Post by eurofed on Oct 24, 2017 18:13:27 GMT
Hitler's early death is a rather popular and iconic scenario in the AH genre and sci-fi fiction for anyone interested in creating a WWII divergence. He experienced a dozen-plus documented assassination attempts in his political career that in combination with potential accidents and the very real chance of dying during WWI or the Beer Hall Putsch create abundant opportunities to cut his life short at different times. The purpose of this thread is to discuss what would be the optimal time for Germany of Hitler's death in practical terms.
The deciding factor is the practical benefits for the German people; the other peoples are welcome to benefit from the divergence as well but only insofar as the interests of Germany are not sacrificed and moral concerns are irrelevant for the purpose of this scenario. The divergence should not become an opportunity for the wartime enemies of Germany to screw it up just as bad as OTL or worse, quite the contrary. A necessary prerequisite of the scenario is to prevent the damage Germany suffered in 1942-45 (wartime damage, loss of the Eastern territories, political division) and to duplicate or preserve the foreign policy accomplishments Nazi Germany got in 1933-39 (recovery of Rhineland and Saar, great-power status, and military parity with the Entente powers and the USSR, annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland), by whatever ATL leadership empowered by the divergence. If at possible, Germany should recover and keep Danzig, the Corridor, and Upper Silesia as well.
Anything less than the post-Munich status quo for Germany is an unacceptable outcome. To keep the fruits of the 1939-40 victories is a welcome bonus if at all possible but not strictly necessary. In practical terms, to avoid the massive PR blow and waste of resources implementation of the Holocaust and Generalplan Ost would cause may certainly be deemed a substantial benefit for the German people; on the other hand, the humanitarian damage Nazi policies caused in 1933-40 may be deemed acceptable 'collateral damage' for period standards and the purposes of this scenario. Much the same way, long-term evolution of Germany in an hardcore totalitarian regime (e.g. North Korea) is unacceptable, while transition into a 'moderate' authoritarian regime (e.g. post-Maoist China, Fascist Italy) is acceptable, even more so if followed by eventual return to democracy (e.g. Francoist Spain, Communist Eastern Europe).
The deciding factor is the practical benefits for the German people; the other peoples are welcome to benefit from the divergence as well but only insofar as the interests of Germany are not sacrificed and moral concerns are irrelevant for the purpose of this scenario. The divergence should not become an opportunity for the wartime enemies of Germany to screw it up just as bad as OTL or worse, quite the contrary. A necessary prerequisite of the scenario is to prevent the damage Germany suffered in 1942-45 (wartime damage, loss of the Eastern territories, political division) and to duplicate or preserve the foreign policy accomplishments Nazi Germany got in 1933-39 (recovery of Rhineland and Saar, great-power status, and military parity with the Entente powers and the USSR, annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland), by whatever ATL leadership empowered by the divergence. If at possible, Germany should recover and keep Danzig, the Corridor, and Upper Silesia as well.
Anything less than the post-Munich status quo for Germany is an unacceptable outcome. To keep the fruits of the 1939-40 victories is a welcome bonus if at all possible but not strictly necessary. In practical terms, to avoid the massive PR blow and waste of resources implementation of the Holocaust and Generalplan Ost would cause may certainly be deemed a substantial benefit for the German people; on the other hand, the humanitarian damage Nazi policies caused in 1933-40 may be deemed acceptable 'collateral damage' for period standards and the purposes of this scenario. Much the same way, long-term evolution of Germany in an hardcore totalitarian regime (e.g. North Korea) is unacceptable, while transition into a 'moderate' authoritarian regime (e.g. post-Maoist China, Fascist Italy) is acceptable, even more so if followed by eventual return to democracy (e.g. Francoist Spain, Communist Eastern Europe).