Absolutely not. About half the German casualties of the war occurred after that event. And most of the bombing too. An unfathomable amount of suffering could have been prevented, if the assassination had been successful.
Stauffenberg tried to kill Hitler because he thought Hitler wasn’t effective. The war would have absolutely continued.
Wrong. Stauffenberg certainly wasn’t a model democrat. But he understood that the way was lost and that they had to come to some sort of resolution. Any deal Germany could have gotten would have been harsh but far better than total destruction.
not a model democrat
is doing some real heavy lifting there lol
deleted by creator
The uncomfortable truth is that for Nazism’s spell over the German people to be broken, it had to run its bloody course; it had to be seen to fail – utterly, completely and catastrophically. For all its heroism, Stauffenberg’s plot risked preventing that. So, while we applaud it, we should also applaud its failure.
So it’s OK that a couple if million people died because of some moral hazard argument? Yeah right.
I’m assuming you think a replacement to Hitler would have stopped the war. First, is that what you believe?
Second, would a more effective leader of Nazi Germany ultimately cause more deaths?
Anyone competent wouldn’t have fucking fought the russians and split their resources, they wouldn’t have probably even started a real war beyond the concessions other western governments were already totally fine with giving them. A competent person would’ve probably just started eating up colonialist imperialist doctrine abroad, as was socially acceptable, rather than trying to fight domestically.
Like, all of what america did.
At this point in the war they were already totally fucked, so anyone competent would’ve negotiated for peacetime. Whether or not that would’ve been better is up for debate, as germany is plenty full of nazis now and they probably would’ve been more full of nazis had they negotiated some sort of surrender, in which they probably would’ve had more control over their government in order to set it up longer term.
Probably though hitler dying sooner would’ve been good since it would’ve meant hitler died sooner. Which would’ve been awesome.
What a shit take.
Go ask the millions who died between 1944-1945 if they are glad the plot failed.
I don’t think it’s about moral hazard. If he was killed he would likely have been replaced by someone more competent, who would carry through the vision and potentially have a better chance of winning the war.
In 1944 there was no way in hell Germany could come back and win, and the allies had publicly declared they were not going to stop until there was an unconditional surrender. At best the german people would have “just” gotten a similar occupation as 1945 with less of their territory bombed to shit.
No.
Huh?
