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

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 western allies wouldn't need to throw millions of (their own) men into the meatgrinder. Unless you butterfly away the Manhattan Project, they won't have any problems nuking Germany.
 
Also regarding manpower the allies have literally the entire world to draw on for manpower. The Chinese Army will be free with no Japan, Persia will be in the war, you can promise people like Ho Chi Minh independence in exchange for a million Vietnamese soldiers, all equipped by America of course.

America actually did this with France equipping a huge French Army by wars end. After Japan is defeated it's not America and England vs Germany it's the world vs Germany. And Germany won't be able to compete it might end up a World War I grind in Italy but the Germans can't hold out forever in the face of total air, sea, industrial and numerical superiority on the part of the allies.

And they are getting nuked anyway. but even of they weren't the allies would win.
 
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.
72% of the bombs dropped on Germany were dropped in 1945. That means between January 1 to about April 15. That's 14 weeks. By the time that was happening Germany was collapsing anyway. Projecting the war going on for the rest of 1945 would mean a Dresden, or Hamburg every 2 weeks, or about 20 of them by the end of the year. Add in the atomic bomb, and dozen industrial complexes get nuked. We don't know what would happen if Germany was being subjected to that type of punishment, while the armed forces were still intact. The chances of a coup, or civil collapse would be very high.

Sarin gas attacks on London would be mostly a cleanup crew hazard. Poison gas is a misnomer, they are aerosols, not actual gas, you have to get it on your skin, or breath it. Putting sarin in missiles won't be that decisive. The Germans were starving, and killing the populations of Europe anyway. The Jews, and other groups, and individuals were already being rounded up, and sent to extermination camps. What would the Nazis threaten to do to the people of Europe that they weren't already doing?
 
I suppose Germany could respond with Anthrax but they never used it IOTL even when they were being destroyed.

An intact Military and Europe as Germany is utterly destroyed will make things weird how I don't know but I imagine it would have some odd effects.

I also expect we'd see a Norway campaign and maybe Greece. Taking Norway makes bombing Germany easier and would allow pressure on Sweden to cut trade to further blockade Germany.

with D-day being impossible the Italian front will see a lot more resources and Churchill might get his balkans strategy.
 
I suppose Germany could respond with Anthrax but they never used it IOTL even when they were being destroyed.

An intact Military and Europe as Germany is utterly destroyed will make things weird how I don't know but I imagine it would have some odd effects.

I also expect we'd see a Norway campaign and maybe Greece. Taking Norway makes bombing Germany easier and would allow pressure on Sweden to cut trade to further blockade Germany.

with D-day being impossible the Italian front will see a lot more resources and Churchill might get his balkans strategy.
Anthrax wouldn't be that effective. Invading Italy, or the Balkans would present the same problems as France, the Germans can deploy more ground troops there then the Allies can. Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and Crete are islands so they can be captured. Norway is a possibility, because German deployments would be more limited. Getting countries like Spain, and Turkey to join the Allies is a good possibility. The Allies have things to offer, the Germans only have punishment. With it's economy in collapse the threat of invasion would lessen, giving the Allies an entry port.
 
Such as?

They could maybe offer Spain Rousillon and the French Basque country, which I think Franco wanted, but I don't see that going down well with De Gaulle.
Not territory, but American economic assistance. Both Spain, and Turkey were poor countries, that badly needed investment, trade, and technology transfers. Post war both fell into the American orbit, and if they see the writing on the wall they could do so sooner. In the case of Franco, he feared a German victory would reduce Spain to a German vassal State. Turkey had similar fears, but their total lack of air defenses left then worried about the vulnerability of their cities, so they stayed out. In the OTL the Americans had no interest in getting Turkey into the war, that was a Churchill obsession. In this TL the Americans could take a second look.
 
Last edited:
This topic has been discussed to death which these relevant threads thoroughly demonstrate.

If the Reich defeats the USSR in 1942 they would be far more powerful than they were IOTL in various ways and assuming their political will holds out (which is by no means certain) the WAllies would manage to defeat them after millions of casualties in the late 1940s at the earliest. There’s also the often overlooked issue that without the Soviet invasion of Manchuria Japan most likely wouldn’t have surrendered after Hiroshima and Nagasaki which depending on whether they would bomb and blockade or enact Operation Downfall would divert resources from the war against the Greater Germanic Reich.

