What if Hitler is out of command in 1944?

[sillygoose]

Inspired in part by this paper (I highly recommend reading it; if anyone wants a copy PM me):

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13518046.2015.998134?journalCode=fslv20

What if Hitler suffers an incapacitating injury in a plane crash in late December 1943, leaving him unable to command (let's say he's in a coma for months)? For this scenario we're going to assume that Goering takes over per Hitler's 1939 order (Goering was made his political heir if Hitler should die or be incapacitated), but to do so without causing a civil war or at least a coup he effectively has to effectively give up command of the army and let OKH run the war in the East. At this point Kurt Zeitzler is the Chief of Staff and will remain so. This means Manstein, head of Army Group South, then could run the war the way he wanted to, let's say from December 23rd 1943 on. So as the Soviets launch their Dnieper-Carpathian offensive, Manstein is unshackled from Hitler's constraints.

At the same time Goering would order Operation Steinbock to be cancelled so more bombing in the East could be conducted:

Operation Steinbock - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

IOTL in 1943 Goering was convinced the Soviets were the greater threat and had only a secondary interest in bombing Britain:

Göring was also reluctant to allocate resources to the defence of Germany for other reasons. He argued that the German people had survived before there were cities and that the Soviet danger was the first priority of the Luftwaffe. Even at this stage of the war, in October 1943, Göring exhibited a bias toward bombers rather than fighters.

Goering tried to get Hitler to change his policies in 1943, but failed to convince him and for his troubles Hitler cursed him out and effectively forced him to launch Steinbock for fear of losing his position if he didn't:

Göring was reduced to a conduit through which Hitler's orders were channeled to senior commanders and the failure of the Luftwaffe frequently drew Hitler's ire.
.....
Milch's proposals were finally agreed to but it was Göring, not the staff officers, that took this proposal to Hitler. After an hour, the Reichsmarschall returned. Dietrich Peltz described the scene:

We were met with a shattering picture. Göring had completely broken down. With his head buried in his arms on the table he moaned some indistinguishable words. We stood there for some time in embarrassment until at last he pulled himself together and said we were witnessing the deepest moments of despair. The Führer had lost faith in him. All the suggestions from which he had expected a radical change in the situation of war in the air had been rejected; the Führer had announced that the Luftwaffe had disappointed him too often, and a change over from the offensive to defensive in the air against England was out of the question.[30]

After a time Göring U-turned. Göring announced that the only way to stop such destruction was to initiate heavy retaliatory strikes at the enemy so that they would not dare risk another raid like Hamburg without the fear of similar retribution. Göring gave Peltz the authorisation to pool the necessary resources together for retaliatory action.[32]

It was hoped that the operation would commence during December, and though this proved unrealistic, by the third week of January 1944 a force approaching 600 aircraft had been amassed by stripping five Kampfgruppen (bomber groups) from the Italian front and by rebuilding existing bomber units in the West.[33] On 3 December 1943 Göring issued a directive for Unternehmen Steinbock (Operation Capricorn), with the objective of "avenging terror attacks of the enemy."[36]

The resources existed to launch Operation Eisenhammer, Hitler decided to use them to bomb Britain instead. Here with Hitler out of command that order is countermanded in accordance with Goering's original desire to focus on the Soviet threat. Theoretically this could happen in late January or early February depending on the basing situation in the East. The main base for the operation at Dno was overrun between February 24th-26th 1944, but there should have been time to launch the operation given that the base was ready and so were the aircraft without Steinbock using up all those resources.

As to what the army would do, here are the things that Manstein wanted to do that Hitler prevented IOTL:
-Evacuate the 17th army from Crimea to Odessa to hold the Bug river line (around 230,000 men, at least half elite Romanian divisions)
-Pull back to free up troops in the face of the Zhitomir-Berdichev offensive, which started December 24th 1943
-Pull back from the Kirovograd offensive
-Pull out of the resulting Korsun bulge before the Soviets launched an encirclement

All of the above if done effectively would have resulted in Manstein pulling back to the Bug river to shorten the line and allow the 17th army evacuated from Crimea before the Soviets could interfere to take over for 1st Panzer army and more effectively set up a straight line anchored on rivers properly manned from the Pripyet Marshes to the Black Sea.

That not only saves a whole bunch of divisions from destruction or effective destruction from January to March 1944 as well as saves a bunch of equipment and utilizes the muddy period in February to March to disengage, catch their breath, and then prepare for the next series of offensives from a better position. That should prevent the situation the paper linked at the top, which is Hube's Pocket:

Kamenets–Podolsky pocket - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All told, during the Soviet "Proskurov-Chernovtsy Operation", which lasted from 4 March to 17 April 1944, at least 16 German divisions were either destroyed, disbanded due to heavy losses or required major rebuilding. Whatever their precise number, it is clear that the combined German manpower and equipment losses were devastating and had further eroded the personnel strengths of German formations that already had been badly depleted by months of continuous combat.[77]

It effectively shattered the core of Army Group South by wiping out the equipment of an entire panzer army, the strongest one on the Eastern Front, which then forced the Germans to strip France of resources to rebuild the Eastern Front just as D-Day was looming, which obvious results. The above paper argues that D-Day largely succeeded because the Soviets inflicted so much damage to Axis forces in Winter-Spring 1944 in Ukraine that they had to remove the vital forces from the West to stay alive. All due to Hitler refusing to withdraw from any dangerous situation until too late.
Thoughts, comments? It would seem that had this happened the outcome of the war would have been changed.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

An ugly war gets uglier...a lot uglier. Casualties for Russian forces and the Allies in Normandy and the follow on attacks will be much worse. You'll either see a peace accord from war weariness or potentially a nuke dropped on Berlin.

Both results will have some serious repercussions down the line.

 

[Buba]

War in Europe lasts until autumn 1945. Would Berlin be nuked? Maybe ...
BTW - in the English language there are TWO Bug Rivers, quite close* to one another - it took me a moment to figure out which one was relevant

* East European/US perspective. UK perspective - massive distance

 

[ATP]

Soviets would be hold on Bug or near it till 1945,but then still go through.Numbers and fact,that they finally start using their own doctrine - attack with both infrantry and tanks,and use artillery observers to direct fire.Befor that, they fired in general direction of enemy and attacked with only tanks or only infrantry.

In the end - nothing changed,except Hungary,Yugoslavia and maybe Bulgary remaining as free states.

 

[sillygoose]

An ugly war gets uglier...a lot uglier. Casualties for Russian forces and the Allies in Normandy and the follow on attacks will be much worse. You'll either see a peace accord from war weariness or potentially a nuke dropped on Berlin.

Both results will have some serious repercussions down the line.

It could go either way, WAY uglier or actually less bad (overall in terms of body count) due to an early peace deal being cut.
If the Allies face enough defeats in 1944, including D-Day being defeated, they could well cut a deal, because when push came to shove the US made conditional deals with Japan and Italy despite saying they wouldn't. Plus it isn't Hitler in charge anymore.
However if these POD doesn't result in that and Normandy still works, plus the Soviets refuse to quit then yes it could get really ugly. Well that or the Wallies take the Normandy defeat especially hard and opt to launch Operation Vegetarian...though I don't see that happening given the consequences. That was probably more a failsafe in case of total defeat. The war will probably be decided one way or the other before nukes are ready.

