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

[Brenus]

What if?
What if in the 20th of July1944, the generals had succeeded to kill Hitler?

How they would have convinced the world to stop the war? What they would have to do?
Following the debate on the Treaty of Versailles and how the Allies were determined in 1944 to show to the Germans they had lost the war, would this assassination change the German end?
Or would this been seen by the Allies as another trick to avoid a defeat then to claim few years after that Germany wasn’t defeated?
What about the extermination camps?
Would Stalin be convinced to stop his offensive?
Would Churchill and Roosevelt convinced to halt the D-Day offensive?

In the internal situation what and who to arrest? The SS are an army in the Army. What about Himmler, Goering and the hard Nazi?

More I think about it, less I give a chance of success to the generals to stop the war at this point…

So what would they have to do?
Possible reaction of the major Allies?
Price to pay?

[Pannonian]

They could have decided on a more rational route towards unconditional surrender, eg. hold in the east for as long as possible and yield in the west, thus allowing the western Allies to be in de facto occupation of the majority of Germany before the Soviets pushed their Germans back. What that does to post-war negotiations is anyone's guess. But unconditional surrender was the only ceasefire available.

[PanzerJaeger]

Peace(alliance) with the Western Allies, sensible command decisions and, dare I say, victory in the East. On the home front, the top Nazis would have to be rounded up and put on trial to show the Western Powers that they were dealing with different leadership. The Holocaust would have probably been quietly halted and covered up.

[Jolt]

How they would have convinced the world to stop the war? What they would have to do?

Well, the Allies only agreed on unconditional surrender in 1945, but that doesn't mean they didn't think that was the only or proper way to end the war.

In the end of July, the Allies were still struggling to build a bridgehead in Normandy, while the Soviets were already pushing through the Baltic countries, Bielorussia and Ukraine. Phreaps the Allies wouldn't have pushed for a unconditional surrender, but Stalin had already smelled blood in the water and bent on bringing the entire Eastern Europe under his bootheels, I doubt he would have settled for a conditional surrender. Further, most of the conspirators and the future cabinet would have far greater sympathies for the Western Allies and make a transition to a Conservative Democracy, then they would to anything similar to Communism (Which was the archenemy of Fascism/Nazism).
Also taking into account it would take a few weeks before control was cemented by the conspirators and any counter-coups thrwarted, before the conspirators could actually press for an armistice.

Following the debate on the Treaty of Versailles and how the Allies were determined in 1944 to show to the Germans they had lost the war, would this assassination change the German end?
Or would this been seen by the Allies as another trick to avoid a defeat then to claim few years after that Germany wasn’t defeated?

It is true Roosevelt that Roosevelt and Morgenthau were by then already planning to utterly destroy any semblance of German power after the war, the coup and assassination of Hitler might have changed his minds as to how zealous would they be to persue Germany into its hinterlands. I suppose it would all depend on what measures the Conspirators would take to deal with the more radical elements of the regime as a whole.

What about the extermination camps?

That would be a tricky matter. I am not aware of how much the conspirators knew of the extent of the holocaust, but the sheer horror of such a program was the creation of Hitler and more radical elements within the Nazi Hierarchy. Without a doubt, the Conspirators would pull the plug on that as soon as they could, along with other forced labour measures occurring in Germany.

Would Stalin be convinced to stop his offensive?

As I said, that would be highly unlikely.

Stalin had placed great trust in Hitler and cherished the idea of a military alliance up until the very moment when he was attacked (Stalin's suspicions and dismissal of Allied reports that Germans were massing troops on his borders as attempts to alienate both countries apart; along with his orders not to counter-mobilize before the invasion, and not to counter-attack once the Germans began attacking), he felt betrayed, further, his country suffered a great deal from the invasion and now he was winning and on the verge of occupying large tracts of Europe, he was going to stop? I doubt it.

Would Churchill and Roosevelt convinced to halt the D-Day offensive?

