Fewer casualties in WW2 - with a catch

I have thought about this idea for some time, namely trying to somewhat reconcile things that are discussed so often and from so many angles by military afficionados like the germans, japanese, soviets and even the chinese doing better militarily, while at the same time to at least try not to be a bloodthirsty maniac (as there are enough topics around here in which some are joyously and enthusiastically "killing" tens, even hundreds of millions of peoples more in a prolonged and or more savage WW2 or an atomic WW3).

So given that USSR, Germany, Japan and China suffered the vast majority of deaths and destruction in WW2, would be interesting to hear ideas of how they can on one side, all do better militarily against their respective foes (eg. Japan vs US/UK, USSR vs Germany, Germany vs. US/UK etc.) and at the same time suffering as fewer casualties especially civilian as reasonably possible, while WW2 ends more or less about same time, give or take a few months. This ATL contains of course contradictory requirements, but this is the "interesting" part. You can add other countries if you want, like Italy.
 
The July 20 Plot, otherwise known as the Valkyrie Plot, could work, thus shortening the war in Europe by several months, thus lowering casualties.

Of course, this isn't exactly a military PoD, but it certainly has a wide range of military-related effects.
 
Only Ferris Bueller knows the answer to this one.

If you're confused by my answer, I'm confused by the question.
 
I have thought about this idea for some time, namely trying to somewhat reconcile things that are discussed so often and from so many angles by military afficionados like the germans, japanese, soviets and even the chinese doing better militarily, while at the same time to at least try not to be a bloodthirsty maniac (as there are enough topics around here in which some are joyously and enthusiastically "killing" tens, even hundreds of millions of peoples more in a prolonged and or more savage WW2 or an atomic WW3).

So given that USSR, Germany, Japan and China suffered the vast majority of deaths and destruction in WW2, would be interesting to hear ideas of how they can on one side, all do better militarily against their respective foes (eg. Japan vs US/UK, USSR vs Germany, Germany vs. US/UK etc.) and at the same time suffering as fewer casualties especially civilian as reasonably possible, while WW2 ends more or less about same time, give or take a few months. This ATL contains of course contradictory requirements, but this is the "interesting" part. You can add other countries if you want, like Italy.

Germany, the USSR, China, and Japan suffered the most casualties, military and civilian. The premise is that they "all do better militarily" - but Germany and the USSR are pitted against each other - they can't both do better. The same with China and Japan.
 
Better military's would IMO would tend to shorten hostilities. However here goes.

How about China falling or making a negotiated peace to/with the "Better militarily" Japanese prior to December 1941 resulting in significantly less casualties on both sides. Japan can then use the forces OTL tied down in China (minus garrison troops) to prosecute its war with the Wallies. They therefore take more in 1941/2 than OTL and hold onto more in 1943/4 which keeps the Wallies far enough away from the home islands that their heavy bombers are out of range so they can't fire bomb Japanese cities. Come 1945 the Americans nuke a Japanese held island in the central Pacific and although there is significant loss of life for the Japanese military there are no civilian casualties. This prompts regime change and a negotiated peace follows. Lots less casualties especially among civilians.

The west is much more difficult. The best I can think of is that Stalin stabs Hitler in the back while the German military is busy in the west in May/June 1940. This results in large areas of German occupied Poland being captured by the Russians and the movement of large amounts of German forces to the east to shore up that front, but not a knockout blow as the Russians aren't skilled/equipped for deep strike/blitzkrieg style penetrations. However it keeps France in the fight and the British on the continent. 1941 sees the Russians and Germans fighting it out in Poland while a WW1 western front develops in France as the Wallies build up for offensive action based upon the steam roller tactics developed at the end of WW1 (this was the OTL plan). 1942 sees the arrival of the americans and the war is over by 1943/4 with a decisive German defeat. The exact end of hostilities depends on how much the German military is "improved" compared to its protagonists and against the effects of the Allies blockade of Germany as in WW1. Also the war could be lengthened by the "better" Japanese striking Russia in Mongolia.

It's still bloody but less so than OTL for a number of reasons. Firstly the Germans don't take large tracts of eastern Europe merrily slaughtering the local population. They also don't take huge quantities of Russian prisoners who they OTL kill by intentional neglect. The Germans hold only a slightly enlarged Germany so thankfully there are less Jews and Gypsies within their occupied area to execute. ITTL there would be much more emphasis of tactical air support rather than strategic area bombing especially by the British and Americans this reduced civilian casualties. German allies like Italy, Hungary and Roumania sensibly stay out of the war as the prospect of German victory by the summer of 1940 look very unlikely. Thus eliminating their OTL casualties and the casualties of the allies fighting them.

The down side is far greater French, British and Commonwealth casualties as they share the burden with the Russians over 3ish years of continual battle. There would also be significant losses through starvation in Germany without the occupied territories to sustain them.
 
The problem is most casualties were civilian and had nothing or very little to do with the military campaigns.

You could try to avoid terror bombings.
 

Deleted member 1487

Probably the easiest is to have the British avoid area bombing after 1942 and focus on hitting specific German industries like oil from the start of the year on. It would break Germany's ability to keep fighting. The head of British Operational Research suggested in 1941 that is was a huge waste to engage in bombing civilians and that it could have ended the war at least a year earlier had Bomber Command diverted aircraft to other missions, like fighting the Battle of the Atlantic, army support, and targeting specific wartime industries instead of 'Dehousing' by city bombing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Blackett
 
Better trained & prepared soviet army avoids the massive encirclements of 41/42, where it lost 100s of thousands?
No Holocaust?
No massive city bombing? But this would require better bomber guidance, to focus on factories...

