WHAT IF Germans had succeeded at the Battle of the Bulge???

[Klaus_Arzt]

Hello everyone! Today I’ve decided to discuss the most bitter battle in the entire north-west European campaign – The Battle of the Bulge.
The Battle of the Bulge

no one is gonna attack me!

a tough guy.jpg (100.73 KiB) Viewed 7645 times

What if Hitler's gamble at the Battle of the Bulge had succeeded and Germany had permanently stopped the Allied advance in the West?
Would it have turned the tide of the war in german’s favor?
Or maybe it was too late in 1944 and it would have been better for Hitler not to lunch any offensive operations and put his forces on the defense?

What do you guys think of that?

Battle_of_the_Bulge_progress.jpg (169.37 KiB) Viewed 7646 times

best regards

[lwd]

Hello everyone! Today I’ve decided to discuss the most bitter battle in the entire north-west European campaign – The Battle of the Bulge.

Why do you say that? There were a couple of others that I think could vie for that appelation

What if Hitler's gamble at the Battle of the Bulge had succeeded and Germany had permanently stopped the Allied advance in the West?
Would it have turned the tide of the war in german’s favor?
Or maybe it was too late in 1944 and it would have been better for Hitler not to lunch any offensive operations and put his forces on the defense?
...

The Battle of the Bulge wasn't going to stop the Allied advance permanetly. Taking Antwerp would defintily have slowed it down but it wasn't going to stop it. I think Hitler was hopeing for a negotiated peace in the West due to it's success but I just don't see that happening. Even if it does by that point the Germans can't stop the Soviets.

[Klaus_Arzt]

I'm sorry Iwd but I didn't want to offend anyone by saying this. I just thought it would be interesting to discuss this topic and that's all. But anyway thank for your replay I'll take this into consideration.
And about negotiating the peace, yeah I think you're right. Hitler was hoping for the Separate peace. He thought that maybe he could sign a peace agreement with the Allies and than send all his troops to the East but I guess it was just simply not feasible.

[phylo_roadking]

The Battle of the Bulge wasn't going to stop the Allied advance permanetly. Taking Antwerp would defintily have slowed it down but it wasn't going to stop it.

This is correct; the Allies' logistics capability did a very good job of bringing all they needed to Europe UNTIL they captured Antwerp; all that would happen would perhaps be an 8-10 weeks' pause like before El Alamein, and then when enough materiel stockpiled via Normandy and the slow-recaptured French ports - the Allies would roll forward again...while the Wehrmacht in the West simply didn't have anything to stockpile in the meantime.

One other thing to note - "Germany had permanently stopped the Allied advance in the West?"

Better make that NORTH-West...they were busy blattering down the Siegfried Line by degrees by then immediately to the south of the Bulge. Ultimately all that would have happened were the British would be a few weeks' late into North Germany and turning south into the Ruhr; in the meantime, Allied air capability would ensure no raw materials would get into the Ruhr and no war materiel back out again...

Technically - it could even have shortened the war; with a paper bag like the Bulge to then set down and defend, the Wehrmacht would HAVE to transfer even more troops from the East if they could. Then once EITHER the Soviets or the Allies in the West pushed through...there's nothing behind, Germany would be even more of a vacuum than it was. A bit like once the Normandy breakout was complete and Falaise was over - there was nothing behind the German counteroffensive to hold France once it had failed. You could be looking at a similar scenario in Germany through February and March.

[lwd]

I'm sorry Iwd but I didn't want to offend anyone by saying this. ....

I'm not offended just wanted to know what the logic was behind your proclamation. I'm here to learn like most of the regulars and when someone says something that seams odd to me I ask. They might have a point, especially if it's one I haven't considered, then I learn something. Or they might not be familiar with some of the info which makes it seam odd to me in which case we can help them learn something. Never fear to ask questions.

