Effects of a wanked Ardennes Offensive
- Thread starter Dr. Luny
- Start date
I'd say Germany will see an artificial sunrise over Dresden, Hamburg or Munich rather than letting the Russians grab all of it. Btw, do the Germans capture the Allied oil depots they wanted? If so, Hitler might launch another foolish counteroffensive against the Russians which might slow them a bit, but will ultimately hurt the Germans more.
Problem is that there is no way for the Ardennes Offensive to stop the Allies that cold. Even if the Allied offensive from Northwest France was stopped cold, even pushed back, all that would do is make the advance from Southern France the Allied primary axis of attack.
If however, you go somewhat ASBish, the Soviets will just keep coming.
If however, you go somewhat ASBish, the Soviets will just keep coming.
The Ardennes offensive was always a disaster waiting to happen for the Germans. It was only even remotely possible as long as bad weather closed in the allied air command, as soon as the skies cleared..well, OTL showed what hapenned.
As to cutting the allies in two. It might have been possible (given a truly outstanding amount of luck and planning), but its not going to stop the allies, they just carry on supplying the cut off armies by air and sea (over beaches if necessary), while attacking the germans in the flank. It isnt 1940 any more, and the Allies arent the French...
As to cutting the allies in two. It might have been possible (given a truly outstanding amount of luck and planning), but its not going to stop the allies, they just carry on supplying the cut off armies by air and sea (over beaches if necessary), while attacking the germans in the flank. It isnt 1940 any more, and the Allies arent the French...
usertron2020
Donor
Heresy! Heresy!
Read British military histories. You WILL come away with a sense of awe. How time and time and time again Britain stands triumphant! Why? Because of the supreme sacred cow of all British military histories:"NO BRITISH ARMY IS EVER FAIRLY BEATEN!". Define fairly. It's what ever it takes to show the enemy cheated, tricked, or betrayed their way to create an UNFAIR battle. Meaning the good guys lost.
You also failed to give Monty full credit for the victory while crucifying Eisenhower, Bradley, Hodges, Patton, Patch, Simpson, Devers, Tedder, Morgan, and Kay Summersby.
Prepare sir, to be curbstomped!
Careful, Astrodragon. The postings I've seen from our British cousins strongly indicate a powerful belief that American generals in WWII couldn't fight their way out of a brothel, and it was the brilliant leadership of Montgomery and his staff that produced victory. Everything else was a sideshow, with the Germans withdrawing in areas outside British command and control due to weather conditions and supply problems.
Read British military histories. You WILL come away with a sense of awe. How time and time and time again Britain stands triumphant! Why? Because of the supreme sacred cow of all British military histories:"NO BRITISH ARMY IS EVER FAIRLY BEATEN!". Define fairly. It's what ever it takes to show the enemy cheated, tricked, or betrayed their way to create an UNFAIR battle. Meaning the good guys lost.
You also failed to give Monty full credit for the victory while crucifying Eisenhower, Bradley, Hodges, Patton, Patch, Simpson, Devers, Tedder, Morgan, and Kay Summersby.
Prepare sir, to be curbstomped!
Cook
Banned
The postings I've seen from our British cousins strongly indicate a powerful belief that American generals in WWII couldn't fight their way out of a brothel, and it was the brilliant leadership of Montgomery and his staff that produced victory...
You also failed to give Monty full credit for the victory while crucifying Eisenhower, Bradley, Hodges, Patton, Patch, Simpson, Devers, Tedder, Morgan, and Kay Summersby.
It's safe to say that a lot of Allied Commanders were media whores in that war.
Last edited:
usertron2020
Donor
Rule Britannia!
Absolutely no question. But I notice you didn't respond to the point of my posting.
It just occurred to me, do you think that in such an event that the germans manage to stop the WAllies cold at Ardennes that Stalin would simply stop after successfully occupying his allocated zones of Germany and let the western allies clean up the rest all by themselves as a big "Fuck you" to them for not creating a second front sooner? It does strike me as odd that everyone automatically assumes that Stalin would automatically crap all over Tehran at the drop of a hat, considering that for at least the late 40's he had no intention of openly confronting the west, it would be counter to that for him to start breaking promises before Hitlers body is even cold.
For this to be possible, first the Luftwaffe have to obtain success in operation bodenplatte, and gain air control, or at last negate it to the allies.
Second, the german army must capture the fuel depots intact.
Third, they need to control Bastogne quickly.
All are possible, but very, very difficult to do all three.
Second, the german army must capture the fuel depots intact.
Third, they need to control Bastogne quickly.
All are possible, but very, very difficult to do all three.
Markus
Banned
By the time nukes are ready, the Soviets will have taken all three towns as a US/UK failure in the west won´t slow them a bit.
Well, it certainly wasn´t the leadership of Ike; first he puts the 101st in harms way without a reason, thereby preventing Patton from cutting the Germans withdrawl route and than he insisted on on pushying the Germans back bit by bit.
