How many more casualties can the Soviets withstand without collapsing or losing in WWII

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
If Hitler was removed from power and didn't cause the losses of Operation Bagration, the Soviets would not have been able to push so far west and would have higher losses. Also D-Day might have failed. In such a case the chances are great, that the losses of the Soviet army were higher, much higher. Also one has to understand, that the successes of the Soviets were due to mass attacks. Schukow wasn't a great tactician, but a slaughterer. His attacks would have been too costly. If it had been too costly AND no Hitler in Germany, Stalin may have been forced to make peace with Germany.
 
If Hitler was removed from power and didn't cause the losses of Operation Bagration, the Soviets would not have been able to push so far west and would have higher losses. Also D-Day might have failed. In such a case the chances are great, that the losses of the Soviet army were higher, much higher. Also one has to understand, that the successes of the Soviets were due to mass attacks. Schukow wasn't a great tactician, but a slaughterer. His attacks would have been too costly. If it had been too costly AND no Hitler in Germany, Stalin may have been forced to make peace with Germany.

I don't think so at that point
 
I think your assumptions are shaky. Hitler being removed from power would have had a deleterious effect on Nazi morale, and doubly so if it came through a coup. A coup might well have resulted in civil war and faster German collapse, really. I don't see it improving their performance in Bagration, on the balance. They either fall back and lose territory to consolidate, or fight and die like they did OTL. And if they fall back, they're still facing the monstrous and growing allied air campaign. Who cares if you have half a million more men if you can't feed them?

Germany was fucked by 44. Hell, Germany was fucked in 43. A sane government would have surrendered to spare their people the slaughter. All a failed D Day would mean at this point is the iron curtain dropping in the low countries, rather than the north German plain.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Nazi morale? There were few die hard Nazis left back in '44. Most of the German soldiers were no Nazis (except the SS, and even there were exceptions). A civil war would not have happened.
 
Not really? Between what the Dominions can get what Britain can produce and raise and whatever Free French forces they can get 40,000 men is little more than a few hundred mls in a bucket

Well, in the summer of 1940, it represents - outside the Raj - quite possibly the largest British professional ground force with a complete TOE.

What was evacuated from France was...let's see, 368,000 or so troops. A sizable figure, though of course they left virtually all their equipment in France and Belgium. Reforming and reequipping them into a major amphibious invasion force was going to take time, especially given the paucity of landing craft.

Dominion troops were a tricky thing. Churchill was able to gain quite a few to fight in North Africa. But without an active war in Libya, it's less clear where they go. The Australians were always reluctant to have their troops moved outside of the SW Pacific; and once the threat of invasion of Britain has passed, where do they go? Curtin's preferred answer would be a) at home, or b) Malaya.

In a strange way, it's a difficult situation for the British, if Italy stays neutral. The Mediterranean lifeline remains open, but they don't have the strength to invade France, or indeed anywhere else in German occupied Europe. There's no war in Africa. I suspect you would see more resources diverted to securing the Atlantic, and building up air and naval forces - and a bigger force structure in Malaya.
 
Well, in the summer of 1940, it represents - outside the Raj - quite possibly the largest British professional ground force with a complete TOE.

What was evacuated from France was...let's see, 368,000 or so troops. A sizable figure, though of course they left virtually all their equipment in France and Belgium. Reforming and reequipping them into a major amphibious invasion force was going to take time, especially given the paucity of landing craft.

Dominion troops were a tricky thing. Churchill was able to gain quite a few to fight in North Africa. But without an active war in Libya, it's less clear where they go. The Australians were always reluctant to have their troops moved outside of the SW Pacific; and once the threat of invasion of Britain has passed, where do they go? Curtin's preferred answer would be a) at home, or b) Malaya.

In a strange way, it's a difficult situation for the British, if Italy stays neutral. The Mediterranean lifeline remains open, but they don't have the strength to invade France, or indeed anywhere else in German-occupied Europe. There's no war in Africa. I suspect you would see more resources diverted to securing the Atlantic, and building up air and naval forces - and a bigger force structure in Malaya.

Well, this is a Britain that really isn't being particularly strained at any particular point. The Western desert force amounts to about 36000 men and sixty-five obsolescent tanks. The Forces garrisoning Kenya numbers about 10,000. The Naval force amounts to a few battleships and a carrier or two to keep the Italians honest, a few fast units in Scapa to keep the German battleships hemmed in and a few more heavies in Singapore to watch the Japanese. This leaves Britain with a lot of men sitting around waiting to be reequipped a few Canadian divisions waiting around and doing nothing despite being fully equipped and the ANZACs and Indians doing much the same.

More resources to the Atlantic a sure thing you'll also probably have more forces helping along De Gaulle's Free French, no Italy in the war probably means Britain is happy with the French fleet being located at Mers and yeah.

TBH No Italy in WWII and Germany and Britain just staring each other down is kinda of fascinating scenario
 
Top