Germany defeats the Soviet Union - Most likely course of action by the Wallies?

What do the Wallies do after the fall of the Soviet Union?

  • American attention shifts to the Pacific - the war in Europe ends in 1944

    Votes: 13 7.6%
  • American attention shifts to the Pacific - the war in Europe ends after the defeat of Japan

    Votes: 15 8.8%
  • American attention shifts to the Pacific - the war in Europe is restarted after the defeat of Japan

    Votes: 12 7.0%
  • The war is simultaneously conducted in the Med/Europe and the Pacific similar to OTL

    Votes: 17 9.9%
  • The Wallies sacrifice Millions of soldiers to win by 1946/47 - if such losses are sustainable

    Votes: 4 2.3%
  • The Wallies use dozens of Atomic Bombs during 1946-1948 killing dozens of Millions to win the war

    Votes: 80 46.8%
  • The war goes on until the Wallies run out of Manpower/public support

    Votes: 30 17.5%

  • Total voters
    171

Deleted member 1487

Increased manpower . resources no . As you yourself said
Resources would be coming in, it's just a question of how much and when. Most of Germany's manganese came out of Ukraine in WW2, so in winning that number would only go up and IOTL by 1942 they were exceeding Soviet production levels.

By the time resources come back in numbers one German city after another is going to be nuked. Probably around 1948 or 1949 the atomic bombs are going to be replaced with H-bombs. The B-29 is going to be replaced by the B-36 or possibly a B-50 in 1946 .
Oh resources will be coming in before 1945. There is no way in hell the US would continue the war beyond 1945 or '46. They may not even go into 1945 ITTL.

Most likely the B-36 because it is a better plane and the military has a wartime budget. Shooting Stars will only be able to cover them to around Hannover until the Sabre is produced. If the Sabre is produced merely on schedule it will probably be produced in numbers around 1948. This is enough to escort the bombers to Berlin.
The OTL B-36 took until the 1950s to actually get functional. It wasn't a funding issue.
 
Resources would be coming in, it's just a question of how much and when. Most of Germany's manganese came out of Ukraine in WW2, so in winning that number would only go up and IOTL by 1942 they were exceeding Soviet production levels.


Oh resources will be coming in before 1945. There is no way in hell the US would continue the war beyond 1945 or '46. They may not even go into 1945 ITTL.


The OTL B-36 took until the 1950s to actually get functional. It wasn't a funding issue.

Which is it? The resources didn't pay for themselves or they didn't ? You can't have it both ways. You contradicted yourself, probably why you snipped the comment. Odds are they are paying as much or more to get the resources than the resources themselves are worth.

Why? Is Germany going anywhere? Is the US? Is Germany going to cross the Atlantic and invade the USA? What, exactly, is going to stop the war from continuing?

The B-50 was certainly working and that will do as well. They were certainly nuclear capable and better than a B-29.
 

Deleted member 1487

Which is it? The resources didn't pay for themselves or they didn't ? You can't have it both ways. You contradicted yourself, probably why you snipped the comment. Odds are they are paying as much or more to get the resources than the resources themselves are worth.
There is a thing called nuance and details. In 1941-42 resource extraction other than labor was meager and gave much less than it returned, but there were certain resources that were utterly vital (though could have been obtained more effectively via trade) like manganese. By 1943 a lot of the resource investments in rebuilding Ukraine were coming online, but at that point they were lost to the Soviet 1943 offensives; same with oil in the Caucasus, they shipping in specialized personnel and equipment and got oil pumping just about restarted when the Soviets recovered the land. By 1943 and into 1944 with Germany having won in the East they'd be pulling out more than they put in, though still inefficiently given all the damage they did with poor planning, enslaving the population, and deporting or executing people. Still, from 1943 on the East would be churning out an increasing flow of resources.

Given that what they would be getting would be irreplaceable, the cost to get it would be worth it, but in the grand scheme of things invading was blindingly stupid, because all of it could have been had for far less just by trade, certainly less than was just spent in 1941 in the Barbarossa invasion.

Why? Is Germany going anywhere? Is the US? Is Germany going to cross the Atlantic and invade the USA? What, exactly, is going to stop the war from continuing?
The UK and US losing political will to spend millions of their own lives to win final victory. Plus US finances were getting pretty bad by 1945; all the material wasn't cheap.

