Different Kursk strategy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if after waiting too long, Hitler finally realizes that the Kursk salient is too well fortified and allow for a strategic withdrawal instead? Basically, he lets the Russians waste resources constructing a fortified salient that never gets used. Instead, this disjoints the Soviet counter offensives, allows Germany to maintain the rebuilt Panzerwaffe and make Guderian happy all at once. Basically it is kind of like the 1917 withdrawal to the Hindenburg line and allows Germany to go on the strategic defensive under favorable circumstances.
However, it also gives the Soviets a pass and their Tanks Corps are not chewed up in the historical battles that revolved around Zitadelle.
At the same time, German forces are not as attrited, which they cannot afford like the Soviets could.
Forgetting this was totally against the nature of Hitler, does this allow Germany to slow the Soviet offensives that are coming and possibly to force a stalemate?
 

Satrap

Donor
I think Rommel probably had the best strategy for dealing wiith Soviiet arrmour on the Eastern Front. He advocated withdrawing infront of the attack laying thick minefields and using masses of cheap anti-tank weapons. On this basis he thought that if the Wehrmacht laid 50km of minesfields, the Soviets could advance only 20 at tremendous cost in armour.

After horrendous losses in equipment the German army could counter-attack and retake lost ground and more.
 
If Hitler would have been persuaded to cancel Citadelle perhaps he would accept Mansteins proposal of a superbackhandblow also.
 
Going on the defensive is probably not the best move.

Consider that the Germans know that the soviets have put everything they have into this tiny area around Kursk. The best option then would be a series of limited offensives elsewhere where the Soviets are unprepared. It was too late, I think for Manstiens plan to be implemented though.

But I don't think this is against Hitlers nature. IIRC, he never liked the Kursk idea, and gave the military lots of freedom on planning it. He was right about lots of things that nobody gives him credit for.
 

burmafrd

Banned
It really did not matter what was decided as I recall; Sorge was still there and made sure the Russians knew the plan.
 
The best bet was to settle for the 1939 borders and have a separate peace with Stalin in 1943....Molotov actually made this offer to Ribentrop in May I've read somewhere.
 

General Zod

Banned
The best bet was to settle for the 1939 borders and have a separate peace with Stalin in 1943....Molotov actually made this offer to Ribentrop in May I've read somewhere.

It seems there were secret talks between Molotov and Ribbentrop. The former offered restablishment of the 1941 borders, the latter asked a border on the Dvina and the Dneiper (Lithuania, half of Lettonia, Eastern Poland, Western Belruas, Western Ukraine, Moldavia). I don't know what kind of Finnish border the Germans asked. No kind of agreement could be reached.

Now, if we assume the PoD that Hitler greenlights the generals to use elastic defense on the Eastern front and picks Manstein's backhand blow as the strategic plan for Spring-Summer 1943, you may be up to something. Russian generals did not show any real skills in countering German maneuvers and elastic defense in 1942-43, so it's fair to assume they would walk squarely into Manstein's trap. The whole southern wing of the Red Army is trapped and crushed against the Azov Sea, a reverse Bagration, in Summer 1943, and Autumn sees the Wehrmacht back on the Don. Another Russian offensive in Autumn is stalemated when the Germans again use elastic defense. Late 1943 still sees the Germans fortified on the Donetz, with the Red Army having suffered almost a million casualties in the 1943 fighting.

Success on the Eastern Front having freed up some additional troops, the Western Allies offensive on the Eastern Front has been essentially stalemated, too. The landings in Siciliy have been a costly failure.

Now it essentially becomes a political question. Germany cannot really hope to conquest all of European Russia, Russian generals will eventually clue against Manstein's strategic trap, and the buildup of Soviet forces can eventually allow them to make some successful offensives, but the continued use of elastic defense shall make any such gains slow and terribly costly. In all evidence, the USSR shall exaust its manpower pool before they are able to reconquer all of their territory, much less make any substantial conquests in Eastern Europe. Without a clear German defeat on the Eastern front, the Western Allies cannot hope to open a second front of their own in Western Europe.

Can Hitler be talked out of a total conquest objective ? Would Stalin accept a disadvantageous compormise peace before wasting the last Russian recruit ? Shall the British and American public remain committed to the objective of total victory in the face of repeated and bloody defeats ?

