What if Operation Valkyrie was Successful

[Jan III Sobieski]

Dude, what would happen if Operation Valkyrie (The Plot to kill hitler) is successful?

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Germany might have been able to make peace and end the war having gained some territory, or at the least, without being crushed. Its an interesting thing to think about.

[Garbarsardar]

Considering that in Eureka (the Teheran Conference) it had already been decided that the only acceptable solution was Germany's unconditional surrender and that the post war spheres of influence were already being formulated (Oder-Neisse border for Poland) it seems unlikely that a successful coup (an assassination that would simply bring Borman or Himmler to the top of Nazi hierarchy is meaningless anyway for the purposes of this hypothetical) would have changed anything.

First one should consider the probable reluctance of the "new regime" to cede large tracts of what was considered "Germany" to the victors. Second (as subsequent negotiation attempts demonstrated) there was absolutely no willingness for any other kind of settlement. At this point, especially the US was faced with the role of mitigating Stalin's increasing suspicions over a German-Western Allies pact and his total mistrust of Churchill. Would anyone sacrifice this fragile alliance for the sake of a meeting with a German Representative who for the allies would be pretty indistinguishable form his Nazi predecessors? I doubt it.

[Phoebus]

I believe the intent behind Operation Valkyrie was for Rommel to be given overall leadership, the idea being that he was a respected figure among the Allies and a celebrated hero among the people--an ideal compromise solution for the anticipated post-war period.

I can't imagine the plotters to have risked what they did just to allow another dedicated Nazi the reins of power.

[pchalk]

Considering that in Eureka (the Teheran Conference) it had already been decided that the only acceptable solution was Germany's unconditional surrender and that the post war spheres of influence were already being formulated (Oder-Neisse border for Poland) it seems unlikely that a successful coup (an assassination that would simply bring Borman or Himmler to the top of Nazi hierarchy is meaningless anyway for the purposes of this hypothetical) would have changed anything.

First one should consider the probable reluctance of the "new regime" to cede large tracts of what was considered "Germany" to the victors. Second (as subsequent negotiation attempts demonstrated) there was absolutely no willingness for any other kind of settlement. At this point, especially the US was faced with the role of mitigating Stalin's increasing suspicions over a German-Western Allies pact and his total mistrust of Churchill. Would anyone sacrifice this fragile alliance for the sake of a meeting with a German Representative who for the allies would be pretty indistinguishable form his Nazi predecessors? I doubt it.

the leaders behind Valkyrie did want to end the war. im not saying they wouldn't be picky about terms but i think with all sides prefering peace over war some sort of agreement could be made. besides the fragile alliance existed because of the common enemy. do u really think the alliance was a priority given that the end of the war by whatever means was in sight

[OTZ]

The other alternative is a protracted war. Without Hitler's influence on combat operations, it can be argued that the Generals would be left to do what Generals do best- crush, kill, destroy!

[Garbarsardar]

I believe the intent behind Operation Valkyrie was for Rommel to be given overall leadership, the idea being that he was a respected figure among the Allies and a celebrated hero among the people--an ideal compromise solution for the anticipated post-war period.

I can't imagine the plotters to have risked what they did just to allow another dedicated Nazi the reins of power.

Long time no see!

I don't know if you refer to my post; I said "indistinguishable from....". Beck, who would lead the government was definitely not a Nazi but the real issue is that response of the Western Allies to any kind of overture would infuriate Stalin and seeing the attitude of Roosevelt especially both in Teheran and in Yalta, this is something the US would not risk.

The other alternative is a protracted war. Without Hitler's influence on combat operations, it can be argued that the Generals would be left to do what Generals do best- crush, kill, destroy!

In 1944? With the Allies in France, Soviets ready to throw everything in the field, German Industry unprotected and materials becoming a real issue, how protracted the war would be? Hitler's influence was at his most catastrophic at a the point where Germany could still hope to win, and frankly I don't think this was on the table post-summer of '43 (if it ever was).

[OTZ]

In 1944? With the Allies in France, Soviets ready to throw everything in the field, German Industry unprotected and materials becoming a real issue, how protracted the war would be? Hitler's influence was at his most catastrophic at a the point where Germany could still hope to win, and frankly I don't think this was on the table post-summer of '43 (if it ever was).

Certainly. Think about the decisions Hitler made starting with the counter-attack at Mortain, followed by the counter-attack through the Ardennes, and then the various other counter-attacks in Hungary/Romania, along the Vistula, and elsewhere (not to mention his Festung-mindset when the offesives failed).

These operations were a significant - if not catastrophic mis-use of German resources.

