Valkyrie plot against Hitler

[Riekopo]

I think it would be cool to have an option to have the late war Valkyrie plot against Hitler. It was the 1944 late war attempt by different German officers to overthrow Hitler and end the war on before Germany was destroyed and on more favorable terms. They failed and were all executed. The movie Valkyrie is about it. This is the plot that got Rommel killed.

I think if Hitler is in power and it's past a certain date and Germany is losing the war badly and things are getting desperate. Then the plot should spawn and involve whatever characters are still alive and they should try to kill Hitler. Small chance of success. Totally optional game rule though.

 

[Dlin369]

There is a Valkyrie plot in-game, but just for a different reason - if you favor the SS too much (picking himmler as your advisor + taking decisions), eventually the Wehrmacht starts plotting against Hitler and can assasinate him

 

[mursolini]

I think it would be cool to have an option to have the late war Valkyrie plot against Hitler. It was the 1944 late war attempt by different German officers to overthrow Hitler and end the war on before Germany was destroyed and on more favorable terms.

"More favorable" in that they would get bombed as hard and their cities wouldn't be destroyed by street fighting.

I think if Hitler is in power and it's past a certain date and Germany is losing the war badly and things are getting desperate. Then the plot should spawn and involve whatever characters are still alive and they should try to kill Hitler. Small chance of success. Totally optional game rule though.

There actually is one such coup, but Germany needs to be at war with Czechs, and not do too well.

 

[Palaiologos]

I think it would be cool to have an option to have the late war Valkyrie plot against Hitler. It was the 1944 late war attempt by different German officers to overthrow Hitler and end the war on before Germany was destroyed and on more favorable terms. They failed and were all executed. The movie Valkyrie is about it. This is the plot that got Rommel killed.

I think if Hitler is in power and it's past a certain date and Germany is losing the war badly and things are getting desperate. Then the plot should spawn and involve whatever characters are still alive and they should try to kill Hitler. Small chance of success. Totally optional game rule though.

Yeah but that was a fantasy of theirs. The Allies had decided from as early as 1942 that they would only accept unconditional surrender from the Germans, no peace treaties between any party. The same went for the Japs. It didnt matter if NSDAP was in charge or some German Generals, that preposterously actually wanted to keep Poland post war! I mean that exact peace deal was offered to the French and Brits in Octomber 1939, status quo, effectively meaning Germany had retaken all territories she had lost during WW1 plus a bit of Poland extra. And the Brits flat out refused.

So the only thing the Germans were left with was to fight on.

 

[Treviranus]

The German military resistance is very hard to properly implement in the game, since there were multiple plots and ideas for resistance, that ultimately failed. Valkyrie was a desperate and very late attempt and one of the motivations was to prove to the world that there was a resistance within the German military. I don't see how this could be built into the game properly if you wanted to be completely historically accurate. You'd probably had to develope a mechanic to build up public support, support within the Wehrmacht and foreign support, possibly via decisions. A new focus could unlock these decisions, possibly with an AI-controlled GESTAPO taking measures against you, a bit like the new minigame with preparations for the SCW that was introduced with LR. This would however possibly make the game too easy for Germany because that would open up the possibility to keep much of what you gained through other decisions (Anschluss, Sudetenland, and possibly even Czechia) and still remove Hitler.

The Allies had decided from as early as 1942 that they would only accept unconditional surrender from the Germans, no peace treaties between any party.

Of course a peace deal in the summer of 1944 could never have been very favourable for Germany, but statements from the allies regarding their plans for Germany were unreliable for this question insofar as they all operated under the premise of the Nazis having control of Germany. Additionally, the message that the war would be continued until the unconditional surrender of Germany was a necessary sign to everyone that the allies were committed to the war, not just as a signal to the neutrals and minor allies, but also to the members of the axis, to show them that resistance is futile. The resistance within the Wehrmacht faced a serious dilemma: You can't stage a coup as long as the war is going seemingly well for the axis and you can't expect much cooperation from the allies if the war is going very badly, so any window of opportunity would be rather small, perhaps the plot to bomb Hitler in March 1943 by Fabian von Schlabrendorff was the last real chance for major concessions by the allies. I don't think it is completely unlikely that Germany would have got to keep it's pre WW1 eastern border if some kind of plot had removed Hitler and the NSDAP from power soon enough.

