Would the atomic bomb be a magic bullet against Germany if they defeated the USSR?

[Aber]

What people suggest are using nuclear weapons following WWII bombing doctrine, which completely failed in OTL, the Blitz didn’t make U.K. surrender and Germany wasn’t defeated by Bomber Harris, instead it was defeated by armies marching through Germany.

Strawman.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that nuclear weapons on their own will cause Germany to surrender; just that German losses of production, mobility and population from nuclear weapons will help the Allies win. Imagine the impact of a Hamburg a week on Germany, in addition to OTL bombing.

 

[Jürgen]

Strawman.

I don't think anybody is suggesting that nuclear weapons on their own will cause Germany to surrender; just that German losses of production, mobility and population from nuclear weapons will help the Allies win. Imagine the impact of a Hamburg a week on Germany, in addition to OTL bombing.

No what people are suggesting here are that it will allow the Allies to win with nuclear weapons alone. If people suggest that the Allies through a mix of conventional forces and use of nuclear weapon would be able to win, yes there I agree. But none of the discussion have been about that.

 

[marathag]

Next there’s the problem with a bomber with a nuclear bomb being shoot down with a unexploded nuclear bomb onboard

Bombs armed once in air with multiple fuzing, one of them barometric.

Verry unlikly it doesn't pop on the way down.

2nd, they were 4.5 ton bombs with much of that weight in steel.
Good luck finding those penetrating bombs if they don't go go pop.

By August 1945, most of Japan's cities were burnt the old fashioned way by Lemay. Why didn't they surrender after the 30th city was firebombed? The Tokyo bombing killed far more people than the atomic bombings

One atom bomb, came with the realization that it didn't take hundreds of heavy bombers to waste a city in one flash. Every bomber had to be stopped, an impossibility,

Two bombs, meant that more were on the way. That's why they surrendered. You might want to read the surrender message

TO OUR GOOD AND LOYAL SUBJECTS:

After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in our empire today, we have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure.

We have ordered our government to communicate to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.[7]

To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by our imperial ancestors and which lies close to our heart.

Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to ensure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement.

But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone – the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our one hundred million people – the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, or to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.

We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently cooperated with the Empire towards the emancipation of East Asia.

The thought of those officers and men as well as others who have fallen in the fields of battle, those who died at their posts of duty, or those who met with untimely death and all their bereaved families, pains our heart night and day.

The welfare of the wounded and the war-sufferers, and of those who have lost their homes and livelihood, are the objects of our profound solicitude.

The hardships and sufferings to which our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable.

Having been able to safeguard and maintain the Kokutai, We are always with you, our good and loyal subjects, relying upon your sincerity and integrity.

Beware most strictly of any outbursts of emotion which may engender needless complications, or any fraternal contention and strife which may create confusion, lead you astray and cause you to lose the confidence of the world.

Let the entire nation continue as one family from generation to generation, ever firm in its faith in the imperishability of its sacred land, and mindful of its heavy burden of responsibility, and of the long road before it.

Unite your total strength, to be devoted to construction for the future. Cultivate the ways of rectitude, foster nobility of spirit, and work with resolution – so that you may enhance the innate glory of the imperial state and keep pace with the progress of the world.

 

[King Augeas]

No what people are suggesting here are that it will allow the Allies to win with nuclear weapons alone.

Don't recall anyone saying this actually. Maybe one or two. But it's certainly not the thrust of the thread.

