Could Germany have gained a defesive victory after Kursk?

[TeutonicKnight]

Many historians consider the allies to have won the war in July, 1943 after the battle of Kursk. One thing I have recently considered is whether or not it was possible for the Germans to have gained some semblance of a defensive victory AFTER this point, or at least avoid full-scale capitulation. They certainly still had substantial forces on the Eastern front, as evidenced by the battles of Belorussia/White Russia (Operation: Bagration)and they had the possibility of throwing the Allies back into the sea at D-Day, had things gone a little bit differently. So, I think a good case can be made that Germany with a GREAT deal of luck could have fought the Allies well enough to force them to come to terms.



Any idea?

 

[unmerged(589)]

If Hitler could have made peace with any of the Allies it would have been with the Soviet Union. The Western Allies had decided to demand an unconditional surrender, and I cannot see them budge on that point. But I think it maybe would have been possible for Hitler to get a negotiated peace with Stalin. After all, Stalin had made peace soundings earlier in 1943 and from his point of view a peace had several advantages. The non-collapse of the German army in Russia after Stalingrad showed that it would be a very costly fight to get to Berlin, and Stalin saw the great advantages to be had for Russia if Germany and the Western Allies were left to destroy eachother while the Red Army could be rebuilt in peace. But since any such peace would at least require the Germans to surrender all the land they had taken since June 41 Hitler would never agree to such a peace while he had any hope of getting those areas by force since his whole Lebensraum-scheme depended on taking large parts of the Soviet Union. Indeed he didn't show any interest for a settlement with Russia until the Germans were kicked out of Russia in 44.

If Hitler and Stalin had made peace in say 43 it would have meant a long war for the Western Allies.

As for Normandy, if the Germans had thrown the Western Allies into the sea in 44 then they possibly could have gotten some kind of settlement with Britain, but hardly with the US. Churchill's fear of the Normandy invasion was partially based on the fact that if the British were thrown off the continent for the third time in the war maybe there couldn't be another attempt for political, home-front reasons. His own government would probably have fallen and even if another attempt was made that would take 1-2 years maybe more.

But considering that years like '1948' and later figured in some long-term planning of the Western Allies I don't think they would have made peace with Germany.

 

[pithorr]

No way

 

[v. Berlichingen]

Hmm, I honestly doubt that the Wehrmacht, in 1944, had any chance of throwing off D-day. Sure, Omaha was bloody, and the forces there were stalled for more than 24 hours, but the defending German troops took serious losses during that time as well, and retreated to avoid complete destruction, allowing a quicker advance there then at all the other invasion beachheads afterwards. And while the invasion was contained in the Normandy for almost 2 months, once the Allies broke through, there was nothing left to stop them from liberating all of France.
The Wehrmacht, the Kriegsmarine, and the Luftwaffe simply lacked the resources to fight the Allies effectively for a longer time. To defeat an invasion, the Wehrmacht would have had to have the capability to smash all the beachheads, while the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine would have had to be able to drive the Allied invasion fleet off, or at least make their staying at the French Coast too costly. As the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine definitely lacked that ability, the Allies could resupply at will, while their Air Forces could prevent the Wehrmacht from shifting their meager reserves to meet the threat. So a defensive victory at D-day whould have required something close to a miracle or two.
In the east, an armistice might have been possible up to early '43, though I lack the knowledge whether the Soviet advances contained suggestions about future borders, or whether an armistice would mean returning to pre-Barbarossa borders.
But ever since Stalingrad, and especially since Kursk, Soviet superiority was rather clearly established, especially as they had less problems resupplying their front with material and men. So I'd say they had nothing to gain from an armistice that would leave Eastern Europe under German control, and to get countries like Poland, Romania or Hungary to recognize the USSR as their master, the Red Army had to liberate them. So why should the Soviets have agreed to an armistice that would deny them a chance at empire-building? Loss of life surely didn't figure into Stalin's considerations.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by TeutonicKnight
Many historians consider the allies to have won the war in July, 1943 after the battle of Kursk. One thing I have recently considered is whether or not it was possible for the Germans to have gained some semblance of a defensive victory AFTER this point, or at least avoid full-scale capitulation. They certainly still had substantial forces on the Eastern front, as evidenced by the battles of Belorussia/White Russia (Operation: Bagration)
Any idea?

Huh? Substantial forces as evidenced by Operation Bagration?! I'm confused here

How do you turn a dramatic German defeat, where the Soviets smash the entire Army Group Center to oblivion into a show of German strength?

After Kursk the Germans spent the rest of the war on the strategic defensive. There was no way they could win the war after that defeat. The Allies were attacking in the north and the south, and the Soviets were killing them by the hundredthousands in the East.