That's assuming Hitler makes his last stand in Berlin, which wouldn't make much sense if most of Western Germany was still in German hands. I don't think Stalin is stopping until Hitler is dead and an unconditional surrender is in his hands.
I'd say Germany would get nuked, assumed the Soviets didn't pound them into the ground before August 1945. In that event, Germany might end up completely under Soviet Occupation by the end of the war (depends on how Yalta goes). Not a bright move; should have wasted those resources along the Oder and Vistula instead of in Belgium.
Actually, in order for that to work Hitler would have to leave berlin, if he stayed and was captured by the Russians or killed himself as per OTL, then I would think it is highly likely that the Heer in western Germany would surrender rather quickly to the WAllies which they would view as preferable to falling to the Soviets.
usertron2020
Donor
Getting nervous?
). I've noticed that still no one has challenged me on my statements about British military histories. I've also had no contact with anyone admitting they've read Monty's memoirs, but PLENTY of people screaming about the inaccuracies/lies/distortions of AMERICAN histories and memoirs. What's the matter people? Afraid of what you might see? The thought of what such a man would say compared to the inaccuracies/lies/distortions of Bradley and Eisenhower?
Everybody's ready to crucify Bradley and Ike for their memoirs, but there seems to be a distinct lack of interest in Monty's. How can someone go on in a serious state criticizing Ike and Bradley for their reportage and generalship, and at the same time confess ignorance about Monty's reportage and hailing him as THE Allied General of WWII.
As I stated to Astrodragon, as you are stating (or implying) now, the sacred cow still remains: No American General (In Europe) could fight his way out of a whorehouse, and no British Army is ever FAIRLY beaten (going back to 1066
). I've noticed that still no one has challenged me on my statements about British military histories. I've also had no contact with anyone admitting they've read Monty's memoirs, but PLENTY of people screaming about the inaccuracies/lies/distortions of AMERICAN histories and memoirs. What's the matter people? Afraid of what you might see? The thought of what such a man would say compared to the inaccuracies/lies/distortions of Bradley and Eisenhower?Everybody's ready to crucify Bradley and Ike for their memoirs, but there seems to be a distinct lack of interest in Monty's. How can someone go on in a serious state criticizing Ike and Bradley for their reportage and generalship, and at the same time confess ignorance about Monty's reportage and hailing him as THE Allied General of WWII.
Cook
Banned
Absolutely no question. But I notice you didn't respond to the point of my posting.
Probably because I couldn’t see one.
usertron2020
Donor
When you're too far back in your own territory, punt
There are none so blind as those who WILL not see, but I can accept your refusing to defend the indefensible. I wouldn't either. But if you look back on some of the other postings on this thread, you will see those who excoriate the memoirs of those they don't like, but when it comes to the memoirs of people they DO like, they plead simple ignorance. Ignorance, indeed.
Cook
Banned
There are none so blind as those who WILL not see, but I can accept your refusing to defend the indefensible. I wouldn't either. But if you look back on some of the other postings on this thread, you will see those who excoriate the memoirs of those they don't like, but when it comes to the memoirs of people they DO like, they plead simple ignorance. Ignorance, indeed.
No.
I just don’t have a dog in the fight.
As I stated to Astrodragon, as you are stating (or implying) now, the sacred cow still remains: No American General (In Europe) could fight his way out of a whorehouse, and no British Army is ever FAIRLY beaten (going back to 1066
Everybody's ready to crucify Bradley and Ike for their memoirs, but there seems to be a distinct lack of interest in Monty's. How can someone go on in a serious state criticizing Ike and Bradley for their reportage and generalship, and at the same time confess ignorance about Monty's reportage and hailing him as THE Allied General of WWII.
It Took me 3 years to read it would put me to sleep before I finished 2 pages a night .
Cook
Banned
If we get back to the subject of the thread…
Yes Dr. Luny, the Red Army would definitely have kept going beyond their agreed post war occupation zones. There were fighing a war and until the Nazis surrendered they’d keep fighting them wherever they were.
As to where the boundaries of those zones would be, my guess is the Soviet Zone would be larger. But in OTL the Yalta conference took place when the Red Army was 35 miles from Berlin and the Allies hadn’t crossed the Rhine (correct me if I’m horribly out there, not if I’m out by ½ a mile), so Stalin must have been expecting to gain more ground then he finally did.
Denmark would have ended up with Soviet troops in occupation would be a good bet. Maybe even The Netherlands if the Red Army did really well.
Yes Dr. Luny, the Red Army would definitely have kept going beyond their agreed post war occupation zones. There were fighing a war and until the Nazis surrendered they’d keep fighting them wherever they were.
As to where the boundaries of those zones would be, my guess is the Soviet Zone would be larger. But in OTL the Yalta conference took place when the Red Army was 35 miles from Berlin and the Allies hadn’t crossed the Rhine (correct me if I’m horribly out there, not if I’m out by ½ a mile), so Stalin must have been expecting to gain more ground then he finally did.
Denmark would have ended up with Soviet troops in occupation would be a good bet. Maybe even The Netherlands if the Red Army did really well.