The B-50 was certainly working and that will do as well. They were certainly nuclear capable and better than a B-29.
You mean that aircraft that didn't have it's first test flight until 1947?
 
There is a thing called nuance and details. In 1941-42 resource extraction other than labor was meager and gave much less than it returned, but there were certain resources that were utterly vital (though could have been obtained more effectively via trade) like manganese. By 1943 a lot of the resource investments in rebuilding Ukraine were coming online, but at that point they were lost to the Soviet 1943 offensives; same with oil in the Caucasus, they shipping in specialized personnel and equipment and got oil pumping just about restarted when the Soviets recovered the land. By 1943 and into 1944 with Germany having won in the East they'd be pulling out more than they put in, though still inefficiently given all the damage they did with poor planning, enslaving the population, and deporting or executing people. Still, from 1943 on the East would be churning out an increasing flow of resources.

Given that what they would be getting would be irreplaceable, the cost to get it would be worth it, but in the grand scheme of things invading was blindingly stupid, because all of it could have been had for far less just by trade, certainly less than was just spent in 1941 in the Barbarossa invasion.


The UK and US losing political will to spend millions of their own lives to win final victory. Plus US finances were getting pretty bad by 1945; all the material wasn't cheap.


You mean that aircraft that didn't have it's first test flight until 1947?

I doubt very much it would be enough. There would be partisans and the US itself has lots of resources, it won't run out.

Doubtful, for one thing it would be mostly strategic bombing. It wouldn't be millions until an invasion actually occurred, by which time the US would have A-bombs. US finances were better than pretty much anyone else's and war is a zero sum game. It sure as hell was better than that of Germany or Russia.

So what? I figure the war would last at least a couple more years, that is assuming the US doesn't transfer money from its over powerful navy to strategic bombing tech. Cancelling a few dozen destroyers and maybe a dozen or so cruisers would have little or no impact on the naval war and could pump money into strategic bombing.
 

Deleted member 1487

I doubt very much it would be enough. There would be partisans and the US itself has lots of resources, it won't run out.
Guerrillas only can be effective with heavy external support, not likely an option if the USSR has been defeated. There would also be a bunch of local collaborators like IOTL to help ensure that resistance can't be much more than banditry to survive, much like the post-war resistance against the USSR in the Baltics and Ukraine.

Doubtful, for one thing it would be mostly strategic bombing. It wouldn't be millions until an invasion actually occurred, by which time the US would have A-bombs. US finances were better than pretty much anyone else's and war is a zero sum game. It sure as hell was better than that of Germany or Russia.
IOTL if they get stuck strategic bombing for years I think the US public would demand Japan first and then probably a deal with the Nazis to avoid casualties like what they likely took invading Japan. US finances weren't unlimited, especially given that they were supplying the USSR, China, UK, etc. too.

So what? I figure the war would last at least a couple more years, that is assuming the US doesn't transfer money from its over powerful navy to strategic bombing tech. Cancelling a few dozen destroyers and maybe a dozen or so cruisers would have little or no impact on the naval war and could pump money into strategic bombing.
So what to you, not so what to the public who is doing the dying and suffering.
 
Guerrillas only can be effective with heavy external support, not likely an option if the USSR has been defeated. There would also be a bunch of local collaborators like IOTL to help ensure that resistance can't be much more than banditry to survive, much like the post-war resistance against the USSR in the Baltics and Ukraine.


IOTL if they get stuck strategic bombing for years I think the US public would demand Japan first and then probably a deal with the Nazis to avoid casualties like what they likely took invading Japan. US finances weren't unlimited, especially given that they were supplying the USSR, China, UK, etc. too.


So what to you, not so what to the public who is doing the dying and suffering.

Enough of a nuisance to hamper things, not enough to win by themselves. Hampering is all that is required, Germany had little money to spare and every little bit hurt.

There would be a whole lot of things that the US could do that the Nazis could do jack about that the press would make a lot of fuss about. There are a whole lot of islands around Italy and Greece that the Axis could do squat about. Enough of them to kill enough time for the A-bombs to come on line. The US won't be supplying the USSR via lend-lease so that money is saved. More will be spent as a whole but that money is subtracted from it.

