What would have happened if Hitler had died in 1944 and the German army had surrendered.
What is your opinion?
Please log in to post a reply.
Sure Pablo?
Sure.
Quasi says that by the time the Soviets were making bombs, the Americans had just started industrializing theirs.
Returning to the topic, what would have happened with the German political organization?
Killed each other.
It's possible.Quasi-duck wrote:
Killed each other.
I suppose that after the fall of Hitler and a peace with the allies and the Communists. Germany would have undergone a transition.
nah, Germany wouldnt be fighting for power
there had been a coup before, and in july 44, a plan was made to deal with the fuhers death
they would have taken the allies side, never would have peaced with the commies, and I see why
but I think that Germany would have had a western influence,
Germany could then focus all forces on repelling Russian forces, because the USSR wouldn't accept the surrender of Germany without destroying German cities much like the German troops did to the Russian cities. Therefore, the Allied forces (US, UK, France, and others) would either have to chose which side to support and how to support them, and it is a tough choice given the friction between the allies and the USSR.
Perhaps.Soldjer325 wrote:
Germany could then focus all forces on repelling Russian forces, because the USSR wouldn't accept the surrender of Germany without destroying German cities much like the German troops did to the Russian cities. Therefore, the Allied forces (US, UK, France, and others) would either have to chose which side to support and how to support them, and it is a tough choice given the friction between the allies and the USSR.
Just read all the posts, very interesting topic! 
What do you think would happen?Sir McSquiggles wrote:
Just read all the posts, very interesting topic!
That depends on the question. If Germany surrendered at 1944? Or the operation Unthinkable plan?Quasi-duck wrote:
What do you think would happen?
Either one.
Okie. Well I think Germany would be overrun by the Soviets if they surrendered in 1944(What month btw did you guys say btw?) The allies wouldnt have been able to make it in time.Quasi-duck wrote:
Either one.
I think the allies would probably have been able to beat the Russians, but there would be A LOT of casualties.
That was whole reason of the Battle of the Bulge, to deal a morality blow to the allies, and get them on the bargaining table, where the German's would probably agree to pay reparations and give back western territories. While, the UK and US were negotiating peace, Germany would've been able to transfer all the units it was using to buff the defenses on the western front. Many veteran germans saw themselves as the first soldier of the Cold War, at attempting to push back the evil communist invaders of Europe. They had the belief, which were proved true in history, that the Soviets wouldn't give the countries thaey take, in their advance, back to the nation's people.Sir McSquiggles wrote:
Okie. Well I think Germany would be overrun by the Soviets if they surrendered in 1944(What month btw did you guys say btw?) The allies wouldnt have been able to make it in time.I think the allies would probably have been able to beat the Russians, but there would be A LOT of casualties.
Indeed. Its very interesting. We were so close to WWIII.Soldjer325 wrote:
That was whole reason of the Battle of the Bulge, to deal a morality blow to the allies, and get them on the bargaining table, where the German's would probably agree to pay reparations and give back western territories. While, the UK and US were negotiating peace, Germany would've been able to transfer all the units it was using to buff the defenses on the western front. Many veteran germans saw themselves as the first soldier of the Cold War, at attempting to push back the evil communist invaders of Europe. They had the belief, which were proved true in history, that the Soviets wouldn't give the countries thaey take, in their advance, back to the nation's people.
So then, the Germans would've been able to push back the Russians due to their superior weaponry (STG44, superior armored tanks, rocket jets, rocket, etc.), and moral boost of making peace with the west, and the Russians moral drop due to the loss of their supporters, The Germans would then push Russian outside the Polish border and then dig in for a modern version of trench warfare, which would be highly effective against the superior numbered Russian forces, putting Germany at the advantage with the ability to have lower casualties due to superior defenses. The Russians would either be forced to negotiate peace, or risk using "illegal" warfare (invading a peaceful nation to get to Germany, chemical weapon, etc.), which is in direct violation of the unofficially accepted codes of conduct in WW2. This would paint Russia as the bad guy to the western media (since the pro-USSR propaganda would be deactivate since peace with Germany was achieved) and forcing negative opinion against them where they'd be pressured by their former allies, or/and lose all military aid. Their are to foreseeable outcomes of this which I'll explain if you want me to.
Assault rifles don't win wars, this is what American veterans say who were in Iraq. German tanks could barely move thanks to such high fuel costs. German rocket planes(not rocket jets, Germany never made those) were terrible and the jets had production crippled thanks to bombers as well as very little fuel. Rockets were terrible, no effect.Soldjer325 wrote:
STG44, superior armored tanks, rocket jets, rocket
"While the StG44 had a shorter range than the Karabiner 98k rifle, it was more effective at close quarters and could out-range both Soviet weapons. Though the default setting on the StG44 was semi-automatic, it was surprisingly accurate in full-automatic as it possessed a relatively slow rate of fire. In use on both fronts by war's end, the StG44 also proved effective at providing covering fire in place of light machine guns." (Military.about.com) This is WW2 almost 60 years earlier, there are many who say that the M1 Garand, was a large factor in the US winning the war, so why can't the world's first assault rifle be a game changer for the Germans, especially considering the fact that now they had only front, and one country to fight against. The oil they'd need to produce tanks could easily be bought from other nations, and a smaller war zone, means less gas usage of tanks, considering they wouldn't need the majority of the tanks in the west. The rockets, while being considered ineffective, were improving, and could easily be used by the generals (Hitler's dead) to deal major moral blows to Soviet troops, and the Rocket planes nearly could halt the Russian air force. Oh, and did I forget to mention that German made peace with the west allies who performed the majority of the bombing runs? Without the US and UK planes flying overhead. Hasty repairs can be made to push production up. BTW, one of Germany's most abundant oil resource was actually an oil factory in Romania, which was always heavily guarded.Quasi-duck wrote:
Assault rifles don't win wars, this is what American veterans say who were in Iraq. German tanks could barely move thanks to such high fuel costs. German rocket planes(not rocket jets, Germany never made those) were terrible and the jets had production crippled thanks to bombers as well as very little fuel. Rockets were terrible, no effect.
Please log in to post a reply.