If they do not, the Wehrmacht continues to fight a smart defensive war in Russia, slowly ceding some ground against severe Soviet losses, until the USSR completely exausts its manpower reserves after reaching the Dneiper and is forced to ask a ceasefire. The D-Day is another costly failure, but the Western Allies grit their teeth and make a nuclear dawn on Berlin in mid-late 1945, forcing Germany to surrender and ending the war. The Anglo-Americans occupy Western and Eastern Europe. Stalin reoccupies Belarus and Ukraine but the Americans forbid him to cross the 1939 borders, under veiled nuclear threat. The Americans give Danzig, West Prussia, and East Prussia to Poland and the Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia, with expulsion of the German population. The rest, including Austria, is thoroughly denazified and demilitarized, and allowed gradual democratization and independence over a decade.

If they do, Germany and the USSR sign a separate compromise peace in late 1943, conceding Baltenland, Belarus, and Ukraine to Germany. Both sides plot for a rematch to some later date but for now are reluctantly content to let the issue settle. The Western Allies have a crisis of confidence but Churchill and Roosevelt persuade their countries to try and force the issue by D-Day. German reserves freed up by the Eastern armistice make this another bloody failure. The Churchill war government collapses and Roosevelt's popularity plummets, losing the respect of Congress. Stress gives him a fatal stroke. VP Wallace, deeply unpopular thanks to his committment to Roosevelt's war policy, his far left ideas and his New Age religious beliefs, take over for a few months, but the Republicans win the 1944 Presidential Election. The popularity of the war in EUrope collapses. Britain, America, and Germany sign an armistice in late 1944-early 45.

Both eager for a victory, America focuses her war efforts on Japan, and the USSR declare war to JP. Soviets invade Manchuria and Korea, Americans land in Taiwan and Kyushu and force the surrender of mainland Japan and occupied with nukes. Both support their proxies in the ensuing Chinese Civil War which ends up with a Communist Northern China and a Capitalist Southern China. Americans help the British, the Dutch, and the French to crush communist insurgencies in South East Asia. Japan is thoroughly demilitarized and allowed gradual democratization and independence over a decade.

Hitler falls prey to neurological collapse due to encroaching Parkinson and amphetamine addiction soon after the war and is quietely ousted by a coalition of military leaders and Party moderates. They soon shelve plans to reopen the war with the USSR and Lebenstraum projects (evidence of the Holocaust is buried) and focus on rebuilding European economy.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Dewey

This guy isn't going to sue for peace against Nazi Germany.
D-Day would fail if its launched in 1945 in far greater numbers, because the Allies are going to want to really do in the Nazis.

Stalin doesn't care about his conscripts. He'll draft women before he accepts a loss of power.

I don't see how the giant peace lobby suddenly showed up in 1945--because I doubt very much that a peace deal in 1945 is going to be any more appealing than it would have been in 1942.

In fairness though, Germany probably takes at least five nuclear hits before surrendering--which means early 1946 at the earliest. Hitler would probably fight on even in a nuclear war; hopefully the power of the sun disintegrates him--but that's unlikely to happen.
 

General Zod

Banned
This guy isn't going to sue for peace against Nazi Germany.

He wouldn't do it gladly, but his hand might be forced if the landings in Italy and France are bloody and spectacular failures and public opinion in America and/or Britain turns against the war. This might or might not happen. It may be that Anglo-American popular consensus on the war in Europe remains high despite the defeats throughout 1945. In such a case they wait for the nukes and win with them. But it's equally possible that popular will to fight collapses and they sign a compromise peace before having the nukes. Both scenarioes are definite possibilities and I wouldn't bet my life savings on either.

D-Day would fail if its launched in 1945 in far greater numbers, because the Allies are going to want to really do in the Nazis.

There are several factors running against this scenario. Stalin may pull out of the war before if he does not see a second front before 1945, and in all likelihood he exausts his manpower reserves well before and is forced to sign a compromise peace before Spring 1945 anyway. A 1944 D-Day may well fail if the Germans are fighting a smart elastic defense war on the Eastern front and sparing their manpower, and will almost surely fail if there is a ceasefire on the Eastern front, as there shall be by Spring 1945.

Stalin doesn't care about his conscripts. He'll draft women before he accepts a loss of power.