Most won't do the dying and the suffering. They will be back in the US. Some soldiers and airmen will be dying but it is very doubtful it will be enough to call off the war. Everyone knew Germany couldn't be trusted, it proven that time and time again. They aren't going to let it stick around and get bigger and bigger until it is a clear existential threat to the US. The Germans will be the ones doing the dying and in large numbers, particularly when the a bombs drop. Are they all going to just suck it up forever, particularly after one German city after the other gets nuked?
 

Deleted member 1487

Enough of a nuisance to hamper things, not enough to win by themselves. Hampering is all that is required, Germany had little money to spare and every little bit hurt.
I don't recall the massive partisan effort IOTL doing much to really hurt the Eastern Front IOTL. It never lived up to Soviet expectations. Without an ongoing war in the East and a much reduced partisan effort then it's less than a nuisance and hardly going to hurt Germany enough to matter.

There would be a whole lot of things that the US could do that the Nazis could do jack about that the press would make a lot of fuss about. There are a whole lot of islands around Italy and Greece that the Axis could do squat about. Enough of them to kill enough time for the A-bombs to come on line. The US won't be supplying the USSR via lend-lease so that money is saved. More will be spent as a whole but that money is subtracted from it.
Bombing for years on end isn't really going to make the public want to wait until they can invade. They won't know an A-bomb is coming. US will to fight to the bitter end was waning by the end of the war anyway IOTL hence all the propaganda films about 'why we fight' to try and keep the public willing to gut it out. Sure USSR money is saved, but the US has to spend much much more to make up for the loss of the USSR's war effort.

Most won't do the dying and the suffering. They will be back in the US. Some soldiers and airmen will be dying but it is very doubtful it will be enough to call off the war. Everyone knew Germany couldn't be trusted, it proven that time and time again. They aren't going to let it stick around and get bigger and bigger until it is a clear existential threat to the US. The Germans will be the ones doing the dying and in large numbers, particularly when the a bombs drop. Are they all going to just suck it up forever, particularly after one German city after the other gets nuked?
Those back in the US have family in harm's way. If that is going on without much progress on the ground it becomes increasingly less likely that the public is going to wait for years for things to be resolved, especially with the war in the Pacific going on. Especially once the V-missiles show up then the Allies have to invade well before the A-bomb is ready and suffer the losses, which the public is less likely to be willing to go far if Russia isn't absorbing the tens of millions of casualties that it took to win IOTL.
 
Its allways amazing how some Internet Warriors/Forum members who sit comfortably on their asses at home and would get a mental breakdown if their fridge was suddenly empty, or if they heared something offending them, have the audacity to claim that the US/Britain will send Millions of its soldiers into an absolute meat grinder and that the public would support this for years to come.

Or that the US would just exterminate dozens of Millions of people through nuking an entire continent (assuming this was even possible against German AA defences). Grow up people, this is real life. War-weariness exists, and perpetual war on the intensity of WW2 is impossible. There are almost no examples in history where a democracy was willing/able to sustain horrendous losses and even most dictatorships are struggling when casualties become to high.

Actually just 3 democracies come to mind - the US in the Civil war and France/Britain in WW1. And even these 3 examples are somewhat wrong, because these were proto Democracies (compared to our standard) and the enemy was in a geographical location nearby. And compared to the 10-15% population loss of the Soviet Union and the 8% loss of Nazi Germany, the losses were not that high, beeing 2-3% in the civil war, around 3% for the British and 4% for the French in WW1.
 
IMO the most logical course of action for Wallies:
1. If the Soviets lost the war the cost in resources (man & material) to successfully operate a Europen war will increase manifold.
2. As you dont have the forces available to win the European front on short notice - before the germans have time to consolidate - you will have to focus forces on what you can win - and thats the Pacific.
3. So contain and defend in the EU by taking whatever you can - islands and such. Bomb and support resistance movements while you try to win in the Pacific. The Wallies still have some big advantages: the US is untachable in any meaningful way. The US industry can outproduce Germany with one hand tied behind its back. And the coming of the The Bomb.
4. Win the Pacific. However by the time you do this Germany is too entrenched in EU and the cost of actually defeating them too high.
5. As the Bomb is becoming a reality you can adopt the following plan: beat Japan with the Bomb and use it as a demonstration of what will happen to Germany. After that start to actually use it in Europe. At the same time make known the peace terms you seek: they should be palatable to a significant part of the german populace to divide the support of the nazi's. The goal is to break the will of the enemy without fighting them.
6. Only case you can start a landwar is if the situation on the mainland changes significantly to the detriment of Germany.
 
