U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Politician01
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Politician01 » 25 Mar 2020 17:22

Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Nice to know you interviewed them in order to obtain their reasons. You would be surprised at the number of pro-British Indians there were, many went to Africa to run the civil service there even after WWII.
Well then, show me that they volunteered for the glory of the Empire. OTL the British had to keep 60 brigades in India alone in order to surpress rebellions and uprsining.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
If you join an army you cannot dictate where you fight. Just because A happened in reality does not mean this has to be so in AH scenarios, especially one where drastic changes are posited.


ATL the Japanese are in Burma same as OTL. So sending Indian troops to this front is a far greater priority.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Odd that they managed to train the troops then isnt it. Germany has just the same problems, so they are clearly surmountable.
They trained most troops for Guard Duty, and it is something entirely different to train 2.5 Million troops over 5 years compared to 5 Million+. And since OTL Germany managed to train enough troops, despite the meat grinder in the East, why should they have problems now without it?
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Just as the are for the Germans who will do XYZ with no problems..
The greatest problem for Germany BY FAR was the USSR. If it is eliminated in the autumn of 1942, or reduced to 10% of its historical effectivness, the Germans gain so much breathing space that all their other problems will be secondary or tertiary.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Yet the British won at El Alamein, and the 'weakling' Germans with their entire force were unable to win in 1940-41.
You mean the British hiding and trembling behind the ocean, screaming for American help, unable to pay for this help and winning only through massive free deliveries like 300 Sherman tanks at Alamein? Please.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
In reality, Germany fought on for at least two years after the war was completely lost, so once again you are using special pleading.
The Germans were fighting for "survival", the Allies are not. They could leave the war at any moment, and it will be very hard for Allies Leaders to convince them to stay in.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Just as the Germans raised extra men, the British can do likewise. Same rules for both sides.
As demonstrated by the sources I posted - no they cant. If you have sources disproving my sources - I would like to see them.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Silly estimates where the plan was to leave no two bricks standing differ greatly from simply dropping nukes and overwhelming the German system to a point it cannot vaguely cope. Have a look at the estimates for how many nukes it would take to overwhelm the US ability to cope - its about ten on major population centers even with todays medicine.


These "Silly" estimates were made by professionals and they were intended to overwhelm the USSR not leave no two bricks standing.Also source for the 10 Major Population centers are enough to knock out the US.

Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
The US can safely ignore Japan, and in defeating Russia the Germans will suffer large losses as they did historically, including large numbers of the more experienced men, leaving a large number of raw recruits just as the Allied armies compose of. The idea only Germany can do something as other nations will not have the stomach for it has been proven wrong twice in the last century RL. In Ah it is likely to prove no different.
1. Even if the Germans have the exact same losses in 1941/42 ATL as OTL, their losses 43-45 are the important factor, and ATL these losses will be at worst 10% of OTL.

2. The US cannot ignore Japan - US public will not stand for it.

3. Twice the last century OTL. In a WW1 where France is defeated in 1914/15 and a WW2 where the USSR is defeated in 1941/42, the Anglos would lose the Ally that absorbed 60% and 90% of all casualties the Germans inflicted and in return caused 50% and 80% of all German casualties. I would very much like to see the Parallel Realities where the Anglos managed without these two. Probably a few Million out of a Billion.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Mar 2020 17:28

Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 17:22
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Nice to know you interviewed them in order to obtain their reasons. You would be surprised at the number of pro-British Indians there were, many went to Africa to run the civil service there even after WWII.
Well then, show me that they volunteered for the glory of the Empire. OTL the British had to keep 60 brigades in India alone in order to surpress rebellions and uprsining.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
If you join an army you cannot dictate where you fight. Just because A happened in reality does not mean this has to be so in AH scenarios, especially one where drastic changes are posited.


