Germany could concentrate on the eastern front autumn 1944?

[Aragorn1963]

Sorry about that, maltesefalcon. I couldn't find the time to reply in the past few days, but I will do so today or tomorrow. I very much appreciate your answer and your questions, so please give me a couple more days to answer.

[Aragorn1963]

More detail is required.
Why did the AngloAmericans suddenly sign off on a cease fire and when exactly?

What happened to the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe units that were there? Depending on when the the ceasefire occurred, many of these troops were already killed or captured by September 21, which is the earliest date for your fall time line.

Was there a prisoner return on both sides. Would the forced labourers from France Belgium and Holland be returned?
Would these countries still be required to supply food and manufactured goods to the Reich?

What about Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia? Would these areas remain occupied by the Germans? If so it makes a fairly weak case for a cease fire IMHO.

Finally what would the newly transported divisions do onthe Ostfront in the fall? The weather would be turning bad shortly, making any offensives doubly difficult.

Depending on the response of the OP, I will reserve my opinion on the outcome.

Before answering these questions I repeat that I'm not interested in discussing whether this scenario would have been possible. I'm only interested in the military situation at the Eastern front. What kind of tactical operations would have been possible for the Germans and what would have been the response of the Soviets?

Question 1: again, I do realize this situation is hard to imagine. Impossible if you like, that's not the point of my thread. But for the sake of answering, let's assume the invasion failed with huge losses. Yes, very unlikely, I know.

Question 2: Ceasefire in the West at the end of June. German units take quite a beating but can be revived and used again, most of them against the autumn.

Question 3: Yes, prisoners are returned asap. Forced labourers will be returned in the spring of 1945, because they are still very much needed. France is evacuated by the Wehrmacht asap, Holland and Belgium will be in the spring of 1945.

Question 4: Italy, Greece and Yugoslavia are evacuated and handed over to the Wallies.

Question 5: The reinforcement for the Eastern front are partly used to fill up the gaps in Poland and Hungary, partly to form reserves for the autumn and winter operations. They won't be used for any major offensive action, that time has past. It's all about defending and local counterattacking where it hurts most. Inspiration for this scenario is 'Disaster at D-Day' by Peter Tsouras, unrealistic as it may be. The situation won't be much difference from the real situation in the winter of 1944/45, but the Germans will have more reserves to strike back. So please continue from there and do not concentrate on questions why the Wallies would never have suffered defeat in the West or never would have accepted a ceasefire, because I can find those arguments myself quite easily.

Again thank you for taking the time to reply and share your expertise.

[maltesefalcon]

Because you are a fairly new poster, I will cut you some slack. It would be fair however, to indicate that posting any hypothesis on the what-if forum, by definition invites feedback and not all of it will agree with your analysis.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that some miracle occurs and the D-Day invasion fails. Somehow the Germans manage to do this with little to no naval and air resources available to help.

The situation would then be:
Allies still hold Rome and can move north with considerable forces. Italy is already out of the war and the allies also hold the North African coast. There are considerable forces available in French Morocco as well. The Mediterranean and Atlantic is controlled by the allied navies as well.
Many of the infantry divisions in Western Europe in 1944 are either Luftwaffe or fortress divisions (Kampfwert 3). They were then topped up by some elite Panzer and Panzer grenadier units at the last minute. Your post above indicates these units emerged victorious, but took quite a beating. So how many of these troops would be available for use on the Ostfront? (By actual troop count, not numbers of divisions)

Also bear in mind, of 2.9 million casualties taken by the Germans in 1944, 2.3 million occurred on fronts other than Western Europe. Although they might not have lost all of the 2000-odd AFV’s they lost in the Western campaign to June to Sept/44, Germany still lost 9000 on the Eastern front, so would the extra panzer power make the difference?

As for the troops released from Europe for use in Russia, how would they get there, as most of them had little to no transport? Again how would the size and power of this additional force compare to the forces already in the east? Perhaps a drop in the bucket compared the size of the Red Army? (That is exactly why Hitler decided to go with a move against the Anglo Americans with his December 1944 offensive. He realized the 30 divisions he’d scraped together would not be enough to force any decision on the Ostfront.)