 

[fockewulf]

In my opinion if Germany is to advance to the A-A line and the Caucasus in 1942, SU must colapse completly, otherwise, even with Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad occupied, the soviets can keep retreating until the germans are streched flat out. In order for the USSR to fall like this, something catastrophic on the governmental level has to happen. Maybe with Moscow taken in the autumn of 1941, on the basis of somehow better german logistics, Stalin stays behind and gets killed. In the ensuing chaos, different factions strugle for control, the remaining Red Army desintegrates, the constituent republics run by local worlords proclaim independence and ask Germany for terms. The Generalplan Ost had in mind the anihilation of about 50% percent of the SU population, over a period of 25 to 30 years after the war was won. But the war is not won because even with the SU out of the picture, the "real war" begins. US and GBR are still fighting. In order to keep relative peace in the east, they could implement a policy of carrot and stick towards the locals. Rewarding some, while punishing others, they could turn the different peoples of the ex-SU against each other. As such, with the support of local colaboators and Axis allies, while keeping german troops just for the most important tasks, they could keep the partisan problem in check.
Japanese troops will enter Siberia and take Vladivostok
As I was saying before, with the SU out, there is no chance for Spain, Vichy and Turkey to keep neutrality, they will join the Axis or suffer the consequences. Gibraltar and Malta will soon fall. With fuel, truks and air transports available from the eastern front(no Stalingrad loses), Rommel might have enough supplies to reach the Suez. The turkish infrastructure is not great, but is enough to send a few german divisions to enforce the local Vichy forces in Syria and advance in Palestine towards the Suez. The british don't have enough resouces and men at that moment to fight in northern Persia, Egypt, Syria and Irak. With Axis troops present, there's a big chance the locals will rebel again. In this context, with fuel, truks and air transports available from the eastern front(no Stalingrad loses), I belive Rommel will have enough suplies to breach El Alamein and reach Suez. The Royal Navy will be forced to abandon the Mediteranean Sea, evacuating Cyprus in the process. With the Med becoming an Axis lake, supplies and men can easily be sent wherever they are needed in the zone. I don't know if Op.Torch remains an option, with just the western shores of Marocco available for landing, against strong Axis defences and the american troops still untested in battle. Even the vast resources of the US will be put to test. They are outproducing the Axis by a lot, but they will have to fight mostly over enemy ground, so most of their pilots will be lost for good, it could take years to remove the entrenched Axis forces from N Africa and the Middle east, with heavy casualties for both sides.
The air war over Europe will be a lot more costlier then OTL, the Luftwaffe now has the necessary fuel for training and the strategic depth to build more aircraft factories. The war will be conducted mostly by night as the day wiil be far too dangerous for both sides. Even with the introduction of the Mustang, the Luftwaffe has enough pilots to engage the bombers and the escorts. If we take the "Big Week" in consideration where the Luftwaffe lost control over it's own sky, we could see that even with fewer planes and poorly trained pilots, they managed to shot down according to wiki 357 USAAF and RAF bombers and 28 fighters with over 2000 allied air men lost in action. The Luftwaffe lost 262 fighters, from wich many were Zerstorer and Sturmboke but most importantly they had just 100 KIA. Even for the allies, i don't think a ratio of 20-1, wich in ATL might be even higher, is sustainable for long.
Adolf may order the construction in the east of plants for the creation of the new nerve agents sarin, tabun and soman, together with a strategic reserve of bombers and v-1 bombs, to be used as retaliation against potential british use of gas.

 

[marathag]

As I was saying before, with the SU out, there is no chance for Spain, Vichy and Turkey to keep neutrality, they will join the Axis or suffer the consequences. Gibraltar and Malta will soon fall.

That's quite a wank you got going.Even with the USSR gone, neither Spain or Turkey would join the Axis while the UK and USA are in the fight.

As far as uprisings, should note how Iraq turned out.

Vichy, that still gets overrun with Germans after Torch, no USSR doesn't change that, or improve the Italian Merchant Marine or Navy to actually get more Troops, bullets and beans than OTL to Rommel, by July 1942

More airpower from the USSR area of operation won't save the DAK, you still have the exact same logistical problem of getting everything east of the Libyan Ports in 1942

 

[fockewulf]

That's quite a wank you got going.Even with the USSR gone, neither Spain or Turkey would join the Axis while the UK and USA are in the fight.

As far as uprisings, should note how Iraq turned out.

