Germany goes on pure defensive after D-Day

[trash80]

Reading about some of the last German offensives and counter attacks in late 1944 and early 1945 while they had some limited success they seem to have mainly cost the Germans much of their remaining combat potential so my WI...

After initial skirmishes and so-forth after D-Day the Germans decide to go on the pure defensive. While this won't change the end result does this at least delay the inevitable until the Summer of 1945? And if so how does this affect the war in the Pacific?

Personally i think Hitler would pop his clogs by August but this could delay the Soviets entering the war against Japan and Japan then not surrendering after Nagasaki. The post-war situation West and East could be quite different.

 

[Mike Stearns]

This presupposes a sane Hitler, but a relatively sane Hitler probably doesn't go to war in the first place.

 

[Catspoke]

Lets assume this practically means:

a) no Mortain counter attack
b) No Ardennes or Colmar counter attacks
c) None of the Hungary counter attacks

No Mortain means you can pull more out of the Falaise pocket and more for the Seigfried line.

The others means you can create a reserve to try and blunt the January 1945 Soviet offensive.

Extending the war by 3 months may be generous to Germany but lets say this happens:

a) Soviets won't be able to intervene in the east in August 1945 as per OTL (however they may get back land as part of a general peace anyway and may invade Manchuria eventually anyway), Perhaps Japanese resist longer, perhaps not.

b) Germany might be able to make more of a show of jet fighters defending cities in March/April/May 45, new submarines might make a few sucessfull war patrols, perhaps some post war weaponry development trajectories change.

c) More people die in concentration camps and more Allied soldiers die, perhaps post war Germany gets treated worse.

d) More bombs than OTL may drop on German cities.

 

[avernite]

The only downside is it makes no sense on its own. The choice is between 'lose in 3 months' or 'risk losing in 1 month, but have a slight chance of at least scoring a major victory to base a peace on'
(where the numbers are obviously arbitrary)

 

[Admiral Beez]

Best defence for the Germans, is to pull all the forces out of France, all the forces out of Italy, all the forces of Norway, etc. and send everything to defend against Russia. but no offences against Russia, per the OP, simply defensive, fight for every mile.As the Western allies invade Normandy and Italy do not resist.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

It's true that if you want to measure success by how long Germany was able to drag its death throes out, then things like Wacht am Rhein was not the best choice available to realize that strategy. However, your not remotely seeing a three months delay by aborting that. More realistically, your looking at one month.

Best defence for the Germans, is to pull all the forces out of France, all the forces out of Italy, all the forces of Norway, etc. and send everything to defend against Russia. but no offences against Russia, per the OP, simply defensive, fight for every mile.As the Western allies invade Normandy and Italy do not resist.

Contrary to Nazi Propaganda and post-war apologia, the Germans were not remotely interested in acting as the West's shield against communism if they could not also dominate Europe in the process.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
Contrary to Nazi Propaganda and post-war apologia, the Germans were not remotely interested in acting as the West's shield against communism if they could not also dominate Europe in the process.

Hey, don't make the nazifanbois start crying, they have feelings too ya know.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Contrary to Nazi Propaganda and post-war apologia, the Germans were not remotely interested in acting as the West's shield against communism if they could not also dominate Europe in the process.

No, but a few million German women wish they had been interested in protecting them from a Red Army hell bent on revenge for what the Germans did to Russia.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

No, but a few million German women wish they had been interested in protecting them from a Red Army hell bent on revenge for what the Germans did to Russia.

And the blame for that failure to protect* can be thrown at the feet of the German armed forces who, as an institution, were more interested in prosecuting a doomed war on all fronts then in engineering a collapse on the Western Front while continuing to maintain resistance in the East.

*Not to be confused with "the blame for the rapes occurring", which falls most heavily on the Soviet leadership for so cynically inculcating a culture of revenge among their soldiers. The German armed forces don't escape entirely either, as it is hard to imagine the Red Army behaving in as bestial a fashion had the Germans themselves not already done so to the Soviets, but they still get the lesser share in this case. Two wrongs not making a right and all that.

 

[Dunning Kruger]

And the blame for that failure to protect* can be thrown at the feet of the German armed forces who, as an institution, were more interested in prosecuting a doomed war on all fronts then in engineering a collapse on the Western Front while continuing to maintain resistance in the East.

*Not to be confused with "the blame for the rapes occurring", which falls most heavily on the Soviet leadership for so cynically inculcating a culture of revenge among their soldiers. The German armed forces don't escape entirely either, as it is hard to imagine the Red Army behaving in as bestial a fashion had the Germans themselves not already done so to the Soviets, but they still get the lesser share in this case. Two wrongs not making a right and all that.

Those orders werent going to follow themselves...

 

[Blue cat]

And the blame for that failure to protect* can be thrown at the feet of the German armed forces who, as an institution, were more interested in prosecuting a doomed war on all fronts then in engineering a collapse on the Western Front while continuing to maintain resistance in the East.

.

I'm having a hard time envisioning how resistance in the east could be maintained for any significant length of time if the western front was allowed to collapse ?

I just don't see the western allies being prepared to allow the Germans to shift their forces from the west to the east without pursuing them.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Contrary to Nazi Propaganda and post-war apologia, the Germans were not remotely interested in acting as the West's shield against communism if they could not also dominate Europe in the process.

That never crossed my mind. My motivation was to hold back the Soviets as far east as possible while Germany was invaded by the friendlier Wallies. But of course, they wouldn't be Nazis if this was considered.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

That never crossed my mind. My motivation was to hold back the Soviets as far east as possible while Germany was invaded by the friendlier Wallies. But of course, they wouldn't be Nazis if this was considered.

