Would the Wallies have made peace if Stalin dropped out of WW2?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
There would be no peace, but Allied strategy would change. Land offensives would be restricted to areas where the Wehrmacht could not easily project force. They'd attack on the periphery - Mediterranean islands and probably Norway. Since the Allies are already in Italy, they'd probably stay where they are at, but dig in for defense as opposed to trying to move up. They'd build up the air force and concentrate on strategic bombing. Only when they thought Germany was weakened enough to collapse would they risk landing on the European mainland. FDR likely pays more attention on progress reports of the Manhattan Project.

Allied momentum in the war likely shifts to Japan so they can eliminate that front to free up resources for a future invasion of Europe. The extra landing craft and airpower could be used to clear out Burma and open the Burma Road, and perhaps launch a British attack on the DEI in 1944-1945. This won't affect the Pacific War's outcome, but it probably places Nationalist China in a much better position for the postwar. When the first atomic bombs roll out in summer 1945, the Allies issue an ultimatum on Germany. When Hitler refuses, the bombs start being dropped. Invasion on the mainland in 1946 if a coup does not remove Hitler first.
 
There would be no peace, but Allied strategy would change. Land offensives would be restricted to areas where the Wehrmacht could not easily project force. They'd attack on the periphery - Mediterranean islands and probably Norway. Since the Allies are already in Italy, they'd probably stay where they are at, but dig in for defense as opposed to trying to move up. They'd build up the air force and concentrate on strategic bombing. Only when they thought Germany was weakened enough to collapse would they risk landing on the European mainland. FDR likely pays more attention on progress reports of the Manhattan Project.

Allied momentum in the war likely shifts to Japan so they can eliminate that front to free up resources for a future invasion of Europe. The extra landing craft and airpower could be used to clear out Burma and open the Burma Road, and perhaps launch a British attack on the DEI in 1944-1945. This won't affect the Pacific War's outcome, but it probably places Nationalist China in a much better position for the postwar. When the first atomic bombs roll out in summer 1945, the Allies issue an ultimatum on Germany. When Hitler refuses, the bombs start being dropped. Invasion on the mainland in 1946 if a coup does not remove Hitler first.
If the war gets emphasized in the Pacific Downfall happens before the first a bomb test. Germany has V2s with biological weapons. wallies will make peace with Germany.
 
Germans still lose: they didn't have either the industrial strength or population base to win a war against the US and Great Britain. The war would have taken longer, but ultimately it would have been the same result. Who knows, maybe the Germans would have survived long enough to eat a few nukes in this timeline?
 
the Soviets might really consider making a separate peace to save the Soviet regime from collapsing.

The Nazis reject any peace overture and continue the war. The political-ideological dynamics of the opposing sides on the Eastern Front means it will always be a war to the finish, there would never be a negotiated peace. The only way the Soviets are staying out is either going to be via total defeat (like collapsing) or via the Germans just not invading them in the first place.

Now, as to the question "if the Soviets are out, do the WAllies make an armistice" then the answer is... maybe. In physical terms, the Anglo-Americans certainly have the production and population to achieve victory. The only potential hurdle is whether they'll be able to politically stomach the butcher's bill that they'll face in doing so. One can make arguments either way.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The problem with any landing in a Reich controlled Europe (although this is somewhat dependent on the sort of peace that exists in the East) is that the Heer can create a defensive belt that is close to unbreakable, assuming Hitler can be kept amused elsewhere and not divert materials for the latest Maus/Ratte/Dora Charlie Foxtrot.

At best the Allies can throw 10-12 divisions at the Continent (IOTL Overlord managed 5 divisions, the U.S. also put 3 divisions onto Saipan ten days later, so the lift could be found, especially if it happens after the end of the Pacific War) while maintaining anything close to coordinated command and control, sufficient air cover, and follow on logistics. That would be, by far, the largest landing operation ever attempted, marginally larger than the plans for Olympic, and would, with the proviso above, thrown at the most comprehensive defensive belt ever seen.

