Could the Western Allies Win Without the USSR?

Please read my previous posts

As I have stated, in this scenario if the SU is neutral than Germany would get all she needed from Russia, just as she had prior to June 22, 1941.

The US had greater resources and man power than Germany but not the UK. Remember, in this scenario Germany is in control of mainland Europe. Just think of all the slaves....

With all ground campaigns at an end and a bitter war over the skies of Europe brewing, I can not imagine that Hitler would put emphasis on anything over the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine (speculation of course). Why build a better tank when there are no enemies left on the ground?

 

I cannot disagree with you more.

The Germans surprised everyone with the Blitzkrieg. That doesn't make them better than the US or UK troops. Just means that had a head start. And even with the head start, they lost big time.

The US and the UK fought a war on two main fronts, and beat up the axis on both of them. The closest thing the Germans ever had to an over seas front, was North Africa.

You can quote production fact and theory all you want. Hard data says other wise, and hard data wins every time.

 

"Sloniksp", let's not forget that Hitler himself was sort of anti-Kreigsmarine. He openly stated that he was a; "hero on the land, but a coward on the sea".

Slave labor, no matter how inexpensive is also quite unreliable as per quality control. It is estimated that the Me-163 'Komet" suffered more failures due to sabotage than simple malfuctions or "pilot error". Now, if your "war winning wunderwaffen" are being built by slaves, how high is the quality?

 

Comparative (june, 1944):

Western front
1 milllion men
1.500 tanks and SP guns

Eastern front
3.2 million men
5.700 tanks and SP guns

Germany had 360 divisions in 1944:

70 against the western allies.

230 against the soviet union.

60 occupying countries with 150 million people.

The Normandy landings faced about 15 divisions before august 1944. If they had put 50 divisions against them, they would probably never been able to assault mainland Europe.

France lost more men in 40 days agaisn't germany than germany lost in these 11 months agaisn't the western allies.

France was defeated in 15 days, the other 25 days they were fighting for nothing... In the same sense that after bagration, in September 1944, germany was defeated. It is normal!

The south was defeated in 1863, but they surrendered only in 1865!

Well, I can argue that the US needed Canada's and Britains help to defeat 70 german divisions, 20% of their armed forces (in fact they needed, if they invaded with the same number of men, they would lose 3 times the historical number of casualties).

The US failed to conquer North Vietnam.

300.000 to 1.5 million, by december 1944.

They arent.

My bad, it was 19%!!

 

What hard data? You haven't provided any!

Sure, the US and UK lost 700.000 men against 300.00 death for Germany.

While the USSR lost 11 million against 2.5 million death for Germany.

The western allies never faced more than 10% of Germany capabilities!

 

I think its safe to assume that the B-29's would be their priority? Not even the impressive P-51's could be much of a match against hundreds of ME-262's.

Perhaps if the Allies sped up their Jet technology to counter the new bird?

My point exactly. The German scientists might have a field day with such a present.

If dropped in the right places. Would the Allies bomb Berlin? Didnt bomb Tokyo? What if the Germans placed all of their armies in occupied countries? Better yet in and around their capital's?

What if the Germans also put all of their captured POW's in German cities?

What might be the targets of Little boy and Fat man then?

 

I still hold out for Stuttgart as the primary target, it was the new center of atomic research in Germany, and the allies knew it. The Tokyo bombing had been halted as LeMay was informed that the Emperor would be more of an asset than a detriment in the coming negotiations. I doubt that Hitler would have had the same protection. I also doubt that the POWs could be moved to all cities in time to protect them from atomic attack, and I doubt also that it would take more than a couple to defeat the Nazis. They understood what it probably was, the Japanese were completely surprised.

But that said, this would happen in late 1945, and the Me-262 and the atomics would be in the same state of development. Removing the SU from the equasion doesn't accelorate one or the other. The P-80 was available, and in numbers by then. It's range was still rather limited but not as badly as the 262, and it had a number of advantages over the 262. But I don't even think it would be needed, but if it was it existed, was proven trustworthy by late '45, and could have been deployed.

The lack of it (P-80) wouldn't have detered the Superforts though, and the 262 might have been a problem if more could have been made than were historically. But then again, it wasn't airframes and engines that were lacking, it was pilots and fuel. So, there ya go.