Quite true. There is still the 'nazis Overthrown' variant where a interm government surrenders in the west while keeping up resistance for a few more weeks in the east. Obviously the eastern armies collapse as morale declines and the supply support ceases to function when the Allies overrun Germany. But, for a brief time the Axis armies in the east can continue to resist and retreat in a orderly fashion.

 

[threadnecromancer]

That never crossed my mind. My motivation was to hold back the Soviets as far east as possible while Germany was invaded by the friendlier Wallies. But of course, they wouldn't be Nazis if this was considered.

Is there any government in history that has decided to basically surrender on one front so that the country will be conquered by them instead of the enemy on the other front?

Particularly if it were clear that it would not even change the final borders?

There were some aspects of that in 1945 given that the war was clearly a month or so from conclusion, but to do so on a grand scale when they still ruled an empire which put the Central Powers at their height to shame, well it doesn't seem like something any government would do.

Even an anti-Nazi junta which found itself forced to continue the fight strikes me as unlikely to adopt such a course.

 

[threadnecromancer]

Reading about some of the last German offensives and counter attacks in late 1944 and early 1945 while they had some limited success they seem to have mainly cost the Germans much of their remaining combat potential so my WI...

After initial skirmishes and so-forth after D-Day the Germans decide to go on the pure defensive. While this won't change the end result does this at least delay the inevitable until the Summer of 1945? And if so how does this affect the war in the Pacific?

Personally i think Hitler would pop his clogs by August but this could delay the Soviets entering the war against Japan and Japan then not surrendering after Nagasaki. The post-war situation West and East could be quite different.

How much would a late summer end of the European war affect Manchuria? Would the Soviets still be able to attack in the autumn? Or would they have to wait until spring? I can't see Japan surrendering while they still hold Manchuria.

 

[History Learner]

The vast majority of the counter-attacks were indeed stupid, as they occurred. Adopting a more limited approach to the Ardennes Operations (Namely destroying Allied divisions east of Meuse) was entirely possible to achieve and could've had the same effect of delaying further WAllied advances for the remainder of winter without exposing the Germans to such attrition they suffered IOTL. As well, Operation(s) Konrad in Hungary had a decent chance of success. Konrad III came close to destroying two Soviet corps and forcing the Soviets back across the Danube.

 

[James Ricker]

And the blame for that failure to protect* can be thrown at the feet of the German armed forces who, as an institution, were more interested in prosecuting a doomed war on all fronts then in engineering a collapse on the Western Front while continuing to maintain resistance in the East.

*Not to be confused with "the blame for the rapes occurring", which falls most heavily on the Soviet leadership for so cynically inculcating a culture of revenge among their soldiers. The German armed forces don't escape entirely either, as it is hard to imagine the Red Army behaving in as bestial a fashion had the Germans themselves not already done so to the Soviets, but they still get the lesser share in this case. Two wrongs not making a right and all that.

The Russians were running low on manpower, during the assault on Germany they were using criminals (real Russian Mafia criminals) on the front lines so some excesses could be expected ,but their officers did nothing to prevent it,hell they encouraged it.

 

[jmc247]

Is there any government in history that has decided to basically surrender on one front so that the country will be conquered by them instead of the enemy on the other front?

Particularly if it were clear that it would not even change the final borders?

Therein was where it was not clear, Rommel fully believed if Stalin conquered all of Germany he wouldn't share it with the WAllies same for the WAllies and Stalin. His idea if no separate surrender or Lee at Appomattox could be had was to hold the East and allow a relatively unopposed march in by the WAllies once it was clear France would fall in time and no armistice would be had.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Quite true. There is still the 'nazis Overthrown' variant where a interm government surrenders in the west while keeping up resistance for a few more weeks in the east. Obviously the eastern armies collapse as morale declines and the supply support ceases to function when the Allies overrun Germany. But, for a brief time the Axis armies in the east can continue to resist and retreat in a orderly fashion.

Yeah, although that is still liable to end with Silesia and East Prussia. No German wants to be the last to die defending Poland

The Russians were running low on manpower,

Only in the sense they could no longer grow the Red Army. In terms of sustaining the Red Armies existing strength in the face of the losses they were taking, their manpower situation was fine.

during the assault on Germany they were using criminals (real Russian Mafia criminals) on the front lines so some excesses could be expected, but their officers did nothing to prevent it,hell they encouraged it.

The employment of criminals pulled from the Gulag dates back to the very start of the war. It wasn't some new measure introduced in response to the decline in available manpower.

By all accounts, the absolute worse atrocities came from Soviet POWs who had been "liberated" during the Red Army drive westward and then impressed back into Soviet service. These men had suffered second only to the Jews and Gypsies in the German camps and many had nothing left but a burning hatred for the Germans.

 

[Athelstane]

The vast majority of the counter-attacks were indeed stupid, as they occurred. Adopting a more limited approach to the Ardennes Operations (Namely destroying Allied divisions east of Meuse) was entirely possible to achieve and could've had the same effect of delaying further WAllied advances for the remainder of winter without exposing the Germans to such attrition they suffered IOTL.

Excellent point. And this was essentially what Runstedt's and Model's proposed plans were variants of - large scale spoiling attacks intended to smash up select Allied formations at limited cost to the Heer and the Luftwaffe. The actual course of the initial stages of the Battles of the Bulge suggests such possibilities could have been realized, especially if they could so in bad weather.

Hitler, naturally, rejected the entire idea in favor of a blind Hail Mary pass: Antwerp or Bust.