Several historians are of the opinion that the Russians could have finished the Germans by spring 1945 on their own, without the D-Day invasion at all. In that case, maybe the Anglo-American’s biggest contribution was to keep Stalin’s men from washing their spears in the English Channel?
Everything seems to hinge on the cease fire and what happens thereafter. What are the terms, bearing in mind that a cease fire is neither an armistice nor a peace treaty? Your proposal indicates the Germans will repatriate some 2 million Allied prisoners? What does asap mean? I cannot see any kind of agreement between the West and Germany, until this condition at least is met. (The allies still hold most of the cards here)

Also what do you think will happen once 1.5 million pissed off French soldiers come home after 4 years, to a country now denuded of enemy troops? If they get arms from the FFA, I’m pretty sure the West flank of Germany will be in for a surprise.

Germany had already lost its air superiority on both the west and eastern fronts by this time. The Soviets will capture Ploesti by August, which is the biggest source of oil for the Reich. Speer himself said this alone was a fatal blow to Germany. They could basically use up their remaining stocks to keep fighting, but once that was gone, it was over. (The Soviets really didn’t need these fields, so they could simply destroy them utterly, if there was any chance the Germans could come back. By the time the equipment could be restored the war would be over.)

I would like to add one other comment. I am assuming your term Wallies stands for Western Allies? Perhaps you could find another term in future-the word wallie in some languages is a derogatory term for a stupid person. Just saying….
It is an interesting topic however. Let’s see where this goes from here!

[Aragorn1963]

Maltesefalcon, thank you. Didn’t know that about the ‘Wallies’. I’ve encountered that term in several threads, so I thought it was a common and accepted abbreviation. No disrespect intended.

The ceasefire at the end of June will have to be followed by an armistice and a peace treaty in July to have any effect on the German situation, which is what I pressume in this scenario. So the fighting against the Western allies comes to an end permanently. According to Tsouras it would be possible to transfer more than 2 million men from France and the low countries (1.030.000), Italy (500.000) Scandinavia (300.000) and the Balkans (500.000). He admits though that at least half of these divisions were not first class, nor were they fully equipped or trained. I think this estimate is too optimistic and the numbers incorrect, so let's cut this number in half. Let’s assume approx. a million men can be transferred to the Eastern front (partly entire divisions, partly the best elements of second rate divisions, to bring the decimated German divisions at the Eastern front back to an acceptable strength again). Those divisions will need a couple of months to replace lost men and equipment and additional training, so they won’t have much effect on the fighting in the Baltic, Eastern Poland and Romania, although the German divisions there immediately benefit from the situation in the West, by receiving more replacements in men, tanks, assault guns and other equipment. At the same time the Luftwaffe can send hundreds of fighters and ground attack aircraft and dozens of Flak batteries to the East, which somewhat helps the German units there to endure the relentless attacks of the Red air force. It won’t be enough for German air superiority, but it helps, especially when the Red air force runs out of usable airfields in the autumn. At the same time a small number of German Panzer divisions from the Calais region and the South of France and Italy can join the fighting in a couple of weeks and help the Wehrmacht to cover the withdrawl in the Baltic, to the Vistula and into Rumania. The arrival of a dozen German divisions and several Jagd- and Schlachtgruppen from Italy, Greece and the Balkans prevent the Red Army from achieving total success with their offensive in August (and perhaps even from capturing Ploesti) and helps to stabilize the front in Romania again and secure the German fuel situation for the time being.

Not enough to stabilize the other fronts, but it helps to preserve a lot of troops and equipment that otherwise would have been lost. The transfer of the bulk of the reinforcements from the west will take at least 3 to 4 months, because the losses in trains and trucks have been huge. Perhaps the German navy could have played a role there. By the end of 1944 the Ostheer will have approx. 3 million men available, despite the heavy losses, mainly by transferring troops from other parts of Europe and from the Replacement army in Germany itself (I’m thinking about the book by Walter S. Dunn jr.). Not enough to win the war, but of better quality and better equipped than has been the case for quite some time. The temporary increase in German weapon production in the summer and autumn of 1944 (no longer bombed day and night) also helps. The effects of no longer being bombed are partly compensated by the release of forced labourers from France and the Low countries, although not all of them are forced and returning.

At the end of 1944 the battered Panzer and infantry divisions from the fighting in Normandy are more or less ready for action again and in place behind the Vistula and the frontlines in Romania.