Though there is an outstanding question of what a post-peace deal world would look like with a surviving Nazi Germany and USSR. And potentially Japan.

War in Europe lasts until autumn 1945. Would Berlin be nuked? Maybe ...
BTW - in the English language there are TWO Bug Rivers, quite close* to one another - it took me a moment to figure out which one was relevant

* East European/US perspective. UK perspective - massive distance

I literally thought they were the same river. Thanks for pointing out the difference.
Personally I think the POD would end the war before nukes are ready, as the author of that paper does make a pretty compelling case that Normandy could have failed without the German collapse in Ukraine in April 1944. The II SS Panzer Corps would have been present in full strength and with months of extra training and zero combat casualties right next to Caen. Plus it would free up the 12th SS division to jump into the battle much sooner, given that the mission it was diverted to on the first day of D-Day was to an area that the II SS Corps would already be located and covering. Not only that but I didn't realize that most of the 1st SS division, even though in France, was so torn up from the fighting in Ukraine that only a fraction of the division was even able to fight in Normandy. That's not even talking about all the extra replacements, equipment, and supplies that would have been available in France had they not been lost/sent to Ukraine in January-June 1944.

So an addition 2 full strength SS panzer divisions + a ss corps with all the 'extras' that come with that would be available right next to the eastern most landing zone on D-day with a 3rd able to show up in part at the same time and the rest of the division later that same day who largely were not present IOTL. Had they been in place we're looking at the British 6th Airborne being overrun within the first hours of the invasion and Sword beach being engage before it had a chance to get firmly secured. Not only that, but 21st panzer division wouldn't have been diverted east of Caen and then west again (it was the only Panzer division to actually get to the beaches on the first day, but luckily only penetrated between two landing zones rather than attacked on head on while the landings were happening), which means it likely attacks a beach during the landings before Allied forces could get in land, since it would simply just have to move north rather than get rerouted repeatedly to cover multiple areas.

If D-Day doesn't work then US public support for the war probably collapses. It was already surprisingly weak and IOTL it was the successful landings plus entire campaign that really got the US public to be willing to fight to the end, since the collapse of the German army in France (and on the Eastern Front) created the impression that the war was unloseable. So the war might actually end by the end of 1944 if D-Day fails and the Eastern Front doesn't see the OTL victories...as well as Eisenhammer happening in January/February 1944 and collapsing Soviet production.

Soviets would be hold on Bug or near it till 1945,but then still go through.Numbers and fact,that they finally start using their own doctrine - attack with both infrantry and tanks,and use artillery observers to direct fire.Befor that, they fired in general direction of enemy and attacked with only tanks or only infrantry.

In the end - nothing changed,except Hungary,Yugoslavia and maybe Bulgary remaining as free states.

If that happens, the Soviets stymied on the Bug river for most of a year, then they'd cut a deal, as peace talks were happening with the Soviets even in 1944:

The Spectre of a Separate Peace in the East: Russo-German 'Peace Feelers', 1942-44 on JSTOR

H. W. Koch, The Spectre of a Separate Peace in the East: Russo-German 'Peace Feelers', 1942-44, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jul., 1975), pp. 531-549

www.jstor.org

They went nowhere due to Soviet victories and ultimately D-Day being successful.

Not to mention if Eisenhammer comes off (it should given that Steinbock forces were more than double the needed aircraft to launch the operation and the Luftwaffe bases in the East were ready), the Soviets would see a production collapse that would cripple their ability to continue the war. Even assuming German intelligence work overestimates the likely damage the huge impact on production would severely limit what the Soviets could produce in several vital categories of equipment. Add in a failed D-Day (see above) and the Allies would probably have to cut a deal given the collapse in support for the war in the US in the wake of a failed invasion of setbacks in the East. So it is unlikely the war goes on into 1945 in that situation.

 

[Buba]

I literally thought they were the same river. Thanks for pointing out the difference.

There are more such examples, like the Dvina. Luckily the 2nd Dvina is in the middle of nowhere, i.e. in the North Urals
Russian materials here tend to be precise, using South and North Bug, or North and Western Dvina.
And it varies by language too - in Polish the northern one is Bug and the other is Boh.
Confusing - geography and languages

 

[stevep]

It could go either way, WAY uglier or actually less bad (overall in terms of body count) due to an early peace deal being cut.
If the Allies face enough defeats in 1944, including D-Day being defeated, they could well cut a deal, because when push came to shove the US made conditional deals with Japan and Italy despite saying they wouldn't. Plus it isn't Hitler in charge anymore.
However if these POD doesn't result in that and Normandy still works, plus the Soviets refuse to quit then yes it could get really ugly. Well that or the Wallies take the Normandy defeat especially hard and opt to launch Operation Vegetarian...though I don't see that happening given the consequences. That was probably more a failsafe in case of total defeat. The war will probably be decided one way or the other before nukes are ready.

Though there is an outstanding question of what a post-peace deal world would look like with a surviving Nazi Germany and USSR. And potentially Japan.


I literally thought they were the same river. Thanks for pointing out the difference.
Personally I think the POD would end the war before nukes are ready, as the author of that paper does make a pretty compelling case that Normandy could have failed without the German collapse in Ukraine in April 1944. The II SS Panzer Corps would have been present in full strength and with months of extra training and zero combat casualties right next to Caen. Plus it would free up the 12th SS division to jump into the battle much sooner, given that the mission it was diverted to on the first day of D-Day was to an area that the II SS Corps would already be located and covering. Not only that but I didn't realize that most of the 1st SS division, even though in France, was so torn up from the fighting in Ukraine that only a fraction of the division was even able to fight in Normandy. That's not even talking about all the extra replacements, equipment, and supplies that would have been available in France had they not been lost/sent to Ukraine in January-June 1944.

So an addition 2 full strength SS panzer divisions + a ss corps with all the 'extras' that come with that would be available right next to the eastern most landing zone on D-day with a 3rd able to show up in part at the same time and the rest of the division later that same day who largely were not present IOTL. Had they been in place we're looking at the British 6th Airborne being overrun within the first hours of the invasion and Sword beach being engage before it had a chance to get firmly secured. Not only that, but 21st panzer division wouldn't have been diverted east of Caen and then west again (it was the only Panzer division to actually get to the beaches on the first day, but luckily only penetrated between two landing zones rather than attacked on head on while the landings were happening), which means it likely attacks a beach during the landings before Allied forces could get in land, since it would simply just have to move north rather than get rerouted repeatedly to cover multiple areas.

If D-Day doesn't work then US public support for the war probably collapses. It was already surprisingly weak and IOTL it was the successful landings plus entire campaign that really got the US public to be willing to fight to the end, since the collapse of the German army in France (and on the Eastern Front) created the impression that the war was unloseable. So the war might actually end by the end of 1944 if D-Day fails and the Eastern Front doesn't see the OTL victories...as well as Eisenhammer happening in January/February 1944 and collapsing Soviet production.


If that happens, the Soviets stymied on the Bug river for most of a year, then they'd cut a deal, as peace talks were happening with the Soviets even in 1944:

The Spectre of a Separate Peace in the East: Russo-German 'Peace Feelers', 1942-44 on JSTOR

H. W. Koch, The Spectre of a Separate Peace in the East: Russo-German 'Peace Feelers', 1942-44, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Jul., 1975), pp. 531-549

www.jstor.org

They went nowhere due to Soviet victories and ultimately D-Day being successful.

