WI: Patton's fuel wasn't cut off?

Actually, the idea that the western allies advancing deeper into Germany and possibly some surrounding territory and holding it postwar is credible if they maintain initiative better in 1944.

The official lines where not drawn up until some time in 1945.

That was one of the issues about things such as Market Garden. IOTL, it was a disaster, despite some limited successes locally and liberating Belgium.

Had something like that gone according to plan, or if 3rd Army and some other units in that area had the resources and logistical support to keep going somewhat longer, it is quite possible that it could have had an effect on the outcome of who got what where postwar.

Does this mean that the US and British will be marching into Berlin first? Probably not. Does this possibly move the allied zones further east by say 20 miles? Possibly.

Where people keep getting this idea is beyond me.

The official lines were drawn up and already agreed to at the Second Quebec Conference in September 1944. A nice place to see the map from that conference in 1944 is:

http://history.sandiego.edu/cdr2/WW2Pics3/58729.jpg

58729.jpg



The zones as agreed in September 1944 by the way were essentially laid out between December 1943 and January 1944 as both the British and the Soviets came up with basically identical proposals in late 1943/early 1944 (note, this is all before the landings in Normandy) which pretty much had the zones as would be later agreed at the Quebec Conference. The only reason why they weren't adopted even earlier is because FDR had a pet project in the form of where the US army would occupy (not so much the zonal boundaries themselves) and had been hoping for the US army to occupy northern Germany so it would have direct access to the States through the northern German ports (and because he didn't want to have the US Army staying more than a couple of years anyway). To the British and the US military planners, the FDR proposal was unworkable since it would have required a different deployment at Normandy (with the Americans on the left flank and the British and Canadians on the right so that the British would end up in southwestern Germany and the Americans in the northwest) or it would have required the British and American armies would have to cross each other's lines of communications to get to their zones. It would have entailed having 6-7 armies crossing each others paths - something like 2 million soldiers having to switch positions.

In any event the basic zonal boundaries were agreed upon by May 1944. At that point FDR wasn't really interested in the zonal boundaries so much as whether the US army would occupy the northwestern zone or the southwestern zone. He had given his agreement to the boundaries as proposed by the Soviets and the British but was still holding out for the US army to end up in the northwest.

See this site for the British-Soviet proposal from December 1943-February 1944:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/other/us-army_germany_1944-46_ch09.htm#b2

us-army_germany_1944-46_map2.jpg



So unless Patton has some Ch-47 Chinooks and C-130s ISOTed for his benefit, there is no way that even he can move an army fast enough to really affect the outcome of the zones since they were basically decided upon while he was going hoping to go on the offensive in the Lorraine. Actually Patton would probably need a time machine to affect the outcome of the zones since he would really need to be in Lorraine in 1943 instead of 1944 in order to really change the dynamics.


Actually, the idea that the western allies advancing deeper into Germany and possibly some surrounding territory and holding it postwar is credible if they maintain initiative better in 1944.

The official lines where not drawn up until some time in 1945.

That was one of the issues about things such as Market Garden. IOTL, it was a disaster, despite some limited successes locally and liberating Belgium.

Had something like that gone according to plan, or if 3rd Army and some other units in that area had the resources and logistical support to keep going somewhat longer, it is quite possible that it could have had an effect on the outcome of who got what where postwar....

Actually since Market Garden started the day after the end of the 1944 Quebec Conference which had decided the zones, it would seem pointless that there was any idea of using Market Garden in some kind of race for territory in Germany or that it could have contributed to such. Market Garden was designed to get into Germany faster and bring the war as a whole (in Europe anyway) to a more speedy conclusion, not to grab more Germany territory and deny it to the Soviets. I really doubt Montgomery cared about the zones (at least enough such that they would even form a secondary focus for his planning of an operation like Market-Garden), he probably just wanted the bloody fighting to be ended as soon as possible.


