“We need to sue for peace” type of losses for allies

[Gillan1220]

@CalBear has a story: The Anglo/American - Nazi War.

The premise is a vague POD in early 1941 where Hitler DOES NOT support Mussolini's North Africa campaign.

This frees up the manpower needed for North Africa which are later sent to the USSR during Operation Barbarossa.

Spoiler

After the Nazis win in Stalingrad by 1943, Stalin goes apeshit, executes his generals, and the USSR never recovers until FM Molotov takes over and surrenders to the Reich. Before that, the Allies tried to divert the Germans' attention by a huge paratrooper landing in the Channel Islands. It is a symbolic and ego-boosting victory for the Allies at best as it did not lodge the Germans in the Eastern Front. To add insult to the injury, the Germans captured a lot of American Lend-Lease aid that the Red Army used prior to their defeat. The Allies realize that Altantic Wall is impenetrable so they sue for a ceasefire.

This leads to a ceasefire between the Allies and the Reich that last from 1943 to 1954, until the second phase of WWII reginites.

 

[Ozpin]

The Wallies will have to suffer over a million casualties in a failed attempt at defeating Fortress Europa. Then all that would get is a Peace of Amiens situation.

 

[Samsonov]

One is already hard pressed to come up with a scenario where Downfall fails once. A scenario in which it fails twice is even more inconceivable. The only possible thing I can think of is Japan using nuclear devices against the invasion fleets for Olympic and Coronet.

So I am outlining what sort of casualties it would take for the US to start thinking about peace terms. Undeniably, having two Downfalls being a complete failure would require many PODs which may or may not be ASB, with the possible exception of a major weeks long storm hitting the invasion force the day after landing.

 

[Jacarí]

Well no because that's an utterly impossible scenario. Perhaps you could provide what you think is a vaguely realistic one?

You need a KM expressly designed for trade interdiction, but within the AGNA limits, to hide its purpose and make it viable and feasible.

And LW support.

 

[Garrison]

You need a KM expressly designed for trade interdiction, but within the AGNA limits, to hide its purpose and make it viable and feasible.

And LW support.

Well the latter probably requires also removing Goering and a fair number of other senior Luftwaffe officers. Also while the Kriegsmarine building a raiding fleet is sensible I'm not sure they can keep it secret and the British have the shipyard capacity to churn out plenty of ships to counter such raiders, and of course more surface raiders in the Atlantic increases the risk of clashes with the USN.

 

[Jacarí]

Well the latter probably requires also removing Goering and a fair number of other senior Luftwaffe officers. Also while the Kriegsmarine building a raiding fleet is sensible I'm not sure they can keep it secret and the British have the shipyard capacity to churn out plenty of ships to counter such raiders, and of course more surface raiders in the Atlantic increases the risk of clashes with the USN.

Well, the KM turned from diesel to high pressure steam in the expectation of improving range and speed... they failed, but the RN was aware of KM expectations and assumed the worst.

The KM could just build diesel Scharnhorsts without causing a fuss, and they did plan on building carriers, contracts for the first pair were signed by the end of 1935, so they could be ready by 1939, with a second pair in construction.

The Hippers turned out to be lemons, but they were built as long range CAs, they could and did (badly) raid commerce lines. Just a diesel version.

The RN was aware of all the above and planned accordingly.

Yes, Goering would have to go, but just him. A few squadrons of long range scouts would do.

And working torpedoes.

 

[Kalakali]

Just wondering what would in your estimates be losses required for major allied nations like Britain or US in order to sue for peace. This isn’t a question of was it possible merely what was required to make them sue for peace on the basis of current land control.

Just to clarify since I know it’s popular to say oh if they lost X they’d just come back with more. And yes, they would but there’s a limit. If there were 10 D day landings failing in a row and 40 million dead Americans on the beaches that would probably be a peace settlement. If Royal Navy lost every ship larger than a Cruiser by 1941 that’s probably a wrap. These are massive examples that go too far but I’m just curious about your durability estimate of US and Britain.

