WW2 Air war in Europe with a defeated USSR?

[Michael Kenny]

One significant problem, however, is the Type XXI submarine. Nobody had any answer to this weapon even in 1948.

You can only fix the problems you have and at no time during WW2 did either side make a technological advance so great the other side was unable to counter it.
This is all '1946 Luftwaffe' fantasy

You can never educate someone who doesn't want to learn:
.

Sarcasm or a complete lack of self-awareness?

[Michael Kenny]

...several hundred words lacking a single citation or compelling logic. Nothing but patriotic slogans.

More handwavium rubbish.
In 1940 the UK was on the cusp of invasion and defeat. That was the lowest point in her fortunes ever. And at no time did they consider asking for terms.

[Politician01]

Britain fought successfully through 1945.

With the USSR absorbing most losses and backed fully by the US - both these things are missing or greatly reduced ATL

Indian independence movements will be ruthlessly crushed during wartime.

Oh so more manpower Britain needs to invest away from fighting Germany. Also I though the Indian Army was "the greatest volunteer army in history" that could have defeated Germany all by itself had it been properly utilized by the British - at least many Anglos here claim so. How exactly are the British going to "ruthlessly crush" this army?

America didn't face any "similar problems" in the OTL.

Yes it did, the first manpower problems started to appear by the end of 1944, same goes for industry. Far less than Britain but it was starting.

I love how everything is always roses for the Axis in these ATLs - hundreds of thousands fewer casualties, massively increased output in every sector, unbridled support from their conquered subjects - while the Allies are falling to pieces, suffering unsustainable casualties, and their populations are in open revolt. It's amazing the Allies won at all if this is how the world really works.

I love how getting spared the most intense phase of the LARGEST LAND WAR IN HUMAN HISTORY seemingly doesnt lead to increased German production, doesnt lead to increased Wallied casualties, doesnt result in any significant benefits for Germany and no disadvantages for the Wallies.......sigh

[Tom from Cornwall]

Said public opinion was also not universally behind the war in the way we view today, but was in fact much more fickle and this directly shaped Allied operational planning as a result.

That's true, of course. But I've just finished reading "The German War" by Nicholas Stargardt and I would tentatively suggest that assumptions about the solidity of the control the Nazis had on German public opinion are also exaggerated.

All the best,

Tom

[Politician01]

The Allies made sure their armies were fit for the tasks they were given and they must have done something right as the Germany Army was (in reality) defeated everywhere it tried to make a stand

What an achievement! With 2/3 of its land army occupied in the East, including most first rate troops and equipment, the Anglos managed to defeat the German Army! I suggest you read John Ellis´ Brute Force. Anglo land armies were a joke compared to the Germans. The only thing they "done something right" is avoiding the majority of the German Army and letting someone else to the dirty work they would have been incapable of.

[History Learner]

Said public opinion was also not universally behind the war in the way we view today, but was in fact much more fickle and this directly shaped Allied operational planning as a result.

That's true, of course. But I've just finished reading "The German War" by Nicholas Stargardt and I would tentatively suggest that assumptions about the solidity of the control the Nazis had on German public opinion are also exaggerated.

All the best,

Tom

The numerous assassination attempts on Hitler suggest such, yes. It doesn't ultimately change the fact Hitler and the NSDAP remained in control until the Reich was physically overrun and destroyed, which suggests their capacity do such in this situation should not be doubted.

[Tom from Cornwall]

It's a distinct possibility that the additional resources for the Uboats - including leadership attention - results in Type XXI being conceived a year or so earlier and that - with more and better workers on the project and less bomb damage to its production chain - it's fully operational by 1944.

Why is it a "distinct possibility"? What would drive such a decision? Certainly not U-boat losses up to that point or an understanding of the impact that air-power would have on the the U-boat's effectiveness.

Surely those are just...

...several hundred words lacking a single citation or compelling logic.

