If Germany wins in the east, how long can it realistically hold out against the Western Allies?

the Imperium of Canada

the Imperium of Canada

Supposing that by some miracle Germany successfully drives the Soviet Union into collapse by late 1942, how long can Germany realistically hold out against the Western Allies, assuming they just continue on until Germany is made to unconditionally surrender and is occupied?

How long will the war likely drag out for under these circumstances and what are the ramifications of a much longer war in the west?

Note: No Anglo-American Nazi War style ceasefires in this scenario.
 
Last edited:

Carl Schwamberger

Not the first time this has come up. Or even the tenth, across discussion boards. There are a large number of variables that cause the answers to crawl off in two dozen directions.

One would be the nature of the victory over the USSR. At one extreme is the rapid collapse as Hitler envisioned along with Axis domination across Siberia and all the way to the maritime provinces of the Far East. At the other extreme is a uneasy peace with a Soviet state still existing east of the Volga. Defining this peace deeply influences the answer.

Another would be wether Japan avoids the need to 'strike south' in 1941 or 1942 and attacks north to conquer the eastern/maritime provinces. That has deep implications on how the US enters the war and directions it deploys its resources.

Yet another is how badly the German military is damaged by forcing this collapse. There is a huge difference between one and a half million dead and permanently maimed and three million, or worse four.

A lot of territory is covered by the simple idea of "... successfully drives the Soviet Union into collapse by late 1942..." Clarity there would help.
 

EWHM

If we assume ridiculously successful Case Blue, followed by Moscow 42, and Stalin's government falls resulting in a small rump Soviet union east of the Urals, I don't think that the US and the UK have the will to go the distance. They'd likely take North Africa and maybe Sicily, stomp Japan into the ground, but I don't think they'd be willing to accept the casualties required to take back Europe.

The US and the UK COULD do it. I just don't think they would. The US suffered on the order of 400k killed in WW2. I doubt its casualty budget extends into the millions.
 
the Imperium of Canada

the Imperium of Canada

EWHM said:
If we assume ridiculously successful Case Blue, followed by Moscow 42, and Stalin's government falls resulting in a small rump Soviet union east of the Urals, I don't think that the US and the UK have the will to go the distance. They'd likely take North Africa and maybe Sicily, stomp Japan into the ground, but I don't think they'd be willing to accept the casualties required to take back Europe.

The US and the UK COULD do it. I just don't think they would. The US suffered on the order of 400k killed in WW2. I doubt its casualty budget extends into the millions.
Click to expand...
This thread operates under the assumption that they are willing to do it.
 

EWHM

Admiral Bloonbeard said:
Polls in 1942 showed 44% of Americans were willing to make peace with Germany so a peace isn't impossible
Click to expand...
My gut is that the US is willing to accept no more than 1M deaths (which it would have flirted with possibly if they had to invade Japan the hard way). The US just isn't willing to accept the kind of losses that Germany and the USSR sustained historically. Not unless their people feel existentially threatened.
 

nortex

This is an interesting question. Assuming Germany makes peace with a Russian rump state and the border is along the AA line, then Germany has the oil of the Caucuses and the Black Sea is now secure. This largely fixes Germany's oil problems. It even opens the possibility of a strike from the Caucuses towards Iran and Iraq. However, I think in this scenario the British and American control of the seas means an allied build up in Iran (Persia) and Ploesti style B-17 and B-24 raids on Baku and other oil sites. Later on B-29s join in.

Axis logistics in the Mediterranean will still be iffy even if there is no local opposition. The allies should be able to pull off operation Torch, but taking Sicily or Sardinia would be exceedingly difficult. An unbroken/unengaged vs. Russia Luftwaffe would make it quite dangerous to operate naval units in the Med, and the American carriers are still needed to fight Japan. I'm thinking it would be necessary to build up large air bases in Algeria, Tunisia, etc. to at least stalemate the Luftwaffe before a Sicily invasion could take place.

The big question then is, what next? I can see B-36s bombing Germany, ME-262's struggling to get high enough to intercept them. Slip in a few atomic bombs and maybe Germany surrenders. The big question is, could a D-Day overlord invasion succeed against an intact German army with 15 Panzer divisions and an intact Luftwaffe? Pretty iffy proposition in my opinion. Will atomic strikes on Berlin, Hamburg, etc. be enough? Not sure.
 

Fratsup

Considering it took three great powers to defeat Germany in our world and even then they, surrendered when they could not fight any more, I do not think the US would be even be able to break them even if they used all of their nukes, which also assumes they are not simply destroyed by the German air force.
 

Catspoke

I can't imagine the Allies would risk nukes while the Germans still occupied most of Europe, the threat of retaliation on the population would be high, or the risk Sarin attacks on London. Maybe a demonstration on Heligoland or some such place to show capability.
 

EWHM

Most of the casualties Germany took were suffered in 1943-1945. So to do equivalent casualties to Germany without the USSR in play the allies would have to cause an absolute ton of German casualties. If you assume historical exchange rates I don't think the US and UK would be willing to pay the bill. In addition, the exchange rates would be a lot worse because most of them wouldn't take place under conditions of air supremacy. Germany without an Eastern front is a lot harder to get that against. Germany with a lot of ahistorical oil is worse than that. The US and UK might have to invade with a bare level of air superiority.
 

danielb1

Assuming there is no ceasefire or truce, about as long as it takes until the WAllies can manufacture hundreds of nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them into German cities reliably (given advancing technology and greater German air defense capabilities without an Eastern Front, this probably means using the B-36 or early B-47 instead of the B-29), then uses them to utterly destroy Germany's industry and transport capability and major military facilities in Western/Central Europe (and as much of the East as can be reached from allied bases) and shatter the Atlantic Wall into pieces before either an immediate surrender or an invasion.