ATL the Japanese are in Burma same as OTL. So sending Indian troops to this front is a far greater priority.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Odd that they managed to train the troops then isnt it. Germany has just the same problems, so they are clearly surmountable.
They trained most troops for Guard Duty, and it is something entirely different to train 2.5 Million troops over 5 years compared to 5 Million+. And since OTL Germany managed to train enough troops, despite the meat grinder in the East, why should they have problems now without it?
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Just as the are for the Germans who will do XYZ with no problems..
The greatest problem for Germany BY FAR was the USSR. If it is eliminated in the autumn of 1942, or reduced to 10% of its historical effectivness, the Germans gain so much breathing space that all their other problems will be secondary or tertiary.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Yet the British won at El Alamein, and the 'weakling' Germans with their entire force were unable to win in 1940-41.
You mean the British hiding and trembling behind the ocean, screaming for American help, unable to pay for this help and winning only through massive free deliveries like 300 Sherman tanks at Alamein? Please.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
In reality, Germany fought on for at least two years after the war was completely lost, so once again you are using special pleading.
The Germans were fighting for "survival", the Allies are not. They could leave the war at any moment, and it will be very hard for Allies Leaders to convince them to stay in.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Just as the Germans raised extra men, the British can do likewise. Same rules for both sides.
As demonstrated by the sources I posted - no they cant. If you have sources disproving my sources - I would like to see them.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Silly estimates where the plan was to leave no two bricks standing differ greatly from simply dropping nukes and overwhelming the German system to a point it cannot vaguely cope. Have a look at the estimates for how many nukes it would take to overwhelm the US ability to cope - its about ten on major population centers even with todays medicine.


These "Silly" estimates were made by professionals and they were intended to overwhelm the USSR not leave no two bricks standing.Also source for the 10 Major Population centers are enough to knock out the US.

Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
The US can safely ignore Japan, and in defeating Russia the Germans will suffer large losses as they did historically, including large numbers of the more experienced men, leaving a large number of raw recruits just as the Allied armies compose of. The idea only Germany can do something as other nations will not have the stomach for it has been proven wrong twice in the last century RL. In Ah it is likely to prove no different.
1. Even if the Germans have the exact same losses in 1941/42 ATL as OTL, their losses 43-45 are the important factor, and ATL these losses will be at worst 10% of OTL.

2. The US cannot ignore Japan - US public will not stand for it.

3. Twice the last century OTL. In a WW1 where France is defeated in 1914/15 and a WW2 where the USSR is defeated in 1941/42, the Anglos would lose the Ally that absorbed 60% and 90% of all casualties the Germans inflicted and in return caused 50% and 80% of all German casualties. I would very much like to see the Parallel Realities where the Anglos managed without these two. Probably a few Million out of a Billion.
An entire post of special pleading. Well done. As for how to overwhelm the US system, try looking up the total of hospital beds and then see if they can deal with a million or so with radiation sickness and burns. Have a look at the estimates for the present Coronavirus to see how easy it is to overwhelm a system with too many sick to be treated.

Politician01
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Politician01 » 25 Mar 2020 17:33

Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 17:28
An entire post of special pleading. Well done.
Nice to see that you have no arguments left.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 17:28
As for how to overwhelm the US system, try looking up the total of hospital beds and then see if they can deal with a million or so with radiation sickness and burns. Have a look at the estimates for the present Coronavirus to see how easy it is to overwhelm a system with too many sick to be treated.
I dont have to look up anything - your claim - your burden of proof.

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 5747
Joined: 13 Jun 2008 22:54
Location: Kent

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Terry Duncan » 25 Mar 2020 19:08

Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 17:33
Nice to see that you have no arguments left.
I have plenty of arguments, there is just no point in bothering when you case relies on 'Germany can do X and nobody else can'.
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 17:33
I dont have to look up anything - your claim - your burden of proof.
I do not need to prove it, people will be perfectly aware of how easy it is to overload a hospital system as a point where every nation is trying to reduce the number of cases arriving in hospital at the same time, where we are talking in the tens of thousands rather than a million or so. As you are not inclined to look things up for yourself, maybe you can use the present health worries as a reference to learn from.

However, I only joined this discussion to try and restore some sense and balance to it, and there appears little point in doing so any further. From this point forward all ASB type suggestions will simply see the posts removed or the topic locked. There is a difference between AH and fantasy, the latter is very much frowned upon. Also, non-content replies will be deleted without further warning.

T Duncan.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2974
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Takao » 25 Mar 2020 19:15

Finally get a chance to post, and I see that this thread has really jumped the causeway.

Politician01
Member
Posts: 343
Joined: 02 Sep 2011 06:56

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Politician01 » 25 Mar 2020 19:48

Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 19:08
I have plenty of arguments, there is just no point in bothering when you case relies on 'Germany can do X and nobody else can'.
From history, we know exactly (or pretty close) how many men Germany lost in the East, how much equipment was destroyed, how much shells fired, how much fuel consumed. We can resonably conclude how much of this could then be used against the WAllies, how much for German Industry, how much for the development of new weapons.

