Operation Barbarossa succeeds. How soon can the WAllies plausibly attempt a landing?

[John Dusk]

If Operation Barbarossa succeeded in 1941 somehow (Stalin dies or another catalyst), leaving Nazi Germany in control of the continent including Eastern Europe to the Urals, how soon could the WAllies plausibly attempt an amphibious landing?

Would they have to use nukes in a tactical role against the German coastal defenses for it to succeed?

How many casualties do they suffer in the attempt?

How many divisions would the Reich be able to place in Western Europe/France to defend against an Allied invasion now that there is no Eastern Front to bleed the Wehrmacht white?

How strong does the Atlantic Wall get in the meantime now that the Reich has far more resources and slave labor available than it did IOTL?

 

[SunilTanna]

Never. There's a compromise peace in Europe. Japan however gets curb stomped by the USA.

 

[wcv215]

Not for a long time. With so many European resources available to build weapons and keep the Atlantic Wall up the Nazi shell is too hard to crack. If they could manage by 1950 it would be a surprise. 1960 is more likely, but IMO it won't happen.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

I'm going to offend many many people with this statement but, The United States'd plans to invade and liberate Europe were conjectured to literally completely and utterly by themselves, which is to say solely Americans vs the Nazis. There is no reason why the US would deviate from that course and come to the table with the Nazis. It is not a nut that's impossible to crack, and if push came to shove the Americans would just start nuking German city after German city until the Nazis got the point.

 

[John Dusk]

snip

Are you saying the US didn't need to use the British Isles as a staging area to accomplish an amphibious invasion of Nazi Europe?

There's a reason why Eisenhower called Britain the "greatest operating military base of all time."

It took two years for the US to gather 7 MILLION tons of supplies in Britain to invade Normandy which was only 70 miles away. This was against a Wehrmacht that was bled white by 3 years of intense combat against the Red Army and a Reich that had suffered years of strategic bombing as well.

Now they have to do the same thing but only using the continental US as a staging area which is 3,500 miles away from the coast of France against an undefeated, heavily armed and blooded Wehrmacht that has had years to build defenses.

This would make Sea Lion look like stepping over a puddle in comparison. Even an industrial juggernaut like the US couldn't accomplish a task this immense just from the logistics point of view with no help whatsoever.

Simply put, no Britain = no Allied landing in Europe.

 

[Aber]

I'm going to offend many many people with this statement but, The United States'd plans to invade and liberate Europe were conjectured to literally completely and utterly by themselves, which is to say solely Americans vs the Nazis. There is no reason why the US would deviate from that course and come to the table with the Nazis. It is not a nut that's impossible to crack, and if push came to shove the Americans would just start nuking German city after German city until the Nazis got the point.

Hence the B-36

 

[Politibrit]

Are you saying the US didn't need to use the British Isles as a staging area to accomplish an amphibious invasion of Nazi Europe?

There's a reason why Eisenhower called Britain the "greatest operating military base of all time."

It took two years for the US to gather 7 MILLION tons of supplies in Britain to invade Normandy which was only 70 miles away. This was against a Wehrmacht that was bled white by 3 years of intense combat against the Red Army and a Reich that had suffered years of strategic bombing as well.

Now they have to do the same thing but only using the continental US as a staging area which is 3,500 miles away from the coast of France against an undefeated, heavily armed and blooded Wehrmacht that has had years to build defenses.

This would make Sea Lion look like stepping over a puddle in comparison. Even an industrial juggernaut like the US couldn't accomplish a task this immense just from the logistics point of view with no help whatsoever.

Simply put, no Britain = no Allied landing in Europe.

Am I missing something? Where did anyone say that Britain has made peace? The US could use it as a staging post as long as they stay in the war post Barbarossa, the issue is more the more manpower and resources available to the Germans to focus on the western front, and the far greater expanse of land that the Wallies need to take, rather than just pushing halfway into Germany as per OTL.

 

[John Dusk]

Am I missing something? Where did anyone say that Britain has made peace? The US could use it as a staging post as long as they stay in the war post Barbarossa, the issue is more the more manpower and resources available to the Germans to focus on the western front, and the far greater expanse of land that the Wallies need to take, rather than just pushing halfway into Germany as per OTL.

I was responding to this line in the post that I quoted:

The United States'd plans to invade and liberate Europe were conjectured to literally completely and utterly by themselves, which is to say solely Americans vs the Nazis.

My point was that the US can't feasibly invade and defeat Nazi Europe without Britain.

I also explicitly asked if he was claiming that the US didn't need the UK as a staging ground.

 

[colleen1227]

With the Luftwaffe not destroyed it is very problematic for the USAAF to nuke the Axis into surrender. They would be able to hit one or two cities in France with certainty but, to hit cities in Greater Germany the risk and ability is too high for success. A Cold War would have come about.

