• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Would WW2 have been over sooner if Hitler had been assassinated?

#1
Seen some commentary that the Allies did not want him killed as he made some catastrophic decisions, notably on the Eastern Front.

If he'd been assassinated, more able Generals would have made life much harder for the Allies.

Thoughts?
 
#2
Sounds plausible. Just been reading about how the Mujahideen in the 80s were told to hold off assassinating the then Afghan Minister of the Interior because his tribal affiliation meant that there was constant friction with a particular other tribe. Getting rid of him would have allowed a deputy from the other tribe taking over and thus unifying the Ministry.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
Seen some commentary that the Allies did not want him killed as he made some catastrophic decisions, notably on the Eastern Front.

If he'd been assassinated, more able Generals would have made life much harder for the Allies.

Thoughts?
SOE actually did have an assassination plot at a serious stage of planning. It involved a sniper taking out Hitler as he took an exercise walk at Berchtesgaden.

The flip side to having Hitler assassinated would have been that it released the German generals from their oath to him. At that point they might have seized power (think the July 20th plot) and made a peace well before 1945.

Wordsmith

As a PS: Hitler's replacement was widely expected to be Himmler. If Himmler had seized power he probably have made even worse decisions. Just look at his brief spell in command of part of the eastern front in 1945.
 
#6
His death and replacement by others could also have split the Allies, say a peace was brokered in the West allowing Germany to concentrate entirely on the Eastern Front. Hitler's survival ensured total defeat and unconditional surrender.
 
#7
His death and replacement by others could also have split the Allies, say a peace was brokered in the West allowing Germany to concentrate entirely on the Eastern Front. Hitler's survival ensured total defeat and unconditional surrender.
Can't see either Churchill or (possibly even moreso) FDR being much swayed unless there was a serious change of political direction as well as leadership. Whether their positions as leaders would have remained tenable if they refused a peace opportunity though is a different thing.
 
#8
Can't see either Churchill or (possibly even moreso) FDR being much swayed unless there was a serious change of political direction as well as leadership. Whether their positions as leaders would have remained tenable if they refused a peace opportunity though is a different thing.
Agreed; just blue sky thinking, but I wanted to show there were strategic reasons from an Allied pov for Hitler not to be removed.
 
#9
He was getting the upper hand at Kursk wasn't he, until the allies landed in Italy and Hitler decided to divert forces away to tackle that? If he hadn't been making the decisions there then maybe it would have been a different outcome in Russia, but anyway, luckily he was a tit!
 
#10
The war was over long before the Battle of Kursk, it was basicly over when they failed to take Moscow which they could have done had Hitler listened to his Generals.

He had some wonderful military leaders at his disposal, thank **** he didnt use them properly or we would all be speaking German now.
 
#11
SOE actually did have an assassination plot at a serious stage of planning. It involved a sniper taking out Hitler as he took an exercise walk at Berchtesgaden.

The flip side to having Hitler assassinated would have been that it released the German generals from their oath to him. At that point they might have seized power (think the July 20th plot) and made a peace well before 1945.
An assassination could have lead also led to a (brief) civil war between various German factions too.



As a PS: Hitler's replacement was widely expected to be Himmler. If Himmler had seized power he probably have made even worse decisions. Just look at his brief spell in command of part of the eastern front in 1945.
Yes he wasn't exactly a success as a field commander:

QI Talk Forum | View topic - Heinrich Himmler

Fondly believing that he had a talent for military command, in 1944 Himmler accepted the position of commander of the Heeresgruppe Oberrhein, or Army Group Upper Rhine, to defend against the advancing Americans and French in the Alsace. His effectiveness can be measured by the fact that the group effectively collapsed after expending its strength on futile counter-attacks which appeared to have been launched to show small tactical successes, but ended up as a strategic disaster.

Before he was blamed for this, however, Himmler was transfered to the Eastern Front to command another army group, Army Group Vistula, this time against the advancing Red Army. Speculation has it that the move was a result of jealous political rivals who knew that he would fail, and were thus looking to discredit him and devalue his political capital. In any case, the command showed his ineptness and Himmler took himself off to a sanitorium where he claimed illness and resigned his position as army group commander.
 
#12
His repeated refusal to countenance tactical retreats in the east certainly doomed hundreds of thousands of his soldiers to die in so-called 'fortresses' or as slave-labourers in the gulag. He also placed far too much faith in high tech 'vengeance' weapons to the detriment of producing sufficient quantities of reliable, effective weaponry that could stand up against the T-34's in the east and the P-51's in the west.
 