Vichy, that still gets overrun with Germans after Torch, no USSR doesn't change that, or improve the Italian Merchant Marine or Navy to actually get more Troops, bullets and beans than OTL to Rommel, by July 1942

More airpower from the USSR area of operation won't save the DAK, you still have the exact same logistical problem of getting everything east of the Libyan Ports in 1942

Seeing what happened with those that refused, what's the alternative? Fight and die for the British Empire, as others far better had tried? Sure the allies would like nothing more then to see the Axis spread even thiner, but what about the locals, would Franco live in exile and watch his country ravaged by war yet again, and even if the allies win, he may not be the one chosen to lead his country again. For sure, Adolf will make promises of food and fuel from the east, german modern weapons etc, for Turkey perhaps teritories in the Middle East and all of the Caucasus(except the oilfields).
Irak uprisings did not have support, but with Turkey in the Axis, things might go different.
OTL The Italian Merchant Navy did as best as possible until late 1942, the problem was the long distances involved and the low capacity of the Libyan harbours. To resolve this, Rommel asked for 8000 truks wich in ATL became available.
Vichy gets overrun if Gibraltar is still in british hands, otherwise the allies got to land only on the Atlantic shores of Marocco, and have a long way over rough land.

 

[thorr97]

I'm seeing lots of folks in this thread applying a 20/20 historical perspective drawn from multiple decades after the war and in which libraries worth of analysis and documentation have been produced. Per the terms of this ATL however, that wouldn't really apply.

For the "average" Briton or American (or Canadian or Australian, etc.,) the news that the Soviet Union had surrendered to the Nazis would only be worth noting since it was in the papers and in the newsreels. Other than that? The Red Army played no part in the war from their perspective. There were no Red Army units fighting shoulder to shoulder to drive the Nazis out of North Africa. No Soviet divisions marching alongside the Allied troops liberating Italy. No Red Army tanks fighting up from the Normandy beach heads. Instead, the Russian Front was a thing far removed from their experience. For them, it was their troops - and their troops alone - who bore the entire might of the Germany army facing them. The Soviets? Their battles? Yeah, they were against the Nazis too. But it was a front that was far removed and had no one that they knew in the midst of and the Soviets weren't helping their troops fight the Nazis.

That's not an accurate view of the facts but from the perception of those in the West it'd fight tightly. Also from the "average" Westerner's perspective, the fact that the Red Army did surrender to the Germans wouldn't have come as much of a surprise - just look at how laughably incompetent those Soviet troops were at trying to defeat the Finns! If it weren't for their overwhelming numbers and how otherwise small and unprepared Finland was then the Red Army would've never succeeded there. So, of course, the Red Army was inferior to the Wehrmacht. Of course it could only fall back and eventually fall apart. It wasn't a "real" military anyway. It was just more proof of how horribly destructive and damaging Communism was since it replaced military competence in the Red Army with political obedience. Thus the German victory was pretty much pre-ordained.

And, of course, the Allies wouldn't have such problems facing the Axis now. Not since the Allies had gotten themselves prepared. This, unlike in 1940 when they weren't ready to handle the surprise German onslaught. Now that the Allies are prepared it's going to be the Germans who prove inferior! This too, would be pre-ordained since the German military was so completely Nazified and controlled by Hitler himself!

Again, that's not an accurate view of the facts but a perception thing. It'd also be born out by the facts on the ground as of late 1942. Then, the Allies would've been nothing but victorious against the Axis powers. North Africa was cleansed of the Nazi and Fascist blight. The Mediterranean was soon to be owned by the Allies, not the Axis. And Italy itself was squarely in the sights of Allied armies. In the Pacific, Japan's treacherous advances had been stopped and were now being relentlessly driven ever backward.

