German Homefront holding out through 1946?

[Der Rittmeister]

Hey, could the German civilian population and the war industry hold out another year excluding the circumstances on the front?

[T. A. Gardner]

Short answer: No. The best that the population could have managed was continued guerrilla resistance and maybe some cottage industry supporting that. The country would still have been under occupation by the Allies.

[maltesefalcon]

IRL the industrial sector collapsed first. In part due to major fuel and transport issues. In part due to loss of occupied countries, bombing, and death of labour pool.

In particular, aircraft and AFV production dropped sharply after January 1945. The last winter of the war was also quite harsh and food shortages throughout Europe would make it difficult for Germany to survive another year without outside help.

So even if the military front could somehow be stabilized, there is no way that the German war economy could continue into 1946.

[TheMarcksPlan]

excluding the circumstances on the front?

Does the front include the air war over Germany? If so it's hard to envision any significant production coming from a country whose transport system has collapsed. In one sense the home front wouldn't be holding out as there'd be no flow to the front from it.

Otoh it's also hard to envision the circumstances under which a 1918-style uprising would occur. The left was so efficiently suppressed it would have to come from more conservative circles.

[maltesefalcon]

The stipulation that the situation at the front be excluded pretty well rules out this what if from the get go.
The Allies had completely over run Germany by May 1945. What would be the point of carrying out any war production at that point?

[Der Rittmeister]

Not putting focus into how they would make this, but if the Germans had managed to stabilize the eastern front in 1943 in some way.

[maltesefalcon]

Not putting focus into how they would make this, but if the Germans had managed to stabilize the eastern front in 1943 in some way.

Sorry to sound critical, but by scrapping half the major premise of your ATL, you have simultaneously made the whole situation so vague as to be impossible to make an informed analysis.

[Peter89]

Not putting focus into how they would make this, but if the Germans had managed to stabilize the eastern front in 1943 in some way.

Besides, even if the land front was to be stabilized in the East, the naval war was effectively lost by 1943, the European Axis as an alliance suffered substantial losses and began to split up, and the Manhattan project was on its way, producing convincing results as early as 2 December 1942.

- Control of the seas meant that the Germans cannot win
- The Axis splitting up meant that the Germans are even more weak than they look
- The Manhattan project meant that the Germans will lose the war no matter what

Given the historical fact that the A-bomb was ready by the summer of 1945, no realistic German resistance is plausible after that point. (And let's not forget that they held out until the 8th of May).

A continued resistance could only earn them a few A-bombs on Berlin, München, Hamburg or Wien.

[Der Rittmeister]

Not putting focus into how they would make this, but if the Germans had managed to stabilize the eastern front in 1943 in some way.

Sorry to sound critical, but by scrapping half the major premise of your ATL, you have simultaneously made the whole situation so vague as to be impossible to make an informed analysis.

Yeah, i see that. I am just trying to get a general overview of how bad the situation in Germany was during the last year. By bombing, food shortages industry, manpower ETC.

[maltesefalcon]

Not putting focus into how they would make this, but if the Germans had managed to stabilize the eastern front in 1943 in some way.

Sorry to sound critical, but by scrapping half the major premise of your ATL, you have simultaneously made the whole situation so vague as to be impossible to make an informed analysis.

Yeah, i see that. I am just trying to get a general overview of how bad the situation in Germany was during the last year. By bombing, food shortages industry, manpower ETC.

Let me try again. The war economy and the performance at the front were inextricably linked. If the Eastern Front remained the same as in 1943; then a major change to the economy would be indicated. You'd need to detail how this could happen. (Bear in mind Goebbels' speech on totaler Krieg had already primed the nation for total war philosophy, by spring 1943.)

A stalled Ostfront would still involve major losses to both sides. In this case the western allies would simply sweep farther east after June 6/1944 and Germany would be conquered in any case. One cannot have war production in 1946, with Allied occupation in 1945. And the war would certainly end by then. As mentioned above, nukes would settle the score by summer 1945 at latest.

[History Learner]

Hey, could the German civilian population and the war industry hold out another year excluding the circumstances on the front?

We need more information on the exact circumstances at hand.

[TheMarcksPlan]

The only sense in which this question makes sense, IMO:

Would collapse of the German homefront (revolution, mass-starvation) have ended German resistance - 1918 style - even had the front never reached Germany?

It's pretty difficult to see how it ends 1918-style. The German left was dead/suppressed/exiled, the anti-Hitler conservatives taught a frightening lesson in Operation Valkyrie's wake.

[maltesefalcon]

The only sense in which this question makes sense, IMO:

Would collapse of the German homefront (revolution, mass-starvation) have ended German resistance - 1918 style - even had the front never reached Germany?

It's pretty difficult to see how it ends 1918-style. The German left was dead/suppressed/exiled, the anti-Hitler conservatives taught a frightening lesson in Operation Valkyrie's wake.

It still would not make sense. In 1918 the war ended because Germany surrendered. Granted the Allies had not crossed the frontier yet, but there was no fighting either, so no need for a war economy. The German economy was a shambles by then in any case.

The Allies may have stopped at the German frontier again in the (unlikely) event of a German surrender in 1944. Almost certainly their terms would require a complete disarmament of the Wehrmacht and dismantling of war production. However, discovery and worldwide acknowledgement of camps like Auschwitz in Poland would likely render the likelihood of a halt at the German frontier moot.

But the OP question hinged on the continuation of war production until 1946. If any forces started rearming, a complete occupation of Germany would result.