Battle of the Bulge, effects if Germany had won?

Hey,

I was always skeptical of the claim that had the German effected a general breakout that the Allies would have been thrown back into the sea. Every TV doc or general history book seems to contend that this would have been the case once Rotterdamn fell.

Personally, I doubt that would be the case. Considering the Germans didn't even have the fuel reserves to finish the offensive itself, how were they going to pursue us across France? And Patton and the 3rd Army were still sitting South of the battlefield anyways. Sure we would have taken quite a beating and lost the low countries again, but thown back into the sea? I think not.

Now obviously the events surrounding the collapse of German and the end of WWII would be different, but without speculating on the Cold War political aspects, this is what I think a succesful German Ardennes offensive would have yeilded;

1) The Russians captureing Berlin and ending the war anyways, however maybe upwards to a year later.

2) Static Western Front for at least a year. Patton would shift from driving into Germany to secure his flank. Perhaps would drive the forces back to the Rhine again since Germany would undoubtedly transfer units to the Eastern front. But either way Patton would have lost initiative and resources recapturing lost territory instead of the Ruhr and Germany. I'd give the Western Allies another 7-9 months before having the mass to continue.

3) Maybe another assasination attempt on Hitler, from higher up as one of his henchmen tries to usurp power and then negotiate peace. A resurgance of hope by a German victory would not have helped Hitler at this point. He was now relying on a fatalistic resigned to death like cult instead of one focused on unbridled optimism. People would begin to think the world may have given then a way out to capitalize on. That is a wild conjecture though that I can't back up.

What definetly wouldn't have happened.

1) Western Allies would not be driven from the continent, just suffer a serious setback.

2) Russians would capture most of Germany from the East after taking Berlin, may not even be nessecary if Hitler repeated his stand there. Though with the West comparatively secure he may have fled to his mountain fortresses. Who knows.

3) Western Allies would still not make peace with a Hitler run government, but should that fall would be a little more open to listening to say Goerbels or Himmler.

What do you all think?

Define "Won." It would have to involve massive seizure of fuel for one thing. Are you talking about a spearhead all the way to the Rhine? Antwerp? A victory on that scale would have large consiquences true, but it would take a catastrophy somewhere in the Allied camp. If the first day had gone as planned, and Bastoinne among other places had rolled over and surrendered, letting the Panzer column through into the Allied rear, then much havoc would have been created, and much time and trouble regrouping and resupplying.

One could easily ask the same of the Kursk encirclement.

J

If antwerp fell, the British armies would have been surrounded and finished off. Such a morale blow would turn public opinion against the war and German morale would skyrocket. Then the units would go to the east and kill hundreds of thousands of russians and possibly would manage to survive for a long time. The war would have been a whole lot more bloody that is for sure.

Well the goal was Antwerp I think, so if the Germans 'won' then they would be surrounded and massacred in Antwerp hehe. Seriously the overall situaltion was so bad its just not within the realm of possibility.

Good post, Patroklos. I agree with most of what you've post as I also believe like you

1) The russian were not stoppable, imho.
2) The allies were firmly stablished in Europe and would be not driven out to the sea.

The only point where I disagree is:

3) Western Allies would still not make peace with a Hitler run government, but should that fall would be a little more open to listening to say Goerbels or Himmler.

Click to expand...

because I firmly think that the allies were very commited with Rusia, as they believe they believe her to attack Japan

One interesting question: a delay in the capture of Berlin (of some months) will mean that the American would have launch a nuke in Europe?

I don't think the western allies would ever have dropped a nuke in Western Europe, they were content to flatten cities with regular strategic bombing, like Dresden which killed more people anyway.

I don't see how the germans could have ever won the Battle of the Bulge because they absolutely inadequate air support, their airplanes had little fueland so on.

That is a big what if... Besides, the germans only got as far as they did because they were lucky. The weather grounded allied air support during the first 2 or 3 days of the german offensive, the weather was foggy. Had the weather been clear from day 1 I believe it would have been a slaughter for the allies.

The weather played such a decisive roll, that as soon as the weather cleared german advance grinded down to a halt.

Originally posted by Sarevok
If antwerp fell, the British armies would have been surrounded and finished off. Such a morale blow would turn public opinion against the war and German morale would skyrocket. Then the units would go to the east and kill hundreds of thousands of russians and possibly would manage to survive for a long time. The war would have been a whole lot more bloody that is for sure.

Click to expand...

ROFL!

