If Hitler will get overthrown in 1943 or 1944, how much additional bleeding are the Germans going to be able to inflict upon the Allies?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,235
SoCal
#1
If Hitler will get overthrown in 1943 or 1944, how much additional bleeding are the Germans going to be able to inflict upon the Allies? I was thinking of having the Germans continue the war even if/after Hitler is overthrown (and killed) if the Allies will still insist on unconditional surrender. Mexico fought on until the very end in 1847 (during the Mexican-American War) and while I am doubtful that the Germans are going to be willing to fight up to the point that Berlin is reduced to rubble in this scenario, I suspect that they are nevertheless going to want to try giving the Allies an extremely bloody nose in the hopes of getting them to reconsider their unconditional surrender policy--especially if they will realize that unconditional surrender means the expulsion of millions of Germans from Eastern Europe and pushing Germany's borders back to the Oder-Neisse Line.

I was thinking of having the Germans adopt a defense-in-depth strategy after Hitler's overthrow in this scenario and aggressively and quickly build as many defensive lines as possible on all fronts. Think of the 1917 Hindenburg Line or the defense-in-depth at Kursk, but on a much, much larger scale. Anyway, how successful do you think that such a German strategy is actually going to be and just how much bloodier are the final year or two of World War II going to be for the Allies in this scenario?
 
Mar 2019
1,482
Kansas
#2
I was thinking of having the Germans adopt a defense-in-depth strategy after Hitler's overthrow in this scenario and aggressively and quickly build as many defensive lines as possible on all fronts. Think of the 1917 Hindenburg Line or the defense-in-depth at Kursk, but on a much, much larger scale. Anyway, how successful do you think that such a German strategy is actually going to be and just how much bloodier are the final year or two of World War II going to be for the Allies in this scenario?
It really depends if we are talking before or after the battle of Kursks.
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2019
162
Salt Lake City, Utah
#3
Yes, Kursk is the defining point. If before, the Germans could give Russia a peace treaty that give Poland to Russia with Russian resuming energy imports to Germany, which would continue the war in the West.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jul 2016
9,562
USA
#4
Yes, Kursk is the defining point. If before, the Germans could give Russia a peace treaty that give Poland to Russia with Russian resuming energy imports to Germany, which would continue the war in the West.
Its not that easy. Germany launched an unprovoked war of annihilation against the Soviet Union and in one year killed 4.5 million troops, untold millions of civilians, etc. Then started losing.

The only reason Stalin signs a cease fire is to bide time to rebuild and invade again

After 1940-42, there is no version of this story that doesn't end with Germany either occupied or destroyed totally.

Also, Hitler declared war on the US. Manhattan Project...tick tock, tick tock...
 
Likes: Futurist
May 2019
162
Salt Lake City, Utah
#5
The suffered a defeat at Stalingrad, yes, but were not losing the war before Kursk.

Stalin would have willingly ended the war to get Germany out of the Motherland and to get into Poland with its ports and to dominate Eastern Europe.

Germany would continue the war in the West.
 
Likes: Futurist
Dec 2014
426
Wales
#6
The suffered a defeat at Stalingrad, yes, but were not losing the war before Kursk.

Stalin would have willingly ended the war to get Germany out of the Motherland and to get into Poland with its ports and to dominate Eastern Europe.

Germany would continue the war in the West.
And when he controls Poland and Eastern Europe, how long before Stalin attacks across the borders into Germany? Nothing between the Russians and Berlin except German territory....

The Allies bombing campaign continues growing, they are pushing in Italy, building up for a cross-channel invasion - how many troops can Germany keep on their Eastern border 'just in case'? When - not if - the German's redeploy a sizeable force to prepare for the allied invasion, what stops Stalin sending a couple of million troops across the border?
 
Likes: Futurist
Mar 2019
1,482
Kansas
#7
And when he controls Poland and Eastern Europe, how long before Stalin attacks across the borders into Germany? Nothing between the Russians and Berlin except German territory....

The Allies bombing campaign continues growing, they are pushing in Italy, building up for a cross-channel invasion - how many troops can Germany keep on their Eastern border 'just in case'? When - not if - the German's redeploy a sizeable force to prepare for the allied invasion, what stops Stalin sending a couple of million troops across the border?
The important thing is the Germans get a pause, a chance to catch their breath and build up forces. The summer 43 offensive should never have happened. The German army was under resourced, very few divisions were at full strength or full combat efficiency. A number of the logistics planners in the OKW did try to talk Hitler and his generals down. but it was not to be.
 

caldrail

Ad Honorem
Feb 2012
5,296
#8
Whether the Germans continue depends on who holds power. Certainly the war against the Soviet Union would not cease, both for political and military reasons. But there was a strong element of senior Germans, including Nazi party members, who wanted to come to some sort of arrangement with the western Allies. A ceasefire? Actually the German ideal in the late war was to have the Allies turn on Russia alongside them, and to the very end, many Germans thought this was inevitable (and in a sense, they were right). The West of course was far less inclined to bargain. Had Doenitz taken over as the nominated successor (as he did in May 1945), then it would be business as usual. Goering? Possibly, but he was by that time far less effective as a leader and quite addicted to painkillers.
 
Jul 2016
9,562
USA
#9
The suffered a defeat at Stalingrad, yes, but were not losing the war before Kursk.

Stalin would have willingly ended the war to get Germany out of the Motherland and to get into Poland with its ports and to dominate Eastern Europe.

Germany would continue the war in the West.
That's an assumption. And I really don't know why anyone is placing a major emphasis on Kursk. Germany had been beaten in numerous operations at that point, and while the Germans launched Citadel the Red Army was already planning a series of consecutive offensives across the entire front, including the salients north and south of the Kursk salient.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions