Allied victory if Russia falls in WW 2

DOWNFALL would have resulted in 250,000 American dead at least. There is a good chance the Berlin regime would quit just as the Japanese did once they realized the "rain of ruin"; as Truman put, it was a certainty and their "conquests" (Russians are coming or in the Germans' case the Wallies) were no longer viable. The Germans were not THAT STUPID. Even a Himmler or a Goebbels cannot stop their underlings from killing them and suing for peace on any terms that allows for a chance of personal survival. (As Hirohito personally did through his ministers, I might sarcastically add.)
Any overthrow of Hitler in a TL where the Nazis accomplished their main ideological objective of defeating and occupying the USSR making them a true continental power able to fight the UK and America with their full strength is highly unlikely (atomic bomb or no).

The July 20th plot aside (which only involved a few hundred members and came about because the war was going badly for the Reich and the plotters thought they could make peace with the WAllies and continue fighting the USSR), the German military leadership never broke their oath to Hitler and attempted to overthrow him. IOTL almost 800,000 German troops died between June and August 1944 and the German government/Party leadership didn’t throw in the towel. In the last 5 months of the war in Europe over 1.2 million German troops died along with hundreds of thousands of civilians and the surrender only occurred after Hitler was dead and Dönitz was named his successor.

First generation atomic bombs (10 to 20 kilotons) aren’t war winners or miracle weapons like modern nuclear weapons. They’re just bigger bombs that require only one plane instead of 1000. They wouldn’t be as effective against German cities as they were against Japan due to the difference in construction. IOTL Hitler, the Nazi leadership and the High Command weren’t fazed by the numerous fire bombings and destruction of German cities (to the point where the WAllies were running out of targets and had to attack smaller and smaller targets), millions of citizens killed, starving, sick or made homeless, millions of enemy troops on German soil and the use of hundreds of thousands of conscripted civilians (including the elderly and children) as cannon fodder.

Why would an atomic bomb somehow have the required impact to make a coup happen against the men who restored the Reich to greatness, vanquished the Jewish Bolshevisk menace and conquered the highly sought after Lebensraum when all of the above factors mentioned didn’t (hand waving the difficulty of actually dropping an atomic bomb on a German target)?

There was ample opportunity (especially in 1945) for the High Command and the government to overthrow Hitler and surrender in the face of the Allied onslaught but yet it never happened whether due to their oaths to the Fuhrer, fanaticism, fear of reprisal for them and their families if the coup failed, fear of Allied prosecution, love of country, military professionality, responsibility for atrocities, etc.

If a coup didn’t happen IOTL when Germany was almost entirely occupied and on the verge of defeat why would it happen when they now have control of most of Europe from the English Channel to Russia along with increased resources and military power with the only major combat theater being North Africa?
 
Last edited:
Too much ASB thinking. in this thread, I suggest this: Resource.

Back way before WWII, the USG ran a survey of resources available and known at that time. Some of the things they noted were that rubber and silk would be a major US problem as would be Wolfram and some trace minerals for making special classes of steel ALLOYS. They noted that the British were in bad shape in some areas but in much better shape then the US. Also they noted that referent enemies, like Germany and Japan were SCREWED., They did not have chrome or bismuth or antimony or other CRITICAL strategic materials for drill bits, hardened high tensile steels or high temperature aluminum and iron alloys.

Like turbo chargers (future jet engines) or armored plate or high velocity shot. Also there would be problems at some point with automotive components like ship's and tank's transmission systems. Does ANY of this sound familiar?

It should. IOW, I don't give a a farthing about the fantasies, but I do care about plausible and the provable and I do care about what the professionals of the time knew and what they actually said and did. Groves said what I wrote he said and nothing changes it. Nothing.

Also/… The Germans' criminal regime (Read NAZIs) are not going to win even if they get to Vladisvostok. They don't have enough time, they don't have a coherent infrastructure and transport system, they don't have the resource exploitation know how (It was the British who invented Inconel and the Japanese who substituted copper for chrome in some of their high temperature alloys, while the Germans had jet engines and rocket motors that melted.) and they don't have the scientists industrial engineers and tech base talent that the Wallies have. They do not even have enough people to do what they would have to do to stand off the West. Or it would be the Germans with MANHATTAN.

Not to mention that with their racist, ego-centric and vile evilly twisted view of humanity, they lack the basic common sense and decency to make the best use of what limited human talent pool they did have.

So with that written I will FINALLY ENDIT.
 
Great, so that supplies the Caucasus. What about the rest of Russia?
That could actually cause problems for Japan.
Japan may try something against a seemingly defeated Soviet Union and you could see are you could see an American occupation of the Kamchatka peninsula to supply Soviet partisans with weapons as well as act as a base four operations against Japan.
allied air bases on the Kamchatka peninsula and a submarine base in Vladivostok would be a nightmare for Japan.
 
That could actually cause problems for Japan.
Japan may try something against a seemingly defeated Soviet Union and you could see are you could see an American occupation of the Kamchatka peninsula to supply Soviet partisans with weapons as well as act as a base four operations against Japan.
allied air bases on the Kamchatka peninsula and a submarine base in Vladivostok would be a nightmare for Japan.
Neither are possible, however.
 