Other than this... no Barbarossa?
 
Better trained & prepared soviet army avoids the massive encirclements of 41/42, where it lost 100s of thousands?
that would certainly save a lot of Russians, but also surprisingly a lot of Germans as well, since there would be a lower level of mobilisation that what occurred in OTL, since the war would be shorter.
 
So given that USSR, Germany, Japan and China suffered the vast majority of deaths and destruction in WW2, would be interesting to hear ideas of how they can on one side, all do better militarily against their respective foes (eg. Japan vs US/UK, USSR vs Germany, Germany vs. US/UK etc.) and at the same time suffering as fewer casualties especially civilian as reasonably possible, while WW2 ends more or less about same time, give or take a few months.
Considering that Japan and China were at war for eight years your wanting both of them to do militarily better against each other whilst suffering fewer casualties does seem to be something of a mixed message.
 
I keep seeing 'no terror bombing' - please do recall that more German civilians were murdered by 'other Germans' than were killed by the effects of RAF Bomber command and USAAF combined during the war - and by far the majority of German Civilian deaths came at the end of the war when Millions of German Civilians fled the advancing Red Army and died as a result of Malnutrition and exposure among other causes as well as ill treatment from the Red Army and suicides etc.

But even then while this was a staggering tragic event in its own right - German Civilian casualties (which may have been as high as 3 million) are but a tiny fraction of the overall civilian deaths in WW2 compared to those civilian losses suffered by those nations attacked and either fully or partially occupied by the Axis forces ie - China, Russia, Poland etc from all causes

So a failed Barbarossa or even better a failed invasion of France (preventing an Invasion of Russia in the first place) would prevent the majority of large scale civilian losses as experienced OTL

So if I understand the OPs thread correctly - a failed invasion of France would be my answer.

This effectively bogs the fighting down to a more static war where Neither side can or wants to attack into the other defences at least not until post 1942 when the Wallies (Principally France, Britain and the USA ) become strong enough.

No fall of France = very unlikely for Italy to join the Axis - therefore no expensive Med and African campaign

No fall of France = No Japanese occupation of FIC - and therefore the Chinese Nationalists continue to receive arms through 1940-42 - and less of China is occupied by the Japanese as a result - no way for the Japanese to directly invade Malaya and as the Royal navy is not simultaneously fighting the Italian Navy and the Vichy French Navy and only fighting the German Navy and is 'reinforced' by the French Navy making the already dumb decision to go to war with Britain and the USA even worse.

No fall of France = far less need for a massive Bomber command and USAAF as the only way to take the fight to 'Nazi Germany' therefore no need for 'terror bombing' - indeed with a continental ground campaign to conduct the British industry would have to concentrate more on the Army than the Airforce

No fall of France = No French coast based U-boats and French airfield based Luftwaffe squadrons able to attack the UK - therefore far fewer Merchant losses

No fall of France = No operation Barbarossa

With a static war on the Franco-Belgian / German Border in 1940-42 military losses suffered by those 3 nations are going to be a lot higher than those experienced in the same period OTL but civilian losses will be far less for all 3 sides during this period.
 
With a static war on the Franco-Belgian / German Border in 1940-42 military losses suffered by those 3 nations are going to be a lot higher than those experienced in the same period OTL but civilian losses will be far less for all 3 sides during this period.

Do you think that military losses over the course of the whole war would be higher or lower than IOTL?
 
Do you think that military losses over the course of the whole war would be higher or lower than IOTL?

For Britain and France certainly higher over that period 1940-42 - and for Germany - certainly suffer greater losses during that same period - but then fewer losses overall as Germany would not be fighting Russia
 
Thanks for the replies and ideas, and yeah sorry if the OP is not as clear as it could have been, especially regarding conflicting requirements. To briefly sketch some of my ideas, and hopefully clarify a bit more what i envisioned , for instance Japan "wins" in 1938 against China (an armistice of some kind), but eventually late war China reenters the conflict, and together with USSR and US, participate in the eventual defeat of Japan.

Meanwhile Japan does better in 1942-43 as they only focus on US/UK (yeah i know what some say that without China war there is no Pacific war, but could still happen imo so it does in my ATL) the american counteroffensive starts from further and is slower so Japan is stronger for longer, and better defended, but eventually with China and USSR entering the war, and with the first atomic bombs used perhaps tactically as suggested, instead of against cities, they sign an armistice in autumn 1945.

In Europe, USSR is better prepared in 1941, so the german offensive is blunted much earlier, hence much less of USSR is devastated, but Germany goes for total war sooner after the soviet counteroffensive in late 1941 so they get stronger in 1942-43, duking it out back and forth with USSR in Ukraine and Poland rather that much further east though, meanwhile the US/UK have a harder time in the air with the bombing campaign and fighting in Nirth Africa (given also the difficulties in the Pacific, Torch might be carried in 1943), so maybe they skip invading Italy and try to go all in for Overlord in summer 1944, suffer heavier losses initially but say Hitler IS killed this time, the nazi regime collapses amid infighting and hence the front collapses too, so the war ends earlier in Europe.
 
Top