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

[John Dusk]

what I'm saying is that nobody is gonna say anything if a B-52 nukes Berlin and the few dissenters will be censored anyway

It would take years of a costly/intense air campaign whittling down the Luftwaffe before the WAllies would be able to pull off an atomic bombing on Berlin. It also may not even end the war because Hitler wasn't the only fanatic in Nazi Germany and that doesn't eliminate the Wehrmacht with its millions of troops. Like in AANW, the Greater German Reich would still be way too powerful and structurally sound to eliminate using nukes alone. What happens when the Reich decides to fight on despite a few destroyed cities (just like IOTL)?

Also nuking Berlin is vastly different than nuking every major city from France to the Urals.

 

[Veiovis]

Untill the Germans threaten to retaliate against Britain with Biologicl and Chemical Weapons. Because be assured once the first nuke is dropped the Germans would threaten and if another nuke is dropped would use Bio and Chemi weapons.

germanies BC weapon capabilities were far behind the allied ones. If they give the allies the pretext to use their own,they will literally be annihilated.

 

[RousseauX]

I suspect 4 million casualty or so is acceptable to the US btw, that would have being ~3% of US 1939 population. The Union took something like 2.7% of the population as casualty during the civil war so I'm guessing if it starts to shoot significantly above that point there probably would have being a call for peace.

 

[RousseauX]

Untill the Germans threaten to retaliate against Britain with Biologicl and Chemical Weapons. Because be assured once the first nuke is dropped the Germans would threaten and if another nuke is dropped would use Bio and Chemi weapons.

It won't happen: the allies get air superiority over England. I guess you can shoot V2 rockets at London or something but even with sarin gas it doesn't actually do that much damage because they are so inaurcruate

 

[RousseauX]

It would take years of a costly/intense air campaign whittling down the Luftwaffe before the WAllies would be able to pull off an atomic bombing on Berlin. It also may not even end the war because Hitler wasn't the only fanatic in Nazi Germany and that doesn't eliminate the Wehrmacht with its millions of troops. Like in AANW, the Greater German Reich would still be way too powerful and structurally sound to eliminate using nukes alone. What happens when the Reich decides to fight on despite a few destroyed cities (just like IOTL)?

The cost in air campaign is in capital and not manpower, you need relatively few people dying in dog fights compare to big land battles but it costs a lot more to build planes than to throw young men with rifles at the enemy but the US has a lot of capital to fight the war with. At the same time it's not like the allies need complete air superiority to drop something on Berlin. Ok if Berlin is too far into Germany make your point just drop it on Hamburg or something.

and yeah I guess the wehrmacht can keep trying to fight once a couple nukes destroys the industrial complexes in the ruhr but they are gonna be a lot less efficient at it.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

It won't happen: the allies get air superiority over England. I guess you can shoot V2 rockets at London or something but even with sarin gas it doesn't actually do that much damage because they are so inaurcruate

V2 is a bad platform for chemical weapons delivery, comes in too fast at too steep an angle for effective dispersal, getting an effective chemical or bio payload on one would require a lot of tricky engineering and still be fairly inefficient (not that the V2 wasn't already very much so)

 

[Magical123]

"We just killed several dozen million people and made large parts of Europe uninhabitalbe for the next couple hundred years" Im sure this will have the full support of the population.

Hey but it beat the Nazis, in this sort of war I think you underestimate just how high public support for this sort of action would be.

 

[RousseauX]

yeah this isn't vietnam or iraq where the point of the war was very very dubious and even then where only minority gave a crap about killing civilians anyway.

 

[CalBear]

And as I allready wrote in only two instances did democracies suffer horrendous casualties.

Again I allready wrote that Britain&France during WWI are one of two exception. As for Britain sustaining "horrendous" casualties during WW2 - thats just not true and as for the British public not blinking I would suggest you read 1940: Myth and reality by Clive Ponting. The British DID blink and wanted the war to end despite relatively low casualties.

Once again I have to say that I allready named this as one of the two exceptions.



You call Peru a democracy with the likes of Nicolás de Piérola and his sucessors? Thanks for the laugh. Also the conflict was quite low on casualties.

Or when the casualties are to high or expected to be to high or when the war drags on for to long ect I suggest you read the excellent book by Dan Reiter Democracies at War:
https://www.amazon.com/Democracies-at-War-Dan-Reiter/dp/0691089493

Fact is that the US was fighting a two front war and Americans saw Japan as the main enemy. And fact is that the US could easily leave the war in Europe without much consequences. Now explain to the public that you still remain in the war in Europe despite the Soviets beeing crushed and victory so far away that noone can even see it. At a time when Japan was steamrolling the Phillipines and large parts of the Pacific. After checking Japan explain to the people why you waste resources on a lost war in Europe instead of concentrating on Japan. After the victory over Japan explain to the people why they should restart/remain in a conflict that would make the Pacific War look like childs play.