Not to mention if Eisenhammer comes off (it should given that Steinbock forces were more than double the needed aircraft to launch the operation and the Luftwaffe bases in the East were ready), the Soviets would see a production collapse that would cripple their ability to continue the war. Even assuming German intelligence work overestimates the likely damage the huge impact on production would severely limit what the Soviets could produce in several vital categories of equipment. Add in a failed D-Day (see above) and the Allies would probably have to cut a deal given the collapse in support for the war in the US in the wake of a failed invasion of setbacks in the East. So it is unlikely the war goes on into 1945 in that situation.

I don't see a separate peace being made with the Nazis at this point as everybody knows they can't be trusted. Hitler being incapacitated or even dead wouldn't affect that much. Plus while that might save some American lives at least in the short term, the total death toll in occupied Europe in the next decade or so is going to be far, far worse!

Also would expect a stronger German force in Normandy to still fail given the massed firepower of the allies, albeit it would be bloody. Might even if we're lucky shorten the breakout stage if the Germans lose too much in counter-attacks. 14" and 15" naval gunfire, or even 5", 6" and 8" can do a hell of a lot let alone what the air attacks can do against such tempting targets. There's a very good reason why the 1944 Ardennes offensive occurred when it did and came apart when the weather cleared enough for allied a/c to engage.

 

[Husky_Khan]

So an addition 2 full strength SS panzer divisions + a ss corps with all the 'extras' that come with that would be available right next to the eastern most landing zone on D-day with a 3rd able to show up in part at the same time and the rest of the division later that same day who largely were not present IOTL. Had they been in place we're looking at the British 6th Airborne being overrun within the first hours of the invasion and Sword beach being engage before it had a chance to get firmly secured. Not only that, but 21st panzer division wouldn't have been diverted east of Caen and then west again (it was the only Panzer division to actually get to the beaches on the first day, but luckily only penetrated between two landing zones rather than attacked on head on while the landings were happening), which means it likely attacks a beach during the landings before Allied forces could get in land, since it would simply just have to move north rather than get rerouted repeatedly to cover multiple areas.

Would the Panzers be able to stop the invasion even if they reach the beaches? I remember similar happening at Salerno but the Allies were able to fend them off because of the yuge amounts of aerial supremacy and more notably, naval gunfire support that could clobber the Panzers beyond range. Here in Normandy, both elements would be even more in the Allies favor. Any Panzer units that get close to the beach could get blasted by the big guns of the Navy even if it does create a lot of dicey moments on some of the five beaches.

 

[sillygoose]

I don't see a separate peace being made with the Nazis at this point as everybody knows they can't be trusted.

Didn't stop them from making deals with Stalin despite him doing just the same thing. Claims of 'well they can't be trusted' has never stopped anyone before when it came to making deals.

Plus the US and UK have their own history of treaty breaking.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Scotlands-Scrap-Paper-Britains-Broken-Treaty/30812305916/bd

I'm not trying to pick a fight on this issue or engage in 'whataboutism', just point out that diplomatic history shows that argument falls short. After all it isn't like the British suddenly stopped working with Germany pre-war even after the claims of violation of the Munich Agreement (which is debatable given that the British were the ones who told the Czech government to talk to Hitler when the Slovaks declared independence and dissolved the country, technically mooting the agreement) when they shipped them all the Czech gold in British banks:

How Bank of England 'helped Nazis sell gold stolen from Czechs'

Official account of what many believe was British central bank's most shameful episode revealed more than 70 years after event

www.theguardian.com

Never mind the Czech gold the Nazis stole...

The Bank for International Settlements actually financed Hitler’s war machine

www.telegraph.co.uk

Hitler being incapacitated or even dead wouldn't affect that much. Plus while that might save some American lives at least in the short term, the total death toll in occupied Europe in the next decade or so is going to be far, far worse!

You should do more search then, Hitler did all sorts of insane stuff throughout 1944 that changed the course of the war.
It is debatable how bad things would be in occupied Europe if the war ends in 1944 given the massive labor shortages already and how sick of killing everyone was. IOTL the break down in order at the end of WW2 and the devastation throughout the region caused a massive increase in mortality for years after the war. Plus you'd have to subtract the number of lives that would have been lost in 1945 and beyond due to the war, aftermath of the destruction, and of course Soviet occupation. Then there is the issue of Stalin not being able to intervene in Asia and the lives saved from Mao not rising to power after a 3 year long civil war and subsequent purge (not to mention wars that resulted throughout Asia); conservatively Mao was directly responsible for 60 million deaths just in China alone, as many people that died in all of WW2.

Plus without Hitler in charge driving the killing there is a question as to how much would actually happen after the war; in terms of things like the Holocaust the Hungarian Jews, most of whom were slaughtered staring in 3Q 1944, only became available to the Nazis after Hungary was invaded and Horthy tried to drop out of the war, which resulted in a coup and a Nazi-friendly Hungarian put in charge of the country. So they could actually be saved ITTL since the Hungarian government would remain intact and prevent the Nazis from gaining control over their civilian population. Same thing happened in Italy; Mussolini kept Jewish Italians safe until the coup and when the Nazis took over administration of the country there was nothing to stop them from doing anything they wanted to civilians. Keep the governments of countries intact and the Nazis wouldn't touch the civilians.

Also would expect a stronger German force in Normandy to still fail given the massed firepower of the allies, albeit it would be bloody. Might even if we're lucky shorten the breakout stage if the Germans lose too much in counter-attacks. 14" and 15" naval gunfire, or even 5", 6" and 8" can do a hell of a lot let alone what the air attacks can do against such tempting targets.

The evidence shows that until they got a proper foothold on land Allied firepower was generally poorly directed. 21st Panzer division managed to even get to the shore intact between two beaches and was able to withdraw without substantial losses to air or NGF. It was only after they were able to get spotters based on land in significant numbers (including spotting aircraft based in France, since they were too short ranged to really loiter from bases in England) that Allied aircraft and NGF were able to offer accurate tactical support. Remember how much of the bombing of the beach defenses actually missed?

9 Times Bombing Failed - History and Headlines

On June 5, 1944, the British RAF plastered the Normandy coast of France with 5000 tons of bombs dropped by over 1000 bombers in preparation for D-Day.

www.historyandheadlines.com

Or the NGF against the 21st Panzer at Caen didn't stop them because it was based simply on general reports/intelligence?

The Messed Up Truth About D-Day - Grunge

June 6, 1944—better known as "D-Day"—was the largest amphibious military operation in history. Here's the messed-up truth about D-Day.

www.grunge.com

As Engines of Our Ingenuity notes, the bombs Eisenhower fought for mostly missed their targets, naval bombardments were ineffective, amphibious tanks turned out to be not very amphibious at all, and the weather wasn't ideal, scattering Allied forces. The amazing thing about D-Day is that it succeeded at all.

What Went Wrong on D-Day

by Richard Armstrong Today, when things go terribly wrong. The Honors College at the University of Houston presents this program about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.

www.uh.edu

But if you've seen the film Saving Private Ryan, you'll know that for the men in the first waves, particularly on the American sector called Omaha Beach, it felt nothing like success. It was a terrifying maelstrom of chaos and death. All the careful planning, specially designed vehicles, and months of training couldn't save the thousands of men who lost their lives that morning. Planes dropped 13,000 bombs before the landing: they completely missed their targets; intense naval bombardment still failed to destroy German emplacements. The result was, Omaha Beach became a horrific killing zone, with the wounded left to drown in the rising tide.

