|
Post by futurist on Nov 21, 2018 5:27:12 GMT
What would Britain's, France's, and Germany's World War II casualties would have been in a scenario where France doesn't fall in 1940 and where World War II is still a fight to the finish (either to Berlin if Hitler remains in power until the very end, or at least until the Rhineland if anti-Nazi German generals are able to overthrow Hitler--after which point Germany is likely to surrender if it isn't let by Hitler)?
I want to compare WWII casualty levels and especially WWII death levels in this scenario in this scenario in comparison to real life. Germany was severely bled dry in WWII as a result of fighting the Soviet Union in real life while Britain and especially France managed to avoid massive casualties. In this scenario, this might be different due to the lack of a Fall of France and due to the lack of Operation Barbarossa.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
Post by steve59 on Nov 21, 2018 10:12:19 GMT
What would Britain's, France's, and Germany's World War II casualties would have been in a scenario where France doesn't fall in 1940 and where World War II is still a fight to the finish (either to Berlin if Hitler remains in power until the very end, or at least until the Rhineland if anti-Nazi German generals are able to overthrow Hitler--after which point Germany is likely to surrender if it isn't let by Hitler)? I want to compare WWII casualty levels and especially WWII death levels in this scenario in this scenario in comparison to real life. Germany was severely bled dry in WWII as a result of fighting the Soviet Union in real life while Britain and especially France managed to avoid massive casualties. In this scenario, this might be different due to the lack of a Fall of France and due to the lack of Operation Barbarossa. Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Well a lot would depend on how the war ends and when. For instance does it terminate with the overthrow of the Nazis and some sort of settlement, a march on Berlin, or possibly with Stalin stepping in to back-stab Germany as the latter falters? Is there a war in the Pacific in which case who's involved and when. Also does Italy stay neutral, probably but not necessarily so and Mussolini might even end up back-stabbing Hitler if that looks like a good opportunity.
Overall French and British casualties are almost certain to be higher, unless say the German 1940 invasion ends in a total disaster, say their armoured spearhead is cut off and destroyed, and fear about another long war prompts early changes inside Germany. How much higher depends on the nature of a longer war. Without resources from western Europe and other areas they conquered OTL Germany has significantly less resources at least once Stalin pulls the plug because Germany isn't supplying the promised industrial goods. As such I suspect [and hope] it wouldn't be a long and bitter slog until say 44/45. Starting with a secure base on the continent would definitely help here.
However on the plus side, even with a more heavily engaged land war in Europe there isn't going to be the same threat at sea or wars in N Africa and possibly the Far East and France isn't going to be occupied and torn by bombing and warfare so although the total death toll may be higher, possibly significantly so, both allied powers could be in materially and economically better conditions at the end of the conflict than OTL.
If the German attack fails in spring 40, without significant gains from France, then I would expect the allies to win although some sort of German victory isn't impossible. However the allies have more commitment to the conflict and more complete mobilisation plus lack the same insanity of the Nazi leadership so should have the edge.
|
|