What if Hitler was captured alive?
Richard Pan
I've been wondering about this question. What would have happened if the
Soviets had captured him before he committed suicide? Would they have
shot him right on the spot just because he was so hated? Or presented him
to Stalin? And if Stalin got his hands on Hitler would he allow the
Allies to try him at Nuremburg or deal with him personally in secret?
People called the O.J. case the Trial of the Century, but I think that's
absolutely ridiculous. The Nuremburg trial is the Trial of the Century.
What if Hitler was put on trial at Nuremburg? Of course he faced certain
death for war crimes and crimes against humanity. But, would the
prosecution have enough evidence to place him personally responsible for
the Holocaust? I've read that Hitler never signed anything that connected
him to the Holocaust. Everything was done through Himmler and the SS. It
is reported that Hermann Goering gave the first order to construct the
death camps. Hitler was smart in trying not to have himself connected to
the Holocaust. Please tell me your opinion of this.
Rich
Celtic Love God
if ole adolf was caught before he killed himself, i doubt he would have
made it to trial. there'd be a slight lapse in security around his cell
and several hundred inconspicous people would get in and tear the little
bugger limb from limb, pausing only to spit on the discarded body parts.
maybe his head would be a trophy, but i wouldn't quote odds on it.
Serge Matveyev
Richard Pan wrote:
>
> What would have happened if the
> Soviets had captured him before he committed suicide? Would they have
> shot him right on the spot just because he was so hated? Or presented him
> to Stalin?
I personally think that we would have never found out. He would have been
living quietly somewhere on the northern outskirts of Moscow (maybe even
with Eva Braun, I don't think Stalin would have allowed them to have any
kids though - for their - kids- own sake) until late 50's - early 60's.
He would have dictated tens thousands of pages of what would have never
to become memoirs, but he wouldn't have been extremely useful to Stalin.
Stalin would prefer to capture the missle engineers whose luck was better
and who later sent the man to the moon.
Patrick Patriarca
ric...@ucla.edu (Richard Pan) wrote:
>I've been wondering about this question. What would have happened if the
>Soviets had captured him before he committed suicide? Would they have
>shot him right on the spot just because he was so hated? Or presented him
>to Stalin?
At least presented to The Man of Steel ... who would have delighted in
parading him around as a show dog.
And if Stalin got his hands on Hitler would he allow the
>Allies to try him at Nuremburg or deal with him personally in secret?
IF Uncle Joe was as wiley as I think he was it would have taken a
compromise of sorts ... thus: possession being 9/10ths of the law, Joe
Steel would have agreed to a trial but (according to one of the early
regs of post war trials) in the place of the accused greatest crimes
which no doubt was in Russia (ie:Hitler caused more Russians to be
killed than Jews) and hold the trial there.
>People called the O.J. case the Trial of the Century, but I think that's
>absolutely ridiculous. The Nuremburg trial is the Trial of the Century.
Agreed. The Simpson traial was the MIS-trial of the centurey.;)
>What if Hitler was put on trial at Nuremburg? Of course he faced certain
>death for war crimes and crimes against humanity. But, would the
>prosecution have enough evidence to place him personally responsible for
>the Holocaust?
Definitely ... to assue getting the Little Corporal the allies would
have squeezed his underlings, perhaps offer life to one or two in
return for their testimony ...
I've read that Hitler never signed anything that connected
>him to the Holocaust. Everything was done through Himmler and the SS.
Apparently
It
>is reported that Hermann Goering gave the first order to construct the
>death camps. Hitler was smart in trying not to have himself connected to
>the Holocaust. Please tell me your opinion of this.
Well he wasn't THAT smart ...EVERYONE knew NOTHING as immense and
monsterous happened in NAZI Germany without the Poor Painter's
permission if not direction ...Hitler was THE ultimate
MIcro-Administrator ... besides Goering etc would have spilled their
gutts to aviod the gallows.
