In July 1944?
The whole of Europe?
How does killing Hitler dismantle the National Socialist state, that has been in place for over a decade?
Are the OKW and OKH going to divert troops from the fighting in France and the USSR to crush the SS?
Civil War in the Third Reich brings their defeat, on Allied terms, much, much closer.
Such an outcome was implicit in Allied strategy.
Even granting that the coup plotters display more tactical nous than they ever indicated in any of the myriad attempts in OTL, how does your scenario change the fact that as far as the Allies were concerned the German generals were an integral and complicit part of enemy leadership?
They weren't solely fighting against the Nazis. They have no reason whatsoever to trust the generals or think they're any different from an even more vicious Ludendorf/Hindenburg junta.
Again: you're missing the point that as far as everyone else is concerned, they are the Nazi regime.
As to the former: sure, theoretically- but that's something not even the most pessimistic of the July plotters considered. If the Wehrmacht thinks it's winning- and it will think it's winning- they will never accept a peace that involves withdrawal from Poland, Czechia and Austria.
And no Allied power would accept a peace settlement that allows the Germans to keep their gains- remember, this is a time when many people considered the problem with the Versailles settlement was that it allowed the Germans to quickly rearm and become the strongest power in Europe.
This proposed peace would be far, far worse than that.
I very much doubt it. Nor do I see why you're hung up on FDR dying: Wallace is not exactly disposed to throwing the Soviets under the bus.
Furthermore, Sicily would be a serious setback- but it's hardly D-Day being turned back.
Fair enough, that's totally understandable.
But my scenario is the 20th July but more than a year earlier. Where there are no Allied troops in Italy or France, and the USSR is still deep inside its own territories. This means that a coup can be achieved without totally ruining everything on the frontline. I think.
There were in fact a number of 20 July-style attempts to kill Hitler in early 1943 (ranging from the bold/clever to the blackly comical) that might fit the bill for such a scenario. I agree with other posters, however, that the Allies would not come to the peace table at that point, and definitely wouldn't allow Germany its 1939 borders. Germany might be in a better position to prolong the war without Hitler at the top, but that's assuming, as others have pointed out, that Himmler and/or other Nazi/SS leaders don't make a bid for the title of Fuhrer, and provoke a civil war that brings the whole empire down even faster.
I think @The Red has disputed this before on the basis that the source for it (the molotov offer) is notoriously inaccurate on other details.
As I understand it, and it's been a long time since I've done much on WW2, his dispute was over what the military strategy should be by which the war should be conducted, not whether the war should be brought to a close as quickly as possible.
I very much doubt it. Nor do I see why you're hung up on FDR dying: Wallace is not exactly disposed to throwing the Soviets under the bus.
Furthermore, Sicily would be a serious setback- but it's hardly D-Day being turned back.
Mirakel des Hauses Brandenburg syndrome is why so many think that the death of FDR is important.
Yeah, Sudoplatov's (heavily ghost written) "autobiography" is so full of errors that it can't really be taken seriously and the fact it's the only source that gets brought up makes it even more suspicious. That said, the peace offer allegedly took place in 1941, not '43. I've heard rumours about latter as well but, like the former, nothing concrete. If there was any truth to them I wouldn't be surprised if it was a ploy to scare the WAllies into opening a proper second front rather than anything to be seriously pursued
By February '45 it seems he believed the situation was critical but still felt that if all troops from the Balkans, Courland, Italy, and Norway could be pooled into a new army group to fight a final battle against the Soviets then there would be a chance of breaking them on the Oder and then...somehow dealing with the western front. It was only after he got sacked that he finally gave up.
"Miracle of the House of Brandenburg" syndrome? I know what the miracle is, but what has that got to do with the death of FDR?
FDR dying was included because I felt that he was more of a hardliner in terms of defeating Germany.
And unless Wallace demands a France invasion in 1943 rather than 1944 (maybe in place of Sicily), 6th June 1944 is far too late for Germany. It's doomed at that point.
"Miracle of the House of Brandenburg" syndrome? I know what the miracle is, but what has that got to do with the death of FDR?
Yes, but my point is that the Sicilian invasion represents the loss of far fewer troops and far less equipment than a disaster in Normandy would. Which is to say, the failure of a Sicilian invasion isn't enough to stop the Allies trying again.
That once America is in the war, there is no plausible President who'll just give up on it when the country isn't remotely close to being defeated.
Hitler apparently thought the death of FDR would be the same as the death of tsarina Elizabeth. It was never based on anything but desperation.
There was no American vp who'd switch sides like peter of Russia did.
Ok, so you're saying that a deal with the Soviets in 1943 isn't (in any way) possible?
It's pretty difficult, the war had turned in the Soviet's favour and there was a renewed optimism amongst STAVKA that bordered on overconfidence. Stalin himself said in the Autumn of 1943 that there was no longer any need for a second front and that German defeat was now inevitable. It's hard to see the Soviets agreeing to a white peace in this context.
So, is it even plausible (with any POD) for a non-Nazi Germany (preferably with a restoration) to come out of the Second World War with 1939 borders (including West Prussia but excluding Czechia)?
P.S. I’ve read your timeline Decisive Darkness, and it’s a brilliant, brilliant timeline. Very well done.