Assuming the Reich defeats the USSR in 1941 how would the defeat of Japan unfold in your opinion?

Would the WAllies choose to bomb and blockade or would they actually invade Japan (Operation Downfall)?
Depends on the situation in Europe. Blockade and Starve, based on the available evidence and as JCS noted at the time, would probably fail. Invading in anything like OTL conditions definitely would fail.
 
Depends on the situation in Europe. Blockade and Starve, based on the available evidence and as JCS noted at the time, would probably fail.
This is new information to me. What evidence suggests it would fail?
Invading in anything like OTL conditions definitely would fail.
Can you elaborate?

Assuming the WAllies haven’t landed in Nazi occupied France yet, why wouldn’t American and British firepower, technology and resources eventually defeat the Japanese war machine (after an extremely bloody campaign)?
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the germans were far ahead on rockets. Even if they don't get the nuke (I've read they were on a completely wrong path, science-wise), a dirty bomb on top of a next gen V2 capable of reaching New York is not off the table.



By which time another generation of german fighters will be up and running, and SAMs will be as well.

Tbh, if the USAF/RAF can't get the job done till 1948-50, i doubt the war will go on. The political and economical stress will begin to tell (specially for the UK); and I assume the war will Japan will go on? A Japan can now receive tech support overland, via USSR? Even if trains won't go past, I'm sure long range cargo aircraft can transport high-level itens, like schematics, eletronics, etc. I think Japan still looses, but it can prolong the fight.
IIRC, in real life the US division of resources was originally 85/15 with the bulk going against Germany, after Pacific command lobbied for a more equitable distribution it was changed to 70/30. In the alternate timeline we're in that almost certainly doesn't happen leading to a prolonged Pacific War.
 
Last edited:
Too much ASB thinking. in this thread, I suggest this: Resource.

Back way before WWII, the USG ran a survey of resources available and known at that time. Some of the things they noted were that rubber and silk would be a major US problem as would be Wolfram and some trace minerals for making special classes of steel ALLOYS. They noted that the British were in bad shape in some areas but in much better shape then the US. Also they noted that referent enemies, like Germany and Japan were SCREWED., They did not have chrome or bismuth or antimony or other CRITICAL strategic materials for drill bits, hardened high tensile steels or high temperature aluminum and iron alloys.

Like turbo chargers (future jet engines) or armored plate or high velocity shot. Also there would be problems at some point with automotive components like ship's and tank's transmission systems. Does ANY of this sound familiar?

It should. IOW, I don't give a a farthing about the fantasies, but I do care about plausible and the provable and I do care about what the professionals of the time knew and what they actually said and did. Groves said what I wrote he said and nothing changes it. Nothing.

Also/… The Germans' criminal regime (Read NAZIs) are not going to win even if they get to Vladisvostok. They don't have enough time, they don't have a coherent infrastructure and transport system, they don't have the resource exploitation know how (It was the British who invented Inconel and the Japanese who substituted copper for chrome in some of their high temperature alloys, while the Germans had jet engines and rocket motors that melted.) and they don't have the scientists industrial engineers and tech base talent that the Wallies have. They do not even have enough people to do what they would have to do to stand off the West. Or it would be the Germans with MANHATTAN.

Not to mention that with their racist, ego-centric and vile evilly twisted view of humanity, they lack the basic common sense and decency to make the best use of what limited human talent pool they did have.

So with that written I will FINALLY ENDIT.
Doesn't the fact that the Germans would employ many of the Soviet experts in these fields(as the Allies and Soviets did OTL regarding German experts) change some of this?
 
Doesn't the fact that the Germans would employ many of the Soviet experts in these fields(as the Allies and Soviets did OTL regarding German experts) change some of this?
No. They have not been denazified, so...

Not to mention that with their racist, ego-centric and vile evilly twisted view of humanity, they lack the basic common sense... and decency to make the best use of what limited human talent pool they did have.
Just look at how the Ukrainians were treated.
 
Last edited:
Even if they managed to conquer the USSR's lands they would have massive amounts of rebel, massive strain on them, and their horrific and stupid racism wouldn't allow them to harness the talent of the areas they conquered. They lack any ability of foresight beyond their fanatic racial views, and they lack any ability to be sensible, or make sensible decisions. It's the reason why they lost the war in the first place. The war would be longer, but the allies would still win. With Japan taken care of, the Nazis would like likely have been nuked off the face the Earth.
 
This is new information to me. What evidence suggests it would fail?
JCS looked at it and figured it would take years, beyond the capacity of the political willpower of the public to sustain to complete such a campaign. The Japanese would lose about 7 million to starvation, but the militarists could hold onto power.

Can you elaborate?

Assuming the WAllies haven’t landed in Nazi occupied France yet, why wouldn’t American and British firepower, technology and resources eventually defeat the Japanese war machine (after an extremely bloody campaign)?
Yes, it would and could. It would be an exceptionally blood campagin with the initial attempt, if set up like that of OTL, doomed to failure; overtime, however, the reasons you outline will take precedence. For me the question becomes one of how the U.S. is spending resources.
 
