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

[Yodasgrandad]

Sometime in 1941/42 the Reich defeats the USSR, Stalin dies and civil war ensues allowing Germany to occupy the country up to the Ural Mountains. They are still at war with Britain and the US.

Assuming they have the political will to defeat Nazi Germany (after they defeat Japan) how many casualties would the WAllies suffer in taking back the continent from a far stronger and prepared Nazi Germany that has had a significant amount of time to build up their military, finish the Atlantic Wall and drain the resources of Eastern Europe?

What would TTL's D-Day look like in terms of losses?

IOTL the Western Front in 1944/45 cost the WAllies over 750,000 total casualties including around 200,000 deaths plus another 300,000 casualties for Sicily and Italy. Possibly more casualties as they'll have to wade through more Germans?

Or would it be no different to the D-Day that happened?

[antfreire]

I believe that if Germany had occupied all of European Rusia the Allies would have sued for peace. Just imagine the war production of a Third Reich that extended from Spain to the Ural Mountains.

[Kingfish]

Assuming they have the political will to defeat Nazi Germany (after they defeat Japan) how many casualties would the WAllies suffer in taking back the continent from a far stronger and prepared Nazi Germany that has had a significant amount of time to build up their military, finish the Atlantic Wall and drain the resources of Eastern Europe?

None.

The defeat of Japan included the dropping of two atomic bombs. It doesn't take much to envision a German surrender after Berlin, Hamburg and say Munich had suffered the same fate as Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Michael Kenny]

I believe that if Germany had occupied all of European Rusia the Allies would have sued for peace. Just imagine the war production of a Third Reich that extended from Spain to the Ural Mountains.

You have to wonder then why the UK did not 'sue for peace' in 1940.
Perhaps you should look back to the previous 300 years of British wars in Europe and see how they humbled the then current dominant European military power before assuming Germany would be 'impossible' to defeat.

[Stiltzkin]

This was discussed before, but without Szilard and Einstein there would be noone to warn them. The bomb would not be ready before 45.

You have to wonder then why the UK did not 'sue for peace' in 1940.

Because big brother US would come and save them, it would have dragged the United States sooner into the conflict, something the Axis tried to avoid until they knocked out every opponent on the continent out of the war.
British rule was already damped in the 20th century, you are comparing apples to oranges, they did not possess the power to defeat Germany alone, their manpower did not even suffice.
That would be like comparing Prussia during the Napoleonic Wars to Imperial Germany (not to mention that Napoleons Imperial Army was stronger than the British, Britain relied on Naval power, just like the Dutch), it was a relatively poor country back then. Only "overpatriotic" neo-romanticists cannot face such facts. It makes me laugh when people naively jump through epochs.

To answer the OPs question: They would be unwilling to pay such a high price.
Quite frankly, Britain was even reluctant to defend their colonies in the south east asian sector.

[stg 44]

I believe that if Germany had occupied all of European Rusia the Allies would have sued for peace. Just imagine the war production of a Third Reich that extended from Spain to the Ural Mountains.

You have to wonder then why the UK did not 'sue for peace' in 1940.
Perhaps you should look back to the previous 300 years of British wars in Europe and see how they humbled the then current dominant European military power before assuming Germany would be 'impossible' to defeat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

[Yoozername]

The US would be in a two ocean naval war...Germany might use her allies to over run Africa and other regions and even link up with the Japanese.

[Michael Kenny]

Because big brother US would come and save them, it would have dragged the United States sooner into the conflict, something the Axis tried to avoid until they knocked out every opponent on the continent out of the war.

The usual rubbish from those who believe Germany was unbeatable. The darkest hour for the UK was 1940. It stood alone and if there was any time that terms would have been asked for this was it. The UK did not seek terms and the German set-back was compounded when Hitler turned east.

they did not possess the power to defeat Germany alone, their manpower did not even suffice.

The manpower was there just that it was allocated in different ways to the way Germany allocated her manpower.
Again the common mistake of assuming the way Germany did things was the standard and all other nations had to conform. Thankfully the UK did not use its 13 year old Children as cannon fodder.

Only "overpatriotic" neo-romanticists cannot face such facts. It makes me laugh when people naively jump through epochs.

Just as I stifle a laugh as I hear the wails of those who believe that a German unit just has to take the field and it is an automatic win for them

To answer the OPs question: They would be unwilling to pay such a high price.
Quite frankly, Britain was even reluctant to defend their colonies in the south east asian sector.

The Western Allies never had any intention of going down the road of massive casualties. Their Armies were based around firepower and mobility. Rather than going down the German road of a high division count they took a decision to limit their army size. Their armies were composed of fit young men rather than the schoolchildren invalids and Mongolian Yak herders so common in the unbeatable German Military,

[Michael Kenny]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Indeed. Look up a man called 'Napoleon' and his reason for invading Russia.

[Stiltzkin]

The usual rubbish from those who believe Germany was unbeatabl

This has something to do with warmaking potential. The Allies had their chance while Germany was attacking Poland, they decided to stand idle and sold them out (twice, Tooze). Considering that overnationalistic UKIP members still attack Poles on British streets (whose people fought on their side during both wars), is a general mark for disdain.

13 year old Children as cannon fodder.

Because the Soviets did it for the UK. However, the British army must have been extremely proficient, being incapable of defeating 13 year old boys without taking higher casualties.

Just as I stifle a laugh as I hear the wails of those who believe that a German unit just has to take the field and it is an automatic win for them

You have proven to the AHF that you are very sensitive and often than not overreact. The traits of a nationalist.

he Western Allies never had any intention of going down the road of massive casualties.