Twelve divisions sounds like a LOT of firepower, until you realize that the Heer could, without serious strain, put 50 divisions of troops into the defensive lines. Using slave labor, which is certain to be available in abundance, and the resources of the European Peninsula you can readily see just how deep a defensive belt could be, This assumes the conditions in the East are such that 35-40 divisions are sufficient to maintain whatever line the peace established with the Soviets. Moreover, a good number of the divisions manning the fixed defenses could be from Reich allies. Unlike the disaster along the Volga IOTL, the overall equipment levels of the Italians, Romanians, Czech, or Hiwi units wouldn't much matter since they will mainly need small arms and 37mm & 50mm anti-tank/landing boat guns. Heavier artillery, along with mobile formations could be mainly Heer.

An additional question is just how long it would take Bomber Command and the 8th AF to obtain air supremacy if the Soviets are no longer in the war. Not only will the Reich be able to shift noteworthy, if not huge amounts of DP weaponry to the defense of Inner Germany and the Western area of Occupation but the construction of single engine fighters should be able to increase thanks to a reduction in the need for ground attack aircraft in the East (again the conditions under which the Soviets surrendered make a major difference here). Total air supremacy will be an absolute requirement, both so fighter bombers can concentrate on the "Jabo" role and to allow the safe passage of 9-10,000 ships and craft of the landing armada and uninterrupted supply of the massive force that will need to follow on the assault divisions in the following 21 days.

IMO, the ONLY way to breach the Atlantic Wall, under the condition under discussion, would be with serious use of nuclear weapons in a tactical role, not just against shore defenses, but against communication nodes. Considering the production pace of Manhattan (IOTL there were only 53 physics packages in existence at the end of 1948) it would be summer of 1947, at the earliest, that any landing could be contemplated, assuming a rather modest four weapons per divisional frontage simply to force a crack in the defensive fortifications.and 6-10 against transport nodes.

The Reich gets the Bomb? Piss on the fire and call in the dogs. The concentration of shipping is so great that a few underwater detonations would gut the landing force and its game over.
 

Deleted member 1487

Calbear wouldn't strategic bombing collapse the economy, making any line breakable by 1945 due to air power and naval fire support?
 
Unlike the disaster along the Volga IOTL, the overall equipment levels of the Italians, Romanians, Czech, or Hiwi units wouldn't much matter since they will mainly need small arms and 37mm & 50mm anti-tank/landing boat guns. Heavier artillery, along with mobile formations could be mainly Heer.
There were not Czech units in Soviet Union fighting alongside Germany. There could be some Czechs in Wehrmacht, drafted from annexed Sudetland but not Czech units.
Only units on Eastern front where Czechs were serving was Czechoslovak battalion in winter/ spring 1943 fighting around Kharkov and later enlarged to Czechoslovak brigade which took part on battle for Kiev in fall 1943.
 
The problem with any landing in a Reich controlled Europe (although this is somewhat dependent on the sort of peace that exists in the East) is that the Heer can create a defensive belt that is close to unbreakable, assuming Hitler can be kept amused elsewhere and not divert materials for the latest Maus/Ratte/Dora Charlie Foxtrot.

At best the Allies can throw 10-12 divisions at the Continent (IOTL Overlord managed 5 divisions, the U.S. also put 3 divisions onto Saipan ten days later, so the lift could be found, especially if it happens after the end of the Pacific War) while maintaining anything close to coordinated command and control, sufficient air cover, and follow on logistics. That would be, by far, the largest landing operation ever attempted, marginally larger than the plans for Olympic, and would, with the proviso above, thrown at the most comprehensive defensive belt ever seen.

IMO it probably would have been easier to shift the main emphasis to Southern France instead of Normandy. The Nazis' Atlantic Wall wasn't present there and the terrain in the 'Champagne country' was much more conducive to the type of maneuver warfare that the Western Allies so badly outclassed the Germans in. Then there's the fact that faced with a Soviet collapse the US in all likelihood would have quickly abandoned its '90 division gamble' in favor of something more along the lines of the larger 200 division land army envisioned by strategic planners on the eve of war. It also would have had the effect of utterly canceling the manpower intensive SW Pacific campaign that culminated in the million plus-man reconquest of the Philippines. Perhaps we would have seen a Central Pacific only axis of advance ITTL...
 
