Operation Valkyrie (what if)

[Captain Seafort]

I had been under the impression that Hitler did not permit Rommel to use the tank divisions stationed at Calais until significantly after the western allies had consolidated their beachhead, and that if he had been able to employ them Rommel could have stifled the advance. But that could be entirely wrong.

Except, in the end, would they have been able to do anything but delay the inevitable? Particularly with the Soviets chewing up resources on the Eastern Front as they did and the sheer amount of stuff that was thrown at them on every front.

As has already been said, giving Rommel his head with the Panzers would have been Anzio Mk2 - tanks wouldn't have stood a chance against destroyers, let alone battleships.

Overall, however, removing Hitler may well have slowed down the allied advance to the Rhine. Without his order forbidding retreat a lot more men and equipment could have been evacuated from the Falaise pocket, and the withdrawal across France could have been done properly, rather than a headlong rush ahead of the Great Swan. There's also the possibility that a reinforced Antwerp and Schelt (sp?) Estuary could have been held much longer, delaying the advance into Germany still further. All of this, of course, makes things worse for Germany, as it would mean the Red Army would capture far more territory.

[Thanas]

I believe eventuallly the men of the 20th July plot would have done the same a lot of german generals did in the end - throw everything against the soviets and hope the american tanks drive fast.

[Samuel]

I believe eventuallly the men of the 20th July plot would have done the same a lot of german generals did in the end - throw everything against the soviets and hope the american tanks drive fast.

Wasn't the problem for Patton running out of oil, not movement speed?

[Thanas]

^And the prize for poor reading comprehension goes too....

[The Duchess of Zeon]

No, the best moment would have been if the Reichswehr Generals had not mostly been cowards and gone ahead with the planned coup in 1933.

I'd be worried about the ability of a Germany still potentially bound by most of the Versailles provisions to resist the RKKA when Stalin does finally decide it's time to strike west, honestly. How far do you think they would have gone with rearmament?

You mean with all of Western Europe united by the threat of the communist horde? Isn't that the worst position possible for the USSR? The Allies would drop the treaty provisions if the USSR started to show signs of planned aggression to try to counter it.

I'm pretty sure Stas thought it was impossible both due to material constraints and the fact that the USSR was still industrializing. Do we have any sources that show that Stalin was planning a push west in the near future?

I've seen evidence suggesting a date of 1943 - 1944 for the push to the west based on the industrialization cycles. It was certainly not in 1941 as has been claimed by some more disreputable historians. The argument was primarily fronted by Norman Friedman in the Fifty Years War, which admittedly is a very ideologically American-conservative source, though I've also seen a lot of supporting material produced by the military exile organizations in the 1930s, some of it from my father's collection of papers, though how much of that may be the propaganda equivalent of the claims Ahmed Chalabi made about Iraq, I cannot say.

[K. A. Pital]

I've seen evidence suggesting a date of 1943 - 1944 for the push to the west based on the industrialization cycles.

The same reasoning is applied to the reorganization of the RKKA which would be more or less finished by 1943. But it totally ignores that politics are not set in stone. An alternative 1943 might have a political disposition so different that a war would be avoided alltogether. I wouldn't put any money into N. Friedman's claims anyhow.

But Thanas is basically right - no matter if Hitler comes to power or not, remilitarization of Germany will happen one way or the other.