What are the chances of an allied victory if the USSR falls to nazi Germany? How can they achieve it and hot long it will realistically take
Allied victory if Russia falls in WW 2
- Thread starter Vishnustarlord
- Start date
Good Luck. It would (in the event of an unlikely Soviet surrender; Stalin would have accepted 100 million casualties to win against Germany if need be) The Allies probably wouldn't have been able to land in France with about 4 million extra men across the front. Any attempt to land in Italy might be successful, but they would need to attack everywhere, at all times, and constantly bomb German transport and Industry. They might require more than 10 years, but I guess it's possible that it could be done.
Borisbogdanov
Banned
If the USSR falls in early 1943 after a sucessfull Case Blue, the Allies have no chance of winning the war. Sure they win in NA by May 43 as OTL, but:
Out of their 3 Million Men Army the Germans can immediately send 1 Million to reinforce the West/South while 500 000+ can be demobilised and sent into Industry/AA duty
The Germans get spared the 5 Million dead/captured soldiers in the East 43-45 period, so the Germans have soldiers/workers in abundance and tanks/guns/trucks/Anti tank guns
There is less need for forced labour in the factories, this boosts production
A lot more shot down Allied bombers/fighters because in 43 around 1/3 of the LW was in the East and still 1/4 in 44 + AA guns manned by professionals and not kids/POW´s
A lot more people to accelerate projects like the Wasserfall, R4M and the impact fuse (which was operational by early 45 and trippled the number of shot down bombers). So either the Allied dont invade out of fear of casualties - which will lead the Americans to concentrate on Japan and the abandonment of the war in Europe, or they invade and sustain horrendous casualties to the point that they run out of manpower.
OTL the British were out of manpopwer and breaking up Divisions in order to replace losses, allthough they lost only 40 000 dead/missing in NW Europe in 44-45 and some 20 000 in Italy 43-45. If the losses are 100 000 or 200 000 + dead/missing during 43-45 in Italy alone, they cannot cope.
The Nuke is no factor at all, because by the summer of 43 no one knows if it will work, whenit will be ready and only about 10 000 people out of 200 Million know about its existence anyway. Once the US defeats Japan, it will not restart the war in Europe. This is not 1984 - there is war weariness and perpetual war is impossible.
Out of their 3 Million Men Army the Germans can immediately send 1 Million to reinforce the West/South while 500 000+ can be demobilised and sent into Industry/AA duty
The Germans get spared the 5 Million dead/captured soldiers in the East 43-45 period, so the Germans have soldiers/workers in abundance and tanks/guns/trucks/Anti tank guns
There is less need for forced labour in the factories, this boosts production
A lot more shot down Allied bombers/fighters because in 43 around 1/3 of the LW was in the East and still 1/4 in 44 + AA guns manned by professionals and not kids/POW´s
A lot more people to accelerate projects like the Wasserfall, R4M and the impact fuse (which was operational by early 45 and trippled the number of shot down bombers). So either the Allied dont invade out of fear of casualties - which will lead the Americans to concentrate on Japan and the abandonment of the war in Europe, or they invade and sustain horrendous casualties to the point that they run out of manpower.
OTL the British were out of manpopwer and breaking up Divisions in order to replace losses, allthough they lost only 40 000 dead/missing in NW Europe in 44-45 and some 20 000 in Italy 43-45. If the losses are 100 000 or 200 000 + dead/missing during 43-45 in Italy alone, they cannot cope.
The Nuke is no factor at all, because by the summer of 43 no one knows if it will work, whenit will be ready and only about 10 000 people out of 200 Million know about its existence anyway. Once the US defeats Japan, it will not restart the war in Europe. This is not 1984 - there is war weariness and perpetual war is impossible.
The war ends in late 1946/early 1947, with much of Germany a radioactive wasteland and the former USSR a nightmare patchwork of warring states.
Deleted member 1487
Depends on when the USSR falls and how. In 1941 due to Moscow being taken, then the Allies probably cuts a deal. In 1942 probably the same. By 1943 though I don't see the Allies giving up so easily. If their invasion of Italy or France is defeated then maybe.
thaddeus
Donor
my speculation is always Leningrad and Kiev in quick succession in 1941, they have cleared the Baltic for their own use, if they could have or would have struck a deal with some type of Soviet regime that required weapons and materials to be turned over?
it just seems a lot more likely to end WWII than if the Germans were still marauding around a larger version of Yugoslavia?