Concerning the 1.5 million ‘pissed of’ French soldiers coming home after 4 years, well, they wouldn’t have had weapons and training immediately and it is safe to assume the Western Allies wouldn’t have allowed them to grab their hayforks, join the FFA and march to the Siegfried line, to continue a war that has just ended. The release of two million Allied pow’s in July-August of 1944 would have helped to relieve the German food situation, while the return of hundreds of thousands of German pow’s also would have a certain effect on the situation in the East, although most of them will have to be transported from Canada and the USA, I guess, which also will take time.

All in all the Eastern front would have been stabilized more or less in the late autumn of 1944 and the Germans would have been in a better position to counter the Russian offensives in Eastern Prussia, at the Vistula and in Romania. Mind you, I’m NOT suggesting a German victory is a realistic option, just that Stalin can expect an even tougher job while trying to reach Berlin. So what are the German options? Trying to destroy the Red bridgheads over the Vistula? Won't be easy to put it mildly, as has been proved at Sandomierz in August 1944, but perhaps with a couple Panzer and infantry divisions more and more artillery and air support? Let's assume holding on to Courland is no longer important to the Germans, since the new type U-boats are no longer that important, because of the peace treaty with the Western Allies, so what if the German divisions there can be evacuated or withdrawn to Eastern Prussia? Another interesting option would be a German 'Bodenplatte' in the East against the airfields of the Red air force (this was actually considered at a time). It would have been costly, especially given the numerous Russian AA, but perhaps it would have helped.

Perhaps even the Finns would have continued fighting, if they received a couple of thousand more AT weapons and a dozen more assault guns? Or if they didn’t the Germans perhaps would have been able to bring their Lapland army back home and let them join the fighting in Romania?

I do realize I’m describing an awful lot of ‘ifs’ and ‘maybe’s’, but what I’m aiming for is a detailed discussion about how the fighting would/could have continued. The outcome would very likely have been the same, but one could imagine for example that the massacre of the German population in the Eastern provinces could have been prevented (which from the German point of view was an important reason to fight on). I also realize that lots of people are of the opinion that the Germans received what they were asking for, but that is for me not important for THIS discussion. I don't want to step in such an emotional minefield. I’m mainly interested in the tactical situation and the consequences for coming battles in the East. What could the Germans have done to make it harder for the Russians to conquer Berlin? And what would have been the response of the Red Army to this changed balance of strength? Would they have launched certain offensives sooner? Would they have been able to? Or would they haven tried to avoid a frontal attack in Poland and strengthen their attempts in Romania?

[maltesefalcon]

I will agree that Operation Overlord was not a sure thing, by any means. Even Eisenhower and Churchill expected worse casualties. So, I can accept that there may be scenarios where the invasion is repulsed. In fact, there have been more than a few threads on this already.
However, it is a huge leap to imply that a repulse in Normandy, June 1944; would lead the west to abandon all their victories and seek terms for a full end of hostilities.

Let’s look at the situation IRL:

In the Pacific the Japanese have been checked and are being pushed back by vastly superior forces. The Marianas will be captured by month end, allowing B-29 raids on the Japanese home islands.

In Italy, Rome has fallen and the Germans have steadily retreated against heavy odds. The Italian government has already surrendered.
The southern front also has Operation Dragoon in its back pocket, as a contingency for the Normandy landings.

In Yugoslavia, the Germans are also being pushed back.

The Battle of the Atlantic and the Mediterranean have been more or less won; and both bodies of water are largely controlled by the Allies.

The Germans have lost the air war over the western front and in their own airspace by day. Only the Nachtjager squadrons have any real hope of reversing the situation.

On the Ostfront, Operation Bagration is about to begin. By your own post above, this operation will be complete long before any hope of substantial reinforcement. Thus, Army Group centre is swallowed whole. It is worth mentioning that any reinforcements may have been moot, in any case. They needed to be sent to the correct location. Part of the reason that Bagration was such a stunning success, is that Hitler sent a large contingent of troops and armour out of the area, just prior to the battle.

Psychologically, the Allies were well inured to losses. They had lost major battles in Corregidor, Singapore, Hong Kong, Tobruk; and had been pushed off the continent in 1940. One more loss would not make a complete meltdown.

There are political considerations as well. The west needed to restore its dignity after 1940. Also, they needed to show Germany that they were defeated by military means. (No stab in the back, as in 1918.) The Nazi hierarchy would need to be eradicated root and branch. Finally, the west needed boots on the ground to show strength to the Soviets or all of Europe would be in Stalin’s embrace. All these goals would be worth risking to fight a bit longer.

