War in the West ends, War in the East Continues

Just wondering, suppose German's final gamble in the West, what's commonly known as "The Battle of the Bulge", had succeded?

For argument's sake, suppose the British in the North were cut off and isolated, and the American army depot/port of Antwerp was captured. Suppose that Churchill, very aware that the British nation was growing very war weary, and on the heels of the Arnhem debacle, decided to open peace tallks, dropping the "Uncondtional Surrender" clause, and instead just requiring the restoration of the pre-war French/German border. Roosevelt, losing his ally in the Brits and fearful of the cost in lives to 'go it alone', finds it a tough sell to the American public for continuing the war in Europe. He is also fully aware that the war in the Pacific is far from over, and so, succumbs to reality and drops his demand for unconditional surrender as well. Germany essentially ends it's war with the Western Allies, with France, Norway, and Holland all returned to their pre-war status. (Denmark, however, is now part of the German border).

Assuming all the above, here's my questions:

Could Germany have then staved off the Russian advances? Would they have bought enough time to implement some of the advanced aircraft designs they were working on to regain control of the skies in the East? With their industrial centers free from the ravages of strategic bombing, and with an economy finally geared for "total war", could the German military have halted the Russian Bear in Poland/Prussia? Or was it already too far gone at that point to have done anything other then prolong the inevitable? Would Stalin stop at anything short of Berlin? Or, would Stalin, if he found his offensives incapable of moving beyond German defences without incurring extreme losses, look for a way to end the conflict?

Just remember, with Germany having only 1 front to contend with, a lot of things change. No longer would fighting on the Western Front and in Italy consume men and material. No need for U-boat building and support frees up precious men and resources. German soldiers, captured during the course of the war could provide a much needed injection of skill and manpower when prisoner exchanges begin. With no need for defense against American and British bombers, imagine all those 88's now in an anti-tank role. In short, could the German nation survive in a 1 on 1 battle with Russia in late 1944 and beyond?

Me, personally, I think the influx of all of Germany's might solely against the Russian forces gives them a decent chance at solidyfying their front, buying them time, which may have opened the door for a political solution. I would say by fall 1946, the war would grind to a halt, neither side capable of forcing a decision, and the war ending with a stalemate, as both sides, exhausted from the draining conflict, realized the futility of continuing.

 

The timeline would be the battle of the bulge ending December 1944 with talks about that time. In 1944, the Russians were already at the borders of Germany, less than 100 miles from Berlin. In my opinion there is nothing that could save Germany at this time. Her armed Forces consisted of inexperienced second line troops. Also, the Russians out weighed Germany in armour, aircraft and artillery. Now if Germany had defeated the western allies at D-day and ended up with a peace because of it, Germany would have a better chance than after the battle of the bulge.

 

In late '44 Germany was pretty much already defeated. They might have been able to continue the war a little longer, but not more than early '46.

Now, had the Allies been defeated at D-Day, as PzJgr said, and Britain and America sued for peace, then Germany might be able to grind the Soviet offensive to a halt long enough for a peace to occur.

 

A dazzling victory in the East following on such a scenario would give Germany a chance. Something like Tannenberg only bigger.

 

Unfortunately don´t think so. The Russians are winning it no matter what. Battle of the Bulge only fastened the loss of war as Germany lost all the remaining reserves to use anywhere.

 

I have to agree with kai...I dont think anything short of an a-bomb could have stopped the Russians by bulge time.

 

The answer to both of your questions is NO.
Even if the Germans had managed to cut off the British . There is no way the British would have dropped out of the war. The Germans were simply not strong enough to hold the pocket closed from any American or British counter attack, and the British while war-weary were in no mood to let Hitler off the hook.
As for the Russians, the extra troops and armour might have slowed them down by a couple of weeks, but no more. On the Eastern front it was already "game over"

 

I have to agree with the rest. The Red army was far to strong by Dec 1944 for the Germans to hold off. The Russians outnumbered them in tanks, aircraft, infantry, artillery, and perhaps most importantly supplies (steel, fuel, food).

The only thing that could've saved Germany at this point would be if they could have bought enough time for some of thier "wonder" weapons to make an impact, or if they had enough time to make an atomic bomb!

Matt

 

Germany had lost too much by this time and was too weak to hold back a determined force such as the Russians.
It wouldv'e only prolonged the agony...war ends, early to mid '46.

 

Just to compare the vastness of Russian forces I took this from "Ostfront" by Charles Winchester:

To compare the scale of operations in the west and the east:In August 1944 38 allied divisions fighting on a 120 km front in France encircled 20 German divisions and, after 27 days´fighting took about 90 000 prisoners. At the same time the Soviet forces had mounted three offensives. Along the borders of Romania, 92 Soviet divisions and 6 tank/mechanised corps attacked 47 German and Romanian divisions on a frontage of about 700 km, encircling 18 German divisions and taking 100 000 prisoners in a week. Meanwhile 86 Soviet divisions and 10 tank/mechanised corps were attacking into southern Poland, destroying nearly 40 German divisions in the process. The third Soviet offensive, which had been underway since 22 June, involved 172 divisions and 12 tank/mechanised corps in an advance of 600 km along a 1000 km front:67 German divisions were overwhelmed in the battle, 17 never to reappear on the German order of battle.

By late 1944 91 Allied divisions in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, faced 65 German divisions across a 400 km front. In the east, 560 Soviet divisions were fighting 235 German divisions across a 3200 km front.

Whew! Like the author says the Russians were totally in command of things...560 divisions...Oh my God!

 

Germany could just not win the war in the East after winter 1941-1942. In 1944?! Yeah... Germany had no resorces nor men enough to face the Red Giant even with the Western Allies disturbing... The Soviet Union was running at full steam in 1944 and Germany simply could not get the weapons nor men necessary to hold them.

I will quote Napoléon in Waterloo here:

 

[/QUOTE]

I totally agree..After Moscow it was over,eventhough a turnover came only after Stalingrad.

 

Absolutely. Moscow meant only the halt of the German attack, but Stalingrad was a major debacle, a major DEFEAT.