JCS looked at it and figured it would take years, beyond the capacity of the political willpower of the public to sustain to complete such a campaign. The Japanese would lose about 7 million to starvation, but the militarists could hold onto power.
Postwar survey showed that was nonsense. Japanese agriculture had collapsed. One winter and the surrender follows, not the year the JCS assumed.
 
Postwar survey showed that was nonsense. Japanese agriculture had collapsed. One winter and the surrender follows, not the year the JCS assumed.
Postwar surveys by both American and Japanese experts concurred that was not the case, and the modern research backs it up. To quote Gianreco:

The potential problems relating to keeping the population of occupied Kyushu fed and relatively healthy during an invasion, however, paled in comparison with those faced elsewhere in Japan after the surrender, and began as early as the winter of 1945–46. Agricultural experts within the U.S. Military calculated in 1944 that there would be enough food available to sustain the population on a subsistence level but had correctly foreseen that “the possibility of localized famines beginning within the first few months of 1946 was a very real possibility.” 15 Some factors, such as the willingness, or unwillingness, of Tokyo and the prefectoral governments to feed millions of “excess mouths” not directly contributing to the war effort, could not be known. U.S. military and civilian officials privy to Magic intercepts duly took note, however, that the anguished warnings by the Japanese ambassador to Moscow, Sato Naotake—including that if the fall 1945 harvest failed the nation would face “absolute famine”—were disdainfully rejected by his superiors. 16 It was also clear that a disruption of the rail system by U.S. air power plus the growing number of refugees would likely collapse the system and that “we’d eventually have to pick up the pieces.” 17

Some today assert, in effect, that it would have been more humane to have just continued the conventional B-29 bombing of Japan, which in six months had killed nearly 178,000 people and displaced or rendered homeless more than 8 million, than to have dropped the atom bombs or launched an invasion. 18 They also imply that the growing U.S. naval blockade would have soon forced a surrender because the Japanese faced imminent starvation. U.S. planners at the time, however, weren’t nearly so bold, and the whole reason why advocates of tightening the noose around the Home Islands came up with so many different estimates of when blockade and bombardment might force Japan to surrender was because the situation wasn’t nearly as cut and dried as it appears today, even when that nation’s ocean supply lines were severed. 19

Japan would indeed have become “a nation without cities,” as urban populations suffered grievously under the weight of Allied bombing, but over half the population during the war lived and worked on farms. 20 Back then the system of price supports that has encouraged Japanese farmers today to convert practically every square foot of their land to rice cultivation did not exist. There was more food available in rural areas than is generally understood as wheat was widely grown, and large vegetable gardens were a standard feature of a family’s land. 21 Food reserves existed that were largely unaccounted for immediately after the war because responsibility for the storage and distribution of strategic stocks had been moved from national to principally prefectoral control in April due to the anticipated destruction of the transportation system (see chapter 7), and farmers had begun to hoard their crops in contravention of government directives.

The idea that the Japanese were about to run out of food any time soon was largely derived from exaggerated interpretations of the “Summary Report,” to the 104 reports in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey for the Pacific war, and the well-documented fear among some Japanese leaders that shortages could lead to severe unrest.
22 The idea that the Japanese were on the brink of starvation is usually (and rather loosely) attributed to the USSBS and the official Army Air Force history. However, using survey findings, what editors James Lea Cate and James C. Olson did in the multivolume history The Army Air Forces in World War II, was to detail the successful U.S. mine-laying efforts against Japanese shipping, which essentially cut Japanese oil and food imports, and they stated only that by mid-August “the calorie count of the average man’s fare had shrunk dangerously.” 23

Obviously some historians enthusiasm for the point they are trying to make has gotten the better of them since the reduced nutritional value of meals is somewhat different than imminent starvation. But the life-and-death question for a family that might well find itself in one of the areas of “localized famine” within as few as six months was how would the militarists in charge of their prefecture or district, who essentially believed that the population was expendable, allot the dwindling food supplies in the midst of an invasion? One indication of what likely would have transpired came from future prime minister Yoshida Shigeru, who before war-surplus food stocks from across the Pacific were rushed to Japan stated in January 1946 that as many as 10 million might die of starvation and malnutrition in “spot famines” that were forecast to begin by the summer of that year. 2

10 Million sucks, of course, but that's not collapse and is proportionally basically what the Soviets endurred.
 
You would do well to read this instead of that nonsense: because I have had this discussion before and I was certainly surprised at the foolish errors trotted out then. Summary; The peasant farmers were hoarding and hiding food and the Tokyo regime was starting to face something unheard of in modern Meiji Japan. Civil disobedience and rebellion and bread riots. Besides, the rice harvest in 1945 had failed and existing stockpiles were ROTTING since the storage had been fire bombed.

As for the Russian example? The UNITED STATES was feeding Russia through lend lease. Billions of bushels of wheat. Who was feeding the Japanese?

Sheesh.
 
Top