Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist passes...

[Larry Gude]

Ewald-Heinrich von Kleist, conspirator in plot to kill Hitler, dies - The Washington Post

the last known surviving conspirator of Operation Valkyrie, the 1944 assassination plot that failed to kill Adolf Hitler but became a celebrated episode of German resistance during World War II, died March 8 at his home in Munich. He was 90.

This sparked a debate in one of my other forums about what it would have meant had Hitler been assassinated in the Valkyrie plot. Some seem sure it would have ended the war quickly, saved Germany from obliteration having shown that Germany was the victim of a single madman.

This, of course, set me to thinking about the practical application of assassinations throughout history; what were the desired results and what actually followed?

So, a list of 'great' assassinations? Lincoln, Caesar, JFK.

Booth killed Lincoln hoping it would avenge the South. it ended up harming the South perhaps even more than the loss of the war did. Lincoln, contrary to desires of pop culture, was no abolitionist and certainly not a raving one. He had no hatred for the South or her people. What he was was a Union man and his sole desire was to save it and to that end, that was his motivation to fight the war; restoration, period. Not subjugation, not even to end slavery. That simply became a means to an end.

However, there were lots and lots of hardcore abolitionists in the North, tough willed men of power who meant ill to the South and not just the end of slavery but, punishment and even subjugation of the people.

Lincoln wanted a hard war to get it over with and he wanted a soft peace. His death ended any hope of that.

I know far less about Julius Caesar but, I do know he was assassinated in hopes of saving Rome. His death was soon followed by the end of the Roman Empire.

As for JFK, here it gets murky in terms of motives. If you believe in the conspiracies, the military/industrial complex got it's wish; war in Southeast Asia. If you believe the mob did it. I guess they could call it a win as well. If you accept the truth, Oswald was acting on his desire to protect Castro, you could call that a win, too.

Now, as for me, the downside of JFK's death was the implementation of one of the worst ideas, ever; the Great Society. This is where black folks came under direct fire of the laws of unintended consequences as directed by the tender mercies of the federal government, an entity neither designed for nor capable of, social engineering on an individual level. LBJ got it passed but, it was JFK's baby and he was getting nowhere with it. His death provided the emotional energy to git her done.

Now, as to Hitler, I don't think his death would have changed much. This was July of '44, post D day, post Kursk. It's one thing to kill him in, say, January of '43 before Kursk, taking much of the air out of the balloon in terms of Soviet massing and desire to win. After Kursk, to me, all bets were off. You're not going to stop someone who knows they have the winning hand by making deals to split the pot.

Same thing with D day. After we were ashore, that was it. We weren't about to stop because we knew we had a winning hand and knew the Russians did, too so, at that point, it was as much a desire to beat Germany as it was to limit Soviet gains.

Add to this that, in my view, Germany was not held captive by ONE man. While I certainly don't ascribe devout Nazi-ism to ALL Germans, your participation and guilt is only mitigated so much based on your level of enthusiasm. There were plenty of folks at the levers of power nearly as committed as Hitler, some perhaps more so. Plenty with enough intelligence to understand the principles of hanging together or hanging apart.

So, while we can give 'ol von a pat on the back for at least thinking about it, A, he failed and B, to me, the time to act was long past.

Thoughts? On Hitler? Assassinations? Intentions? Results?

 

[Pushrod]

I believe that the war would have been negotiated to stalemate, not a surrender on Germany's part had Hitler been assassinated. There were many capable men in the Nazi organization that would have stepped up and administered the war much better then the madman in charge at the time was doing.

I believe that the war with Russia would have been negotiated to a truce with some of the lands conquered being secceded back to Russia and new Russian-German pact may have been formed where they divided some of the spoils such as France in return for Russia fighting against the allies to maintain those conquered countries.

Without Hitler and with the help from Russia, the allies would have been kicked back off the European continent.

The unknown factor is if we were able to still produce the Atomic bomb ahead of the Germans and decided to use it on both German and Russian targets. In that case, I think we the new axis would have negotiated a surrender and secceded their conquered territories.

Its all speculation on my part, but I history has shown that the Soviet Union was land hungry also and with Hitler out of the way a truce with Germany would be the most profitable for them.

 

[Larry Gude]

I believe that the war would have been negotiated to stalemate, not a surrender on Germany's part had Hitler been assassinated. There were many capable men in the Nazi organization that would have stepped up and administered the war much better then the madman in charge at the time was doing. I hear you, but, regardless of capability, by that time, logistics was what it was; the scales of men and machines had tipped, decisively, against them. Or no?

I believe that the war with Russia would have been negotiated to a truce with some of the lands conquered being secceded back to Russia and new Russian-German pact may have been formed where they divided some of the spoils such as France in return for Russia fighting against the allies to maintain those conquered countries.
Why would Russia back off and NOT reap the spoils of war as well as exact retribution? And how is it that Germany and Russia would, could, form any sort of partnership at that point? Germany could not get any help from Russia that didn't involve Russian armies IN Germany, fight West. That's like allowing a knife to your throat, dontcha think? "Ok, Joe. Sorry about the last couple years. We trust you!"
Without Hitler and with the help from Russia, the allies would have been kicked back off the European continent.

The unknown factor is if we were able to still produce the Atomic bomb ahead of the Germans and decided to use it on both German and Russian targets. In that case, I think we the new axis would have negotiated a surrender and secceded their conquered territories. Now THAT is an interesting thought. Best I've heard is that Germany was still a couple years away. Yes? No?

Its all speculation on my part, but I history has shown that the Soviet Union was land hungry also and with Hitler out of the way a truce with Germany would be the most profitable for them.

