I’m reading a reprint of the documents pertaining to the British Operation FOXLEY, which was the plan to kill Hitler in mid and late 1944.

In the introduction to the book it’s mentioned that in 1938 the British military attaché to Germany proposed that a shooter using a suppressed rifle could kill Hitler on a reviewing stand that was in view of the attaché’s residence in Berlin. The position of the house would have made it possible to shoot from well inside away from a window to avoid being seen. Although the statement doesn’t indicate whether the attaché thought that a suppressor would completely silence the shot, he evidently believed that using one would at least make locating the origin of the shot difficult.

My question has two parts:

What do you believe would have happened in Germany if Hitler had been killed a year or more before the invasion of Poland that finally prompted France and Britain to declare war on Germany and gave the USSR the opportunity to also invade and gobble up a share of the spoils? This first question assumes that he was killed in the proposed British operation, but without the British being determined to have carried it out.

The second question is what would have happened if Hitler had been killed by a sniper in 1938, but the Germans then learned conclusively that it had been a British operation.

For consideration is the fact that FOXLEY was both supported and opposed by British military leaders. Those supporting the operation believed that Hitler’s death would have shortened the war and saved countless lives. Those opposed were so for several reasons: It was recognized that Hitler was an inadvertent friend of the Allies because of his inept handling of the war, plus there were concerns that he would be viewed as a martyr and that would have stiffened Germany resistance during and even after the shooting war.

Your thoughts?

(And I am certain this question has been addressed in books, movies, magazines, Twitter posts, tomes written on toilet paper, and elsewhere. It isn’t necessary to cite any of them because I am interested in the comments here.)

That would depend greatly on who came out on top in the resulting power vacuum. There would be a ton of infighting that resulted. There are any number of potential candidates, so for the sake of brevity, I'll focus on the three members of Hitler's "inner circle":

Goering was the nominal successor, but he wasn't well liked within the party and the government, so I'm not sure how much power and support he could truly muster at the national level.

Himmler is a more likely successor, especially if he managed a straight-up violent coup/power grab ala Night of the Long Knives 2.0. He already mostly controlled the police and security services by 1938, so it's possible that he might be able to use that resulting manpower and leverage (blackmail, arrests, etc.), along with some outright violence, to be able to grab sufficient power. But 1938 is before Hitler's significant reliance on and expansion of the militarized Waffen-SS due to his disappointment with (and paranoia about) the German military leaders, so it's not like he'd have a large army of Waffen-SS at his disposal in 1938, like could have years later. Plus Himmler and the SS were not popular amongst the military leadership, and whoever ends up in power would almost certainly require the military's backing.

Hess, on the other hand, is probably the best possibility, especially at the political level. He was a much more shrewd and capable politician than the other two, and held more explicit political power than the other two in 1938.


However, keep in mind that in the original timeline, just 3 years later in mid-1941, Hess would defect to Scotland in an attempt to broker a peace deal with Britain. That was even a couple months before the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the opening of the second front that would inevitably spell doom for Germany. Hess was against the planned invasion of the Soviet Union anyway, believing (rightly so) that Germany couldn't win a two-front war.

So in a world where Hitler was assassinated in 1938 and Hess comes to power after ousting/outmaneuvering Goering and fending off Himmler (if necessary), I don't see Germany under Hess being so gung-ho to initiate an all-out war, and WW2 is unlikely to occur as it actually unfolded. There very well could still be some attempts at local territorial grabs via diplomatic pressure and threats of war (like Sudetenland, traditionally German parts of Poland like Danzig, etc.), but not necessarily a full-blown war.

And if it did come to war under Hess, I certainly don't see him proceeding with Barbarossa while still fighting the British. So it likely would come down to something like 1939 Poland through the 1940 Fall of France proceeding mostly as usual (including a Molotov-Ribbentrop-style peace deal to placate the Soviets), and from there an attempt to turtle up in Western Europe with their newly expanded territory and negotiate a peace deal with Britain in 1940/1941. Basically, Britain eventually recognizing they were unable to muster the manpower and resources to retake the continent themselves, America having no reason to directly intervene in the stalemate/standoff, and Britain and Germany eventually coming to some mutually agreeable terms to end their fighting. Then only after securing peace with Britain would they potentially consider planning an invasion of the Soviet Union, if they could be sure that Britain, America, and others wouldn't intervene and open back up a second front.


But that's all predicated on them not knowing that it was Britain that killed Hitler. It that did become known, that could alter the trajectory, and lead to extended hostilities with Britain, with potentially the US eventually joining in and the combined Anglo-American military-economic juggernaut eventually outright defeating Germany even without the Soviets' involvement.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RogueJSK,

From my reading over the years, I believe that without Hitler, the NSDAP - which was predominantly a 'personality cult' focused on the Fuhrer - would probably have destroyed itself in internecine fighting between the 'old guard' of the early 30s who would wish to protect their position and the newer generation who had risen to power on Hitler's shirttails since his elevation to Chancellor.

While it may not have prevented an eventual WWII, it would have delayed it at least into the mid 40s, if it happened at all. More likely Germany would have ended up in a civil war which would leave them economically devastated.

What this would have meant on a larger scale for the rest of Europe, the US, and the Soviets - without Germany in the mix - is even more compelling.

An interesting scenario for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Pyker:
...What this would have meant on a larger scale for the rest of Europe, the US, and the Soviets - without Germany in the mix - is even more compelling.

An interesting scenario for sure.

I feel we would have stayed out of European politics as much as possible. We were drawn in only because Germany declared war on us after Pearl Harbor was attacked. France and Britain would be doing everything they can to stop WW2, Germany would not be in a position to go to war without a strongman like Himmler in control. The wild card on peace in Europe would be Stalin. And how the west reacts to any invasion Stalin might do.

Also if Hitler doesn't start a war in Europe, another thing to debate is Imperial Japan. By 1939 they already are on the move, and are looking south for more resources. They definitely took advantage of a weakened Europe to push into SE Asia. Their big gamble that caused them to lose was thinking a strike against us would make us sue for peace and let them run rampant in the Western Pacific.

A third question that necessarily follows is: How would the elimination of Hitler, and the resulting chaos/conflict within Germany, have altered Stalin’s actions?

Assuming the Brits remain undiscovered, whomever wound up leading the 3rd Reich would still be at the helm of a powerfully rearmed Germany with the same chip on their shoulder (Versailles). I do think Germany would never have been as bold as they were with Hitler. Remember Hitler got a lot done just by rattling the new saber.

Japan will also still attack the US, likely on the same timeline as it happened before. If Western Europe is in an open war by then, Roosevelt would still want to declare against both Germany and Japan.

1938 just isn't soon enough.

I think the NAZIs under Hess or Rommel would have been far more dangerous - as would delaying the war.

When did the V2 and nuclear programs start with them?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

What do you believe would have happened in Germany if Hitler had been killed a year or more before the invasion of Poland that finally prompted France and Britain to declare war on Germany and gave the USSR the opportunity to also invade and gobble up a share of the spoils? This first question assumes that he was killed in the proposed British operation, but without the British being determined to have carried it out.

The NSDAP would have devoured itself. The likely winner: Martin Borman, Hitler’s Secretary.

Then the war would have gone very differently. Britain would have been invaded. The USSR and Germany would divie up Europe. Both Sweden and Switzerland would fall. The Brits might have managed to stop the Germans and Italians getting to India.

quote:

The second question is what would have happened if Hitler had been killed by a sniper in 1938, but the Germans then learned conclusively that it had been a British operation.

Instant war with the Britain.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
I think the NAZIs under Hess or Rommel would have been far more dangerous

Rommel didn't have anywhere near enough clout in 1938 to become leader of Germany. He was nonpolitical, and was a mere battalion commander in 1938, which he remained until eventually being promoted to command a second-line armored division in 1940. It was his subsequent Afrika Korps desert exploits starting in 1941 that turned him into a propaganda celebrity and household name.

quote:

When did the V2 and nuclear programs start with them?