The Allies on the other hand have to work with what they had historicially. Japan doesnt magically disappear by 1942 freeing millions of Allied troops. Overextended, weak countries like Great Britain cannot suddenly reduce their army by 1 Million, their losses are not suddenly 1/10 of OTL. On the contrary, Wallied strain increases. As such most decisions the Wallies take will affect their performance negatively.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 19:08
As you are not inclined to look things up for yourself
Burden of proof. If someone makes a claim, he has to back it up when asked for sources. So then - Produce.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 19:08
From this point forward all ASB type suggestions will simply see the posts removed or the topic locked. There is a difference between AH and fantasy, the latter is very much frowned upon.
Such as the suggestion that Millions of Indian soldiers would gladly fight and die for their Colonial Overlords in Europe? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 7319
Joined: 02 Sep 2006 20:31
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 25 Mar 2020 20:24

Takao wrote:
25 Mar 2020 19:15
Finally get a chance to post, and I see that this thread has really jumped the causeway.
Theres a shark down there somewhere. Whatever it is, when you cross a bridge don't feed whats under it.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 2974
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Takao » 26 Mar 2020 00:03

TheMarcksPlan wrote:
24 Mar 2020 22:59
The individual who posted that is on my ignore list.

In any event, a dam is far different from a causeway with provision for tidal flow and currents - factors I specified in this thread.
Such is the price of being correct...

Well, if you had read the article, you would see most of them are causeways(multi-lane highways and double-tracked railroad), and some with provisions for tidal flow. The are exactly what you specified.

Further, you dam/causeway is to low & will be overtopped, because it does not take into account tidal range. Oooops!

Also, your slope is very steep(500ft top, 600 ft bottom), and would put a great deal of stress on the causeway due to wave action, very likely causing it to fail. To be minimally effective, you would need a 500 ft top & a 1,500ft bottom.

TheMarcksPlan
Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 15 Jan 2019 22:32
Location: USA

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by TheMarcksPlan » 26 Mar 2020 00:55

Terry Duncan wrote:From this point forward all ASB type suggestions will simply see the posts removed or the topic locked. There is a difference between AH and fantasy, the latter is very much frowned upon.
The most implausible thing in this thread is the idea "If Group A can do it, Group B can as well."
It's an epic handwaive of all culture, politics, and development.

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Avalancheon » 26 Mar 2020 06:36

Terry Duncan wrote:
24 Mar 2020 23:25
Curiously enough, not every colonial citizen was an illiterate savage banging the rocks together trying to light a fire. Much of the civil service that ran the empire in India and Africa comprised of Indians who had good educations, indeed these same people were still in place when the empire retreated and often were part of the governments that took over. The other objections, such as housing, are no different to those faced by the Germans utilizing slave labour, so it is obviously possible to achieve if you desire to do so.

You do not need to move people into existing cities, you can do as the Russians did, and indeed as Ford did too, and just build an entirely new facility purpose built for building whatever is needed.
Where are all of these new factorys are going to be built? In India, or Africa? The colonys have precious little infrastructure as it is. There are serious limits on what they can build on their own. If the British want to set up new factorys in India or Africa, they are going to have to ship it all in. All those convoys will have to travel from Britain to Gibraltar, down to South Africa, and up to the horn of Africa. Thats a long trip which imposes limits on trans shipment.

Image
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 11:12
I am not sure why you left out India, the place that created the largest volunteer army in history all in order to help the Empire? That is an extra 4 million men without even starting to use coercion. Then again I do not need to include anyone in the manpower pool other than to prove that if the same measures are allowed for both sides, even disqualifying half again of the Allied manpower reserves still leaves them with a 2 - 1 advantage.
Indian involvement in World War 2 was a divisive issue. When Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939, they made India an unwilling co-belligerant. The decision was made by the British governor of India, who had not consulted any of the main partys. This angered the nationalist segments of India, and led to political difficultys down the road. After the war dragged on with no end in sight, India demanded independence from Britain. During the Quit India movement in August 1942, there was massive civil disobedience, and the British cracked down on them hard.