They might be inclined to it, but operations would proceed. In the end, I believe Stalin's firm refusal to accept anything less than unconditional surrender would force both Western Allies to continue their operations in Europe, which also settled well with their desire to punish Germany. Regardless if the Western Allies were to accept a surrender without their Eastern Ally's approval, German forces in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Italy would have to surrender and be disarmed, and Germany would have to fend off for itself against the Soviets.

In the internal situation what and who to arrest? The SS are an army in the Army. What about Himmler, Goering and the hard Nazi?

In that event, all of the Nazi's high cadre who didn't join the conspirators would be put under arrest. Starting with the SS, which was part of the plot from the beginning. They were the only ones who had the capability to resist and attack the coup once it was well settled.

More I think about it, less I give a chance of success to the generals to stop the war at this point…

Yeah, pretty much. Provided they were completely successful internally, they would then petition the Allies for an Armistice, along with all the conditions of post-war transition to a Democracy, pledges to curb the Nazi regime, restoring sovereignty to the occupied countries (quite possibly including Austria), closing down the concentration camps, trialling the high Nazi elites (Though I doubt much of the military would be effected by it. The conspirators were still very much dependent on the army loyalty to assert control over the country), etc. Churchill and Roosevelt, would start having second thoughts and might have been inclined to take the deal, but only with the agreement of Stalin, who, fiercely rejecting any such agreement would insist on unconditional surrender and occupation under the victorious Allies' terms. That would end the openness by the Western Allies to accept peace.

Realizing they had no choice but to continue to fight to defend Germany from total occupation, they would do so, albeit with weaker decisiveness then Hitler. Once the Germans were pushed out of Poland and France, I believe then the Conspirators would see that all was really lost, and after making a token defence to save some face and dignity, they would fold before the facts and accept unconditional surrender.

The result would be the Soviets putting the whole lot to trial along with the already arrested German elite. They would probably get a few dozens years each with crimes against the peace or something, and the whole path would not deviate that much from our history. A good more deal of Germans would probably have survived though, especially in the Western theaters.

[Strike For The South]

Patton rides into Moscow and spits on the Kermlin

BLAST THOSE YELLER REDS TO HELL

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Peace(alliance) with the Western Allies, sensible command decisions and, dare I say, victory in the East. On the home front, the top Nazis would have to be rounded up and put on trial to show the Western Powers that they were dealing with different leadership. The Holocaust would have probably been quietly halted and covered up.

How would victory in the East be defined?

[PanzerJaeger]

How would victory in the East be defined?

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.

[KrooK]

Question is if Western Allies would allow on peace mentioned by Jaeger. Governments of GB and USA had to listen to their population. Would people accept casefire and peace. Would Churchill allow Germans on victory on east? I really doubt. Victory mentioned by Jaeger would made Germany strongest nation into Europe again. And Germany would not have problems on East. More - they have all the sources of USSR.
Churchill was not idiot and would know that in these condition fall of Britain = 10 years.
More realistic is that Allies would still fighting and Germany would surrender. Maybe on better condition but would surrender.

[drone]

Too many variables. How would the German population react? Who would have taken charge, the generals or someone from the party? Would the population support the successor? Assuming the war continued (and domestic peace continued), how would the fighting be affected? How much would the German military benefit from the removal of Hitler's interference?

[TinCow]

I do not believe that the Western Allies would have made peace with Germany in July of '44 without the Soviets. Any peace deal between the West and Germany would also have included a settlement of some kind for the Soviets. If the Germans were not prepared to agree to such terms, the war would have continued even without Hitler. I see no plausible way for Germany to make peace in the west and continue to fight in the east.

[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.

[Jolt]

Too many variables. How would the German population react? Who would have taken charge, the generals or someone from the party?

Ugh. Very few people from the Nazi party would take charge of any meaningful post.

The leader would be Ludwig Beck, which had the respect of the military and the conservative elements of society. He was by all means a respected and conciliatory person to lead Germany.