Regards,

EoE

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by The Brain
If Hitler could have made peace with any of the Allies it would have been with the Soviet Union. The Western Allies had decided to demand an unconditional surrender, and I cannot see them budge on that point. But I think it maybe would have been possible for Hitler to get a negotiated peace with Stalin. After all, Stalin had made peace soundings earlier in 1943 and from his point of view a peace had several advantages. The non-collapse of the German army in Russia after Stalingrad showed that it would be a very costly fight to get to Berlin, and Stalin saw the great advantages to be had for Russia if Germany and the Western Allies were left to destroy eachother while the Red Army could be rebuilt in peace. But since any such peace would at least require the Germans to surrender all the land they had taken since June 41 Hitler would never agree to such a peace while he had any hope of getting those areas by force since his whole Lebensraum-scheme depended on taking large parts of the Soviet Union. Indeed he didn't show any interest for a settlement with Russia until the Germans were kicked out of Russia in 44.

This is entirely new to me. I know that the Soviets appearantly made peace ouvertures in 1941, when things looked really bleak. But I have never heard that they should have done so in 1943, when they just managed to encircle and destroy the 6th Army, and were very, very close to doing the same thing to the entire Army Group South (A and B actually). I would really appreciate more info.

Thanks,

EoE

 

[unmerged(589)]

Originally posted by Emperor of Europe


This is entirely new to me. I know that the Soviets appearantly made peace ouvertures in 1941, when things looked really bleak. But I have never heard that they should have done so in 1943, when they just managed to encircle and destroy the 6th Army, and were very, very close to doing the same thing to the entire Army Group South (A and B actually). I would really appreciate more info.

Thanks,

EoE

My knowledge of this is based on a book I'm reading, A World At Arms: A Global History Of World War II by Gerhard L. Weinberg (p609-611).

There were some contacts between the Soviet Union and Germany in Stockholm in the spring, summer and fall of 1943. Very little in the way of hard facts is known about these contacts since Russian archives on this are not open yet (or were not in 1994 anyway). Basically for Stalin the line of thought was as I said. Even though they had won a great victory the cost of the 2 years of war had been great and the German recapture of Kharkov showed that there still was plenty of fight in the Germans. Russian demands were based on the June 41 borders up until the Kursk offensive, after that based more on the 1914 border.

Hitler was against any settlement with Russia since he wanted great parts of it himself and that Stalin would of course never agree to. This much Hitler explained to Goebbels and the Japanese ambassador. But quite a few Axis people advised him to negotiate with Russia: A united Japanese leadership who of course wanted Germany to fight Britain and the US, von Ribbentrop who was more focused on the fight against Britain, and Goebbels also advised Hitler to negotiate.

Edit: I almost forgot, from Stalin's point of view these contacts of course also served the purpose of scaring the Western Allies into sending more aid and treating him nice. But as far as anyone can tell the peace soundings were genuine and if Hitler had been less of a Nazi (not likely) maybe there would have been some result.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by The Brain


My knowledge of this is based on a book I'm reading, A World At Arms: A Global History Of World War II by Gerhard L. Weinberg (p609-611).

There were some contacts between the Soviet Union and Germany in Stockholm in the spring, summer and fall of 1943. Very little in the way of hard facts is known about these contacts since Russian archives on this are not open yet (or were not in 1994 anyway). Basically for Stalin the line of thought was as I said. Even though they had won a great victory the cost of the 2 years of war had been great and the German recapture of Kharkov showed that there still was plenty of fight in the Germans. Russian demands were based on the June 41 borders up until the Kursk offensive, after that based more on the 1914 border.

Hitler was against any settlement with Russia since he wanted great parts of it himself and that Stalin would of course never agree to. This much Hitler explained to Goebbels and the Japanese ambassador. But quite a few Axis people advised him to negotiate with Russia: A united Japanese leadership who of course wanted Germany to fight Britain and the US, von Ribbentrop who was more focused on the fight against Britain, and Goebbels also advised Hitler to negotiate.

Edit: I almost forgot, from Stalin's point of view these contacts of course also served the purpose of scaring the Western Allies into sending more aid and treating him nice. But as far as anyone can tell the peace soundings were genuine and if Hitler had been less of a Nazi (not likely) maybe there would have been some result.

Okay thanks. As I said it's completely new to me, so I really appreciate it. From what you said it seems the talks were more or less doomed to fail from the very beginning. Guess most of us can be glad they did, though the Europeans who came under Soviet rule might disagree.

Regards,

EoE

 

[w_mullender]

Originally posted by v. Berlichingen

The Wehrmacht, the Kriegsmarine, and the Luftwaffe simply lacked the resources to fight the Allies effectively for a longer time. To defeat an invasion, the Wehrmacht would have had to have the capability to smash all the beachheads, while the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine would have had to be able to drive the Allied invasion fleet off, or at least make their staying at the French Coast too costly. As the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine definitely lacked that ability, the Allies could resupply at will, while their Air Forces could prevent the Wehrmacht from shifting their meager reserves to meet the threat. So a defensive victory at D-day whould have required something close to a miracle or two.

