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

[History Learner]

Any invasion attempt of the continent will fail with heavy casualties, with the earliest possible date for a successful landing likely being 1946 or 1947. I sincerely doubt Anglo-American willpower could hold out that long, however.

I love the mindset. The Germans have one good campaign in France in 1940 and that elevates them to an unbeatable Army of supermen. Makes you wonder why they failed so catastrophically in Russia.

No one said they are unbeatable, but within the confines of the OP, they are definitely in a stronger strategic situation.

At least one, maybe two, entire Army Groups are freed for duty in Western Europe or the Mediterranean here; IOTL, the invasion of Italy very nearly failed due to the presence of two Panzer divisions, for example. Resources used for the Panther Line, for another point, can be used to expedite the construction of the Atlantic Wall. Finally, they have the strategic depth and resources of the European USSR to continuously increase their own industrial production and move it beyond the range of anything but B-36s, which won't be able in serious numbers until the very tail end of the 1940s.

I'm assuming that an Anglo-American attack on the Nazi German-controlled European part of the USSR through the Caucasus would be even more difficult than through the Alps, correct? If so, what about having the Anglo-Americans conquer Turkey and then launch an amphibious invasion of, say, Ukraine or the Kuban or even the Constanta area in Romania?

Basically three or four Italy-like situations, but this time with the added bonus of attacking a neutral with all the political damage that entails.

[History Learner]

Because all these 'confines' are carefully constructed to give every advantage to Germany. They bear no relation to actual WW2 events.
The WW2 version of the Flat Earth Society.

Really? Because all OP said is that German defeats the USSR and then by 1942 is able to occupy up to the Urals, something everyone from the U.S. to the Soviets themselves saw as possible at the time and which modern scholarship, for the most part, supports. With respect, you seem hell bound and determined to construct strawman here.

Nearly..cudda...shudda...........

This is not an argument. Rick Atkinson's The Day of Battle outlines how the Salerno Landings very nearly failed, with Mark Clark at times seriously considering abandoning the effort entirely. With strong German reinforcements at hand, this could, in the ATL, be assured.

A wall which was pierced easily...just like The Maginot line.......and The Siegfried Line.

And unlike either of those, the Atlantic Wall can't be outflanked and is located on the sea, meaning that only limited force can be applied to it at one go. Further, citations of the above ignore the strategic situations that defined their usage; the Maginot Line only collapsed after France itself had and was actually successful in its purpose, which was to redirect any German invasion. The Siegfried Line, meanwhile, was not completed and was only used in late 1944, by which point the strategic situation of Germany meant they could not mount an effective defensive.

The Atlantic Wall, as envisioned, would've stretched up to 25 miles inland and would've been manned by dozens of quality divisions. IOTL, it took the Anglo-Americans most of the war and the largest armada in history just to put seven divisions ashore; in short, unless you're arguing the Americans suddenly become supermen, they cannot pierce a completed Atlantic Wall. This realization was a key point of American and British war planning, from the "Victory Plan" of 1941 to the British reluctance until 1944.

Ah yes the alternate reality where every German paper design is rushed into service within weeks of the concept drawings and is an instant fault-free specification-exceeding success. Meanwhile the Allies have to stick to years of boring old prototypes and testing before any of their designs bear fruit.

Again, you're constructing strawmen of things no one, least of all me, has said. Please either debate in good faith or let us not engage at all, as nothing good will come of it.

[Futurist]

Any invasion attempt of the continent will fail with heavy casualties, with the earliest possible date for a successful landing likely being 1946 or 1947. I sincerely doubt Anglo-American willpower could hold out that long, however.

I love the mindset. The Germans have one good campaign in France in 1940 and that elevates them to an unbeatable Army of supermen. Makes you wonder why they failed so catastrophically in Russia.

No one said they are unbeatable, but within the confines of the OP, they are definitely in a stronger strategic situation.

At least one, maybe two, entire Army Groups are freed for duty in Western Europe or the Mediterranean here; IOTL, the invasion of Italy very nearly failed due to the presence of two Panzer divisions, for example. Resources used for the Panther Line, for another point, can be used to expedite the construction of the Atlantic Wall. Finally, they have the strategic depth and resources of the European USSR to continuously increase their own industrial production and move it beyond the range of anything but B-36s, which won't be able in serious numbers until the very tail end of the 1940s.

I'm assuming that an Anglo-American attack on the Nazi German-controlled European part of the USSR through the Caucasus would be even more difficult than through the Alps, correct? If so, what about having the Anglo-Americans conquer Turkey and then launch an amphibious invasion of, say, Ukraine or the Kuban or even the Constanta area in Romania?