IMO it probably would have been easier to shift the main emphasis to Southern France instead of Normandy. The Nazis' Atlantic Wall wasn't present there

OTL. In a TL where the Soviets have folded, the Germans can afford to extend the Atlantic Wall to cover the Med approaches.

and the terrain in the 'Champagne country' was much more conducive to the type of maneuver warfare that the Western Allies so badly outclassed the Germans in.

That the WAllies outclassed the Germans in 1944 in maneuver warfare was a direct function of the Germans best maneuver forces having already died against the Soviets. They never managed to outperform the Germans in 1941/42... or the Soviets in 1944/45, for that matter.

This was a direct function of the WAllies greater casualty aversion: maneuver warfare against a sufficiently strong and stubborn opponent is very costly. Everyone is familiar with the losses Soviet formations would take on the offensive, of course, but what is less often remarked upon is the willingness of German soldiers were to bleed to achieve the feats they did in their most spectacular campaigns. The Battle of France is remembered for the Germans as a rollicking romp, but before the freewheeling countryside mayhem got going the Germans suffered murderous losses achieving that breakthrough. For example, Guderian lost fully a third of his lead infantry regiment in a single day at Sedan. Similar examples can, on the tactical level, actually be found on the Western Front when one examines the difference between the WAllies "regular" ground forces and their "elite" ones. Towards the end of 1944, in the Battle of the Huertgen Forest, there was a peak the Allies named Castle Hill. Throughout the month of November, German positions there repulsed repeated attacks by American infantry. It is also no coincidence that the Western Allies most formidable maneuver general, Patton, was also closer to the Soviets and Germans in his attitude towards casualties then his fellow Anglo-American commanders.

The bottom line is that if you are going to conduct maneuver warfare on an early-war German or late-war Soviet scale against a peer opponent, you are going to have to be prepared to grease the tread of your tanks with the blood of your soldiers. A disregard for human life, as morally reprehensible as it may be, does have it's military advantages.
 
Last edited:
One factor which could influence both sides towards a ceasefire is the fact that Germany would have considerable amounts of poison gas, which would be useful in attempting to establish a MAD dynamic with Britain (apologies if someone has already made this point).
Britain has poison gas of its own, and Operation Vegetarian, and the Americans will be along in a few years with nukes. If Germany goes of gas, it's going to stop existing.

Also, once North Africa is secure (pretty non-negitiable, the infrastructure in Axis North Africa isn't good enough to allow victory), expect an all-out bomber offensive again Baku and Ploesti.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Calbear wouldn't strategic bombing collapse the economy, making any line breakable by 1945 due to air power and naval fire support?
Again, working with only half the information since the terms for the Soviet separate peace (which is a polite term for surrender) are not known...

If the Reich get strategic depth in the East, the Strategic Bombing campaign is in trouble (this assumes that all of OTL's occupied Western Europe remains in Nazi hands).

If one takes, as the best possible case for the Soviets, a return by the USSR of its major shipments of materials, oil and food to the Reich, with the USSR not losing any territory (vastly unlikely, but, again, best case) but with a wide demilitarized zone along the Soviet borders of a couple hundred miles, with Reich observers (sort of a Saarland in reverse). The Reich now can set up manufacturing beyond the range of any escort fighter until the arrival of the P-47N, F-82 and potentially the F8B in General Government. Even then the missions will need to be straight line, no staying out over the North Sea or Baltic until it is time to make the attack run. The oil fields will be in Soviet hands, not the Reich's so any attempt to attack them would possibly result in a war with the Soviets, something that would put Iran and potentially Iraq in play. The Lancaster is the only bomber that can carry useful loads deep into General Government until the arrival of the B-29, even at night, with the sort of flight path that would have to be flown, the RAF would have 10% losses every mission, maybe more. The Bombing offensive, as we know it, would stop dead for at least a year, more likely two, when the ultra long range escorts came on line. Even then the escort would be hard pressed to get much beyond Lodz in General Government (Poland), using the generally accepted reduction of 25% of max range for take off, form up, 20-30 minutes at full throttle/combat. So all the reduction in production, and most of the attrition of the Luftwaffe (which was more or less the 8th AF using their bombers as anvils for the P-51s to hammer the Luftwaffe to pieces against) between mid 1943 and early, probably mid 1945 is gone.