I think it would be very difficult for the allies to break through if the germans were able to move most of their eastern troops to the west. Certainly if they would apply a defensive strategy. But even then I think most of eastern europe would be lost to the allies forever, because I don't think they could have pressed to Germany and force a surrender.
If you only look at the map you can see the massive achievements by the soviet armies in '44 and '45. I doubt the Americans and British could have done something similar in the west without the russians pressing on.
D-day was only in june '44. If the Russians had signed a peace the germans would have had enough time to focus on the west and Italy.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by w_mullender

I think it would be very difficult for the allies to break through if the germans were able to move most of their eastern troops to the west. Certainly if they would apply a defensive strategy. But even then I think most of eastern europe would be lost to the allies forever, because I don't think they could have pressed to Germany and force a surrender.
If you only look at the map you can see the massive achievements by the soviet armies in '44 and '45. I doubt the Americans and British could have done something similar in the west without the russians pressing on.
D-day was only in june '44. If the Russians had signed a peace the germans would have had enough time to focus on the west and Italy.

IF the Soviets had concluded a peace treaty in 1943, the Allies would "just" have to swallow up all of Germany. I doubt that the Hungarians and the Rumanians would be willing to fight on alone. In fact the Soviets would probably throw the peace treaty to hell and start rolling towards Budapest and Bucarest.

The question is of course whether the Allies could have fought the Germans alone. I believe they could, but it would have meant a far bloodier and more apocalyptic war. Kinda like the fighting on the Eastern front spiced up with nuclear attacks on cities and German troop concentrations.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(592)]

The talks you are referring to began before Hitler had knowledge. Once he got to know of them they were more or less over.

 

[TeutonicKnight]

Huh? Substantial forces as evidenced by Operation Bagration?! I'm confused here

I was merly making a reference to comapritive strenghts of each army. Germany still had, on paper, the manpower and equipment at this point regardless of the outcome of the one operation.

 

[unmerged(3236)]

Hitler was a megalomaniac, i dubt he understood that germany could loose untill he saw the enemy forces attacking berlin himself.

It is possible that germany would have won with another leader thou.

 

[unmerged(4303)]

denke

I am currently playing RGW b schwerpunkt which rather accurately portrays war on eastern front. If the Germans had stayed on defensive in jly and not attacked, there is no question that they could have stopped russian summer offensive. Everything about german army was still suerior to russian army. I know that is not the qestion.
now to the question. answer = no.

 

[Emperor of Europe]

Originally posted by TeutonicKnight


I was merly making a reference to comapritive strenghts of each army. Germany still had, on paper, the manpower and equipment at this point regardless of the outcome of the one operation.

Okay, point taken
I'm not so sure I agree though. As far as I know German relative and actual strength was on a steady decline from 1942 and onward vis-a-vis the Soviets.

Regards,

EoE

 

[unmerged(4253)]

WW2

The Germans could never had won a decisive victory at Kursk on the offensive. Infact, The only way would have been to let the Russians advance far, then counter attack with the German army. The best armored soldiers and units were at Kursk. If they could have ingaged in an open tank battle where they knew the land they might have had a chance. But Kursk was an air battle too. The gemans lost air superiority at Kursk. They would need to have started producing jet fighters sooner and in greater quantity....As was totally possible....and would need them when they faught for Normandy. There were only two armored divisions at normandy on D-day. Although the german armour was outnumbered, they had many more divisions all across france. If they had even more divisions then it would have been easy work. Plus the majority of the armour was held in reserve. If those tanks had been in the normandy area, the allies would have been dead meat. I think there were 41 various divisions in france on D-Day. The gemans were 1-to-1 in manpower with the allies, and if they all could have been in normandy, it would have been 5-1 in favor of the Germans because the Allies only had 100.000-200.000 troops in the first few waves.If a portion of east-front troops could be moved to France, then this could have been possible. This is all very hypothetical and A very unlikely varient

 

[unmerged(4303)]

COOl Elephant said:






The Germans could never had won a decisive victory at Kursk on the offensive. Infact, The only way would have been to let the Russians advance far, then counter attack with the German army.


I agree

 

[David Comnenus]

IIRC, the USSR had sent out peace feelers in 43 and early 44, but Hitler refused. These were considered an option as late as before the Battle of the Bulge. Hitler was advised that 1937 or 38 boundaries might be retained with a peace with Russia. However, Hitler said forget it. Accepting one of these offers might have gotten them the equivalent of a defensive victory.