[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.

[Sarmatian]

At that point, I don't think it would change much. Allies would have demanded unconditional surrender anyway.

[Louis VI the Fat]

What if?
What if in the 20th of July1944, the generals had succeeded to kill Hitler?

How they would have convinced the world to stop the war? What they would have to do?
Following the debate on the Treaty of Versailles and how the Allies were determined in 1944 to show to the Germans they had lost the war, would this assassination change the German end?
Or would this been seen by the Allies as another trick to avoid a defeat then to claim few years after that Germany wasn’t defeated?
What about the extermination camps?
Would Stalin be convinced to stop his offensive?
Would Churchill and Roosevelt convinced to halt the D-Day offensive?

In the internal situation what and who to arrest? The SS are an army in the Army. What about Himmler, Goering and the hard Nazi?

More I think about it, less I give a chance of success to the generals to stop the war at this point…

So what would they have to do?
Possible reaction of the major Allies?
Price to pay?

Lots of questions, good ones.


In short, I do not think that a succeeded attempt would've changed the course of history much. Perhaps a sad conclusion, and one that relegates the 20th of July attempt back to its rather modest place: merely a coup of continuity.


Ian Kershaw contrasted the options of Italy and Germany:
Unlike Italy, there was no alternative anymore. The Nazis had fully overtaken the state and society. Which is also telling of the extent to which German society, and especially the conservative, nationalist and military segment had embraced Hitler. They were the Nazis, instead of being governed by them. And everybody else had been eliminated.
Italy always retained a king, a society outside Mussolini, and could dispose of him when the war was lost. It was not possible for Germany to switch to the democratic camp in this manner.


And short of Germany turning democratic, I don't see how America could have struck a deal with 'Nazi' Germany, with or without Hitler, against the Soviet Union in 1944 anymore. It was too late for that. Britain, perhaps. Britain at this point was at the crossroads between independent foreign policy, and foreign policy in line with the US. The former impulse would dictate a return to the Ribbentrop-Hoare pact of 1935-1939, and indeed using Germany to contain Russia. (The UK is a promiscuous wench indeed! In twenty years, it jumped the beds of France, to Germany, to Russia and to America)
But this would require an isolationist America, which was not the case, so a deal with a non-democratic Germany was not a viable option.

There was also the irreconcilable problem of occupied states. What of France? Maybe this could've been solved with an evacuation of German troops. But France would not have fought alongside 'Nazi' Germany against the Soviet Union. It would've meant civil war in France, with the most likely outcome of a communist victory and an alliance with the Soviet Union. Poland is unsolveable too. Indeed, Poland was already unsolvable in actual history.

Peace(alliance) with the Western Allies, sensible command decisions and, dare I say, victory in the East.

B...but victory in the East means the defeat of Nazism.


Also, national-militaristic Germany installed Communism in Russia, and national-socialist Germany ensured its triumph over half of Europe. Some legacy! Far from claiming to lead the fight against bolshevism, the German right is the patron saint of Bolshevism, to which it owes all.

[Pannonian]

B...but victory in the East means the defeat of Nazism.

There was victory in the East. At around this time, the Nazis were getting their arses kicked by Bagration and its follow ups. If that's not victory in the East, I don't know what is.

[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.

[drone]

Ugh. Very few people from the Nazi party would take charge of any meaningful post.

The leader would be Ludwig Beck, which had the respect of the military and the conservative elements of society. He was by all means a respected and conciliatory person to lead Germany.

Beck was slated to take over in the plot, but this assumes that the post-hit coup was successful. Himmler was not going to go down easily.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There was victory in the East. At around this time, the Nazis were getting their arses kicked by Bagration and its follow ups. If that's not victory in the East, I don't know what is.

There was already victory in the East indeed. I was just having fun with PJ having a different idea of who would've had to win to speak of victory.

Except for Poland?