If the Soviets are beaten in late 1942/early 1943 it is unclear to me if the Allies will actually attempt the Sicily landings.
The Germans will be able to demobilize troops and shift forces to the West by mid 1943 and knowing that the Germans can throw in a lot more troops at them, the Allies may opt not to invade yet.
I understand that Sicily was the logical next step after clearing out Tunis, but there may be a grave concern on how things may evolve with all those Axis troops and especially the Luftwaffe reployable.
In OTL the Allies chose Italy also for strategic reasons, removing one of the Axis powers from the equation. This was feasible since the Italians saw the Germans failing against the Soviet Union (Stalingrad). ITTL the Germans have beaten the Soviets, thus political will to abandon the Axis will be weaker in Italy.
Perhaps the Allies go only for Sicily (without going up the Italian penisula) and they try to pick some more islands off: Dodecanese?
Ending the war in the East will also have implications for the Germans deployments in Norway. Without the Arctic convoys the battle will shift into the Atlantic again.
 
2. As you dont have the forces available to win the European front on short notice - before the germans have time to consolidate - you will have to focus forces on what you can win - and thats the Pacific.

There are several problems with this approach:

1. What about the British? Funneling resources into Asia while remaining inactive in Europe will not happen. If they do so they might as well just quit the war:
"Winston old chap. A year ago we won in North Africa, since then we have made almost 0 progress against the Jerry, our manpower is evaporating, bombing isnt working and we are to afraid of invading the continent. Meanwhile the Americans fight their own war in the Pacific and the Germans just started bombarding us again with rockets we have no defence against. The war has reached a stalemate. Unless you can show us a credible way to victory that doesnt take more than 2 years or so because after that we cannot sustain the war effort any longer, we would kindly ask you to step down so that others may start negotiations with the Germans."

2. If the Americans concentrate on the Pacific, they also accelerate their advance by at least half a year. So Iwo Jima/Okinawa happen in October/November/December 1944 and the home islands are ready for invasion by February 1945. Since the Americans want to finish the war ASAP they cannot wait for the bomb and have to execute some form of Downfall which will cost them hundreds of thousands of casualties and most likely even a few bombs. After seeing what losses it took to defeat the Japanese - even with several atomic bombs used - they will shudder at the thought of invading Europe and will go over to containment/Cold War.
 
@Borisbogdanov you do know that between the Final Solution and Generalplan Ost the Nazis will kill about 100 million Slavs, Jews, and others? You seem concerned about the WAllies killing millions, but are silent on the Nazis finishing their ghastly goals. The WAllies will know by 1943 at the latest what the Nazis are doing, and and know the Manhattan Project is ongoing. Hitler's problem is that no one can trust him for peace; that no one expects him to have defined "acceptable" goals (uniting all Germans, OK- conquering the world, Not OK), and that he in this ATL as well as the other one (UK/USSR) he is taking on 2 of the 4 biggest powers, while Germany is still 4th (actually 2 but down a lot from 1st which is the US). So how will the WAllies and especially their leadership, find any common ground with the Nazis for a peace treaty? Peace takes 2 sides; war requires only 1.

Edit That is to say, you are ignoring the moral, economic (the Nazis are cutting the WAllies out of Europe), and military reason for the the WAllies to keep fighting on.
 
Last edited:
@Borisbogdanov you do know that between the Final Solution and Generalplan Ost the Nazis will kill about 100 million Slavs, Jews, and others? You seem concerned about the WAllies killing millions, but are silent on the Nazis finishing their ghastly goals.

You are trying to bring morality into a discussion about realpolitics - This is a straw man par excellence.