Those would be epic missions for a single seat aircraft, 8-10 hours in the air, virtually all of it over enemy territory. The WAllies would also need absolute mountains of fighters. There would need to be fighters escorting the whole bomber stream AND the ultra long range fighters (who won't be able to drop their external tanks until they are almost at the target area) all the way to the German/General Government frontier (so P-47Ds covering through France to the German border, P-51s taking over up to the Oder, and then the ultra long range fighters taking things to the target and back, probably with more shorter range escorts running fighter sweep to hold down the Luftwaffe on the return trip.

Naval gunfire is a miracle weapon, except it really isn't. Nothing can put down fire like a battleship, but against a strong enough defense it is of limited use. The Heer was terrorized by naval guns in Normandy, but that was because their defensive wall was, in reality, a joke. The American almost literally made an administrative landing on Utah (197 TOTAL casualties), Gold, Juno and Sword, were all secured inside of two hours of landing, even Omaha was cleared inside of six hours. The Atlantic Wall was actually more like the "Atlantic Picket Fence", mainly because the Reich had to dedicate so much of its resources to the East. That left the Heer trying to run Panzer divisions 40-100 miles under constant air attack and then into naval gunfire as they came within 10-15 miles of the beach. A REALLY well prepared defense, something that the Nazi's could have built if they weren't hip deep in the Red Army is a very different matter.

Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa were all subject to 360 degree naval gunfire, literally not a spot on any of the islands was out of range for not just battle ship, but 8" and 6" guns as well. There isn't a spot on Okinawa that is more than 23,000 yards from a firing position in deep water. A 5" gun can shoot completely across Iwo Jima and hit a ship in a firing position on the other side. Peleliu is only 6,000 yards wide, total area is 5 square miles (13 square km), but it took two months and 10,000 casualties to clear it (and Peleliu was totally cut off, no hope of resupply or support). Iwo is 8 Sq. Mi., took five weeks and 27,000 casualties, and it was also utterly cut off, bombed for weeks, and then pounded with naval gunfire from 8 battleships, 9 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers and 16 destroyers, every damned day, for five weeks, with fire being called in by specially trained forward observers. I won't even go into Okinawa. It was so bad that the Joint Chiefs considered asking FDR for permission to use chemical weapons.

The Reich originally panned to have a a defensive network extending inland for 5-7 MILES, with reinforced concrete pill boxes, tank traps, trench lines, minefields (for some odd reason the IJA wasn't really a big fan of mines), pre-registered mortars and artillery, the works, backed up by mobile heavy armored forces.. If Rommel had been able to finish the defenses, it would have been a bloodbath to end all bloodbaths. Just getting a toehold would have been worse than the estimates for all of Operation Downfall.
 
One factor which could influence both sides towards a ceasefire is the fact that Germany would have considerable amounts of poison gas, which would be useful in attempting to establish a MAD dynamic with Britain (apologies if someone has already made this point).
In 1943 the Allies didn't know about the G-agents and didn't believe such weapons were possible (though the Germans didn't know they didn't know due to the blackout on publication about organo-phosphate research in the journals to protect DDT).

Also, in 1943 Operation Vegetarian was a paper plan; the UK didn't have the capacity to product anthrax spores in sufficient quantity (or anything more than test/research quantities), it was a US plant that eventually produced them in 1945.
 
Both sides had plenty of CW. The U.S. alone had 30,000 TONS of CW agents, mostly Mustard and Lewisite. There was always a MAD dynamic regard CW (which, BTW, was why it wasn't used).
Exactly. A situation where the benefits outweighed the costs didn't occur.

The V-weapons didn't have chemical warheads, such systems would have taken time to develop, nor would such weapons have inflicted huge casualties with them.

