Could the Allies defeat Germany only with air power? (1 Viewer)

Most of the assasination plots envolved killing Hitler AND arresting as many of the high ranking Nazis as possible.
That could have a great deal of a different effect that the allies getting Hitler with a bomb, then just have him replaced by another Nazi.
That, if the desinated sucessor was picked, would be Goering. As bad as Goering was, he might have listened to facts better than Hitler.
But just killing Hitler would probably have set off a power struggle within the Nazi hierarchy.

tyrodtom said:

Most of the assasination plots envolved killing Hitler AND arresting as many of the high ranking Nazis as possible.
That could have a great deal of a different effect that the allies getting Hitler with a bomb, then just have him replaced by another Nazi.

Click to expand...

I agree, though it would have negated the personal oath of allegiance which did constrain many from acting against Hitler and by default the regime.

Cheers

Steve

An army without it's leader for any amount of time is not going to last long. The power struggle would allow for something to be done while they're fussing over who gets to be the next Hitler. Decisions would be harder to make during the "election" (assassinations). It'd be a nice big window to make a move for the Allies. And by a move I mean destroying/capturing airfields near Berlin which would allow Fighter-Bombers to bring the pain to major cities, and more specifically, factories. A flight of 4 or 8 low flying P-47s can kill a factory very effectively and accurately with rockets and/or bombs. Strafing runs would be able to destroy convoys, delivery trucks, and trains. Eventually the Luftwaffe would be totally out of supplies, while the allies are still bringing more planes and more fuel the more momentum they get.

With or without Hitler, or whoever would have replaced him, local commanders would still be able to think.
Some of the best outcomes of battles result when local commanders are free from outside command influence.
That's especially true in the Wehrmacht battles late in WW2.

Good point tyrod, in fact, that would probably be a better idea, assassinate a local commander instead!

Read up on Operation Anthropoid, the assasination of Reinhard Heydrich.
The Dirty Dozen was a movie, Operation Anthropoid was the reality of the few targeted assasinations of WW2 that suceeded, if you want to call what happened overall a sucess.

According to Adam Tooze in Wages of Destruction, Hitler launched Barbarossa due to awareness that in the future Germany would face an air war with the US and Britain. Germany and it's satellites lacked resources to develop the LW strong enough to fight them, specially oil. With the air war lost, the Allies would be able to move into Europe. So, this is what I'm proposing here: a massive aerial effort against Germany, in order to turn the country in something like it was by May 1945. After this was achived, the Allied armed forces can start to prepare for landings in France.

Having said this, there was the USSR, which was supplying Germany with among other things oil (historically, the Germans did not trust in the Soviets, but let's considerate they did this here). With hindsight it seems obvious that Germany would have much more return trading with the Soviets, rather than invading them and suffering what she suffered historically. I have the impression that Stalin could have supplied Germany with a great quantity of oil, perhaps sufficient to bring the West to the negociating table. When one looks the things by this perspective, it doesn't look and absurd that Stalin felt Hitler might not attack him immediately. This Nazis had an option of consolidate their Empire. However, I will say that I'm not a supporter of Suvorov and his idea that Stalin could attack Germany in '41 (actually Glantz demolishes this is Stumling Colossus), but if Hitler signs peace with the West, this would have left the USSR corned by Germany and Japan. And as they say here: "the future to God belongs". This perhaps can be an indicator that sooner or later the Soviets would have entered in the war against Germany.

Procrastintor said:

An army without it's leader for any amount of time is not going to last long. The power struggle would allow for something to be done while they're fussing over who gets to be the next Hitler. Decisions would be harder to make during the "election" (assassinations). It'd be a nice big window to make a move for the Allies. And by a move I mean destroying/capturing airfields near Berlin which would allow Fighter-Bombers to bring the pain to major cities, and more specifically, factories. A flight of 4 or 8 low flying P-47s can kill a factory very effectively and accurately with rockets and/or bombs. Strafing runs would be able to destroy convoys, delivery trucks, and trains. Eventually the Luftwaffe would be totally out of supplies, while the allies are still bringing more planes and more fuel the more momentum they get.

Click to expand...

In WWI ther e was effectively a change of regime when Ludendorf came to power. Not quite an assassination, or a coup, I will grant you, but a power struggle and a bitter grab for power nonetheless. In August 1916, Falkenhayn resigned as Chief of the General Staff. Hindenburg took his place; Ludendorff declined to be known as "Second Chief of the General Staff" and instead insisted on the title First Generalquartiermeister, on condition that all orders were sent out jointly from the two men. Together they formed the so-called Third Supreme Command.As for his rank, he was promoted to General of the Infantry. He effectively from that point became the supreme leader in Germany, with the Kaiser reduced to figurehead status. There was no apparent " window of oportunity" at the front for the allies.