Regards

Tom

[History Learner]

A Germany in control of Europe to the A-A Line or the Urals is one that has the capacity to inflict millions of casualties upon the Anglo-Americans,

Only in the mind of someone who thinks the Allies 'cheated' and did not have a 'fair fight' with the Germans. In the alternate alternate reality (I.E actual reality) The Allies made sure their armies were fit for the tasks they were given and they must have done something right as the Germany Army was (in reality) defeated everywhere it tried to make a stand

German KIA/MIA on the Eastern Front alone amounted to the equivalent of roughly 50-60 Divisions. Even using 1944 rates, that manpower in the West alone results in one million American casualties. No one is doubting the Anglo-Americans kept their armies well supplied, but that's a pretty irrelevant point to the central fact that they are, in this ATL outlined, facing far, far more Germans than they historically had to. Likewise, the idea the Germans would universally be broke anytime they faced your Allied supermen kinda falls apart when one considers Kasserine Pass, Italy, the Aegean, Market Garden, etc...

[TheMarcksPlan]

What I would expand this with is the US use of African & Latina American labor and men for the military. Defacto or by conscious design those two labor pools were under used into 1944.

Hmmm I wonder why the US didn't import more black/brown workers? [Google: Jim Crow, Chinese Exclusion Act, Operation Wetback]

Again, if we remove all historical political and cultural constraints, it's feasible for the Anglos to have won the war. You're adding America's horrific racism to the list of things that have to change.

there is the usual question of if just counting ground combat forces is a accurate measurement for estimating the overall situation & outcomes. Theres a reason the US & Britain invested heavily in air power and doubled down on that investment as the war progressed. Were the leaders correct in that, or should they have sent the airmen and factory workers to the infantry?

What's the argument? That the JCS was wrong in believing that the US would have needed a stronger army, absent the SU?

[History Learner]

...several hundred words lacking a single citation or compelling logic. Nothing but patriotic slogans.

More handwavium rubbish.
In 1940 the UK was on the cusp of invasion and defeat. That was the lowest point in her fortunes ever. And at no time did they consider asking for terms.

Except they did? This is not speculation but historical fact; even Churchill was considering terms in May/June of 1940.

[Tom from Cornwall]

It doesn't ultimately change the fact Hitler and the NSDAP remained in control until the Reich was physically overrun and destroyed, which suggests their capacity do such in this situation should not be doubted.

Obviously not doubted by you...

Several historians have suggested that one of the key factors that drove continued German resistance in 1945 when the war was obviously lost was the fear of retribution from invading Soviet troops. Not a factor in this historical fantasy, obviously.

Regards

Tom

[Michael Kenny]

German KIA/MIA on the Eastern Front alone amounted to the equivalent of roughly 50-60 Divisions. Even using 1944 rates, that manpower in the West alone results in one million American casualties.

Eastern Front is eastern Front. At no time did the Western Allies suffer the same rate of casualties They fought a different war and a very successful (in terms of negating any German advantage) war.
It needs repeating: The German Army was the size it was because it was always intended the invasion of Russia would be a short campaign. The intent was to quickly shrink the Army after victory. Victory never arrived and so German was forced to maintain an inflated under-equipped army of old men, cripples and boys on horses in the hope numbers would substitute for quality. They were wrong.

[Michael Kenny]

You're nice but often completely miss the point.

To wit:

'Don't bother me with awkward facts'.

[Michael Kenny]

. No one is doubting the Anglo-Americans kept their armies well supplied, but that's a pretty irrelevant point to the central fact that they are, in this ATL outlined, facing far, far more Germans than they historically had to. Likewise, the idea the Germans would universally be broke anytime they faced your Allied supermen kinda falls apart when one considers Kasserine Pass, Italy, the Aegean, Market Garden, etc...

Oh dear, the usual trick of conflating tactical success with strategic success. They never 'broke'. They were beaten. You starting to sound a lot like the Die Deutsche Wochenschau newsreel announcers. In fact a lot like the one who claimed film of wrecked landing craft washed up on beaches east of the landings were the wreckage from a failed assault.

[Michael Kenny]

Several historians have suggested that one of the key factors that drove continued German resistance in 1945 when the war was obviously lost was the fear of retribution from invading Soviet troops. Not a factor in this historical fantasy, obviously.

The stampede west was recognition that they knew their crimes were going to catch up with them.