The only reasonable plausible occasion I can see large scale CW is a German attempt to invade Britain with Churchill in power (sorry for sealioning the thread).
 
If the war gets emphasized in the Pacific Downfall happens before the first a bomb test. Germany has V2s with biological weapons. wallies will make peace with Germany.
Historically Germany put little effort into BW research, let alone production. in 1943 they had no significant BW capacity, nor did any of the V-weapons have CBW capability.
 
The problem with any landing in a Reich controlled Europe (although this is somewhat dependent on the sort of peace that exists in the East) is that the Heer can create a defensive belt that is close to unbreakable, assuming Hitler can be kept amused elsewhere and not divert materials for the latest Maus/Ratte/Dora Charlie Foxtrot.

At best the Allies can throw 10-12 divisions at the Continent (IOTL Overlord managed 5 divisions, the U.S. also put 3 divisions onto Saipan ten days later, so the lift could be found, especially if it happens after the end of the Pacific War) while maintaining anything close to coordinated command and control, sufficient air cover, and follow on logistics. That would be, by far, the largest landing operation ever attempted, marginally larger than the plans for Olympic, and would, with the proviso above, thrown at the most comprehensive defensive belt ever seen.

Twelve divisions sounds like a LOT of firepower, until you realize that the Heer could, without serious strain, put 50 divisions of troops into the defensive lines. Using slave labor, which is certain to be available in abundance, and the resources of the European Peninsula you can readily see just how deep a defensive belt could be, This assumes the conditions in the East are such that 35-40 divisions are sufficient to maintain whatever line the peace established with the Soviets. Moreover, a good number of the divisions manning the fixed defenses could be from Reich allies. Unlike the disaster along the Volga IOTL, the overall equipment levels of the Italians, Romanians, Czech, or Hiwi units wouldn't much matter since they will mainly need small arms and 37mm & 50mm anti-tank/landing boat guns. Heavier artillery, along with mobile formations could be mainly Heer.

An additional question is just how long it would take Bomber Command and the 8th AF to obtain air supremacy if the Soviets are no longer in the war. Not only will the Reich be able to shift noteworthy, if not huge amounts of DP weaponry to the defense of Inner Germany and the Western area of Occupation but the construction of single engine fighters should be able to increase thanks to a reduction in the need for ground attack aircraft in the East (again the conditions under which the Soviets surrendered make a major difference here). Total air supremacy will be an absolute requirement, both so fighter bombers can concentrate on the "Jabo" role and to allow the safe passage of 9-10,000 ships and craft of the landing armada and uninterrupted supply of the massive force that will need to follow on the assault divisions in the following 21 days.

IMO, the ONLY way to breach the Atlantic Wall, under the condition under discussion, would be with serious use of nuclear weapons in a tactical role, not just against shore defenses, but against communication nodes. Considering the production pace of Manhattan (IOTL there were only 53 physics packages in existence at the end of 1948) it would be summer of 1947, at the earliest, that any landing could be contemplated, assuming a rather modest four weapons per divisional frontage simply to force a crack in the defensive fortifications.and 6-10 against transport nodes.

The Reich gets the Bomb? Piss on the fire and call in the dogs. The concentration of shipping is so great that a few underwater detonations would gut the landing force and its game over.

Well said.

Wrt the production rate of nuclear bombs, here are the numbers planned for tactical employment during Downfall [1], these are in addition to the three historically used weapons (Gadget, Little Boy and Fat Man):
  • one MK 3 by 23AUG19451945
  • a second MK 3 by 01SEP1945
  • three more MK 3 (mix of MOD0 and MOD1 configurations) by 30SEP1945
  • three or four additional MK 3 weapons in OCT1945
  • an additional MK 3 every ten days for the remainder of the year
  • an additional MK 1 available before the end of 1945, too late for the initial Olympic/Coronet landings

[1] As described in the Hull-Seaman memorandum of August 1945.
 