I'm not suggesting the war would drag on for years - but by adopting a more defenisve strategy (as was preferred by the military leadership) - and not transferring tanks and men willy-nilly across Europe (and then back again) would have cost the Allies dearly in both time and men. The outcome was inevitable (or as close to the definition as humanly possible) - how long it took to get there was still something the Germans were capable of influencing.

Hitler's decisions could not have worked out better for the Allies if the Allies themselves made them.

[Phoebus]

Thanks--my travels have made visiting very difficult thus far!

Yes, you are correct, and I was remiss in my analysis of your post. I do agree with what you say. Where Rommel is concerned, I forgot to mention another of his merits as intended Commander-in-Chief of post-WWII Germany: he had come to be convinced of Germany's impending defeat. I doubt Rommel would have expected anything more than an unconditional surrender; and I think the bitter pill of surrender would have been easier to swallow for the Germans if it came from a man who had demonstrably shown that he would fight on against stacked odds. It's a matter of debate, though, whether the Germans proactively seeking such an end-state would have prevented the real-world results of WWII from happening. Meaning, division of Germany, etc.

[conon394]

My opinion is potentially interesting and perhaps creating a profound difference – the real key is if the Military government more of less realized it was simply playing for the best possible loss and not any kind of victory.

First – if successful and assuming the Nazi leadership could have been liquidated quickly and effectively any rational military government might have had still quite an impact.

Committing the German last effort to the east and allowing Guderian a flexible defensive plan in the East would certainly have blunted the Russian advance.

With US/UK and USSR relation already not say touchy feely no matter what the conferences said how would FDR and Churchill really have responded to a German offer without a ‘battle of the bulge’ and maximum German effort in the East?

The prospect of a US/UK occupied Europe would be attractive – think of all those Polish American voters who would be overjoyed to see the US/UK escort the Polish government in exile back to Warsaw.

[Jan III Sobieski]

Or if the plot is successful They will free all Jews!

[Poach]

I doubt the Russians would be willing to stop their advance, as Stalin had designs on Europe.

I suspect the new German leadership would have negociated with the US/UK in order to gain peace there, probably in return for granting the freedom of the nations they'd essentially vassalised and returning former territory to France. With that front gone and the US/UK pressuring Stalin to also end the war, I doubt the Russians would have come anywhere close to Berlin.

Essentially I think we'd see the Cold War happening anyway, but the East/West divide would be in mid-Poland where the Wermacht, reinforced with all the soldiers from the Western Front, managed to halt the Russian advance when truce was agreed upon. Either that, or we'd see the US/UK joining the war against Stalin and the USSR being confined to her pre-war borders and the divide being at that border.

[conon394]

I doubt the Russians would be willing to stop their advance, as Stalin had designs on Europe.

I suspect the new German leadership would have negociated with the US/UK in order to gain peace there, probably in return for granting the freedom of the nations they'd essentially vassalised and returning former territory to France. With that front gone and the US/UK pressuring Stalin to also end the war, I doubt the Russians would have come anywhere close to Berlin.

Essentially I think we'd see the Cold War happening anyway, but the East/West divide would be in mid-Poland where the Wermacht, reinforced with all the soldiers from the Western Front, managed to halt the Russian advance when truce was agreed upon. Either that, or we'd see the US/UK joining the war against Stalin and the USSR being confined to her pre-war borders and the divide being at that border.

More or less I agree - but the German military would have to move quick capture or kill the party leaders and thugs and be willing to hand them over to the Western allies for trial also be willing to execute a hell of a lot death camp personal and show the allies their corpses...

I think the Cold war be end up being a lot more bitter if the US/UK did jump on such a deal - not unreasonable they could could point the M-R pact and all, but still I'm think Stalin would be rather pissed off.

[Poach]

I think the German leadership, considering their reasons for attempting it anyway, wouldn't have too many qualms about handing over the entire SS to Allied judges.

The cold war would certainly have been much more bitter, though I doubt the USSR would have held on as long as it did in this reality, as they'd have been unable to capture any German scientists or technology and would not control the entire Eastern Europe, granting NATO the entire Germany as a member, plus most of Poland and a swathe of other European countries, and denying the USSR all the allies she gained historically.

[The Noble Lord]

If operation Valkyrie was successful then Nazi henchmen would've been purged by the German military and German high command would've tried frantically to make separate peace with the Western allies in order to prevent their annihilation by the Russians. The allies would've refused and war would've continued, but probably not until May of 1945. It would've finished much earlier since Nazi fanaticism would not have been that tough and hard because Hitler is no longer alive and no longer an inspiration to fight on.

[Poach]

Why would the Western Allies refuse? They'd demand the handing over of war criminals (the SS) which I doubt the German leadership would be opposed to. Do tell, on what grounds do you think the US/UK would outright refuse and continue fighting until Berlin falls?