[Hans Weber]

Hello

I know that it's not the expected answer, but even if we think about what if's, they should be close to any reality. If it should be a realistic scenario, then I maintain that the question of the outcome doesn't even poses itself, unlike some other battles. Hitler's plan, in the form of the big solution with Antwerp as goal didn't have a remote chance to suceed. Hermann Jung in his study "Die Ardennenoffensive 1944/45" concludes with the insight that already at the planning level, it was doomed. This view was at least shared by v. Rundstedt (OB West), Model (Heeresgruppe B) and Manteuffel (5. Pz. Armee) who actively opposed the plan. Dupuy in Hitler's last gamble is of the same opinion "Hitler's plan was doomed from the beginning". Jung doesn't dwell upon the tactical inabilties of the Germans at this stage of the war, as it's not the subject of his book, but just mentions the numerous deficiencies that German Army itselfs remarked upon in the form of reports from the battlefield. So it could very well be a hopless plan executed by an army in a bad shape. A more interesting what if scenario in my eyes would be to see if the small solution (pocketing the American bulge at Aachen) would have suceeded. I don't know if it has been simulated by Dupuy or some Army staff in depth, but Dupuy concludes that neither solution would have changed the ultimate outcome of the war, that one possible difference would have been that it resulted in fewer casualties, a less catastrophic German defeat, and Allied victory delayed by a few weeks or months. In this context, he brings up the interesting question of the nuclear bomb. A war in Europe going on in August 1945? Now where would it have been droped, Japan or Germany? Rich might have some more insight here as I gather he was involved in the Dupuy Institute?

Cheers
Hans

[John W. Howard]

Hello Hans:
From what I understand President Roosevelt considered the idea of using the A-Bomb on German forces fighting in the Bulge, and asked his military advisors how feasible this would be. They replied that the Bomb was not yet ready, and even if it were, it would not be advisable to use it in a military situation (i.e. in close proximity to US troops) until more was known about the potential damage it might cause. So, the idea that the US was unwilling to use the Bomb against fellow Caucasians, but blood-thirstily eager to use it on the Japanese is therefore debunked. FDR, and I believe Truman as well, would not have hesitated to use the bomb against Germany had they needed to. Best wishes.

[Hans Weber]

Hello John

Yes, I think you're right. I didn't even think about the racial implication this question might pose, because I don't think that they would play a part in the reasoning behind. What I think is that the US was eager to use the bomb, mainly to test it in war and to impress as first nuclear superpower. The location didn't play a role, but was determined with only the war in Japan continuing at that point. The official explanation put forward in case of Japan, to shorten the war and to save the live of many US soldiers, would have been aplied also in case the Germans would have been able to put a stronger defense with their forces not wasted in the Bulge.

Cheers
Hans

[Klaus_Arzt]

Hello
yes guys you're right, the US in all probability would have dropped the nuclear bomb on Germany if the war had been raging on in Europe. But of course neither too close to their forces nor to the soviets(it’s obvious), maybe somewhere in the hinterland. The whole point of using a-bomb is not only the devastating destruction and huge enemy casualties but also an opportunity to show the whole world and the combatants the overwhelming superiority. With this kind of weapon the US most definitely would have stopped the war in Europe ‘cause no sane man would have continued fighting against the enemy with such a power. but still only God knows what kind of consequences this action might have been fraught with. it wouldn't be that Germany we know to day if the bomb had been dropped.
Cheers All

[sebastian]

i think if the us dropped the a-bomb on europe the world would now be very different,as i would rather speak german so to say than have europe bombed by the us.I am not pro or contra the us of germany,but the a-bomb on europe would leave too much hate against the us from our side,so i think the bomb was ready,but considering the aftermath they wisely did not want to drop it here.....and history tells it was the right decision!

[lwd]

...,but the a-bomb on europe would leave too much hate against the us from our side,so i think the bomb was ready,but considering the aftermath they wisely did not want to drop it here.....

The documentation clearly supports the A-bomb being designed with Germany as the primary target and that it wasn't ready in Dec of 44 or Jan of 45. Furthermore it's not at all clear to me why there would be more or that much more hatred of the US in Europe today than there already is even if we had dropped the bomb there. It looks to me like you are trying to draw facts from your opinions rather than basing your opinions on facts.

