Best course of action for Nazi Germany as of Sept 1 1944 ?

[Blue cat]

Since the POD is September 1st then have the 15 army retreat northward and blow up everything usefull in Antwerp harbor.
Then remove all food from the Neatherlands and evacuate the country completly and have the allies deal with supplying both the Dutch and their own armies
Evacuate everything from Norway and send those forces to the Eastern front.
Since the Warsaw uprising is ongoing, retreat from Warsaw and let the Russians deal with the Polish home army. The soviet union disliked the Poles as much as the Germans
Remove the troops from the Courland pocket. Sure the Soviets get to use the forces they had there also, but there is just so much space they can move
Use every biological weapon avalible against both the eastern and western allies
Destroy everything usefull in Italy, take all food and withdraw to the Alps. Then the allies have to feed the Italians in the Po valley as well as their own troops
Withdraw from Yugoslavia completly instead of making a stand and destroying everything usefull and taking all food as above
Is this enough to make Germany survive another year?

I do wonder how usefull using Bio Weapons might have been if the Allies retaliate with Chemical and or Bio Weapons against the remaining German held territory ?

I suspect once the Americans have nuclear Weapons the Nazis will be defeated fairly quickly.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

The Op specificially describes the goal as "sustaining the defense as long as possible in pre-war german territory" and "the nazis must be in a ruling position", yet half the comments here are once again a "immidiatly surrender to the wallies, then go and kill as many russians as possible to start the cold war with a head start". Why does this reflex always happen on AH, even if it requieres openly ignoring the OP?

Because by Sept. 1944 the war is lost beyond any hope of even impacting the end.

 

[Father Maryland]

The best course of action for the German people would be to give up and surrender to the Western Allies, but that's not really the best course of action for the Nazis. There's a difference.

The Nazis are hosed no matter what: surrendering to the WAllies means they get locked up in the Tower of London until they're dragged off to Nuremburg to be tried and later executed, surrendering to the Soviets means cutting out the middleman and just getting riddled with bullets, and trying to sue for peace with the former in order to continue fighting the latter is just going to delay the inevitable.

The best course of action for the Nazis is for them to just run: grab all the weapons and loot they can carry, burn what they can't, and forge some Swedish passports or whatever for themselves and as many 'Ayran' Germans they can Shanghai, so they can all take a boat to Argentina: if they were truly dedicated to the 'cause' of Nazism, they would try to preserve what they could to keep it alive, instead of fighting to the bitter end for some forlorn hope. But of course, the top-level Nazis were never really interested in the 'cause' beyond what benefited them personally, so they only bothered to arrange for their own escape, leaving their 'Ayran' kinsmen out to dry.

If the Nazis actually did some realistic forward-thinking for once, we could've had Nazi exile enclaves like the ones that show up in fiction all the time, instead of the smattering of war criminals hiding from MOSSAD in some cheap apartments that we actually got.

Funnily enough it's actually kind of the opposite of what you believe.

Churchill was supposedly in favor of just lining the top Nazi's against a wall and having them shot. Stalin was more in favor of large showy trials. Neither really got what they want.

And at least for the top Nazi's fleeing to Argentina or whatever isn't really an option. The top dogs are way too well known and will be pretty much relentlessly hunted down. The ones that got to Argentina or elsewhere tended to be much more low to low middle level guys (Like Eichmann and Mengele). The top guys like Himmler, Hitler, Goering, and the like were doomed no matter what. There was no where they could have gone without getting killed or captured.

Yeah Juan Peron was willing to accept some people who were Nazi war criminals. But by and large that was more out of national interest then Nazi Sympathy. He was willing to take in people who had skills and money if he thought it would benefit Argentina. But harboring guys like say Himmler or Goering is going to get something like an Allied invasion or very tight embargo.

Honestly even if one of the top dogs had managed to make it to Argentina Peron (or anybody elses) response would have been to publicly hand them back over.

 

[Pete55]

I don't really disagree but I am trying to explore ways the Nazis might have been able to drag out the fighting in and around Germany a bit longer (perhaps to allow more time for certain Nazis to escape Germany.) Another option I thought about proposing was having at least some Nazis move to Norway (or perhaps other areas outside of Germany) and try and hold onto an enclave in order to save their own lives for a bit longer, but I figured that abandoning Germany and openly engaging in armed confilcit elsewhere might be a bit improbable.

I do realize that the Germans (and many others) would have been better off if Germany had surrendered earlier.

We do have a way of ignoring the OPs intent, dont we?

The best bet probably lies in political intrigue. If Germany can cause increased friction between the Wallies and USSR then it's possible that both their enemies begin to "look past" the nazi's. They have 6 months to make things happen.

----

As for force movements and such, it would help if they could pull in several of their Scandinavian divisions to reconstitute the largely destroyed continental divisions.

Even more importantly, they need to recognize that Berlin is dangerously close to the Soviet lines, shift AA defenses to oil fields, shift ammunition production away from AA uses and towards field artillery shells, recognize while portions of Germany are the most critical and create specially fortified cities in order to slow down the allied advances.

But, again, their best hope is political.

