So are you Tom, so are you....
Mounting casualties and no visible path to victory. OTL in terms of casualties WW2 was a cake walk for the Wallies because the Soviets absorbed most damage. In this ATL the Wallies stick to bombing - basically admitting that they are to scared to invade and have no idea how to win - or they invade Sicily/Italy as per OTL - for 5x the casualties and half the OTL advance speed.
Really thats all dave? How about you react to my previous post, where I debunked all your nagging? Still waiting on those "multiple strategic options" you claimed the Wallies have now that the pesky USSR is gone that apparently made these "options" impossible OTL.
As allways the main problem of threads like these are:
1. Anglo Chauvinism: We defeated Germany and to say that Anglos would have been probably incapable of doing so without the USSR is heresy.
2. Lack of knowledge - or deliberate denial on how much manpower and how much effort/resources the Germans had to invest against the USSR, and how this disrupted German production/strategy/development of new weapons ect and how much easier it made the war for the Wallies.
3. The inability to consider the geopolitical changes that would have arisen after a succesfull Barbarossa/Blau and its impact on Anglo populations/policy. Contrary to the myths that are allways constructed after succesfull wars, US population was not very enthusiastic about the war with Germany, the main focus was on punishing the Japanese.
Look I am not even claiming that it is impossible for the Wallies to beat Germany on their own - without the USSR it just becomes a LOT harder and evidence suggests that negotiations are a far more likely path. But if they would be ready, able and willing to sacrifice several million of their troops in a massive air AND ground warfare campaign in the 43-46 period, they might win against the Germans in 300 out of 1000 timelines.
If they have absolutely no regard for their air crews and are ready to nuke Central Europe into oblivion, willing to sacrifice millions of Britons to German Biological/Chemical counterstrikes- they might win in 950 out of 1000 timelines.
They however do not have the power of hindsight. All they know in the spring of 1943 is that Germany just defeated the USSR and that it can transfer hundreds of thousands of troops West, demobilize hundreds of thousands into its factories, and thousands of specialists for weapon development. They can send thousands of additional tanks, guns, aircraft and motor vehicles West, German fuel and resource situation becomes a little better immediately.
The few people that work on the nuke do not know when it will be ready, they also do not know if it will work. Meanwhile Allied losses in the air sykrocket, Allied losses on the ground skyrocket (if they invade in the Med) the war in Europe seems unwinnable. Bascially high casualties, for very little gain. There are elections in the US in 1944, Roosevelt dies in April 45 anyways, negative public opinion due to stalemate and high casualties, then here is the question of Japan ect ect
So realistically it would seem that with all these obstacles, by the summer of 1945 the war in Europe would have morphed into a cold-war state in perhaps 800 out of 1000 timelines and would not have resumed after the defeat of Japan. You might think differently - but then please support evidence that can be discussed and not handwave slogans like: US STRONK! Manpower and resources unlimited! The public loves war and will never surrenda! Casualties dont matter! Everyone knows that da nukes are ready by 1945! Wehraboo! No Germany cant do this lol and even if it does it doesnt matter lol!
I believe with this, everything that can be said, has been said.