There's a very good reason why the 1944 Ardennes offensive occurred when it did and came apart when the weather cleared enough for allied a/c to engage.

Indeed, but that only became a factor AFTER the D-Day landings succeeded and there were sufficient spotters on the ground with organized units to provide tactical spotting.

 

[Navarro]

I don't see a separate peace being made with the Nazis at this point as everybody knows they can't be trusted. Hitler being incapacitated or even dead wouldn't affect that much. Plus while that might save some American lives at least in the short term, the total death toll in occupied Europe in the next decade or so is going to be far, far worse!

Yes, exactly. Hitler's MO with everybody he negotiated with was to get an immediate tactical advantage then break his word as soon as he thought it was convenient. Which is why the Allies weren't willing to accept anything less than total capitulation.

 

[DarthOne]

Yes, exactly. Hitler's MO with everybody he negotiated with was to get an immediate tactical advantage then break his word as soon as he thought it was convenient. Which is why the Allies weren't willing to accept anything less than total capitulation.

That and the Brits and France were Determined to break Germany and Prussia once and for all this time around....sadly, they pretty much succeeded.

 

[sillygoose]

Would the Panzers be able to stop the invasion even if they reach the beaches? I remember similar happening at Salerno but the Allies were able to fend them off because of the yuge amounts of aerial supremacy and more notably, naval gunfire support that could clobber the Panzers beyond range. Here in Normandy, both elements would be even more in the Allies favor. Any Panzer units that get close to the beach could get blasted by the big guns of the Navy even if it does create a lot of dicey moments on some of the five beaches.

Probably because Salerno (and Sicily) and Normandy would be a very different situation. At Salerno the Allies were already on shore and moving inland with their artillery set up near the landing zone, the Germans were pushing them back to the beaches when spotters who were set up called a bunch of fire on them, including the artillery already onland. Plus the airborne dropped on the small perimeter to reinforce it with several thousand men:

Operation Avalanche - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The outermost troops were therefore withdrawn in order to reduce the perimeter. The new perimeter was held with the assistance of 4000 paratroopers from the 82nd and 509th PIB who air dropped near the hot spots, from strong naval gunfire support, and from well-served Fifth Army artillery. The German attacks reached almost to the beaches but ultimately failed.

Even the Germans conceded pre-invasion that if the Allies got off the beaches then all they could do is contain them, not throw them back into the sea; the only way to throw them back was keep them on the beaches and continue to pour fire into the landings until they stopped, like at Dieppe.

As Sicily it was much the same situation except the counterattacks came two days after the Allies had moved inland, but there were only attacks by a few battalion sized battle groups so the concentration of gunfire against them would have been the same with regular artillery. Again that happened inland, not at the beaches. Plus the Allied forces even used captured Italian artillery against Italian units trying to counterattack them.

If the Normandy landings are still confined to the beaches when the armored counterattack happens that is a very different situation, as I sourced about in my response to SteveP to show that aerial attack and NGF actually failed in many places in Normandy and didn't really smash the defenses at the beaches anywhere near where they were supposed to. Had it not been for the weak defenses the Allies could have been in for a really rough time.

As to the point about some of the beaches failing, but the rest working...if that happens the invasion basically still fails:

The area where the extra forces would be would enable them to effectively defeat the Sword beach and supporting 6th airborne landing while 21st panzer, not diverted east of Caen due to the presence of the SS divisions in that location, could hit Juno early. If those two fail then Gold is put in jeopardy and Monty can't get enough men on shore to do much more than hold the west-most beach the British forces had assigned. No Caen operation keeps open the main rail/road lines to the beaches to the west and allows much more reinforcements against those positions, plus more concentration of forces against them than was possible IOTL. How long do the Allies grind it out with 2-3 beaches and one of those being effectively stuck in or near the beach?

 

[sillygoose]

Yes, exactly. Hitler's MO with everybody he negotiated with was to get an immediate tactical advantage then break his word as soon as he thought it was convenient. Which is why the Allies weren't willing to accept anything less than total capitulation.

Except he wouldn't be in power ITTL

 

[ATP]

Normandy - german tanks attacking at once would made difference,but not as big as you think.Allies ruled air,so they would be bombed entire way there.And allies battleships would stop them near shore anyway.
But - they would be on the shore unable to push for long time.Maybe even till 1945.If that happen,about 15.2.45 soviets would break through Bug line,and shortly after that allies would go from beaches,too.
And about 10.9.45 Berlin would burn,when allies would be fighting in Zigfrid Wall,and soviets on East Wall.

Only difference would be for Balkan states/soviets would have no time and resources go there/,Finland/the same/ and Japan - if they were smart,they would surrender without losing any city to A bombs.

 

[sillygoose]

Normandy - german tanks attacking at once would made difference,but not as big as you think.Allies ruled air,so they would be bombed entire way there.And allies battleships would stop them near shore anyway.

Not the day of due to the weather. Most of their bombing missing that day. And again the 21st Panzer division managed to make it to the shore between Sword and Juno beaches without being stopped by aircraft or naval gun fire. They even withdrew in good order when it was clear there wasn't enough support for them to stay in place and were a major factor in stopping the British from getting Caen.

But - they would be on the shore unable to push for long time.Maybe even till 1945.If that happen,about 15.2.45 soviets would break through Bug line,and shortly after that allies would go from beaches,too.
And about 10.9.45 Berlin would burn,when allies would be fighting in Zigfrid Wall,and soviets on East Wall.

The question is how long would they be willing to cling to the shore in the face of constant artillery and mortar fire?

As to the Soviets, if D-Day is stymied at the shore and they cannot move past the Bug river until 1945 Stalin could cut a deal given the losses that would be incurred if his forces were stuck along that river for 9 months. Especially if Op. Eisenhammer is successful, as it would effectively neuter the Red Army for the rest of the war.

No way the Allies would stick it out until August 1945 especially if Stalin decided it was cheaper to cut a deal rather than fight it out until the Wallies could break out. Assuming they would even want to. We might see Op. Dragoon being the major effort in 1944 if Normandy isn't producing results. That could get interesting. But if Stalin quits the Wallies would shortly too, as they knew they couldn't win with acceptable casualties without Stalin.

 

[ATP]

Not the day of due to the weather. Most of their bombing missing that day. And again the 21st Panzer division managed to make it to the shore between Sword and Juno beaches without being stopped by aircraft or naval gun fire. They even withdrew in good order when it was clear there wasn't enough support for them to stay in place and were a major factor in stopping the British from getting Caen.


The question is how long would they be willing to cling to the shore in the face of constant artillery and mortar fire?

As to the Soviets, if D-Day is stymied at the shore and they cannot move past the Bug river until 1945 Stalin could cut a deal given the losses that would be incurred if his forces were stuck along that river for 9 months. Especially if Op. Eisenhammer is successful, as it would effectively neuter the Red Army for the rest of the war.

No way the Allies would stick it out until August 1945 especially if Stalin decided it was cheaper to cut a deal rather than fight it out until the Wallies could break out. Assuming they would even want to. We might see Op. Dragoon being the major effort in 1944 if Normandy isn't producing results. That could get interesting. But if Stalin quits the Wallies would shortly too, as they knew they couldn't win with acceptable casualties without Stalin.