But, Poland was given up in the end. France and Britain did not win the guarantee of Poland over which they started the war in the first place. Poland was in the end the prize for one of the two countries that had invaded it in September 1939. One of the three countries that had divided Poland for the century and a half before Poland was freed at the great Treaty of Versailles.

[TinCow]

But, Poland was given up in the end. France and Britain did not win the guarantee of Poland over which they started the war in the first place. Poland was in the end the prize for one of the two countries that had invaded it in September 1939. One of the three countries that had divided Poland for the century and a half before Poland was freed at the great Treaty of Versailles.

As far as I am aware, the UK never declared war on the USSR to protect Poland. If I am wrong about that, please correct me.

[Louis VI the Fat]

As far as I am aware, the UK never declared war on the USSR to protect Poland.

No, but we did declare war on Germany to protect Poland. Rightfully or wrongfully, or forced by circumstance, in the end, we picked one of the two 1939 invaders of Poland for an ally, and sold out Poland to him.

The 'what if' here, is there a possibility that we would've sided with Germany against those who occupied Poland? It is, after all, what we did do after, say, 1949. What was the earliest date possible? Could it have been done in 1944, at the possible prize of giving Poland to Germany instead of to Russia?

[TinCow]

No, but we did declare war on Germany to protect Poland. Rightfully or wrongfully, or forced by circumstance, in the end, we picked one of the two 1939 invaders of Poland for an ally, and sold out Poland to him.

The 'what if' here, is there a possibility that we would've sided with Germany against those who occupied Poland? It is, after all, what we did do after, say, 1949. What was the earliest date possible? Could it have been done in 1944, at the possible prize of giving Poland to Germany instead of to Russia?

No, the UK had no interest in fighting the Soviets over Poland at any point that is relevant to this discussion. The UK-Poland military alliance was specifically targetted at Germany, not the USSR. In reality, the UK didn't care a whole lot about Poland's independence, they just cared about limiting Germany's expansion. The exact same was true of the Franco-Polish treaty. If you want to see how the UK/France would have responded to a unilateral Soviet attack on Poland, it's probably more accurate to look at their response to the Soviet invasion of Finland. In that situation, the UK/France made a big diplomatic scene, but didn't have any intention of opposing the Soviets militarily. The Cold War situation is not remotely comparable to WW2, and is more in-line with the UK/France reaction to the Finnish invasion. They were certainly not willing to risk war with the USSR in 1949 (or at any other subsequent date) over Polish independence.

[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.

[Brenus]

“As far as I am aware, the UK never declared war on the USSR to protect Poland. If I am wrong about that, please correct me.”
France and UK declare war on Germany after the attack by Germany of Poland. That was the step too far and this time the 2 Allies decided to go for it.
Unfortunately their armies and Air Forces were not up to the job, nor their generals and strategies…

“The Holocaust would have probably been quietly halted and covered up.”
Yeap, but what to do? To stop the convoys (which would be use much better for reinforcing the Eastern lines) would be easy, but what with the millions of deportees? A lot of war industries were using the forced labour…
What about the survivors of the Death Camps? To finish them off wouldn't be possible without the Allies to know, to release them wouldn’t help in gaining sympathy to Germany, even not in not any more Hitlerian one.
Just trying to resolve this would be a logistical nightmare, just to stop the deportees to stop dying of typhus or Cholera, or hunger. How to increase their daily rations in a besieged Germany? What to do with them? And if the Generals were not aware of this, it would make their task even harder...

