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

[Michael Kenny]

1. Japan is not Germany.

Indeed it is not. Lots of nations talk of 'fighting to the death' but only the Japanese did. The invasion of Japan was expected to be very expensive in soldiers. There was no indication that the Japanese would surrender and it was expected they would fight to the death-and yet the invasion was planned, troops put in place and an invasion would have taken place .
That should answer all the questions about the Allies being willing to accept large losses in order to win the war.

[Kingfish]

1. Japan is not Germany.

Exactly, which further bolsters my point.

Imperial Japan was far more fanatical than Nazi Germany during the same time period, and (more importantly) had endured a much shorter strategic bombing campaign. The first B-29 raids from the Marianas flew in November '44, but really didn't kick into high gear until March.

A-bombs were dropped on August 6th and 9th. Japan entered peace negotiations with the allies on August 10th.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on how resilient Germany would have been under an onslaught that last longer and is more intense.

[BDV]

Imperial Japan was far more fanatical than Nazi Germany during the same time period, and (more importantly) had endured a much shorter strategic bombing campaign. The first B-29 raids from the Marianas flew in November '44, but really didn't kick into high gear until March.

But it was Nazi Germany that surrendered only when its territory was run over. So who is more fanatical than whom is debatable. And US can be argued was "more fanatical" than both; with US forces sustaining consistently high effort throughout, without national existence being at stake.

A-bombs were dropped on August 6th and 9th. Japan entered peace negotiations with the allies on August 10th. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on how resilient Germany would have been under an onslaught that last longer and is more intense.

Germany endured higher loss of national territory and higher levels of terror bombing than Japan, before folding historically. Why would a lesser injury than one that did not do the job by itself historically do the trick in ATL, only because it is delivered with shiny new implements?

[Kingfish]

But it was Nazi Germany that surrendered only when its territory was run over. So who is more fanatical than whom is debatable.

The bag of prisoners from the Rhur encirclement alone was +300K. Note this was Germans defending German soil. Do you think the allies would have bagged a Rhur-type number from Japanese defending their own country? The allies rarely captured 1/1000 of that number from isolated garrisons defending worthless atolls in the central pacific.

Why would a lesser injury than one that did not do the job by itself historically do the trick in ATL, only because it is delivered with shiny new implements?

Why do you assume it is a lesser injury?
It is the historical injury plus the effects of repeated nuclear attacks.

[losna]

It isn't having 200 divisions free that matters. Infantry is cheap. Air defenses aren't. Navies aren't. Germany can't afford the kind of military they need to win against the Western Allies.

The problem in this ATL is that Germany crushes the USSR in 1942/43 and then the war progresses as usual. Since Germany could have never won on the Eastern front having to fight against the WA, it would be better to think about how the war would have progressed after a Nazi-Soviet war.
It is likely that such a war would have been looked very differently from the US compared to the OTL: Hitler could have managed to provoke or at least show the real intentions of the USSR over the neighboring states, and thus making a German aggression look not so egregious at western eyes.
First, Germany would have fought at least until mid 1945, and for some time after they will be busy in getting rid of partisans and exploiting the occupied territories.
Then they would see Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Now they know how a war with the US would be, and they will avoid at all costs a war with them, at least until they have the bomb and can deliver it to the US. It is likely that Germany would occupy Poland, but given the hawkish Truman's presidency, they may not.

[BDV]

The bag of prisoners from the Rhur encirclement alone was +300K. Note this was Germans defending German soil. Do you think the allies would have bagged a Rhur-type number from Japanese defending their own country? The allies rarely captured 1/1000 of that number from isolated garrisons defending worthless atolls in the central pacific.

How big was the Soviet bag in Manchuria, before August 15?

Why would a lesser injury than one that did not do the job by itself historically do the trick in ATL, only because it is delivered with shiny new implements?

Why do you assume it is a lesser injury?
It is the historical injury plus the effects of repeated nuclear attacks.

No, because this is pre Mainland Europe invasion, ergo with USAAF and British bombers operating from England bases.

