Ostfront 1944: Could the Germans still turn the table?

Say you are in charge of the German Reich starting from 1 January 1944.

Try to curb Stalin's Ten Blows, while still hold the Rhine line (to say at least) against the Allies.

Or, are things doomed by 1944 to the extent that the best result you can achieve is to "hold against the Soviets while while waiting for the allies to stab our back?"

Try everything you can, military-wise, political-wise, and logistical-wise.
 
Emancipate the Jews and Slavs.

Bomb the crap out of Switzerland. Annex it.

Relocate to Switzlerand, fortify the Alps and move all military assets to Switzerland and southern Germany.
 
1944 was a bit late in the day.

If it should be done after invasion of France, I think it is hopeless.

1943 before Kursk is a much more potentially "tipping point" stuff

Could 1943 go a lot of ways? oh yes it could.

Ivan
 
1944 was a bit late in the day.

If it should be done after invasion of France, I think it is hopeless.

1943 before Kursk is a much more potentially "tipping point" stuff

Could 1943 go a lot of ways? oh yes it could.

Ivan

Calm down, Mein Fuhrer, you are still six months away from D Day.

As of 1st January, 1944,
Ukraine and Belarus is still with you,
Romania and Italy has not yet defected,
Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Hungary has no yet been occupied,
and Finland has not yet been knocked out of the war.

All those are to be lost if you do nothing in the following year. The Germans did not perform do poorly even in 1945.

Something must be done.
 
I don't think there is really any way for Germany to win the war at this point. Really, either Stalingrad or Kursk (1943) was probably the point of no return for the Reich. Some might argue that Germany's inability to win Barbarossa in 1941 was the turning point and some might argue that Germany never had a chance against the USSR in the first place.

In any case, it is possible to hold out longer. Not launching the December 1944 Ardennes Offensive would be a start. The Battle of the Bulge required a lot of German divisions that would otherwise end up on the Eastern Front. Now, to be clear, I don't necessarily have a problem with the offensive. Was it almost 100% likely to fail? Yes. However, it was only a matter of when, not if, Germany would fall if they continued to fall back. The Ardennes Offensive may have had a one-in-a-thousand's chance of success, but it is what it is. Frankly, though, even if the Germans do pull off a miracle and encircle and crush the Allies once again in the Low Countries, they still have nothing to stop the Russians from storming Berlin midway through 1945.

In my opinion, the Germans did a pretty good job as it was. The war could have ended much earlier if Operation Market Garden was a success, for example. In addition, if Patton pushed forward to Berlin instead of Eisenhower's being diverted by Nazi propaganda of the "Alpine Fortress", he could have probably beaten the Russians to Berlin. Germany also performed admirably in Italy after Mussolini's fall and if this front went sour, Germany would be threatened from the south.

And even if the Germans do make it until August 1945 intact, they have the atomic bomb waiting for them...

It is what it is, but I really don't see a way for Germany to win the war in 1944, short of a magical development of the atomic bomb or some other miracle weapon.
 
oopss. Sorry. more coffee is needed.

It would be after the Lower-Dneiper offensive which was rather expensive to Germany.

1) Shortening the front line
2) Supplies and logistics -> more of all of it, especially panzer
3) wonder-weapons?

Fixed fortifications (Panther line was gone anyway) might not stop a lot for a long time

Somehow keep North Africa. Otherwise Italy will be in serious danger with Scicily gone.

This will require a lot of resources and man-power

Ivan
 
You can grow plenty of food (either in the walking, or photosynthesizing forms) in southern Germany.

The whole area is highland too making it easier to fortify.

Cramping 12 million soldiers in such a small space:confused::confused:
At least they need Oil from Romania to fuel their tanks, let alone other war materials.

Plus, Germany Proper was not enough to feed the population even prior to the war.
 
I guess you could have Stalin assassinated and some sort of civil war break out in the Soviet Union. This may cause chaos along the Soviet lines and could butterfly away the great Soviet offenses of the summer of 1944.
 
Cramping 12 million soldiers in such a small space:confused::confused:
At least they need Oil from Romania to fuel their tanks, let alone other war materials.

Plus, Germany Proper was not enough to feed the population even prior to the war.
While building New Germany in the Alps and surrounding areas, the policy of kamikaze is adopted against all enemies.
 
Somehow keep North Africa. Otherwise Italy will be in serious danger with Scicily gone.
Ivan

Supposedly, keeping a bridgehead in North Africa would prevent a landing in Italy and Southern France, and therefore keep more resources available for the Atlantic Wall.

In practice, Germany had 150 000 lost in North Africa alone. Make me wonder whether the whole whole North Africa thing was worthwhile.
 
North Africa was a lost cause from the start due to Allied naval and air supremacy in the Med. Add to the enormous shipping losses the fact that the Germans never held nearly enough ports on the North African coast, and you've got a logistical nightmare of the likes only matched by the Ostfront.
 
I would offer the USSR everything save Germany itself for a peace.

Stalin's a pretty cautious guy, so I think it would be quite possible that he would agree, just so that he can make sure all of Eastern Europe is firmly under his control before eventually betraying Germany.

In the meantime, move troops west and fortify France further. This will, hopefully, force the W. allies to rethink their plans for opening a European front. With luck, Germany gets, perhaps, a year of down time.

Using that, I can get my shit together and establish a strong defensive line in the east (rather than overstretched OTL 1944, which allowed the Soviet offensive to annihilate the Germans) and start re-strengthening our airforce like crazy. When the Soviets come, bleed them out on the Oder and then hold them on the Rhine. If late D-day happens, crush them on the beeches with strong reserves.

Everything will then ride on our air defense capabilities. When the USA gets the bomb, we need to be able to protect the heartland of Germany from air bombing, or at least keep it risky for bombers. If this is achieved, then I will keep some bargaining power.

I will offer to free France, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Norway and Greece. Surrender Italy and her holdings over to the USA/UK and officially take blame for the war. Also promise reparations, and limit the size of the German army if I have too, but not to the degree of Versailles. The Soviets will probably be freaked out by the atomic bombs, and will hopefully agree to a peace as well, so that they can scramble to develop their own.

By 1946, if all goes according to plan (big if), Germany will be intact.

Not quite turning the tide, but that's the best that I got.
 
Top