 

Yes, the Western Allies could have won without the USSR. It would have been more difficult but I see one means as:

The US and British adopt a Japan first strategy. They go on a limited offensive against Germany and crush Japan by early to mid 1944. Their major strategic goal in the ETO is to end Germany's U-boat campaign. This leaves them free once Japan falls to move their forces to Europe virtually unmolested.
The US originally planned nearly 1000 escort vessels of frigate or destroyer escort size for the Atlantic war. If they were needed they all would have been produced. By the beginning of 1944 the US is producing more shipping tonnage per month than the Germans sank at their best during the war. With the entirety of the US navy redeploying to the Atlantic along with the RN, the Germans are totally finished trying a guerre de course using diesel boat submarines. Aircraft? How long would a handful of Fw 200, He 177, or Ju 290 last against a couple of Essex class carrier loads of F6F and F4U fighters using radar carrier controlled intercept from an escorting cruiser or destroyer and being intercepted 75 miles from their target?
Their air forces in Europe concentrate intially on a war of attrition against the Luftwaffe rather than a strategic bomber war against Germany at high intensity. The US and Britain can sustain this far better than the Germans can. The Allies have the pilots, the fuel and, the initiative to strike as they dictate.
I doubt that the Germans would have the capacity to sustain a years long Battle of Britain over that island against a combined US - British defense system that by 1944 would have had VT fuzed AA guns with very accurate microwave radar fire control and, might even include SAM missiles.
By 1944 the US has introduced the B-29 into Europe which proves to be a major shock to the Germans who lack a really decent fighter to counter it. First, they haven't got the kind of really high altitude turbosupercharging systems even in prototype due to a previous lack of real need. Next, the Fw 190 with the BMW engine is incapable of operating at 30,000+ feet effectively. The 109 can just do it but isn't really capable of taking on a B-29 with its light armament.
Jets are still most of a year away from service as there was less impetus to get them into play. Worse, the Allies are on par, or even ahead, with jet engines and are very quickly catching up in high speed airframe technologies. So, when they do arrive they have little real impact on the war.
In North Africa the Germans by 1944 have lost a far larger army than they originally put there. Their lack of a navy hasn't changed making that theater just as vulnerable as it historically was. Taking Malta changed nothing for the Germans there.

With Japan out of the picture the US begins to build up to a full 175+ divisions of troops in Europe to take on Germany. Yes, the US could build that many if necessary. They hadn't even begun to really dig into their manpower barrel. Of that 175 divisions you could expect 40 or so to be armored ones with the rest essentially the equivalent of a strong panzergrenadier division along with say, 6 to 8 airborne divisions.
They bring in about 1.5 million troops as construction engineers too (that is about the historical figure world wide for the US in 1944). If bases are needed they get built. Airfields too. The Germans are still forced to fortify a nearly 4000 mile long frontier from Norway to Greece against an Allied invasion that could come at any point.
The Allies could adopt a raiding strategy making a landing, crushing the local opposition, then withdrawing as necessary to wittle down German strength.
With the US Marines present their use of superior landing equipment like LVT's in huge numbers makes this a very alluring proposition.
Then there is the atomic bomb race. The US wins that one hands down. What do the Germans do when the US lights the first, say, half dozen off on targets?

As for air power, the Germans are limited not by aircraft production of smaller types like fighters but by fuel and crew availablility. They simply are not going to be able to field a really huge airforce on that basis alone.
They are never going to be able to produce and field a strategic bomber component anywhere close to the size of the one the US and Britain fielded. They also are not going to be able to match the eventual technology involved (eg., they are not capable of mass producing a B-29-like bomber).

All in all, the war lasts a bit longer, the Germans win the nuclear option having their cities incenerated to under mushroom clouds and, still lose the war.

 

Point well made. But in this bizarre/crazy scenario there was simply no need for the construction of new weapons for a land campaign. Would it be safe to assume that common sense might prevail and place the priority on resources being allocated to where they were truly needed?

No argument there. But not all is a total loss... fortifications too can be built by the such a workforce (under the strictest of supervisions of course)

Playing the devil's advocate here.

 

Hard data is what actually happened in WWII. The Germans were beaten on every front they fought on, with the exception of Norway which wasn't invaded for liberation. So much for the vaunted military machine.

The machine needs men and materials, which the Germans were in far lass supply and access to. Eventually the Germans would lose. Period. End of sentence.

That they would get a nuke or two (or three) dropped on them would have sealed it with an absolute finality.

The Germans for the most part only faced the US Army (not even all of it), USAAC (not all of it), and a little bit of the navy. If you want to talk about Germany not having to fight the Russians, and divide their full strength, then lets take this to a comparable "What If," and say that the US and UK didn't have to fight Japan either. The full weight of the US and UK would have simply obliterated the full weight of Germany.

 

TA,

Two questions... Where would the Allies land? And how many casualties could the "American People" take before calling it quits?

 

With a peripherial strategy the Allies adopt an approach of hitting where the Germans simply cannot respond in force. For example, they land in Northern Norway and take the German iron supplies from Sweden out of the resource picture.
With complete naval control of the Norway coast (the entire 1944/45 USN being off shore...or a good part of it) and a massive force ashore the Germans there are doomed. Their limited abiltiy to project airpower without local fuel resources means even the naval forces off shore meet only limited attacks.
The Germans would have had to simultaneously hold a defense line against the Allied forces ashore while maintaining a strong coastal defense to try and prevent landings in their rear. They don't have the manpower or mobility for that.

Or, the Allies take Sicily. Again, the Germans are limited in their ability to reinforce and only have a limited ability against the kind of carrier forces the Allies could arrange in 1944 / 45. Again, they lose simply because they lack the strategic mobility to reinforce. The Allies then use Sicily to bomb the Italians out of the war. Now Germany alone has to defend all of Italy against a now somewhat hostile populace as well as the Allies.