As discussed in the last two threads linked above first generation atomic bombs wouldn’t be the magic bullet some seem to believe against a continental power run by fanatics with an extremely formidable military and air defense system. Hitler and his inner circle weren’t bothered by the firebombing of Dresden or the death of over 1.2 million German soldiers (including old men and children) in the last months of the war. Atomic bombs wouldn’t be enough to change their minds especially since they can be intercepted considering the difficulty of actually dropping them in contested airspace.

Here are some relevant quotes from CalBear on the issue:
If the Reich get strategic depth in the East, the Strategic Bombing campaign is in trouble (this assumes that all of OTL's occupied Western Europe remains in Nazi hands).

If one takes, as the best possible case for the Soviets, a return by the USSR of its major shipments of materials, oil and food to the Reich, with the USSR not losing any territory (vastly unlikely, but, again, best case) but with a wide demilitarized zone along the Soviet borders of a couple hundred miles, with Reich observers (sort of a Saarland in reverse). The Reich now can set up manufacturing beyond the range of any escort fighter until the arrival of the P-47N, F-82 and potentially the F8B in General Government. Even then the missions will need to be straight line, no staying out over the North Sea or Baltic until it is time to make the attack run. The oil fields will be in Soviet hands, not the Reich's so any attempt to attack them would possibly result in a war with the Soviets, something that would put Iran and potentially Iraq in play. The Lancaster is the only bomber that can carry useful loads deep into General Government until the arrival of the B-29, even at night, with the sort of flight path that would have to be flown, the RAF would have 10% losses every mission, maybe more. The Bombing offensive, as we know it, would stop dead for at least a year, more likely two, when the ultra long range escorts came on line. Even then the escort would be hard pressed to get much beyond Lodz in General Government (Poland), using the generally accepted reduction of 25% of max range for take off, form up, 20-30 minutes at full throttle/combat. So all the reduction in production, and most of the attrition of the Luftwaffe (which was more or less the 8th AF using their bombers as anvils for the P-51s to hammer the Luftwaffe to pieces against) between mid 1943 and early, probably mid 1945 is gone.

Those would be epic missions for a single seat aircraft, 8-10 hours in the air, virtually all of it over enemy territory. The WAllies would also need absolute mountains of fighters. There would need to be fighters escorting the whole bomber stream AND the ultra long range fighters (who won't be able to drop their external tanks until they are almost at the target area) all the way to the German/General Government frontier (so P-47Ds covering through France to the German border, P-51s taking over up to the Oder, and then the ultra long range fighters taking things to the target and back, probably with more shorter range escorts running fighter sweep to hold down the Luftwaffe on the return trip.

Naval gunfire is a miracle weapon, except it really isn't. Nothing can put down fire like a battleship, but against a strong enough defense it is of limited use. The Heer was terrorized by naval guns in Normandy, but that was because their defensive wall was, in reality, a joke. The American almost literally made an administrative landing on Utah (197 TOTAL casualties), Gold, Juno and Sword, were all secured inside of two hours of landing, even Omaha was cleared inside of six hours. The Atlantic Wall was actually more like the "Atlantic Picket Fence", mainly because the Reich had to dedicate so much of its resources to the East. That left the Heer trying to run Panzer divisions 40-100 miles under constant air attack and then into naval gunfire as they came within 10-15 miles of the beach. A REALLY well prepared defense, something that the Nazi's could have built if they weren't hip deep in the Red Army is a very different matter.

Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa were all subject to 360 degree naval gunfire, literally not a spot on any of the islands was out of range for not just battle ship, but 8" and 6" guns as well. There isn't a spot on Okinawa that is more than 23,000 yards from a firing position in deep water. A 5" gun can shoot completely across Iwo Jima and hit a ship in a firing position on the other side. Peleliu is only 6,000 yards wide, total area is 5 square miles (13 square km), but it took two months and 10,000 casualties to clear it (and Peleliu was totally cut off, no hope of resupply or support). Iwo is 8 Sq. Mi., took five weeks and 27,000 casualties, and it was also utterly cut off, bombed for weeks, and then pounded with naval gunfire from 8 battleships, 9 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers and 16 destroyers, every damned day, for five weeks, with fire being called in by specially trained forward observers. I won't even go into Okinawa. It was so bad that the Joint Chiefs considered asking FDR for permission to use chemical weapons.