1.True,but only partially.
2.What mortar fire? battleships made possible take 20km territory.Not only mortars,but even heavy guns could not hurt allies on beaches then.
And Sralin wonted deal - but Hitler always wonted TOO MUCH.So,unless we remove Hitler,it would be no deal.

 

[stevep]

Didn't stop them from making deals with Stalin despite him doing just the same thing. Claims of 'well they can't be trusted' has never stopped anyone before when it came to making deals.

Plus the US and UK have their own history of treaty breaking.

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/Scotlands-Scrap-Paper-Britains-Broken-Treaty/30812305916/bd

I'm not trying to pick a fight on this issue or engage in 'whataboutism', just point out that diplomatic history shows that argument falls short. After all it isn't like the British suddenly stopped working with Germany pre-war even after the claims of violation of the Munich Agreement (which is debatable given that the British were the ones who told the Czech government to talk to Hitler when the Slovaks declared independence and dissolved the country, technically mooting the agreement) when they shipped them all the Czech gold in British banks:

How Bank of England 'helped Nazis sell gold stolen from Czechs'

Official account of what many believe was British central bank's most shameful episode revealed more than 70 years after event

www.theguardian.com

Never mind the Czech gold the Nazis stole...

The Bank for International Settlements actually financed Hitler’s war machine

www.telegraph.co.uk

You should do more search then, Hitler did all sorts of insane stuff throughout 1944 that changed the course of the war.
It is debatable how bad things would be in occupied Europe if the war ends in 1944 given the massive labor shortages already and how sick of killing everyone was. IOTL the break down in order at the end of WW2 and the devastation throughout the region caused a massive increase in mortality for years after the war. Plus you'd have to subtract the number of lives that would have been lost in 1945 and beyond due to the war, aftermath of the destruction, and of course Soviet occupation. Then there is the issue of Stalin not being able to intervene in Asia and the lives saved from Mao not rising to power after a 3 year long civil war and subsequent purge (not to mention wars that resulted throughout Asia); conservatively Mao was directly responsible for 60 million deaths just in China alone, as many people that died in all of WW2.

Plus without Hitler in charge driving the killing there is a question as to how much would actually happen after the war; in terms of things like the Holocaust the Hungarian Jews, most of whom were slaughtered staring in 3Q 1944, only became available to the Nazis after Hungary was invaded and Horthy tried to drop out of the war, which resulted in a coup and a Nazi-friendly Hungarian put in charge of the country. So they could actually be saved ITTL since the Hungarian government would remain intact and prevent the Nazis from gaining control over their civilian population. Same thing happened in Italy; Mussolini kept Jewish Italians safe until the coup and when the Nazis took over administration of the country there was nothing to stop them from doing anything they wanted to civilians. Keep the governments of countries intact and the Nazis wouldn't touch the civilians.


The evidence shows that until they got a proper foothold on land Allied firepower was generally poorly directed. 21st Panzer division managed to even get to the shore intact between two beaches and was able to withdraw without substantial losses to air or NGF. It was only after they were able to get spotters based on land in significant numbers (including spotting aircraft based in France, since they were too short ranged to really loiter from bases in England) that Allied aircraft and NGF were able to offer accurate tactical support. Remember how much of the bombing of the beach defenses actually missed?

9 Times Bombing Failed - History and Headlines

On June 5, 1944, the British RAF plastered the Normandy coast of France with 5000 tons of bombs dropped by over 1000 bombers in preparation for D-Day.

www.historyandheadlines.com

Or the NGF against the 21st Panzer at Caen didn't stop them because it was based simply on general reports/intelligence?

The Messed Up Truth About D-Day - Grunge

June 6, 1944—better known as "D-Day"—was the largest amphibious military operation in history. Here's the messed-up truth about D-Day.

www.grunge.com

What Went Wrong on D-Day

by Richard Armstrong Today, when things go terribly wrong. The Honors College at the University of Houston presents this program about the machines that make our civilization run, and the people whose ingenuity created them.

www.uh.edu

Indeed, but that only became a factor AFTER the D-Day landings succeeded and there were sufficient spotters on the ground with organized units to provide tactical spotting.

The vast majority of the deaths of the war had already occurred by 1944. It was the drastic decline in German power that prevented many more dying. A lot died and many more suffered under Soviet rule but less than would have suffered if virtually all of Europe had stayed under Nazi rule. The Nazis already had the Italian Jews and I very much doubt the Hungarian ones would have survived once the Nazis no longer needed the current regime there. While the Slavs under their rule would at best have ended up as slave labour.

Mao and China is a red herring. For one thing people at the time have no way of knowing what would happen in China, as opposed to the very large number of deaths the Nazis would have continued to inflict on their conquered subjects. Let alone the likelihood of another bloody war in the not too distant future. For another get the peace settlement your proposing and Stalin is able to join the war against Japan something like a year earlier than OTL so its likely to see all of Korea under communist rule and Mao again being supported in his war with the KMT.

There were serious problems, especially on Omaha beach, in part because the commanders of that landing made too many mistakes. For instance launching the amphibious Sherman's far too soon so they virtually all sunk leaving the landing forces without direct armoured support. Even the web site you linked to about the 'failures' of D Day mentions that while many paras were scattered by the winds they did achieve their targets. Any big operation will have problems and complications, with things going wrong. However the losses were markedly less than the feared projects before the landings.

Similarly while the 21st Panzer's managed to withdraw that was obviously suggests they had to. Whether in good order or not.

Also assuming that everything goes right for the Germans in the east then you have to assume that those additional forces are all waiting for the landings on D Day. They could have been committed to some offensive or other operation in the east, sent to Italy or the Balkans or even, at least in part be sitting around Calais or in the strategic reserve around Paris. As you yourself point out if the allies aren't pushed into the sea immediately they won't be at all.

 

[sillygoose]

The vast majority of the deaths of the war had already occurred by 1944.

There were several million deaths in 1945 alone, which made up a pretty major portion of those who died in Europe in WW2. Include 1944 and we're talking probably over 25% of the deaths in Europe in WW2. The Soviets alone took 3 million casualties, about 10% of their official war total, in 1945 alone.

It was the drastic decline in German power that prevented many more dying.

Not so sure about that one. It dragged out for over 16 months despite how 'crippled' the German army was by 1944. What would have saved tens of millions from dying would have been a negotiated peace deal at any point in the war rather than demanding unconditional surrender.

A lot died and many more suffered under Soviet rule but less than would have suffered if virtually all of Europe had stayed under Nazi rule. The Nazis already had the Italian Jews and I very much doubt the Hungarian ones would have survived once the Nazis no longer needed the current regime there. While the Slavs under their rule would at best have ended up as slave labour.

The Nazis being able to retain rulership over Germany after the war is suspect by 1944, let alone all that they held by that point. It was only Unconditional Surrender, the Morgenthau Plan, and fear of Soviet occupation that kept Hitler in power by that point, something that is suspect had he gotten a peace deal, as there would be a lot of dissent all over the place and not a lot of surviving fanatical adherents to keep him there after the war.

Given that Horthy had survived in power until 1944 he'd have plenty of staying power after the war given how sever German casualties had been by that point; the Jews of Hungary also survived the entire war until 1944 and Horthy's ouster. In fact Hitler's empire was ready to crumble by 1944 if not for fear of the Soviets and Wallied demands for unconditional surrender. If we were talking about 1942 and Hitler winning then yes I'd fully agree with you, but 1944 is an entirely different situation. Even the UPA was turning on the Germans as they retreated.

