Graf von Stauffenberg - Evil?

[Scott Smith]

(...) Too bad Stauffi screwed it up. Maybe more people could've been saved.

A lot of people!

Or a lot more people could have died. Hard to say. It could have led to Soviet hegemony in Western Europe and even a nuclear WWIII. Hard to say...

[chalutzim]

Or a lot more people could have died. Hard to say. It could have led to Soviet hegemony in Western Europe and even a nuclear WWIII. Hard to say...

But if today we are not sure that the communists would attain control over Western Europe or a nuclear war would be waged, it's crystal clear that in the case of Hitler's death many lifes would be conserved.

[Roberto]

Or a lot more people could have died. Hard to say. It could have led to Soviet hegemony in Western Europe and even a nuclear WWIII. Hard to say...

But if today we are not sure that the communists would attain control over Western Europe or a nuclear war would be waged, it's crystal clear that in the case of Hitler's death much lifes would be conserved.

The recent study Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, by Rüdiger Overmans, confirms that German military losses alone were higher between 20 July 1944 and the end of the war than in all the previous war years. As to German civilian losses, the overwhelming majority thereof occurred in the last ten months of the war and the immediate postwar period.

[Scott Smith]

Or a lot more people could have died. Hard to say. It could have led to Soviet hegemony in Western Europe and even a nuclear WWIII. Hard to say...

But if today we are not sure that the communists would attain control over Western Europe or a nuclear war would be waged, it's crystal clear that in the case of Hitler's death much lifes would be conserved.

The recent study Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, by Rüdiger Overmans, confirms that German military losses alone were higher between 20 July 1944 and the end of the war than in all the previous war years. As to German civilian losses, the overwhelming majority thereof occurred in the last ten months of the war and the immediate postwar period.

This presumes that there would have been no collapse without Hitler, which simply isn't true. The Allies would have stuck to Unconditional Surrender in any case and the Red Army wasn't going home. No, it is simply not logical to conclude that everything would have been all smiles from no more Heils.

[chalutzim]

This presumes that there would have been no collapse without Hitler, which simply isn't true.

The collapse of the regime was inevitable, but the useless sacrifice of lifes (german lifes included) could be prevented with Hitler's heavenly life sacrifice. :roll:

The Allies would have stuck to Unconditional Surrender in any case and the Red Army wasn't going home.

The Allies would stuck to unconditional surrender (Roosevelt) with the intention to avoid the birth of a new myth, like the "Stab in the Back (© Hindenburg)", "The politicians betrayed the nation and the army (© Ludendorff)", etc, as ocurred in 1918.

No, it is simply not logical to conclude that everything would have been all smiles from no more Heils.

Smiles and Heils make a bad rhyme, Scott. You can do better!

[wenty]

I meant the order to arrest all German Jews- sorry. I was getting mixed up between that order and Keitel's Kommando order. But Rommel never liked Hitler. He was deeply angry that good German soldiers were going to waste in a losing cause for nothing, all because of 1 mans conquests and illusions. Why would he have been involved in the assassination attempt of July 20, 1944?? Because of the loss of life and dread that this man had brought to the Army, the loss of life, etc. What part of that is so hard to understand? Cheers.

[Scott Smith]

Rommel never liked Hitler.

Did you get that from watching TV or something? In the "Winds of Wouk" Rommel demands an explanation from Hitler as to how he is going to win the war. This is in 1944 when Rommel is in charge of Army Group B in Normandy. I suppose if that is all one knows about Rommel then it might not seem like He and Hit were drinking buddies. Besides, all anyone knows is that Rommel never reported his fellow officers who approached him about a plot. Perhaps he thought that the Allies were not serious about Unconditional Surrender and would just declare peace if Hitler were dead. Political naïvete to be sure. In any case, Hitler took a lot more insubordination from Rommel than he would have most officers because he admired his spunk. On the other hand, Hitler rarely saw eye-to-eye with von Rundstedt, who called him the "Bohemian Corporal," but at least he was loyal. Rommel was a brilliant operational commander but was not suited to command anything larger than a division (or maybe a corps with a strong group commander over him like Model). Hitler gave him more command than he deserved, which was not Rommel's fault.

[Scott Smith]

This presumes that there would have been no collapse without Hitler, which simply isn't true.

The collapse of the regime was inevitable, but the useless sacrifice of lifes (german lifes included) could be prevented with Hitler's heavenly life sacrifice. :roll:

You still haven't shown how Hitler's death on July 20, 1944 would have changed this:

As to German civilian losses, the overwhelming majority thereof occurred in the last ten months of the war and the immediate postwar period.

That's because the government was breaking down and collapse was occurring. As far as military losses, Roberto's figure obviously includes POWs as losses. And Hitler's death wasn't going to end the war or the fighting, or the suffering and death after the war. Like I said, the Allies would accept nothing less than Unconditional Surrender and the Red Army wasn't going home. If the Bomb Plot had succeeded then the German people could probably rightly blame the generals this time for the Dolchstoss and the Soviet yoke (probably from the Rhein to the Oder).

[Witch-King of Angmar]

Or a lot more people could have died. Hard to say. It could have led to Soviet hegemony in Western Europe and even a nuclear WWIII. Hard to say...