The support of the American people for WW2 was there because for Americans the war brought very little burden and very little casualties. With the Soviets out of the war, the Americans will experience a far greater burden and far greater casualties which will lead to much less support for the war and which will open doors for a negotiated peace. The very notion that Roosevelts little mantra of "Unconditional Surrender" would have been blindly followed by the American people, even after horror reports of how much lives an invasion of Europe would cost,even after mounting casualties and even after a defeat of Japan is simply ludicrous.

The British people didn't blink. A portion of the political establishment did, that is to be expected in any democratic system.

I would suggest that you expand beyond a single book, even as well written a one as you suggest (surprise, I've read it), regarding the motivations of democracies during wartime, even if it happens to match your personal beliefs.

As far as what a democracy is/isn't I would actually say that the U.S. wasn't close to a true democracy until 1920 when women got the vote (and that is a stretch, considering the impact of Jim Crow across the South, a cognizant argument can be made that the U.S. wasn't a full democracy until the 1965 Civil Rights Act). There were no major nation states that were even close to true democracies 250 years ago, which was how far back you went with your rather grand proclamation, and very few 150 years ago.

Overall the difficulty with your argument is that there are far too few possible examples, everything is based on conjecture. You have the imperfect example of the ACW, the even more imperfect example of the War of the Pacific, and the two World Wars. Every other conflict either ended long before any crisis could erupt or can have the reasoning for disaffection readily explained by issues entirely unrelated to any sort of war weariness. The other, even more critical issue, and one that makes any sort of examination of the impact of war weariness suspect, is that democracies tend to win wars, at least wars that are actually winnable (again the example of Vietnam, where what would actually have constituted a "win" was never even defined, comes to mind).

 

[Magical123]

The US if it wanted to could concentrate on the air war, pumping out planes and pilots by the tens of thousands bombing the Reich and its cities and armies till the whole European landmass fell upon its own ashes.

The US had the industrial capacity to do so and imagine would have the public and political will as well.

 

[Sulemain]

britain is a nation of mercants,they don't have the stomach to resist germany

Is this sarcasm and/or satire?

 

[John Dusk]

Is this sarcasm and/or satire?

It's satire. He explained it in an earlier post.

 

[Sulemain]

It's satire. He explained it in an earlier post.

Yeah, I didn't see that.

@Veiovis my apologies.

 

[Broek]

I will have to throw down my vote for fewer casualties than OTL.
To accomplish a victory and capture of the USSR by late 1942 Germany has to go though several offensive actions with the associated increase in casualties.

A Russian civil war will wield a myriad of small strongholds which have to be cleared out with the associated increase in casualties.

Without the threat of the KV-1, and to a lesser extent the T-34, the push to develop Panzer IV replacement like the Tiger and Panther is most likely slowed down.

To occupy European Russia Nazi Germany needs very large amounts of manpower and more manpower is without a doubt directed to large partizan pockets in Yugoslavia.

Transfer of Pilots to the western front will give the Luftwaffe a boost, but also increase their losses over the English channel and with the German habit to keep all their veterans flying instead of transferring them to teaching they are likely to lose those veterans by the droves.

Jet Fighter development will most likely not gain extra momentum since the development of the engines was the bottleneck.

Overall i think the Germans would have shot their load and have nothing in reserve with all the tasks in Russia keeping them busy.

 

[Asp]

In the last 250 years there have been exactly Six wars involving democracies where an existential threat could reasonably be seen. in every case where the situation arose the democracies involved fought to the last.

Two involved Israel, in 1967 and 1973 and ended quickly, long before the question of fighting to the last man could even be considered.

The British were also involved in two, WW I & WW II, in neither case did the British public blink, despite horrific losses and, in the case of WW II, stunning reversals on the battlefield.

The U.S. was, as already noted, involved in the one, the Civil War along with the CSA. Both sides absorbed almost unimaginable losses compared to any previous (or following) conflict and both sides fought to the bitter end.

The sixth was the War of the Pacific involving Chile, Bolivia and Peru. Peru fought on AFTER all of its major cities were occupied and its forces were reduced to small bands of insurgents in the Andes.