The Reich originally panned to have a a defensive network extending inland for 5-7 MILES, with reinforced concrete pill boxes, tank traps, trench lines, minefields (for some odd reason the IJA wasn't really a big fan of mines), pre-registered mortars and artillery, the works, backed up by mobile heavy armored forces.. If Rommel had been able to finish the defenses, it would have been a bloodbath to end all bloodbaths. Just getting a toehold would have been worse than the estimates for all of Operation Downfall.
The problem with any landing in a Reich controlled Europe (although this is somewhat dependent on the sort of peace that exists in the East) is that the Heer can create a defensive belt that is close to unbreakable, assuming Hitler can be kept amused elsewhere and not divert materials for the latest Maus/Ratte/Dora Charlie Foxtrot.

At best the Allies can throw 10-12 divisions at the Continent (IOTL Overlord managed 5 divisions, the U.S. also put 3 divisions onto Saipan ten days later, so the lift could be found, especially if it happens after the end of the Pacific War) while maintaining anything close to coordinated command and control, sufficient air cover, and follow on logistics. That would be, by far, the largest landing operation ever attempted, marginally larger than the plans for Olympic, and would, with the proviso above, thrown at the most comprehensive defensive belt ever seen.

Twelve divisions sounds like a LOT of firepower, until you realize that the Heer could, without serious strain, put 50 divisions of troops into the defensive lines. Using slave labor, which is certain to be available in abundance, and the resources of the European Peninsula you can readily see just how deep a defensive belt could be, This assumes the conditions in the East are such that 35-40 divisions are sufficient to maintain whatever line the peace established with the Soviets. Moreover, a good number of the divisions manning the fixed defenses could be from Reich allies. Unlike the disaster along the Volga IOTL, the overall equipment levels of the Italians, Romanians, Czech, or Hiwi units wouldn't much matter since they will mainly need small arms and 37mm & 50mm anti-tank/landing boat guns. Heavier artillery, along with mobile formations could be mainly Heer.

An additional question is just how long it would take Bomber Command and the 8th AF to obtain air supremacy if the Soviets are no longer in the war. Not only will the Reich be able to shift noteworthy, if not huge amounts of DP weaponry to the defense of Inner Germany and the Western area of Occupation but the construction of single engine fighters should be able to increase thanks to a reduction in the need for ground attack aircraft in the East (again the conditions under which the Soviets surrendered make a major difference here). Total air supremacy will be an absolute requirement, both so fighter bombers can concentrate on the "Jabo" role and to allow the safe passage of 9-10,000 ships and craft of the landing armada and uninterrupted supply of the massive force that will need to follow on the assault divisions in the following 21 days.

IMO, the ONLY way to breach the Atlantic Wall, under the condition under discussion, would be with serious use of nuclear weapons in a tactical role, not just against shore defenses, but against communication nodes. Considering the production pace of Manhattan (IOTL there were only 53 physics packages in existence at the end of 1948) it would be summer of 1947, at the earliest, that any landing could be contemplated, assuming a rather modest four weapons per divisional frontage simply to force a crack in the defensive fortifications.and 6-10 against transport nodes.
First Generation nuclear weapons were not, on their own, war winning weapons. 20kT yield weapons are not the Wrath of an Angry God, "we must surrender instantly" game changers (2mT weapons? Even 500kT weapons? Whole different story)

Firstly, they required very unusual condition to even make their use possible, including virtually no serious opposition over the target or risk of interception en route. The Japanese had decide not to waste time, fuel, pilots, and aircraft to attack American reconnaissance/weather flights. They had reached the point that they saw a three B-29 formation as completely nonthreatening and with limited supplies of fuel and trained pilots it was better to save them for imminent invasion. Everyone "knew" that the bombers either came after dark or, rarely, came in huge numbers during the day with fighter escorts. At Hiroshima an air raid warning was given when radar first observed the approach of Tibbet's flight, the all clear was sounded once it was established that it was only the "regular" three plane recon flight.

The Reich never ceded the air to the WAllies. They sent up fighters and heavy AAA into last April of 1945 to defend whatever ground they had left. The bombing parameters for the early Special Weapons were very specific, and the flight envelope very tight. The bombing aircraft had to release, then go into an immediate 180° diving turn to increase speed lest the detonations shock wave swat the aircraft out of the sky. It was an impossible maneuver to make as a large, or even small, formation (over Hiroshima and Nagasaki both instrument aircraft broke away from the bombing aircraft to remain outside of the initial blast radius and allow the dropping bomber all the room it need to escape. Trying that over the Reich would have been close to suicide during the day, and not that much better at night (71% of all Bomber Command Lancaster were lost during the war, 55% of Bomber Command's personnel were KIA, that was despite almost exclusively bombing at night). It is likely that at least half, very possibly all, of early attacks would result in loss of the aircraft and "salvage detonations" when the armed weapon passed its preset triggering altitude.

One or two bombs a month wouldn't have done it. For one thing Germany would likely have already have had the pougies bombed out of it, you can only turn a city into masonry fragments once. After that all you are accomplishing is rearranging the rubble. You also need the Nazis to actually give a damn about the population. They didn't IOTL, in fact as the end closed in Hitler actually believed that if the Volk could win it didn't deserve to survive (fun guy, even for a fracking madman he was frackin' nuts).
 
Last edited:
I also expect we'd see a Norway campaign and maybe Greece. Taking Norway makes bombing Germany easier and would allow pressure on Sweden to cut trade to further blockade Germany.

with D-day being impossible the Italian front will see a lot more resources and Churchill might get his balkans strategy.

Here is long shot ground war idea in this scenario. As I recall the allies only landed about 5 divisions on D-Day. This could get promptly pushed into the sea in a no Eastern Front scenario. How about a scenario of talking Portugal into joining the allies (They were long time allies of the British) or if all else fails forcing them to join, then doing a massive landing in Portugal. It will take the Germans quite a while to respond in force giving the allied time to make Portugal a fortress. Then advance across Spain into France and Germany.

Downsides, maybe Spain becomes a similar menace to the allied that they were to Napoleon. Allies look bad for invading neutral Spain/forcing Portugal into the war. Now we get the meatgrinder casualties others posted above from a head on clash between the allied and German armies, with the difficult terrain of Spain and the Pyrenees to cross. Yes, far from an ideal scenario.
 
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.
Look how much the Japanese were still controlling in mid 1945.
And the Japanese were already killing civilians wholesale.
A-Bombing put a halt to that
 
The issue with the idea that Hitler would order chemical weapon attacks if atomic bombs were used against Nazi Europe is that even when Germany was losing IOTL and he had nothing left to lose in the months before his suicide he still never ordered their use for one reason or another. Even after Dresden was firebombed and hundreds of thousands of German soldiers were dying every month he never contemplated using chemical weapons. Why he would change his mind in this scenario when the Reich is the master of Europe?
 

thaddeus

Donor
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.

re-reading The Failure of German World War II Strategy in the Black Sea by Marolda (and could be applied to the Baltic Sea as well), where greater effort by the KM could have offered some unrealized opportunities, the Soviet evacuations carried out by sea aiding the defense of Leningrad and Crimea.

they could gradually (or not so gradually in the Baltic) attrite the Soviet fleets to zero, even without capturing significantly more territory, they would be in a different position than historical due to routing supply by sea?
 
I will quote something I wrote four years ago:
Note that from TORCH and SUPERCHARGE onwards, every battle between the US/UK and the Axis was an Allied victory or a draw. Some Allied attacks failed: Cassino, Anzio, Caen, Arnhem. But no German attack ever succeeded.

When the Allies failed, they were repulsed with heavy losses, but lost no ground. When they won, they destroyed the Axis forces facing them, took the area attacked, and in some cases achieved decisive breakthroughs and overwhelming victories.