For the strategic planners and those "in the know" about the "big picture" of things? Yes, it'd be disheartening news to realize that the Allies would now be facing the full attentions of the German war machine as opposed to its formerly distracted focus. But then, the Western Allies didn't expect the Soviet Union to withstand the Nazi invasion. That in OTL it did was an unexpected boon. But through 1942 the WAllies were basing their war planning on the inevitability of the Red Army's collapse, the Soviet Union's surrender, and Germany's reorienting its military to face the West's efforts entirely.

The next several years really wouldn't much differ in this ATL from OTL. Germany will be unable to move much of its freshly freed manpower out of the Eastern Front and into position to directly stop or even hinder the Allies advances. Yes, there'll no longer be the utter meat grinder of the Eastern Front's combat to burn through Germany's manpower but until the Allies actually get on to the Continent itself, that "extra" manpower won't much matter. True, had all those troops fighting in Army Group Center been available to Rommel in January of '42 it would've made a vast difference. But they weren't and now the Allies own North Africa.

Thus the Allies will continue to build themselves up and continue to grind away at the edges of the Axis - thus avoiding dealing with Germany's increased forces in the West. And in this it will continue to move from one success to the next as it will be engaging the German and Italian forces where the Allied forces have the advantages and the Axis forces have only the disadvantages. This string of successive victories will be anything but a "stalemate" in which the Allied public grows weary of. And it will also be years before the Germans can even really bring much of their newfound Russian resources into the German war machine's use.

As pointed out above, Russia is a war torn nation, literally. Even in OTL and with actual peace having been established it still took the Soviet's years to repair the damage done by the combat and get their own country's infrastructure back online and fully functional. The Germans won't have a condition of peace in which to do their rebuilding. And nor would the Allies be so stupid as to let them at it in an unhindered manner. Even just getting something as "simple" as increased food production out of the conquered lands will be one huge problem. The transportation net would have to be vastly improved and extracting that much crops out of the region while simultaneously exterminating its people would be rather counterproductive.

So, the points being, the fall of the Soviet Union in 1942 would not be the "show stopper" that many here have predicted. For the strategic planners on the Allied side it was actually expected to have happened. For the Allied public it was but a distant conflict to begin with and wouldn't be seen as affecting them much directly anyway. The Allies had already seized the iniative from the Axis by '42 and were moving from one victory to the next during that time. Even a Soviet defeat in 1942 wouldn't change that. Plus, it would take years - literally - for the Germans to rebuild enough of their newly conquered lands for their bounty to prove more use to the Axis than the Axis had expended in getting. And all the while the Manhattan Project is getting ever closer to making its cans of "instant sunshine"™ and routinely produced factory manufactured commodity.

 

[History Learner]

You are the only person I know who would round down from 7.

We only ever went three or four decimal places out in school. Rounding whole numbers is a bit different, mind you.

Still a pretty big number, and it can certainly be bigger, for instance plugging in the Yugoslav partisan strength for late 1943.
329,000/14,000,000=0.0235
119,925,600*0.0235=2,818,251.6

So now we're back to "that's a lot of partisans"

If the Germans want to maintain the ratio they used for conventional forces, they only need ~800,000 in this scenario. Given we're talking about a force entirely lacking in tanks, artillery and air support, they can reasonably go lower.

How much support do you think is needed to place a a landmine on a railway track?

Quite a bit actually, given the armies of the time had trained units for doing that and factories specifically dedicated to building land mines.

Irrelevant, it is commitment that matters. Even going with a million Germans that's quite the asset sink.

Compared to IOTL, not at all. You've just freed up all of Germany's Panzer divisions for duty elsewhere, air assets, and at least half the logistics used to sustain 2.5 million men even into 1944 (It's 3 million in 1942-1943). Invasion of Italy and Europe is simply impossible at this juncture, and the "decisive" air war likely can't come about until 1945.

Again with your obsession with combat being the only thing capable of tying down troops.