Crete? Same thing. Malta? Same thing. Channel Islands? Same thing.

Once the Allies prove they can land virtually anywhere and in near overwhelming force, defend the airspace over an invasion with carriers alone if necessary, and are willing to do so the Germans will be forced into building massive defenses in depth along a several thousand mile front that they really cannot defend.

Once the air war turns in the Allies favor, as is inevidable due if nothing else to Germany's lack of fuel, pilots and, production capacity they will will see their abilty to stop attacks against even their core areas erode. It is the same picture as it was historically. Germany simply does not have the economy even with its captured territory to stop the Allies.

 

You really need better sources.

May 1944
West 1928 tanks 355 Stug. = 2283
Italy 750 tanks 514 Stug. =1264

Total 2678 tanks 869 Stug. = 3547 (you claim 1500, 2000 too low)

East 1913 tanks 2180 Stug. = 4093(you claim 5700, 1600 too high)

You always seem to undercount Western totals and overcount Eastern, why?

1st SS Panzer Division
2nd SS Panzer Division
9th SS Panzer Division
10th SS Panzer Division
12th SS Panzer Division
21st Panzer Division
Panzer Lehr Panzer Division
17th SS Panzer Gr. Division

sSS PzAbt 101
sSS PzAbt 102
sPzAbt 503

2 Fallschrimjager Division.
3 Fallschrimjager Division.
5 Fallschrimjager Division.
16 Luftwaffenfelddivision
77 Infanterie Division
91 Luftlande-Division
243 Infanterie Division
265 Infanterie Division
266 Infanterie Division
272 Infanterie Division
275 Infanterie Division
276 Infanterie Division
277 Infanterie Division
326 Infanterie Division
331 Infanterie Division
346 Infanterie Division
352 Infanterie Division
353 Infanterie Division
709 Infanterie Division
711 Infanterie Division

7 Panzer Divisions
1 Panzer Gr. Division
3 Tiger Abteilung
20 Infantry Divisions.

Total 31 Divisions twice your '15' claim.
Note there were a number of independent Stug/Pz Jgr/Flak Units as well. I just listed the big boys.
I also excluded all the other divisions that arrived after mid July.

You keep making the same mistake. The Army is not the only 'Armed Force' Germany had

 

Very good point TA.

In fact, if the allies take Norway, it would be a splendid jumping off point to invade through Denmark. The USN of that period would OWN the Baltic. Add the RN, and it's no contest.

 

How many casualties might the allies suffer with such an ambitious campaign?

 

One thing I think is certain, is if the full USN and Rn were involved, plus the airpower based in the UK, no matter how large the Luftwaffe would be, the allies would have pretty convincing air superiority over the landings.

The USN, trained in dive bombing would be able to take out fortifications better than the USAAC or RAF.

Not to mention the dozens of 14" and larger guns the two navies would have. The shore bombardment, and up to about 15-20 miles inland would make a living hell for any Germans. It would make the Normandy bombardment look lame by comparison.

 

Ok this has went from "What If Hitler doesn't Invade the Soviet Union??" to "What if the Soviet Union is Neutral??"" there has been absolutely no answer to evidence that if the SU isn't invaded in 1941 then Stalin will attack Hitler in '42 or '43. All that ever happened in history didn't happen in a vaccum. In order for Hitler not to attack the SU would require massive re-thinking of just how Hitler & Germany thought.
Another thing is if Hitler isn't at Moscow gates then Japan sure in the hell isn't going to to to war with the UK & the US this very thing frees up an immense amount of troops for the British Empire & the US .If I'm not wrong over 700,000 troops were in Iran alone at one time. You know the Japanese may just see the light and help the Allies out.

 

Less resources then the British Empire??? Did you look at my link to the USGS? It shows the US output in many minerals in ore and in metal production. The US produced over 120,000 tanks & SP's to the Empire's around 40,000, 250,000 HT's to the Empire's 80,000 Bren's & such,300,000 + aircraft to the Empire's 150,000, and in naval & merchant shipping it isn't even in the same ball park.

 

Hitler was dreaming of 360 divisions,but he never got them .
The German front strength in the East in june 1944 was some 150 divisions with 2.2 million men (sorce :Axis History Factbook)

 

What source says the Germans were "quite close" to producing an atomic bomb?

Every thing I have read says the Germans were several years behind the Americans in the race to develop an A-bomb and had actually given up because of the famous mistake Heisenberg had made in his calculations. The Germans thought that an A-bob would be so big and heavy that no plane or rocket could possibly carry it, thanks to Heisenberg's screw-up.
The Germans didn't even have an experimental reactor which was one of the prerequisites for a bomb project. Then they needed a source of fissionable material which they didn't have (that's the same reason it took the Soviets four years after the US to explode a bomb).

Germany could never have produced an atomic bomb before being totally destroyed in a rain of atomic weapons; it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise.