WW2 questions

[The Brain]

Sometimes I think about various questions relating to WW2. I thought I'd try a thread for when these come up.

My first question relates to the 20 July plot. What did the plotters plan to do after a successful coup? Were they prepared to surrender unconditionally? What did they expect would happen after the coup? And what would have been likely to happen?

I've never read details about the plans of the plotters. I hope that they didn't expect things to change dramatically in relation to the enemy countries and the war. Hopefully the Germans learned in WW1 that getting rid of the Kaiser didn't change much.

[grumbler]

My understanding is that the coup plotters were going to set up a mostly-military government and try to either negotiate peace or try to turn the war into an anti-Communist crusade.  I think they sincerely misread the status of relations between the Soviets and the West.

They'd probably surrender before Gotterdammerung, though.

[The Brain]

Thanks, g. Hmm, yeah I can't shake the feeling that they may have been a bit optimistic about their chances to get a deal (especially having no Art Of The Deal to guide them ).

Another thing about the coup, of course there's the coup succeeds/coup fails scenarios, with Germany still under a single government (Hitler/Nazi non-Hitler/non-Nazi). Was there any chance, with Hitler dead, of some kind of split with different areas breaking off? Maybe with some parts ruled by the plotters and some parts by Nazi diehards?

[Josquius]

Did Hitler have one ball?

[Malthus]

The big question about the July plot is that of motivation. A primary motive was the knowledge that the Nazis were losing the war and that, without a settlement, defeat was inevitable; and clearly no settlement was possible with Hitler in charge. Whether any settlement was possible with a coup in charge is of course a question on which the coup leaders may have been highly over-optimistic.

The question I've seen disagreement on is whether the coup leaders were reacting against Nazi atrocities - that is, whether the plot had a moral outrage element to it. The consensus view appear to be that, while individual plotters may have hated the Nazi crimes, the real glue that stuck the plotters together was Nazi failure, not Nazi criminality. In short, the plotters were convinced that the Nazis would lose (and drag everyone down with them), and believed a coup was the way to avoid that, or at least have a chance of avoiding that.

[Caliga]

That's right.  There's a tendency to want Stauffenberg to be some great hero, and while he and the fellow plotters undoubtedly despised Hitler, I don't think it was for moral reasons at all.

[grumbler]

That's right.  There's a tendency to want Stauffenberg to be some great hero, and while he and the fellow plotters undoubtedly despised Hitler, I don't think it was for moral reasons at all.

I don't believe that your take is correct.  von Stauffenberg turned against the Nazis after seeing atrocities in Russia in 1942 and referred openly to those killings as crimes.

[Caliga]

Interesting, I was not aware of that.

[Syt]

The things is that the conspirators covered a range of views. Some by the atrocities esp. on the Eastern Front, others by the military situation and Hitler's intransigence, etc. But you also have people like Eduard Wagner, quartermaster-general under whose responsibility countless Soviet POWs died and who may have been motivated by fear of Soviet revenge against him personally. Or Arthur Nebe, who was a leading member of the Einsatzgruppen on the Eastern Front and also executed 50 of the recaptured prisoners ("The Great Escape") - he was to provide units to arrest ministers but went into hiding. His motives seem unclear.

[Malthus]

Von Stauffenberg clearly hated Nazi criminality.

The unknown issue is whether that was a major motive for the plot as a whole. On that, there is some disagreement - from what I understand, the majority view is that, while many in the armed forces truly hated Nazi criminality, it was Nazi military failure that was the major motive; had the Nazis been winning, the plot would have gained no traction.

[The Brain]

Another question: what was the deal with the Hessian Haggis Hunt? Was it completely on his own initiative that he flew to the UK? The whole thing seems weird and stupid, which I guess Hess may well have been. By what mechanism did he think he could get peace? Even if he could get the King's ear or whatever, did he think the UK would just abandon the war? And that's not even accounting for Hitler's thoughts and feelings on the matter.

[Barrister]

Sometimes I think about various questions relating to WW2. I thought I'd try a thread for when these come up.

My first question relates to the 20 July plot. What did the plotters plan to do after a successful coup? Were they prepared to surrender unconditionally? What did they expect would happen after the coup? And what would have been likely to happen?

I've never read details about the plans of the plotters. I hope that they didn't expect things to change dramatically in relation to the enemy countries and the war. Hopefully the Germans learned in WW1 that getting rid of the Kaiser didn't change much.

I have extensive knowledge of the plot after having read the Wiki page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot

It says they intended some kind of military/authoritarian plot, and figured on coming to a peace deal wherein either Germany would return to its 1914 borders, or at a minimum would keep Austria, Alsace-Lorraine and the Sudetenland.  None of which seems very realistic by July 1944.

I think there's some kind of room in 1944 for a negotiated settlement short of unconditional surrender by Germany, but not on the basis the plotters were thinking.

[grumbler]

Von Stauffenberg clearly hated Nazi criminality.

The unknown issue is whether that was a major motive for the plot as a whole. On that, there is some disagreement - from what I understand, the majority view is that, while many in the armed forces truly hated Nazi criminality, it was Nazi military failure that was the major motive; had the Nazis been winning, the plot would have gained no traction.

My readings indicate that the majority of the support for the plot was driven by the desire to avoid the consequences of military defeat, as you say.  That's why the large-scale conspiracy couldn't get started until 1944.

[grumbler]

Another question: what was the deal with the Hessian Haggis Hunt? Was it completely on his own initiative that he flew to the UK? The whole thing seems weird and stupid, which I guess Hess may well have been. By what mechanism did he think he could get peace? Even if he could get the King's ear or whatever, did he think the UK would just abandon the war? And that's not even accounting for Hitler's thoughts and feelings on the matter.

I think Hess had departed from reality by the time he flew to the UK.  He appeared to genuinely believe that (a) there was a large anti-war movement in the UK (motivated by the belief that Germany was unbeatable by the UK alone) that was just waiting for a strong signal from Germany that a status quo peace was possible, (b) that he was infinitely persuasive and so could talk his way into meeting with the leaders of this movement, and (c) that he needed to act before Barbarossa, when the expansion of the war would give the UK hope.

[fromtia]

I watched the Tom Cruise movie about Von Stauffenberg, enjoyable enough. I would be fascinated to learn what sort of peace or cease-fire the plotters thought they might be able to negotiate. We keep France? Sorry about our recent misunderstanding Josef, please don't steamroller all the way to Berlin? Always wondered what they hoped for beyond the most nebulous goals of ending the war.