If Germany had stayed on the defensive

If germany had stayed on the defensive in the Ardennes instead of attacking in the Battle of the Bulge , how much longer would Germany have lasted
 
Give or take, a few months. The Battle of the Bulge delayed the Western Allies advance so...It depends on how those forces are used "Defensively".

Hitler has the following choices he can make:
A. Send them off to stem the Red Tide.
B. Keep them in the Western Front to try and create a stalemate.
C. Send them off to Italy or the Balkans.
D. Use them to bolster homeland Germanys forces, waiting for the invaders.
E. All of the Above.

In any case, Post-War Germany is going to be different, depending on the choices. Using them in the West will create a similar to OTL with minor butterflys, using them in the East will give the Western Allies more bargining chips. I'm more interested in how he would use them in Italy a/o the Balkans. Using them in occupied Yugoslavia could somewhat reassure Croatia that Germany was a proper ally; The Serbian-Croatian conflict would become much more deadly in the time to come.


And to make my points understandable, playing defensive will only create some minor butterflys. Germany is doomed at this point and Roosevelt still trusts his, 'best friend' Josef Stalin so you can't expect more then that.
 
The soldiers would do best in the east. The less of Germany occupied by the Soviets is better (for most people involved)

Realistically though they would probably be used to defend the River Rhine. Defending the Ardennes is also a possibility but that would not block any British troops really and only portion of the Americans.
 
Even if they are sent east and slow down the Red hordes somewhat does that really change anything? I was under the impression that the zones of occupation and spheres of influence had already been agreed upon well beforehand and we're pretty much stuck to, although IIRC the Soviets did try to put troops into Denmark to try and influence things there post-war.
 
No real change, you might see an enlarged 'Spring Awakening' on the Eastern Front but it would be bogged down and destroyed by the Soviets almost as quickly as OTL. War in Europe ends in the late spring/early summer of 1945
 
Give or take, a few months. The Battle of the Bulge delayed the Western Allies advance so...It depends on how those forces are used "Defensively".

Hitler has the following choices he can make:
A. Send them off to stem the Red Tide.
B. Keep them in the Western Front to try and create a stalemate.
C. Send them off to Italy or the Balkans.
D. Use them to bolster homeland Germanys forces, waiting for the invaders.
E. All of the Above.

To pursue a minor thread, & select option A. lets assume Hitler over reinforces the east, enough to actually delay (not stop) the Red Army in Poland. He convinces himself the western Allies are a spent shot & cannot penetrate the west wall.

Now lets skip ahead a few months. With the Red Army stalled east of the Oder, but pinning the German army there then the Allied 21st & 12th AG can cross the Elbe & end the war with a advance to Berlin. This would probably occur a month or so earlier, so late February or March vs the April of OTL.

So, if Eisenhower orders up a final thrust & Operation Eclipse to split the Reich and eliminate the Berlin hub... would the Germans defend against the Allied soldiers as fanatically as they did against the Red Army in OTL? Or would all but the hard core like the SS rollover & surrender at the earliest convienent opportunity?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Two things to keep in mind.

1) No BotB means that the Allies will have an extra 90,000 or so troops on the Western Front than they did IOTL, not to mention hundreds of extra tanks and other material that would otherwise have been lost. We tend to focus on what the German Army would have saved in terms of men and material and forget what the Allies would have saved.

2) No BotB means no Operation Bodenplatte. This might have allowed Adolf Galland to launch his proposed "Big Blow" against the Allied bomber streams with the Luftwaffe's carefully husbanded reserves of fighters. If it had worked (and it's a big "if"), it might have brought a short reprieve from the endless waves of bomber attacks hammering Germany.
 
Whichever way you desperately throw the dice in the Reich's favour it all ends with a mushroom cloud and more dead Germans than dead Allies.
 

RousseauX

Donor
The soldiers would do best in the east. The less of Germany occupied by the Soviets is better (for most people involved)

Realistically though they would probably be used to defend the River Rhine. Defending the Ardennes is also a possibility but that would not block any British troops really and only portion of the Americans.
OTOH 100k soldiers or so might not make a big difference in the east
 

sharlin

Banned
If they had stayed on the defensive it would have prolongued the war for a few months more at the most. You've got a tidal wave of men and armour approaching the Reich from the east and west and shoring up their defences just means it takes a bit longer for them to be battered down and drowned.
 