Not quite what you're asking, but if France doesn't fall in 1940 and someone like Robert Taft gets elected US President that year, and the Schwarze Kapelle or someone similar actually succeed in launching an anti-Nazi coup in Germany in 1940 or 1941, might the Germans actually be able to bleed the Anglo-French sufficiently dry up to the point that the Anglo-French will agree to hold plebiscites in the disputed areas (Danzig, the Polish Corridor (minus Gdynia, which would be guaranteed to remain Polish), the Memelland, possibly the Sudetenland, Austria, and/or Eupen as well) and abandon or at least significantly reduce their demands for war reparations from Germany in exchange for Germany withdrawing from the rest of Poland and maybe even agreeing to do a joint post-WWII ultimatum together with the Anglo-French to the Soviet Union to demand that the Soviet Union withdraw from eastern Poland or else the Anglo-Franco-Germans will declare war upon the Soviet Union?

 

[Garrison]

Not quite what you're asking, but if France doesn't fall in 1940 and someone like Robert Taft gets elected US President that year, and the Schwarze Kapelle or someone similar actually succeed in launching an anti-Nazi coup in Germany in 1940 or 1941, might the Germans actually be able to bleed the Anglo-French sufficiently dry up to the point that the Anglo-French will agree to hold plebiscites in the disputed areas (Danzig, the Polish Corridor (minus Gdynia, which would be guaranteed to remain Polish), the Memelland, possibly the Sudetenland, Austria, and/or Eupen as well) and abandon or at least significantly reduce their demands for war reparations from Germany in exchange for Germany withdrawing from the rest of Poland and maybe even agreeing to do a joint post-WWII ultimatum together with the Anglo-French to the Soviet Union to demand that the Soviet Union withdraw from eastern Poland or else the Anglo-Franco-Germans will declare war upon the Soviet Union?

There's little to no chance of an anti-Nazi coup in 1940-41 and the idea that this would somehow make the Germans more militarily competent is myth generated by the post war memoirs of the German generals. Also if France doesn't fall in 1940 the overall French strategy called for them to essentially dig and engage in a war of attrition, so it would be the Germans who would face being bled white, not the Anglo-French. With mainland France not falling I doubt the Italians enter the war at all and if they do think they can get away with say attacking Greece I suspect it will go worse that OTL if the Germans are bogged down in the West and can't support them. The Japanese are a bit more of a wild card but the Army might win the argument to strike at the USSR.
As the situation drags on, and if the USSR turns the screws as far as demands for payment for the oil and food they are supplying, then there might be a coup in 1942, but it will be the Germans suing for peace.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Just wondering what would in your estimates be losses required for major allied nations like Britain or US in order to sue for peace. This isn’t a question of was it possible merely what was required to make them sue for peace on the basis of current land control.

Just to clarify since I know it’s popular to say oh if they lost X they’d just come back with more. And yes, they would but there’s a limit. If there were 10 D day landings failing in a row and 40 million dead Americans on the beaches that would probably be a peace settlement. If Royal Navy lost every ship larger than a Cruiser by 1941 that’s probably a wrap. These are massive examples that go too far but I’m just curious about your durability estimate of US and Britain.

Simple

Jack boots in Whitehall

Not so simple getting them there though!

 

[DJ03]

maybe Moscow-Berlin axis following op Pike (w/o butterflying the fall of France, ofc), similar to war makes for strange bed fellows, but w/o the scandinavian shenanigans.
and even in the above scenario, i think it's more likely going to be a korean type situation rather than negotiated peace

 

[DJ03]

different take based on an idea by CalBear

Actually, I've never quite bought into that part of the "received wisdom".

The Germans actually had a path that could, possibly likely would, had changed that dynamic. It is something that a savvy planning General Staff should have twigged to early on (the WAllies managed a version of it before the war even started). The Soviets 1st.

