What if the 20th of July 1944 Hitler has been "terminated"

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Realistically, much like WW1 - with Russia asking for an armistice on favorable terms to Germany. If Russia lost her Western allies, face the prospect of unhindered German industry, and suffered a major battlefield reversal, it is not inconceivable that Stalin would look for an exit, or even be replaced.

If the Allies actually joined Germany against the Soviets, which was at least considered, total victory would not have been implausible.

Would such an armistice or total victory take into account Germany's war aims when they began the conflict?

Consider that some of the plotters against Hitler, including the guy Tom Cruise played, weren't opposed to the Holocaust or all the other nice the Nazi Party had made a priority. They were angry that Hitler was screwing up their chances of a Jew-free utopia.

[PanzerJaeger]

Would such an armistice or total victory take into account Germany's war aims when they began the conflict?

An armistice would fall short of Hitler's original goal of total annexation. Also, any deal with the Western powers would obviously require the return of all the nations Germany conquered, except for Poland.

Remember, in this hypothetical situation, the removal of Nazi leadership and peace with the Allies would necessitate leadership with completely different goals, ie. not aggressive expansion, which of course changes the conditions for victory. Defeating Bagration and bringing the Soviets to the peace table on a favorable footing would be quite a victory for Germany in 1944.

Consider that some of the plotters against Hitler, including the guy Tom Cruise played, weren't opposed to the Holocaust or all the other nice the Nazi Party had made a priority. They were angry that Hitler was screwing up their chances of a Jew-free utopia.

I think you are mischaracterizing their motivations quite a bit. While it is true that the plotters were motivated by fear of losing the war and not any particularly altruistic intentions, it is incorrect to assume that they were big supporters the Holocaust or a "Jew-free utopia".

The full extent of the Holocaust and its cultural and historical significance emerged after the war. Today, WW2 has almost become a morality play about the Holocaust. It has, rightly, become a huge historical event with countless books, movies, and other media devoted to it. Some have even described a "Holocaust Industry". To be perfectly blunt, however, the treatment of the Jews was a murky and wholly insignificant issue in the minds of most Germans who were not directly involved. The vast majority of Germans had no idea about the full extent of what was happening, and, frankly, didn't care. There was a war on, cities were being bombed, and people were trying their best to survive and win. I have read quite a few diaries from German officers and soldiers at all levels, and I have yet to come across much mental masturbation over Jew-free utopian visions.

[TinCow]

An armistice would fall short of Hitler's original goal of total annexation. Also, any deal with the Western powers would obviously require the return of all the nations Germany conquered, except for Poland.

Except for Poland? The Western Allies included the UK, and the UK had specifically gone to war to protect Poland. While the UK might have theoretically bowed out around the time of Dunkirk, leaving Poland under German occupation, there is no way they would have done so in July of 1944. After Overlord succeeded, an Allied victory was inevitable and the Allies knew it. It was just a question of time and cost. I simply do not see the UK allowing Germany to keep control of Poland in any peace agreement at that point in the war. Since the US would never have made a peace without the UK, I see no way for Germany to get out of the war in July of '44 and keep control of Poland.

As I see it, the only things a July '44 peace would have achieved for Germany would have been an improved post-war situation domestially. Germany probably would not have been divided, its infrastructure would have been far more intact, and it would have avoided another year's worth of deaths. The chance of pulling some kind of German strategic victory out of a July '44 peace is a pipedream and nothing more.

[PanzerJaeger]

Except for Poland? The Western Allies included the UK, and the UK had specifically gone to war to protect Poland. While the UK might have theoretically bowed out around the time of Dunkirk, leaving Poland under German occupation, there is no way they would have done so in July of 1944. After Overlord succeeded, an Allied victory was inevitable and the Allies knew it. It was just a question of time and cost. I simply do not see the UK allowing Germany to keep control of Poland in any peace agreement at that point in the war. Since the US would never have made a peace without the UK, I see no way for Germany to get out of the war in July of '44 and keep control of Poland.

