Politician01 wrote: ↑25 Mar 2020, 13:19
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, 15:46
Politician01 wrote: ↑25 Mar 2020, 13:19
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, 15:46
Politician01 wrote: ↑25 Mar 2020, 13:19
- 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, 15:46
Politician01 wrote: ↑25 Mar 2020, 13:19
- 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, 15:46
Politician01 wrote: ↑25 Mar 2020, 13:19
- 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, 15:46
Politician01 wrote: ↑25 Mar 2020, 13:19
- 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, 15:46
Politician01 wrote: ↑25 Mar 2020, 13:19
- 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, 15:46
Politician01 wrote: ↑25 Mar 2020, 13:19
- 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, 15:46
Politician01 wrote: ↑25 Mar 2020, 13:19
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.