You're talking about "forces in being", which has never been in dispute. The point is that, if said partisans are just hiding in the woods not bothering anything, the Germans don't really need to deal with them because the weather and lack of modern food and healthcare will do it for them. To really make the German occupation hurt, you have to be attacking them effectively.

It's wikipedia so if you have a source contradicting it I'm entirely willing to stand corrected, but yeah, a low of 350,000 in early 1942 and a high (excluding special circumstance such as the build up to Barbarossa, and such) of 620,000 in late 1943 admittedly not quite 500,000 at any given time but still quite the personal sink.

Mostly rear service personnel as stated because something like 80-90% of German logistics flowed through Poland during the course of the Eastern Front. It was not because the Poles required so many combat formations to keep them down.

Mind you that is of course with the engineering personal and labour battalions attached to a 2.5 million man army. With enough labourers, the damage of a thousand charges takes just as long as repairing the damage of a single charge.

This was also with the Soviets having complete air superiority and rupturing the front the very next day with Bagration. I could go on, but I think the point is clear.

If we assume that part of the USSR collapse in TTL included the Soviets not evacuating their factories to the east then that is the case in terms of industry. In terms of population it has 33,475,400, that's not a lot, but it's certainly large enough to raise an army from should Stalin or his successor be able to maintain some semblance of order. For agricultural depth, closest I can find for it is 16% of Russia's grain production in 1900, using your numbers Siberia would account for about 18.6% of the USSR's population so I assume it could probably feed itself and produce a surplus for the army.

Anyways, what matters is what the Germans think the Soviets are capable of, between Germany's lacklustre intelligence wing and a bit of maskirovka, the Germans could very well end up preparing counter measures for a paper tiger.

There is not, by September of 1942 Central Asia only had around 800,000 possible recruits and about the only thing left in Siberia was taking guys out of the Gulags. In 1942-1943, even with most of European Russia unoccupied, food production had fallen to 38/37% of 1940 level; in 1943 general starvation very nearly broke out. The loss of the Ukraine and other occupied areas had engendered shortages of coal (The Donbass was home to roughly 60% of Soviet output by itself), aluminum (Main Soviet facility was along the Dnieper, about 60-80% of production), iron ore (60% of production), steel (50% of production), electric power (30% of output), manganese ore (30% of production), and nickel (30% of production). Overall output of the machinery and metal goods sector had fallen by 40%. In addition, the USSR was also unable to meet the demand for copper, tin, zinc, lead, aluminum, and nickel with remaining sources; Lend Lease was sufficient to meet all of these demands except for aluminum and nickel. Antimony, tungsten, cobalt, vanadium, molybdenum, tin, and magnesium were also almost entirely lacking. In short, there is no way, even presuming the industrial base was there for it, that the USSR could resume the war from a lack of raw materials alone. As for Coal:

Everything but Karaganda in Central Asia would either be directly in Axis hands or on the frontline with all that entails.

 

[History Learner]

Truth is, Greater Germany has no way to get the UK, let alone the USA to sue for peace. So war goes on, with the Germans tied up in endless insurrection West of the Urals, while the USA mass produces atomic bombs with B-36 to carry them.

It does, via exhaustion. By late 1943/early 1944 the manpower situation was approaching the decisive point for the British and the Americans were not too far behind. War exhaustion for both was a very real factor by 1945 as well and is certainly amplified here by the fact they are Democracies that now must take insanely heavy losses given the loss of the USSR has freed up major German formations for duty elsewhere. Sure, if the Western Allies are able to function at automatons, not caring about casualties, their superior production and scientific advantages can carry them to victory sometime around 1947 when the B-36s can finally start entering combat. The problem is, they are not automatons.

 

[Tibi088]

I think it depends on a lot of other fators. Lets say the soviets are defeated. After that point whats the reason for the allies to continue the fight? I mean they hate the nazi's but they dont have any idea about how evil they really are. And if they beat Japan by using the bomb than they can use the effect of that to make an acceptable peace with the germans.