>Rich
John B. Morgan
On 4 Jun 1996, Richard Pan wrote:
> I've been wondering about this question. What would have happened if the
> Soviets had captured him before he committed suicide? Would they have
> shot him right on the spot just because he was so hated? Or presented him
> to Stalin? And if Stalin got his hands on Hitler would he allow the
> Allies to try him at Nuremburg or deal with him personally in secret?
It's refreshing to see a "what if" question that hasn't been discussed to
death already! I agree, the trial of Hitler would truly have been a historic
event. I don't think the Soviets would have killed him outright, as the
top Nazi officials were too valuable for their information to be wasted
without interrogation first. The other major war criminals that fell into
Soviet hands usually survived at least long enough for that. However, it
is true that, had Hitler been captured by the Soviets, it's questionable
as to whether or not he would have gotten to Nuremberg. All of the defendants
at Nuremberg were captured by Anglo-American forces. Hitler might well
have disappeared into some NKVD mousehole somewhere.
BUT...given that Hitler actually makes it to Nuremberg, I don't think there's
any question that he would have been found guilty. After all, the defendants
who were tried at N. all claimed blissful ignorance of the Holocaust but many
of them were still convicted of crimes against humanity. At the very least,
Hitler would have been found guilty of planning an aggressive war, which was
enough to convict several of the others. What I would find more interesting
would be Hitler's behavior under such conditions. Given his gift for
articulation, it would be interesting to see what a show he'd put on. After
all, we have the records of Hitler's FIRST trial, the one for conspiracy
after the 1923 Putsch, and despite his obvious guilt Hitler virtually turned
the tables on his accusers and put THEM on trial. Admittedly, the trial
of 1946 would have been a bit trickier, but how fascinating it would have
been to see him try...
> But, would the
> prosecution have enough evidence to place him personally responsible for
> the Holocaust? I've read that Hitler never signed anything that connected
> him to the Holocaust. Everything was done through Himmler and the SS.
It depends on your definition of "personally responsible." It's true
that, to this day, no piece of paper with Hitler's signature on it
has been found that connects him to the Holocaust. However, "Holocaust
denial" was not a viable defense in 1946. The best Hitler could have done
would be to try something along the lines of what David Irving claims in
HITLER'S WAR, namely that the Holocaust was an invention of Himmler and
the SS and that he had no knowledge of it until late in the war. But
even this would not have been enough to get him off. For this we need
only examine the case of Julius Streicher. Streicher, the Gauleiter of
Nuremberg, was tried at Nuremberg. He was a notorious anti-Semite and had
been a prominent Nazi during their rise to power. After 1933, however,
his influence rapidly diminished, and during the war he had very little
power at all. He had no direct involvement in the Holocaust. However, he
was still found guilty of crimes against humanity and hanged because he had
helped to create the atmosphere in Germany that had allowed the Holocaust
to happen. Hitler, as architect of the Nazi party and their path to power,
could hardly claim that he had not helped to create this atmosphere.
Does anyone know if any of the Allied powers had specific plans for
Hitler, had he been captured?
There have been a number of novels that have speculated on what Hitler's
trial would have been like, including one that was written during the war.
The best by far that I've seen is George Steiner's THE PORTAGE TO SAN
CRISTOBAL OF A.H., which has Hitler put on trial by a group of Israeli
agents in South America. A fascinating book.
John Morgan "Very possibly I shall have you slaughtered
The University of Michigan and skewered in my stables and enjoy a slice
jbmo...@umich.edu of you with crisp crackling from the baking
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jbmorgan/ tin basted and baked like sucking
pig with rice and lemon or currant sauce.
It will hurt you."-Bello, in Joyce's ULYSSES
Pzkpfw
I think is is most likely that Stalin would have ordered Hitler's summary
execution, simply because the Russian people (and just about every other
people in the world) would have expected and demanded it. But it is
conceivable that Stalin might have ordered Hitler kept alive as a
bargaining chip for post-war negotiation, or simply as a matter of
professional courtesy, from one psychotic mass-murderer to another. After
all, back in 1939, they had been virtual allies.
