German victory at kursk

General Zod

Banned
I dont see anyone complaining about Norway.

This is correct, but right-wing patriotic Spaniards in all likelihood might not take lightly such an act of unprovoked aggression by the Anglo-Americans against neutral Spain in order to fulfill their ideological crusade. Franco was just done exterminating or exiling the Republicans, so the Allies can expect little help in that sense. IOTL some Republican insurgency did exist in mid-late 1940s, but it drew its strength from the success of French Resistance and D-Day, so it would be non-existent or pitiful here.

The Civil War is recent, so Franco has a lot of experienced veterans at hand, plus the expeditionary corps he sent to Russia. Right-wing patriotism would make them eager to fight, Spanish troops only lack modern equipment, but if Germany has achieved a favourable peace in Russia, it has plenty to spare. Spain might becoem a quagmire to the Allies as bad as to Napoleon.
 

Deleted member 1487

And considering the Allied partisan strategy of shooting hostages, they may not make many friends.
 

General Zod

Banned
He denies Russians ability to learn. Period.

As I said above, I do not deny that. Indeed, if Germans keep using the same tactic more and more, eventually the Russians shall adapt. However, given that they demostrably did not learn until March 1943, it seems more than a little arbitrary to assume that by Summer 1943, they necessarily shall have learned the lesson fully. And it is reasonable that they would need at least a rather more painful lesson than the 2nd and 3rd Battles of Kharkov. Say a successful Backhand Blow leading to a reverse Bagration and 1,000,000 Soviet soldiers lost, with comparable equipment.

In itself, this would not win the war for Germany by any means. However, such a massive defeat, means the Germans triumphantly back on the Don by Fall 1943, with no serious hope of strategic Soviet offensives for at least six months. Stalin seriously considered an armistice with Germany in Spring 1943. Such a defeat looks like a possible and reasonable psuh in accepting worse terms than he was prepared to do before the Summer offensives. Not a given, but a plausible outcome.

Now, about German response. It may well be that Hitler squanders the advantage, since he insists on a total victory in Russia, which is ASB in 1943. If he does, this victory buys him a delay of about 6-12 months, give or take, in the Soviet buildup compared to OTL. If he follows poor rigid defense strategy as IOTL, this means he still loses the war, but the war ends weith SOviet rather less deep in Central-Eastern Europe than IOTL.

If he decides elastic defense is a good idea, given its recent large siccess, and trust his generals advice more (same reason), well the Soviets shall not fall for the same trick again, likely, but German elastic defense means the Wehrmacht squanders its potential rather less, and the Soviets have to expnd rather more of their own, in comparison to OTL, for every inch of land the Red Army reconquers. Not to mention what they lost in reverse Bagration. most likely outcome, the Soviets exaust their strategic manpower reverse sometime in 1944, instead of 1945, and are forced to a ceasefire, and American nukes win the war.

Alternatively, Hitler may have one of his flashes of common sense, and accept a Brest-Litovsk type peace instead of the Urals border, no doubt with the intention of reopening the issue when the matter with with Western Allies is dealt with.

Therefore, I do not deny the Soviet ability to learn, I only deny that since they got a truckload of positive butterflies IOTL, they are entitled to do so in every WWII ATL, nor I am prone to the Sovietwanker illusion that Soviet military potential was bottomless, during WWII or afterwards, no matter events.
 
Last edited:
a few things:

First why is D-Day such a failure in this TL? although it may free up troops and tanks to fight along the Western Front I don't see the Wermacht stripping enough forces from the ostfront to make up for the vast numerical differences on the western front, also if Ike needed more time for more forces to launch an invasion in the west he would have taken it. Also if the western allies gave up on normandy and concentrated on Italy they would have eventually gotten the same result as they did in OTL which was Italy overthrowing Mussolini and capitulating to the Allies which would allow allied troops to pass north to push further into German controlled Europe.

Secondly no matter how well the Germans do in Kursk it does not change the reality of the air war in the west, and the Anglo American forces pretty much owned the skies by the time D-Day commenced. Winning a tank battle on the Eastern Front; no matter how large, would not affect the great disparity in aircraft production between the Germans and allies, thus meaning that the Luftwaffe still would not have been able to deploy enough fighter jets to affect the outcome of the war. Also the Me262; in spite of its mythic status, was not the wonder weapon that so many Alternate history authors made it out to be or the Luftwaffe wished it to be. In spite of its higher top speed, it had lower maneuverability than allied propeller driven aircraft, and as I recall had shorter range than prop driven aircraft.

