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

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Locked
User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

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

#541

Post by Gorque » 16 May 2017, 15:57

Explorator wrote:
Kingfish wrote: So...demonstrating the danger of a Russian occupied Europe by adopting a strategy that ensures a Russian occupied Europe?
Yes, if you have nothing to lose. How else to drive home the point, underlying the urgency of the issue? :) Actions speak louder than words.

I don't believe that you don't understand it.

Just think:

1. There is no military solution
2. The Russians are coming anyways
3. You are convinced that the Wallies will soon have a serious issue with the Commies
4. You are a reckless gambler
It all makes sense now. Intentionally lose the war so that the ideological lines are drawn straight down the middle of your country in order to have your economy rebuilt courtesy of one of the ideological grouping of nations that had destroyed Germany in order to become the current economic hegemon of Europe.

What long-ranged genius. :roll:

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

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

#542

Post by BDV » 16 May 2017, 16:52

Explorator wrote:
ljadw wrote:No one knows the answer on the OP, but it is very possible that the allied losses would be lower .
Yes, if they resorted to atomic bombs following the defeat of Japan, and most people on this thread seem to agree with this.


25-50k dead from atomic terror bombing a month will not break the Reich.

There is no other option for "VE" except actually successfully invading the European Continent and occupying the Reich.

The premise was Nazi Germany victorious not only over one hated enemy (France) but over both natural enemies (Russia and France).

Historically, the German state did not collapse, but required being overrun; nothing less will do in ATL, as far as I can see.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion


Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#543

Post by Michael Kenny » 16 May 2017, 17:00

BDV wrote:
Historically, the German state did not collapse, but required being overrun
Incorrect.
It started collapsing long before the madman died. Various top Nazis were negotiating secret surrenders across Europe and this was one of the things that sent the lunatic over the edge. Also over 100 German Division were combat fit at the time of surrender.
It is a common mistake of the ill-informed to believe Berlin and a few 14 year old HJ was the very last bit of Nazi Germany left in May 1945.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

#544

Post by Richard Anderson » 16 May 2017, 17:36

T. A. Gardner wrote:Dupuy did an analysis of Operation Strangle in Italy in NP&W.
Terry, that is disingenuous on your part. If you have actually read it you know that the section in NP&W is a summary of the findings in the HERO Report #35C, Tactical Air Interdiction by U.S. Army Air Forces in World War II: Italy, Regional Report #3. It was not an exercise in Lanchesterian air-to-air combat analysis, but was rather a study for the Assistant Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Studies and Analysis. It focused, as the title implies, on the effects of tactical air interdiction on ground combat.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

#545

Post by Richard Anderson » 16 May 2017, 17:41

Explorator wrote:Hitler himself said it to his closest associates. 

It might help if you would tell us exactly where and when he said this and where you saw it referenced. I spent the better part of three years in the German records regarding Wacht am Rhein when working on the ADCSB and then HLG and can recall nothing remotely resembling such a statement from Hitler.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

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

#546

Post by Richard Anderson » 16 May 2017, 17:51

BDV wrote:No it would not be better, because it would kill open discussion, which is the main attraction of this esteemed forum. Truth can either defeat challenge by falsity, or it's not truth.
Nonsense. Opinion posted as opinion is fine, truth is defeated when posters are allowed to post opinion as if it is fact. It is also defeated when posters are allowed to repeatedly post falsehoods as if they are facts without censure. "Open discussion" as it exists in this esteemed forum promotes endless circular arguments and falsehoods rather than "challenges" of anything.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

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

#547

Post by Kingfish » 16 May 2017, 19:33

Explorator wrote: 1. There is no military solution
Hitler did not believe this to be case even as the Russians were infiltrating into Berlin, let alone 8 months prior.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Explorator
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 05 May 2017, 17:07
Location: France

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

#548

Post by Explorator » 17 May 2017, 00:28

Richard Anderson wrote: It might help if you would tell us exactly where and when he said this and where you saw it referenced. I spent the better part of three years in the German records regarding Wacht am Rhein when working on the ADCSB and then HLG and can recall nothing remotely resembling such a statement from Hitler.
Nothing remotely?

It seems hardly believable that during three years of research you have not found out that the motivation of the regroupment of forces from the Eastern Front for the Ardennes offensive was first and foremost political. Forgive me for the irony, but Churchill’s quote comes to mind: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”

Ok, a hint: among many sources, you can read the essence of Hitler’s political argumentation in a speech held for division commanders on December 12 1944:

Hitler vor Divisionskommandeuren, 12.12.1944, in: Heiber, Helmuth (Hrsg.): Lagebesprächungen im Führershauptquartier. Protokollfragmente aus Hitlers militärischen Konferenzen 1942-1945. München 1964 S 291 f

In English: Heiber, Helmut (ed), Hitler and his Generals. Military conferences 1942-1945. The First Complete Stenographic Record of the Military Situation Conferences, from Stalingrad to Berlin, Greenhill, London, 2002

In this he basically says that the alliance of the opponents is unnatural, it is under severe stress and can disintegrate at any moment, and if the Ardennes operation succeded, the Allies would nolens volens see for themselves that they cannot stop the Bolshevist hordes without the help of the Wehrmacht.