Kevin L Gilbert
Richard Pan (ric...@ucla.edu) wrote:
: I've been wondering about this question. What would have happened if the
: Soviets had captured him before he committed suicide? Would they have
: shot him right on the spot just because he was so hated? Or presented him
: to Stalin? And if Stalin got his hands on Hitler would he allow the
: Allies to try him at Nuremburg or deal with him personally in secret?
There would definitely have been a show trial, except that Hitler
would probably not be allowed to speak, unless he was tortured into
making the correct statements. In his condition c. 1945, however,
torture would have killed him. The Allies would have pressured Stalin to
bring the prisoner to Nuremberg, but Stalin would have known better,
since Hitler would have seen that trial as his last great chance to turn
West against East. Stalin would have argued that Hitler was as much a
prize to which the Soviets were uniquely entitled as was Berlin.
: People called the O.J. case the Trial of the Century, but I think that's
: absolutely ridiculous. The Nuremburg trial is the Trial of the Century.
: What if Hitler was put on trial at Nuremburg? Of course he faced certain
: death for war crimes and crimes against humanity. But, would the
: prosecution have enough evidence to place him personally responsible for
: the Holocaust? I've read that Hitler never signed anything that connected
: him to the Holocaust. Everything was done through Himmler and the SS. It
: is reported that Hermann Goering gave the first order to construct the
: death camps. Hitler was smart in trying not to have himself connected to
: the Holocaust. Please tell me your opinion of this.
The Nuremberg judges would probably have nailed Hitler simply for
starting WW2, culpability in genocide notwithstanding. Still, Hitler
presents a special difficulty for the court as opposed to his stooges,
since he was (persumably) captured as head of state, and would still
consider himself as such. If he's smart, he'll concentrate less on his
innocence than on the argument (aimed mainly at the Americans) that the
tribunal sets a dangerous precedent for undermining national
sovereignty. As I said, he'd see Nuremberg as a chance for a final
masterstroke, a provocation of East-West conflict. In all likelihood,
however, he'd screw up, start railing against international Jewry, and
dig his own grave.
-KLGilbert (kev...@history.umass.edu)
Mark Dreessen
On 9 Jun 1996, John B. Morgan wrote:
> It's refreshing to see a "what if" question that hasn't been discussed to
> death already!
Here's one that I don't imagine would've been discussed much, then.
(although I can't rightly say since I have only been reading this
newsgroup for a short time)
Lets hypothetically say that the Axis Powers (probabally consisting at
least partially of German Paratroops) capture Malta during 1940. The UK's
major base in the middle of the Mediterranean is now lost, along with the
airfields. Convoys to Egypt now either have to go around the Cape or
across the entire Mediterranean without a safe port, while Even more
airfields in the Medi are useable to the Axis. What effect would this have
had on the supply of both the Commonwealth forces in N.Africa and the Axis
forces? How do you think that this would, in turn, have affected the
ground campaign in Africa?
Eric Oppen
In a previous article, ric...@ucla.edu (Richard Pan) says:
>
>
>People called the O.J. case the Trial of the Century, but I think that's
>absolutely ridiculous. The Nuremburg trial is the Trial of the Century.
>What if Hitler was put on trial at Nuremburg? Of course he faced certain
>death for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
There was a book that was published some time back called "The Trial of
Adolf Hitler." In it, Hitler, who had escaped Berlin at literally the last
second with a stash of gold and set himself up as a local squire in a
Bavarian village, turned himself in and asked to be put on trial.
The trial was held at the UN, with judges from (IIRC) the US, USSR, Israel,
West Germany (a lot of what Hitler had done was contrary to the laws of the
Weimar Republic) and Britain. At one point, Hitler turns to the US
sergeant guarding him from angry demonstrators and asks what the guy would
do if he were found innocent. The soldier answers that his dad died in the
ARdennes and that if the courts won't execute Hitler, he knows that there
are gobs of private citiens who would.