Unlike Nazi atrocities most of which were hidden/unknown from their own people and the Allies - everyone could see the senseless devastation of Atomic Bombing (assuming it was even possible against German AA defences). The Germans can build more underground factories and disperse the population from the cities. They can also shift troops and industry into occupied cities. Will the Wallies (assuming they can) eradicate Prague? Vienna? Pilsen? Paris? Rome? Oslo? Warsaw? Will they leave (Central) Europe as a nuclear wastleand (assuming they could) guaranteeing them the hate of the entire continent for generations to come? Will the public in the US/UK be supportive of atomic bombing once the 8th atomic bomb is dropped killing another 100 000 people without any effect? You might think that sitting on your ass comfortably at home, people that have been in this war for 5 or 7 years will think different.

So how will the WAllies and especially their leadership, find any common ground with the Nazis for a peace treaty?

Mutual exhaustion. As has been demonstrated time and again, Britain is crumbling by 1945. No manpower left. The Army is shrinking, the industrial workforces is shrinking, the war effort cannot be sustained any longer, or only in vastly reduced form. Even the Americans were beginning to feel (manpower) exhaustion by early 1945. Dont mind the economic situation, the psychological impact of a defeated Russia in 1943 and thereafter inactivity for two years in Europe. Dont mind the V2 bombardment of Britain. Dont mind the monumental task of defeating Japan, which will take well in 1946 without the Soviet Union, regarless of what approach is taken. At some point society has enough.


Edit That is to say, you are ignoring the moral, economic (the Nazis are cutting the WAllies out of Europe), and military reason for the the WAllies to keep fighting on.

And you are ignoring manpower,casualties, public support and exhaustion.
 
You are trying to bring morality into a discussion about realpolitics - This is a straw man par excellence.

Unlike Nazi atrocities most of which were hidden/unknown from their own people and the Allies - everyone could see the senseless devastation of Atomic Bombing (assuming it was even possible against German AA defences). The Germans can build more underground factories and disperse the population from the cities. They can also shift troops and industry into occupied cities. Will the Wallies (assuming they can) eradicate Prague? Vienna? Pilsen? Paris? Rome? Oslo? Warsaw? Will they leave (Central) Europe as a nuclear wastleand (assuming they could) guaranteeing them the hate of the entire continent for generations to come? Will the public in the US/UK be supportive of atomic bombing once the 8th atomic bomb is dropped killing another 100 000 people without any effect? You might think that sitting on your ass comfortably at home, people that have been in this war for 5 or 7 years will think different.



Mutual exhaustion. As has been demonstrated time and again, Britain is crumbling by 1945. No manpower left. The Army is shrinking, the industrial workforces is shrinking, the war effort cannot be sustained any longer, or only in vastly reduced form. Even the Americans were beginning to feel (manpower) exhaustion by early 1945. Dont mind the economic situation, the psychological impact of a defeated Russia in 1943 and thereafter inactivity for two years in Europe. Dont mind the V2 bombardment of Britain. Dont mind the monumental task of defeating Japan, which will take well in 1946 without the Soviet Union, regarless of what approach is taken. At some point society has enough.




And you are ignoring manpower,casualties, public support and exhaustion.
You brought in morality by claiming that the ATL Allies would be more more evil than OTL Nazis while ignoring the ATL Nazis. And you listedf as one of the voting options "
The Wallies use dozens of Atomic Bombs during 1946-1948 killing dozens of Millions to win the war." Seems rather unfortunate, since it implies the Allies are doing it for the lols and not to stop the Nazis killing 100+ million people as well as freeing millions more from tyranny.
N, ,the morality is a very important part of it. For lack of a better phrase the nomenklatura of the US will demand Germany stopped. FDR is still president; how many of the leaders (and other influencers, like newspapers, radio, politicians, etc) were horrified by Kristallnacht? Men like Curtis Le May wouldn't care, but they will see that Germany will be only stronger as they exterminate enemies and consolidate, if given peace. Businessmen see the Nazis ruining the trade routes. All will see that germany will not honor any agreement. So, whom among the Allies will advocate peace? You ignore press time controls for the Allies, and forget the "Why We Fight" series. The Allies won't use the same propaganda tactics as the Nazis, but since they are different political societies they don't need to. No, they would not target occupied cities, but target the Ruhr valley and use atomic bombs like in Operation Downfall, clearing out German armies for the breakthrough. You forget the US bombing of Rotterdam, quietly hidden (because the Dutch knew it was unintentional and not terror bombing like the German one), or the French civilians killed accidentally during the Normandy invasion. The world didn't condemn America since it knew it was accidental. Also, why is it then that the world- where the US announces the Germans exterminating whole races of people (using 1940 language)- would even know of the extent of US atomic bombings? And why would the US bomb cities outside of Germany? How many Germans would keep fighting as Germany is fully captured? If any non German cities are targeted, it would only be the railroad marshaling areas- still kill thousands, but what good are factories with no coal supplies arriving, and finished goods leaving? Your OP states the USSR is defeated end of 1942/early 1943. It does not state the USSR fractures into warring states like China in the 1920's, or that the people are so disillusioned like the Czar's armies that further resistance is impossible (and it is ASB for that to happen- the communists were too much in control for either situation to happen).