Liberating the whole of Europe would require a huge military force and sacrifice. Im pretty sure they are not wlling to pay that price wothout the soviets. Which leads to the above.

Or they can go on the sit back and nuke Germany to oblivion rute. That could work however at that point i dont really see them as much better than the nazis. They would practically genocide Germany and much of Europe. Not to mention the enviromental and other effects of using many nukes. Im no expert but I cant imagine it would be nice.

 

[sloreck]

The Allies are not going to be nuking occupied countries. The reality is even with atomic production ramped up, they are unlikely to be hitting folks like the Italians or Hungarians, although Ploeti is almost certain to get instant sunshine. I could see Baku, if occupied, getting a nuke or two, yes its occupied but you can be sure whatever Soviet/Russian government that exists east of the demarcation line would be OK with this if it means defeat of Germany. Even sprinkling 20-30 20-40kt weapons across Germany and a few selected spots won't be "genocidal", and won't cause a nuclear winter. Yes, the immediate vicinity of those attacks will have some fallout issues, but both Hiroshima and Nagasaki OTL were not poisoned long term (or even really short term) - these are not megaton level hydrogen bombs exploded at ground level and possibly salted with cobalt. A 20-40kt airburst (which is what these would be) is not producing that much fallout or residual contamination. If the Allies want to hit factories or ports in occupied countries, conventional bombing should do the job, again a few exceptions possibly but not many.

In 1943-45, after the collapse of the USSR and with the Allies gaining slow progress against Germany as will happen, and Japan driven back and contained how sane is it for the Allies to decide "OK, we really don't want to fight Germany any more, let's end the game and call it a draw." Germany is NOT going to voluntarily withdraw from any territory they have conquered any more than the USSR did after WWII. Sure most of the occupation troops in Norway may leave, but only after a throroughly pro-German "Nazi" regime is in place with German military bases, economically tied to the German economy - much like the "independent WP regimes in Eastern Europe following WWII. The same goes for other occupied countries like France, Belgium, Holland minus some bits Germany annexes. Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states all are annexed completely or partially with a few rumps like Slovakia allowed to survive. Assuming Italy has not been invaded except Sicily and Sardinia mainland Greece is now part of the new Italian Empire. Sweden and Finland may be independent, but they are dancing to Germany's tune as are Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania.
Like the Allies are going to see this as an acceptable situation.

If Germany is "too strong" to defeat ITTL in 1945, or the cost is too high, what will the situation be after 2,5,10 years of peace when Germany has been able to integrate its conquests, oil flows from Baku through the new pipeline, etc, etc. Will Germany become a rule obeying member of the international political system? What happens in the late 40s when Peron decides to get very cozy to Germany, who puts him under their "atomic umbrella"? Even if the horrors of Nazism are exposed - the camps, Generalplan Ost, etc and nobody in the west cares, they do care about their own security.

 

[wcv215]

Seeing what happened with those that refused, what's the alternative?

Just don’t join. It really is that simple. There’s no reason to join up, and the fall of the USSR doesn’t change that.

 

[marathag]

For the strategic planners and those "in the know" about the "big picture" of things? Yes, it'd be disheartening news to realize that the Allies would now be facing the full attentions of the German war machine as opposed to its formerly distracted focus. But then, the Western Allies didn't expect the Soviet Union to withstand the Nazi invasion. That in OTL it did was an unexpected boon. But through 1942 the WAllies were basing their war planning on the inevitability of the Red Army's collapse, the Soviet Union's surrender, and Germany's reorienting its military to face the West's efforts entirely.

Everyone should know that the USSR received a lot of Lend Lease from the USA. 11450 planes, 7172 tanks, and 433000 vehicles. plus a lot of other material, Looks like they will be delivered elsewhere, and transport freed up

There also was reverse Lend Lease, where it went the other way.

