Hitler employ more elastic strategy...

By 1944, the total, unconditional submission of the Third Reich was inevitable. The war cannot last longer than a few extra months, because by then the Americans will have the Bomb, and be able to reduce Berlin to glass.

By this time the Kriegsmarine, the Luftwaffe, and the Wehrmacht have all been reduced to mere shadows of their former selves. On the Eastern Front, the Germans have not held the strategic initiative since the dismal failure at Kursk, and there is no way for them to re-gain it; the Red Army will inevitably be able to piledrive through resistance in any one sector no matter how elastic the defense is. The best that they can hope to do is to repeat the Italian Campaign - ie, a slow, orderly retreat across an entire front - all the way to Berlin.

And this is all assuming that he makes this decision on January 1st. If he gains this foresight, say, shortly before D-Day, Bagration will still sweep the last vestiges of a coherent Army Group Centre into the dustbin of history.
 
From your question in chat.

You really need to take more care when proposing an ATL. I just viewed one of your threads and 'Hitler slipping on a banana peal' just isn't going to cut it here.

Might I suggest something along the lines of; "Paulus had long been advocating a more elastic defense on the Eastern front. After long deliberation he sends a detailed proposal to Keitl, who unlike his OTL counterpart did have a spine. The tension was think in the Wolf's lair, Keitl's first words were quiet, almost a whisper:" Mein Führer the situation on the Eastern front is untennable and our tactics are failing miserably" Keitl looked around the room and saw only faces of bewilderment staring back at him. He gulped down painfully, his throat was as dry as the dessert, sitll, he was committed now and there was no turning back.

Also, some AH.commers are very well informed of the situation at that particular point in time and will point out that it was basically already game-over for the Germans, you need an earlier POD.

Regards,
Rhysz
 
Hitler very rarely went into public after the war started going sour at Stalingrad. The number of times he visited bomb-damaged cities might literally be counted on one's thumbs, and it's pretty certain neither of those times occurred after the surrender of Sixth Army at Stalingrad in '43.

Also was he in Berlin at all in 1944?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The basis of this POD is remarkably unlikely. Hitler, as well as the Reich leadership below him, shared a trait of rigidity of thought. The entire Nazi braintrust (such as it was) was driven by ideology not by any sort of reality. To have Hitler and his lackeys suddenly adopt a radically different mindset is a near ASB event.
 

Baskilisk

Banned
Hitler never inspected bomb damage, and rarely went out at all in 1944. There is no reasona bang on the head should make someone reassess strategy, and for someone as ill as Hitler might have had complications.

Also there is not even a month for this event to take place, which is quite an important matter when attempting to discuss it.
First of all this is ASB because everyone knows that the Nazis don't like bananas.
Anyways, he hits his head and has a lapse of judgement at the next meeting. When he comes back to his senses he realizes it wasn't all a bad idea so he deals with it. When things go from bad to worse for Germany, he blames the deciscion for his downfall.
 

LittleSpeer

Monthly Donor
you start a thread on how the world war 2 will end and everyone ends up talking about fruit. Just makes me love America more cuz that's all we seem to do. Damn U.N.
 
you start a thread on how the world war 2 will end and everyone ends up talking about fruit. Just makes me love America more cuz that's all we seem to do. Damn U.N.

I'm the one who started criticizing the banana, and I'm not American.

That said, it seems lots of people miss the point of my criticism. So I'll spell it out again.

In order to be able to write, or discuss, some half-decent alternate history, one needs to know actual history first.

If one places a banana in Berlin in 1944, and doesn't see the incongruity of it even when people point it out,... connect the dots.

It's perfectly possible to discuss a different overall German strategy in 1944. Doing it with people who are unaware of the basics of the general German problems with the import of raw materials from abroad and in particular from overseas, is probably going to be unsatisfactory.
 
If anything, they'd be importing more necessary stuff, not luxury items.

But the point is not simple pedantry. It is, as it often is, that in order to be able to write or discuss half-decent alternate history, one needs to know half-decently actual history. If one chooses as his POD something this implausible, how will the development be?

My God man, get the stick out of your ass and step down from your high horse.

I think it says a lot more about everybody else that only a single post in this topic has discussed the situation posited in the OP, whilst the rest have squabbled over meaningless details. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.
 
I would question whether or not it is actually a strategy that would actually work.

In N Africa, Rommel once he had lost the offensive decided to retreat ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE TUNISIAN BORDER. Sure, it was a masterful retreat and he kept his forces intact, but he abandoned the whole of Libya in doing so, and probably speeded up Italy's defeat in so doing

In Italy, Rommel was the commander for Operation Axis which he carried out well, but faced with invasion his plan was to retreat TO LOMBARDY ! Kesselring on the other hand saw that he could make the Allies pay for every mile by defending defensive lines, then retreating to the next one, and so on, and the Italian front still held at the end of the war

Hitler put Rommel in charge of France and his STATED desire after losing Normandy was to RETREAT TO THE RHINELAND.

I don't see how he or such a strategy is going to be of the greatest help in saving the Reich

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Well as Grey Wolf has sort of outlined, the whole problem with tactical withdrawls is they only work if by doing them you somehow can re-establish the initiative, which in real terms means create a situation where you have atleast a 1:1 ratio in troops, equipment etc at the tactical level (please let us leave nonsense about 1 German to 6 Soviets aside).

From about 1943 such almost never materialised except in isolated circumstances principally due to the allies either becoming overly confident (Battle of the Bulge with the noted consequences when the allies re-organised) or when German forces to hit the tip of a Soviet advance (the much over-stated third Kharkov). From 1944 if your plan is effectively to withdraw in any situation where youi cannot secure this equality then you will end up withdrawing most of the way to Berlin, with only occasional counter-attacks which shall do nothing but occasionally delay the allies while they get their logistics in order. In some strange world a vast withdrawl might encourage Stalin to believe the Red Army can somehow go from the Dnieper to Berlin in a single bound, however such is not ours.
 
Guys I know I'm not too historically detail but please..I just want to ask a question. I just want to learn... :(

Thank you for those who give good replies! :D
 
Guys I know I'm not too historically detail but please..I just want to ask a question. I just want to learn... :(

Thank you for those who give good replies! :D

Sorry, I'm not capitalising to shout, just to give emphasis to my point about Rommel, I could have used _word_ but that always looks weird to me, or bold or italic but as I was typing it was easier to hit Caps Lock

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I would question whether or not it is actually a strategy that would actually work.

In N Africa, Rommel once he had lost the offensive decided to retreat ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE TUNISIAN BORDER. Sure, it was a masterful retreat and he kept his forces intact, but he abandoned the whole of Libya in doing so, and probably speeded up Italy's defeat in so doing

In Italy, Rommel was the commander for Operation Axis which he carried out well, but faced with invasion his plan was to retreat TO LOMBARDY ! Kesselring on the other hand saw that he could make the Allies pay for every mile by defending defensive lines, then retreating to the next one, and so on, and the Italian front still held at the end of the war

I agree with your points above. I'd only point out that Rommel kept "his" forces intact if by "his" we mean "his German". He expended "his" Italian mobile assets in a delaying action, and abandoned "his" Italian foot infantry, this being obviously unable to turn tail and run away from the enemy as fast as the German motorized units.
 
Top