Nazi last stand: The Alpine national redoubt.

What if Hitler fully endorsed this plan?

In 1945 "national redoubt" was the English term used to describe the possibility that German dictator Adolf Hitler and armed forces of Nazi Germany (Wehrmacht) would make a last stand in the alpine areas of Austria, Bavaria and northern Italy in the closing months of World War II in Europe. In German this concept was called the Alpenfestung (Alpine Fortress). Although there was some German military planning for a stand in the Alpine region, it was never fully endorsed by Hitler and no serious attempt was made to put the plan into operation.
These reports found their way into the popular press in the last months of the war. Time wrote in February 1945:
But what of the top Nazis who cannot hide? With a compact army of young SS and Hitler Youth fanatics, they will retreat, behind a loyal rearguard cover of Volksgrenadiere and Volksstürmer, to the Alpine massif which reaches from southern Bavaria across western Austria to northern Italy. There immense stores of food and munitions are being laid down in prepared fortifications. If the retreat is a success, such an army might hold out for years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_redoubt Another similar idea for Mussolini : "Republican Alpine reduct in Valtellina.
RSI and Mussolini think to fight the last stand in the fascist Alpine Reduct of the Valtellina .
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridotto_alpino_repubblicano
 

Cook

Banned
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Hitler fully endorse the Bavarian Redoubt plan?
Wasn’t it just a case of it existing mostly in his fantasy, like a lot of things in the last six months of the war?
 
Patton’s Third Army was tasked with destroying the National Redoubt.

http://www.pattonhq.com/unknown/chap09.html

Presumably some sharp fighting would have resulted but the end would result would not have differed.

Leaving the quality of any Nazi remnants aside (even though the "foreign" Waffen SS fought pretty hard in Berlin), I don't think Patton and his Third Army would have done particularly well against an actual National Redoubt.

Patton seemed to lack the ability to deal with fortifications or difficult terrain. His greatest achievements were mostly gained against disorganized opponents. What would be needed was lots of infantry to dig out fanatical Nazi defenders, not lots of tanks....Think Italy rather than the break out from Normandy....
 
Fourth Reich. Fifth Reich. Sixth Reich. etc.etc.etc....

Leaving the quality of any Nazi remnants aside (even though the "foreign" Waffen SS fought pretty hard in Berlin), I don't think Patton and his Third Army would have done particularly well against an actual National Redoubt.

Patton seemed to lack the ability to deal with fortifications or difficult terrain. His greatest achievements were mostly gained against disorganized opponents. What would be needed was lots of infantry to dig out fanatical Nazi defenders, not lots of tanks....Think Italy rather than the break out from Normandy....
Your analysis only holds if Hitler goes into the Redoubt. Which meant, in his mind, going the way of Mussolini. Unless you want to suggest they'd be holding out to the current day:D
 
"Carpet bombing".

Not sure if there's any wider answer to the question. Other than this proposed Alpine götterdämmerung turning into a bloodbath.

usertron2020 said:
One German General put it best: "As if, what the Wehrmacht could not do could be accomplished by the Boy Scouts (Hitler Youth)!

A Boy Scout bloodbath.
 

Larrikin

Banned
Patton

Leaving the quality of any Nazi remnants aside (even though the "foreign" Waffen SS fought pretty hard in Berlin), I don't think Patton and his Third Army would have done particularly well against an actual National Redoubt.

Patton seemed to lack the ability to deal with fortifications or difficult terrain. His greatest achievements were mostly gained against disorganized opponents. What would be needed was lots of infantry to dig out fanatical Nazi defenders, not lots of tanks....Think Italy rather than the break out from Normandy....

We might have found out if Patton was nearly as good as his boosters made him out to be. You are completely correct that he did his best against disorganized opposition.

Georgie boy never had to fight a defensive battle, never had to fight a meat grinder, in fact, never went up against an opposition that was any where near on par.

With all that, he still managed to screw the pooch in Sicily. He's not the most over rated General of WWII, but he is hard to classify as one of the greats because of the limited types of combat the troops under his command saw. He was, with out a doubt, a master of moving masses of troops a long way very fast, but we still don't know if he could genuinely manage an all in brawl of any sort.
 
Leaving the quality of any Nazi remnants aside (even though the "foreign" Waffen SS fought pretty hard in Berlin), I don't think Patton and his Third Army would have done particularly well against an actual National Redoubt.

Patton seemed to lack the ability to deal with fortifications or difficult terrain. His greatest achievements were mostly gained against disorganized opponents. What would be needed was lots of infantry to dig out fanatical Nazi defenders, not lots of tanks....Think Italy rather than the break out from Normandy....
Why risk the GI life?
More simply the "National redoubt" would be a job for the B-29.
 
The questions of who and how well woule reduce the redoubt are interesting, but reduced it would inevitably be. What might the consequences be elsewhere? The Soviets were committed to come in against Japan was Germany was a-goner; if the Germans are being slowly crushed by mostly American forces, will they attack at about the same time as OTL?

A Boy Scout bloodbath.

Please. The Boy Scouts are an extremely respectable organisation. Hitler banned us. :p
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why risk the GI life?
More simply the "National redoubt" would be a job for the B-29.

Quite true.

Moreover, while I am not this Board's biggest Patton supporter, 3rd Army would have gotten the job done, and with far fewer losses than if the assault was conducted by Soviet forces, and likely fewer losses than if the attack was done by British forces thanks to the differences in U.S. doctrine and tactics. Third Army would have been slower to finish than the Soviets (but with 1/4 the Butcher's bill), and probably a hair faster than the British.
 
It would depend on a lot of factors

If the Germans started organizing this after dday and had half a dozen divisions worth of fanatics in the mountains that refused to surrender after may 1945 you would see one of the following

1. a conventional ground assault (would involve nasty casualties despite air dominence given the nature of the terrain)

2. nukes possibly the most likely outcome

3. chemical/biological weapons which caporeto showed where extremely effective in mountain passes
 
1. a conventional ground assault (would involve nasty casualties despite air dominence given the nature of the terrain)
Probable.
With heavy,heavy bombing from the new B-29.

2. nukes possibly the most likely outcome
Not in Europe i believe.
Very improbable

3. chemical/biological weapons which caporeto showed where extremely effective in mountain passes
Very improbable.
 

Markus

Banned
Leaving the quality of any Nazi remnants aside (even though the "foreign" Waffen SS fought pretty hard in Berlin), I don't think Patton and his Third Army would have done particularly well against an actual National Redoubt.

IF there is a redoubt in the first place. That can not be build overnight, especially not with a post D-Day POD.
And getting the half dozen divisions worth of fanatics who won´t surrender to the Americans/Brits is IMO even harder. In the spring of 1945 the WH started to fall apart, token resistance and mass surrenders happening more and more often in the west.
 

The Vulture

Banned
IF there is a redoubt in the first place. That can not be build overnight, especially not with a post D-Day POD.
And getting the half dozen divisions worth of fanatics who won´t surrender to the Americans/Brits is IMO even harder. In the spring of 1945 the WH started to fall apart, token resistance and mass surrenders happening more and more often in the west.

Very, very true. Hitler greatly overestimated the amount of troops, supplies and equipment he'd be able to lay his hands on.

The end would be prolonged, but no different. Might make things harsher on the Germans, really, with more food and fuel burned in a futile and ridiculous last stand.
 
I doubt a nuke would be used in Europe, maybe the war in Europe lasts another 3-6 months, at the most a year.
 
Top