Myself, I would have answered: "If you're found innocent, Herr Hitler, I'll
make a mental note of the name of the lawyer who got you off, in case I
ever _really_ get into trouble!"
--
\|/ /\ \|/ |"Random action produces random political results...Why waste
\/ \/ | even a rock?"--Abbie Hoffman, in _Steal This Book_.
/ \ | <--Hobo symbol for "Man armed at this address..."
/____________\ | "Mentally undressing the Internet"
ZABAVA
Mark Dreessen (m...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: What effect would this have
: had on the supply of both the Commonwealth forces in N.Africa and the Axis
: forces? How do you think that this would, in turn, have affected the
: ground campaign in Africa?
Wow, I haven't thought about this one in years! Hope I can recall things
correctly :-)
The fall of Malta would have done three things:
1. Put a strain on all British naval activity in the Medditeraian. This
would include troop and supply shipments to the forces in Egypt/North
Africa, as well as limit the RN's ability to challange Italian/German
shipping. Obviously this would have been bad for GB, good for Italy and
Germany.
2. Reduced the Italian and German strain on supplying Rommel and
challanging British shipping. This would not only have led to more
supplies and replacements getting to Rommel, but it would have also
reduced the losses and forces necessary to combat the British presence
with Malta intact. It is often forgot that the Germans and Italians lost
a large number of fighter and transport planes in this theater as a direct
result of Malta's airbases.
3. It would have increased the problems of landing US troops in North
Africa, supplying them, and then moving into Sicily (if they won North
Africa). At the very least US and GB would have to neutralize the threat
of Malta (which they might have been able to do anyways).
So, if Malta had fallen quickly (as many in the German command were
demanding) the Germans and Italians would have had a MUCH better time in
general. The massive quantities of aircraft and shipping that were lost
due to Malta's existance would have been saved, and would therefore have
been available for other uses.
It was, IMHO, one of the dumbest mistakes that Hitler made. As with
Murmansk, a small, well planned attack could have taken out an ongoing
thorn in the side of the Axis war effort. Because it was so "doable", and
the sizeable resources and time which lost because of NOT taking the
objectives, make these two mistakes stand out far above more risky "what
if" questions like Sea Lion or taking Moscow in August 1941. Sometimes
you have to wonder how Germany managed to do so well when it botched so
many opportunities :-)
Steve
Dirk Lorek
And they were very close. In April 42, the bombings had become so heavy
that apparently the British decided to abandon the isle for use as an
air- and naval base. But the Luftwaffe had not enough planes to support
both a landing on Malta and Romel's offensive in North Africa. So it
was decided that Rommel should get the planes first, when he had reached
the Egyptian border he should stop so that the planes could be used for
the invasion of Malta. In the meantime, the British could reinforce
the isle starting on May 9. When Rommel had reached the border, he saw
a golden opportunity to break through to Cairo and requested to keep
the airplanes a little longer, this was granted and the Malta landing
got postponed to Sept, after El Alamein the plans were dead.
Dirk
_______________________________________________________________________
What am I, Life ? A thing of watery salt, held in cohesion by unresting
cells, which work they know not why, which never halt, myself unwitting
where their Master dwells. - John Masefield -
funkraum
>pale...@citicom.com (Patrick Patriarca) wrote:
>>ric...@ucla.edu (Richard Pan) wrote:
[...]
>IF Uncle Joe was as wiley as I think he was it would have taken a
>compromise of sorts ... thus: possession being 9/10ths of the law, Joe
>Steel would have agreed to a trial but (according to one of the early
>regs of post war trials) in the place of the accused greatest crimes
>which no doubt was in Russia (ie:Hitler caused more Russians to be
>killed than Jews) and hold the trial there.
[...]
Off the top of my head, under the Potsdam declaration, I think this
only applied to the second-ranking criminals. The first-ranking were
all listed and named and to be sent for trial by th IMT. The US held
the balance of these man and thus was able to keep negotiations
running and agreements reached with a sort of 'casting vote' that
their bargaining hand had bought them.