But if today we are not sure that the communists would attain control over Western Europe or a nuclear war would be waged, it's crystal clear that in the case of Hitler's death much lifes would be conserved.

The recent study Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg, by Rüdiger Overmans, confirms that German military losses alone were higher between 20 July 1944 and the end of the war than in all the previous war years. As to German civilian losses, the overwhelming majority thereof occurred in the last ten months of the war and the immediate postwar period.

This would start from the supposition that all those people who died from July 20, 1944 to May 9, 1945, would have lived otherwise - in the hypothesis the Allies would have dropped the Unconditional Surrender claim and agreed to make peace. No solid argument can be brought, with our nowadays knowledge, to support this supposition. What the intentions of the Allies were - they themselves had already spelled it quite clearly: Unconditional Surrender, than the Morgenthau Plan. Were they going to negotiate with the July 20 plotters? Why would have done that, in the first place, when they were already winning? It doesn't make any sense. And even those who support the idea, feel somehow it's built on moving sands....

~The Witch King of Angmar

[chalutzim]

You still haven't shown how Hitler's death on July 20, 1944 would have changed this

Scott, I'm assuming that Hitler's death would lead to Germany's surrender, even under the unconditional clause. Why the new leadership would prolong the war, knowing that it was lost?

Obviously it's only possible to show concretely something that actually happened, so you're asking me the impossible. That Germany, as you put, would stand fighting, without being forced by Hitler's unrealistic prospects and homicidal fanaticism, it's unimaginable and quite incoherent with the circunstances.

[chalutzim]

(...) Unconditional Surrender, than the Morgenthau Plan.

Maybe you may find the reading of this thread interesting:

For Witness: Soviet Containment & Marshall Plan

http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21292

Regards.

[wenty]

Scott, von Rundstedt wouldn't have a clue about Rommel, he was about 70 or more and probably a "Grumpy old Man". Why are you only answering to part of what i say? Leaving the most important bits out? I did see it on a documentary, a movie, and a book, in answer to your question. Well, a lot of Generals would have wanted to know how they were supposed to win battles, particularly when they had hardly any ammo to fight with. :roll: Do you want to see statistics? I can tell you how many Field Marshals there was to start with, Generals, etc compared to how many there was at the wars end, because Hitler always blamed his Officers for His own mistakes, and discharged or killed a lot of them. Would you like me to tell you the statistics, Scott?

[Scott Smith]

Scott, von Rundstedt wouldn't have a clue about Rommel, he was about 70 or more and probably a "Grumpy old Man". Why are you only answering to part of what i say? Leaving the most important bits out? I did see it on a documentary, a movie, and a book, in answer to your question. Well, a lot of Generals would have wanted to know how they were supposed to win battles, particularly when they had hardly any ammo to fight with. :roll: Do you want to see statistics? I can tell you how many Field Marshals there was to start with, Generals, etc compared to how many there was at the wars end, because Hitler always blamed his Officers for His own mistakes, and discharged or killed a lot of them. Would you like me to tell you the statistics, Scott?

Wenty, what are you trying to tell me exactly? I don't think there were any Field Marshals before the war; they were all made by Hitler. He sacked a bunch of generals over the Barbarossa disaster to keep the front from falling apart and took over as Army Commander-in-Chief. Further than that I don't know what you mean. Anyway, if anybody knew the scoop it would be von Rundstedt. Yeah, he was a grumpy old man who read American detective novels.

[Scott Smith]

You still haven't shown how Hitler's death on July 20, 1944 would have changed this

Scott, I'm assuming that Hitler's death would lead to Germany's surrender, even under the unconditional clause. Why the new leadership would prolong the war, knowing that it was lost?

Obviously it's only possible to show concretely something that actually happened, so you're asking me the impossible. That Germany, as you put, would stand fighting, without being forced by Hitler's unrealistic prospects and homicidal fanaticism, it's unimaginable and quite incoherent with the circunstances.

You're probably right, Wintceas. And the Red Army would have then rolled all the way to the Rhine. The balance of power on the continent would have been in Uncle Joe's favor. Would that have saved lives? Hard to say. Maybe the Americans would have declared victory and just gone home. Maybe they would have had problems with the Soviet Europe after they had gotten the atomic bomb. Hard to say.

In any case, in the First World War it was the politicians who accepted Unconditional Surrender. If Hitler had been killed it would have been the generals who accepted Unconditional Surrender. Stalin once said that German Communism was like saddling-up a Milk Cow. With Hitler dead and the generals who killed him discredited, maybe the Germans would have made good Communists. Hard to say.

[wenty]

Scott, by that i mean i could show you just how many Field Marshalls there were early in the war, compared to 1945. The same thing with Generals, etc, just to proove how much Hitler blamed his Generals for his own mistakes and how many were either killed or sacked by him. The reason for that being to show you how many of his officers:
A.) "Disobeyed" one or more of his orders.
B.) Didn't do what they were told, most cases because they couldn't.
C.) Just to show how much of his army he destroyed by deducting some of it's best officers. Understand Now? Need any more Q & A?