Ludendorff was the chief manager of the German war effort, with the popular general von Hindenburg his pliant front man.

In May 1940, there was effectively a vote of no confidence in Neville Chamberlain, with Churchill being voted in as head of a new government on the very day that Fall Gelb was unleashed. There was considerable confusion at the top as Churchill formed his new government. but no apparent effect on operations at the front.

In June 1944, following the crushing defeats at Phillipines Sea, war leader Tojo was ousted and replaced by a more peace oriented leader (I forget his name). Again, there is is no discernable evidence that the Japanese showed any signs of faltering at the front.

In 1945, Roosevelt died and was replaced by Truman. I dont know enough to make any comments about the level of dislocation this caused. Hitler however had hoped that the death of Roosevelt might break up the grand alliance ranged against the Axis powers. No such outcome, no evidence of "missed opportunities" either.

We have no evidence really that Germany would collapse in the event of hitlers death. I see it as a convenient extension of blaming Hitler for everything. He was part of the german problem, but the problem was bigger than just one man. I think that had Hitler been killed, the new regie would indeed sue for peace, but not unconditional, and not unde the terms of occupation. I have very serious doubts that the allies would deviate from the Casblanca declaration of unconditional surrender. Faced with that the new German leadership would probably seek better terms through the field of battle.

Killing hitler, in my opinion would have no effect on the liklehood of an early peace, and given hitlers ecentricities, would probably prolong the war....

Procrastintor said:

An army without it's leader for any amount of time is not going to last long. The power struggle would allow for something to be done while they're fussing over who gets to be the next Hitler. Decisions would be harder to make during the "election" (assassinations). It'd be a nice big window to make a move for the Allies. And by a move I mean destroying/capturing airfields near Berlin which would allow Fighter-Bombers to bring the pain to major cities, and more specifically, factories. A flight of 4 or 8 low flying P-47s can kill a factory very effectively and accurately with rockets and/or bombs. Strafing runs would be able to destroy convoys, delivery trucks, and trains. Eventually the Luftwaffe would be totally out of supplies, while the allies are still bringing more planes and more fuel the more momentum they get.

Click to expand...

In any coup, you must gain control of the army. Its essential. It doesn't just disappear.

Another interesting possibility: let's say that Germany doesn't attack the USSR and is supplied with Soviet oil. By 1943, the Anglo-Americans realize that it's not possible to defeat Germany, so they sign peace. However, they also sign a treaty with the Soviets, that would put an Anglo-American military in the Soviet Union in case Germany attacked it. Perhaps this could forestall Hitler to move against the Soviets. This may sound absurd, but if one looks the military strenght Germany could have built up in Western Europe in this scenario, it doesn't look an absurd to take care of the Soviet health. The USSR was not in a love case with the West, but it would be better to have a USSR and Germany rather than a German Empire ruling Eurasia.

That is absurd. It was hard enough getting the Soviets to let us station the few people we did to support the shuttle raids. There's no chance at all Stalin would allow the corrupting influences of western troops stationed in Russia during peacetime.

Stalin didn't trust his own military, do you think he'd trust our's ?

In 1939 Stalin saved Hitler from bankruptcy.


And Ludwig Beck would probably have been the new strong man if Hitler had been assassinated. The greatest mind of all German generals, the only one who would know how to run a country. But also a die-hard Prussian aristocratic General Staff officer, WW1 style all over again.
Kris

And Ludwig Beck would probably have been the new strong man if Hitler had been assassinated. The greatest mind of all German generals, the only one who would know how to run a country. But also a die-hard Prussian aristocratic General Staff officer, WW1 style all over again.

Click to expand...

Ludwig Becks comes out of an old Hessian officer family and was raised and educated at Wiesbaden.
Ludwig Beck had nothing to do with Prussian astrocratics.

parsifal said:

In May 1940, there was effectively a vote of no confidence in Neville Chamberlain, with Churchill being voted in as head of a new government on the very day that Fall Gelb was unleashed. There was considerable confusion at the top as Churchill formed his new government. but no apparent effect on operations at the front.

In June 1944, following the crushing defeats at Phillipines Sea, war leader Tojo was ousted and replaced by a more peace oriented leader (I forget his name). Again, there is is no discernable evidence that the Japanese showed any signs of faltering at the front.

In 1945, Roosevelt died and was replaced by Truman. I dont know enough to make any comments about the level of dislocation this caused. Hitler however had hoped that the death of Roosevelt might break up the grand alliance ranged against the Axis powers. No such outcome, no evidence of "missed opportunities" either.

We have no evidence really that Germany would collapse in the event of hitlers death. I see it as a convenient extension of blaming Hitler for everything. He was part of the german problem, but the problem was bigger than just one man. I think that had Hitler been killed, the new regie would indeed sue for peace, but not unconditional, and not unde the terms of occupation. I have very serious doubts that the allies would deviate from the Casblanca declaration of unconditional surrender. Faced with that the new German leadership would probably seek better terms through the field of battle.