They needed to ask one question - After the flash knockout of France what country present an existential danger to the Reich? Only one reasonable answer exists, the USSR. The UK was on its heels and had no reasonable prospect of engaging the Reich in anything other than a few commando raids and what was, at the time, quite ineffective bombing. The Reich should have very publicly and loudly, especially in the United States and Canada (were were effectively, then as now, two separate countries that shared one media market, with U.S. radio stations and newspapers almost as available in Toronto as in Buffalo or as in Ottawa as in Erie, PA. or in Vancouver as in Seattle) proclaimed that they were immediately and unilaterally declaring a bombing holiday, with the only exceptions being in response to RAF attacks on civilian targets, and the end of all attacks on civilian shipping in the North Atlantic.

""The German People have no historic argument with our British cousins. We understand that His Majesty's Government* was honor bound to fulfill its obligations to the Polish and French Governments, honor demanded no less, but that fight is at an end. France and Poland have signed Peace Treaties with the German Reich. We offer an end to the war, without any territorial or monetary claims against the United Kingdom."

Goebbels was a special kind of bastard, in some ways worse than Goring, perhaps even Himmler (who, at least, didn't murder his own children to "save them from a world without National Socialism"), but he was, early on, fairly effective as a propagandist. In 1940 there was no particular desire by the American electorate to engage in another European War. The population of the UK was in full "in the fields" mode, but that was because of the Blitz, the U-Boats, and the Western Desert. Those realities were there to exploit.

Would it absolutely have worked? Possibly not, but it is lot easier to accept that there is nothing to come "but blood, toil, tears, and sweat" when the enemy is bombing you, when rationing is happening because so little is getting through the U-boats, and "we have to support our boys" than when the only time German planes appear is after the RAF bombs civilians "quite dastardly, don't you think?" and the only ships being lost is the odd destroyer.

Goes double for the U.S. "Why the Hell is that our Fight?" Isolationism was still a thing in 1940, not as strong as before, but a thing. The way the Nazi's handled France IOTL would play very nicely in this scenario "well, sure they are occupying Paris, but half the country is back under French rule already, and the President there is a WWI war hero who fought alongside Black Jack Pershing!". Country that was on most of the American electorate's radar, if any, was Japan thanks to what they were doing in China.

Even if the ploy failed, it wouldn't really cost the Reich much.


*I know that is the right term, by it really just LOOKS wrong, ya' know?

perhaps not 100% notzi territory, but pr savy nazis is still an unorthodox take.
also it'd require someone in charge in 1940 that isn't Hitler or Goering, i think

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Okay my take on the spirit of the challenge