Basically three or four Italy-like situations, but this time with the added bonus of attacking a neutral with all the political damage that entails.

Is there any way that the Anglo-Americans could voluntarily persuade Turkey to join the war on their side?

[Futurist]

Because all these 'confines' are carefully constructed to give every advantage to Germany. They bear no relation to actual WW2 events.
The WW2 version of the Flat Earth Society.

Really? Because all OP said is that German defeats the USSR and then by 1942 is able to occupy up to the Urals, something everyone from the U.S. to the Soviets themselves saw as possible at the time and which modern scholarship, for the most part, supports. With respect, you seem hell bound and determined to construct strawman here.

Nearly..cudda...shudda...........

This is not an argument. Rick Atkinson's The Day of Battle outlines how the Salerno Landings very nearly failed, with Mark Clark at times seriously considering abandoning the effort entirely. With strong German reinforcements at hand, this could, in the ATL, be assured.

A wall which was pierced easily...just like The Maginot line.......and The Siegfried Line.

And unlike either of those, the Atlantic Wall can't be outflanked and is located on the sea, meaning that only limited force can be applied to it at one go. Further, citations of the above ignore the strategic situations that defined their usage; the Maginot Line only collapsed after France itself had and was actually successful in its purpose, which was to redirect any German invasion. The Siegfried Line, meanwhile, was not completed and was only used in late 1944, by which point the strategic situation of Germany meant they could not mount an effective defensive.

The Atlantic Wall, as envisioned, would've stretched up to 25 miles inland and would've been manned by dozens of quality divisions. IOTL, it took the Anglo-Americans most of the war and the largest armada in history just to put seven divisions ashore; in short, unless you're arguing the Americans suddenly become supermen, they cannot pierce a completed Atlantic Wall. This realization was a key point of American and British war planning, from the "Victory Plan" of 1941 to the British reluctance until 1944.

Ah yes the alternate reality where every German paper design is rushed into service within weeks of the concept drawings and is an instant fault-free specification-exceeding success. Meanwhile the Allies have to stick to years of boring old prototypes and testing before any of their designs bear fruit.

Again, you're constructing strawmen of things no one, least of all me, has said. Please either debate in good faith or let us not engage at all, as nothing good will come of it.

What about launching the main amphibious invasion in southern France a la Operation Dragoon in real life if the Atlantic Wall is too impenetrable on France's Atlantic coastline?

[Michael Kenny]

Again, you're constructing strawmen of things no one, least of all me, has said. Please either debate in good faith or let us not engage at all, as nothing good will come of it.

I am debating in 'good faith'. I simply can not understand the mindset that believes that if a German Army is more or less equal to its enemy it will always alway always win. That is at the root of every 'what-if'. Just level the playing field and victory will surely follow for the home team. Not only will this unbeatable team win it will win by a wide margin. It is the unspoken given and my refusal to accept this fallacy will never prevent me from 'engaging'.

[History Learner]

Again, you're constructing strawmen of things no one, least of all me, has said. Please either debate in good faith or let us not engage at all, as nothing good will come of it.

I am debating in 'good faith'. I simply can not understand the mindset that believes that if a German Army is more or less equal to its enemy it will always alway always win. That is at the root of every 'what-if'. Just level the playing field and victory will surely follow for the home team. Not only will this unbeatable team win it will win by a wide margin. It is the unspoken given and my refusal to accept this fallacy will never prevent me from 'engaging'.

Which is a strawman, because I never claimed anything of the sort. It's rather basic strategic thinking that Germany, shorn of the Eastern Front, can and will do better against it's remaining opponents.

[History Learner]

I love the mindset. The Germans have one good campaign in France in 1940 and that elevates them to an unbeatable Army of supermen. Makes you wonder why they failed so catastrophically in Russia.

No one said they are unbeatable, but within the confines of the OP, they are definitely in a stronger strategic situation.

At least one, maybe two, entire Army Groups are freed for duty in Western Europe or the Mediterranean here; IOTL, the invasion of Italy very nearly failed due to the presence of two Panzer divisions, for example. Resources used for the Panther Line, for another point, can be used to expedite the construction of the Atlantic Wall. Finally, they have the strategic depth and resources of the European USSR to continuously increase their own industrial production and move it beyond the range of anything but B-36s, which won't be able in serious numbers until the very tail end of the 1940s.