Hardcore ASB. Soviet economy and society would collapse in no short order as nobody is left behind to work in the factories, till the fields, run services, tend to children, etc. You may pull this for a month or two before industrial production and services collapse and war is lost anyway. For good or ill, once male able-bodied manpower is exausted, war is over.

If the Wehrmacht fights a smart war, and Stalin and Hitler are unable or unwilling to reach a compromise separate peace, the Red Army shall exaust her manpower reserves sometime in mid-late 1944, with the front on the Dnieper at worst, someplace between it and the prewar border at best. If Stalin presses his country to the very breaking point, he can achieve a draw and recover the 1941 border at best. No conquest of Central or Eastern Europe.

I don't see how the giant peace lobby suddenly showed up in 1945

Frustration and outrage as the butcher bill mounts and Fortress Europe proves unconquerable from repeated failed landings and the Soviets have thrown the towel or seem like doing so any time soon as they win every inch of land with a thousand bodies. The public doesn't know the nukes are eventually coming and conventional war looks unwinnable.

--because I doubt very much that a peace deal in 1945 is going to be any more appealing than it would have been in 1942.

Even crusading mentality eventually runs out if war looks unwinnable.

Hitler would probably fight on even in a nuclear war.

The generals quickly put a gun on his nape, supported by the moderate Nazi leadership.

However, it is indeed questionable how a Dewey Administration would use the nukes on Germany and Japan by mid-1945, if they are indeed still fighting the war in Europe by this point. They only have a couple, more coming in several months. Using them both on either country would force its surrender.

Using one each on either country might or might not persuade the Japanese generals to surrender and the German ones to oust Hitler.

If they stop and wait to have at least 5-6 nukes to defeat both, they would have to storm the Japanese Islands by conventional landings, which would carry unacceptable losses for the American public, after the ones of failed D-Day.

If they use them all to nuke Japan in mid-1945 as OTL and knock it out of the war, there is a possibility that the German Generals coup Hitler. Otherwise, Nazi Germany cannot really crash-build nukes of their own in less than a year, even if Hiroshima shows it can be done and the faults in the gertman nuclear program. However, Hitler might build a significant MAD deterrent by threatening to flood British cities with nerve gas.

If they use them both on Germany, they might or might not be able to make them cross German anti-air defenses, which are not unexistent as they are in 1945 Japan (esp. since the armistice in the Eastern front is allowing Germany to pour additional efforts into anti-air defense; if Germany may churn out a decent number of those jet fighters, Allied bombing is going to see some really bad days). If they land, a couple of nukes shall surely convince German generals to force a surrender. If they fail, the Americans shall be forced to wait till 1946 to retry.

Or they might stop conventional military operations against Germany and Japan both till early-mid 1946, while they build sufficient nukes.

This would look like an effective undeclared armistice, so it might cause a collapse of the Anglo-American public's will to continue the war (again, they don't know the nukes are coming).

If all goes well for America, and nuclear bombing forces Germany to surrender, this is actually a rather good scenario for Europe. The exausted Red Army is contained within its borders and rabid Stalin is forced to watch while the Anglo-Americans occupy Western and Eastern Europe. Germany likely loses Prussia and Sudetenland, but keeps national unity, Austria, Pomerania, and Silesia, and after thorough denazification and demilitarization, is eventually allowed democracy and independence. Cold War occurs on the Soviet border, albeit Stalin makes redoubled efforts to expand in Asia, so he may well try to occupy all of Korea, and pour more support into Communist insurgencies in South East Asia. He might well support insurgencies in Europe, which makes for lengthy civil wars in Yugoslavia and Greece and short-lived Communist insurrections in France and Italy. OTOH, complete Anglo-American victory in Europe and lesser wartime cooperation with the Soviets might make the Americans more quickly to engage in full-scale Cold War, which may prevent at least Southern China and North Vietnam to fall into Communist clutches. The USSR likely collapses faster without a ring of saltellite nations in Eastern Europe and worse WWII casualties.
 
Last edited:
I recall, Zod, that Dewey was very hawkish compared to Truman.

I suggest that D-Day would get delayed if it were highly apparent that Germany simply had too many forces on the French Coastline. Certainly it could fail, but let's not forget who declared war upon whom. Japan didn't even bother declaring war before attacking; Hitler DoWed the United States, and he DoWed Poland.

