If the Germans won the Battle of the Bulge, how will the outcome of the war change?

[matthew.manhorn]

How will it affect the outcome of the war if the Germans won the Battle of the Bulge? Given that the Soviets were at the Eastern German border by the year of 1944, how will the Germany victory of Battle of the Bulge affect the Eastern and Western front? Will Western Allies bother to negotiate a truce with the Germans etc..?

Was the Ardennes offensive a desperate or a smart attempt by the Germans? For smart I mean the Germans would've exploited the division between Western Allies and the USSR by negotiating a truce with Western Allies...

[Gammelpreusse]

That would have prolonged the war by a month or so, not much of a difference as the eastern front was exposed as before, and there simply were not enough troops available to secure the new frontlines for any meaningful given time, Antwerp cut of or not. The germans never really grasped that the western allies were not about crushing the Nazis or fighting communism, but crushing Germany.

[Harry Henkel]

I doubt it would have had any lasting effect on the outcome of the war. Germany deployed about 500.000 men (I think?) in the battle, the Western Allies alone still had over a million men waiting (seeing how they had 2,052,299 men in northern France alone in august, according to Wikipedia). Perhaps the Germans could have really captured Antwerp, but they would probably had to divert many forces to the Eastern Front again anyway.

[Arfah]

If the nazis had captured Antwerp, they would have a longer front line to defend in the west and would have to thin it out a bit. Just like the situation the U.S. was in as the battle commenced.

[JRT]

I doubt it would have had any lasting effect on the outcome of the war. Germany deployed about 500.000 men (I think?) in the battle, the Western Allies alone still had over a million men waiting (seeing how they had 2,052,299 men in northern France alone in august, according to Wikipedia). Perhaps the Germans could have really captured Antwerp, but they would probably had to divert many forces to the Eastern Front again anyway.


If the forces committed in Ardennes would have been deployed in the East, a bigger part of central Europe would have enjoyed democracy and a smaller part of central Europe would have suffered from communism. It just might be possible that if Bulge never existed, Germany might have stayed as one instead of two nations.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

If the forces committed in Ardennes would have been deployed in the East, a bigger part of central Europe would have enjoyed democracy and a smaller part of central Europe would have suffered from communism. It just might be possible that if Bulge never existed, Germany might have stayed as one instead of two nations.The division of Europe was decided at the Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam conferences not necessarily by the advances of Soviet vs. Western Allied troops.

Depending on advances in the west however, the basis for negotiation at the Yalta conference might have been different.

If victory over Germany had been delayed by a German Ardennes success, there is the possibility that the a-bomb would come into play. I suspect however that the Americans would have been more hesitant to use it against the Germans than against the Japanese for a number of reasons.

[Kitsune]

If victory over Germany had been delayed by a German Ardennes success, there is the possibility that the a-bomb would come into play. I suspect however that the Americans would have been more hesitant to use it against the Germans than against the Japanese for a number of reasons.
I am not at all sure about that. I think that Roosevelt would have had no calms at all to use the nuclear bomb against Germans.

But the use of that weapon would have hardly been the issue. One most remember that the main opponent of Germany in WWII was the Sovietunion, with the Western allies at no time fighting against more than a third of the German troops. The one hope left to Germany at the time was that especially America would be starting to realize that if they continued to fight against Germany they way they did, it would mean that Europe was in danger of falling almost completely to the Soviets. Hitler hoped that finally America and Britain would offer terms to Germany to prevent that. With the increased resistance towards the west Hitler hoped to buy time so that this could happen, his opinion being that he still could better afford to lose land in the east than in the west.

However, given especially Mr. Roosevelts disposition (an abject hate of Hitler if not of Germany, coupled with the odd view that Stalin would be an essentially harmless fellow and that the Sovietunion would eventually evolve into a benign power), there was essentially no chance of a premature peace agreement of any kind between the USA and Germany. Roosevelt was downright single-mindedly determined to utterly crush Germany, no matter what kind of government was ruling it (if, for example, Hitler had been assassinated and the Nazi government had been toppled, it would have made no difference for him) or what the larger consequences of this would be. As far as Stalin was concerned, he simply intended to agree to whatever territorial demands the Soviet dictator might have, and after having thusly ensured the peacefulness of the Sovietunion, to withdraw the American troops from Europe within the next 18 months after Germany's defeat. Churchill was much more wary of Stalin, but Britain was already depending on the US too much to be able to really direct events.

In short, had the Battle of the Bulge been successful, America would most probably still not have come around, the war would have been drawn out by a few months at best, and a larger part of Germany would have ended under immediate Soviet occupation. Wether this would have had an effect on the later occupation zones is difficult to say. It is entirely possible, that Stalin would have agreed to withdraw his troops even from larger areas held by Soviet troops, since there was, as said, reason to believe that the US forces would withdraw from Europe within one or two years. After that had happened, he would have been only confronted by the comparably weak French and British. So, it was a good strategy for him to play it nice at first, instead of seeking an instant confrontation.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

I am not at all sure about that. I think that Roosevelt would have had no calms at all to use the nuclear bomb against Germans.
Roosevelt was dead in April 1945 IIRC, but nonetheless I think there would have been hesitation to use the bomb, if nothing else due to the fact that it wouldn't have been necessary and that the obvious target (Berlin) would be of more use to the Western Allies relatively intact than radiated.