Due to the unpopularity of the war, India could not make use of conscription. They relied exclusively on volunteers, many of whom were muslim. Most Indians joined not out of loyalty to Britain, but simply out of a desire to serve their own country. Their soldiers were brave, but were also illiterate and uneducated. The Indian army was short on all kinds of equipment, including motor vehicles, artillery, tanks, and communications.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 11:12
I am not sure why you left out India, the place that created the largest volunteer army in history all in order to help the Empire? That is an extra 4 million men without even starting to use coercion. Then again I do not need to include anyone in the manpower pool other than to prove that if the same measures are allowed for both sides, even disqualifying half again of the Allied manpower reserves still leaves them with a 2 - 1 advantage.
India was not a heavily industrialised nation, certainly not when compared to the nations of Europe. Moreover, most of their population was engaged in subsistance farming, and would not be available for war related work. They cannot contribute much to the arms race, not without major assistance from Britain.

India had a fairly extensive railway net, which was crippled by a shortage of rolling stock. The railway workshops were converted into munitions factorys, and used to produce artillery shells. They had a huge steel works at Jamshedpur in Bihar, run by the Tata Iron and Steel Company (TISCO), which had 120,000 employees as of 1945.

India had a few plants to produce motor vehicles from knock-down kits. There was a General Motors (GM) factory in Bombay, a Ford Motors Company (FMC) factory in Madras and Calcutta, and a factory run by Addison and Company from out of Madras. Finally, there was the Hindustan Aircraft Company in Bangalore, which was used to refurbish and rebuild aircraft frames. Thats about all they had for industry.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 11:12
With the nuclear option, you do not need to kill everyone in Germany with them, just drop enough to collapse the system. That would be less than ten at a guess, as with the likely 1 million casualties from such attacks there would be no method to cope.
The Allies bombed every major German city into rubble during the war, and that didn't force them to capitulate. It was only after they were invaded from the East by the Soviets and the West by the Allies that they did so. It was only after their capital city was captured, and their leader dead, that the Germans surrendered. In this scenario, they would be far better prepared to deal with the prospect of atomic bombs. They would only be fighting the Allies on one front, and would have control over much of the Soviet Union.

The Reich could relocate some of their factorys to Poland, the Baltics, Belorussia, and Ukraine, putting them well beyond the range of USAAF and RAF bomb raids. German air defenses would also be much stronger than they were historically, since they will be able to station the entire Luftwaffe in Western Europe. The Allies would routinely encounter the kindof losses they suffered during the Ploeisti raids. From an attritional standpoint, this is simply not sustainable in the long run.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6318
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Michael Kenny » 26 Mar 2020 07:43

Avalancheon wrote:
26 Mar 2020 06:36
It was only after their capital city was captured, and their leader dead, that the Germans surrendered.
A common error of the devoted. Whilst Germany may have stopped fighting in May 1945 the war was won much earlier. There was never the slightest chance of a favorable outcome for Germany after August 1944. The corpse stopped twitching in 1945 but the mortal blow was delivered much earlier.
Why is terminal stupidity/refusal to face reality being conflated with martial prowess?

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Avalancheon » 26 Mar 2020 08:18

Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
There are so many obstacles between the collapse of the USSR in autumn of 1942 and a German defeated by 1946/47 through nukes that it is mindboggling. Among other things a really big factor are the Japanese. OTL it was the Nukes + their loss of Manchuria and fear of a Soviet Invasion that pushed them to capitulate. With their Western flank secured, they are far less inclined to capitulation than OTL. So an Invasion/blockade/nuking - or a combination of all three would go on well into 1946. No sane President would then restart the war in Europe that for the past 2-3 years would have transformed into another phoney war.
You hit the nail on the head. How do the Allies keep the war going long enough for the atomic bombs to become a factor? Its an even bigger 'what if' question than Germany defeating the Soviet Union. This notion has way too many variables to be accepted at face value.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
What is mindboggling is that there is a BIG gap between autumn of 1942 and autumn of 1945 that is left with a big question mark. Three years are just handwaved away:
Just as the are for the Germans who will do XYZ with no problems.
TheMarcksPlan has done a very good job of substantiating his thesis that 1) Germany could have fielded more divisions than it historically did during operation Barbarossa 2) They could have used this army to knock the Soviet Union out of the war in a 2 year campaign. The level of detail he goes into is somewhat astounding. He has presented a veritable mountain of evidence to make his case.