Shipments from the USSR were less than what was received from the Netherlands

 

[Tucknak]

While many posters here make claims and present arguments based on pure emotion, I would analyse the facts:

1. If the Germans conquer the Caucasus by late 1942, and this leads to a collapse of Soviet economy, political turmoil, civil war and some sort of peace treaty by early 1943, then the Germans can transfer some two million soldiers to other fronts. The Allies cant attack through the Caucasus or Siberia (geography) and one million Germans + some 200 000 to 300 000 Allies and Auxiliaries are enough to pacify this area. The 500 000 or so partisans would be able to hurt the Germans here and there, but they would get weaker with each passing month due to a lack of supplies, and they would be missing heavy equipment such as tanks and aircraft.
Now compare 500 000 partisans without tanks, guns and aircraft to a Red Army of five million with thousands of tanks, guns and aircraft and one can reasonably conclude that German casualties in the 1943-1945 period would have stood at around 5% of historical casualties. So holding the East will not suck up German resources, required reinforcements to replace losses will be minimal. The supply situation will also improve because the Germans will be supplying some 1.2 million troops instead of 3 million and 500 tanks/aircraft (not counting captured equipment) instead of 3000.

2. This means the Germans save tens of thousands of AFV´s, hundreds of thousands of motor vehicles and artillery/mortar guns, 15 000 to 20 000 aircraft and millions of soldiers. They also save millions of tons of fuel and god knows how many ammunition. This means no reduction of flying hours for German pilots, this means more people for the factories, this means supply of everything in abundance, this means more people for the development of new AA weapons. And this means greater losses for Allied Bombers and less bombing damage for Germany.

3. It doesnt matter that the Allies are producing 4 times more aircraft than the Germans, the only thing that matters are pilots and here the Allies are at a massive disadvantage. If they lose 30 bombers out of 500, they lose 300 pilots. The Germans on the other hand can loose 50 out of 150 fighters - at worst they loose 50 pilots, perhaps only 30. So the Allies have to produce at least 5x perhaps even 10x more pilots than the Germans. Since the advantage in population Germany - US/UK/Dominions is only 2.5 to 1 - and the US needs a lot of pilots for the Pacific War - it means that it will be very difficult. Especially considered the British exhaustion of their last manpower by the end of 1943 as mentioned by other posters.

4. After their victory in North Africa the Allies cant invade Europe, they also either cant invade the Mediterranean islands, or only at terrible cost. A successful invasion of Crete, Sicily, Sardinia or Corsica - if possible - will be no cakewalk but brutal on the level of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. It will also have 0 strategic impact. Also if conquered these islands will allways be at the end of a long supply line and vulnearble to a German counter invasion. By the summer of 1945 therefore, Britain will be near exhaustion, the Allies will be hard pressed to supply enough pilots, the war in the Pacific will still rage on demanding more and more resources and the Allies will perhaps have conquered 4 unimportant islands for horrendous casualties. The people will demand negotiations because they will see no possible way to win this.

5. Now comes the supposed magic bullet. OTL in 1945 the Pentagon estimated that it would take 204 Atomic Bombs to destroy the major 66 Soviet cities and knock the USSR out of comission. Big cities like Moscow were estimated to require up to 6 Atomic Bombs. The Pentagon also estimated that only half of all bombs would get through/hit the target, so the real number was estimated to be over 400 Atomic Bombs. Since by 1945 many German cities will allready have sustained some damage (allthough far less than OTL) we can assume that it would have taken 100 Atomic Bombs to destroy the major 66 German cities or 200 when taken into account the 50% loss rate calculated by the Pentagon. Considered the fact that by 1948 the US had just 50 bombs and only 32 B-29 bombers modified to deliver nuclear bombs, one can resonably assume that the US/UK would have chosen negotiations and peace after the victory over Japan instead of years of Nuclear bombing.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the...-bombs-could-destroy-the-soviets-2014-10?IR=T
https://www.globalresearch.ca/wipe-...-planned-prior-to-end-of-world-war-ii/5616601
https://canadiandimension.com/artic...-uk-planned-to-bomb-russia-into-the-stone-age