#13
If Manstein or Guderian had been overall in charge in the East , Kesselring had been running the Luftwaffe
with Speer I/C German war industry in 1943 I reckon the Allies might have had to sue for terms in about in 1950 , as the Yanks would have got bored and we would have been seriously depleted of manpower .
Me262's would have blown US bombers out of the sky .
Arado bombers would have bombed the crap out of the South coast ports .
Fluid defence in depth would have kept the Russians at bay in the East for years .
Improved German U boats would have carried on inflicting horrific losses .
Properly supplied , Rommel might never have lost North Africa .
Scary .
 
#14
If Manstein or Guderian had been overall in charge in the East , Kesselring had been running the Luftwaffe
with Speer I/C German war industry in 1943 I reckon the Allies might have had to sue for terms in about in 1950 , as the Yanks would have got bored and we would have been seriously depleted of manpower .
Me262's would have blown US bombers out of the sky .
Arado bombers would have bombed the crap out of the South coast ports .
Fluid defence in depth would have kept the Russians at bay in the East for years .
Improved German U boats would have carried on inflicting horrific losses .
Properly supplied , Rommel might never have lost North Africa .
Scary .
Two words.

Manhattan Project.

All the what ifs about WWII, at least those that don't end it sooner than 1945, come down to who would have developed a viable A-Bomb first.

And the Jerries were headed rapidly in the wrong direction.
 
#15
Two words.

Manhattan Project.

All the what ifs about WWII, at least those that don't end it sooner than 1945, come down to who would have developed a viable A-Bomb first.

And the Jerries were headed rapidly in the wrong direction.
To add to that, could the Germans produce enough synthetic fuel to power all these jets and submarines? Did they have the mineral resources to produce the metals needed in construction of lots of jet engines? (I recall this being a problem even with the limited amount of engines produced).
 
#16
And what of the "Nazi bell", I was reading about that last week and despite it being used as a plotline for various fictional sci fi/horror films, it was supposedly real and was likely being used to develop nuclear weapons. It's scary how close they actually came to having them, and what happened to the bell after the war?
 
#17
Two words.

Manhattan Project.

All the what ifs about WWII, at least those that don't end it sooner than 1945, come down to who would have developed a viable A-Bomb first.

And the Jerries were headed rapidly in the wrong direction.


If the Germans had still been fighting in August 1945, Thomas W. Ferebee would have dropped Little Boy on the IP at the Brandenburg Gate.

People tend to forget the atomic bombs and B-29's were originally intended to hit Germany.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#18
If Manstein or Guderian had been overall in charge in the East , Kesselring had been running the Luftwaffe with Speer I/C German war industry in 1943 I reckon the Allies might have had to sue for terms in about in 1950 , as the Yanks would have got bored and we would have been seriously depleted of manpower.
I've always thought that the Russians had 'critical mass' after Kursk. From that point the Germans never had enough manpower or resources to stop the Russian steamroller - even with someone like Manstien in overall charge. The German qualitative edge had also been eroded by that time - for example, the T34 was a superb tank and being produced in far greater quantities than the Panther or Tiger. The best that could have happened is that the Germans could have staved off defeat for another year or two.

Me262's would have blown US bombers out of the sky.
But the Germans already had prototyped Wasserfall (a radio controlled ground to air missile) that could have decimated the American bombers. Like many other weapons, they didn't concentrate their science on the right projects.

Arado bombers would have bombed the crap out of the South coast ports.
By that time the defences had proximity fuses on AA shells. Add radar into that mix and I think the Arado's would have paid a heavy price.

Improved German U boats would have carried on inflicting horrific losses.
There were significant technical problems with the Walther U-boats and they didn't come into service until 1945. The allies were seriously (and rightly) worried about their capabilities as the new U-boats could outrun (underwater) many of the convoy escorts. The RN had actually practised against a sub converted to mimic a Walther boat and knew the only way they could kill it was to hunt it to exhaustion by swamping the area with large numbers of surface and air assets.

Properly supplied , Rommel might never have lost North Africa.
The Germans lost North Africa in early 1943, significantly before any realistic opportunity to assassinate Hitler.

Wordsmith
 
#19
To add to that, could the Germans produce enough synthetic fuel to power all these jets and submarines? Did they have the mineral resources to produce the metals needed in construction of lots of jet engines? (I recall this being a problem even with the limited amount of engines produced).
On the fuel front, they'd probably have managed okay if they had controlled North Africa.

As far as the Me262 & Ar234 go though... The serviceability rate was absolutely crippling.

By about late '47 (assuming wartime production rates) they'd have been looking at intercepting B-36s.... Maybe a year or 18 months later they might have to catch the odd B-47. Any one of which could have a Little Boy aboard.
 
#20
And what of the "Nazi bell", I was reading about that last week and despite it being used as a plotline for various fictional sci fi/horror films, it was supposedly real and was likely being used to develop nuclear weapons. It's scary how close they actually came to having them, and what happened to the bell after the war?
"Supposedly real?" Does any serious scientist believe it existed?
 

Latest Threads

New Posts