The Slavs basically ended up as slave labor under the Soviets, so not much change there. There is a reason that Soviet domination is remembered more by modern Poles than the Nazis despite the Nazis killing more Poles. Having talked to a lot of older people (from all over the Comm Bloc) who lived through Soviet domination slave labor is quite accurate especially during Stalin's reign. That is the ones who survived the purges as Stalin set up puppet regimes and removed anyone 'suspect' of anything. It isn't like the several uprisings against Soviet domination in the 1950s didn't happen for a reason.

Mao and China is a red herring. For one thing people at the time have no way of knowing what would happen in China, as opposed to the very large number of deaths the Nazis would have continued to inflict on their conquered subjects. Let alone the likelihood of another bloody war in the not too distant future.

Though other than the Jews no one at the time knew of any plans for Hitler to keep killing conquered peoples. Things like the Hunger Plan (which was moot by that point) or General Plan East (also largely moot by 1944) were only discovered after the war. Again other than the Jews and select other groups genocidal plans were not known of at the time. That knowledge only came after conquering Germany.

Not sure why you'd claim a red herring given that we weren't talking about what people of the time knew, rather what the actual consequences of Soviet victory were and what the overall body count was. Just because fewer people might have died in Europe because of Soviet victory doesn't mean the overall body count was lower when you factor in Soviet conquests and the aftermath in Asia.

You were the one who brought up body counts, so the death toll in China from the communist regimes that got into power as a result of Stalin's conquest of Manchuria and North Korea should enter into the calculation. Arguably same with the resulting wars for the next several decades that cost millions of lives.

Besides it wasn't like anyone thought Stalin wasn't going to kill lots of people when his armies conquered and occupied half of Europe or stop for that matter. FDR and Stalin joked about to the point of pissing off Churchill who considered their 'jokes' about mass killings after the war extremely disgusting.

One thing they could have done, but explicitly ignored, was taking Caranis up on his offer to coup Hitler if he could get in writing that if they did and ended the war (and submitted to occupation by the Wallies unconditionally) that the Soviets wouldn't be allowed in Central Europe (including the Balkans and Poland), which would have saved tens of millions of lives if acted on in early 1943 when it was made to George Earle III. Instead they opted to fight the war to the bitter end and kill tens of millions so that Stalin could get his half of Europe and cut of Asia. So it isn't like the Big Three (or at least the biggest two) really gave a shit about saving lives, they were more interested in conquest and 'not making the mistake of Versailles by stopping short of total conquest'.

For another get the peace settlement your proposing and Stalin is able to join the war against Japan something like a year earlier than OTL so its likely to see all of Korea under communist rule and Mao again being supported in his war with the KMT.

I didn't state when I think peace would happen. It would probably take longer than August 1944. Regardless even with the war ending 9-12 months early due to a negotiated peace deal doesn't mean that Stalin would be in any position to move against Japan so early if at all given how many men would be needed to be retained in Europe against the Axis, especially if Finland isn't defeated like IOTL, and the 1941 borders aren't retaken or the Ostarbeiter/PoW aren't recovered or at least totally recovered from Germany and Vlasov and Bandera are still working with Germany. Ukraine will remain a bleeding sore for quote some time, just like IOTL minus the ability to stop Axis support for the UPA.

Also in 1944 Japan was quite a bit stronger than it was in August 1945, so Stalin is not going to be in a position to roll the Japanese as easily as they did IOTL (after all the Japanese were told to conduct a fighting withdrawal back to Korea due to their inability to actually hold Manchuria since they were so weak), which means Stalin is not going to be ready to attack for a long time even assuming the US gives him all the L-L he got IOTL through 1944 and into 1945 with Germany out. If he cuts a deal outside of the alliance with the US he might well get cut off and not be in any position to attack Japan, especially without the loot taken from conquering Europe. You can't simply move up dates and assume all the circumstances are 100% the same, just earlier.

There were serious problems, especially on Omaha beach, in part because the commanders of that landing made too many mistakes. For instance launching the amphibious Sherman's far too soon so they virtually all sunk leaving the landing forces without direct armoured support. Even the web site you linked to about the 'failures' of D Day mentions that while many paras were scattered by the winds they did achieve their targets. Any big operation will have problems and complications, with things going wrong.

Right, which is my point. Assuming that NGF and air support works flawlessly despite the historical evidence to the contrary on D-Day is simply foolish. As you say above a heap of things went wrong and it was a minor miracle the Germans didn't have what they needed to toss the Allies back into the sea.

However the losses were markedly less than the feared projects before the landings.

Because the situation in the East stripped the West of the vital reserves that could have stopped them or at least contained them. Take for example the II SS Panzer Corps. Rather than being just east of Caen on D-Day they were worn out on the Eastern Front in fighting after the collapse of positions in Ukraine and only showed up on June 29th in bits and pieces, committed to battle as they arrived, which wore then out even further without concentrated effect. They were the reason Operation Epsom failed, but the result was that they were worn out in detail so they could never have a decisive impact on the campaign, just drag it out. Had they been there in full force on June 6th (prior to commitment on the Eastern Front they were one of the very few corps in the West at full TOE and strength in their designated deployment zone they'd have been enough to collapse Sword beach and wipe out the British 6th Airborne when both were at their weakest, freeing up 21st Panzer and 12th SS to attack Juno beach as well...which could in turn be defeated as well.

Similarly while the 21st Panzer's managed to withdraw that was obviously suggests they had to. Whether in good order or not.

Technically they didn't, they mistook a bomber formation for a secondary para-drop behind them, so they retreated to avoid being cutoff even when they didn't have to. Had they turned against the flank of either beach instead they would have created quite a few problems for the landings and their ability to get off the beach far enough to avoid being contained.

Also assuming that everything goes right for the Germans in the east then you have to assume that those additional forces are all waiting for the landings on D Day. They could have been committed to some offensive or other operation in the east, sent to Italy or the Balkans or even, at least in part be sitting around Calais or in the strategic reserve around Paris. As you yourself point out if the allies aren't pushed into the sea immediately they won't be at all.

They were specifically tasked with resisting the invasion by Hitler, who had prioritized the Western Front over the East starting some time later in 1943. It is only the utter disaster in Ukraine in January-May 1944 that forced the region to be reinforced by something like 1 million men in the first half of 1944. It is all in the paper I linked in the OP at the very beginning. If you'd like a copy PM me. It is also covered in the Germany and the Second World War series as well.

So no, there is no way those forces would be used anywhere else for any other purpose barring disaster somewhere...which other than Ukraine there wasn't before D-Day. They had their specific zones already marked out and the necessary Calais forces were already in place, so no need for more. It was the Normandy area that was considered 'expendable' when grabbing reinforcements for the East IOTL and where they would stay if they weren't needed, since the II SS Panzer Corps sat between Normandy and Calais and could react quickest to an invasion in either zone quickly. So no reason to put them in Paris as that need was already covered as well. Hence why then being in their historical reserve location is so important, as they'd be able to attack west very quickly on the day of the invasion and in fact part of their deployment location was where part of the British 6th airborne was dropped, which would trigger an immediate reaction. Not only that, but due to where they were the 12th SS division wouldn't be diverted to check out reported para-landings, as the 10th SS division would already be in the area. Couple that with the 21st panzer division also not being diverted east of Caen, which delayed their push to the shore, and you're looking at something like 4 panzer divisions being able to act early on June 6th, rather than the 1 that was able to get moving later in the day and ultimately retreated for fear of fighting alone.