[Kingfish]

How big was the Soviet bag in Manchuria, before August 15?

I don't know. Your point?

No, because this is pre Mainland Europe invasion, ergo with USAAF and British bombers operating from England bases.

Why does that matter?

[BDV]

How big was the Soviet bag in Manchuria, before August 15?

I don't know. Your point?

Japanese too, got bagged by the hundred thousands.

No, because this is pre Mainland Europe invasion, ergo with USAAF and British bombers operating from England bases.
Why does that matter?

As to improving the fighter support, spending less time over unfriendly territory, and denying the early radar warning to the enemy (the radar arrays in France).

[Kingfish]

Japanese too, got bagged by the hundred thousands.

Note I said:
Do you think the allies would have bagged a Rhur-type number from Japanese defending their own country?

Hundreds of thousands also surrendered in SE Asia, but that is entirely irrelevant to my point

As to improving the fighter support, and spending less time over unfriendly territory, and denying the early radar warning to the enemy (the radar arrays in France).

None of which are per-requisites for a strategic air campaign, as history proved. Germany was already feeling the pain long before the allies stormed ashore in Normandy, and with the defeat of Japan the full weight of the USAF would be applied against Germany.

[BDV]

Do you think the allies would have bagged a Rhur-type number from Japanese defending their own country?

What does it matter? The Japanese government demonstrated a less willingness to fight to the last than the German one. It was not people's decision, it was the Emperor's and his accolytes'. In Germany where decision was different the people did support the government/state until complete defeat.

As to improving the fighter support, and spending less time over unfriendly territory, and denying the early radar warning to the enemy (the radar arrays in France).

None of which are per-requisites for a strategic air campaign, as history proved. Germany was already feeling the pain long before the allies stormed ashore in Normandy, and with the defeat of Japan the full weight of the USAF would be applied against Germany.

But even with terror bombing pain increased by the above facilitations German state's armies still fought until the national territory was completely over-run.

[Michael Kenny]

German state's armies still fought until the national territory was completely over-run.

They did not. There was a huge pocket of German troops in southern Europe. I believe over 100 Division who all surrendered when the head of the beast was eliminated.

[BDV]

I believe over 100 Division who all surrendered when the head of the beast was eliminated.

Precisely. The cutting of the beast's head did it, not the terror bombing. How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR and WAllies had to cut the beast's head alone?!?

[Kingfish]

What does it matter? The Japanese government demonstrated a less willingness to fight to the last than the German one. It was not people's decision, it was the Emperor's and his accolytes'. In Germany where decision was different the people did support the government/state until complete defeat.

When did the government finally come around to the realization the war was lost?
Was it when Okinawa fell, or when Halsey raided Japan proper with the 5th fleet, or when Tokyo and other cities were firebombed, or when all the harbors were mined?

No, it was after the second A-bomb was dropped.

Prior to that the Japanese had every intention of resisting the allied invasion right up until the bitter end.

[Michael Kenny]

Precisely. The cutting of the beast's head did it, not the terror bombing. How bad would Allied casualties be if the Reich defeated the USSR and WAllies had to cut the beast's head alone?!?

That is not what you said originally. Your claim was the 'Germans' only surrendered when every last inch of their country was occupied. There are even people who believe Berlin was the very last bit of Germany left fighting. Besides local commanders were surrendering all over the place.
Very high ranking officers knew that fighting on was insane and knew it from mid 1944. That they put their personal safety above the needs of their people just indicates that the bulk of them were craven cowards.

[antfreire]

Very little casualties because it would have ended the war, at least for the time being. Germany could only beat USSR in 1941, perhaps the beginning of 1942. After that the English forces that promoted a political arrangement with Germany would have taken force and forced Churchill to resign. Hitler would not have invaded the British Isles and left the Empire intact. Roosevelt, under these conditions would not have thought of intervening. A peace would have been declared in Europe and perhaps six million Jews and Gypsies would have been saved had the democratic countries cooperate. How long would this peace last? As is always the case, until the new ambitions begin.