Killing hitler, in my opinion would have no effect on the liklehood of an early peace, and given hitlers ecentricities, would probably prolong the war....

Click to expand...

VBF-13 likes this.

My only reservation about Parsifal's post is whether the Germans would "seek better terms through the field of battle". By mid 1943, certainly post Kursk, many in the Wermacht were openly expressing the opinion that the war was lost. Had we adhered to the Casablanca Declaration, demanding an unconditional surrender on all fronts we might well have forced the Germans to fight on. This was the case historically, even under the Nazi regime unofficial peace feelers were extended to the western powers before the final collapse. There was never any chance of any sort of negotiation with the Nazi regime, something its mandarins never grasped, but had there been a regime change who knows.
This is why, whilst I share doubts about the allies deviating from the agreement reached with the Soviets at Casablanca, I would not discount such a possibility completely.
Cheers
Steve

Perhaps if the West had allowed the Nazi leadership to exile, they could be willing to let a regime change occur. The problem is of course: how could the Nazis be certain that they would not be caught subsequentely?

Simple. They'd have a contract. If we caught them they'd sue us for breach of contract.

tyrodtom said:

That is absurd. It was hard enough getting the Soviets to let us station the few people we did to support the shuttle raids. There's no chance at all Stalin would allow the corrupting influences of western troops stationed in Russia during peacetime.

Stalin didn't trust his own military, do you think he'd trust our's ?

Click to expand...

thats what what i first thought when i read that comment about allied troops in the ussr...plus if the western allies decided they couldnt win the war and signed a peace treaty...why would we have troops stationed anywhere? would there be german troops then stationed in the uk and us as safeguards against further aggression? stalin had his own agenda that ran independant of anything germany, the uk, us, or anyone for that fact was doing. he was not about to let group of any size come in. i am actually surprised he let some free french flyers ( The Normandie-Niemen Regiment ) fight from inside mother russia.

i dont think the allies could have just fought a 4-6 year airwar alone. the only reason for doing so is you are backed up on your heels and must fight defensively only or your resources are so minimal that is your only best play. desert storm is a great example of what air power can and cannot do. shock and awe was amazing and devastating but could not alone obtain or deliver the coup-de-grace. it ended only after door to door fighting...as it always will. a stalemate is the worse kind of war for public sentiment....there will always be a $#!T or get off the pot mentality that slowly builds. your public is going to grow weary of the nightly bombing without seeing any effort made by the govt or military to make it stop. the pulbic will sooner or later think their elected officials have no clear vision or backbone...and if they ( the public ) see a diminishing purpose or no victory in sight will give up the fight and want to sue for peace. in a free country you cannot fight a war without public support behind you. that is one of your most important resources you must manage. you can have a phoney war...and/or use and airwar to gather troops, resources, solidify plans....but boots and blood will have to follow soon.

as to my thoughts on the idea after hilter's assassination germany would "seek better terms through the field of battle". i do believe that is a more likelihood if the allies held on to the unconditional surrender. hitler squandered hundreds of thousands of troops and machines due to his pride and stubborness. were minds with more of a comprehension of the true situation in charge....troops could have been withdrawn to defensible areas and better battle grounds. the cost to the allies could make it worth their while to begin to negotiate...

There's a bit of a wild card in the Hitler assignation possibility. The Casablanca understanding was Roosevelt's idea with Churchill going along with reservations. The objective was to bind Stalin to the effort in view of efforts by Japan and Italy to broker a separate peace between the Soviets and Germany.

While the unconditional surrender ultimatum did consolidate internal support for Hitler, the generals on the Russian front continued their assignation efforts. General von Tresckow widely and successfully recruited officer support, including Kluge -who didn't participate but neither did he report the plotting. By the end of 1943 six serious attempts on Hitler's life were made, including the wine bomb on his plane that failed when the detonator exploded but the plastic explosive failed to follow on.

Getting on to my take on this, the generals recognized that the war was lost and were concerned about protecting Germany. Hitler likewise recognized that the war was lost and wanted to take Germany down with him, which he largely did though not to the extent ordered since his order were ignored. Had the assignation been successful, the army would still have to deal with entrenched Nazis and the SS divisions, though there was an approach during 1942 that suggested even these groups were onboard. However, during 1943 a separate peace would have been attractive to Stalin as he would gain most of Eastern Europe, Casablanca be damned. Having split the allies, Germany would be in a rather strong position to treaty for Western Europe.

There were a lot whose asses were in as deep into these human rights atrocities as Hitler's was, Balljoint. I could be being naive but it just stands to reason to me that there were a lot more than just Hitler who knew it was too late for them to turn back. That I'd think hindered the efforts of these conspirators probably the most.