Point is the Allies get super lucky that those reserves weren't present on D-Day.

 

[stevep]

There were several million deaths in 1945 alone, which made up a pretty major portion of those who died in Europe in WW2. Include 1944 and we're talking probably over 25% of the deaths in Europe in WW2. The Soviets alone took 3 million casualties, about 10% of their official war total, in 1945 alone.


Not so sure about that one. It dragged out for over 16 months despite how 'crippled' the German army was by 1944. What would have saved tens of millions from dying would have been a negotiated peace deal at any point in the war rather than demanding unconditional surrender.

Your talking about deaths relating to warfare. I'm talking about total deaths relating to occupation policies, especially for the Nazis. Like those millions of deaths over decades under Mao. Except here probably over a distinctly shorter period.

The Nazis being able to retain rulership over Germany after the war is suspect by 1944, let alone all that they held by that point. It was only Unconditional Surrender, the Morgenthau Plan, and fear of Soviet occupation that kept Hitler in power by that point, something that is suspect had he gotten a peace deal, as there would be a lot of dissent all over the place and not a lot of surviving fanatical adherents to keep him there after the war.

Doubtful. Most of the people dubious about the Nazis were already out of power if not dead and the party had tightened its grip on power and the population as a whole. Plus note that even the generals who tried killing Hitler in 44 were expecting to maintain a lot of their gains. Not to mention that any negotiated peace would mean than any parts of eastern Europe including the Balkans which didn't still end up under the German yoke would have come under Stalin's control. Neither he nor Roosevelt would have been happy leaving fascist dictators in power in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria etc. Unless your suggesting this negotiated peace has a border say on the Dnieper in which case forget any plans about removing Hitler, let alone the Nazis as they would present this as an huge victory.

Since Morgenthau initial memo wasn't written until some time in 1944 would the Germans have known anything about it at the time? They might have expected something distinctly harsher than Versailles given the large scale failure of that to prevent further German militarism given their own war crimes but their unlikely to know about this. Don't forget that the reason Roosevelt insisted on unconditional surrender because he didn't want a repeat of the post-WWI situation when Germany itself had war crimes trials and pretty much acquitted everybody.

Given that Horthy had survived in power until 1944 he'd have plenty of staying power after the war given how sever German casualties had been by that point; the Jews of Hungary also survived the entire war until 1944 and Horthy's ouster. In fact Hitler's empire was ready to crumble by 1944 if not for fear of the Soviets and Wallied demands for unconditional surrender. If we were talking about 1942 and Hitler winning then yes I'd fully agree with you, but 1944 is an entirely different situation. Even the UPA was turning on the Germans as they retreated.

With Germany on the retreat yes and very hard pressed on all sides. Here their pretty much victorious, especially if they still hold much of the USSR region. In that case and with the allies and Soviets implicitly accepting continued Nazi control of most of Europe don't expect a now isolated Horthy being able to withstand pressure to enable the Nazis to complete their 'project' of rendering their empire 'Jew-free'.

The Slavs basically ended up as slave labor under the Soviets, so not much change there. There is a reason that Soviet domination is remembered more by modern Poles than the Nazis despite the Nazis killing more Poles. Having talked to a lot of older people (from all over the Comm Bloc) who lived through Soviet domination slave labor is quite accurate especially during Stalin's reign. That is the ones who survived the purges as Stalin set up puppet regimes and removed anyone 'suspect' of anything. It isn't like the several uprisings against Soviet domination in the 1950s didn't happen for a reason.

Not as badly as under the Nazis, where instead of being dominated their likely to end up pretty much as literal slaves. Not just those who had desires for independence or human rights but all of them.

Though other than the Jews no one at the time knew of any plans for Hitler to keep killing conquered peoples. Things like the Hunger Plan (which was moot by that point) or General Plan East (also largely moot by 1944) were only discovered after the war. Again other than the Jews and select other groups genocidal plans were not known of at the time. That knowledge only came after conquering Germany.

Not sure why you'd claim a red herring given that we weren't talking about what people of the time knew, rather what the actual consequences of Soviet victory were and what the overall body count was. Just because fewer people might have died in Europe because of Soviet victory doesn't mean the overall body count was lower when you factor in Soviet conquests and the aftermath in Asia.

Notice the mismatch here? 1st paragraph your talking about people not knowing about German plans to kill other groups - although most of the deaths might be from massive abuse rather than actual gassing. 2nd your saying "we weren't talking about what people knew at the time.

You were the one who brought up body counts, so the death toll in China from the communist regimes that got into power as a result of Stalin's conquest of Manchuria and North Korea should enter into the calculation. Arguably same with the resulting wars for the next several decades that cost millions of lives.

Besides it wasn't like anyone thought Stalin wasn't going to kill lots of people when his armies conquered and occupied half of Europe or stop for that matter. FDR and Stalin joked about to the point of pissing off Churchill who considered their 'jokes' about mass killings after the war extremely disgusting.

Again the Chinese deaths might well happen anyway. Plus while Stalin's forces rounded up people related to former democratic elements or the assorted pro-German regimes they didn't kill or enslave wholesale as the Nazis did. Murderously brutal but a totally different level than the Nazis with their racially inspired insanity.

The jokes you mention were about killing about 100k of the German officer corp to permanent remove the threat of German militarism. Totally agree with Churchill about this but a different level to killing 10's of millions.

One thing they could have done, but explicitly ignored, was taking Caranis up on his offer to coup Hitler if he could get in writing that if they did and ended the war (and submitted to occupation by the Wallies unconditionally) that the Soviets wouldn't be allowed in Central Europe (including the Balkans and Poland), which would have saved tens of millions of lives if acted on in early 1943 when it was made to George Earle III. Instead they opted to fight the war to the bitter end and kill tens of millions so that Stalin could get his half of Europe and cut of Asia. So it isn't like the Big Three (or at least the biggest two) really gave a shit about saving lives, they were more interested in conquest and 'not making the mistake of Versailles by stopping short of total conquest'.

Leaving aside the idiotic BS what was the likelihood of such a coup succeeding when Hitler seemed to many in Germany at the height of his success? Especially since your talking of giving up all German territorial gains - possibly as far back as the annexation of Austria - and still have unconditional surrender which would mean that the allies would occupy Germany and be able pretty much to do what they liked.

Not to mention how many forces did the allies have in the European theatre at this point? Your talking about occupying and maintaining order over a massive area, disarming millions of Germans and other fascist forces and deterring a Soviet attack when the latter have massively more forces that the allies do.

I didn't state when I think peace would happen. It would probably take longer than August 1944. Regardless even with the war ending 9-12 months early due to a negotiated peace deal doesn't mean that Stalin would be in any position to move against Japan so early if at all given how many men would be needed to be retained in Europe against the Axis, especially if Finland isn't defeated like IOTL, and the 1941 borders aren't retaken or the Ostarbeiter/PoW aren't recovered or at least totally recovered from Germany and Vlasov and Bandera are still working with Germany. Ukraine will remain a bleeding sore for quote some time, just like IOTL minus the ability to stop Axis support for the UPA.