 

[Thothian]

A-Bomb + Operation Vegetarian means Europe is in for a bad time. The nuclear bombings would likely be in huge swarms of fighters and bombers until the Allies establish air superiority. Once German cities start going POOF and and people start getting anthrax, the saner elements of the Wehrmacht will make a hit list with Hitler at the top of it. Coup, maybe civil war with the SS, then done.

 

[History Learner]

A-Bomb + Operation Vegetarian means Europe is in for a bad time. The nuclear bombings would likely be in huge swarms of fighters and bombers until the Allies establish air superiority. Once German cities start going POOF and and people start getting anthrax, the saner elements of the Wehrmacht will make a hit list with Hitler at the top of it. Coup, maybe civil war with the SS, then done.

To my knowledge, Vegetarian was only to be done in case Hitler started chemical warfare.

 

[BooNZ]

A-Bomb + Operation Vegetarian means Europe is in for a bad time. The nuclear bombings would likely be in huge swarms of fighters and bombers until the Allies establish air superiority. Once German cities start going POOF and and people start getting anthrax, the saner elements of the Wehrmacht will make a hit list with Hitler at the top of it. Coup, maybe civil war with the SS, then done.

Given a certain leader's aversion to chemical warfare, can we assume you believe the allies would happily claim the low ground so readily? I'm not arguing, but it puts things in context...

 

[BobTheBarbarian]

If Barbarossa succeeded and the US was still dragged into the war on schedule the stated Allied goal of 'Germany First' would have put any advance in the Pacific on hold indefinitely. We probably would have seen a more concerted push into Southern Europe, maybe Southern France becoming the primary landing zone on the continent. The US would probably have raised more divisions over OTL..

In my opinion a landing in 1944 would still have been possible, but the campaign to defeat Germany would have been much longer and more bloody, long enough to see nukes get involved.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

I was responding to this line in the post that I quoted:

My point was that the US can't feasibly invade and defeat Nazi Europe without Britain.

I also explicitly asked if he was claiming that the US didn't need the UK as a staging ground.

I am stating that the U.S. had OPLANs for exactly that scenario, which is historical fact, not conjecture, not Glorious America, not wankery. Fact. We fully intended to fight the Germans *by ourselves* if necessary. We only mobilized 50% of what we planned even historically.

 

[Obergruppenführer Smith]

In the worst case scenario, why bother landing? Nuke them.

For all the insanity that Stuart Slade writes, at least his book "The Big One" shows what was perfectly possible.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

1943. It will almost certainly be an invasion of Sicily, Sardinia, or Crete, and probably several months later than OTL Operation Husky.

Although... the first amphibious operation in the "greater" European theater would probably be an analogy to OTL Operation TORCH; that is, a landing in French North Africa.

It's also possible that the Allies would make the first invasion of Europe in Spain.

Remote possibility: invasion of Norway. Churchill wanted it, but the terrain is damn near impossible.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

I think the big problem here is that the Atlantic Wall doesn't stretches into Italy. Even if the Germans manage to beat the Soviet Union and put all their units into France, the WAllies can still land in Spain, Southern France, Italy, Jugoslavia or Greece without encountering any German coastal fortifications.

 

[BooNZ]

I am stating that the U.S. had OPLANs for exactly that scenario, which is historical fact, not conjecture, not Glorious America, not wankery. Fact. We fully intended to fight the Germans *by ourselves* if necessary. We only mobilized 50% of what we planned even historically.

The US "had plans?" - oh f**k the Germans are sooo screwed...

 

[BooNZ]

I think the big problem here is that the Atlantic Wall doesn't stretches into Italy. Even if the Germans manage to beat the Soviet Union and put all their units into France, the WAllies can still land in Spain, Southern France, Italy, Jugoslavia or Greece without encountering any German coastal fortifications.

Conversely, OTL the majority of the real fighting was on the Eastern front so the western allies could use overwhelming numbers - in qualitative terms, the Germans can bring the pain if the allies attempt landings in such challenging terrain.

 

[SunilTanna]

The problem with the USA only versus Germany scenarios are they only work with hindsight.

At the time, it was widely assumed that Germany was stronger than it was. So while this might defeat Germany, it would be assumed to be a closer run thing and to do so at enormous cost.

The nuke your way through idea doesn't work either, because the manhattan project was a closely guarded secret, and even among those in the know, there was a fear (incorrect we know only with hindsight) that Germany might beat them to the punch. This fear will be even greater in this atl when nobody in the west knows what might be going on in the east.

So I think there will be a push in the US for peace with Germany, because the mountain looks unclimbable.

The top brass, FDR etc., meanwhile press ahead with max speed with the a-bomb project, and continue the war against Japan, in case there is a 2nd round with Germany.

At that point the UK has no real choice but to follow the US lead.