A later end to WWII in Europe?

In our TL, the military surrender of Germany was signed on 7-8 May of 1945. But what if things had been a little different? What if the war had lasted a couple months more?

What must happen differently for Germany to resist the advance of the allies on two different fronts?

Keep in mind that in this particular scenario, any POD must occur no earlier than June 6, 1944.

So, with that in mind, what events were different in this ATL? I'm thinking about the Ludendorff Bridge on the Western Front, but what about the Eastern Front? Any ideas?
 

thorr97

Banned
I dunno, have something major go differently in the East? Slowing the Red Tide is the only realistic way of delaying the war's end. Affecting the progress of the WAllies would only mean the Red Army wound up closer to the Channel with more of Germany under its boots. Delaying the Red Army's progress, on the other hand, would add that duration as I don't think the WAllies could have - or would have - gone must faster than they did. Logistics and running into increased resistance the closer they got to Germany's heart were slowing them.

So about the only thing I could think of would be the Nazi's popping the cork on some of their nastier chem / nerve weaponry. That'd wipe out a big chunk of the Red Army's best which would slow things in and of itself. Then there'd be the pause as the Allies - on each side of the Reich - rushed their chem warfare material up and refamiliarized their troops with its use. That and increasing the air attacks to destroy Germany's ability to continue using such weaponry and perhaps starting to drench German cities with the stuff.

Then the offensive starts again and about the same end point gets reached. From what I've read, Ike had NO desire to try and take Berlin. The WAllies knew that fight would be a slaughterhouse for their troops and were only too happy to leave it to the Reds. What the borders would look like at war's end however, would be a different thing if the WAllies had had more time to push east.
 
a bit of a cop-out:

Stalin dies June 7th, 1944, and the ensuing power struggle among the remaining Soviet leadership devolves into a civil war.
 
a bit of a cop-out:

Stalin dies June 7th, 1944, and the ensuing power struggle among the remaining Soviet leadership devolves into a civil war.

Why power struggle would escalate as civil war when it didn't that in OTL? And Russians hardly are stupid enough begin fighting against each others when them have defeat Germans.
 
I dunno, have something major go differently in the East? Slowing the Red Tide is the only realistic way of delaying the war's end. Affecting the progress of the WAllies would only mean the Red Army wound up closer to the Channel with more of Germany under its boots. Delaying the Red Army's progress, on the other hand, would add that duration as I don't think the WAllies could have - or would have - gone must faster than they did. Logistics and running into increased resistance the closer they got to Germany's heart were slowing them.

I tend to agree with this assessment. The only thing I can see slowing down the Red Army would be Poland. If the Polish Uprising lasts into January * 45 instead of failing by early October? But how? The Poles are not going to have the wherewithal to hang on, and the western allies don't have the power to reach that far east by air, thanks to the twin mistakes by Brereton and Montgomery in Market Garden.

So about the only thing I could think of would be the Nazi's popping the cork on some of their nastier chem / nerve weaponry. That'd wipe out a big chunk of the Red Army's best which would slow things in and of itself. Then there'd be the pause as the Allies - on each side of the Reich - rushed their chem warfare material up and refamiliarized their troops with its use. That and increasing the air attacks to destroy Germany's ability to continue using such weaponry and perhaps starting to drench German cities with the stuff.

Someone would have to kill the maniac in Berlin first. Stalin would not hesitate to poison troops and civilians, but the maniac in Berlin had an aversion to battlefield use on troops based on his WW I experience. In any case, given that chemicals retards the tempo of operations way down and affects the users as much as the poisoned due to the usual fumble factors, I can see a chemical phase as a viable and plausible slow-down. Anybody want to guess as to the civilian disaster thus unleashed? The Germans had in excess of 30,000 tonnes of nerve gas in their stockpiles. That is more than enough to kill 3,000,000 people. .

Then the offensive starts again and about the same end point gets reached. From what I've read, Ike had NO desire to try and take Berlin. The WAllies knew that fight would be a slaughterhouse for their troops and were only too happy to leave it to the Reds. What the borders would look like at war's end however, would be a different thing if the WAllies had had more time to push east.

Might have pushed harder into Sachsenhalt, Mecklenburg in the north and Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the south? Might have affected Russian operations north and south of Berlin by taking away OLOCS from them? That would really have skyrocketed Russian casualties as their flank attacks have no elbow room to turn the German defense lines. Zhukov is a winner, but he needs Rokossovsky and Koniev. Take away his buddies and that room to maneuver and it looks like a Heinricci slaughter party along the Seelow Heights.
 