Meanwhile, Germany has utterly screwed the pooch in the eyes of the United Kingdom--how many bloody defeats have they already suffered? The Loss of France? The Capture of Singapore? A disaster in Normandy might topple Churchill's government. But there are no prominent doves in 1944 OTL and so this strikes me as blatantly ASB.

Stalin's valuation of his population can be confirmed to be zero. Hardcore ASB in the opposite direction. This is a guy who has already had female air force pilots in the war and deliberately starved millions for political power. I think Stalin will accept "Economic Damage" to kill Germany at incredible price. More plausible that he totally racks out his manpower than he decides to yield personal power. Of course, he could be removed...

Dominating Peace Lobby 1945 is ASB. If you insist on repeated failed invasions, I suppose you are referring to something like 1946-7 or later.

And removing Hitler from power is questionable at best. Remember who had the upper hand in OTL Valkerie. The assumption that Hitler would be deposed by the army is not sustainable--it certainly could happen, but it would be foolish to assume that this is the likely outcome.

German nukes are ASB in one year; probably ASB even after five years of knowing of their power. And Nerve Gas is not a MAD deterrent--the introduction of chemical weapons CAN NOT possibly favor the Reich over the Allies.

My problem here, Zod, is that the Allies are not going to run out of steam in 1945--there were no massive peace demonstrations, there was no massive internal struggles to continue the war. Defeat in Normandy means the Allies gear up for a still larger operation. The Allies are going to be in the fight until at least 1947--and by that point you are looking at dozens of nuclear weapons getting used against the Axis powers.

Can you provide some real examples as to UK and USA's willingness to agree to a treaty which results in German domination of Europe? I know of none, and I think this whole scenario is an extreme longshot. To recount:

Hitler lets his generals fight their war in Russia (NOT the same as favoring a Backhand Blow in Russia.) Low chances.
Stalin sues for peace because he'd rather concede industry and territory rather than suffer damage to the same: Extreme Longshot.
Allies Defeated at Salerno: 50-50
Allies Defeated at Normandy in 1945 with a larger buildup or in 1944 with a badly distracted Germany: 50-50
Peace Lobby suddenly emerges and takes control of US and UK governments in the space of one year: ASB.

Zod, this scenario isn't going to fly.
 
The best bet was to settle for the 1939 borders and have a separate peace with Stalin in 1943....Molotov actually made this offer to Ribentrop in May I've read somewhere.

It is unclear who offered what to whom. That said, it is also unclear whether any of the offers were sincere and would not end up in a very efficient double cross. Suppose the Germans do withdraw, say to something like the 1939 borders. This means the Soviets get a few hundreds of kilometers _without a fight_. Sure, the Germans have saved men and equipment - so have the Soviets. Connect the dots.

Indeed, what happened in OTL should be a clear indication: no deal reached.
 

General Zod

Banned
I recall, Zod, that Dewey was very hawkish compared to Truman.

No contest about that. I was not assuming he would be dovish.

I suggest that D-Day would get delayed if it were highly apparent that Germany simply had too many forces on the French Coastline.

Granted, it might be simply delayed until they develop the nukes. That's fairly possible. The delay might cause political problems (Roosevelt loses the election if Salerno failed and D-Day never happens or is a bloody failure too). And the lack of a second front till mid-1945 makes the relatively quick exaustion of Soviet manpower resources and a separate peace between Germany and the USSR in 1944 all the more probable.


Certainly it could fail,

It's much more likely (but not certain) to fail if the Germans are faring fine on the Eastern Front and have plenty of reserves available, no matter the Allied air superiority.

but let's not forget who declared war upon whom. Japan didn't even bother declaring war before attacking; Hitler DoWed the United States, and he DoWed Poland.

Indeed British will to fight is rather more likely to collapse than American one if the D-Day fails. They have fought much longer and sacrificed rather more.

Meanwhile, Germany has utterly screwed the pooch in the eyes of the United Kingdom--how many bloody defeats have they already suffered? The Loss of France? The Capture of Singapore? A disaster in Normandy might topple Churchill's government. But there are no prominent doves in 1944 OTL and so this strikes me as blatantly ASB.