Probably no change at all certainly not adding 6 months to the war maybe shortening it.

The Allied offensives will proceed on their own timetable which is determined by allied logistics and weather. You might get Valediction for example instead of Veritable but that just advances things.
The German problem is one of mobility. The infantry formations used in the Ardennes would be in place somewhere, thickens the crust but not by that much when spread along the whole front. The Armoured formations can react slightly better but are significantly less mobile than the allies.
Once any defensive crust is broken the Allies pocket and capture/slaughter the leg infantry and can dispose of german armoured counterattacks in short order. For example 2nd Pz in late December gets thoroughly routed in 3 days and two supporting Pz divs are unable to break through a US Cavalry group to assist.
All of this is West of the Rhine with attendant retreat problems so you could argue that staying on the defensive with the same forces in the West actually leads to higher losses pre Rhine crossing. Deploy the troops east and you do get Valediction et al on good ground and with a possible boiunce over the Rhine somewhere and Germany trying to fight meeting engagements with bicycle troops vs Shermans and the TAFs.
 
If germany had stayed on the defensive in the Ardennes instead of attacking in the Battle of the Bulge , how much longer would Germany have lasted

Who said Germany would have lasted any longer without the Bulge?

IMO, Hitler's instincts were correct. He chose to do the 'Bulge' strategy too late. He should have done it in 1943.
 
Who said Germany would have lasted any longer without the Bulge?

IMO, Hitler's instincts were correct. He chose to do the 'Bulge' strategy too late. He should have done it in 1943.

A 1943 tank advance through the Ardennes has a pretty good chance of success, same chance as in 1941 or 1942 however once the Western Allies actually have armies in mainland Europe to oppose the thrust it becomes a much tougher call :rolleyes:
 
Soviet maskirovka efforts and Hitler's own fantasies make Hungary most likely to receive reinforcements, probably to relieve/defend Budapest. Little difference overall, Vistula-Oder goes ahead as IOTL.
 
The best thing that could happen is the Germans deploy these reserves in Poland and pull of something like this (where you actually cut off a couple of Soviet armies):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Solstice

or maybe just keep Silesia longer as a production center.

--------------------

But as a last desperate card played, The Bulge 44 wasn't too bad an option, probably better if it was November 1944. Perhaps the Germans should have called it all off earlier when it bogged down.
 
"East" can mean several things. It could mean Poland, it could mean Hungary, it could mean a bit of both. If sent to one fighting there will be harder, more casualties and if it's Poland Soviets there may be reinforced from other theatres. If it's Hungary more success there but Soviet strike for Berlin anyway which makes any victories in Hungary moot.
 
The best thing that could happen is the Germans deploy these reserves in Poland and pull of something like this (where you actually cut off a couple of Soviet armies):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Solstice

or maybe just keep Silesia longer as a production center.

--------------------

But as a last desperate card played, The Bulge 44 wasn't too bad an option, probably better if it was November 1944. Perhaps the Germans should have called it all off earlier when it bogged down.

Solstice was a guaranteed failure from the start. STAVKA detected German offensive preparations and shifted the bulk of 1st Belorussian Front's forces north in secret, while using maskirovka to make the Germans believe that they were still advancing towards Berlin. Thus when Solstice was launched it quickly collapsed.

It should be noted that Germany did deploy large reserves to Poland IOTL, but Soviet demonstrations and diversionary offensives in the Baltics and Hungary caused them to deploy the reserves elsewhere, while deception measures along the Vistula disguised the concentration of several tank and rifle armies. OKH was aware of a Soviet offensive, but vastly underestimated it's size and scope, and had no idea when it would be launched.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like more than a few other Allied offensives.

Indeed, basically every Soviet offensive in the war made extensive use of operational, tactical, and strategic deception, with devastating effects from 1943 onward where they had the material to launch and sustain powerful combined arms offensives.
 
Top