When would you surrender in WW2?

When do you surrender


  • Total voters
    130
Well in 1945, the first atomic bombs will be showing up in Germany and by 1946 they will be pouring out of the US plants, any SANE German government will be surrendering then. What this means is 1946.


Nuclear weapons were first to be lelivered in numbers to even make such a thing a possibility, which is doubdtfull still when at war with the Allies. The USA could make at best only 4 nuclear devices befroe the end of 1945! A more sane German govenrment would have had plenty of time to speculate a sort of truce before that, with the Nazi's out of the way, even to a form with a status quo with the West, in some form. BTW, the USA on her own were unable to hit Germany, unless they had a launchcapability in, or near Europe, as the USA territory itself was too far away.
 
But what if the Germans withdrew behind the Dneiper in April 1943, and the Soviets tried to drive them back early in July. Assuming the Germans still had 17 panzer divisions in the East--before some were pulled out after the Sicilian landings--couldn't this larger force, coupled with the difficulty of attacking in several different places when much of the front consists of a river barrier, have given the Germans a fair chance at halting the attacks?

The Soviets would be in position to try and drive them back well before July. More like late-May. As for giving the Germans a fair chance at halting the attacker? Well, depends on you define "halt". The Soviets can establish bridgeheads at a rate of up to 20 per month even with the Germans dug in on the other side so by August there would be as many bridgeheads as there were IOTL at the start of November 1943. The key problem is that the Germans intelligence is vulnerable to deception and operating essentially blind. This means that even if the Germans effectively respond to the first attack, their forces will be out of place to respond to the inevitable second attack in a timely fashion. Even if these attacks don't outright succeed, they'll greatly enlarge bridgeheads, tying down more and more German forces just to hold the line. And the Germans will run out of reserves before the Soviets run out of offensives, as the Soviets get to save all the losses they took conducting offensives in July-August as well as those taken defending and attacking in July.

In numerical terms, the difference between Army Group South in September 1943 and that of early-July is actually pretty minor: Army Group South actually had more panzer and panzergrenadier divisions in September then they had at the start of Kursk (17 as opposed to 15) and while individually these divisions were weaker, overall they still contained the same number of tanks (1,200).

In short, the Germans may be able to hold onto their defensive line for several months longer before it breaks but this is more then made up for by the fact that the Soviets themselves are even more months ahead of schedule.

But what if the Germans didn't bother to defend the Nogay steppe(?) or Nikopol bridehead(?) and attempted to stop the Soviets in the narrows of the Perekop, with 17th army(?) units already in the Crimea. In other words, if they were fully behind the dneiper, with larger panzer forces, all--or at least most--uncommitted by the time the Soviets try to outflank the whole position from the north, wouldn't they have stood a chance of repelling/halting the Soviets?

The lower bend of the river D'niepr presents any west-bank defender with a interesting catch-22. Trying to hold the swathe of territory between the D'nepr and Melitopol may have left Germans holding a front of 240 kilometers without any defensive barrier, but to fully hold the great bend would have required the Germans to add another 100 kilometers to that. The Germans would have required even more forces to hold the latter compared to the former. So your basically asking the Germans to sacrifice more of their reserves to hold a longer frontline for the sake of holding more defensible terrain.
 
Last edited:
Let say Hitler dies in Jan 1942 and assume a much more logical noon-NAZI German government comes to power and the war in the field continues much the same. I know it is a big *IF* but bear with me.

Now when do you ask for terms and/or surrender?

Now with the NAZIs out, the Allies would probably be more flexible in their demands.

Here are some suggestions.

1) Try and make terms now. Most conquered territories would be lost, but you do not care about living space and at least Germany would be safe as you think to yourself that even if Germany wins it is not worth fighting. Note you will not last long after peace is made as either the Allies or many German people will want your head.
2) After Stalingrad when it is clear that Germany is in real trouble. By the way, this is when the Finns started to have doubts, so it is not illogical at this point.
3) After the battle of Kursk when it is quite clear that Germany cannot defeat Russia.
4) After D-Day as now, Germany can hope to make peace with the British and Americans and possibly avoid a Russian takeover of Eastern Europe.
5) After the battle of the Bulge, as it is now clear that the Americans and British cannot be stopped and driven back and there is no hope of defeating them and then using the resources to hold Russia.
6) 1945, German lines are collapsing, and the Allies are getting into Germany.
7) Fight to the end.

After "Tunisgrad", Sicily and Kursk, as soon as Italy gives way.
 
Nuclear weapons were first to be lelivered in numbers to even make such a thing a possibility, which is doubdtfull still when at war with the Allies. The USA could make at best only 4 nuclear devices befroe the end of 1945! A more sane German govenrment would have had plenty of time to speculate a sort of truce before that, with the Nazi's out of the way, even to a form with a status quo with the West, in some form. BTW, the USA on her own were unable to hit Germany, unless they had a launchcapability in, or near Europe, as the USA territory itself was too far away.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/bomb-rate.html

The production rate of 3 bombs per month in August was expected to rise to 5 bombs per month in November, and 7 bombs per month in December. In 1946, it could rise much higher.
 

iVC

Donor
August of 1944 would be OK to me. It would be possible to declare France lost because of successful Allied breakthrough from the beaches, and it would be possible to cede Poland to the Polish government after the first day of the Warsaw uprising, so Soviets would have to march through the de jure already free and liberated Poland.
 
Top