[Klaus_Arzt]

Hi Iwd, believe you me if the US had dropped the bomb on Germany there would have been much more hatred of USA today. With all due respect to you and the US. And i think sebastian is right that Americans took into account the fact of future development and resurgence of Europe (in a case of fallout it wouldn't be so easy). About the facts and opinions, you know, this is forum right? we are sharing our thoughts, opinions weather they are based on the facts or not. If there's some kind of misunderstanding or uncertainty let's discuss it together with respect to each other.
Best regards

[lwd]

Hi Iwd, believe you me if the US had dropped the bomb on Germany there would have been much more hatred of USA today....

Why do you think so? After all the casualties may well have been quite a bit less. Especially if it occured in Dec of 44.

.... And i think sebastian is right that Americans took into account the fact of future development and resurgence of Europe (in a case of fallout it wouldn't be so easy).

That's rather ahistorical. The dangers and extent of fallout problems weren't realized at the time. Of course they are also not as bad as people today seam to think either.

About the facts and opinions, you know, this is forum right? we are sharing our thoughts, opinions weather they are based on the facts or not. If there's some kind of misunderstanding or uncertainty let's discuss it together with respect to each other. ...

True this is a forum. True we are sharing our thoughts and opinions. However those based on fantasy or imagination have litte weight in a historical forum. Forming an opionion in the abscence of fact and then trying to derive facts from said opinion is lunacy and at least the process, opinion, and "facts" little respect. If you don't know ask don't tell.

[phylo_roadking]

Hi Iwd, believe you me if the US had dropped the bomb on Germany there would have been much more hatred of USA today....

Why do you think so? After all the casualties may well have been quite a bit less. Especially if it occured in Dec of 44.

...and the REST of Europe may have viewed it as a necessity IF the campaign in the West looked like collapsing the Allied front, leading to a reoccupation of Holland and possibly parts of France.

And i think sebastian is right that Americans took into account the fact of future development and resurgence of Europe (in a case of fallout it wouldn't be so easy).

That's rather ahistorical. The dangers and extent of fallout problems weren't realized at the time. Of course they are also not as bad as people today seam to think either.

Little Boy was an air burst 1,900 feet (580 m) above the ground, there was no bomb crater and NO local radioactive fallout. The radiation casualties at Hiroshima - I'm using Little Boy as the possible weapon here as it was ready first - were by direct radiation. Neutron and gamma radiation came directly from the fireball, most people close enough to receive lethal doses of direct radiation died in the firestorm before their radiation injuries would have become apparent. Survivors on the edge of the lethal area and beyond suffered injuries from radiation, in addition to those caused by blast and fire. Some temporary survivors died soon afterward due to acute radiation sickness, but most of the radiation effects are evident only statistically, as increases in cancer rates, birth defects, etc., over the lifetimes of the survivors and their descendants.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Little Boy uranium-gun device was ready by May, and could have been used by the Allies earlier...as it's development wasn't exactly fast; uranium-235 was in short supply compared to the plutonium expected to be produced at Hanford, and there were major concerns over the reliability of the uranium-gun devices - BUT simple physics and mathematics obviated the need for a test; IF it was dropped and didn't fall or shake apart, it would go bang. In an emergency - such as the prospect of SOMETHING happening weakening the Allies' stance on German unconditional surrender - it would have been rushed ahead with.

[sebastian]

i will keep my keyboard still if i got an opinion,i will work out a complete essay and put it on here,djees cant a man spill his 0.2 cents without being said to shut it and go look it all up,i am no author,just a guy who likes to learn and talk about history and war,i still stick with my theory that the bomb was ready,maybe not little boy,but surely a prototype a bomb that they could of dropped but the u.s. did not drop it for the aftermath,and i aint anti-american,but i think some are to patriotic or stubborn to admit somtimes,i know i can be lol

dont want to step on toes,but i think its a us-eu other way of thinking sometimes,its not the first time i get this feeling on the forum,but that whats forums are all about..sharing thoughts an opinions

enjoy the weekend

sebastian