It is completely unreasonable to expect a population to accept unending losses when there is no identifiable reason to continue fighting. This is best seen with the American experience in Vietnam (where, to this day, the American people have yet to be given a reason that 50K+ U.S. troops had to die) and the British experience in the American Revolution (where even the then limited democratic representation could not find any reason worth continuing what was becoming an ever widening war). The only time that democracies run into difficulties is when they can not EXPLAIN to the voters why they are fighting. That did not exist in WW II. The Western democracies (and their populations) were very aware of the stakes.

You say six wars; why not count the 1948 Israeli War of Independence? Just curious. Side note: Israel remarkably suffered nearly twice the per capita casualties France did during WWI, and in only ten months!

 

[CalBear]

You say six wars; why not count the 1948 Israeli War of Independence? Just curious. Side note: Israel remarkably suffered nearly twice the per capita casualties France did during WWI, and in only ten months!

IIRC Israel was not, in 1948, a democracy. No vote has been taken as a legal state (the Proclamation of statehood was followed within hours by the start of the war).

 

[Mitchell Hundred]

yeah this isn't vietnam or iraq where the point of the war was very very dubious and even then where only minority gave a crap about killing civilians anyway.

Exactly.

Frankly the fact that 100,000+ Japanese American citizens were interned is evident the country had a different perspective on how to deal with the "enemy" than the post 1960's era.

As for Germany if it came to a point where it actually did seem like too many Americans were being sent over an even bigger bombing campaign conventional or otherwise would have followed.

 

[Magical123]

In a fatherland or AANW scenario wouldn't the sheer number of male casualties radically alter the culture and politics that follow the war.

I mean you'd be looking at entire towns totally depopulated of males, cities were the female to male ratio is like 20:1 or something.

How many men could be thrown into the meat grinder before either they raise and lower draft ages 15-60 or lower and higher or they start putting women in uniform?

 

[Asp]

IIRC Israel was not, in 1948, a democracy. No vote has been taken as a legal state (the Proclamation of statehood was followed within hours by the start of the war).

I guess. I believe Jewish Agency leaders were chosen through a somewhat democratic process and there was the stated intention to be a democracy and hold elections later. Depends to a degree on how you define it I guess.

 

[Misterxyzerpek]

The British people didn't blink. A portion of the political establishment did, that is to be expected in any democratic system.

Again I point to 1940: Myth an reality. The population did blink and wanted the war to end, however US help from 41 onwards, the fortunate development of the war from 42 onwards and low casualties made sure that there was enough support by the population. Take away two of these factors - massive casualties and no fortunate development of the war from 42 onwards and you get an entirely different picture.

I would suggest that you expand beyond a single book, even as well written a one as you suggest (surprise, I've read it), regarding the motivations of democracies during wartime, even if it happens to match your personal beliefs.

If you look back you would find out that I posted other sources which examine the performance of democracies during war. I quoted this book because IMO it is the best. Can you name a book/paper that claims that democracies can take a long and bloody war? If so post a link I would be happy to read it.

As far as what a democracy is/isn't I would actually say that the U.S. wasn't close to a true democracy until 1920 when women got the vote (and that is a stretch, considering the impact of Jim Crow across the South, a cognizant argument can be made that the U.S. wasn't a full democracy until the 1965 Civil Rights Act).

Well then the US of the 1860´s and France/Britain during WW1 were not true democracies as well. That would explain why they could take such casualties and to this day are the only two instances where "democracies" managed to sustain massive casualties.

Overall the difficulty with your argument is that there are far too few possible examples, everything is based on conjecture. You have the imperfect example of the ACW, the even more imperfect example of the War of the Pacific, and the two World Wars. Every other conflict either ended long before any crisis could erupt or can have the reasoning for disaffection readily explained by issues entirely unrelated to any sort of war weariness. The other, even more critical issue, and one that makes any sort of examination of the impact of war weariness suspect, is that democracies tend to win wars, at least wars that are actually winnable (again the example of Vietnam, where what would actually have constituted a "win" was never even defined, comes to mind).

As you wrote: Overall the difficulty with your argument is that there are far too few examples where supposed democracies sustained horrendous casualties and didnt quit.

I would argue that the US and Britain remained in the war because thanks to the Soviets it was winnable and winnalbe at a low price. The war developed favourably from 42 onwards and the WAllies had few casualties. Take away these two factors, more casualties and a greater burden for the civillian population, especially for Americans who were spared 99% of the real war effects and puplic opinion will change. Especially for the US that has a war with Japan going on that is seen as the main enemy by the American people.

But in the end neither of us can prove that our line of argumentation is right since we dont have access to alternate realities so running in circles I guess?