“Peace (alliance) with the Western Allies”
Why the Allies would accept a Peace that would save Germany, and under which conditions?
As the debate on Versailles showed, a too lenient and soft Treaty just fuelled the next war…
So even in a will to save what left of Europe out of Communism, would Churchill and Roosevelt (as De Gaulle was still not in full control of France at this moment) would have accepted the risk of a confrontation with Stalin (which Roosevelt trusted) in order to save a Germany they were fighting with the help of the Soviets?
Even if the 2 leaders had no real idea of the scale of the holocaust, they knew what the Nazis were doing.
As the German population, they couldn’t imagine the reality of it. To know and to accept the reality of it is different. I am one of think the Germans knew of the deportation, I ma not sure they were aware of the physical reality…

More, as we know, Roosevelt always distrust De Gaulle as he was a general and he wasn’t elected… How and why he would have trust putchist German Generals?
As mentioned, there is no more a political credible German opposition thanks to the efficient Gestapo.

Now, if we look at the maps in July 1944, the Russian are deep in Europe.
They can decide to halt THEIR offensive in the East, giving the Germans time to regroup and to stop the Allies offensive.
They have in their ranks a political alternative to Nazism as they have a “German Communist Government” in Exile.
In case of a successful coup, they could claim the throne…

And considering the difficult logistic faced by the Allies in 1944, I am far to believe that the Allies would have been victorious in front of the Russians…
And I don’t want to start again a comparison between Sherman and T 34 or JS, Patton against Zukov, Koniev or Vatutine.
Defeating Bagration would have been indeed a difficult task but I am not sure that the British soldiers would have been so happy to fight the Russian even if they would be able to reach this front…
As for the French Army fighting during Anvil operation, I quite sure that they wouldn’t.

“The full extent of the Holocaust and its cultural and historical significance emerged after the war.” Agree, but only for the civilian population. I interviewed during my research a Leclerc 2DB veteran and he was still horrified by what he saw in some trains in an abandoned railways station…
So, the Allied soldiers who would have to see this kind of things would not fight to save Germany from Communism, as the horrors of communism became apparent even latter in history than the ones from Nazism…

[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.

[PanzerJaeger]

“The Holocaust would have probably been quietly halted and covered up.”
Yeap, but what to do? To stop the convoys (which would be use much better for reinforcing the Eastern lines) would be easy, but what with the millions of deportees? A lot of war industries were using the forced labour…
What about the survivors of the Death Camps? To finish them off wouldn't be possible without the Allies to know, to release them wouldn’t help in gaining sympathy to Germany, even not in not any more Hitlerian one.
Just trying to resolve this would be a logistical nightmare, just to stop the deportees to stop dying of typhus or Cholera, or hunger. How to increase their daily rations in a besieged Germany? What to do with them? And if the Generals were not aware of this, it would make their task even harder...

“Peace (alliance) with the Western Allies”
Why the Allies would accept a Peace that would save Germany, and under which conditions?
As the debate on Versailles showed, a too lenient and soft Treaty just fuelled the next war…
So even in a will to save what left of Europe out of Communism, would Churchill and Roosevelt (as De Gaulle was still not in full control of France at this moment) would have accepted the risk of a confrontation with Stalin (which Roosevelt trusted) in order to save a Germany they were fighting with the help of the Soviets?
Even if the 2 leaders had no real idea of the scale of the holocaust, they knew what the Nazis were doing.
As the German population, they couldn’t imagine the reality of it. To know and to accept the reality of it is different. I am one of think the Germans knew of the deportation, I ma not sure they were aware of the physical reality…

More, as we know, Roosevelt always distrust De Gaulle as he was a general and he wasn’t elected… How and why he would have trust putchist German Generals?
As mentioned, there is no more a political credible German opposition thanks to the efficient Gestapo.

Now, if we look at the maps in July 1944, the Russian are deep in Europe.
They can decide to halt THEIR offensive in the East, giving the Germans time to regroup and to stop the Allies offensive.
They have in their ranks a political alternative to Nazism as they have a “German Communist Government” in Exile.
In case of a successful coup, they could claim the throne…

And considering the difficult logistic faced by the Allies in 1944, I am far to believe that the Allies would have been victorious in front of the Russians…
And I don’t want to start again a comparison between Sherman and T 34 or JS, Patton against Zukov, Koniev or Vatutine.
Defeating Bagration would have been indeed a difficult task but I am not sure that the British soldiers would have been so happy to fight the Russian even if they would be able to reach this front…
As for the French Army fighting during Anvil operation, I quite sure that they wouldn’t.