 

[kimidf]

Of course a peace deal in the summer of 1944 could never have been very favourable for Germany, but statements from the allies regarding their plans for Germany were unreliable for this question insofar as they all operated under the premise of the Nazis having control of Germany. Additionally, the message that the war would be continued until the unconditional surrender of Germany was a necessary sign to everyone that the allies were committed to the war, not just as a signal to the neutrals and minor allies, but also to the members of the axis, to show them that resistance is futile. The resistance within the Wehrmacht faced a serious dilemma: You can't state a coup as long as the war is going seemingly well for the axis and you can't expect much cooperation from the allies if the war is going very badly, so any window of opportunity would be rather small, perhaps the plot to bomb Hitler in March 1943 by Fabian von Schlabrendorff was the last real chance for major concessions by the allies. I don't think it is completely unlikely that Germany would have got to keep it's pre WW1 eastern border if some kind of plot had removed Hitler and the NSDAP from power soon enough.

remember that the concept of unconditional surrender was a premise secretly imposed by the Americans made without consulting their British allies although they publicly endorsed it although they had certain reservations privately they already had certain doubts of its usefulness that this declaration was a catalyst for the German population it would be relieved against the Nazis but rather had the opposite effect as is well known and the Nazi regime also used this as an excuse to eliminate any possible dissent in a violent and radical way in its final stage

 

[Dlin369]

I guess one of the problems worth mentioning for stuff like this and the Italian civil war (which I think has to be included one way or another) is that it creates a death-spiral for losing players - making a bad situation much much worse.

For the Italian civil war example, you end up with the issue that it did happen in real life, but modeling it in-game would be hard. You could make it only a player Italy option, and then give the Allies higher compliance if they invade. Or you could make it happen if the Allies hit certain points and the game is lost anyway.

For Valkyrie, I'd make it a flavor event that fails by default all the time when the AI is playing. The player can choose for the plot to work - which turns you non-aligned and gives you a new leader (maybe unlocking the Oppose Hitler tree in the process), but keeps you at war with the Allies and the Soviets.

 

[kimidf]

I guess one of the problems worth mentioning for stuff like this and the Italian civil war (which I think has to be included one way or another) is that it creates a death-spiral for losing players - making a bad situation much much worse.

For the Italian civil war example, you end up with the issue that it did happen in real life, but modeling it in-game would be hard. You could make it only a player Italy option, and then give the Allies higher compliance if they invade. Or you could make it happen if the Allies hit certain points and the game is lost anyway.

For Valkyrie, I'd make it a flavor event that fails by default all the time when the AI is playing. The player can choose for the plot to work - which turns you non-aligned and gives you a new leader (maybe unlocking the Oppose Hitler tree in the process), but keeps you at war with the Allies and the Soviets.

surely when the Italian rework is done surely this topic is addressed in this one that I believe had at least three sides: one of them was a fascist Republic Salò that would become a German puppet state. Another pro-ally side governed by Badologio or another with a communist root by the red brigades. In a certain way, the Italian civil war should have the mechanics of a multiple civil war, as we saw in the new Spanish tree in the last dlc.

I am that this should happen as an event type should jump if the Germans lose ground in a general way and the support of the war is reduced.

 

[Palaiologos]

Of course a peace deal in the summer of 1944 could never have been very favourable for Germany, but statements from the allies regarding their plans for Germany were unreliable for this question insofar as they all operated under the premise of the Nazis having control of Germany. Additionally, the message that the war would be continued until the unconditional surrender of Germany was a necessary sign to everyone that the allies were committed to the war, not just as a signal to the neutrals and minor allies, but also to the members of the axis, to show them that resistance is futile. The resistance within the Wehrmacht faced a serious dilemma: You can't stage a coup as long as the war is going seemingly well for the axis and you can't expect much cooperation from the allies if the war is going very badly, so any window of opportunity would be rather small, perhaps the plot to bomb Hitler in March 1943 by Fabian von Schlabrendorff was the last real chance for major concessions by the allies. I don't think it is completely unlikely that Germany would have got to keep it's pre WW1 eastern border if some kind of plot had removed Hitler and the NSDAP from power soon enough.