I'm assuming that an Anglo-American attack on the Nazi German-controlled European part of the USSR through the Caucasus would be even more difficult than through the Alps, correct? If so, what about having the Anglo-Americans conquer Turkey and then launch an amphibious invasion of, say, Ukraine or the Kuban or even the Constanta area in Romania?

Basically three or four Italy-like situations, but this time with the added bonus of attacking a neutral with all the political damage that entails.

Is there any way that the Anglo-Americans could voluntarily persuade Turkey to join the war on their side?

Sure, if the Anglo-Americans do all of the bleeding and dying to defeat the Reich then I imagine a few weeks or months before the final collapse Turkey could join in, just as they did IOTL in February of 1945.

[Futurist]

No one said they are unbeatable, but within the confines of the OP, they are definitely in a stronger strategic situation.

At least one, maybe two, entire Army Groups are freed for duty in Western Europe or the Mediterranean here; IOTL, the invasion of Italy very nearly failed due to the presence of two Panzer divisions, for example. Resources used for the Panther Line, for another point, can be used to expedite the construction of the Atlantic Wall. Finally, they have the strategic depth and resources of the European USSR to continuously increase their own industrial production and move it beyond the range of anything but B-36s, which won't be able in serious numbers until the very tail end of the 1940s.

I'm assuming that an Anglo-American attack on the Nazi German-controlled European part of the USSR through the Caucasus would be even more difficult than through the Alps, correct? If so, what about having the Anglo-Americans conquer Turkey and then launch an amphibious invasion of, say, Ukraine or the Kuban or even the Constanta area in Romania?

Basically three or four Italy-like situations, but this time with the added bonus of attacking a neutral with all the political damage that entails.

Is there any way that the Anglo-Americans could voluntarily persuade Turkey to join the war on their side?

Sure, if the Anglo-Americans do all of the bleeding and dying to defeat the Reich then I imagine a few weeks or months before the final collapse Turkey could join in, just as they did IOTL in February of 1945.

That would make a Turkish entry into the war pretty much worthless, though! What's needed is real bravery--similar to the kind that the Serbs in Yugoslavia exhibited in early 1941 when they overthrew Prince Paul. This move was obviously suicidal for Yugoslavia but might have bought the USSR some badly needed additional time.

[History Learner]

I'm assuming that an Anglo-American attack on the Nazi German-controlled European part of the USSR through the Caucasus would be even more difficult than through the Alps, correct? If so, what about having the Anglo-Americans conquer Turkey and then launch an amphibious invasion of, say, Ukraine or the Kuban or even the Constanta area in Romania?

Basically three or four Italy-like situations, but this time with the added bonus of attacking a neutral with all the political damage that entails.

Is there any way that the Anglo-Americans could voluntarily persuade Turkey to join the war on their side?

Sure, if the Anglo-Americans do all of the bleeding and dying to defeat the Reich then I imagine a few weeks or months before the final collapse Turkey could join in, just as they did IOTL in February of 1945.

That would make a Turkish entry into the war pretty much worthless, though! What's needed is real bravery--similar to the kind that the Serbs in Yugoslavia exhibited in early 1941 when they overthrew Prince Paul. This move was obviously suicidal for Yugoslavia but might have bought the USSR some badly needed additional time.

Exactly as Istanbul would want here and IOTL.

[Futurist]

I guess that after what they endured in WWI the Turks weren't in the mood to make huge sacrifices. Makes sense. Sucks for the Western Allies, though!

[Michael Kenny]

. It's rather basic strategic thinking that Germany, shorn of the Eastern Front, can and will do better against it's remaining opponents.

As well as it did in its attempt to invade and subdue The UK ? That was the time when the 'Allies' were at their weakest and the Germans failed miserably. Indeed it can be claimed the decision to invade Russia was a direct result of the German Army failure to defeat the UK. How can a USA/UK Alliance be unable to survive a German onslaught when the UK alone did just that 1940-1941?

[History Learner]

. It's rather basic strategic thinking that Germany, shorn of the Eastern Front, can and will do better against it's remaining opponents.

As well as it did in its attempt to invade and subdue The UK ? That was the time when the 'Allies' were at their weakest and the Germans failed miserably. Indeed it can be claimed the decision to invade Russia was a direct result of the German Army failure to defeat the UK. How can a USA/UK Alliance be unable to survive a German onslaught when the UK alone did just that 1940-1941?