 

[Look More Closely Later]

Yeah.. Like I said before that occured to me as well. That being said I just don't see Nazis being prepared to openly abandon pre war German territory and carry on the war from Norway.

Norway has the advantages of being mountainous in a lot of the country (which as far as I understand it was usually good for organised defenders in WW2), from most directions the Allies are going to have to mount an amphibious operation to get there (unless Sweden abandons neutrality), it was one of those early glorious victories for the Nazis as far as inspiration goes (and is one of the homes of Scandinavian mythology for those Nazis who get off on occult stuff and believe that Odin is on their side or whatever lunacy it was), and they already have a lot of well dug in troops there.

Plus the Western Allies might hesitate to break out the really big toys (the nuclear bombs) if it's a question of using them on an occupied friendly country, rather than the Nazi homeland. (Churchill had reservations about heavily bombing occupied France ahead of D-Day if I recall volume V of his WW2 memoirs correctly and needed serious assurances from Roosevelt and maybe even de Gaulle that they were fine with it going ahead.)

 

[Johnrankins]

Funnily enough it's actually kind of the opposite of what you believe.

Churchill was supposedly in favor of just lining the top Nazi's against a wall and having them shot. Stalin was more in favor of large showy trials. Neither really got what they want.

And at least for the top Nazi's fleeing to Argentina or whatever isn't really an option. The top dogs are way too well known and will be pretty much relentlessly hunted down. The ones that got to Argentina or elsewhere tended to be much more low to low middle level guys (Like Eichmann and Mengele). The top guys like Himmler, Hitler, Goering, and the like were doomed no matter what. There was no where they could have gone without getting killed or captured.

Yeah Juan Peron was willing to accept some people who were Nazi war criminals. But by and large that was more out of national interest then Nazi Sympathy. He was willing to take in people who had skills and money if he thought it would benefit Argentina. But harboring guys like say Himmler or Goering is going to get something like an Allied invasion or very tight embargo.

Honestly even if one of the top dogs had managed to make it to Argentina Peron (or anybody elses) response would have been to publicly hand them back over.

If Peron harbors Himmler or Goering invasion is guaranteed. He knew this and like you said would hand them over. No amount of Swiss Bank Account money is worth getting shot.

 

[Blue cat]

Norway has the advantages of being mountainous in a lot of the country (which as far as I understand it was usually good for organised defenders in WW2), from most directions the Allies are going to have to mount an amphibious operation to get there (unless Sweden abandons neutrality), it was one of those early glorious victories for the Nazis as far as inspiration goes (and is one of the homes of Scandinavian mythology for those Nazis who get off on occult stuff and believe that Odin is on their side or whatever lunacy it was), and they already have a lot of well dug in troops there.

Plus the Western Allies might hesitate to break out the really big toys (the nuclear bombs) if it's a question of using them on an occupied friendly country, rather than the Nazi homeland. (Churchill had reservations about heavily bombing occupied France ahead of D-Day if I recall volume V of his WW2 memoirs correctly and needed serious assurances from Roosevelt and maybe even de Gaulle that they were fine with it going ahead.)

Yeah... I wonder if perhaps they could have created a much larger version of the Courland Pocket which could have been on pre world war 2 German territory. Basicaly abandon much of the country in early 1945 and pull forces back to create a series of viable defensive lines (along with mobile counter attack forces) that the allies would need to smash thru one by one. Maybe lay additional mine fields in the Baltic and build Atlantic Wall style defenses to protect the seaward side of the pocket and in theory at least Uboats could have provided some form of exit plan for a few ?

I suspect in practice it might have been problematic for Germany to proactively move supplies into such a pocket in 1945 but perhaps for the sake of argument the supplies that were brought forward for the offensive in the Ardennes could have been allocated to such a pocket.

Giving up much of Germany without actualy figthing over it might also have worked out better for the bulk of the German population.

Of course once nuclear weapons come into play it is probably game over for the Nazis.

 

[Post]

Maybe in Sept 1944 the Nazis realize they can't win and want to prolong things as long as possible so they can avoid facing justice for their crimes for as long as possible ? Maybe some of them are hoping for ASB intervention or they are scrambling to figure out how to flee Germany and live in hiding elsewhere and they want as much extra time as possible.

What you're describing is pretty much OTL. I'm fairly sure most nazi's already by them realized the war was lost, a large number even realized it earlier.. Maybe except Hitler and a few others.
The possibility of further stalling is quite low, because they pretty much fought till the end. Maybe if they didn't do an offensive like the battle of the bulge, the war could have lasted a bit longer. But on the other hand, it must have screwed up the Wallies timetable, so with them reacting to it, it may already have prolongued the war. Now they had to reallocated resources, shift armies. and reconquer the ground the germans gained. Otherwise they would have build up and attacked where and when they wanted. I'd say the Wallies decions to push back the saillant instead of cutting it off probably prolongued the war a bit.

Either way, as soon as it's April, whatever the germans would have been doing during september-march would become moot. The weather will get better and the allies will steamroll german defenses everywhere and will conquer Germany quickly. Because the germans were really on the ropes. Maybe they get a month or two extra, but that would be the maximum, I'd say.