The timing of Market Garden also bring another question to mind:

Why are people referring to Market-Garden (second week in September) as one of the reason for Patton's halt at the end of August? Didn't the 21st Army Group have to start drawing on its own reserves entirely the day before Patton stopped? Kind of harsh to talk about the diversion of fuel elsewhere if the 21st Army Group was using mainly it's own stocks of supplies at least until sometime after September 10 (by which time both Patton and Montgomery would have been rather idle for over a week anyway).
 
I always thought that since the Soviets had already taken Slovika, the velvet divorce would have happened in 1946 or so, I assume that the Czech Republic IITL would have been a charter member of NATO:

Except that unlike Germany and Austria, it was never intended for Czechoslovakia to be divided into zones. That's why the Americans left in OTL. Czechoslovakia was supposed to be restored to its pre-Munich borders. I highly doubt the Allies are going to want to keep Slovakia and the Czech areas separate since independent Slovakia at the time had only been a result of Munich. No way are they going to leave any trace of legitimacy in the old Munich agreement.
 

Ak-84

Banned
Hodges. I have two words for you as regards Hodges AK84

Huertgan Forrest

By the time Patton got to metz his army had been cut back to seven divisions and supplies were still tight. They were forced to use captured german guns and ammunition due to the stupid Pentagon cutting back on Artillery ammunition. The weather was terrible and the germans had a full month to get ready. ANd if you think Hodges was any better at city fighting (and First Army was better supplied and bigger) Ihave one other word for you: Aachen.
Hurtgen Forest was good old Bradley's doing, and the incompetance of the local corps commander (XIX Corps IIRC) who was properly dispatched to command a reserve formation in the Pacific. And in the Northern France campaign, Hodges had 2 corps (V and VII) to Pattons 4, and he advanced as far as Patton did versus greater opposition.

Patton was out of his depth in the Lorraine Campaign.
 
Except that unlike Germany and Austria, it was never intended for Czechoslovakia to be divided into zones. That's why the Americans left in OTL. Czechoslovakia was supposed to be restored to its pre-Munich borders. I highly doubt the Allies are going to want to keep Slovakia and the Czech areas separate since independent Slovakia at the time had only been a result of Munich. No way are they going to leave any trace of legitimacy in the old Munich agreement.

If the Soviets took over Slovakia and Britain and the US took over the Czech part, the Soviets would not have agreed on a post war government. They would have imposed a communist dictatorship like they did everywhere else.
 
In OTL in the immediate post war period I believe that Communists won what were seen as pretty legitimate elections. Of course in 1948 they did not want to risk the outcome of further elections.

Slovakia was nothing to do with Munich really. It was a pupet pro Nazi state. I tend to agree that neither Stalin nor the Western allies would want to give it any legitimacy though.
 

Redbeard

Banned
By 1944 the allies would inevitably win, if they just played it safe and continued building up pressure without taking high risks.

Unleashing Patton with all your fuel into central Germany would in that context be about the most stupid thing you could do. As others have already told there would not only be a risk of him bogging down, or if reaching military results, they will have to be given up politically (The Soviets already having their zone etc,).

But on top of that the Germans by late 1944 still were capable of striking back hard. Forces similar to those allocated for the Bulge (24 Divisions) would be fully capable of encircling and anihilating any deep trust by Patton. 100.000 PoWs incl. Patton paraded up and down the Kurfürstendam would be a tough thing for allied cohesion and morale. Even worse would be how Monty would say: "I told you so!".

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

burmafrd

Banned
AK 84 Hodges was the Army commander. Still does not explain either battle.
Hodges had a lot more manpower and supplies then Patton did. Keep spinning.

Redbeard. Do some research. We were talking about SEPTEMBER and it was not until late Novemeber that the reserves had been put together for the battle of the bulge. At that time there were little if any reserves available anywhere. You do recall Bagration and the fact that on the Eastern Front the Germans were using every man they could find to shore up the collapsing front.
 
All this debate is all good and find, however most of you are debating whether or not the W Allies would have actually even let Patton loose or if they were capable of it.

