How bad would WAllied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR?

[John Dusk]

Sometime in 1941/42 the Reich defeats the USSR, Stalin dies and civil war ensues allowing Germany to occupy the country up to the Ural Mountains. They are still at war with Britain and the US.

Assuming they have the political will to defeat Nazi Germany (after they defeat Japan) how many casualties would the WAllies suffer in taking back the continent from a far stronger and prepared Nazi Germany that has had a significant amount of time to build up their military, finish the Atlantic Wall and drain the resources of Eastern Europe?

What would TTL's D-Day look like in terms of losses?

IOTL the Western Front in 1944/45 cost the WAllies over 750,000 total casualties including around 200,000 deaths plus another 300,000 casualties for Sicily and Italy.

 

[CaliGuy]

Sometime in 1941/42 the Reich defeats the USSR, Stalin dies and civil war ensues allowing Germany to occupy the country up to the Urals. They are still at war with Britain and the US.

Assuming they have the political will to continue fighting (after they defeat Japan) how many casualties would the WAllies suffer in taking back the continent from a far stronger and prepared Nazi Germany that has had a significant amount of time to build up their military, the Atlantic Wall and drain the resources of Eastern Europe?

IOTL the Western Front in 1944/45 cost the WAllies over 750,000 total casualties including around 200,000 deaths plus another 300,000 casualties for Sicily and Italy.

First of all, given what CalBear previously wrote in regards to this, I doubt that they would actually be able to win a war against Nazi Germany without the Soviet Union (in large part for logistical reasons).

However, if they insist on continuing the war as much as possible nonetheless, they are almost certainly going to experience and endure 5x or more casualties than they experienced and endured in our TL!

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I put 3x. No offense to Calbear but I think he was being overoptimistic about German abilities to check the Wallies after a sustained strategic air war. Likely the Allies go for the periphery and grind Germany down in the air before going the Mediterranean route to seize something in the Mediterranean from which to extend the air war and fight a sustained war of attrition, which they will win eventually just based on numbers and production. The Germans have to keep 1.5-2 million men in the East for years, so that is going to be a problem and bleeding sore. Even if demobbing the planned 50 divisions worth of men Germany's got problems as the Allies can just sit back, blockade the continent, and dominate them in the air war, while seizing stepping stones so Germany and allies have to spread themselves thin. Eventually they will be able to invade somewhere, but they will bomb Germany a ridiculous amount and there won't be that much released from the East to really help against that; if Hitler does bring a lot of bomber back he'll probably waste them in air attack on Britain. The invasion may or may not come until after Atomic bombs are dropped, but it will succeed when it does happen and a very bloody campaign to liberate France will wreck the country and be a blood bath for both sides, probably lasting a year or more. But in the end Allied strategic bombing will ensure the Germans are firepowered to death. Allies take much heavier losses, but not nearly as many as you think because of their firepower advantage.

 

[John Dusk]

The Germans have to keep 1.5-2 million men in the East for years, so that is going to be a problem and bleeding sore.

Why so large of an occupation force?

Wouldn't a million or less troops suffice?

 

[Deleted member 97083]

Why so large of an occupation force?

Wouldn't a million or less troops suffice?

The Nazis sought to enslave and eventually kill everyone in the former USSR. That would cause the toughest resistance to any occupation ever before or since. No doubt a guerrilla war for a decade or more.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Why so large of an occupation force?

Wouldn't a million or less troops suffice?

It's not just a combat mission, but also securing supply lines, screening rump Soviet forces, and controlling the populace to produce food and raw materials in mine via slave labor. It's a big job even with smaller allied armies.

 

[BigDestiny]

I'd vote none of the above if that was an option. I just don't see how Germany can occupy that much of the Soviet Union without leaving themselves stretched so thin a boatload of chimps could establish a beachhead.

 

[Drewbdu]

I'd vote none of the above if that was an option. I just don't see how Germany can occupy that much of the Soviet Union without leaving themselves stretched so thin a boatload of chimps could establish a beachhead.

