You, er, missed the point. If the US was somehow fighting its way into Germany from the West (which was your idea, not mine), then by the time it got to Poland the whole of German industry and food would already have been bombed and conquered, and there wouldn't be a massive force in Poland waiting to chew the US up. Because they would have been destroyed up to Germany. At which point, picking up Poland is a bonus to having destroyed Germany, not the entire point of the exercise.Dean, I believe we had been here before and it went nowhere. I very strongly believe that you have very faint idea of what's dealing with German units worthy of Russian Front means, as absolute majority of troops encountered by Allies were refuse, thrown out of the proverbial barrel after it had been scrapped clean to find troops for Russian front. Several times Allies encountered anything worthy of Eastern front were times of spectacular carnage of Allied troops, limited by only dwingling German supplies (again, spent on fighting Russians). With more static Eastern Front (and Germany will understand this weakness of the Read Army pretty quickly, figure Winter 1943-4944 as very last date, although I would say "Kursk"), Allies face very real probability of weekly mastergardens and monthly carnages on the Bulge. What do you think it would take for them to occupy "Whole Germany" in this scenario? I would say that by Spring-Summer 1945 (and I think this is the time when Soviets will be knocking in Polish door) Allies will be somewhere between Paris and German border (and I'm kinda optimistic here, once you remember that Germans held number of French towns in May 1945 IOTL.
Which, of course, I know, which is why I made explicit mention of it in the later half of the post: that there wouldn't be a Western front without a Soviet Union in the fray. Please don't treat me for a rube when I made the exact same point.
I suppose it would look like all those protests and anti-war sentiment from all those deaths for those tiny little islands to even approach the Home Islands, while the vast majority of the Japanese army hadn't even been involved yet. Or the massive losses from a sustained daylight bombing campaign over Germany, even as Britain switched to night-time bombing and the life expectancy of a US air crew was distinctly less than their tour of duty. Or the steady stream of dead sailors that came from the convoys and battles in the Atlantic and Pacific.You know, they were happy to SEND millions to die, but we will never know how they would REACT when this threat materializes. Especially Americans. I'm not convinced by far that American public opinion would be happy about a message "we killed millions of our kids when we could really just send iron toys to Ruskies to fight instead of us". And American public opinion will be subjected to this kind of message, interparty rivalry guarantees it.
One of the little recognized things at the time was that, in many respects, a fascist country. The government controlled the media, censored information (and casuality) figures as it pleased, smothered anti-war sentiment, arrested individuals and forced the movement of a significant part of the population, effectively waged war in a way that genocide was a consequence, and both parties were so in-line that you could vote Republican till you got blue and all you would get was a hawk. The US of the early 1940's as not a liberal democracy that allows the formation of a widespread anti-war movement.
No, you wouldn't. There are any number of potential political reasons not to give tons of military equipment to a communist country when your own country is only beginning to effectively rearm itself. Red Scare, other fronts of American interest, the fact you're giving away weapons when you haven't even rearmed yourself and your better friends yet, the Soviet aggression in Eastern Europe pre-war, or even a lack of a German declaration of war (at which point Japan is the dominant interest).Yes, but you need to know by Autumn 1941 that Nuke is going to be success, to hold LL back. Unlikely without some sort of time travel.
The nuke was irrelevant to deciding Lend Lease. The nuke was not the deciding factor in each and every campaign or policy decision, not least because so few people knew of it.
Then German forces in Africa would still be starving, blooded American and British troops would still be pushing the Germans off, the obsolescent aircraft would be a new causality figure to Western models, and German officers in German figures would be screaming about how aircraft are being used to support an irrelevant theater for a helpless ally even as German cities are bombed.Devil is in details. Germany pulled their airforce West when Rommel had been dealt with, and it did so to protect German cities. Being able to pull some units to ATTACK allied navy is completely different. Then, I'm not talking "destroyed supremacy". I'm talking something like OTL Northern conwoys, when Allies could push 70-80% of ship to USSR safely. What if Germans would be able to do the same in Mediterranean? Distance is much less...
Who says it's all about Poland? It's all about Germany, and Poland is an afterthought. You're trying to recast the situation in terms you think are the main point when they're not. The US spent millions of pounds in blood, iron, and treasure to defeat the Japanese in the Pacific, but they didn't do it because it would be good for French Indochina or British colonies in the region.I was intentionally sharpening the point there and will continue to do so every time some affectionate Eastern European editor will start to hint on "Western Duty To Protect Poland From Russian Bear". There's no such duty. American leadership needs good reason to send millions of voters and family members of voters to die to get to Poland. Good for America, not for Poland.