I agree that FDR was far too lenient in his concessions to Stalin.

[Pandemonium]

But the relations between the French and the Americans were really bad at that time, if the Germans had retaken Strassbourg it might have caused a split up between the allies.

[Kitsune]

@Breakfast in Vegas:

Afaik Berlin was not seen as such an obvious traget. I think I read somwhere that Mannheim was considered to be the victim of the first atomic bomb.

[TR1]

No change, period. Although Soviet Union would have nabbed more of Germany.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

@Breakfast in Vegas:

Afaik Berlin was not seen as such an obvious traget. I think I read somwhere that Mannheim was considered to be the victim of the first atomic bomb.Hadn't heard that, thanks.

[ferguson]

I'm not a Germany fan, but it would have added to the misery inflicted upon them by their maniacal government.
Their resources were pretty much bled out by this time, anyway.
A lot more deaths from conventional bombing and more territory gobbled by the Russians.
I doubt the A Bomb would ever have been dropped in Europe.

[nemowork]

Just off the top of my head.

A military defeat against the Americans in the south would have still left the British/Candians/Poles coming through in the north

German strengthening against the west had weakened them in the east so the Russians/Soviets would still be coming through

No ground offensive would affect the aerial bombardment of German cities so German materiel would still be expended against the air war, again letting the Soviets fight their way through. (Or vice versa)

Any delay in the ground war might cause military caution but it brings an undefeated Germany into the available window of a functioning A-bomb and the German air defence system was shot to pieces already, no way could they defend against either an atomic hole in their front line or the instant vaporisation of their supply centres, if the allies had been halted in the west that only leaves the Soviets in a position to take advantage with an offensive.

[Asheren]

I don't think that outcome could be changed on western front. The only difference would be a Germany in the soviet influence sphere. Those few pieces that western allies would be able to liberate most propably would end as a part of the france.

[cbiwv]

I think most have covered it. The war lasting maybe another month. I watched a movie about Rommel the other night. In that movie Rommel said that Hitler told him that he knew there was no way Germany could win the war and this was in 1942. I believe he mentioned this as soon as the Nazis failed to take Moscow.

[deagle]

Allied momentum would've stalled. best case scenario, longer attrition for the win.....worst case, europe speaks german.

[James]

That would have prolonged the war by a month or so, not much of a difference as the eastern front was exposed as before, and there simply were not enough troops available to secure the new frontlines for any meaningful given time, Antwerp cut of or not. The germans never really grasped that the western allies were not about crushing the Nazis or fighting communism, but crushing Germany.

This is what I think.

[Chiptox]

If I remember correctly, when Simpson reached the Elbe a few months after the battle and requested permission to proceed to Berlin (then in it's death throes) he was ordered to stop by Eisenhower. There was no point in fighting and dying for a land that would be occupied by the Soviet Union. Instead resources were directed south and American forces made it far into Czechoslovakia by the time of surrender (Pilsen, I think).

If the The Battle of the Bulge had succeded, this surplus of resources and the priority of advance would have stayed in the north. In the end I don't see any territorial changes in the aftermath. Only lives.

[mas-36]

But the relations between the French and the Americans were really bad at that time, if the Germans had retaken Strassbourg it might have caused a split up between the allies.

Are you are referring to Operation Nordwind, which occured immediately after and to the south of the Battle of the Bulge? I do not believe the Ardennes offensive had Strasbourg as an objective.

[Pandemonium]

Are you are referring to Operation Nordwind, which occured immediately after and to the south of the Battle of the Bulge? I do not believe the Ardennes offensive had Strasbourg as an objective.

Both operations were highly connected to each other

[theholeinthedonut]

There was not even the slightest possibility the germans could have won the Bulge. Everybody who has a doubt about this should visit the terrain. The Schlieffen plan was valid in 1914, in 1939 it was succesful because the ennemy was extremely weak and slow to react. In december 1944 it was harebrained to try to attack with mechanized units through the Ardennes sector.

[Gammelpreusse]

There was not even the slightest possibility the germans could have won the Bulge. Everybody who has a doubt about this should visit the terrain. The Schlieffen plan was valid in 1914, in 1939 it was succesful because the ennemy was extremely weak and slow to react. In december 1944 it was harebrained to try to attack with mechanized units through the Ardennes sector.


39 extremly weak? I doubt that. Slow to react, doubtfel as well. Its just that those british/french forces ran into a trap. Given by what they knew and what could be expected, I'd rather rate their reactions rather fast. But realizing you are stuck in a position that was thought impossible takes some time, that's human nature. Different topic, though.

Else agreed, there simply was no validity to success. The main contributer, different to 39, was a total lack of air superiourity and a constant harassment of logistical lines, not to talk about the differences in manpower and material.