Third and finally the Germans had no way to suddenly turn around and start launching bombing raids against the British Isles by the time Kursk happened. Their strategic bombing capability did not match in any way that of the allies(they didn't even have a 4 engine bomber), although they may have been able to launch dirty bombs or gas against the western allies through the use of the V-2, it would have just prompted a much larger response from the western allies. And even allowing for the war to go sour for the western allies in the air if they simply waited for their nukes to come along, they didn't even need to necissarily drop them on Germany, simply demonstrating that the USAAF could wipe out a city in a heartbeat would have probably been enough of a threat to the Spanish to force them to allow allied troops to pass through their territory on the way to occupied France. Oh and the spanish army is in no way a match for the western allies which was one reason why Franco stayed neutral even as german tanks were getting awfully close to moscow.

I almost forgot, in spite of all of these factors, one must also take into account that the Allies were also producing their own jet fighters, they just didn't reach the front lines in time to fight in the war. Along with this is the existence of the B-29 which the allies never used in Europe and the Germans were glad for. Plus there is the emergence of the Pershing tank which in the event of any bungled allied offensive against increased numbers of tigers and panthers would probably force the Allies to abandon the tactical doctrine which made such extensive use of the Sherman which means that even on the ground the allies would eventually be able to turn the tide.
 
Dan:

The Salerno landings were within the space of a single month of the Soviet Counterattacks at Kursk.

Given the disposition of forces, Germany has gambled its future on the Eastern Front, and probably can't shift its forces into Italy to counter the Italian surrender.

So, a German Victory at Kursk doesn't stop the Italian surrender or the subsequent Allied landings in Italy.

Zod has reposted his idea before, and I'll put a quick end to it:

Even if Kursk was a backhand blow, Hitler would have insisted on No Retreat Orders, in inspiration of their effectiveness outside Moscow.

Furthermore, the D-Day landings are likely to succeed even if Germany has additional forces in the Eastern Front, as they are likely to have. Given that Hitler will probably be fooled by Fortitude and that he will have to provide personal approval for shifting forces in France, D-Day is going to work and a follow up landing in Southern France, is going to work as well.

The best Germany can hope to achieve is to hold out until nuclear weapons are turned against the Wehrmacht--which means roughly 1946. How Germany manages to fuel its aircraft and win a ground war under nuclear attack while getting outclassed by Allied Jet designs is an absurd outcome.

Finally, I'd like a counting of Soviet Manpower in 1943--I suspect that if Stalin was willing to smash Japan in 1945 OTL he had a good deal more to throw into a war in the Eastern Front. The Soviets aren't at Germany's level of throwing boys and old men to fight, and they won't be quickly, either.
 

General Zod

Banned
a few things:
First why is D-Day such a failure in this TL?

Working under the butterfly assumption that a total German victory in Summer 1943 would prompt Stalin to sign a Brest Litovsk peace, and Hitler to accept this (at least for the rest of WWII) insted of gunning for the Urals border. Not a given by any means, but a reasonable outcome. How many forces can Germany retreat from the East in theis situation and still keep the border defended against a Soviet offensive return ? Not all or maybe not even most by any means, but I bet more than enough to make OTL D-Day and Salerno hellishly difficult.

Ike needed more time for more forces to launch an invasion in the west he would have taken it.

True, but if Ike delays D-Day enough in this situation (say to 1945), the Americans shall have the nukes, and D-Day becomes of minor importance in comparison.

Also if the western allies gave up on normandy and concentrated on Italy they would have eventually gotten the same result as they did in OTL which was Italy overthrowing Mussolini and capitulating to the Allies which would allow allied troops to pass north to push further into German controlled Europe.

Again, assuming the timeline of German victory in Russia is such that they do not manage to move enough forces from the Eastern front to make Salerno a bloody failure, even if Mussolini falls, what stops the Germans to do what they did IOTL, seize control of northern-central Italy, install a fascist puppet government, swamp Italy with their troops, dig up in southern Italy, and slowly bleed the Allies as they lose plenty of men for every inch of Italy they conquer ? I'm ready to bet that in this situation, the Americans would have to resort to the nukes to win the war well before their troops ever got any close to the Alps.

Secondly no matter how well the Germans do in Kursk it does not change the reality of the air war in the west, and the Anglo American forces pretty much owned the skies by the time D-Day commenced. Winning a tank battle on the Eastern Front; no matter how large, would not affect the great disparity in aircraft production between the Germans and allies, thus meaning that the Luftwaffe still would not have been able to deploy enough fighter jets to affect the outcome of the war. Also the Me262; in spite of its mythic status, was not the wonder weapon that so many Alternate history authors made it out to be or the Luftwaffe wished it to be. In spite of its higher top speed, it had lower maneuverability than allied propeller driven aircraft, and as I recall had shorter range than prop driven aircraft.

This may be a good point. But air superiority alone shall not give the Allies a victory, in D-Day or otherwise. At least not until they have the nukes.