They couldn't defeat a small US garrison surrounded at Bastogne and yet you think they could have surrounded the vast and wholly unengaged British forces and defeated them Yep, we Brits would have sat there a let them encircle us...hell, we didn't do that last time (BEF in 1940), but had too few tanks (Arras, 2 Brigades of the RTR counter-attacked causing a temporary halt to the encirclement) and planes to break the encirclement.

Had the Germans broken through to Antwerp it would have given them more than enough rope to hang themselves properly with as they'd have been more open to counter-attack and further from the defenses of the Rhine.

They didn't defeat the small US garrison at Bastogne becasue they were not really trying. German strategy is to minimalize your enemy and then move on, letting the foot infantry reduce these pockets at their leisure. There were towns in 1940 occupied by French forces surrounded for weeks in the Lowcountries becasue the Germans didn't care. The forces were too weak to mount a break out in the rear.

Bastogne was not quite the same, but no different. They were just sitting there, with no ability to attack. The only reason the GErmans tried at all is that the needed the crossroads later when their advance slowed and they were not able to secure a different route. Had the weather not cleared when it did Bastogne wouldn't have mattered strategically as anything more than a nuisance. There would have been plenty of other roads.

I disagree that the weather was luck. The French assumed that an attack throught he Ardennes was impossible so the Germans wouldn't try it and they didn't expect it. French lost.

The Americans did the same thing by assuming no offesive could be mounted through that terrain or during that kind of weather. Americans lost the bet, though not as catastrophically. The Germans used the weather as a strategic assets just like the Russians and Finns.

I don' think the British would have been destroyed, but there would have been some major Dunirk action. The allies would be nowhere near finished, but their lines of communications were smashed, some very important units mauled beyond recognition, and the general initiaive would now be with the Germans. You would have seen the Allies withdraw from the German border and the lLow Counties to regroup in France. And I do beleive that as has been mentioned that this was last gasp, and WHEN the allies regrouped it would be an easy push to get that territory back.

Got to remember that the Germans had no air-superiority and their industral base was down to about nothing from 'round-the-clock Allied bombing.

Once the weather cleared over the Bulge, the Army Air Corps gave the Germans a good wacking. Additionally, the Allies had just developed and were using the first air-to-ground rockets. These packed the punch of a cruiser salvo against the weak top armor of the tanks.

German production had not been effected in the least by ariel bombing, which was proved soon after the war by investigations by the Allies. What it did do was divert resourses and production to combat the destruction of their cities and people. Good thread on in Apolyton Off Topic right now.

Perhaps the factor what would have let the Germans win is if the weather didn't clear?

I am not really worried about HOW they won, but rather what would have happened if they DID.

Originally posted by Patroklos
German production had not been effected in the least by ariel bombing, which was proved soon after the war by investigations by the Allies. What it did do was divert resourses and production to combat the destruction of their cities and people. Good thread on in Apolyton Off Topic right now.

Perhaps the factor what would have let the Germans win is if the weather didn't clear?

I am not really worried about HOW they won, but rather what would have happened if they DID.

Click to expand...

Well, IF they did win...nope, it is just far too ridiculous!

If the germans would've somehow beat us in the Buldge, which could've very well happened if the 101st airborne didn't hold Bastogne, i think the Germans would've defeated very soon after winning the Buldge. They couldn't keep up the offensive or defensive.

If the Germans did reach Antwerp theres no way they could have held the salient. And the British would have had any supplies they need airlifted in. There would have been a second Stalingrad and Antwerp would have been fully trashed.
Those units that did manage to withdraw into Germany after Wacht am Rhine's failure wouldn't have been there and the Western allies would have had an even easier ride into the Fatherland.
Don't think it would have altered the Eastern front situation, although Hitler did plan to move his forces from west to east if the operation had been a success.
Hitler was pretty heavily guarded after the July bomb plot and I don't think Goring or Himmler would have had the balls to try and take him out. Goebells was too fanatical and he wasn't a political player anyway.

if the Germans had won the Bulge then they would have temporarily taken back the rest of the Low Countries as well as parts of France and Luxembourg, however, their indusrty would come to complete exhaustion eventually and they'd be low on resources, so they couldn't fight a war as long as the Allies.

but the Soviets would probably have captured more territory, and thus, post-WWII East Germany would have been larger than it was in real life.

Originally posted by sims2789
but the Soviets would probably have captured more territory, and thus, post-WWII East Germany would have been larger than it was in real life.

Click to expand...

No, coz stalin kept to the deal he made at Yalta and never crossed the Elbe. I think he wanted to keep in the British/ American good books.