So Politician01 has a point. For Britain and America to keep on fighting for another 3 years in these extreme circumstances is rather questionable. What are they going to do after the Soviet Union falls?
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- By autumn of 1942 the USSR is collapsing and the weakling "Great" Britain is overchallanged by fighting a tiny 2-3% of the German Army.
Yet the British won at El Alamein, and the 'weakling' Germans with their entire force were unable to win in 1940-41.
If they had went forward with operation Herkules and captured Malta, the Axis would have been on a much stronger footing in North Africa. It would have enabled them to get much more use out of Benghazi and sort out their logistical problems. Even without any extra troops, they might well have been victorious at El Alamein. That would have been a disaster for the British. They would have had to pull back all the way to the Suez canal, leaving 90% of Egypt in enemy hands. The Axis would have Alexandria, Cairo, and the Nile delta. The Royal navy would need to be evacuated into the Red sea.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- Less than 0.01% of WAllied population knows about the Nuke - also these people dont know IF it will work or WHEN it will work, yet it is claimed that the WAllies would continue the war for many years based of the hope that someday some wonderweapon will be ready.
In reality, Germany fought on for at least two years after the war was completely lost, so once again you are using special pleading.
First off, you are comparing Democracys to Dictatorships. Second, you are ignoring the political context WRT surrender.

After their defeat at Stalingrad, the Germans were told that the war would only end after they offered an unconditional surrender. This did much to stiffen their flagging willpower. But if the situation had been reversed, there is no reason to believe that Germany would have done the same to Britain and America. Hitler never wanted war with the West in the first place. He was shocked when Britain and France declared war on him. He offered an armistice to Britain on three separate occasions, and was rebuffed each time.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- The problem of manpower shortages - especially for Britain - is ignored
Just as the Germans raised extra men, the British can do likewise. Same rules for both sides.
Thats absolutely untrue. The Army that Britain fielded in 1943/1944 was very close to the maximum they could actually support, given their myriad limitations.

And besides that, TheMarcksPaln went into excruciating detail about where the Germans could have drawn their manpower from, and how these extra troops would be employed. Its not as if he is just waving his hands and magicking things into existence.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- So is realpolitics. The Allies will chicken out from an invasion of Europe because they know that they cant stomach the losses, bombing on the other hand is not a war winner. Allied populations are denied a strategy that shows them a path to victory, yet it is expected that they will nevertheless continue to support the war. Especially the Americans that want to concentrate on the Japanese and not the Germans.
Rather like the Germans chickened out of the war RL, and that in WWI it would be impossible to introduce conscription and then rationing in Britain as it wouldnt be accepted. The US will focus on the nation capable of presenting the greatest threat, and that will never be Japan.
What makes you say that? In the event of a Soviet military collapse in mid-1942, the Americans planned to pivot to Japan. This is a sensible decision, since they had no real way to strike Germany at that time.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- Even IF the Allies remain in the war based on some vague promise of a wonderweapon, even IF Roosevelt wins the election of 1944, even IF Truman would want to Nuke the Germans, it is ignored how strong German AA and Fighter defences would be by autumn 1945, almost impossible for a Bomber to get through.
Of course, the Germans will not be reduced to inexperienced pilots or suffer any fuel shortages, and any bombing of German assets must involve going into the heart of Germany and not bombing areas of German troop concentrations or coastal defences where massive Allied air power can cover them given changed circumstances.
Its hard to say what the German situation would be with regards to fuel. If the Eastern front has shut down as an active theater by 1942, then that is going to influence things. Without all those motorised divisions in combat, they will be able to save up on fuel. The Soviet oil fields will be in ruins, though, and it will take months to repair them. Then there is the question of how they transport the oil from the Caucasus to Germany. They can do it by ship across the Black sea, but only in relatively small quantitys.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
- Also OTL it was estimated that in order to defeat the USSR one would need some 200 to 300 nuclear weapons - the plan was therefore abandoned. The same would apply to Germany. Also Britain would be against the Nuking of Germany because it would fear the retaliation by biological and chemical weapons.
Silly estimates where the plan was to leave no two bricks standing differ greatly from simply dropping nukes and overwhelming the German system to a point it cannot vaguely cope. Have a look at the estimates for how many nukes it would take to overwhelm the US ability to cope - its about ten on major population centers even with todays medicine.
Politician01 is telling the truth. The U.S. studied the feasibility of a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. Their plan was called operation Dropshot. The conclusions are hair raising, to say the least.
Terry Duncan wrote:
25 Mar 2020 14:46
Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 12:19
There are so many obstacles between the collapse of the USSR in autumn of 1942 and a German defeated by 1946/47 through nukes that it is mindboggling. Among other things a really big factor are the Japanese. OTL it was the Nukes + their loss of Manchuria and fear of a Soviet Invasion that pushed them to capitulate. With their Western flank secured, they are far less inclined to capitulation than OTL. So an Invasion/blockade/nuking - or a combination of all three would go on well into 1946. No sane President would then restart the war in Europe that for the past 2-3 years would have transformed into another phoney war.
The US can safely ignore Japan, and in defeating Russia the Germans will suffer large losses as they did historically, including large numbers of the more experienced men, leaving a large number of raw recruits just as the Allied armies compose of. The idea only Germany can do something as other nations will not have the stomach for it has been proven wrong twice in the last century RL. In Ah it is likely to prove no different.
Thats not true, however. In this scenario, the Soviet Union would collapse by mid-1942. The constant attrition experienced by the German army would stop soon after. That would leave them with a well trained, veteran force.

