of historical artefacts that were destroyed by the bombing of Potsdam, Dresden, Darmstadt, etc, that would (hopefully) have survived.

The big question is whether the Soviets would have accepted the surrender, or whether they try to grab as much more of Europe as they could.

Deputy Fuhrer Goering takes over, everyone who ever spoke to Rommel in the previous two years is arrested. The SS attacks and take Hitler back and Rommel is killed in the attack.
The war goes on and history has a footnote.
Bunkermeister

Hitler might not survive the rescue.
Goering is a tad more competent than Hitler, and would gladly take over.
How do you say "That's a shame" in German?

'Der Fuhrer ist todt? Schade!'

Thanks

Armand

I am not up on all the details of plans and movements of the principals at this time -- and this is all so much hypothetical -- but my guess is that the best Rommel might have achieved is something like what happened to Germany in 1918 when the Kaiser abruptly fell. The ruling party in Germany collapses, civil strife breaks out to a degree, and an armistice or general surrender is achieved and then terms might be thrashed out later. But like as not, no -- the Anglo-Allies honor their commitments to Stalin and insist on unconditional surrender and Rommel -- if he is truly in control -- has no choice but to acquiesce. Germany still faces occupation, division as already hammered out among the Allies -- but at least millions of deaths are prevented, military and civilian, on all sides, destruction in Central Europe is lessened, perhaps some post-war border arrangements are modified and some of the European civilian resettlements/removals are not as severe.

It would have been a good thing, surely? However it played out, the human cost must have been lessened. Historians note how the death toll from summer 1944 thru the middle of 1945 was as bad as many other periods of the war combined.

And fly into a new war against the USSR by Great Britain and the USA at this point? Sheer nonsense. No one in any position of authority or decision making in the West (I'm not counting crackpot military men) desired a new war against the Soviets. Even the Soviets did not want a new war by that point. Stalin wanted time to absorb and digest his victory booty, not fight the Anglo-Allies (and Germans again?).

By the way, this is the very first time I have read that Rommel was "actively involved" in the plot. Up until now, I thought he was merely "aware" of the plot.
I'm not inclined to believe the premise, except under the vague premise that "It's on the internet, so it has to be true." My BS sensors are twitching.

People today assume the agenda of anti-Hitler plotters was different than it actually was. Sure there was a core of people who thought Germany never should have expanded beyond its Versailles borders, or perhaps thought they should have stopped with Austria. The larger component though initially hailed expansion, and were willing to accommodate Hitler if he could achieve it. They turned against Hitler when signs started appearing that Germany would lose the war on the Eastern Front. They were driven by a cynical belief that a more favorable result could be achieved without Hitler than with him.

If the power change is accomplished in a way that left the German military intact holding the lines they held in early to mid-1944 I don't see the new leadership drawn from the second group as being willing to abandon German gains since 1938 and submit to demobilization and at least partial occupation. So long as the Allies remain united I don't see them willing to accept less. So the war goes on with Germany under new leadership.

The alternative would be that the coup would plunge Germany into chaos and the German front lines would collapse like the Russians did in 1917. At this point it would become a foot race, with the Soviets better positioned to take advantage of it than the Western Allies.

Just my two cents.

I agree. Removing Hitler at that stage would have been too little too late.

If Hitler is killed and Germany collapses in July or early August 1944, then Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. never dies in that airplane explosion while on that secret dangerous mission of his, and is elected the first Catholic President in, oh, say 1960!

Among other things….

Imho… no way in 1944 the Germans surrender to the Soviets… they know what that meant for their relatives at home…

Moving troops from West to East ceding ground to the Allies until the German border … maybe.

Holding on to that frontier without an Ardennes offensive and fighting to the death against the Russians … maybe.

Of course with Rommel at the head… a much more difficult fight for the Allies.

Armand

Rommel most probably knew nothing of the plot and probably would not have supported it.

Also – removing Hitler may have prolonged the war and many of his diktats were wrong tactically and strategically.

Rommel was a far more enthusiastic Nazi than the post war revisionists would have us believe and a far less effective battlefield commander than commonly thought.

We've had these debates before but a lot of evidence is out there now that contradicts many of the commonly held notions.