If you had a Nazi takeover of Romania similar to Hungary, prior to King Michael's coup, then there's a good chance that they can prevent Romania from switching sides. This was apparently considered IOTL and probably would have occurred if the anti-Axis plotters hadn't been underestimated. Romania staying in the Axis would greatly hinder the Soviet advance into the Balkans and allow Germany a longer access to Ploesti's oil, not to mention the large number of German and Hungarian troops saved and pro-Nazi Romanians gained. The Vistula-Oder offensive probably ends up delayed and the Germans have more resources to hold off the WAllies in the meantime.
 
If you had a Nazi takeover of Romania similar to Hungary, prior to King Michael's coup, then there's a good chance that they can prevent Romania from switching sides. This was apparently considered IOTL and probably would have occurred if the anti-Axis plotters hadn't been underestimated. Romania staying in the Axis would greatly hinder the Soviet advance into the Balkans and allow Germany a longer access to Ploesti's oil, not to mention the large number of German and Hungarian troops saved and pro-Nazi Romanians gained. The Vistula-Oder offensive probably ends up delayed and the Germans have more resources to hold off the WAllies in the meantime.

I don't think it's possible for the Axis to hold Ploiesti with the PoD being no coup by King Michael (RIP Your Highness). The Red Army had either broken through or was on the verge of doing so.

Best-case scenario IMHO is a successful withdraw behind the Carpathian mountains, and subsequent victory in holding the mountain passes. The Soviets would have still crossed the Danube here, but IDK how viable it would be for them to push from Bulgaria into Serbia and into Hungary, given the logistics involved.
 

nbcman

Donor
No Operation Wacht am Rhein and keep the forces used in the Battle of the Bulge as a reserve to defend longer.
US decides to cut off Lend Lease supplies to other countries which impacts the Soviet and other countries combat ability.
The US 3rd Army clears Brittany and the French Atlantic coast as opposed to turning east as OTL. This results in more German forces being able to retreat from France.
 
If you had a Nazi takeover of Romania similar to Hungary, prior to King Michael's coup, then there's a good chance that they can prevent Romania from switching sides. This was apparently considered IOTL and probably would have occurred if the anti-Axis plotters hadn't been underestimated. Romania staying in the Axis would greatly hinder the Soviet advance into the Balkans and allow Germany a longer access to Ploesti's oil, not to mention the large number of German and Hungarian troops saved and pro-Nazi Romanians gained. The Vistula-Oder offensive probably ends up delayed and the Germans have more resources to hold off the WAllies in the meantime.
In time of the coup German army on frontlines in Romania was already broken.
 
I don't think it's possible for the Axis to hold Ploiesti with the PoD being no coup by King Michael (RIP Your Highness). The Red Army had either broken through or was on the verge of doing so.

In time of the coup German army on frontlines in Romania was already broken.

I can’t see the Germans holding onto Ploesti for a greatly extended period of time but enough for them to go get a bit more oil out of there with a stronger defence. With Romanian troops remaining on their side and not attacking German and Hungarian troops I could see them holding out for longer and causing the Soviets delays whilst doing so.
 
I can’t see the Germans holding onto Ploesti for a greatly extended period of time but enough for them to go get a bit more oil out of there with a stronger defence. With Romanian troops remaining on their side and not attacking German and Hungarian troops I could see them holding out for longer and causing the Soviets delays whilst doing so.
Somewhere in Carpathians. Not sure how much good it would do to Germans though.
 
Germans get their hands on concrete information regarding Bagration (spies, dead soviet officer caugh with plans, desertor, etc) and use it to mount a defence based on an empty front line, as well redeploying units; soviets bomb and attack an empty void, move in, get caught by flanking manouvers that cause massive losses.
 
Germans get their hands on concrete information regarding Bagration (spies, dead soviet officer caugh with plans, desertor, etc) and use it to mount a defence based on an empty front line, as well redeploying units; soviets bomb and attack an empty void, move in, get caught by flanking manouvers that cause massive losses.

a) Certainly Germany suffers less of a defeat in Bagration, due to better intelligence, a willingness to pull back ahead of time. earlier retreats.
b) Germany doesn't do Mortain counter attack.
c) Germany suspects Romanian treachery and is in position to get much of sixth army out.
d) Germany evacuates Courland, November 1944.
c) Germany does the "Bulge" counterattack in response to Soviet January 1945 offensive and cuts off and destroys leading pincers.

Oil is a big problem. Not sure how to avoid that other than the allies just focus their bombing on other things.

Regardless though, biggest change is Pacific war ends before Soviet Intervention.

In Europe: Germany gets a few war patrols with the new submarine types., perhaps a few more and bigger shootouts of jets vs bombers. Some post war weapons development changes because of this.
 