So lets say that a couple things change:

-Suppose that Stalin and the other Allies had not agreed to as much at Yalta or Casablanca or wherever and the borders of post war Europe had not been drawn yet. Take whatever reason you wish, perhaps stalin is very stubborn and wants all of Germany to himself, or perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt are asking for too much, or Stalin is still very bitter over a lack of a front in the west, take your pick.

-Then lets suppose that the Western allies in fact do have the resources for Patton to keep going without delay. This possibility may have actually been the case depending on whose argument you agree with.

So assuming those two things are true and the Allies agree to turn Patton loose in the hopes that he will reach Berlin before the Red Army does. Or maybe they even decided to not sell the Poles down the River and want to get to Warsaw before the Russians do. What would you say happens then? How does this affect the end result of the war, and how does this affect post war Europe?
 

Redbeard

Banned
Redbeard. Do some research. We were talking about SEPTEMBER and it was not until late Novemeber that the reserves had been put together for the battle of the bulge. At that time there were little if any reserves available anywhere. You do recall Bagration and the fact that on the Eastern Front the Germans were using every man they could find to shore up the collapsing front.

Try reading my post again:

"Forces similar to those allocated for the Bulge (24 Divisions) would be fully capable of encircling and anihilating any deep trust by Patton."

Nothing about it being those 24 Divisions allocated OTL for the Bulge. Bagration was in July and this would be contemporary with OTL Market Garden, which showed no signs of an immediate German collapse. The allies no doubt thought that this collapse was close, only to find SS Divisions in places they had never thought of.

The forces available to Patton, supplied or not, would not need anywhere near 24 Divisions to be stopped and anihilated, and 24 Divisions still only was in the region of 10% of the operational Divisions available to the Germans.

The German railway system by September, as well as in OTL November/Decemeber, would be able to concentrate big forces much quicker than the allies could and even undetected (although the fewer dark hours by September would reduce the "air-safe" period).

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
If the Soviets took over Slovakia and Britain and the US took over the Czech part, the Soviets would not have agreed on a post war government. They would have imposed a communist dictatorship like they did everywhere else.


Czechoslovakia went communist in 1948....


Why would the Soviets not agree to a post-war government for Czechoslovakia when they clearly did so in OTL from 1945-1948 (even though they apparently didn't have to) and also did so in Austria from the get go in 1945?

The Soviets did not impose communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe in 1945. They got the communist dictatorships they wanted in more subtle ways - coalition governments to start with. Then the communists within that coalition gained more power and finally took all power within a couple years to a few years. The length of time needed varied. In Poland the process started in 1945 but was only fully completed by 1948/1949. In Bulgaria it happened in late 1946.

Also people seem to have the idea that once an area was occupied by the western Allies or the Soviets then it was like a game of Risk and those areas were to stay occupied. Examples to the contrary include:

- parts of eastern Germany (evacuated by the British and Americans)

- part of western Czechoslovakia (evacuated by the Americans)

- the Danish island of Bornholm (evacuated by the Soviets)

- northern Norway (evacuated by the Soviets - note they did not establish some "People's Republic of Finnmark")

- parts of Finland (evacuated by the Soviets)

What evidence is there that the Americans, British, Soviets or French would even contemplate keeping Slovakia separate? That was about as likely as keeping Austria in Germany. Both (independent Slovakia and annexed Austria) were seen as the result of the actions of the Nazis and would no more be upheld than would be the separation of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe they even decided to not sell the Poles down the River and want to get to Warsaw before the Russians do. What would you say happens then? How does this affect the end result of the war, and how does this affect post war Europe?

At the time having Poland being liberated by the Red Army was not considered as selling it down the river. That realization only dawned (and only could dawn) on the western Allies in 1946-1949, not 1944.

Also reaching Warsaw would probably require the complete collapse of all German resistance...either that or some new (and faster) weapons/vehicles. If German resistance is still extant and it's Patton that's storming through central Germany and to Berlin and then to Warsaw...well I would hate to be the bugger responsibly for supplying that thread-like advance.
 
Top