Deleted member 1487

You're glossing over the realities of strategic bombing collapsing manufacturing in range of Britain not just by hitting factories, which proved difficult to pull off, though effective, but by destroying transportation. In 1945 nothing collapsed the German economy more than hitting rail and other transportation means; you can move your production out of range to the East to a limited degree unless you empty out cities of workers and disrupt production heavily in the process or move it underground, but in the end you can't move output to Western Europe for use if your rail network and roads are interdicted. Which is exactly what happened IOTL very late in the war. Earlier in 1944 around D-Day the transportation plan demolished German ability to move replacements and reinforcements to the front in a timely manner and suffered very badly from similar interdiction attacks in Italy too. Building up an Über-Atlantik Wall 5-7 miles deep is impossible in face of OTL strategic bombing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Plan
The effectiveness of the Transport Plan was evident in German reports at the time. A German air ministry report of 13 June 1944 stated: "The raids...have caused the breakdown of all main lines; the coast defences have been cut off from the supply bases in the interior...producing a situation which threatens to have serious consequences." and that although "transportation of essential supplies for the civilian population have been completely...large scale strategic movement of German troops by rail is practically impossible at the present time and must remain so while attacks are maintained at their present intensity".[13]

It only got worse going forward:
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm#taotraw
The Attack on the Railways and Waterways

The attack on transportation was the decisive blow that completely disorganized the German economy. It reduced war production in all categories and made it difficult to move what was produced to the front. The attack also limited the tactical mobility of the German army.

The Survey made a careful examination of the German railway system, beginning as soon as substantial portions were in Allied hands. While certain important records were destroyed or lost during the battle of Germany, enough were located so that together with interrogation of many German railroad officials, it was possible to construct an accurate picture of the decline and collapse of the system.

Germany entered the war with an excellent railway System; it had general overcapacity in both lines and yards (built partly in anticipation of military requirements), and, popular supposition to the contrary, the system was not undermaintained. Standards of maintenance were higher than those general in the United States. The railway system was supplemented by a strong inland waterways system connecting the important rivers of northern Germany, crisscrossing the Ruhr and connecting it with Berlin. The waterways carried from 21 to 26 percent of the total freight movement. Commercial highway transport of freight was insignificant; it accounted for less than three percent of the total.

Although the investigation shows that the railroad system was under strain -- especially during the winter campaign in Russia in 1941-42 when there was a serious shortage of cars and locomotives -- it was generally adequate for the demands placed upon it until the spring of 1944. New construction and appropriation of equipment of occupied counties remedied the locomotive and car shortage. The Reichsbahn had taken no important steps to prepare itself for air attack.

The attack on German transportation was intimately woven with the development of ground operations. In support of the invasion a major assignment of the air forces had been the disruption of rail traffic between Germany and the French coast through bombing of marshalling yards in northern France. At the time of the invasion itself a systematic and large-scale attempt was made to interdict all traffic to the Normandy beachhead. These latter operations were notably successful; as the front moved to the German border the attack was extended to the railroads of the Reich proper. Heavy and medium bombers and fighters all participated.

Although prior to September 1944, there had been sporadic attacks on the German transportation system, no serious deterioration in its ability to handle traffic was identified by the Survey. The vastly heavier attacks in September and October 1944 on marshalling yards, bridges, lines, and on train movements, produced a serious disruption in traffic over all of western Germany. Freight car loadings, which were approximately 900,000 cars for the Reich as a whole in the week ending August 19 fell to 700,000 cars in the last week of October. There was some recovery in early November, but thereafter they declined erratically to 550,000 cars in the week ending December 23 and to 214,000 cars during the week ending March 3. Thereafter the disorganization was so great that no useful statistics were kept.

"The German economy is heading for inevitable collapse within 4-8 weeks." Report of Speer to Hitler, March 16, 1945.

The attack on the waterways paralleled that on the railways; the investigation shows that it was even more successful. On September 23, 1944, the Dortmund-Ems and Mittelland canals were interdicted stopping all through water traffic between the Ruhr and points on the north coast and in central Germany. By October 14, traffic on the Rhine had been interdicted by a bomb that detonated a German demolition charge on a bridge at Cologne. Traffic in the Ruhr dropped sharply and all water movement of coal to south Germany ceased.