Dale Cozort back in 1997 proposed a great what if:

What actually happened: Bad weather almost forced Ike to postpone D-Day at the last moment, but he decided to let it go ahead on June 6, 1944. Things worked out well, though a sudden, severe channel storm (the worst in a century) wrecked a lot of supply ships, wrecked the Mulberry artificial harbors, made air support impossible, and almost stopped resupply a couple of weeks later (June 19-22).

What might have happened:
If the weather had been a little worse on June 6, Eisenhower would have been forced to postpone the landing. That by itself would have caused enormous security problems. Too many people had to know too much in the last day or two before the invasion. Literally hundreds of thousands of people would have to keep their mouths shut and not lose written material they had been given on the invasion. The German spy network in England had been neutralized, but the allies could not be sure there weren't other rings.
There would have been intense pressure to go at the next moment the moon and the tides were right. That would have put the landing around June 18, just in time for the severe storm. That storm, by the way, came up without warning, which is part of the reason it did the damage it did. If the allies had been caught by the storm in the early stages of the landing, with troops trying to establish themselves on the beaches, the troops that made it would have been cut off from resupply and reinforcements for almost four days. Allied air power would have been neutralized. The Germans might well have been able to destroy the invasion on the beaches and destroy airborne forces before they could link up with the main invasion force.

Immediate results: The initial invasion force essentially wiped out--well over 100,000 men killed or captured, including a lot of specialists like the airborne troops. Lots of equipment captured or destroyed, including landing craft, specialized tanks, and other vital cogs in the allied wheel. The artificial harbors that made supply over the beaches at Normandy possible would have been destroyed by the storm on their way over. Bottom line: An allied disaster that would make an immediate second try very unlikely.

So basically, the Western Allies get a bloody nose and won't be in position to invade Europe until the Spring of 1945, probably May. As for the East:

Based on requests by the commanders on the ground, I have constructed a scenario for what I think may mitigate the losses suffered by Army Group Center.

The Soviet offensive opens against Army Group Center on June 22-23 and begins to tear through the German 3rd Panzer Army. Army Group commander Busch gains authorization from Hitler to allow the five divisions garrisoning Vitebsk to withdraw in order to better restore his crumbling front, Hitler in OTL authorized the withdrawal from Vitebsk but far too late. On the 24th the German 4th Army under pressure meanwhile gives up its bridgehead east of the Dniper River and is pushed west. The morning of June 27th the German 9th Army is ordered to withdraw and form a new line along of the Berezina River; this order was countermanded in OTL and 9th Army was forced to remain in place to hold Bobrusky. Both the 4th and 9th Army are pushed back over the next few days taking heavy losses but avoid total encirclement.

Busch is relieved of his command on the 29th and Walter Model is given control of both Army Group Center and Northern Ukraine. Model, as in OTL, makes preparations for a new defensive line west of Minsk running between the cites of Baranovichi and Molodechno. Over the next few days the 3rd Panzer Army, the 9th Army and the 4th Army conduct a fighting withdrawal to this new position. Hitler, at Model’s request for reinforcements, dispatches to Army Group Center the 2nd SS Panzer Corps and a panzer division from German in order to sure up his position and seal the gaps in his left flank, in order to reestablish contact with Army Group North. AGN as well is ordered to attack southwards to like up with AGC. These moves are successful and the Soviet offensive begins to slow on the central front.

Having stemmed the Soviet onslaught somewhat Model then makes preparations for a withdrawal to an even stronger position for AGC running from Ulkmerge and Kaunas in the north, along the Nieman River, and south to Brest Litovsk, as planned in OTL.

Even if we presume Hitler refuses to allow this strategy to be carried out, there is still several openings for decisive German action with the Western Front secure; by August, Rokosovsky's Front was the furthest forward and had become exposed, while Hossbach did manage to conduct several successful minor offensives that inflicted heavy casualties upon the Soviets. With the Western invasion plans for the year clearly defeated by then, this means up to (IIRC) eight Panzer divisions can be transferred east for a major counter-attack against the aforementioned exposed front. Whatever plan gets enacted, such will likely suck up considerable Soviet resources and time, allowing for Antonescu's suggestion for a controlled withdrawal to the more defensible Carpathian-Danube line, which was substantially more fortified, to be carried out.
 
Last edited:
Maybe if Barbarossa went in on schedule the Germans could have a shot at taking Moscow before winter, it would also have cut the main north/south rail routes disrupting Soviet logistics at a crucial time. Could it prolong the war? maybe but I don't know if it would do so for more than a couple of months. The other obvious POD would be Hitler not declaring war on the US which would have delayed the build up of forces in the UK for what became Overlord. No doubt at some point a U boat commander would have sunk a US warship or merchantman/liner which would bring them in during 1942/43.
 
Killing any German offensives in the winter of '44-'45 would probably extend things by a few weeks, but no more. A failed D-Day would certainly add a few months though.
 
Top