Deleted member 1487
I don't see Hitler cutting a deal with the Soviets especially having had more success ITTL. He never intended to IOTL:
Ural Mountains in Nazi planning - Wikipedia
This, pretty much. The Allies know there's no deal to be had with Hitler and they know the Bomb is coming. It'll be all down to how much damage Germany is willing to take before the army lynches the Nazis and forces a surrender.
Tbh I'm not so sure the atom bomb would be usable. The USAF/RAF would still need to gain air superiority to get the nuclear bombers to the targets. With no eastern front to divert so many aircraft and resources, and no shortage of fuel, the Luftwaffe would be a far stronger opponent than in OTL. A combination of "full oil production" plus "more production to aviation fuels" (since the army would have far less work...) would ensure the Luftwaffe would never run out, Which would not only not curtail the number of sorties, it would also mean aviation cadets would get far more flying hours, which increases their quality. Without the need for so many fighter bombers, more production and design capability would be diverted to air-air models. I'd bet that, at the very least, the Ta-152 would show up earlier; if Germany can solve it's supplies of strategic materials from non-allied blocked sources (a lot easier to do, with increased control of Europe, less diversion to the army and an USSR that could be forced to supply at least part), then the jet engine program would get the high-density alloys it required. Which might very well mean M2-262s flying over Germany in late 1943.
All of this would mean that Germany would be a lot stronger in the air. Short of launching 1000 bomber raids over Germany, with 2-3 nuclear B-29s hidden in teh middle, all covered by hundreds of fighters, i don't see how it could be done. And at least severall hundreds of the bombers would have to be B-29s, otherwise the nuclear carriers would sitck out like a sore thumb...
All of this would mean that Germany would be a lot stronger in the air. Short of launching 1000 bomber raids over Germany, with 2-3 nuclear B-29s hidden in teh middle, all covered by hundreds of fighters, i don't see how it could be done. And at least severall hundreds of the bombers would have to be B-29s, otherwise the nuclear carriers would sitck out like a sore thumb...
Here are some quality threads on this topic.
How bad would WAllied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?
Sometime in 1941/42 the Reich defeats the USSR, Stalin dies and civil war ensues allowing Germany to occupy the country up to the Ural Mountains. They are still at war with Britain and the US. Assuming they have the political will to defeat Nazi Germany (after they defeat Japan) how many...
www.alternatehistory.com
Would the B-36 be a magic bullet against Germany if they defeated the USSR?
If the Reich successfully defeated the USSR and occupied it up to the Urals (like in Fatherland and AANW) would B-36 bombers (as flawed as they were) armed with nuclear bombs really be a plausible solution for the WAllies to win the war against a far more powerful Germany/Wehrmacht if they chose...
www.alternatehistory.com
Would the atomic bomb be a magic bullet against Germany if they defeated the USSR?
In a scenario similar to AANW where the Reich has defeated the USSR and occupied it up to the Urals due to a successful Barbarossa/Case Blue would the atomic bomb be a magic bullet as some make it seem so that the war in Europe ends in 1946 as opposed to the war dragging on for years as the...
www.alternatehistory.com
Operation Barbarossa succeeds. How soon can the WAllies plausibly attempt a landing?
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...
www.alternatehistory.com
Would the Wallies have made peace if Stalin dropped out of WW2?
Based on a discussion around the Soviets doing worse from late 1941 on, it would seem that there might be a situation by 1943 that the Soviets might really consider making a separate peace to save the Soviet regime from collapsing. If that were to happen due to a food crisis, so that by July...
www.alternatehistory.com
Last edited:
History Learner
Banned
It's a popular viewpoint, but it's more of a Post-War myth in the cultural imagination than one backed up by contemporary sentiments. See American Popular Opinion and the War Against Germany: The Issue of Negotiated Peace, 1942 by Richard W. Steele, The Journal of American History, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Dec., 1978), pp. 704-723. With the USSR out, it's very likely political conditions in the U.S. would become amendable to a settlement.
McPherson
Banned
This is a good question. At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, the Germans would discover what the Russians knew about the Manhattan Project if their criminal regime's victory comes in 1943, because I do not think the Germans have any chance before Stalingrad. They have to take the Caucasus and carry the war to the Urals to force a peace with Rump Russia.
That means the race is on even hotter and it will be a near thing (1946-1948 before the Germans figure out their wrong approach and understand the chemistry and mechanics and finally produce a working prototype?).
Delivery methods?
