The Allies break up in early 1945

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,780
UK
Hitler had a belief that if he could separate the Allies, by exploiting weaknesses amongst them in ideological and organisational terms. This was his rationale for the Battle of the Bulge, since it was intended to split the British/Canadian and American forces in Belgium. There were also prominent splits between the British and American generals in the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) that General Ike had to manage.

Let's say that he manages to get disproportionate losses on the Americans, and the British/Canadians manage to push further into Germany. The Soviets also want this push, even if the USA pulls out. It's known that General Ike, FDR, and Churchill all held disputes from time to time.

If the USA reaches a separate peace with Germany, then how does this unfold for the European war?

I can think of these scenarios:

- The British, Canadians, and Free French fall back to France and Belgium, but continue aerial raids on Germany.

- Stalin offers troops to join the western front, which Churchill is suspicious of, but realises that Germany was still weakened and couldn't be allowed to regroup.

- The Soviet, British, Canadian, and Free French forces still manage to defeat Germany, but do so by September 1945, instead of May 1945. However, Hitler falls sick by August 1945, and is replaced by a "regent" of sorts in Goebbels.

- Goebbels signs a truce, and Hitler whilst ill is treated in secret by the Allies, and stands trial along with other top Nazi officials.

- Post-war Europe still is split amongst Western/Soviet lines, but the Soviets gain trading rights with the Netherlands, Belgium, and West Germany as they helped in liberating them. x amount of all exports must go to the USSR for three decades after 1945.

- The British and French still have nuclear weapons, but with little US presence in Europe, Germany is given nukes too. The Cold War is less intense, since Stalin and then Khruschev knew that they would not be as antagonistic as the USA would be.

- The US still pursues its war with Japan, and by transferring its troops to the Pacific, but it still uses nukes on Japan to end the war. Post-war, it focuses more of its attention on funding anti-colonial movements to undermine Europe, and in establishing South Korea, Japan, and the former colonised Indochina, Indonesia, and South-East Asia as a democratic and anti-Communist block.

- Hitler dies in 1956 from Parkinson's Disease, but he is kept under guard in a top secret military hospital. His death is announced via normal media channels, but the former Allies say that he was kept in isolation until his death as punishment for his war crimes. In reality, he only had a military medical team look after him, and he was allowed no visitors.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,171
US
If the U.S. would have pulled out this late in the game, it would not have mattered for Germany, even if the U.S. and Germany signed a truce. The Soviets would have continued their push westward, and they would not have been denied. Most likely, all of Germany and Austria would have been communist. And Hitler would not have made it to 1956 - at least in Germany.
 
Jul 2010
1,374
N/A
It would never have mattered. Everybody talks about Normandy and no one talks about Stalingrad which was significantly more important.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
It would never have mattered. Everybody talks about Normandy and no one talks about Stalingrad which was significantly more important.
Normandy was huge. Look at everything it encompassed. A massive deception plan. Winning of air superiority over France, destruction of the Luftwaffe, and the destruction of good amount of French rail lines, before the invasion. Contested amphibious invasion, the hardest of all types of military operations. Logistical movement of one army group inside a month, two army groups inside two months, four army groups inside six months. Artificial harbors. A fuel pipeline under the Channel. Very impressive.

Stalingrad doesn't really compare, it was a slugfest in terms of casualties, and the amount of troops who surrendered, but not nearly as impressive. The only thing that the Soviets did that really compared was Bagration, when they masterfully surprised Army Group Center with a southern attack with a massive force they'd infiltrated through a swamp, ultimately destroying Army Group Center. Masterful use of deception, intelligence, logistics, and operational use of combat units.
 
Jul 2010
1,374
N/A
Normandy was huge. Look at everything it encompassed. A massive deception plan. Winning of air superiority over France, destruction of the Luftwaffe, and the destruction of good amount of French rail lines, before the invasion. Contested amphibious invasion, the hardest of all types of military operations. Logistical movement of one army group inside a month, two army groups inside two months, four army groups inside six months. Artificial harbors. A fuel pipeline under the Channel. Very impressive.

Stalingrad doesn't really compare, it was a slugfest in terms of casualties, and the amount of troops who surrendered, but not nearly as impressive. The only thing that the Soviets did that really compared was Bagration, when they masterfully surprised Army Group Center with a southern attack with a massive force they'd infiltrated through a swamp, ultimately destroying Army Group Center. Masterful use of deception, intelligence, logistics, and operational use of combat units.
The war was over by 1942, the winter offensive was a disaster for the Nazis.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
The war was over by 1942, the winter offensive was a disaster for the Nazis.
I'm guessing you're referring to the '41-42 Winter offensives, which were disaster for Germans, and Red Army too (who dramatically overextended themselves). But by spring '42 the Germans had managed to restabilize the lines, straighten them out, launch a major summer offensive in '42, initially have great successes with that, lose it by winter, withstand and repel the counteroffensives in the winter '42-43, then still have fighting power left for a massive offensive in summer '43. It was that, Kursk, which was the real nail in the coffin, as it showed that even in a one-on-one, straight forward war of maneuver, Germany's specialty, where Germany sacrificed offensive operations in all other sectors to spend months massing combat power for Citadel, they still couldn't pull it off. Add to that, the loss of their forces in Tunisia, and the invasion of Sicily, which both showed that they were going to have to deal with the British and Americans and a soon to be invasion of France.

Failure of Fall Blau Caucus drive was definitely an indication that the Germans couldn't "win" against the Soviet Union in the manner they had originally planned (Ostland to Urals, lebensraum, disintegration of USSR, complete subjugation/liquidation of the Slavs) but that isn't to suggest that Germany was absolutely going to lose utterly, in the manner in which it happened. Stalingrad was decisive not because of the lost army (they'd lose many over the war), nor even the moral hit (though it was the first major loss), but because of the strategic implications of Fall Blau failing.
 

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,780
UK
It would never have mattered. Everybody talks about Normandy and no one talks about Stalingrad which was significantly more important.
If the Allies had split up, and the British/Canadians/Soviets only stuck together to defeat Germany once and for all, it matters for the post-war world, and the post-war future of Europe. WWII was won by the Allies long before Overlord, yes, that's common knowledge. The point here though is to ask what would have happened had the Allies split up, which was a possibility in early 1945.
 
Jul 2010
1,374
N/A
My shared belief is that if they did, then you would not have had Churchill at Potsdam and we would have never had a Cold War. His distrust of Stalin alone is what set off the Cold War.
 

notgivenaway

Ad Honorem
Jun 2015
5,780
UK
Hitler didn't have Parkinson's, he had a stress problem and cocaine/meth addiction.
This is moot. His health was bad towads the end of his Fuhrership/life, but then nobody knows for sure why. It could be that his doctors didn't genuinely know, and they gave him placebos. Considering he was unwell at that point, I doubt he would have lived another 10 or more years.