The V1 was theorized in 1935, but they didn't actually start working on its design until 1942. As for the V2, work on the earliest predecessor rockets began in 1933, but progress was slow, and all the technologies needed for the V2 to function weren't ready until 1942, with the actual V2 entering testing in 1943. Both the V1 and V2 then entered production and actual use in 1944.

Their nuclear program started in December 1938, with the initial discovery of nuclear fission by German scientists at the Kaiser Wilhem Institute in Berlin. (That discovery by these German chemists is what started everyone's nuclear program.)

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
What do you believe would have happened in Germany if Hitler had been killed a year or more before the invasion of Poland

At that point in time the Wehrmacht was the strongest force in Germany and, while they had given their oath to Hitler, that oath did not apply to the Nazi party as a whole and Hitler's death would have freed them from their moral obligation. There was considerable animosity between the generals and the party at that time; the last Minister of War von Blomberg who was well respected in the military had just been removed by a political scandal fronted by Goering and Himmler involving Blomberg's wife's past activities.

The Nazis would have had considerable fear of the military's reaction to Hitler's death, and either would have a) struck at the Army leadership to achieve dominance, b) done some sort of deal, or c) risked a overthrow of the party via a military Putsch.

a) or b) might well have kept the NDSAP in power, in which case the Nazis would have continued the military buildup. War might have come later than it did, as Hitler was driven by the fear of an early death, while the other power brokers had more patience. OTOH, a new face without Hitler's history of repudiating his commitments might have re-opened international negotiations.

c) would have resulted in the German Army in defacto control of the country. The Generals were very conservative regarding war at that point. They were scared to death during the re-militarization of the Rhineland...but nothing happened. They were scared to death during the Anschluss with Austria...but nothing happened. They were scared to death when they occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia...but nothing happened. It was Hitler who was pushing them. Without Hitler, they just looked at the large potential of their potential enemies and looked at the relatively pathetic numbers they had built up at the time. Outside of a few military theorists, nobody knew their tanks and tactics had the potential of Blitzkrieg. So they might well have kept up their re-armament and stood pat. Maybe eventually handing control back to non-Nazi civilians.

I think option C would have resulted in at least a decade of peace, possibly even a scenario where Germany became an ally for England and possibly the US against the USSR, after the USSR started gobbling up bits of Eastern Europe, invading Finland, etc.

quote:

The second question is what would have happened if Hitler had been killed by a sniper in 1938, but the Germans then learned conclusively that it had been a British operation.

In that case, immediate war. Britain would have had few allies - perhaps none - but a strong navy. Germany would have had very little chance of doing much to Britain directly right off the bat. They'd have built their submarine force, and a strong defensive air force to defend their coasts, factories and sub pens, and after they had enough subs built, gone after British shipping.

I met an elderly man back in the 1990's who gave me a story he'd written, about a failed plan to kill Hitler in April 1938 during a visit to Helgoland. He said it was a true story. Anybody ever heard of something like this?

Given the advances of technology, especially nuclear technology, I think that we were very blessed that the War kicked off when it did. Had internal politics delayed the Germans' entry into war then it seems too likely that they would've deduced the secrets to a nuclear bomb and then had this at their disposal.

Even before we get to foreign action, there was no lack of plans to kill Hitler in 1938. Wilhelm Freiherr von Ketteler, assistant to Hitler's former conservative vice-chancellor in the original 1933 coalition government, then ambassador to Austria Franz von Papen, intended to shoot him in his open car from a window of the German embassy during his triumphant entry into Vienna during the Anschluss. He was however killed himself, likely by the SD, a day after the German invasion. Had he succeeded, large-scale political cleansing like in the 1934 Night of the Long Knives would have been likely, possibly with the most radical elements of the NSDAP coming out on top.

Before the Munich Conference later the same year, there was a group mainly within military intelligence which planned to invade the Reich Chancellery and either arrest and indict or, as most eventually concluded, preferably kill Hitler due to his dangerous military adventurism. The surprising success of the West surrendering the Sudetenland to Germany (much to Hitler's own dismay) put paid to that. The circle disbanded, but had included some of the same people who kept plotting assassinations until 1944 (Oster, Witzleben, Beck, Canaris, Goerdeler).