Let's not forget that Churchill barely survived votes of no confidence in 1942 over defeats in North Africa and South East Asia, so the appeal of Churchill and his hold on the public and Parliament is not limitless. American support is a powerful point for Churchill but if repeated attempts to land in Europe (Italy, France) fail with heavy casualties, popular confidence in his war policy might just collapse. If there is a severe grassroots crisis of confidence, some public figure might well rise to represent it and fill hte political vacuum. Again, the crisis of confidence could be avoided if the public knew about the nuclear program but the government would be loathe to divulge the news for obvious reasons (although the likelihood that Germany would be able to build nukes in a year if given a definite hint about their existence is indeed very low, but the Allies overvalued German nuclear program).

Stalin's valuation of his population can be confirmed to be zero. Hardcore ASB in the opposite direction. This is a guy who has already had female air force pilots in the war and deliberately starved millions for political power. I think Stalin will accept "Economic Damage" to kill Germany at incredible price. More plausible that he totally racks out his manpower than he decides to yield personal power. Of course, he could be removed...

Sorry, I fear I misexplained my point here. Even if Stalin indeed values his population subzero, there are some very hard economic and demographic limits he can't break, no matter how much brutality he employs. If male manpower reserves are all but exausted and he starts recruiting females en masse (some female pilots aren't a problem but we are talking about replenishing the ranks of the land forces), the industrial production, food availability, and the efficiency of most services is going to plummet exponentially as he drafts the last remaining work force of substantial size. No Sonia the Riveter, no war production. The Stavka can extend the war effort for a couple months running on stockpiles, but afterwards it's over. Time for an armistice. Consuming the last troops manning the front in further offensives means you lose the war because you have either no more reserves or no more weapons.

The nukes are several years in the future for Stalin so he hasn't that option. When he racks the bottom of the manpower barrel he must cut the losses and make peace, no matter his dreams of conquest. If the Germans use the backhand blow and adopt elastic defense throughout, they gain at least one year of spared resources, and the Soviets consume theirs proportionally faster, which means the Soviets are hit by manpower crisis in mid-late 1944, and someplace between the Dneiper and the prewar border. The Soviets may bargain for the restoration of 1941 borders if they fared especially good, or be forced to accept 1939 ones if they fared relatively poorly, but conquest of Central and Eastern Europe is impossible.

Dominating Peace Lobby 1945 is ASB. If you insist on repeated failed invasions, I suppose you are referring to something like 1946-7 or later.

A failed D-Day in 1944 or 1945 (if it's delayed and they choose to use the first nukes on Japan) might indeed happen, but IMO after the first failure, if the peace faction doesn't materialize they simply wait for the nukes in 1945 or 1946. After the first nukes are revealed, a crisis of confidence won't happen. However, if they fail in Italy AND France, I doubt they are going to try a conventional invasion again with larger forces the following year. The likely butcher bill would be just too unpopular.

And removing Hitler from power is questionable at best. Remember who had the upper hand in OTL Valkerie. The assumption that Hitler would be deposed by the army is not sustainable--it certainly could happen, but it would be foolish to assume that this is the likely outcome.

Even most of the Japanese leadership accepted surrender after two nukes and on average they were rather more fanatical than the German leadership. How many of the latter are really so fanatical as to accept total nuclear destruction of the Fatherland ? This is no figthing conventioanl warfare to the last man, nuclear bombing makes you completely and obviosuly hopeless if you can't retaliate. Valkirie did fail for a matter of inches. I simply can't see the vast majority of the Generals and even many sane Nazi top echelons willing to follow the Fuhrer in nuclear incineration of Germany.

German nukes are ASB in one year;

I would certainly not argue on this, and as a matter of fact never did. :eek:

probably ASB even after five years of knowing of their power.

About this, instead I'm not so sure. It's ASB in five years if you have to start from scratch. The Germans surely did not in 1944-45. They had a working program, sure it had taken some dead ends, it not not have that much interest and support from the supreme politicl leadership and the committment of the program head was mostly dubious. But all these factors are removed or strongly diminished overnight when definitive proof exists that such weapons work.

And Nerve Gas is not a MAD deterrent--the introduction of chemical weapons CAN NOT possibly favor the Reich over the Allies.

You nuke my cities, I gas your own. Why isn't a MAD deterrent ? MAD is not about getting a favourable position, it's inflicting comparable horrendous damage to the enemy.