Sure, it's speculation on my part; that's the fun in it!

I can see an alliance between us and Germany at the time far easier than I can between Germany and Russia. Those guys HATED one another.

 

[GURPS]

RE Atomic Bomb

I was just watching a video last night on the Horton 229 [1st stealthy fighter - the flying wing jet that 1st flew in late 1944 / early 45]


the Horton Brothers went back to Goering after a successful test flight of the 229 with a design for the H18

a bomber sized, flying wing, able to reach the USA. in that meeting Horton told G

'you need this bomber to deliver the atomic bomb, that will be ready in 46'



I am not sure you could have stopped the Russians in 43 or 44 ... the Gov. of the 2 countries were diametrically Opposed and, from what I understand, Stalin was really pissed off, at the betrayal ... I am not sure what Germany could have offered to release Stalin rage ...

.... maybe Hitler, [but at that point he would have been dead] and some of the senior staff for show trials ... occupation and subjugation

 

[Pushrod]

Sure, it's speculation on my part; that's the fun in it!

I can see an alliance between us and Germany at the time far easier than I can between Germany and Russia. Those guys HATED one another.

hear you, but, regardless of capability, by that time, logistics was what it was; the scales of men and machines had tipped, decisively, against them. Or no?

It all depends if they were able to negotiate with the Soviets. With Russia's help they would have been able to push us back off of the continent.

Why would Russia back off and NOT reap the spoils of war as well as exact retribution? And how is it that Germany and Russia would, could, form any sort of partnership at that point? Germany could not get any help from Russia that didn't involve Russian armies IN Germany, fight West. That's like allowing a knife to your throat, dontcha think? "Ok, Joe. Sorry about the last couple years. We trust you!"

Because by that time, Stalin was more worried about the U.S. in Europe then Germany. The people of Russia's whole fight and anger had been directed at Hitler, he was the head of the snake. With Hitler out of the picture and Germany's arms production capability (and believe me, the Russian's would have had a tight yoke on Germany in any settlement), Stalin would have been able to kick American/British/allied forces off of the continent and had his way in Europe which he greatly desired. To continue the war with Germany and then have to split up Europe with the Allies would have been (and was) a sour fruit for Stalin to swallow.

Most definetly there would have been Russian armies in Germany as part of the settlement, the German high command would have to concede that or face annihilation, but at least they would remain Germany. I am sure Russian bases would remain in Germany after the war as part of a 'peace-keeping' pact between the two country's.

Now THAT is an interesting thought. Best I've heard is that Germany was still a couple years away. Yes? No?

I had thought that they were a couple of months away, except for the fact that we were able to whisk away some of their scientists that greatly helped us advance ahead of them. If we hadn't of gotten our hands on those men, maybe Germany would have developed that device about the same time, who knows?

 

[Larry Gude]

It all depends if they were able to negotiate with the Soviets. With Russia's help they would have been able to push us back off of the continent.

Starting when?

See, July of '44, our air power advantage, to me, would have proved decisive against any combinations. We, by then, had the power to stop any new based the Russians would have to have for their air because we had the numbers and equipment to get the bombers there and back. By then, we were diverting air assets to kill civilians at least partly because we were running out of military targets.

It is testament to the tactical brilliance of the Wermacht how hard they made it on us to get to Berlin for nearly a year. They were way, way over matched by mid '44 and that was with the existential threat of Russia motivating them. Would they have fought so hard, taken such losses if they were merely trying to push us off French soil?

 

[GURPS]

It is testament to the tactical brilliance of the Wehrmacht how hard they made it on us to get to Berlin for nearly a year.

better tanks ..... it took a group of Sherman's to take out a single Tiger or Panther .... by late 44, more were loss to fuel issues and crews destroying them, when they had to be abandon ...

plus the cheaper Stug III / VI was an excellent Tank Destroyer

 

[Pushrod]

Starting when?

See, July of '44, our air power advantage, to me, would have proved decisive against any combinations. We, by then, had the power to stop any new based the Russians would have to have for their air because we had the numbers and equipment to get the bombers there and back. By then, we were diverting air assets to kill civilians at least partly because we were running out of military targets.

It is testament to the tactical brilliance of the Wermacht how hard they made it on us to get to Berlin for nearly a year. They were way, way over matched by mid '44 and that was with the existential threat of Russia motivating them. Would they have fought so hard, taken such losses if they were merely trying to push us off French soil?

Don't discount the Soviet airforce. Their newly developed Yak-3 was a highly capable aircraft that evenly, if not more than matched the German or allied aircraft (I've actually had the pleasure of flying in a Yak-3 and they are indeed a high performance fighter of their time). Along with their bomber squadrons, they would have ended our air superiority.

Again, the unknown factor is the Atomic bomb. That would have changed things quickly to our favor (and there probably would have never been a cold war if we had used it in Europe).

 

[GURPS]

if not more than matched the German or allied aircraft (I've actually had the pleasure of flying in a Yak-3 and they are indeed a high performance fighter of their time).

Interesting ... I'll have to go back and fly one against a FW 190 D or Me 109 K

[yes I own IL-2 Sturmovik - and I have spent many hours dog fighting]

 

[Pushrod]

Interesting ... I'll have to go back and fly one against a FW 190 D or Me 109 K

[yes I own IL-2 Sturmovik - and I have spent many hours dog fighting]

This from wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt:

many Luftwaffe pilots were deliberately avoiding combat with the last and best variant, the out-of-sequence numbered Yak-3

This was due to its performance characteristics being better than those of the German fighter aircraft from what I have heard.