1. Battle of the Atlantic goes worse for US/UK, note this does not come close to starving Britian, what it does is mean that there is less shipping available so low priority ops get cancelled. Europe has first priority but for political reasons there is only so far you can strip CBI and the Pacific, so I think it is plausible you could cancel Dragoon and Anzio, and probably delay overlord a month, which means two given the weather AFAIK
2. Battle of Britain goes worse for UK, this contributes to less shipping by allowing more use of the Luftwaffe against merchant traffic, and allows the Germans to maintain control of the sky for longer, delaying effective air attacks against their troops
3. US is less prepared for the air war as well, meaning it takes still longer to establish complete air supremacy
4. US Navy goes small sub route, so campaign against Japan is much less effective
5. Evacuation of Soviet industry is less effective, possible more stuff is destroyed instead of evacuated, so fewer tanks, AT guns and artillery pieces
6. Manhattan screws up, one of the early reactors is designed in such a way it can melt down and kill a bunch of physicists, A-Bomb delayed by six months to a year
7. Leningrad falls in 1941, this is somewhat possible with moderate PoDs, frees up a large amount of German troops and improves their logistics
8. Stalingrad falls in 1942, with weakened Soviets, extra reserves and improved logistics this is pretty possible, Germany does not take such heavy losses and the USSR takes worse, with their economy taking a major blow and one Lend Lease route is closed
9. Soviet mobile forces are effectively destroyed in 1943, taking Moscow is probably too far, but with stronger Germans/weaker Soviets the Red Army is ground down and weakened to the point where it can't launch a major offensive
10. There is a desperate battle for Moscow in 1944 lasting into August, to save the city Overlord is launched as soon as practical, but with less effective air support, more German reserves and two more months to dig fortifications, while successful no breakout is possible. Moscow falls and the majority of German armored forces are freed up for the west, resulting in WWI style trench fighting
11. With heavy German mobile reserves the US/UK keep inching forward through 1945 but cannot break out, a late Dragoon equivalent is also bottled up. With a less effective submarine campaign and no mining campaign due to lack of bases, need for B-29 in Europe, Japan is not starving, no A-Bomb is ready, strategic bombing of Japan is not happening while it is only just starting to be effective in Germany
12. 1946, with the A-Bomb used against German army HQs and air supremacy a third landing on the Atlantic coast of France is successful in breaking out, and the landings in France link up, followed by a link up with the front Italy before Germany again stabilizes the lines. Landings are made and liberate Crete and other Greek islands, while a toehold is established in the Balkans but logistics prevent a breakout. Japan is now being strategic bombed but still holds most of her conquests
13. 1947, successful offensive backed by nukes in the operational use clears the Scheldt and advances into the Netherlands, and a landing clears the Peloponnese in Greece, but heavy losses are suffered. Based on current projections it is estimated that it will be 1948 until the Ruhr is taken and 1949 until the last major industrial centers are taken, with some fighting to clear mountain redoubts into 1950, during which point US KIA will double. At this point Hitler dies of something and the Wehrmacht wins the ensuing power struggle, realizing that their situation is worse than the US/UK think, they offer a status quo ceasefire on current borders, leaving them in control of parts of France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Italy and their eastern conquests. The new US Congress decides that this is broadly acceptable, which forces the UK to accept it, though potentially with some partial adjustments in favor of the US/UK
14. In the Far East Japan has been kicked out of Burma, half of Thailand, part of Laos, the Solomons, New Guinea and the Philippines and Iwo Jima was recently taken, with horrendous US losses. They are also on the brink of starvation and have lost multiple cities to fire bombing with mining and the submarine campaign having basically killed their economy. Once more the US estimates that it will take a million casualties and more to subdue them, and Japanese leaders, knowing they are alone offer the same deal as Germany did, which the US decides to accept, again leaving the UK in the lurch

Estimate in this process the US takes in excess of a million military dead of all causes, with the UK probably around 800k military dead of all causes, plus 150-200k civilian dead

Note that neither directly sue for peace, rather they accept a deal for a ceasefire in place offered by the Germans

 

[Kalakali]

There's little to no chance of an anti-Nazi coup in 1940-41 and the idea that this would somehow make the Germans more militarily competent is myth generated by the post war memoirs of the German generals. Also if France doesn't fall in 1940 the overall French strategy called for them to essentially dig and engage in a war of attrition, so it would be the Germans who would face being bled white, not the Anglo-French. With mainland France not falling I doubt the Italians enter the war at all and if they do think they can get away with say attacking Greece I suspect it will go worse that OTL if the Germans are bogged down in the West and can't support them. The Japanese are a bit more of a wild card but the Army might win the argument to strike at the USSR.
As the situation drags on, and if the USSR turns the screws as far as demands for payment for the oil and food they are supplying, then there might be a coup in 1942, but it will be the Germans suing for peace.

Couldn't the Schwarze Kapelle--seeing the writing on the wall, but also seizing the moment--try launching a coup in order to try getting the best peace deal possible for Germany? Maybe making some back-channel contacts with the Anglo-French to see if they would be willing to offer plebiscites in some or all of the disputed areas in exchange for them doing an anti-Nazi coup in Germany and quickly ending the war? Maybe even restoring democracy in Germany and abolishing both the Nazi Party and all anti-Semitic discrimination in Germany?