My problem here, Zod, is that the Allies are not going to run out of steam in 1945--there were no massive peace demonstrations, there was no massive internal struggles to continue the war.

The landings in Italy and France were not bloody failures.

Defeat in Normandy means the Allies gear up for a still larger operation.

Hmm, about this I'm deeply doubtful. Remember, the projected losses from landings in Japan were deeply controversial, and the American people was rather more committed to get Tojo's scalp than Hitler's. If D-Day is a massive bloody failure, assuming no popular crisis of confidence materializes, IMO a new attempt with ever larger forces would be too unpopular and controversial. And likely bound to fail again anyway.

They squat down in Britain and North Africa, maybe go on with some conventional bombing (of ever decreasing effectiveness as the German jet fighters go into line) and wait for the nukes. Of course, as long as it's just 2-3 nukes available for the European theater, there's the definite possibility they can't being them across German anti-air defenses.

The Allies are going to be in the fight until at least 1947--and by that point you are looking at dozens of nuclear weapons getting used against the Axis powers.

And that would be endgame. With that many nukes, at least an handful makes through German anti-air defenses, and it's too early for Germany to have developed their own.

Hitler lets his generals fight their war in Russia (NOT the same as favoring a Backhand Blow in Russia.) Low chances.

Yep, but not impossible, and by doing both, he can bleed Stalin to a draw on the Eastern front even if he missed the chance for total or decisive victory in 1941-42. Conceded it's a low-probability outcome but it's the basis of the scenario.

Stalin sues for peace because he'd rather concede industry and territory rather than suffer damage to the same: Extreme Longshot.

No, he's forced to because he has exausted the manpower resources available and can't drain on more without completely wrecking his war economy, a lose-lose situation that even the most ruthless dictator can't sidestep by more brutality.
 
germany cant begin offencive, before Kursk "ledge"exist-and it cant cut it off in June or July-germans had less tanks, less infantry, less tanks, less airplanes
 

Stalker

Banned
It really did not matter what was decided as I recall; Sorge was still there and made sure the Russians knew the plan.
Yep, Sorge was still there in "Tokio Hotel" - Sugamo Prison between the sessions of cort martial.;)
Beside "Ramsai" Soviets had ots of other sources of information, even after arrests of Trepper and Schulze-Boysen, there still remained the spy-net succeeding die Rote Kapelle. In his disrupted attempt to assassinate Ostland's Reichkomissar Erich Koch, Soviet spy Nikolai Kuznetsov/Paul Siebert got the information about Zitadel plan which added to confirmation of other Western sources.
 
Few more points to consider:

Toppling Churchill is fair game; but who is going to replace him? Clement Atlee? Anthony Eden? The foremost dove in the UK at the time, Lord Halifax, would have no real chance of returning to power, seeing as how he's now in the United States bumbling negotiations.

This would mean as little as toppling the Asquith government in WW1 in terms of fighting a war. The obvious problem is that no real peace deal with Hitler can ever be made, because he'd simply break it as he saw fit to do so.

Nothing stops Stalin from sending children out to fight, or old men. Indeed, I see Stalin drafting women to fight the war, perhaps not en masse, but piecemeal. You are correct that this can't go on forever, and this is likely to exacerbate damage to Soviet society, but I think Stalin can still wring out a couple years of crappy manpower while keeping his war economy on third gear.

The point about Valkerie is that the German Army was definitely not that capable of launching a coup against Hitler. I can respect that the German army will be more motivated if they are clearly facing destruction from the allies, but if you think about it, what makes a 20 Kt nuclear attack any worse than what happened to Hamburg? The point is that while a coup is possible, it is most certainly not a given or a shoe-in; it might be roughly a coin-flip.

The Soviet Union took about four years even with reading all of the USA's Internal Communications. Throw in that Heisenburg either was incredibly sloppy or outright sabotaging the program and you have a clear reasoning why Germany couldn't get the bomb before 1950.

The problem with gassing English cities is that the UK can then respond with gas attacks against cities AND troop emplacements. Given the situation in the skies of Europe, adding in chemical weapons is going to screw Germany far worse than the English. See what happens when Defoilants start killing crops in Germany and Europe and when German Cities start receiving giant yellow clouds as visitors.