The effect of this progressive traffic tie-up was found, as might be expected, to have first affected commodities normally shipped in less-than-trainload lots -- finished and semi-finished manufactured goods, components, perishable consumer goods and the less bulky raw materials. Cars loaded with these commodities had to be handled through the marshalling yards and after the September and October attacks this became increasingly difficult or impossible. Although output of many industries reached a peak in late summer and declined thereafter, total output of the economy was on the whole well- maintained through November. Beginning in December there was a sharp fall in production in nearly all industries; week by week the decline continued until the end of the war.

Although coal traffic (about 40 percent of all the traffic carried by the German railways) held up better than miscellaneous commercial traffic, the decline was both more easily traceable and more dramatic. The September raids reduced coal-car placements in the Essen Division of the Reichsbahn (the originator of most of the coal traffic of the Ruhr) to an average of 12,000 cars daily as compared with 21,400 at the beginning of the year. Most of this was for consumption within the Ruhr. By January, placements in the Ruhr were down to 9,000 cars a day and in February virtually complete interdiction of the Ruhr District was achieved. Such coal as was loaded was subject to confiscation by the railroads to fuel their locomotives; even with this supply, coal stocks of the Reichsbahn itself were reduced from 18 days' supply in October 1944 to 4½ days' supply in February 1945. By March some divisions in southern Germany had less than a day's supply on hand, and locomotives were idle because of lack of coal.

The German economy was powered by coal; except in limited areas, the coal supply had been eliminated.

Military (Wehrmacht) traffic had top priority over all other traffic. During the period of attack this traffic came to account for an ever-increasing proportion of the declining movement. Through 1944 the air attack did not prevent the army from originating such movements although the time of arrival or even the arrival of units and equipment became increasingly uncertain. Couriers accompanied detachments and even shipments of tanks and other weapons; their task was to get off the train when it was delayed and report where it could be found. After the turn of the year even military movements became increasingly difficult. The Ardennes counter-offensive, the troops and equipment for which were marshalled over the railroads, was probably the last such effort of which the Reichsbahn would have been capable in the west.

The Rhine makes an awesome choke point for transportation attacks to keep materials from flowing forward to build up defenses or maintain them in the face of invasion. Not only that, but what about the attrition to the German rolling stock from bombing/strafing attacks and the increased wear and tear on the rolling stock and rail system from having to travel even further to move coal and iron east, plus then finished product west? All without the barges of the Rhein, as it and the Ruhr are no longer economically useful in the face of strategic bombing. BTW when is the displacement of industry east supposed to happen without interrupting production at the crucial 1944-45 moment?

How is Germany supposed to build up a 5-7 miles Maginot line in Northern France by 1945?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a thought - The V1, V2 and other weapons such as the STG-43/4 or to an extent, the ME262 were as a result of the combined pressures of a war in the east and west. Without the war in the East and the losses that entails, how many weapons would not be developed because there was no need?

I'd suggest that the V1 and V2 wouldn't be developed at the pace they were because they wouldn't be seen as the only way to strike back against Britain before the Soviets arrived, same with the STG-43 - if they're not facing the onslaught of the Soviets, would they need to increase the individual soldier's firepower?
Same with the tanks, if they don't face any serious threat form the T34, would the Tiger or Panther be pursued, or would they work instead on an improved Mk4?

I could imagine the ME262 still being worked on due to the threat form the USAAF and RAF, and maybe more resources going into Jet Bombers too.
On the Allied side, I could see development running pretty much OTL, especially on Atomic weapons, but here's a thought:

We have a view of atomic weapons being hugely effective, and when bomb development continued, it instilled a sense of horror at their use that helped to maintain the MAD theory and held the peace under the tip of a sword.
While still using them against Japan would give this impression, the architectural differences in construction between Nagasaki and Nuremburg are rather marked so the bomb could be seen as less devastating, ("it will only destroy a district" as opposed to "it will destroy the whole city"), and would this lead to Politicians and Generals believing they could wage a "limited" nuclear war?
 
Top