It's a bit hard for those in Eastern Europe to revolt when the plan was to starve them, enslave them, and completely destroy them. It is horrifying, but the Nazis were quite effective in keeping the populace down with fear of death. Not saying there wouldn't be resistance, just that it would be disorganized and ineffective.

 

[BigDestiny]

It's a bit hard for those in Eastern Europe to revolt when the plan was to starve them, enslave them, and completely destroy them. It is horrifying, but the Nazis were quite effective in keeping the populace down with fear of death. Not saying there wouldn't be resistance, just that it would be disorganized and ineffective.

I don't disagree that would be the plan. But it would take time, and a lot of soldiers. And while Eastern Europe is being liquidated, Western Europe is vulnerable to attack. Even the Nazis didn't have an endless supply of troops.

 

[Drewbdu]

I don't disagree that would be the plan. But it would take time, and a lot of soldiers. And while Eastern Europe is being liquidated, Western Europe is vulnerable to attack. Even the Nazis didn't have an endless supply of troops.

I wonder how many German troops there were per square mile (or kilometer) in the Soviet Union, not counting the frontline. I'd imagine if that was expanded to include Russia to the Ural Mountains it'd give an accurate estimate. No matter what, it would take less troops to garrison the territory than to fight the Red Army, so there will still be millions of troops heading west.

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

The Allies have to defeat about twice as many Axis troops as OTL. So 2x.

Note that from TORCH and SUPERCHARGE onwards, every battle between the US/UK and the Axis was an Allied victory or a draw. Some Allied attacks failed: Cassino, Anzio, Caen, Arnhem. But no German attack ever succeeded.

When the Allies failed, they were repulsed with heavy losses, but lost no ground. When they won, they destroyed the Axis forces facing them, took the area attacked, and in some cases achieved decisive breakthroughs and overwhelming victories.

Eisenhower wrote of the fighting in Sicily: "... the German garrison was fighting skillfully and savagely. Panzer and paratroop elements here were among the best we encountered in the war, and each position won was gained only through the complete destruction of the defending elements."

But note that last phrase. The fighting was bitter, the Germans fought "skillfully and savagely" - but they were completely destroyed wherever they stood, or else they retreated. The same results occurred again and again in 1943 to 1945.

The US and and the British Empire greatly outnumbered the Axis in population, industry, and natural resources. They could apply superior force to the battlefield, and they would succeed.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

The Allies have to defeat about twice as many Axis troops as OTL. So 2x.

Underestimate. To begin with, the number of Axis troops on the Eastern Front at it's narrowest in late-'44 was around twice the number in the west. Then you count the something like 3-4 million German troops the Soviets killed or captured in the course of '41-'44. And those lost personnel were much better trained then what the Germans were fielding by the time the WAllies forged ashore.

The Nazis sought to enslave and eventually kill everyone in the former USSR. That would cause the toughest resistance to any occupation ever before or since. No doubt a guerrilla war for a decade or more.

A bit more complicated. In the short term, terror does work at killing resistance but in the longer-term it does nothing to ensure loyalty and breeds much resentment that is let loose the moment the occupier lets up the boot. What that means is that the Germans are either forced to follow through on wiping out the Russians completely and thereby deprive themselves of vital slave labor, maintain financially ruinous occupation forces until their economy collapses, or try to hand them over to local collaborators who'll have their throats slit the day after the German troops leave for home. In any of these cases, the Nazi fantasy of the East being a free source of raw materials would remain a fantasy.

 

[John Dusk]

Underestimate. To begin with, the number of Axis troops on the Eastern Front at it's narrowest in late-'44 was around twice the number in the west. Then you count the something like 3-4 million German troops the Soviets killed or captured in the course of '41-'44. And those lost personnel were much better trained then what the Germans were fielding by the time the WAllies forged ashore.

If not 2x more casualties then what is a more accurate estimate?

 

[Derwit]

I think that in this scenario a western front becomes unlikely as the chances of success become slim and the toll of an out and out fight on land would entail too high casualties with a real chance of defeat. I think that should the WAllies fight on (which I think the would), It would involve primarily strategic air war and a naval blockade (as to stop the Germans exporting and therefore improving their stocks of foreign currency as to stop importing raw materials) against Germany and occupied Europe. The land war fought against Japan would receive more resources than OTL due to there being less need to put such large forces in the UK to invade France. This would culminate in the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 (possibly a little earlier due to more resources going into rushing the Manhattan project).