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Okay my take on the spirit of the challenge

Estimate in this process the US takes in excess of a million military dead of all causes, with the UK probably around 800k military dead of all causes, plus 150-200k civilian dead

Note that neither directly sue for peace, rather they accept a deal for a ceasefire in place offered by the Germans

While well written, I still cannot foresee your proposed death toll alone being what deters America and Britain from pursuing the war to its conclusion, and certainly not deterring them to the point where they will let the Germans keep parts of France, Belgium, Holland and Italy. The eastern possessions are a possibility given that you have made the Soviet Union collapse, but they probably won't include Poland - or at least not all of Poland.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

While well written, I still cannot foresee your proposed death toll alone being what deters America and Britain from pursuing the war to its conclusion, and certainly not deterring them to the point where they will let the Germans keep parts of France, Belgium, Holland and Italy. The eastern possessions are a possibility given that you have made the Soviet Union collapse, but they probably won't include Poland - or at least not all of Poland.

It's not really the death toll alone but the possibility of a lot more. Basically it's not the fact that its 1 million dead that makes the US decide okay we'll stop here, it's one million and the possibility of another million before it is over that pushes the US to accept that they won't be doing unconditional surrender, well that and Hitler being dead and presumably a bunch of the nastier sorts of figures too. Once the idea that the war is for less than total victory accepted, well then things become more granular, because any dead are no longer in pursuit of total victory, but rather a stronger bargaining position, and is 5k dead really worth it to the US just for the Italians to keep the Trentino, or 3k dead for the Netherlands to keep Groningen or 1k dead for the French to get Belfort back?

And it's a ceasefire not a peace treaty, it may become a de facto peace treaty, but for the moment the US is not accepting that Germany will legally retain that territory, simply that German does not have to evacuate it as a precondition to starting negotiations

 

[Garrison]

Couldn't the Schwarze Kapelle--seeing the writing on the wall, but also seizing the moment--try launching a coup in order to try getting the best peace deal possible for Germany? Maybe making some back-channel contacts with the Anglo-French to see if they would be willing to offer plebiscites in some or all of the disputed areas in exchange for them doing an anti-Nazi coup in Germany and quickly ending the war? Maybe even restoring democracy in Germany and abolishing both the Nazi Party and all anti-Semitic discrimination in Germany?

Very unlikely, and not really what the OP seemed to be looking for.

 

[Vabasion]

Very unlikely, and not really what the OP seemed to be looking for.

I’d have said use a generic state as combatant but that would change willingness to fight due to Nazism and Fascism being disliked and a big motivating factor to desire to keep fighting longer. But the general idea is essentially one of Hearts of Iron War support mechanics. At what point does gen pop start desiring peace over achieving victory if victory means further years of war and millions of dead or alternatively in case of example I used with Britain - we just lost most of our capital ships before Christmas’s, how about we peace out and see what we can do later.

 

[Garrison]

I’d have said use a generic state as combatant but that would change willingness to fight due to Nazism and Fascism being disliked and a big motivating factor to desire to keep fighting longer. But the general idea is essentially one of Hearts of Iron War support mechanics. At what point does gen pop start desiring peace over achieving victory if victory means further years of war and millions of dead or alternatively in case of example I used with Britain - we just lost most of our capital ships before Christmas’s, how about we peace out and see what we can do later.

In a game like HOI there is some algorithm or piece of code that if you get a particular set of inputs generates a particular outcome, perhaps with an element of RNG thrown into mask how deterministic it actually is. The real world doesn't work like that. When a nation faces an existential threat it will keep going long past the point of reason. Instead of looking at the western allies in WW2, look at the other major participants such Germany, Japan and the USSR. All had objectively horrible regimes in charge that cared little for the people they ruled over and yet those people fought on, dying by the millions for governments that used them as cannon fodder. Yes there were attempts to assassinate Hitler, but the only threatened coup in Japan was aimed at prolonging the war. Italy threw in the towel, but that was partly the result of many Italians feeling they had gotten into a war for no good reason and that the western allies were not an existential threat.
What this boils down to is that I'm not just being melodramatic when I say that it would take enemy troops marching into Washington or London to get the respective nations to sue for peace if its perceived as a war for national survival as WW2 was. On the other hand if you are talking about a war in some corner of the world that the public doesn't care about a few thousand casualties might be enough to persuade one side to sue for peace.