Because the Soviets suffered 33 Million for them.

limit their army size

Because it was an operativ warfare Army (just like the Soviets, compare v.Creveld, Manuever Warfare), unlike the WAllies forces with their time consuming and resource wasting, large divisional slices.

Indeed. Look up a man called 'Napoleon' and his reason for invading Russia.

His reasons for invading Russia were distorted throughout history. There is as much propaganda on the Napoleonic Wars as exists on WW2. He wanted to knock them out of the war and cut off British supply and interests. Russia, originally at least, had a pro french government, which radically changed after the assassination. Napoleon took Moscow and decided to leave on his own, something I cannot say about Hitler. His core army was intact, the majority of the "auxilia" perished to attrition, a contrast to WW2. He returned to Dresden in 1813 with a 400,000 men army, Leipzig was the ultimate setback, not to mention that he did not have any chance of winning against such an accumulation of (coalition) forces anyway. Only pro feudal nationalists cannot admit that, the very same peope who wish back the borders of 1815 (yes, these people truly exist in Europe). Combat effectiveness was on his side, he was tactically superior to the Coalition troops, even Britain, which had a poor showing, even Nassau did better during the 100 days. At Waterloo, Wellington was already considering to leave, on multiple occassions, look up his memoirs.
Britain was the richest nation in the world at that time, so they paid the Prussians (or Hannoverians, the Kings German Legion), Austrians and Russians to wage a war for them, while they could focus on their colonies and the ocean (besides the Peninsular campaign). It took 7 coalitions to stop Napoleon, in a long chain of events.
Comparing him to Hitler is a serious mistake many amateur historians like to do.

[Cult Icon]

IOTL the Western Front in 1944/45 cost the WAllies over 750,000 total casualties including around 200,000 deaths plus another 300,000 casualties for Sicily and Italy. Possibly more casualties as they'll have to wade through more Germans?

Or would it be no different to the D-Day that happened?

It would be not a matter of dead/wounded but wholesale capture of the invasion force

[T. A. Gardner]

Well, let's see:

Germany occupies Western Russia.
Japan still gets clobbered in a Pacific War with the US. That means by 1945 the Japanese are out of the war and the US doesn't have one going on in Asia now.
Germany isn't going to defeat Britain. They lack a navy and it will take them well over a decade to build one that even begins to come close to what they'd need to win a war at sea. With the US in the picture, they're never going to do it.
The U-boat war isn't a substitute. It's a commerce war that is nothing but a spoiler. It's an admission by Germany they can't win a war at sea.

So, if we assume the Western Allies stay in the game, they play a waiting game until Japan is finished. "Germany second" you might call it. The West engages in a air campaign to the degree they can run one with sustainable losses. They focus on crushing the U-boat campaign thoroughly. They also engage in raiding and peripheral sniping to force Germany to expend lots of resources into building the Atlantic Wall. In Russia and elsewhere they support, supply, and encourage internal revolt and resistance to German occupation meaning Germany is forced to keep massive occupation forces in place to deal with this problem.

So, by the beginning of 1945, the Allies have their game changers in place. The big one is nuclear weapons. The Germans are still a decade or more from getting one of their own. All the Allies need do now is use a few on some German cities... Hamburg comes to mind...
The B-29 and B-36 are much harder to intercept being faster and flying higher than previous bombers. This also means heavy AA guns that the Luftwaffe and Germany have come to rely on for air defense are getting nearly useless. A SAM is years away. Sure, Germany has some jet aircraft but so do Britain and the US... No advantage there.
The next big game changer is that the US has unfettered access to what remains of the Soviet Union. They move in construction engineers and improve the Trans-Siberian railway immensely. That means the USSR is back in the game.
Worse, with Japan out of the war, the USSR's military forces are now being supplemented by Chinese and other Asian troops using US and British equipment.
Result: The Germans are faced with Round 2 of a multi-front war. They are now fighting a major land war in Russia... Again. A home, there are mushroom clouds sprouting over their cities. Technologically, the Germans are clearly falling behind the West and their allies. Internal instability and continued resistance and open fighting makes for a lack of manpower to sustain their front.
At some point, the Allies will invade. If not in France, maybe Norway. Maybe Italy. It doesn't matter where, another front opens up, then another.

So long as the US and Britain want to continue the war, Germany eventually loses.

[Richard Anderson]

This was discussed before, but without Szilard and Einstein there would be noone to warn them. The bomb would not be ready before 45.

Why the vanishing act by Szilard and Einstein?

[Stiltzkin]

Why the vanishing act by Szilard and Einstein?

Nobody said anything about vanishing. Its just that people believe the Atomic bomb is the solution to everything and that it was omnipresent and that only the US was capable of building it. With the war over in Europe there would be a consolidated "Reich", which would leave time for preperations, even if Hitler despised "jewish inventions" (though Hahn was not jewish , Maitner was).

[Richard Anderson]

Why the vanishing act by Szilard and Einstein?

Nobody said anything about vanishing. Its just that people believe the Atomic bomb is the solution to everything and that it was omnipresent and that only the US was capable of building it. With the war over in Europe there would be a consolidated "Reich", which would leave time for preperations, even if Hitler despised "jewish inventions" (though Hahn was not jewish , Maitner was).

Sorry, but no, you are avoiding the question. You stated:

"without Szilard and Einstein there would be noone to warn them".

However, Szilard and Einstein would still be "there" and there would be nothing preventing them from warning "them". Plus, the warning occurred well before any Soviet collapse could have happened, which would have made the warning that much more urgent.

Meanwhile, "consolidation" of the Reich was unlikely to have any effect on the misguided German nuclear program, such as it was. Hahn had nothing to do with the program. Meitner had fled to Sweden. Heisenberg was pursuing blind alleys.

So just what did you mean?