Third and finally the Germans had no way to suddenly turn around and start launching bombing raids against the British Isles by the time Kursk happened. Their strategic bombing capability did not match in any way that of the allies(they didn't even have a 4 engine bomber), although they may have been able to launch dirty bombs or gas against the western allies through the use of the V-2, it would have just prompted a much larger response from the western allies.

This is irrelevant. What it matters is whether the Germans have the means, whatever they are, and V-2 with dirty bomb or nerve gas warheads look rather promishing, to make an effective WMD retaliation against Britain. This creates a MAD equilibrium, the only thing that can neutralize the advantage from nukes. How many British cities are the British voters willing to see depopulated to fulfill Roosevelt & Churchill's ideological crusade ?

I'm not saying it would go this way, the by far most likely outcome is that the German generals put a gun to Hitler's neck, shoot, and sign a negotiated surrender as soon as the first couple of nukes fall, but it's a reasonable alternative outcome when Germany has kept full control of Fortress Europe and its resources up to mid-1945.

And even allowing for the war to go sour for the western allies in the air if they simply waited for their nukes to come along, they didn't even need to necissarily drop them on Germany, simply demonstrating that the USAAF could wipe out a city in a heartbeat would have probably been enough of a threat to the Spanish to force them to allow allied troops to pass through their territory on the way to occupied France.

Well, if the Allies manage to drop a couple of nukes anywhere in Europe, and the Germans don't have WMD V-2 to retaliate on Britain, I would expect the coup-surrender scenario to kick in anyway.

Oh and the spanish army is in no way a match for the western allies which was one reason why Franco stayed neutral even as german tanks were getting awfully close to moscow.

Canaris' disloyalty played a mighty hand in Spanish neutrality. Besides, this does not mean that Franco and patriotic right-wing Spaniards would roll over their back if the Allies invade Spain in 1943-44.

I almost forgot, in spite of all of these factors, one must also take into account that the Allies were also producing their own jet fighters, they just didn't reach the front lines in time to fight in the war. Along with this is the existence of the B-29 which the allies never used in Europe and the Germans were glad for. Plus there is the emergence of the Pershing tank which in the event of any bungled allied offensive against increased numbers of tigers and panthers would probably force the Allies to abandon the tactical doctrine which made such extensive use of the Sherman which means that even on the ground the allies would eventually be able to turn the tide.

Again, these are all worthy points, but it is very doubtful that any of these would let the Allies win a conventional one-front war in Europe before they have the nukes.
 
Last edited:

General Zod

Banned
The Salerno landings were within the space of a single month of the Soviet Counterattacks at Kursk.

Yep, the strict TL means that depending on the schedule of backhand blow, the Germans may or may not have forces available to counter Salerno. This I gladly concede.

Given the disposition of forces, Germany has gambled its future on the Eastern Front, and probably can't shift its forces into Italy to counter the Italian surrender.

So, a German Victory at Kursk doesn't stop the Italian surrender or the subsequent Allied landings in Italy.

There is also the possiblity, again, depending on schedule, that a major Axis victory in Russia butterflies away Mussolini's fall. But this is ultimately irrelevant. What it matters if whether the Allied landings in mainland Italy fail or not. If they do, and Germany has just wiped out one million Soviet soldiers, and possibly seized a Brest Litovsk peace, Vittorio Emanuele and Badoglio would scrap any plans about surrender.

Even if Kursk was a backhand blow, Hitler would have insisted on No Retreat Orders, in inspiration of their effectiveness outside Moscow.

First if Hitler accepts the backhand blow plan, such orders are necessarily suspended for the duration of the operation. Second, if the plan succeeds, inspiration from the huge success of backhand blow can easily counter the prevous inspiration you quote. Hitler congratulates himself for having listened to the advice of Manstein, again, whose plans have been right again and again, so he puts full trust in his strategies and those of generals with similar views. He might easily make Manstein Supreme Commander.

Furthermore, the D-Day landings are likely to succeed even if Germany has additional forces in the Eastern Front, as they are likely to have. Given that Hitler will probably be fooled by Fortitude and that he will have to provide personal approval for shifting forces in France, D-Day is going to work and a follow up landing in Southern France, is going to work as well.

Substantial numbers of additional troops could mean the relative advantage of Fortitude is diminished, and Hitler might not give the same orders ITTL. If Manstein is Supreme Commander, he might well have leeway to move the forces that Hitler locked down IOTL. Would he be fooled by Fortitude, or even if he would, would he fail to move troops in time ? And I don't think air superiority alone would save Allies' butts if this does not happen.

The best Germany can hope to achieve is to hold out until nuclear weapons are turned against the Wehrmacht--which means roughly 1946.

I do not contest this. :confused:

Finally, I'd like a counting of Soviet Manpower in 1943--I suspect that if Stalin was willing to smash Japan in 1945 OTL he had a good deal more to throw into a war in the Eastern Front. The Soviets aren't at Germany's level of throwing boys and old men to fight, and they won't be quickly, either.

