As Germany, what would you have done in 1943?

Hi,

the opinion of you all is correct and in reallity it was no way out at this point in 1943! And to be honest if i were one of the allied leaders i did the same. But this is a "what if question" and so it has to do with your own fantasy. And in my fantasy i play with the thoughts of von Stauffenberg, to kill the "Führer" and try to get a chance of an surrender with the western allies to save my country and a lot of lifes at Russia.

Regards

Ulrich

 

Nothing would change if Stauffenberg succeeded,the answer would still be :unconditional surrender and,if the Germans were surrendering to the west ,the result would be the same:the West advancing in Germany,and the Russians dito(the eastern front would collapse).
About the unconditional surrender:Churchill was demanding it already in 1940,and Roosevelt in 1941.It was an ideological war,with a lot of propaganda:no distinction between Germany,Prussian militarism and Hitler:all had to be crushed .

 

Yes this is what the history showed us. But is there anyone who really can say that there wouldn´t be a chance to do things this way? As you stated right it was an ideological war but dont forget the politics and what they have done in the past for their advantages! As i said "What if...."

Regards

Ulrich

 

Certainly, the withdrawal of 150,000 battle-hardened troops from the senseless theatre in Afrika would have been step number 1. Hitler and Keitel waited too long to implement their evacuation plans to Sicily. It's all in Hans von Luck's memoirs. With those additional troops, the German would've made the allies bleed in Sicily and Italy, and forestall the major invasion of France. I also would have increased production of the same type of medium-heavy tank (since there were so many variants and styles, resources were being wasted everywhere), U-boats, and develope a long-range heavy bomber and put it into mass production, and use it against Russia and Britain's industrial targets. The main weaknes of Germany was no long range heavy bombers in the arsenal. They put too much stock in tactical dive-bombers. With the U-boats attacking shipping, the Bombers hitting every industrial target in Britain, and the extra troops from Afrika in Sicily and Italy, the western allies would have a very rough time indeed. This would buy time for massive concentrations around the Moscow area, where I would committ all avaiable forces to an offensive. Moscow was the nerve center of the USSR; all communications and transportation depended on this city. I would take it out using all of my panzer formations, focusing all might on this one objective. The problem with Blue was that there were too many objectives for the limited resources of Germany.
Lastly, I would make the Ukraine a satellite state, an ally of the Reich instead of a subjegated colony. There was already so much resentment against communism, that it would be a perfect pool of recruits for additional manpower. Give them independence and make them allies under Germany's supervision, like the U.S. does today. That way, there are less partisans and more volunteers. With these additional troops and increased production, a drive to Moscow would still be possible.
If only...

 

Certainly Germany's long-term prospects were not good, but there were a few points in her favor. They were finally putting the economy on a total war footing, and much of the increased production would be new weapons like the Panther and the MP-43. If they could avoid disproportionate losses, it was possible to have a stronger, better-equipped army in 1944 than in early 1943 when our discussion begins.

On the Ostfront they needed a flexible, economy-of-force defensive posture to wear down the enemy without exposing themselves to excessive losses. Although it sounds a bit contradictory, their greatest advantage over the Russians was in mobile, "broken-field" fighting. There was little prospect for "break-in" offensives into the enemys' rear areas as they had achieved in 1941, so counterattacks against the inevitable Russian offensives were the best available option. I would be cautious about the Manstein pre-emptive withdrawal approach, which depends on the enemy helpfully rushing forward into the trap. If the Red Army, which was showing progressively more tactical sense, advanced judiciously, we could end up with the same correlation of forces, just a little closer to home.

Enlisting support of Ukrainians and others like the Baltic states had been the right idea all along; how well it could be implemented after a year or more of treating them like untermenchen is the question.

If we take command before all those troops have been sent to North Africa, I would certainly curtail that. We'll still have to defend Italy and southern Europe, but that's the most defensible terrain on the continent, and the quarter-million troops lost in Tunisia would be a big help. Incidentally if a peace party in Italy wanted to depose Mussolini and drop out of the war, I'd discretely encourage them, as long as their goal was to make Italy completely neutral; that would secure Germany's southern flank better than military measures could ever do. Alternatively it would place the Allies in the awkward position of continuing the war against an opponent trying to make peace.

Back home, I would try to concentrate all the energy and expertise being scattered on disparate "wonder weapon" projects on the few most likely to bear fruit (hopefully I'd manage to figure out which ones those were!). Perfecting the jet fighters is one obvious example. The short range of WWII jets made them uniquely suitable for the defense. I often wonder if the scientific and engineering effort - not to mention the critical metals and materials - that went into things like V-2s could have remedied those engine problems.

 

What I would have done differently in 1943 is that wage an attritional war in Italy, and started a defensive operations on the Eastern front by allowing the commanders to have freedom of manuever send in reinforcements,bomb the British airfields and factories,and started offensive operations with German units in the Balkans,increase the anti-partisan offensives, by bombing the partisan leadership,and ask the Japanese to bomb Siberian military and civilian plants.And retreat from NOrth Africa,by bombing the Allied forces.