Germany can make the threat, but we also know that Churchill would have used chemical weapons on the invasion beaches if the UK was invaded. Clearly, Chemical Weapons, although horrifiying, are not grounds to end the war. And their usage is liking to cause great harm to many Britons and mass death to millions of Germans. That is not MAD; in the case of Germany it's being forced to counter a new type of warfare they didn't supply for and cope with. Of course, once again, the USA is in no real danger of anything--and so it can make thousands of liters of chemical agents and turn Germany lime green. This is clearly a bad move for the Reich.

And I remind you, Zod, that Salerno means that Italy has tried to take itself out of the war--I would not want to be Italian in this scenario, as this probably means Hitler just decided that Venice is now a German city. The Italian community in the United States is suddenly turning very hawkish...

I respect that a counterfactual failure at Salerno and Normandy would be very painful--but this would be happening at the same time as Leyte Gulf and the Liberation of the Phillipines, so its hardly like the US or UK could claim to be losing the war. Look at 1971 for an example of what a strong anti-war movement looks like, and Vietnam was a conflict that raged for over a decade. And Vietnam was a war the United States bungled into with no clear plan over a now discredited political theory.

Going from a staunchly pro-war public in 1943 to a militantly anti-war crowd in 1945 over mixed successes and failures in the second world war is ASB. Bombing, apparently, hardens a willingness to fight a war, not increases demands for peace. Dewey certainly isn't going to end this war, nor would Churchill's replacement (and whom did you have in mind for that, Zod?)

One more point: Stalin is almost certainly going to wreck his war economy before negotiating for peace--he really doesn't have a darn clue how to run a country.

All in all, Germany could buy another year with this strategy and the Soviets could start really running out of steam. But all this would mean is the US Air Force demolishes Germany from the skies before moving in. A Downfall-Analogue 1946 D-Day in Europe is almost certainly going to succeed--Germany has no answers to nuclear weapons used against Troop Concentrations and that's going to be the start of the campaign that ends the war. Hopefully, the Wehrmacht gets lucky enough to kill Hitler before a 1947-8 overland offensive litterally breaks' Germany's ability to fight through nuclear weapons.

That's a far nastier war for very little gain...
 
The German chemical weapons aren't that effective as a WMD, unfortunatly for them, the anthrax the British would retaliate with is.

If the British play nasty you would end up with every major German city and a large teardrop downwind uninhabitable for a couple of generations, following a massive collapse of the German population and economy as all the transport animals die.
 
It's ASB, Zod

Looks way ASB to me, Zod. Both military and politics are all wrong.

(1) The biggest is that you're not taking into account Allied air superiority and the fact that, of course, air was the front that mattered most in WWII. No way could Russian losses have outraced German ones so quickly. Russia had air superiority, and the US alone had, ISTR, 5x as many planes as Germany, meaning no way would Normandy not've happened.

(2) You don't understand how far out of scale Germany was vs the US and USSR. To each, Germany was strictly a small-scale power. If Hitler had been an efficient evil emperor, he would've put conquered troops and labor to good use, but he didn't - he put none of them in the line, killed tons of them, and enslaved them insead of using their labor freely and efficiently to build things, and didn't even use all his available labor pool.

(3) Lots of evidence on the ground suggests that both Stalin and Hitler enjoyed seeing their people get killed. Both were addicted to blood. Ending the war would end their feed. Hitler took his people beyond manpower limits - why wouldn't Stalin?

(4) Churchill's no-confidence vote wasn't close.

(5) The US is in there because of the UK and various old traditional democratic American buddies overcome by Hitler. To FDR and his war coalition, the USSR is a convenient ally, but not a necessary one. Remember, we were doing lendlease BEFORE the USSR got brought in. The only way FDR's gonna lose in November is if Normandy's a hopeless failure, and that's unlikely because of the air superiority. If anything, the USSR being ASBishly taken out might make the war more popular in the US.
 
Last edited:
Lets see...

Allies realise in 43/44 that the USSR is collapsing.
I dont see why the Italian invasion is affected much. After that, things get tougher as more German troops can get back from russia. But Italy's terrain helps the allies in defense just as much as it helped the Germans.
France now looks tougher - as they can work out it will be reinforced.

So..instead, take Crete. Build a few airfields. German armies dont help them retake an island.
Soon after, the Rumanian oilfields cease to be usable. germany runs of of petrol for said armies...
 
Top