[Indiana Jones]

There was not even the slightest possibility the germans could have won the Bulge. Everybody who has a doubt about this should visit the terrain. The Schlieffen plan was valid in 1914, in 1939 it was succesful because the ennemy was extremely weak and slow to react. In december 1944 it was harebrained to try to attack with mechanized units through the Ardennes sector.
The Schlieffen plan did not envisage an advance through the Ardennes in strenght. The Sicklecut of 1940 as a strategic concept succeeded for a myriad of reasons, but certainly not because the enemy was particularly weak. When it comes to "Wacht am Rhein", the nature of the terrain was certainly a factor of rather subordinate importance compared to the the woefully insufficient concentration of force, lack of aerial superiority and the general shortage of fuel, spare parts and ammunition.
Just as an aside.
Best regards,
IJ.

[theholeinthedonut]

The Schlieffen plan did not envisage an advance through the Ardennes in strenght. The Sicklecut of 1940 as a strategic concept succeeded for a myriad of reasons, but certainly not because the enemy was particularly weak. When it comes to "Wacht am Rhein", the nature of the terrain was certainly a factor of rather subordinate importance compared to the the woefully insufficient concentration of force, lack of aerial superiority and the general shortage of fuel, spare parts and ammunition.
Just as an aside.
Best regards,
IJ.

2nd, 3rd and Army passeed through the Ardennes, 580.000 men, just have a look at the railway system and the railheads in 1914 and you will see where the main thrust was meant to be.

Where it was a sound decision in 1914 it was already a gamble in 1939.

The french army in 1939 was a joke, undertrained and unmotivated, the British lacked some sound tatcicians to counter the german Blitzkrieg, no match for the
Wehrmacht.


When it comes to the Bulge, go there and see for yourself instead of trusting what you read in the books. The choice of the axis of advance for the VI SS Panzer Armee, the famous "Rollbahn A-E", was simply ridiculous. Even with air superiority and enough fuel and sufficient logistics they should not have advanced through that route, it was madness.

The troops that stopped the german advance were badly outnumbered and the allied airpower did not come into effect due to bad weather. On any other terrain the SS Panzerdivisions would have out maneuvered and destroyed the US troops in a matter of hours. Still today, with good modern roads instead of dirt tracks, it strikes your eyes that the terrain is totally unsuitable for mechanized combat.

[Robert.V]

I think most have covered it. The war lasting maybe another month. I watched a movie about Rommel the other night. In that movie Rommel said that Hitler told him that he knew there was no way Germany could win the war and this was in 1942. I believe he mentioned this as soon as the Nazis failed to take Moscow.


I didn't know that.


I did hear that Afred Jodl, Hitler's main Heer advisor wrote in his diary that Hitler agreed that victory was no longer possible in the war and the best they could hope for was a negotiated settlement. The diary entry was made in 1942.

Which movie was that btw ?

[El Diablo Rojo]

I'm going to go with the pack and say that a tactical victory by the Germans in the Ardennes would've simply prolonged the war by 2-3 months and left a few thousand more Americans and Brits dead or wounded. I would guess that the long-term ramifications would not be significantly different.

[saturnin]

If I remember correctly, when Simpson reached the Elbe a few months after the battle and requested permission to proceed to Berlin (then in it's death throes) he was ordered to stop by Eisenhower. There was no point in fighting and dying for a land that would be occupied by the Soviet Union. Instead resources were directed south and American forces made it far into Czechoslovakia by the time of surrender (Pilsen, I think).

If the The Battle of the Bulge had succeded, this surplus of resources and the priority of advance would have stayed in the north. In the end I don't see any territorial changes in the aftermath. Only lives.

You are right, pity the leading forces was ordered to stop and do not brake deal with Soviets. Eisenhower didn´t fully get political consequences of this. Not only Soviets later tryed to delete all mentions of Americans in Czechoslovakia and declared liberation of Czechoslovakia as only result of effort by Red army. This lead to unnecessary big losses between civil population in Prague during uprising as Bradley get order to stop even when his leading forces was de facto entering Prague while Red army was far away to give any help to Prague uprising.

as for topic forces used for Die Wacht am Rhein would be much better of use in east to delay Red Army as much as possible. Any benefit from west front cannot be compared to lost in east giving the postwar political consequences of this. (but that was not what Hitler had in his mind) As for selection of Ardennes region, it was not only political decision but operational as well. Best option for tank warfare is not the one best suitable for operation of large forces but one where there is minimal enemy antitank and other weapons. It is just that situation in 1940 was different to 1944. Wehrmacht/Waffen-SS evolved from blitzkrieg kind of machinery to something little different. Tactical proportion of Panzerkampwagen III is defferent to Panther/Kingtiger (but it is true that warhorse was IV). Many unit lacker proper training and logistical backup. There was no change to get local air-superiority and most notably to break enemy minds. Allies forces in ETO cannot be easly compared to what was there four years early...

[ZoneOne]

...Nuts ! ! !

[theholeinthedonut]

...nuts ! ! !

qft!!
;-)

[skipperbob]

The Germans had absolutely no chance of winning the battle, just prolonging it until they completely ran out of fuel! It was a stupid waste of valuable resources, bring their men and equipment out into the open to be destroyed by American firepower. They would have been better off staying on the defensive but no matter what the results would be the same, complete defeat!