 

Wait a minute; there are physical limitations to such plan:

1. Attrition war in Italy
Attrition war is the last thing Germany needed in a struggle against the British Empire, United States and Soviet Union in the same time. Where they would find enough people?

2. Bombing Siberia from Japan
Distance from Tokyo to Novosibirsk is, for example: 2978.9 Miles (4794 Kilometers / 2586.9 Nautical Miles). Approximate flight duration time from Tokyo to Novosibirsk is: 6 hrs. 11 mins with a modern jet plane. How do you think you may overcome this little problem?

3. Bombing British airfields
To bomb British airfields, Germans would need enough bombers and fighter support too.

4. Freedom of action
To allow German commanders freedom of action you would have to deal with (kill) Hitler first.

5. Reinforcements against partisans
Where would Germany find reinforcements in 1943?

6. Bombing partisan leadership
To bomb something you must first figure out where your targets are hiding.

The retreat from the North Africa isn't that bad idea though.

 

Would a retreat from NA still be possible ?

 

Most likely, considering that the Germans knew they had lost there by this point and as long as you don't head for SICILY!!!... you should be fine. In fact heading for Italy is probably not a good idea either. Best to get Italy out of the war entirely and try (if possible?) to make Italy a "ceasefire zone"? I don't know that much about the Italian campaign, excuse for the rashness.

 

You're quite right: even on this option there were serious limitations at that time.

 

I'm glad to hear from you again Hufflepuff!

Obviously, I am not an original English speaker but I guess the right word for apropriate German plan of action would have been "evacuation". But, regarding the battle readines of Kriegsmarine at the Mediteranean the only option was to swim first to Malta and then, after a short break, continue swimming to Sicily.

 

There are 150 miles from Tunis to Trapani - Sicily , actually the axis managed to send many men , tanks and suplies to NA throug the Med even in January 43.

 

Perhaps use Sicily as a point of evacuation to Vichy France? Use Malta to Messina to Sardinia to Corsica to Marseilles?

 

There was something persistent in the Nazi warfare: every their action was well begun but just half done. Every time something went wrong they lost interest, turned arround and have started yet another good begining with the uggly end, as a rule. Victory in France was stunning but just a half of a victory, the Battle for Britain started well but when Britain prevailed the Führer needed yet another good beginning. The battle for Russia begun beyond most optimistic expectations and then stalled in front of Moscow, in front of Stalingrad, at Kursk, at Leningrad. The same was in the North Africa: suddenly, they have approached the point of no return, without any reasonable alternatives.

In contrast, Allies were systematic: the victory was achieved step-by step; by completing all signifficant tasks before starting new actions.

 

It's a good way of putting it... but in most of these cases the Germans didn't continue beacuse they didn't want to, but because they couldn't.

 

I would agree with that; it appears that Nazi plans for the future expansions were too optimistic. Even the failure to capture Moscow was clear indication that Germany could not win the war, which equals to the prospect of defeat since the participants of the WWII were not prepared to accept a draw. In 1943 the war was lost for Nazis. The only issue that had to be resolved was the destiny of the after-war Germany.

Therefore, the only reasonable answer to the initial question of this thread would be: an unconditional surrender of Germany in 1943, to preserve lives and territories. Continuation of the war meant that Oder-Neisse river line would be crossed in a combat and all territories at east banks would be lost forever.

Желаю приятного дня мой друг.

 

Logically, Sue for peace and hold the Russian line a little longer then the French/Italian lines allowing the British and Yanks into Germany first (Keeps the Russians from pillaging) but if were to stick with warfare Id go for..

Remove all assets from NA, Shifting half to Sicily/main land Italy and the rest to France and the Low countries to build up further defenses.

Give Generals of the Eastern front more freedom of movement in the decisions of when to attack, hold or retreat etc while building a number of basic defensive lines (No need for massive steel reinforced concrete bunkers when a simple number of strategically placed trenches do just as well.

If was to launch an offensive anywhere It would have to be in Finland, Securing there large front would remove a thorn in the side and ensure continued Finnish alliance (Less likely for them to switch if the nation is still secure and more defensible then ever)

 

I would completely agree with suing for peace with the West intent of preserving some of the grounds gained in Eastern Europe,Baltics,cement relationship with Italy,lose the territories gained in France,try to acquire Croatia,Slovenia,Bosnia,Austria and Serbia and Macedonia,restore the monarchy in Serbia would have been a bigger victory than pursuing military action further.Still evacuate personnel and blow up the tanks in Africa,maybe save most of the equipment.Retreat from France, concentrate on Russia.
In terms of bombing Siberia from Mongolia or Manchuria,is to build airfield into Manchuria,and planes,equipment,troops in Manchuria.

 

Since Hitler did not believe that keeping his word was important why should the allies believe him. They went to war because Hitler broke his promise multiple times. There was no reason to fight the Soviets.

 

There would have never been a seperate peace signed with Hitler without the SU. Allies dont do that to each other and thats exactly what they were ALLIES.

Besides as mentioned Hitler was a liar....