Stalin warned Zhukov and Konev in Spring 1945 that there were no substantial reinforcements coming if they burned the men used during the Berlin & Vienna offensive - the strategic reserve had run dry. This did not matter since the Germans were done in Spring 1945, the men the Soviets had then were more than enough for their goals, but had those soldiers been killed, no replacements. This includes smashing Japan in 1945. The Soviets were reasoanbly sure that smashing the Japanese in Manchuria would not have costed them any significant numbers, given theri pitiful state. As it happened.
 
Last edited:

burmafrd

Banned
By June of 44, the transportation system within 50 miles of the beaches were smashed to the point that no substantial reinforcements would have gotten to the Beachhead for at least 2 days. That was more then sufficient time to ensure the security of the beach head. NOW if more forces were available to bring in right after, the expansion of the beach head would be better contained then in OTL. Gunfire support from the ships and the total air supremacy of the AAF would prevent any serious threat to push the Allies back into the sea. BUT with the natural defensive area that the hedgegrows gave the Germans, more troops and tanks would slow things down a lot more, and if the Germans could prevent a break out for 2 more months, then the early fall rains and very bad weather would help them even more.
 
Would the use of nuclear weaponry actually be enough to force a complete and total German surrender? If Germany becomes much more impregnable to strategic bombing due to the use of jets, shouldn't Germany be able to intercept nuclear armed bombers, which would be the only reliable method of delivering the weapons for some time?

Given that in this scenario Germany would still control most of Europe, I'm not sure I see a surrender like OTL here. Possibly one where they negotiate a peace and then give up some territory, but a complete and total surrender? I don't think that would be enough. Japan was nearly about to surrender anyway and only had their Home Islands left. Germany in this case still has its Fortress Europe.

Bear in mind that the Allies had their own jets. With A-bomb production ramping up throughout 1945, I don't fancy Germany's chances.
 
german victory in summer 1943 is impossible; before this time time they havent enough tanks, and their attempt to occupy Oboyan(20-25 march 1943) wasnt succesfull.
 
ok well I have other thoughts opn this as well:

the germans do not have enough oil, plain and simple, by the time of the battle of the bulge the Wermacht was so strapped for oil that victory was almost solely predicated upon capturing an allied fuel dump, and doing it quickly. As such all the Allies had to do was outlast the Germans and their war machine would have ground to a halt. Now this could be alleviated by the possibility of the Soviets supplying the Germans with oil, however this is a big maybe since you already posited that the Germans were granted territorial concessions by the Russians so you are putting a lot of faith in Soviet generosity, faith that I believe is quite ill invested. This also leads me to another point, even if the Germans succeed so spectacularly at Kursk you then need Stalin to be willing to negotiate with the Germans which he may do considering the realities of the war he is now fighting, however he is a very adept negotiator and will not be willing to allow the Germans to simply get everything they want with little effort. Chances are the Germans and Russians are going to spend a lot of time at the negotiating table, probably long enough for salerno, and probably even long enough for the italian surrender to occur like in OTL. Now if hitler decides to shift significant forces away from the front, you can bet that Stalin will most likely try to exploit the advantage(since trusting in hitler to abide by any agreement is foolish at best).

However this is all based upon the assumption that Hitler will have the common sense to accept negotiations with anybody especially the russians. Most likely you will see hitler see the victory as some sort of sign from the gods that he is destined to win and try to go back on the offensive, he was stupid like that.
 
Actually, I find Spain rather likely. Spain and Portugal supplied Germany with 90-95% of the tungsten they needed, without it, the German metal industry will hardly be able to produce at all.
 

General Zod

Banned
Actually, I find Spain rather likely. Spain and Portugal supplied Germany with 90-95% of the tungsten they needed, without it, the German metal industry will hardly be able to produce at all.

I was oblivious of that. Well, this would certainly make an invasion of Spain strategically rather more advantageous for the Allies, despite the problems I've listed, just as it would to invade Norwegia (Swedish iron) or Greece (Romanian oil). Certainly more so than France or Italy. Even if the Allies advance gets stalemated, they could probably bomb tungsten mines from Portugal airports. Maybe from North African ones, too. Where are the mines ?
 

General Zod

Banned
However this is all based upon the assumption that Hitler will have the common sense to accept negotiations with anybody especially the russians. Most likely you will see hitler see the victory as some sort of sign from the gods that he is destined to win and try to go back on the offensive, he was stupid like that.

This is quite possible, given his psychology. However it is also plausible, given his psychology, to deem a Brest-Litovsk peace good enough for the time being, as long as Germany has still another war open with the Western Allies, with the second thought to reopen the issue when the war in the West is won. Cfr. the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, or the relatively lenient armistice he gave to France, or the fact he authorized peace talks with Russia in Spring 1943.
 
Top