No that would be impossible. Poland had lost Buelarus and its Ukranian territories to the Sovietsq it was already agreed and then ratified in Yalta that they would get recompansated for that with German territories. Unconditional surrender was the goal of the allies, after all they had imposed it on Germany post WW1, of course they would impose the same now, it was a no brainer, since they were winning. The delluded Valkyrie dudes though, in the end committed treason without any prospect of gaining anything for Germany-if that was their goal, really(I personally doubt it).

 

[Treviranus]

No that would be impossible. Poland had lost Buelarus and its Ukranian territories to the Sovietsq it was already agreed and then ratified in Yalta that they would get recompansated for that with German territories. Unconditional surrender was the goal of the allies, after all they had imposed it on Germany post WW1, of course they would impose the same now, it was a no brainer, since they were winning. The delluded Valkyrie dudes though, in the end committed treason without any prospect of gaining anything for Germany-if that was their goal, really(I personally doubt it).

There was no unconditional surrender by Germany after WW1. Germany and the Entente agreed to a truce thathad several conditions that Germany had to meet, but there never was unconditional surrender. The conference of Yalta was in February of 1945 so I don't see how this is relevant in this question. A general agreement on the German eastern border may have been met rather early, but if you look at millions of allied casualties after the small window of opportunity in early 1943 that I mentioned, I don't see how some borderlands are not well worth shortening the war, especially if you're dealing with a government without the Nazis. As far as I remember, there had even been talks about a seperate between the Germans and the Nazis as late as 1943, so I really don't think there is any ground to think that it was impossible to reach a peace deal for a non-Nazi government at that time, perhaps unlikely, but definitely not impossible.

 

[Palaiologos]

There was no unconditional surrender by Germany after WW1. Germany and the Entente agreed to a truce thathad several conditions that Germany had to meet, but there never was unconditional surrender. The conference of Yalta was in February of 1945 so I don't see how this is relevant in this question. A general agreement on the German eastern border may have been met rather early, but if you look at millions of allied casualties after the small window of opportunity in early 1943 that I mentioned, I don't see how some borderlands are not well worth shortening the war, especially if you're dealing with a government without the Nazis. As far as I remember, there had even been talks about a seperate between the Germans and the Nazis as late as 1943, so I really don't think there is any ground to think that it was impossible to reach a peace deal for a non-Nazi government at that time, perhaps unlikely, but definitely not impossible.

Ok you are right on the ww1 part. I dont remember that the Allies said anything specifically about nazism in Cassablanca when they announced the unconditional surrender demand, it was about Germany. I really dont believe it was the presence of the NSDAP in power that either drove or kept the other powers at war against Germany, it was much deeper than simply the party that happened to rule Germany at a specific time. They never liked Germany's attempts at becoming a world power and hence it was war.

 

[kimidf]

but looking at the peace treaty of the Second War with perpetration was more benign and equitable despite the harsh terms with the Germans than the Versailles treaty which was one of the causes that brought to power the most radical German sectors. In a way, the allied powers learned from the mistakes of that 1918 treaty by being more flexible and that it should be encouraged to help Germans economically if they had the economic conditions to be able to pay war debts and not take it to an extremely poor situation and prevent the The German population did not feel as humiliated as some prominent members of the Versailles Treaty Commission realized how the brilliant British economist JM Keynes complained about the serious deficiencies of that treaty, as he said this treaty was the perfect cultivation field for future grievances and radicalism of part of the German population towards the allies as something happened just a decade and all that was missing was the element of a great financial crisis so that the perfect storm that would take National Socialism to power would wear off

 

[Treviranus]

Ok you are right on the ww1 part. I dont remember that the Allies said anything specifically about nazism in Cassablanca when they announced the unconditional surrender demand, it was about Germany. I really dont believe it was the presence of the NSDAP in power that either drove or kept the other powers at war against Germany, it was much deeper than simply the party that happened to rule Germany at a specific time. They never liked Germany's attempts at becoming a world power and hence it was war.

Let's just take a look at the Italian case: In Casablance the decision was made to fight on until the unconditional surrender of Germany, Italy and Japan, but after Mussolini was deposed the allies agreed to a truce with the Badoglio government. As soon as Mussolini was gone, unconditional surrender was no longer a necessity for the allies.