 

[sloreck]

Sigh. The Allies can take islands faster than the Germans can reinforce them with the possible exception of Sicily. The Germans have no surface fleet and the Italian Fleet is is very bad shape by 1942, almost non-existent. Any islands in the Med large or small can't be resupplied, and there is no way any island taken can be retaken by the Axis who has zero amphibious assault capability, no doctrine or training. Sicily/HUSKY was in July, 1943. This gives the Germans 12 months at best, and realistically half of that, to begin to deploy assets from Eastern Europe elsewhere. Where do they send the troops? Other than Sicily troops and equipment going to the big islands - Crete, Sardinia, Corsica - are going to suffer losses from Allied air and naval forces before they land and once they land cannot be effectively resupplied. The small islands in the Aegean - those can be overwhelmed if desired or left to wither on the vine - once their fuel runs out they can have aircraft parked wing tip to wing tip but who cares.

Okinawa and Iwo Jima level casualties - really? Do you see German (and Italian) soldiers fighting to the death, blowing themselves up with grenades as long as they take one Allied soldier with them. Given the situation of being taken prisoner by the Russians, yes some Germans did fight to the death but even there there were massive German surrenders - I mean did every German in Stalingrad fight to the death dying killing one last Russian with his bayonet - no. Rather than dying gloriously for their Fuhrer/Duce, these troops when beaten will surrender to an enemy that will treat them decently, give them three squares a day etc. Sure some fanatics won't, but even Waffen SS troops surrendered to the Western Allies when that was the smart thing to do.

The war in the Pacific will, by 1945, take fewer resources. Japan will be isolated and with the war in Europe going on and no OVERLORD the buildup of resources needed for OLYMPIC and CORONET won't be happening. The blockade/starvation strategy will be used, and actual assaults against Japanese held territory will be limited to any remaining spots with strategic importance. Maybe the Kuriles are seized to facilitate shipments to the USSR (which will not be at war with Japan unless the Japanese start it), maybe some advances in Malaya/DEI if it can be done on the cheap. Once the bomb becomes available it will be used in Japan, probably with the same result - maybe after some are used in Europe maybe not. The point is everything sent to the Pacific in anticipation of the invasion of Japan will go elsewhere. As will all the LL sent to Russia.

 

[Mr Director]

Even if it were Iwo Jima and Okinawa level casualties, the Allies did suffer those types of losses OTL, namely, at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. And in the end,the islands were taken, and it didn’t change a damn thing, insofar as the willingness and ability to continue the war went.

 

[marathag]

The Allies cant attack through the Caucasus

Why can't the Allies advance thru Iran? If all that Lend Lease was shipped thru, that means an attack could be supplied

but they would get weaker with each passing month due to a lack of supplies, and they would be missing heavy equipment such as tanks and aircraft.

yes, the Viet Minh couldn't have beat the French without their massed bombers and armored divisions.

If it was that simple, the Soviets wouldn't have had any trouble in Afghanistan, right?

Insurgencies are hard to deal with

 

[marathag]

If they lose 30 bombers out of 500, they lose 300 pilots.

No, they lose 30 pilots, 30 co-pilots and a bunch of gunners

Considered the fact that by 1948 the US had just 50 bombs and only 32 B-29 bombers modified to deliver nuclear bombs,

because the US pretty much demobilized at the end of 1945, from winning the War.

War ongoing, guess what?

Production doesn't start to ramp down in 1944, as OTL

 

[Johnrankins]

I think that's extremely likely, with the Germans killing millions of Russian. You see an occupying force killing your family, what are you going to do, sit back and relax?

Actually I see Taliban level extremely unlikely .... because it would be far, far worse. In the greater scheme of things the Taliban are a minor nuisance. They kill what .. a few hundred Americans a year? We have that many people killed in Chicago alone without a war.