In closing, I don’t think anyone could make a plausible case that the Allies would sue for peace at this time.

[Aragorn1963]

Question 5: The reinforcement for the Eastern front are partly used to fill up the gaps in Poland and Hungary, partly to form reserves for the autumn and winter operations. They won't be used for any major offensive action, that time has past. It's all about defending and local counterattacking where it hurts most. Inspiration for this scenario is 'Disaster at D-Day' by Peter Tsouras, unrealistic as it may be. The situation won't be much difference from the real situation in the winter of 1944/45, but the Germans will have more reserves to strike back. So please continue from there and do not concentrate on questions why the Wallies would never have suffered defeat in the West or never would have accepted a ceasefire, because I can find those arguments myself quite easily.

I think I've made it quite clear that I do agree on that and that I want to concentrate on the military situation at the Eastern front.What's the use of a What if-forum if we continue to concentrate on the fact that a certain situation wouldn't be possible in the first place?

[ljadw]

The ceasefire at the end of June will have to be followed by an armistice and a peace treaty in July to have any effect on the German situation, which is what I pressume in this scenario. So the fighting against the Western allies comes to an end permanently. According to Tsouras it would be possible to transfer more than 2 million men from France and the low countries (1.030.000), Italy (500.000) Scandinavia (300.000) and the Balkans (500.000). He admits though that at least half of these divisions were not first class, nor were they fully equipped or trained. I think this estimate is too optimistic and the numbers incorrect, so let's cut this number in half. Let’s assume approx. a million men can be transferred to the Eastern front (partly entire divisions, partly the best elements of second rate divisions, to bring the decimated German divisions at the Eastern front back to an acceptable strength again). Those divisions will need a couple of months to replace lost men and equipment and additional training, so they won’t have much effect on the fighting in the Baltic, Eastern Poland and Romania, although the German divisions there immediately benefit from the situation in the West, by receiving more replacements in men, tanks, assault guns and other equipment. At the same time the Luftwaffe can send hundreds of fighters and ground attack aircraft and dozens of Flak batteries to the East, which somewhat helps the German units there to endure the relentless attacks of the Red air force. It won’t be enough for German air superiority, but it helps, especially when the Red air force runs out of usable airfields in the autumn. At the same time a small number of German Panzer divisions from the Calais region and the South of France and Italy can join the fighting in a couple of weeks and help the Wehrmacht to cover the withdrawl in the Baltic, to the Vistula and into Rumania. The arrival of a dozen German divisions and several Jagd- and Schlachtgruppen from Italy, Greece and the Balkans prevent the Red Army from achieving total success with their offensive in August (and perhaps even from capturing Ploesti) and helps to stabilize the front in Romania again and secure the German fuel situation for the time being.

Not enough to stabilize the other fronts, but it helps to preserve a lot of troops and equipment that otherwise would have been lost. The transfer of the bulk of the reinforcements from the west will take at least 3 to 4 months, because the losses in trains and trucks have been huge. Perhaps the German navy could have played a role there. By the end of 1944 the Ostheer will have approx. 3 million men available, despite the heavy losses, mainly by transferring troops from other parts of Europe and from the Replacement army in Germany itself (I’m thinking about the book by Walter S. Dunn jr.). Not enough to win the war, but of better quality and better equipped than has been the case for quite some time. The temporary increase in German weapon production in the summer and autumn of 1944 (no longer bombed day and night) also helps. The effects of no longer being bombed are partly compensated by the release of forced labourers from France and the Low countries, although not all of them are forced and returning.

At the end of 1944 the battered Panzer and infantry divisions from the fighting in Normandy are more or less ready for action again and in place behind the Vistula and the frontlines in Romania.

Concerning the 1.5 million ‘pissed of’ French soldiers coming home after 4 years, well, they wouldn’t have had weapons and training immediately and it is safe to assume the Western Allies wouldn’t have allowed them to grab their hayforks, join the FFA and march to the Siegfried line, to continue a war that has just ended. The release of two million Allied pow’s in July-August of 1944 would have helped to relieve the German food situation, while the return of hundreds of thousands of German pow’s also would have a certain effect on the situation in the East, although most of them will have to be transported from Canada and the USA, I guess, which also will take time.