BTW, its worth keeping in mind that even during the Normandy campaign in mid-1944, the exhausted German troops were still outperforming the British and Americans. The disparity in fighting power will be even greater in this scenario, since they haven't been bled white.

Ружичасти Слон
Member
Posts: 136
Joined: 24 Jan 2020 16:31
Location: Изгубљени

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Ружичасти Слон » 26 Mar 2020 13:41

Politician01 wrote:
25 Mar 2020 19:48

From history, we know exactly (or pretty close) how m....

The Allies on the other hand have to work with what they had historicially.....
How tmp like to write....
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Mar 2020 04:42


As usual with folks here, this is "it didn't happen so it couldn't happen."

And
Avalancheon wrote:
26 Mar 2020 06:36
Where are all of these new factorys are going to be built?
How tmp like to write....
TheMarcksPlan wrote:
16 Mar 2020 04:42


As usual with folks here, this is "it didn't happen so it couldn't happen."

Next week will to be lottery in my country. Maybe i will to win many millions and be very happy.

If i buy ticket it will to be theoretical possible to win. But chance for to win is very small.

In all topics that tmp was write his imaginations historys he was want peoples for to agree with him each imagination is theoretical possible and plausible. Most peoples answer with chance for to that happen when consider real historys and historical plausible.

Is tmp imaginations historys plausible or not plausible? It is different answer if you think for theoretical plausible or historical plausible.

Must to remember tmp has many imaginations and peoples must to decide if it is plausible will to win lottery every week not just next week.

But also i am confused. When changing history for imaginations historys tmp is get very angry when peoples not to agree to changes and often was write things like As usual with folks here, this is "it didn't happen so it couldn't happen.".

So what is rules for this forum?

Is rule for to Nazi Germany can to change anything to make win but all others like Britain and America and Soviet union must to stay like history?

Is rule for to Germany changes can to be theoretical plausible and to Britain and America and Soviet union must be historical plausible?

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6318
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Michael Kenny » 26 Mar 2020 13:45

Avalancheon wrote:
26 Mar 2020 08:18
its worth keeping in mind that even during the Normandy campaign in mid-1944, the exhausted German troops were still outperforming the British and Americans. The disparity in fighting power will be even greater in this scenario, since they haven't been bled white.
Bollocks.
The Germans 'underperformed' when compared to how long the Allies thought they would last. Paris was taken days ahead of schedule and the Rhine was reached several months ahead of planning. The war even ended before the pre-D-Day estimate. The reason the Allies 'stumbled' in late 1944 is they fell on their faces when the Germans were trounced, turned and ran. They found themselves ahead of their planned supply situation and anyone calling that German debacle 'outperforming' is deluded.
Stackpole's 'Army Of The West' is an eye-opening source for those who want to know how the German Generals saw their situation in Normandy.
Last edited by Michael Kenny on 26 Mar 2020 14:20, edited 1 time in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6318
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: U.S./UK forced to implement something like the Victory Plan of 1941

Post by Michael Kenny » 26 Mar 2020 13:57

Ружичасти Слон wrote:
26 Mar 2020 13:41


So what is rules for this forum?

Same as for all online forums-clicks are king.
Content takes second place to traffic.

Return to “What if”