Eisenhower wrote of the fighting in Sicily: "... the German garrison was fighting skillfully and savagely. Panzer and paratroop elements here were among the best we encountered in the war, and each position won was gained only through the complete destruction of the defending elements."

But note that last phrase. The fighting was bitter, the Germans fought "skillfully and savagely" - but they were completely destroyed wherever they stood, or else they retreated. The same results occurred again and again in 1943 to 1945.

The US and and the British Empire greatly outnumbered the Axis in population, industry, and natural resources. They could apply superior force to the battlefield, and they would succeed.
It has been argued that German resistance, augmented by troops not engaged against the USSR, would inflict such heavy casualties on the Allies that support for the war would be exhausted, and the Allies would have to make peace. This was the same "logic" followed by the Japanese militarists. They were wrong.

The Japanese regime had much tighter control over its people's thinking than Nazi Germany, as shown by the literally suicidal fanaticism displayed by Japanese troops and even mass suicides by Japanese civilians (in the Marianas).

By contrast, German troops surrendered in large numbers. (German U-boat crews frequently scuttled their boats and surrendered; U-boat "ace" Otto Kretschmer was captured this way in March 1941.) High-ranking generals plotted against the Nazis. The Gestapo recorded many examples of popular disillusion with the Nazi system.

So I think one must ask: if after the USSR was defeated, the war continued, with a series of defeats for the army (not as bad as OTL, but defeats nonetheless), heavy casualties, and major hardships for the people (bombing, rationing), how long would the German will to resist hold out? As I noted above, in OTL 1943 to 1945, every encounter between US/UK forces and Germans was at worst a defensive victory for the Germans, and far more often an Allied victory with the German forces destroyed. In the Sicily campaign, the Germans alone had more casualties than the Allies, and that was with Italian forces doing much of the fighting. (While most of the Italians surrendered, they had over 37,000 killed and wounded, so many of them did fight.)

In a continued war without the USSR, the Allied advance would be a slog with heavy casualties - but German forces would suffer huge casualties to maintain resistance. The Allies could deploy more troops, with better supplies, better equipment (i.e. full motorization), and air superiority (Britain alone built more aircraft than Germany). The casualty ratio would substantially favor the Allies.

IMO, by the time Allied casualties became politically insupportable for them, Germany would be wrecked and have given up. If the atomic bomb does not break German resistance in 1945, the military campaign would finish in 1946.
 
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.
Without a OTL level Eastern Front commitment starting in say, Winter 1942, Germany is going to be able to allocate a lot more resources to air defense of Europe. They'll have more oil than OTL, which will allow for more planes, more training etc, simply because they won't be using such crazy amounts fighting the Russians. They'll also likely have a lot more oil by mid 1943 from formerly Russian sources, maybe even sooner depending on the nature of the treaty they got with the Russians.
 
If it's an unlimited will contest, I suspect it'll last until 1947. But I think unlimited will for the US is HIGHLY unrealistic.
Once nuclear weapons are perceived as plausible I suspect the US, UK and at least some of their allies won't be running out of will vis a vis defeating Nazi Germany. If for some reasons Fission weapons don't bring the conflict to a conclusion then I suspect the subsequent prospect of Fusion weapons would sustain their will to defeat Nazi Germany.

I can perhaps envision the western allies deciding to dial down the conflict to keep casualties low for a while they build up their nuclear stock pile.

Perhaps if the Germans were perceived as having significantly better air defenses than they did IOTL there might also be some pauses to devise more certain ways of delivering nuclear weapons to their targets (or at least be able to build enough nuclear weapons that they could afford to loose significant numbers during a mass attack.) There might also be a delay in nuclear weapons use against Japan to preserve the element of surprise vis a vis nuclear weapons use against Germany if there was a decision made to delay use against Germany for what ever reason.

Unless Germany decides to surrender I don't see the main Western Allies deciding to end the war once nuclear weapons are perceived as plausible. Depending on the circumstances I suppose it is perhaps remotely possible the Western Allies might have backed away from their historical insistence on an unconditional surrender.
 