What would likely happen- The US is still taking North Africa by 1943. Germany can't move enough troops in. The Allies might take Sicily- it is an island, so Allied naval power provides them a way to cut off Axis supply. The Allies prob go ahead with Sicily- Germany has too much coastline to cover, the US has too many naval units to counter. Italy stays Axis since too many German soldiers. However, since there is no more land battles for 2-3 years, the Allies focus on the Pacific, focusing on a Central Pacific push, getting about 6-8 months ahead of OTL. US decides to stay with blockading Japan (knows needs soldiers for Europe, the USN is enough to keep Japan isolated and unable to interfere). OTl, for Operation Downfall the US expected to have 15 atomic bombs ready, plus the 2 used, meaning that Nov 1 1945 the US has 17 bombs ready. The Allies might invade in 1945, but 1946 is more likely. The Allies have continued bombing German cities to keep up pressure- Big week probably happens in 1945 with the same general results (Luftwaffe broken, but higher casualties for everyone). POD after Dieppe, so Germany still thinks ports are important, but Allies aiming for open beaches and no shingle sand. Normandy probably "only" gets 3 atomic bombs, France get the 1946 equivalent of OTL 1944. If Germany has any large army groups, expect them to get a few nukes a piece. OTL The US was worried about nukes being reverse engineered, so they use them in quick succession on German cities. Many German generals are aghast at the destruction (figure 3 at Normandy, 7-10 more in various targets in France, and 40-50 German cities) but the Nazis demand fighting the Allies that are now firmly entrenched in France. I give it 50/50 that the USSR gets back in the war Fall 1946, but 100% back in by spring 1947- too many armies pulled back from the Easter Front.

To make a TL;DR: USSR out end of 1942/early 1943. Communists still in charge, as it is too ASB for the USSR to collapse into warlord states or so defeated Germany can have a Versailles Treaty Peace (OTL they did't despite losing so many troops in 1941- it's ASB for Germany improves on its 1941 performance in 1942). This means although Hitler can remove most of the armies, enough needs to stay to be a credible threat to the USSR.
1942- Torch landing still happen, since before POD
1943- North Africa still cleared of the Axis- more tanks and troops mean nothing since having to sail so far to Africa while the Allied noose tightens with air and sea power. 50/50 Operation Husky goes on- German troops have to be deployed across all of Europe AND demobilized for the economy. Def more costly than OTL.
1944- since no invasion of the Italian mainland in 1943/no Overlord in 1944, more for the fight against Japan. US needs more victories, so focuses on a central Pacific thrust rather than 2 (the USN and MacArthur). This means the USN is 6-8 months ahead of schedule, so no nukes available for invasion, and the US knows from the intelligence briefings would be a bloodbath (even if Japan has only 50% of OTL lined up). OTL, only MacArthur want to go ahead with invasion- USN decided no, rest cooling to the idea. Blockading allows the US to redeploy to Europe.
1945- Luftwaffe broken in ATL Big Week, as although more fuel available for training, the combined bombing campaigns still force Germany into a war of attrition- which, as the weaker power, it cannot win. Allied chiefs determine that due to troop/ship redeployment schedules and wanting to beat down the Luftwaffe more, D-Day will be Spring 1946 (prob determined in 1943, confirmed in 1944, but the lateness of Big Week confirms no "bouncing" France with resources on hand).
1946 late winter/early spring- Allies do ATL of wrecking France's transportation system, as well as USN/RN raids along the coasts of Italy, Norway, and Greece.
1946 Spring- Allies launch D-Day, using 3 atomic bombs to clear the Normandy area (no drivers for the Germans to focus on improving it, while Calais *is* a beast to take ATL). US also uses 10-15 atomic bombs at various targets in France, trying to minimize French casualties while cripple the Wehrmacht (so no nuke use on Paris). The near simultaneous invasion at Normandy and Southern France, coupled with the previous nuclear targets, means the Allies are entrenched on the mainland. 30-40 bombs used on the Ruhr valley, both to cripple arms productions and wreck train hubs. Despite Germany moving troops, the Allies grind to within range of the French-German border. The Spring 1947 offensive, heralded by the use of 30 atomic bombs, also has the Soviets launching a surprise attack against the Germans. By the end of 1947, Germany is defeated.
 