You're right, some countries felt uneasy about Germany being a major power, but neither the US nor Russia were too concerned with this. Of course, not all wheels of the war would come to a grinding halt, but Germany gradually retreating from occupied areas or something like that could easily pave the way for a truce with conditions and geostrategical questions could be discussed in a peace conferece long after that.

 

[Palaiologos]

but looking at the peace treaty of the Second War with perpetration was more benign and equitable despite the harsh terms with the Germans than the Versailles treaty which was one of the causes that brought to power the most radical German sectors. In a way, the allied powers learned from the mistakes of that 1918 treaty by being more flexible and that it should be encouraged to help Germans economically if they had the economic conditions to be able to pay war debts and not take it to an extremely poor situation and prevent the The German population did not feel as humiliated as some prominent members of the Versailles Treaty Commission realized how the brilliant British economist JM Keynes complained about the serious deficiencies of that treaty, as he said this treaty was the perfect cultivation field for future grievances and radicalism of part of the German population towards the allies as something happened just a decade and all that was missing was the element of a great financial crisis so that the perfect storm that would take National Socialism to power would wear off

How dissolving the German state was more lenient than the terms of Versailles? There was, literally, no German political entity after the war.

 

[Palaiologos]

Let's just take a look at the Italian case: In Casablance the decision was made to fight on until the unconditional surrender of Germany, Italy and Japan, but after Mussolini was deposed the allies agreed to a truce with the Badoglio government. As soon as Mussolini was gone, unconditional surrender was no longer a necessity for the allies.

You're right, some countries felt uneasy about Germany being a major power, but neither the US nor Russia were too concerned with this. Of course, not all wheels of the war would come to a grinding halt, but Germany gradually retreating from occupied areas or something like that could easily pave the way for a truce with conditions and geostrategical questions could be discussed in a peace conferece long after that.

Correct me if I am wrong, but they specifically mentioned Germany in Casablanca, and it was the US that insisted on the unconditional surrender terms, not the Soviets or Brits.

 

[kimidf]

How dissolving the German state was more lenient than the terms of Versailles? There was, literally, no German political entity after the war.

remember that a few years after the war the western allies created a german federal republic and in certain they learned from the lessons of the serious failures of the versailles treaty and something that was already warned by some advisers participated in that treaty as a renowned and brilliant british economist Keynes on the pernicious effects that would have to leave the Germans in the town without any stimulus or economic aid as a perfect cultivation field for them to become more vulnerable to populist and extremist movements.

This aid also had a political purpose to win the German mind and hearts against the Soviet red threat since they knew perfectly well that the Soviets would never accept that capitalist aid and expropriate German factories from their occupation zone and that actions would detract enough legitimacy from German eyes.

And as I said from that historical perspective, although it may be contradicted by some, the Second World War was in practice more benign to Germans than the Versailles Treaty, despite the serious situation of their devastated cities.

 

[Xerberous]

I think this is a good option for a second round of NF-tree changes - there are far more unrealistic ways to go in the alt-History trees then a defeated Germany going with the Western allies against the Soviet Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable)

 

[Palaiologos]

remember that a few years after the war the western allies created a german federal republic and in certain they learned from the lessons of the serious failures of the versailles treaty and something that was already warned by some advisers participated in that treaty as a renowned and brilliant british economist Keynes on the pernicious effects that would have to leave the Germans in the town without any stimulus or economic aid as a perfect cultivation field for them to become more vulnerable to populist and extremist movements.

This aid also had a political purpose to win the German mind and hearts against the Soviet red threat since they knew perfectly well that the Soviets would never accept that capitalist aid and expropriate German factories from their occupation zone and that actions would detract enough legitimacy from German eyes.

And as I said from that historical perspective, although it may be contradicted by some, the Second World War was in practice more benign to Germans than the Versailles Treaty, despite the serious situation of their devastated cities.

Well that was after the West falling out with the Soviets, when they reestablished Germany. It was certainly not the case in 1945.

 

[Treviranus]

Correct me if I am wrong, but they specifically mentioned Germany in Casablanca, and it was the US that insisted on the unconditional surrender terms, not the Soviets or Brits.

I haven't read any official documents regarding this conference, but the wikipedia article mentions all three major axis members as targets for unconditional surrender. But anyway, I wouldn't put too much faith into public statements like this.