“The full extent of the Holocaust and its cultural and historical significance emerged after the war.” Agree, but only for the civilian population. I interviewed during my research a Leclerc 2DB veteran and he was still horrified by what he saw in some trains in an abandoned railways station…
So, the Allied soldiers who would have to see this kind of things would not fight to save Germany from Communism, as the horrors of communism became apparent even latter in history than the ones from Nazism…

All good points, especially about the difficulty in figuring out how to repatriate a population you were previously systematically killing.

Essentially, my whole scenario hinges on the Allies viewing the assassination of Hitler as a dramatic change in German leadership and intentions and swallowing their moral and historical issues with Germany in the preservation of their own self interest, as they did when allying with the Soviet Union.

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.

Even at their most congenial, the West and the Russians were extremely suspicious of each other. Read Churchill's opinions on Stalin and communism as a good example. Their alliance was one of necessity, and while I agree with you wholeheartedly that there was no way the two would turn on each other as long as their common enemy, Nazi Germany, existed, the proposed scenario changes everything. With Hitler dead and the Nazis (presumably) out of power, Germany suddenly becomes the lesser of two evils/threats

[TinCow]

Even at their most congenial, the West and the Russians were extremely suspicious of each other. Read Churchill's opinions on Stalin and communism as a good example. Their alliance was one of necessity, and while I agree with you wholeheartedly that there was no way the two would turn on each other as long as their common enemy, Nazi Germany, existed, the proposed scenario changes everything. With Hitler dead and the Nazis (presumably) out of power, Germany suddenly becomes the lesser of two evils/threats

I see what you're getting at, but I have difficulty believing that the US or UK would truly believe that Germany had been de-Nazified while it continued fighting and particularly while it continued to occupy foreign nations, such as Poland. Just look at the reaction Patton got when he tried to keep the civil servants around. If Patton, of all people, could be politically tarred and feathered over retaining that relatively minor amount of 'Nazism,' I cannot see the US or UK accepting a simple leadership purge as a good enough reason to completely cease hostilities. Perhaps if the Germans had engaged in massive, open, and public de-Nazification there might have been something to build upon, but such a drastic purge of Germany would have so seriously damanged their ability to wage the war that Germany would have been defeated even more quickly in the East.

I've spent many years studying WW2 history, particularly the very entertaining 'what if' scenarios. While they are fun, there are honestly very few scenarios in which Germany could have won WW2 without deviating so signficantly from reality that the scenario becomes more fantasy than history. IMHO, Germany's only serious, realistic chance of victory was at Dunkirk. Had things occurred differently, and had the diplomacy been handled properly, peace with the UK could have been had then and there. That would have prevented the US from entering the war and would have let Germany fight the Soviets without one hand tied behind its back. After Dunkirk, the odds of a UK withdrawal from the war was negligible and the US entry was inevitable, even without Japan.

[Jolt]

Beck was slated to take over in the plot, but this assumes that the post-hit coup was successful. Himmler was not going to go down easily.

As far as I'm aware, even with all the delays, the major operation behind the coup was running under rails until the Commander of the Reserve Army was called by Goebels, which was surrounded by the German reserve army in his ministry of propaganda, and Goebels put the Commander to speak with Hitler, which changed his alliegance immediatly. Other high military commanders were being ordered by the conspirators to arrest key SS members and commanders stationed in the same area of operations as themselves. Without Hitler being alive, the reserve army would continue doing it's job, and Himmler resisting would only lend credibility to the conspirators. It would be a case of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."; I'm not sure what a chance Himmler would have at directing any resistance efforts if the whole SS and Nazi leaders were arrested in a couple of days.