I'm glad the "Deterministic" school of thought in regards to WWII is finally getting push back; credit to @wiking for this.
To misquote Aristotle "Give me a POD long enough and a forum to post it, and I can move the world." We can with a POD of 1913 have a Germany win an ATL WW2. But with a POD of late 1942, at the earliest? The UK (Tory and Labour, remember) hate Hitler. FDR despises them. Enough of the other levers of power do as well, or are willing to support them. Peace takes 2 sides. How can Germany gain peace? Not on the battlefield- not when the war-making potential against Germany is 2-3 times that of Germany's, while Germany is *not* inflicting 2-3 times the casualties. Peace must either come from sapping enemy morale (but this ATL the Allies are still seeing their forces move across the map against the Axis) or by offering a peace that the other side thinks is worth it. What Bismarck figure can arise to grant the Nazis that?

History may not be deterministic, but it is still "sticky." How much I will weigh tomorrow is based on my weight today, and my future actions. Hitler is just as constrained- there were no massive peace protest in any of the 3 main Allied powers for peace, like there was in 1917 Russia or 1918 Germany. How then, with no ASBs, no cheats, no mythical leaders sent from the heavens, can Germany win? Can you post a probable ATL where it happens, where Germany can withstand atomic bombs it doesn't know exist, against enemies that seek its (deserved) destruction? This isn't a war of minor consequences, but a war as terrible as Rome and Carthage. How can Germany win an attrition war, when it is the weaker one?
 
You brought in morality by claiming that the ATL Allies would be more more evil than OTL Nazis while ignoring the ATL Nazis. And you listedf as one of the voting options "The Wallies use dozens of Atomic Bombs during 1946-1948 killing dozens of Millions to win the war." Seems rather unfortunate, since it implies the Allies are doing it for the lols and not to stop the Nazis killing 100+ million people as well as freeing millions more from tyranny.

1. Using dozens of atomic bombs will result in dozens of millions of dead - why are you offended by this truthfull observation? Does it destroy your "good guys fighting for a just cause" fantasy?
2. So killing Millions to save Millions is morally justified? I suggest you get your moral compass checked.
3. The 100+ Million is a vastly inflated number. I recommend the following reading: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4546842
4. Half the globe was/is under tyranny and the US did shit. Realpolitics my friend.

To quote myself:

Its allways amazing how some Internet Warriors/Forum members who sit comfortably on their asses at home and would get a mental breakdown if their fridge was suddenly empty, or if they heared something offending them, have the audacity to claim that the US/Britain will send Millions of its soldiers into an absolute meat grinder and that the public would support this for years to come. Or that the US would just exterminate dozens of Millions of people through nuking an entire continent (assuming this was even possible against German AA defences). Grow up people, this is real life. War-weariness exists, and perpetual war on the intensity of WW2 is impossible.


What would likely happen.
In a fantasy world where there is infinite supply of manpower, no war weariness and Atom Bombs are created out of thin air. On a side note: Are you American or part of the Anglosphere? Because I get the feeling that its mostly people of the Anglosphere that believe that they would never lose or compromise and that they would indeed use dozens of bombs to kill dozens of million of people (if they could) to win.I would like to test this theory in another poll.
 