Also in 1944 Japan was quite a bit stronger than it was in August 1945, so Stalin is not going to be in a position to roll the Japanese as easily as they did IOTL (after all the Japanese were told to conduct a fighting withdrawal back to Korea due to their inability to actually hold Manchuria since they were so weak), which means Stalin is not going to be ready to attack for a long time even assuming the US gives him all the L-L he got IOTL through 1944 and into 1945 with Germany out. If he cuts a deal outside of the alliance with the US he might well get cut off and not be in any position to attack Japan, especially without the loot taken from conquering Europe. You can't simply move up dates and assume all the circumstances are 100% the same, just earlier.

Except as you say the Soviets have avoided massive casualties themselves, gained a lot of territory, population and resources and the Germans are a much weaker force as their given up a lot of territory and resources and any new aggression from them would mean war with both the Soviets and the western powers. Which would be fatal if the German withdraw includes France let alone other parts of western Europe. Yes there would be isolated unrest in some areas but their likely to be reduced to minor guerilla activity which as with the forest brothers in OTL is likely to ultimately alienate their own people.

If Stalin is involved in the Pacific war its probably because the US wants him to, as OTL, which means that L-L would be resumed/continued. Plus a guard force in the west is going to need a hell of a lot less man and resources than fighting the Germans all the way to Berlin and occupying most of the Balkans.

Right, which is my point. Assuming that NGF and air support works flawlessly despite the historical evidence to the contrary on D-Day is simply foolish. As you say above a heap of things went wrong and it was a minor miracle the Germans didn't have what they needed to toss the Allies back into the sea.

I'm not assuming they work any better than OTL. Just that everything doesn't work perfectly for the Germans. The situation on Omaha was costly for a while in part because of allied mistakes but elsewhere there was no danger of the allies being thrown back into the sea. Even if all the forces your assuming are in place in Normandy its going to be a lot tighter but the allies are still likely to win. Plus since the allies are likely to know about at least some of the German reinforcements their going to react differently. You could see a lot more bombing operations, especially the heavies despite what Harris and his US equivalent - forgetting his name at the moment - wanted.

Because the situation in the East stripped the West of the vital reserves that could have stopped them or at least contained them.

They were specifically tasked with resisting the invasion by Hitler, who had prioritized the Western Front over the East starting some time later in 1943. It is only the utter disaster in Ukraine in January-May 1944 that forced the region to be reinforced by something like 1 million men in the first half of 1944. It is all in the paper I linked in the OP at the very beginning. If you'd like a copy PM me. It is also covered in the Germany and the Second World War series as well.

So no, there is no way those forces would be used anywhere else for any other purpose barring disaster somewhere...which other than Ukraine there wasn't before D-Day. They had their specific zones already marked out and the necessary Calais forces were already in place, so no need for more. It was the Normandy area that was considered 'expendable' when grabbing reinforcements for the East IOTL and where they would stay if they weren't needed, since the II SS Panzer Corps sat between Normandy and Calais and could react quickest to an invasion in either zone quickly. So no reason to put them in Paris as that need was already covered as well. Hence why then being in their historical reserve location is so important, as they'd be able to attack west very quickly on the day of the invasion and in fact part of their deployment location was where part of the British 6th airborne was dropped, which would trigger an immediate reaction. Not only that, but due to where they were the 12th SS division wouldn't be diverted to check out reported para-landings, as the 10th SS division would already be in the area. Couple that with the 21st panzer division also not being diverted east of Caen, which delayed their push to the shore, and you're looking at something like 4 panzer divisions being able to act early on June 6th, rather than the 1 that was able to get moving later in the day and ultimately retreated for fear of fighting alone.

Point is the Allies get super lucky that those reserves weren't present on D-Day.

Apart from other factors I've mentioned this is the same Hitler who is now out of the loop so Goring or whoever is in charge could have a totally different viewpoint. As such far from certain that those forces will be anywhere near the position your suggested. If in this circumstance the general staff back the far more influential Rundstedt rather than Rommel then all/most of the German armoured/mechanised forces could be in the Paris region for a massed counter attack with virtually none in the immediate vicinity of the beaches as you suggest. In which case there might be a more powerful counter attack a day or so down the line but its going to meet the prepared defences and massed firepower you suggested would be avoided.

That's just one butterfly that could occur.

 

[History Learner]

Yes, exactly. Hitler's MO with everybody he negotiated with was to get an immediate tactical advantage then break his word as soon as he thought it was convenient. Which is why the Allies weren't willing to accept anything less than total capitulation.

All American planning envisioned the collapse of the USSR or its removal from the war (a separate peace, regardless of the exact terms of such) would necessitate cutting a deal with Germany. As goes the United States, so goes the rest of the Western Allies. Worried about the voters? 40% of Americans were willing to cut a deal with the Germans in early 1944, prior to D-Day, and about the same were willing to do so in December of 1944 as the Bulge Offensive developed, so it wasn't exactly fickle support for a peace either. Specifically 25% of Americans were willing, according to May 1944 polling by Gallup, to leave Hitler himself in command and make peace along existing lines; i.e. with virtually all of Europe within the German sphere of influence.

Doubtful. Most of the people dubious about the Nazis were already out of power if not dead and the party had tightened its grip on power and the population as a whole. Plus note that even the generals who tried killing Hitler in 44 were expecting to maintain a lot of their gains. Not to mention that any negotiated peace would mean than any parts of eastern Europe including the Balkans which didn't still end up under the German yoke would have come under Stalin's control. Neither he nor Roosevelt would have been happy leaving fascist dictators in power in Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria etc. Unless your suggesting this negotiated peace has a border say on the Dnieper in which case forget any plans about removing Hitler, let alone the Nazis as they would present this as an huge victory.

Firstly, it needs to be pointed out Hitler is taken out here by an outside-coup event, which pretty much solves the issue; we don't have to get in those specifics because the OP already outlined the act. As noted, it's a Goering-dictatorship which essentially is backed by the Party on the Army. Vast swathes of the American electorate was willing to cut a deal with such a regime, as outlined above. As for what the peace deal entails, that depends on the exact outline of the scenario. Stalin was willing to cut a deal on Pre-1941 lines, while the Anglo-Americans can't exactly force terms if they are confined to a bridgehead in Normandy alone or the invasion has outright failed. We can quibble over that, but the U.S. can't do anything if the Soviets are out and the Germans are standing strong elsewhere.

Again the Chinese deaths might well happen anyway.

Based on what?

If Stalin is involved in the Pacific war its probably because the US wants him to, as OTL, which means that L-L would be resumed/continued. Plus a guard force in the west is going to need a hell of a lot less man and resources than fighting the Germans all the way to Berlin and occupying most of the Balkans.

If the European war effort has collapsed because of the Soviets making a deal with Hitler, the U.S. has exactly zero reason to trust Stalin, nevermind resume Lend Lease aid. Nor do the Soviets needing less resources in the West-for some magical reason-mean they suddenly overcome the fact their only route of supply to the Far East is a single railway stretched out across thousands of miles and which was only recently double tracked. It took until 1984 for the Soviets to sufficiently expand railway access in Siberia to help address this defect in logistics in the region. Their own estimates and Western intelligence gathering made it clear they could never seriously threaten the Japanese in Manchuria without vastly reducing the forces involved or U.S. logistical aid being provided.