 

[Vabasion]

In a game like HOI there is some algorithm or piece of code that if you get a particular set of inputs generates a particular outcome, perhaps with an element of RNG thrown into mask how deterministic it actually is. The real world doesn't work like that. When a nation faces an existential threat it will keep going long past the point of reason. Instead of looking at the western allies in WW2, look at the other major participants such Germany, Japan and the USSR. All had objectively horrible regimes in charge that cared little for the people they ruled over and yet those people fought on, dying by the millions for governments that used them as cannon fodder. Yes there were attempts to assassinate Hitler, but the only threatened coup in Japan was aimed at prolonging the war. Italy threw in the towel, but that was partly the result of many Italians feeling they had gotten into a war for no good reason and that the western allies were not an existential threat.
What this boils down to is that I'm not just being melodramatic when I say that it would take enemy troops marching into Washington or London to get the respective nations to sue for peace if its perceived as a war for national survival as WW2 was. On the other hand if you are talking about a war in some corner of the world that the public doesn't care about a few thousand casualties might be enough to persuade one side to sue for peace.

The reason I’m not using Germany or Soviets is that in case of Soviets they genuinely faced extermination as a wholesale ethno-national and ideological group, as in if Germans win they will kill us all or enslave us. Even in case of Soviet government surrendering the people would continue fighting simply because between chance of dying and definitely dying people will take a chance of it. Germans meanwhile believed the same will happen to them except rape instead of enslavement. It didn’t come to pass but Soviet boots will be marching into Germany if they lose or give up, no two ways around it. Meanwhile both Britain and US are in the unique position that they can’t really lose and even “losing” doesn’t mean German occupation or troops in their lands nevermind fear that if Germans win they’ll exterminate Americans or British people. Instead of a battle for survival it was a battle of belief and ideals and goals that they both could pull out of at more or less their leisure and will.

If you played Hears of Iron 2 you will remember scripted peace events that fired off if a country controlled certain territories.

What this question aims to do is get a set of parameters for a strategy game where you can force/get a peace on
US or Britain by breaking their will to fight/continue fighting. Not necessarily win and now you can decide what happens with continental US and Balkanize it, but merely “we’re out” (for now). It’s why realism of goals doesn’t matter - such as Sink 2/3 of British capitals by 1941, cause X cassualties on US while controlling X territory etc etc

 

[Garrison]

The reason I’m not using Germany or Soviets is that in case of Soviets they genuinely faced extermination as a wholesale ethno-national and ideological group, as in if Germans win they will kill us all or enslave us. Even in case of Soviet government surrendering the people would continue fighting simply because between chance of dying and definitely dying people will take a chance of it. Germans meanwhile believed the same will happen to them except rape instead of enslavement. It didn’t come to pass but Soviet boots will be marching into Germany if they lose or give up, no two ways around it. Meanwhile both Britain and US are in the unique position that they can’t really lose and even “losing” doesn’t mean German occupation or troops in their lands nevermind fear that if Germans win they’ll exterminate Americans or British people. Instead of a battle for survival it was a battle of belief and ideals and goals that they both could pull out of at more or less their leisure and will.

If you played Hears of Iron 2 you will remember scripted peace events that fired off if a country controlled certain territories.

What this question aims to do is get a set of parameters for a strategy game where you can force/get a peace on
US or Britain by breaking their will to fight/continue fighting. Not necessarily win and now you can decide what happens with continental US and Balkanize it, but merely “we’re out” (for now). It’s why realism of goals doesn’t matter - such as Sink 2/3 of British capitals by 1941, cause X cassualties on US while controlling X territory etc etc

Well if that's what you are looking for then I think you are in the wrong sub forum for that.