Once nuclear weapons are perceived as plausible I suspect the US, UK and at least some of their allies won't be running out of will vis a vis defeating Nazi Germany. If for some reasons Fission weapons don't bring the conflict to a conclusion then I suspect the subsequent prospect of Fusion weapons would sustain their will to defeat Nazi Germany.

I can perhaps envision the western allies deciding to dial down the conflict to keep casualties low for a while they build up their nuclear stock pile.

Perhaps if the Germans were perceived as having significantly better air defenses than they did IOTL there might also be some pauses to devise more certain ways of delivering nuclear weapons to their targets (or at least be able to build enough nuclear weapons that they could afford to loose significant numbers during a mass attack.) There might also be a delay in nuclear weapons use against Japan to preserve the element of surprise vis a vis nuclear weapons use against Germany if there was a decision made to delay use against Germany for what ever reason.

Unless Germany decides to surrender I don't see the main Western Allies deciding to end the war once nuclear weapons are perceived as plausible. Depending on the circumstances I suppose it is perhaps remotely possible the Western Allies might have backed away from their historical insistence on an unconditional surrender.
I don't think you get there really. Your casualties in 1943 and 1944 assuming you prosecute the war with vigor are likely to be such that some sort of peace treaty gets made before any nukes are even ready, much less dropped. The US only has relatively unlimited will with respect to Japan, but planners were worried even OTL about the expected casualties of invading Japan proper. If there is unlimited will, the war likely ends in 1947, when the nuke capacity becomes overwhelming.
 
I don't think you get there really. Your casualties in 1943 and 1944 assuming you prosecute the war with vigor are likely to be such that some sort of peace treaty gets made before any nukes are even ready, much less dropped. The US only has relatively unlimited will with respect to Japan, but planners were worried even OTL about the expected casualties of invading Japan proper. If there is unlimited will, the war likely ends in 1947, when the nuke capacity becomes overwhelming.
Perhaps although an air campaign and Italian campaign similar to IOTL (with perhaps higher Allied causalities due to more effective German and Italian opposition) would seem within the relm of the possible to me while the Western Allies wait for nuclear weapons to be available. Without Soviet pressure to open a "second front" the west might decide to simply forgo landing in France in 1944 once nuclear weapons are on the horizon. The geographical realities of Italy would likely limit the number of forces that both sides could bring to bear and in turn keep the casualties to acceptable limits. A lot would depend on exactly how the Eastern front campaign played out in an alternate time line and what actions if any the Western Allies might have taken to help take pressure off the Soviets.
 
Last edited:
Look how much the Japanese were still controlling in mid 1945.
And the Japanese were already killing civilians wholesale.
A-Bombing put a halt to that
Going with the consensus the Allies won't hold back on the A bomb, will they launch them on Germany first? If so do the Allies have to invade Japan in this TL? What target would be first in Germany? Essen? Bremen?, I assume like in the OTL Pacific they wouldn't do the biggest cities first.
 
Japan first and attacking Germany on the peripheries makes more sense in this timeline. Sicily and Crete can be secured in 1944; Norway, Corsica, and Nice in 45 for moral boosts. Japan can be eliminated by additional pressure in 1945, a starvation campaign, and atomic bombings. France can be invaded in 1946 with immense Allied casualties. Southern Italy and the Southern bits of Greece can possibly be attacked by the Allies “other” armies (Indian, USMC, and other forces from the Pacific) in 1946 to get air bases, force the Germans to supply more areas, and potentially break Germany’s grip on the Axis Minor. In 1947 Germany can collapse.

But this requires public will to hold out. The US and Britain won’t need Soviet style loses to win, but will need 1918 WWI Western Front level loses in 1946. If Germany is losing ground at every point the leadership of the US ans UK can probably sell it, but if Germany pushes them out of the continent they might be politically done.
 
Britain and France both democracies took western front losses for a much more dubious war. Both the Japanese and the Confederates said the same thing about the US and both were wrong. You might see the equivalent of peace democrats crop up but I don't think they'll have anymore success then the IOTL peace democrats.

And again if US losses become too much they can use the world's pool of manpower.

IOTL Japan surrendered without a US boot on their soil. I don't think Germany will be able to do better.
 
Top