The B29 is a very troubled aircraft. It is the American He177. It was that bad in 1944. Only delivery system for the Wally bomb, though. So it is 1945 and the Germans have been bombing Britain with V-weapons since 1944. Not too safe to bomb from aouthern England. How about North Africa? Possible, since the Wallies can and will control it and the Middle East. (Seapower has its advantages.).
Morality...
To kill the criminal Berlin regime, then means bombardment from North African airbases and it must be aimed at metropolitan Germany. The only possible airpower approach that is legitimate is to attack "military" targets. If Allied intelligence is good enough, this would legitimately mean rocket factories, troop concentrations, ports, airfields and key strategic communications hubs (rails, and roads and bridges and tunnels across geographic barriers) and the SEAT of Nazi power wherever it moves, after Berlin is hit.
The problem, is the war-crimes, and the massed civilian deaths that this "legitimate target list" operation implies. My stomach churns in revulsion at the implications of the results. We could see in a 40 atomic bomb campaign, as many as 8 million people killed immediately and maybe another 12 million permanently sickened by fall out. Doubtless, even the criminal Nazi regime would be overthrown in the face of such absolute horror, but the moral implications of the process would have to be politically confronted by the perpetrators of the atomic ATROCITY. For make no mistake... at the Nuremburg trials that follow, instead of a clear case against the criminals who made those trials necessary, there will be many revaunchist survivors; who will make the claim that the "hypothetical Wally atomic bombings" were equivalent to the crimes for which the Nazis and the many people who aided them to flourish in the doing of those crimes, were guilty.
It would be difficult for some people to morally distinguish between the atrocities. Motives involved are a squishy thing; when a million deaths become a mere Stalinist punch line, credited to that other mass murdering criminal's twisted sadistic sick sense of humor.
Make no mistake, each person killed in a war of aggression is MURDERED (or any war.). The guilty people are the ones who started that process of murder. A "just" war: when one fights to stop the aggressor and end his murders; is the motive difference, but people are still being murdered. It is HARD to tell people, that we, who claim to be the just ones, had to murder 8 million human beings of an aggressor nation with an atomic bomb campaign to finally stop them from murdering far more than the 38 million individual and unique human lives they have ended so far (RTL results of WWII Europe dead as counted by some estimates.). Not to mention to burn out their poisonous hate-filled, colonialist imperialist, racism-based, bigoted, rotten, evil and utterly sadistic political ideology.
Some people will not get it. I am historically thankful that the great Russian people through their courage, sacrifice and victorious efforts and DESPITE STALIN, made such a horrific atomic bomb campaign possibility completely unnecessary. MOO.
McP.
Last edited:
Besides the fact that actually successfully dropping them on German territory against a much stronger Luftwaffe and AA defense is easier said than done, unless Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler are killed atomic bombs wouldn’t faze them.
The Nazi leadership didn’t surrender when millions of their soldiers and citizens were dying, dozens of their cities were destroyed and firebombed, old men and children were used as cannon fodder and the Red Army was in Berlin firing 203mm howitzers at point blank range into buildings within a mile of Hitler’s bunker. Why would they surrender when they have achieved the Nazi dream of occupying the USSR to the Urals, have a much more formidable military without taking the millions of casualties they did IOTL, strategic depth, tens of millions of slave laborers and all the other benefits that would come with defeating the USSR early?
In CalBear’s AANW the Reich didn’t surrender after a dozen nuclear weapons were used along with massive amounts of anthrax. That’s the likeliest outcome as long as the likes of Hitler are left in charge.
Garrison
Donor
A Nazi atomic bomb is decidedly less likely than the Nazis defeating the USSR, and that is not very likely at all.
About USAAF bombers and German air defense :
Forget the B29, if a nuclear strike is made by the US against Germany, it will be with B36.
If USSR fall in 1943, the USAAF will accelerate development of the intercontinental bomber.
B36 fly too high to be reached by Me262 or Wasserfall, and is too fast to be intercepted by Ta152 (at 13000m, Ta152 on nitrous oxide boost is less than 50km/h faster than B36 and less manoeuvrable).
Forget the B29, if a nuclear strike is made by the US against Germany, it will be with B36.
If USSR fall in 1943, the USAAF will accelerate development of the intercontinental bomber.
B36 fly too high to be reached by Me262 or Wasserfall, and is too fast to be intercepted by Ta152 (at 13000m, Ta152 on nitrous oxide boost is less than 50km/h faster than B36 and less manoeuvrable).