quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
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.

That's not even close to factual.

Hitler had assumed total dictatorial power over Germany in March 1933.

Comparing Hitler five years into his absolute dictatorship in 1938 to a minor politician with an abortive political career like Beto is wildly inaccurate, and claiming that in 1938 Hitler was relatively unknown and just beginning his rise to power is downright false.

If we were talking about Hitler 15 years earlier in 1923, just a few years into his political rise and the year of Hitler's initial failed attempt to seize political power in the Beer Hall Putsch, you might have a leg to stand on with that comparison.

Interesting question and responses. If Hitler had been killed in 1938 there would likely have been either (1) a power coup in 1938 among NSDAP leadership to see who ended up on top. Hess, by rights, would have had the best shot/claim; Martin Borman likely had the most raw motivation but he seemed to prefer beingthe power behind the throne; (2) the NSDAP feeds on itself and ultimately dissolves perhaps ripping Germany apart politically before some other political coalition ends up (nominally) in charge.

Either way, I'd say it is UNLIKLEY that Russia would have been invaded. However, I'd say it is still possible Poland would have been divided by Germany and Russia. As others have noted, US would have stay out of direct conflict in Europe.

If Germany KNEW UK beind Hitler's assasination, if the NSDAP stays in power, I'd say some sort of cold or "warm" war would with UK would have been the result. Possibly turning into outright war if there were enough triggers. But again, I dount Russia would have been invaded.

quote:

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

And an even better question is what if the terms of the Treaty of Versailles hadn't been so onerous and vengeful allowing Germany to have a chance at economic success and to be re-integrated into the community of nations.

quote:

Originally posted by Batty67:
Martin Borman likely had the most raw motivation but he seemed to prefer beingthe power behind the throne

Bormann wasn't so much "the power behind the throne", rather he was "the guy who rode the throne's coattails".

But semantics aside, I agree that I don't see Bormann being capable of taking the lead on his own, especially considering we're talking about 1938 when his power was still fairly limited...

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:
The NSDAP would have devoured itself. The likely winner: Martin Borman, Hitler’s Secretary.

Keep in mind that this is 1938, and Bormann was still just Hess' secretary at that point. He didn't formally become Hitler's secretary until 1943. Therefore, 1938 Bormann held significantly less power than 1941+ Bormann, once he eventually was promoted to take over Hess' portfolio of duties, as well as taking over Hess' status as Hitler's right hand man, after Hess defected to the UK in 1941, and then eventually was tasked with mostly all of Hitler's personal affairs starting in 1943 as Hitler's personal secretary.


In 1938, Hess is still the most likely winner from amongst the Nazi party higher-ups. (Assuming he wasn't himself assassinated by some fellow aspirant like Himmler, and assuming the Nazis remained in power as opposed to some possibility like a subsequent military coup, or similar.)

Thanks for all the responsive replies. I was hoping for things to think about, and you’ve given me them.

As only somewhat of a drift, my continuing thoughts about Nazi Germany’s building an atomic bomb:

The idea of a Nazi A-bomb fascinates fiction writers because it’s a perfect way to allow their heroes to save the world with last minute daring-do. True stories about things like the efforts to keep the Germans from acquiring heavy water for their nuclear experiments are also much more thrilling if we believe those operations were what saved the world from Nazi domination.

That certain radioactive elements could be used to build a device with massive explosive power wasn’t something the Germans were in danger of “discovering.” Theoretical physicists had decided that such a thing was possible well before the war. Because it was obviously known to German scientists like Werner Heisenberg who later led the German effort to build such a bomb was why Einstein was enlisted to warn President Roosevelt of the possibility that the Germans would build one before anyone else. The US effort to do it first was in direct reaction to that possibility.

Atomic bombs of the era depended upon the technique of bringing enough of the right material together fast enough to initiate an explosion. The Hiroshima bomb, nicknamed “Little Boy,” was a very simple design that fired one lump of U235 uranium into another with what was nothing more than a large gun. That design was considered so simple and obvious that the bomb wasn’t even thought to need testing before it was dropped. And as we know, it worked just fine.

The “Fat Man” plutonium bomb, however, required a lot of engineering work because its design was so much more complex and difficult to make work. That was the design tested in the US before another was dropped on Nagasaki.

None of that is to say there weren’t skeptics about the whole idea. When rumors first reached the USSR, its nuclear scientists reportedly dismissed the idea as impossible, and opined that the rumors were intended to get the Soviets to waste their efforts on a impossible project. Only after espionage reports confirmed that the British and Americans were seriously pursuing the project did they change their minds. The same opinion was reportedly expressed by a high ranking US officer who cited his being “an expert on explosives” for his rejection of the idea.
On the other hand, some scientists expressed the fears that a nuclear explosion would set the entire Earth’s atmosphere on fire. That idea didn’t last long, but it was something to consider.

As so often, though, the real devils were in the details. First was just acquiring enough fissile material to make an actual bomb possible, and that was a monumental undertaking. Allowing a few tons of uranium ore to get past the Allied submarines wasn’t going to spell the end of the world. And keep in mind that even with the tremendous advantages the US had in producing weapon grade uranium and plutonium, it still took until after the Germans surrendered to develop the first three bombs.

In the end the Germans were very far from developing a nuclear weapon. Some have speculated that was due to Heisenberg’s misidentifying how much fissile material was necessary for a bomb. He reportedly said that it would take ten times as much as was actually true. Whether that was a mistake of ignorance or a deliberate lie to sabotage the entire program by making it seem impossible to satisfy in wartime is evidently a matter of debate. For this discussion, though, it’s a legitimate question to ask whether the German A-bomb project would have been successful, or even pursued at all, if Hitler had been killed before the war. I do agree that there would have been a war with Japan, but how would that have played out if there was nothing going on in Europe?

I recommend the following books:
Heisenberg’s War by Thomas Powers
The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
A more technical discussion is The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How To Build an Atomic Bomb by Robert Serber
A follow-on is Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb also by Richard Rhodes

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
As so often, though, the real devils were in the details. First was just acquiring enough fissile material to make an actual bomb possible, and that was a monumental undertaking. Allowing a few tons of uranium ore to get past the Allied submarines wasn’t going to spell the end of the world.

Germany didn't need to import uranium ore from overseas. They had access to uranium mines in southeast Germany, and later gained access to nearby Czech uranium mines beginning in 1939, and then seized thousands of tons of especially high quality Congolese uranium during their occupation of Belgium in 1940.

(The Congo was owned by Belgium at the time, and mined uranium ore was shipped back to Belgium for processing at the Union Minière plant, so the Germans obtained that stock of uranium when they arrived during their invasion of Belgium. These same Congolese uranium mines are actually where the Americans later obtained their own uranium for the Manhattan Project.)

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Germany didn't need to import uranium ore from overseas.

True, but there have been thrillers with my scenario as the basis for their stories. Your point is an important one to remember for an accurate picture of their capabilities. I tend to forget that fact myself, so thanks for making it clear.

Added: And I must emphasize that making such things clear is important if we are truly interested in historical accuracy. A casual reference like mine to a fictional account without including the actual facts can be as misleading to people who aren't fully versed on the history as the fictional account itself. So thanks again.