All in all the Eastern front would have been stabilized more or less in the late autumn of 1944 and the Germans would have been in a better position to counter the Russian offensives in Eastern Prussia, at the Vistula and in Romania. Mind you, I’m NOT suggesting a German victory is a realistic option, just that Stalin can expect an even tougher job while trying to reach Berlin. So what are the German options? Trying to destroy the Red bridgheads over the Vistula? Won't be easy to put it mildly, as has been proved at Sandomierz in August 1944, but perhaps with a couple Panzer and infantry divisions more and more artillery and air support? Let's assume holding on to Courland is no longer important to the Germans, since the new type U-boats are no longer that important, because of the peace treaty with the Western Allies, so what if the German divisions there can be evacuated or withdrawn to Eastern Prussia? Another interesting option would be a German 'Bodenplatte' in the East against the airfields of the Red air force (this was actually considered at a time). It would have been costly, especially given the numerous Russian AA, but perhaps it would have helped.

Perhaps even the Finns would have continued fighting, if they received a couple of thousand more AT weapons and a dozen more assault guns? Or if they didn’t the Germans perhaps would have been able to bring their Lapland army back home and let them join the fighting in Romania?

I do realize I’m describing an awful lot of ‘ifs’ and ‘maybe’s’, but what I’m aiming for is a detailed discussion about how the fighting would/could have continued. The outcome would very likely have been the same, but one could imagine for example that the massacre of the German population in the Eastern provinces could have been prevented (which from the German point of view was an important reason to fight on). I also realize that lots of people are of the opinion that the Germans received what they were asking for, but that is for me not important for THIS discussion. I don't want to step in such an emotional minefield. I’m mainly interested in the tactical situation and the consequences for coming battles in the East. What could the Germans have done to make it harder for the Russians to conquer Berlin? And what would have been the response of the Red Army to this changed balance of strength? Would they have launched certain offensives sooner? Would they have been able to? Or would they haven tried to avoid a frontal attack in Poland and strengthen their attempts in Romania?

Nothing would change : Bagration would still happen, the Ostfront would still collaps and the Soviets would still arrive at Berlin .

[maltesefalcon]

Question 5: The reinforcement for the Eastern front are partly used to fill up the gaps in Poland and Hungary, partly to form reserves for the autumn and winter operations. They won't be used for any major offensive action, that time has past. It's all about defending and local counterattacking where it hurts most. Inspiration for this scenario is 'Disaster at D-Day' by Peter Tsouras, unrealistic as it may be. The situation won't be much difference from the real situation in the winter of 1944/45, but the Germans will have more reserves to strike back. So please continue from there and do not concentrate on questions why the Wallies would never have suffered defeat in the West or never would have accepted a ceasefire, because I can find those arguments myself quite easily.

I think I've made it quite clear that I do agree on that and that I want to concentrate on the military situation at the Eastern front.What's the use of a What if-forum if we continue to concentrate on the fact that a certain situation wouldn't be possible in the first place?

Might I reciprocate? What is the point of posting a situation you admit yourself is impossible? The best what-ifs have a grain of actual reality mixed in with somewhat possible alternatives.

The whole point of this forum is discussion. If you don't wish to discuss the flaws in your case, because it is not convenient; it doesn't mean no one else will bring them up. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Aragorn1963]

No problem. I will be abroad for a week, so I won't reply in detail during that time. Thank you, gentlemen.

[Cult Icon]

The German Army was already quite ghetto by autumn 1944.

[stg 44]

The German Army was already quite ghetto by autumn 1944.

I assume you mean Jerry-rigged.

[Cult Icon]

that's a good one. I was hoping my nickname "Ghetto Panzers" (referring to Hungary 44/45) would take off.

[maltesefalcon]

Since the original ghetto was in Italy could you call them Panzerotti?

[Aragorn1963]

Might I reciprocate? What is the point of posting a situation you admit yourself is impossible? The best what-ifs have a grain of actual reality mixed in with somewhat possible alternatives.

The whole point of this forum is discussion. If you don't wish to discuss the flaws in your case, because it is not convenient; it doesn't mean no one else will bring them up. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Yes, the whole point of this forum is discussion. But your arrogance ruins this discussion, so better to put an end to it. I've been pretty clear about what I want to discuss and what not. If you don't like the discussion I'm trying to have, then simply don't post. Your comments didn't add anything anyway.

[maltesefalcon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c