A brief description of this reasoning can also be found for instance in Lars Lüdicke: „Hitlers Weltanschauung: Von »Mein Kampf« bis zum »Nero-Befehl«“. Paderborn 2016 S 174-176
Last edited by Explorator on 17 May 2017, 13:12, edited 2 times in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#549

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 May 2017, 00:47

Explorator wrote: In this he basically says that the alliance of the opponents is unnatural, it is under severe stress and can disintegrate at any moment, and if the Ardennes operation succeded, the Allies would nollens vollens see for themselves that they cannot vanquish the Bolshevist hordes without the help of the Wehrmacht.

A brief description of this reasoning can also be found for instance in Lars Lüdicke: „Hitlers Weltanschauung: Von »Mein Kampf« bis zum »Nero-Befehl«“. Paderborn 2016 S 174-176
Is there any reason you can not post a scan of said 'speech'?

User avatar
BDV
Member
Posts: 3704
Joined: 10 Apr 2009, 17:11

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

#550

Post by BDV » 17 May 2017, 01:01

Michael Kenny wrote: Incorrect.
It started collapsing long before the madman died. Various top Nazis were negotiating secret surrenders across Europe and this was one of the things that sent the lunatic over the edge. Also over 100 German Division were combat fit at the time of surrender.
It is a common mistake of the ill-informed to believe Berlin and a few 14 year old HJ was the very last bit of Nazi Germany left in May 1945.
This is not correct, as the function of the Flensburg Government plainly attests. The government of Germany had to be abolished by force of arms.

That is not a collapsing government and/or state.
Nobody expects the Fallschirm! Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and fear; fear and surprise. Our 2 weapons are fear and surprise; and ruthless efficiency. Our *3* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency; and almost fanatical devotion

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#551

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 May 2017, 01:12

BDV wrote:.

That is not a collapsing government and/or state.
Yes that must be it . Right up to April 1945 there was the possibility of a massive German offensive that would expel all armies on her soil. The result of the war was in doubt until the last 12 year old HJ laid down his gun in Berlin. Individual Commanders were defying all the scorched earth orders and flat-out refusing to take part in suicidal attacks. Once Hitler was isolated and neutered there was a stampede to be the one who could be first to sign a surrender Document.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15585
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

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

#552

Post by ljadw » 17 May 2017, 13:31

Explorator wrote:
Richard Anderson wrote: It might help if you would tell us exactly where and when he said this and where you saw it referenced. I spent the better part of three years in the German records regarding Wacht am Rhein when working on the ADCSB and then HLG and can recall nothing remotely resembling such a statement from Hitler.
Nothing remotely?

It seems hardly believable that during three years of research you have not found out that the motivation of the regroupment of forces from the Eastern Front for the Ardennes offensive was first and foremost political. Forgive me for the irony, but Churchill’s quote comes to mind: “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.”

Ok, a hint: among many sources, you can read the essence of Hitler’s political argumentation in a speech held for division commanders on December 12 1944:

Hitler vor Divisionskommandeuren, 12.12.1944, in: Heiber, Helmuth (Hrsg.): Lagebesprächungen im Führershauptquartier. Protokollfragmente aus Hitlers militärischen Konferenzen 1942-1945. München 1964 S 291 f

In English: Heiber, Helmut (ed), Hitler and his Generals. Military conferences 1942-1945. The First Complete Stenographic Record of the Military Situation Conferences, from Stalingrad to Berlin, Greenhill, London, 2002

In this he basically says that the alliance of the opponents is unnatural, it is under severe stress and can disintegrate at any moment, and if the Ardennes operation succeded, the Allies would nolens volens see for themselves that they cannot stop the Bolshevist hordes without the help of the Wehrmacht.

A brief description of this reasoning can also be found for instance in Lars Lüdicke: „Hitlers Weltanschauung: Von »Mein Kampf« bis zum »Nero-Befehl«“. Paderborn 2016 S 174-176
This speech is well-know,but your interpretation is not correct : Wacht am Rhein had no political aim.The aim was to neutralize ,temporarily, the threat from the west,to be able to concentrate on the threat from the east,and this was bothing new :Fall Blau had the same aim : neutralize the threat from the east :wink: to be able to concentrate on the threat from the west .

Explorator
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 05 May 2017, 17:07
Location: France

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

#553

Post by Explorator » 17 May 2017, 14:53

ljadw wrote: This speech is well-know,but your interpretation is not correct : Wacht am Rhein had no political aim.The aim was to neutralize ,temporarily, the threat from the west,to be able to concentrate on the threat from the east,and this was bothing new :Fall Blau had the same aim : neutralize the threat from the east :wink: to be able to concentrate on the threat from the west .
You obviously did not read the speech and are uninformed about the primary sources on the political motives of WW2.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#554

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 May 2017, 14:57

Explorator wrote:
You obviously did not read the speech and are uninformed about the primary sources on the political motives of WW2.
If you posted it then we could see for ourselves-which is why you will think up lame excuses why you are unable to post it.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8251
Joined: 07 May 2002, 20:40
Location: Teesside

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

#555

Post by Michael Kenny » 17 May 2017, 15:01

Explorator wrote:
You obviously did not read the speech and are uninformed about the primary sources on the political motives of WW2.
So says the well-informed man who inflated a one-line joke in a message into confirmation that The Bulge Offensive came within a whisker of expelling the Allies from Europe!

Locked

Return to “What if”