The fate of Poland is an after effect of the showdown with Germany. For the US, Poland is not the alpha or the omega of fighting in Europe.
Yes, I'm plenty aware that untrained colonial troops are about as good quality as the untrained Russian peasants who won the war by being acting as lethal target practice. But then, it was ill-equiped and badly trained Russian peasants who won the war. But by the mid-20th century, it was already becoming apparent that European colonies were going on their way out anyway. At least this way it can be claimed that they aren't being let go for nothing, and Britain will already have to balance the idea of little Empire in a world with a continent dominated by Germany, or a world with little Empire in a world without a continent dominated by Germany.All true. And I never said that USSR was irreplaceable. It's just that if you remove it off the table, you need to find millions of others to do the dying (and colonial troops were increadibly inferior, as you undoubtedly aware). Besides, we're starting to trade The Brilliant of the British Crown, India, for Poland, which was only good for dragging Britain into this war (I'm trying to emulate British reaction here). Traitor you!!!![]()
If the war didn't end in a draw by that point.
And it would be hard for me to be a traitor to the British Empire, as an American.
Alright. Since this is more interesting than the other stuff, I'm going to focus on this. Feel free to respond to all the other stuff, but from this point on I'll only focus on this.Yes, only opportunity worthy of future discussion in this "no lend-lease" timeline is Soviet-German truce. It did not happen IOTL because Stalin was convinced that he's to gain more from Germany's complete defeat, even if it will cost extra millions of Soviet lives (he didn't care about human life anyway). Here... Wanna discuss? Let's say stalemate becomes obvious to most talented minds in OKW and Red Army General Staff in November 1943. Soviets failed to reach Kiev due to logistic problems and situation can only get worse. What's next?
November 1943 seems a bit late to me (a full campaign season that drives the Germans as far back), but let's go with it (though if you don't mind let's say that the Russian forces fell a moderate ways east of Kiev).
Germany comes to its conclusion: at this point, it can't conquer Russia through anything but killing every Russian who charges at them, except that they would likely die first, as the attempted Russian offensive showed that there were still plenty of Russians to kill. Russia can be held off (perhaps indefinitely), but the Western side is becoming worrying, as Africa and Sicily have already fallen at this point. A landing in Europe would be costly, if solvable, but it could upset the balance in the East if the Russians are lucky at any place. The Russians might be able to keep both fronts stable, but don't want the risk.
The Soviet leadership, also with a illness of rational, see the lessons of Keiv: that even on a fighting retreat, that German mechanized forces can still outmaneuver, isolate, and destroy too many Russian forces. Some egg head also comes up with numbers: simple weight of numbers at this point would leave all of Russia with a population no longer so much larger than the West, but if time waited for industry east of Urals to arm the forces, it could become manageable. The Soviets might be able to win as is, but it would likely destroy them to Western gain.
Here comes the truce/treaty. Might guarantee a certain number of years of peace (no one believes it), but for the moment it's good. Germany is clearly better off: at a minimum, Poland and a bit of Ukraine, likely lots. The Soviets get some bits, but for the most part it's "have what you captured."
German forces go West, though with significant garrison forces with eyes to the East. As was planned after victory on the Eastern front, many divisions demobilize and return to the German workforce, partly easing the economy. Africa is well out of reach by this point, and Sicily is Airstrip Two (the last German troops of OTL were off by August 1943, and here they had to deal with the Kiev drive). Overlord as is, the invasion of France, is called off when German divisions start moving West in force, and all ties between the West and the Soviets are chilled.
We have a setup here, but from here the real butterflies hit. The Italy mainland OTL was invaded September 1943. Italy instantly becomes a front on its own, with German and Italian troops keeping Anglo-American-French troops from advancing, which shouldn't be to hard. Just how far Allied forces get before being stopped is in question. So is how far German troops can push them back.
In the East, Russia spends its time arming up, as well as preparing defensive construction on its Western border, while a careful eye to the East.
Here is where major choices have to come in. If the West opens up a new front, where and how large? If Germany is seen as preoccupied, the Soviets can think about possibly diverting troops to fiddle in Asia. But if Germany is seen as still holding a fair deal back, diverting enough troops might leave the Soviet Union too vulnerable.