The decision to invade to the USSR was driven by the desire to acquire the resources of the European USSR, in particular Ukrainian ore and wheat as well as Caucasus Oil. The rationale behind this was that, beyond the Nazi goal of living space, the strategic resources and depth of Russia was needed to face down the expected-and it came to pass, as it were-air offensive by the Anglo-Americans. As you rightfully note, the Germans did fail to invade the UK because all the free manpower in the world doesn't magically conjur up the landing craft needed to carry out a naval invasion. By the same token, however, the Anglo-Americans now find themselves in the same boat; to defeat the Germans they have to invade Europe. Now is where that free million men can and will make the difference.

As late as 1944, the German Army had 150 Divisions and equivalents on the Eastern Front. The U.S. Army for the entirety of WWII raised ~90 Divisions. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to realize that peace in the East means the Germans can deter and defeat Western Allied attempts to attack Fortress Europe. I think the issue here is you're attempting to continue to craft strawmen; no one is suggesting the Germans can invade England. What is being suggested is that the Germans can and will hold their gains in Europe.

[T. A. Gardner]

Any invasion attempt of the continent will fail with heavy casualties, with the earliest possible date for a successful landing likely being 1946 or 1947. I sincerely doubt Anglo-American willpower could hold out that long, however.

This is utter nonsense. An amphibious invasion, properly planned, is going to succeed. The Germans won't have sufficient troops at the point of the invasion to stop it. The only... ONLY... way the Germans can succeed in stopping an amphibious assault is to defeat the naval forces delivering it and that isn't going to happen. It won't happen in 1944 and it won't happen in 1946 or any other time. Germany cannot produce a navy capable of defeating the US and Britain's naval forces.

So, while the German army might make the Allied advance inland a real slog, they cannot stop the initial landing from being successful.

[T. A. Gardner]

The decision to invade to the USSR was driven by the desire to acquire the resources of the European USSR, in particular Ukrainian ore and wheat as well as Caucasus Oil. The rationale behind this was that, beyond the Nazi goal of living space, the strategic resources and depth of Russia was needed to face down the expected-and it came to pass, as it were-air offensive by the Anglo-Americans. As you rightfully note, the Germans did fail to invade the UK because all the free manpower in the world doesn't magically conjur up the landing craft needed to carry out a naval invasion. By the same token, however, the Anglo-Americans now find themselves in the same boat; to defeat the Germans they have to invade Europe. Now is where that free million men can and will make the difference.

As late as 1944, the German Army had 150 Divisions and equivalents on the Eastern Front. The U.S. Army for the entirety of WWII raised ~90 Divisions. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to realize that peace in the East means the Germans can deter and defeat Western Allied attempts to attack Fortress Europe. I think the issue here is you're attempting to continue to craft strawmen; no one is suggesting the Germans can invade England. What is being suggested is that the Germans can and will hold their gains in Europe.

This is utter nonsense. The reason the Germans couldn't make an invasion of England work is they lacked a navy to secure the seas to the landing area. The quality and quantity of landing craft is a far second to sea control. The Allies have the ability to land a large force, at least 10 to 12 divisions on the European coast wherever they choose by 1944. They can pick the location based on known German forces disposition and have the intelligence and reconnaissance assets to know what those are while the Germans would know next to nothing about what the Allied planning was.
In the Torch landings, the US forces sailed from the US to North Africa. This means the Germans had no clue, nada, zip point..., about what the US plan in that operation was.

Getting ashore and staying ashore is not only possible for the Allies but all but a certainty by mid to late 1944. The only question is how hard will the breakout and following land campaign be.

[History Learner]

Any invasion attempt of the continent will fail with heavy casualties, with the earliest possible date for a successful landing likely being 1946 or 1947. I sincerely doubt Anglo-American willpower could hold out that long, however.

This is utter nonsense. An amphibious invasion, properly planned, is going to succeed. The Germans won't have sufficient troops at the point of the invasion to stop it. The only... ONLY... way the Germans can succeed in stopping an amphibious assault is to defeat the naval forces delivering it and that isn't going to happen. It won't happen in 1944 and it won't happen in 1946 or any other time. Germany cannot produce a navy capable of defeating the US and Britain's naval forces.

So, while the German army might make the Allied advance inland a real slog, they cannot stop the initial landing from being successful.

They definitely can, and we have ample historical evidence of this even IOTL. It took the largest armada in history to put just seven divisions ashore and even then, one of the five beaches nearly failed. Now imagine them landing against a prepared Atlantic Wall guarded by dozens of German divisions and with an undefeated Luftwaffe. There is no question that, until after the German economy is sufficiently defeated by Allied bombers, which would take at least until 1946 or 1947 to show sufficient effect, that an invasion could even be attempted.