Call it a "Big One" scenario. It's dependent on the WAllies being willing to kill tens of millions of civilians in order to win without feeding millions of WAllied soldiers into a meatgrinder. Either way, this is going to be bleak and dystopic: any scenario with a Nazi German victory in the East is going to involve tens of millions more dead than OTL World War II *regardless* of who wins.
 

ObssesedNuker

danielb1 said:
Assuming there is no ceasefire or truce, about as long as it takes until the WAllies can manufacture hundreds of nuclear weapons and the ability to deliver them into German cities reliably (given advancing technology and greater German air defense capabilities without an Eastern Front, this probably means using the B-36 or early B-47 instead of the B-29)
Click to expand...

Well, that'll really require smashing down the Luftwaffe akin to OTL, since the Germans were beginning to deploy aircraft that could deal with early-B-36s by 1945 (the Ta-152). Doing some back of the napkin calculations of how the numbers unfolded in the build-up of the American air force, it will take an extra three months for the US to achieve the sort of crushing numerical advantage over this increased force that they held over the historical Germans by the Spring of 1944 for every 400 fighters that are freed up. That's about the standing Luftwaffe strength in the East by mid-1944. Then we add the losses in fighter aircraft the Germans suffered in 1943/44: different sources give me somewhat different numbers (especially for 1943), but it seems to be about ~3.5K? Call it 4K total, for the nice round number. That's about 30 extra months, or two-and-a-half years.

So yeah, 1947 or '48 seems about right.
 

Anarch King of Dipsodes

nortex said:
Assuming Germany makes peace with a Russian rump state and the border is along the AA line, then Germany has the oil of the Caucuses ...
Click to expand...
Nope. First, if the Germans got to the Caspian Gates, US/UK troops would move north from Iran to hold the Baku oilfields. Second, if the Germans somehow overcame their severe supply difficulties and the very difficult terrain and conquered Azerbaijan, it would take them years to get the oilfields producing and establish a means of transporting oil back to Germany, if there was no interference. Third, the oilfields would be in easy range of US/UK bombers from Iran, which would interfere mightily.
 

Vabasion

Forever. Britain was having a severe manpower shortage OTL despite the bad shape Germany was in. Germany that doesn’t lose millions in the East and may or may not have oil in sufficient quantities to feed its military is a different beast from 1944 Germany. I don’t think US populace would be willing to suffer Soviet level casualties for too long and peace would be signed. I also don’t think they decide to nuke entirety of Europe just to win a war.
 

Belisarius II

EWHM said:
Most of the casualties Germany took were suffered in 1943-1945. So to do equivalent casualties to Germany without the USSR in play the allies would have to cause an absolute ton of German casualties. If you assume historical exchange rates I don't think the US and UK would be willing to pay the bill. In addition, the exchange rates would be a lot worse because most of them wouldn't take place under conditions of air supremacy. Germany without an Eastern front is a lot harder to get that against. Germany with a lot of ahistorical oil is worse than that. The US and UK might have to invade with a bare level of air superiority.
Click to expand...
Why do you assume the Luftwaffe would be able to significantly defend the west better with an inactive Eastern Front? Most of their effort was in the west in the OTL anyway. Germany was going to be a smoking ruin by mid 1945, even without atomic bombs.
 

Finbarr the Fair

Admiral Bloonbeard said:
Polls in 1942 showed 44% of Americans were willing to make peace with Germany so a peace isn't impossible
Click to expand...
Is there any indication of what sort of peace they had in mind?

There's a big difference between leaving Germany in control of Western Europe and free to carry out the Ostplan.

And one where it is returned to its 1937 borders with the legitimate governments of Occupied Europe returned.

Which would the British and American peoples have settled for?
 

Darzin

Banned
I think the US being unwilling to take the casualties is very dubious. Look at Britain and France in World War I or the US in the civil war. World War II had a pretty high support rate do to the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Plus a land victory isn't going to help that much. Germany is going to be bombed and then nuked into oblivion. They'll probably surrender around 1946.
 

Belisarius II

Vabasion said:
Forever. Britain was having a severe manpower shortage OTL despite the bad shape Germany was in. Germany that doesn’t lose millions in the East and may or may not have oil in sufficient quantities to feed its military is a different beast from 1944 Germany. I don’t think US populace would be willing to suffer Soviet level casualties for too long and peace would be signed. I also don’t think they decide to nuke entirety of Europe just to win a war.
Click to expand...
They don't need to suffer Soviet level casualties to reduce Germany to a smoking ruin. Securing the periphery of Europe, enforcing the blockade, and destroying Axis Air Power, and Industry would set the conditions for a later confrontation on land. Defeating the Soviet Union wouldn't mean the Germans wouldn't need millions of troops to occupy Europe, and watch for a Soviet return. Germany did defeat Russia, and occupy most of Europe in WWI, but they still ran out of food, and raw materials, and lost the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top