The UK's brave stand for Poland was of course before the absolute humiliation of Dunkirk, the Blitz, and being kicked around the desert for years. Louis pretty much made the point that I would have. After 5 years, the British were more than happy to cede Poland to the Russians - one of the original invaders back in '39. I don't think they would have had a problem doing the same with Germany, especially if the nation was under new leadership.

Oh, and Overlord was far from decided in July of '44.

The chance of pulling some kind of German strategic victory out of a July '44 peace is a pipedream and nothing more.

Stranger things have happened. We shouldn't forget how strong the fear of communism was among the Western leadership, especially with Churchill. It is conceivable that if the Germans assassinated Hitler themselves, the emerging leadership could have been seen as a wholly different political animal by the West. And if the West threw their support behind Germany in its new found role as a defender instead of an aggressor, things would get very interesting indeed.

[TinCow]

The UK's brave stand for Poland was of course before the absolute humiliation of Dunkirk, the Blitz, and being kicked around the desert for years. Louis pretty much made the point that I would have. After 5 years, the British were more than happy to cede Poland to the Russians - one of the original invaders back in '39. I don't think they would have had a problem doing the same with Germany, especially if the nation was under new leadership.

The UK ceded Poland to the Russians because they had no choice. The same applied to the US. Neither was willing to risk a war with the Soviets over Poland, or for that matter any other Eastern bloc country. That's irrelevant to the discussion though because the UK, US, and France WERE willing to fight Germany over Poland. That's the entire point.

Oh, and Overlord was far from decided in July of '44.

Caen had already fallen by July 20th. There was no longer any way for Germany to eject the Allies from France at that point. The US breakout along the coast started less than a week later. No change in leadership was going to prevent that from happening.

[PanzerJaeger]

The UK ceded Poland to the Russians because they had no choice. The same applied to the US. Neither was willing to risk a war with the Soviets over Poland, or for that matter any other Eastern bloc country. That's irrelevant to the discussion though because the UK, US, and France WERE willing to fight Germany over Poland. That's the entire point.

Well, the UK and France were willing to fight Germany for Poland in 1939. The US was only willing to fight Germany after Hitler declared war. Anyway, after 5 years, France was beaten and the UK had suffered severely. As you stated, the British did not really care about the Poles, they only wanted to contain German expansion. I think that with the Nazis out of power, Britain would have been more than willing to cede Poland for a "victorious" exit from the war, especially if it helped contain the second, now first, most dangerous threat to Western security - communism.

Caen had already fallen by July 20th. There was no longer any way for Germany to eject the Allies from France at that point. The US breakout along the coast started less than a week later. No change in leadership was going to prevent that from happening.

It wouldn't? The Normandy campaign was decisively won a month later in late August with the Falaise disaster, which was directly attributable to Hitler.

[TinCow]

Well, the UK and France were willing to fight Germany for Poland in 1939. The US was only willing to fight Germany after Hitler declared war. Anyway, after 5 years, France was beaten and the UK had suffered severely. As you stated, the British did not really care about the Poles, they only wanted to contain German expansion. I think that with the Nazis out of power, Britain would have been more than willing to cede Poland for a "victorious" exit from the war, especially if it helped contain the second, now first, most dangerous threat to Western security - communism.

You seem to be assuming that the USSR/West split had already occurred in July of 1944. That's simply not true. The Western Allies didn't begin to re-align themselves against the Soviets until early 1945, and even then the Cold War didn't really start until 1947. Despite the 'what-if' posturing a lot of people like to make, with numerous cites to Patton, there was essentially no chance whatsoever that the US and UK were going to turn on the USSR, even in 1945. The US, UK, and USSR were all extremelly committed to supporting each other against Germany in July of 1944. Unconditional surrender was first discussed at Casablanca in January of 1943, and it was all but accepted by Tehran in November of 1943. That's long, long before the events of Overlord and July 20th. Unconditional surrender was a near-certainty by that point. The Soviets had also demanded that Poland's borders be redrawn at Tehran... they would not have accepted an end to the war that left Poland in Germany's hands.