There is the possibility of a German super sea mammal before 1945! But the reorganisation of German forces towards air and sea power, would I think take considerably longer. Indeed not before German cities start getting nuked.

 

[Anaxagoras]

The divergence of Luftwaffe strength and anti-air weapons from the Russian front to the defense of Germany would, in my opinion, have rendered the cost of the strategic bombing offensive prohibitive. Also, the wide open spaces of Eastern Europe and access to Russia's oil supply would make things vastly easier for the Luftwaffe in terms of training new pilots and providing aviation gasoline (two factors which critically weakened the Luftwaffe IOTL). All this makes a cross-Channel invasion problematic, as air superiority would be questionable. And the Me-262s are on their way.

Would the United States risk an attack with atomic bombs in the face of such defenses? It's an interesting question.

 

[Creidiki]

Its more a question of time vs casualties. From the beginning of Barbarossa, Germany was essentially gripped by critical manpower shortage. Even if USSR is defeated, Germany would have to either demobilize large part of army for war production or strip mine eastern europe and russia for forced labor. Resource and labor extraction requires large garrison forces, so materially Wehrmacht might be better off but there are simply not enough german men to hold a lid on eastern europe, maintain war production and prepare for allied invasion.

Of course Nazis could be a lot smarter in playing a colonial power, like setting nationalist puppet regimes in Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States etc. But Nazis are probably not able to be flexible enought to do that.

So using Stetson-Harrison method:

Allies decide to let Japan wait and concentrate on Germany first. Squeeze German economy with sustained air and naval assault and attack North Africa, Norway and Italy (peripheral strategy), then combination of external pressure and internal instability will make Germany ripe for invasion collapse 1946 or 1947 with less than 2x casualties.

Allies decide to win the war NOW and damn the asualties, then 3-4 times casualties and warr will be won 1945 (ish)

 

[naraic]

The divergence of Luftwaffe strength and anti-air weapons from the Russian front to the defense of Germany would, in my opinion, have rendered the cost of the strategic bombing offensive prohibitive. Also, the wide open spaces of Eastern Europe and access to Russia's oil supply would make things vastly easier for the Luftwaffe in terms of training new pilots and providing aviation gasoline (two factors which critically weakened the Luftwaffe IOTL). All this makes a cross-Channel invasion problematic, as air superiority would be questionable. And the Me-262s are on their way.

Would the United States risk an attack with atomic bombs in the face of such defenses? It's an interesting question.

The Air war would take a lot longer. There would be buildup in North Africa and Malta.

Germany would be forced to defend all axises of attack. We would see airbase in Crewe as well.

Attackers can choose their target but the defenders will have to defend everywhere. It would probably take til 46 or 47 for Britain/USA to have the air defenses that they had OTL on dday.

Nukes in the West would have to wait until air superiority if not air supremacy is won.

I imagine this would lead to a Japan first startegy using the nuke and assuming the bomb knocked Japan out of the war the redeployment of forces from the far east would have been crucial in securing air superiority and air supremacy.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I'd put it down to how competent the WAllies are against how incompetent the Nazis are in the scenario.

 

[Citycat]

Do the WAllies still get the a-bomb? Berlin and other cities would be reduced to ashes and the Nazi hold on occupied lands, possibly even on Germany itself, would be tenous.

 

[BobTheBarbarian]

I put 3x. It wouldn't be like World War I because of the Allies' advantages in industry and mechanization, so the Germans would have to resort to using natural barriers like the Rhine and/or developed defensive belts such as the Westwall to force positional warfare. Overlord may or may not be out of the question and the US would focus on getting something closer to the 200 division land army they originally anticipated.

The southern route is probably more heavily emphasized in this timeline, with the main blow perhaps falling from Southern France (site of the historical Operation Dragoon) for its favorable terrain.