The only possible scenario to lenghten the war, is the Norway redoubt. But there's little point in that. And you excluded it.

Also the fleeing and hiding is already OTL. A number of nazi's fled to South America. I have doubts that lenghtening the war and trying to do that from Norway really improves their chances.

Like some already mentioned, with a POD in september 1944, it's like rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Going back to the original postulate. . . . What would be the most medium term defensible portion of the 1939 3rd Reich? Not simply from the point of view of good terrain for fortifications but also one with at least some industrial capacity and ability to feed itself. Some oil or synthetic oil plants and coal useful too.

I don't think there is such an ideal territory within the Reich. So the German forces are still going to be overstretched whatever operational plans are adopted.

Withdrawal from Courland and Norway look no brainer. I'm afraid East Prussia is likely be indefensible once the Red Army rebuilds its supply chain after Bagration. But what line can be adopted in the Eastern Front that can be held - short of the OTL Oder-Neisse line?

Staying on the defensive in the West is obvious. I think the Netherlands still has to be held as the alternative is 21st Army Group with a clear run to Hamburg once Antwerp and Rotterdam are reopened.

But none of this can delay the Allies more than two or three months at most.

 

[Phantasm]

I do wonder how useful the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield would have been for the Nazis if their remaining territory was subject to Allied chemical weapons attacks. I suspect it might have been counter productive for the Nazis

At this point in the war, late 1944. The combined bomber offensive has already ploughed under most German cities. Adding mustard gas to the allied cocktail of incendiary devices and explosives is only going to result in more civilian deaths but I don't see why it would hasten the collapse of German industry or morale much beyond OTL. The German public had at this point being fed the idea that the Allies were intent on destroying the German people in addition to the Reich itself. The allied use of gas would be just confirmation of this in their eyes even if it is in retaliation for a German first-use at the front. (which they would surely not be aware of due to how tightly the Nazis controlled the information flow). This might stiffen the resolve to fight since death is perceived as a likely outcome either way.

 

[marktaha]

If Hitler out of the way and free hand for generals might have prolonged things - fighting retreat in West and better resistance in East.

 

[Johnrankins]

At this point in the war, late 1944. The combined bomber offensive has already ploughed under most German cities. Adding mustard gas to the allied cocktail of incendiary devices and explosives is only going to result in more civilian deaths but I don't see why it would hasten the collapse of German industry or morale much beyond OTL. The German public had at this point being fed the idea that the Allies were intent on destroying the German people in addition to the Reich itself. The allied use of gas would be just confirmation of this in their eyes even if it is in retaliation for a German first-use at the front. (which they would surely not be aware of due to how tightly the Nazis controlled the information flow). This might stiffen the resolve to fight since death is perceived as a likely outcome either way.

In the end I don't think it will matter much, it is far too late to change anything. When the Germans see they aren't being lined up against the wall the propaganda will be less effective, not that it was very effective OTL.

 

[Captain Homicide]

If Hitler out of the way and free hand for generals might have prolonged things - fighting retreat in West and better resistance in East.

I did the math once and in 1944 and 1945 Hitler’s obsession with no retreats cost over a million German troops (POW/KIA).

The war was certainly not as long or as bloody as it could have been (even in the last 2 years) due to many of Hitler’s asinine decisions.

 

[CHKeeley]

we could've had Nazi exile enclaves like the ones that show up in fiction all the time

We’ll, we did get Colonia Dignidad in all its horror if nothing else...

 

[Ditzy Vixen (RossN)]

I know Yalta was still in the future but had the Allies already been talking about transferring Silesia and East Prussia to Poland and the Soviet Union?

That's the think that makes me think an early surrender would be unlikely even in the event of a non-Nazi government taking power after a coup or something along those lines. The Allied plans were so severe (even setting aside partition Germany would lose 25% of its pre-war Weimar territory) that I don't think Germany would have surrendered until the whole country was pretty much overrun anyway.

 

[WhiteDragon25]

We’ll, we did get Colonia Dignidad in all its horror if nothing else...

Hmm? Never heard of this before. Enlighten me?

 

[The Tai-Pan]

If Hitler out of the way and free hand for generals might have prolonged things - fighting retreat in West and better resistance in East.

It should be noted, while Hitler was increasingly maniac and unhelpful, lots of that 'The generals would have been wiser!' stuff is written by.....the generals, after the war.

 

[Johnrankins]

It should be noted, while Hitler was increasingly maniac and unhelpful, lots of that 'The generals would have been wiser!' stuff is written by.....the generals, after the war.

Since we are talking late war being increasingly maniac and unhelpful applies.

 

[ivanotter]

In hindsight, we all know that it was a wasted effort to keep fighting by late 1944.

Just to put it into perspective: Could the same not have been said for Russia in October 1941? They did fight on though.

 

[Post]

Just to put it into perspective: Could the same not have been said for Russia in October 1941? They did fight on though.

No, because they did turn the tide. And there was reason to believe that was possible. They had lend-lease coming in, the possibility of the US entering the war and an ally (UK) that couldn't be realistically invaded. The nazis didn't have those. By late 1944 they were a boxer hangingin the ropes, taking punch after punch without much chance or defence, and no option to attack.