Them following through in 1938 would have been predicated on the West standing firm in Munich, after which the question becomes whether the rest of the Wehrmacht would have sided with them; but unlike in 1944, the conspirators were still active supreme commanders including the head and just-dismissed COS of the Army. As noted above, the brass in general was not at all keen on Hitler's rushed plans, so the possibility of a military takeover exists. There would have been some amount of fighting, but the Wehrmacht would almost certainly have prevailed.

Then there was a Swiss guy by name of Maurice Bavaud who planned to shoot Hitler with a pocket pistol because he considered him a threat to humanity, Swiss independence, and German Catholicism. He failed because at the opportunity he finally selected, the memorial event for the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch on 9 November in Munich, he was too far from his mark and blocked by the crowd with arms raised in salut as Hitler passed. He was subsequently arrested by chance for riding the train to Paris without a ticket for lack of money, and being found with the pistol and incriminating documents.

He was tried largely in secret because the Nazis wanted to protect Hitler's image and avoid encouraging copycats; even the Swiss embassy was only notified of his trial at the end of the following year, promptly condemned his plans, didn't give him the usual consular support or appeal the eventual death sentence for him, no doubt out of fear for political repercussions. Had he succeeded, war with Switzerland would have been the likely result, which is a truely interesting "What If" for late 1938/early 1939 while the Wehrmacht was actually working up to invade Poland.

I don’t know if they would have ever sought war with Switzerland- it’s, essentially, an educated Afghanistan. Not sure that it had a lot resources worth the cost of conquest/that it would have been conquered short of eliminating much of the population.

In addition, just because the assassin was of Swiss nationality doesn't automatically mean war with Switzerland.

There's a big difference between a formal British government plan to assassinate Hitler, and a lone Swiss guy's personal plan to assassinate Hitler. The former has massive diplomatic/military implications (if the truth came out) that the latter does not.

There are too many moving parts to the equation to know. There was no shortage of people inside and outside of Nazi Germany that would have liked to see him go, for various reasons.
One thing is for sure, this wouldn't have meant the Nazis would have disbanded and Germany would have become a good citizen of the world, without him.
Maybe a better question is what would have happened in post-WW1 Germany if he was never born.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
Maybe a better question is what would have happened in post-WW1 Germany if he was never born.

Almost certainly about the same, just potentially without the Nazis specifically.

There still would have been the same many years of continued political turmoil and economic desperation, likely until either the hard right or hard left managed to rise to power, consolidate authoritarian control, and shut out their opponents (similar to what the Nazis managed).

From 1918 through 1933, all the underlying factors were already laying the foundation and creating the perfect space for the rise of something like the Nazis, even if in an alternate timeline it wasn't the Nazis themselves due to something like Hitler not being around to help propel them from a tiny fringe group to a mainstream party.

So while it may have taken some additional years, the utter desperation of the German people in the 20s and 30s for the return of safety, stability, and economic renewal likely would have resulted in some flavor of authoritarian dictatorship at some point anyway. Whatever it took to just make the madness stop. The question is just whether that would be a militaristic/nationalist/right-wing style or a socialist/communist/left-wing style of authoritarianism, as those were the two big groups that were constantly battling both literally in the streets and figuratively in the political halls during the Weimar era.

The centrist, democratic political types were bound to be washed away in the radical flood at some point, as the weak and ineffective Weimar Republic was barely hanging on by a thread prior to Hitler and the Nazis coming to power, and that would be true even if the Nazis themselves didn't exist.

German nationalism would have known no limits. His successor would have known no opposition.

No telling for sure what the reaction would be. Hitler’s power and influence was nascent in 38. Imagine what we would do if say, Beto were our Adolf. A relatively unknown but charismatic political radical on the rise but another country assassinates him. If he’s not clearly elected by the standard process but through a series of manipulations of the process, how much support would there be to go to war? I mean, it’s Beto. His super power is cringy dorkness. Kind of like Adolf before his dictatorship. I don’t think retaliation would have happened.