Last edited:
To misquote Aristotle "Give me a POD long enough and a forum to post it, and I can move the world." We can with a POD of 1913 have a Germany win an ATL WW2. But with a POD of late 1942, at the earliest? The UK (Tory and Labour, remember) hate Hitler. FDR despises them. Enough of the other levers of power do as well, or are willing to support them. Peace takes 2 sides. How can Germany gain peace? Not on the battlefield- not when the war-making potential against Germany is 2-3 times that of Germany's, while Germany is *not* inflicting 2-3 times the casualties. Peace must either come from sapping enemy morale (but this ATL the Allies are still seeing their forces move across the map against the Axis) or by offering a peace that the other side thinks is worth it. What Bismarck figure can arise to grant the Nazis that?

History may not be deterministic, but it is still "sticky." How much I will weigh tomorrow is based on my weight today, and my future actions. Hitler is just as constrained- there were no massive peace protest in any of the 3 main Allied powers for peace, like there was in 1917 Russia or 1918 Germany. How then, with no ASBs, no cheats, no mythical leaders sent from the heavens, can Germany win? Can you post a probable ATL where it happens, where Germany can withstand atomic bombs it doesn't know exist, against enemies that seek its (deserved) destruction? This isn't a war of minor consequences, but a war as terrible as Rome and Carthage. How can Germany win an attrition war, when it is the weaker one?

To be brutally honest, this view is largely generated by the contemporary propaganda and Post-War mythmaking of WWII as the "good war", with the "Greatest Generation" and the like. In reality, whether or not Churchill or FDR hate Hitler is irrelevant in the face of public opinion, given the former two are, after all, in charge of Democracies. Said public opinion was also not universally behind the war in the way we view today, but was in fact much more fickle and this directly shaped Allied operational planning as a result. See American Popular Opinion and the War Against Germany: The Issue of Negotiated Peace, 1942 by Richard W. Steele:

By mid-February the shallowness of public commitment to the war had become a subject of national public discussion. To those who enthusiastically supported the administration's view of the war-and this included most of the nation's publicists and opinion leaders-America seemed indifferent.7 The consensus was that after the initial shock of Pearl Harbor had worn off, the public had lapsed into complacency. Public officials, reporters, and other "informed observers" described Americans as "smug," "slothful," and "asleep." According to Time, while people did what they were called upon to do, "they showed little excitement about the war."8 Poor morale generated the most intense public discussion early in 1942, but the problem remained a matter of official concern throughout the year.​
For example, in September OWI reported that "few citizens are fully supporting the war effort. Most are content with the same comfortable ruts." The report said that not many Americans were convinced the military situation was critical or doubted eventual victory. Moreover, although most expected the war to last several years, few thought the struggle would entail great sacrifices. This and other analyses of morale noted a popular disposition to concentrate on the advantages accruing to various sectors of the populace and to conclude that others were exploiting the war for selfish advantage.​

By 1945, war exhaustion had likewise set in and the JCS was getting very concerned about it. To quote from Michael D. Pearlman's "Unconditional Surrender, Demobilization and the Atomic Bomb":

"Leahy admitted however, that there was "little prospect of obtaining unconditional surrender" in 1945, Admiral Ernest J. King, Chief of Naval Operations, would write that the Navy "in the course of time would have starved the Japanese into submission" (Italics mine). Time, however, was a waning asset, especially to Marshall, who would later say that American "political and economic institutions melted out from under us [the U.S. military]". The Office of War Mobilization and Reconversion told the JCS what magazines and newspapers had been printing since late 1944: there was overwhelming public pressure to increase production of consumer goods. I am "afraid of unrest in the country," said Director Fred Vinson. I have never seen "the people in their present frame of mind." Aside from reports about the "national end-of-the-war psychology among [the] citizens" of the United States, the JCS heard from its own military intelligence community. Their best estimate was that total victory through encirclement, blockade, and bombardment might well take "a great many years."5"​

A Germany in control of Europe to the A-A Line or the Urals is one that has the capacity to inflict millions of casualties upon the Anglo-Americans, with its strategic position affording it the ability to last until the late 1940s at the least. In such a scenario, I find it highly likely that public support for the war will give out long before Germany is crushed under foot.
 
Top