Hpt. Lisse

I think most of these scenarios would be focused on a Stalin push West. An Allied push East was simply unthinkable at the time, Patton's enthusiasm notwithstanding. Though Churchill knew what was developing as the Red Army progressed, the Allied high command was driven by soldiers, not politicians. Neither the Yanks or the Brits would have suffered those losses on the ground, though the previously mentioned air superiority (for the Allies) would be a big factor. I don't even want to analyze the use of atomic weapons on Soviet strong points, which would have (even if outwardly subdued) created a nation of terrorists for the West to contend with.
Great read - both Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy, and then the follow-up Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944 - 1945, by Max Hastings. Summary for this topic would be - A) Germans had the best professional army (obvious, I know), The Soviets had a vengeful horde driven by a leader who didn't give two farts for casualty counts, and C) the Allies had soldiers who were products of basically ethical democracies. The progress of Allied troops through Europe, and especially Germany, was much slower than expected, even as resistance crumbled, driven by cautious commanders and GI's who wanted to make it home alive. Did we have manpower reserves after VE day? Yep. Were they low-value green troops? Yep. Was that already a HUGE issue with our current frontline troops? Yep.
 
A co got it - we didn't have the will to mount a war against the Soviets after VE day.
 
Nor am I saying that (in a conventional war) the Soviets would have done better against us in August of '45. Defensively, the Allies (along with every willing German POW, which would have been many) would have easily stopped Stalin in his tracks, esp. with air superiority. That's why he didn't do it.

I think most of these scenarios would be focused on a Stalin push West. An Allied push East was simply unthinkable at the time, Patton's enthusiasm notwithstanding. Though Churchill knew what was developing as the Red Army progressed, the Allied high command was driven by soldiers, not politicians. Neither the Yanks or the Brits would have suffered those losses on the ground, though the previously mentioned air superiority (for the Allies) would be a big factor. I don't even want to analyze the use of atomic weapons on Soviet strong points, which would have (even if outwardly subdued) created a nation of terrorists for the West to contend with.
Great read - both Overlord: D-Day and the Battle for Normandy, and then the follow-up Armageddon: The Battle for Germany 1944 - 1945, by Max Hastings. Summary for this topic would be - A) Germans had the best professional army (obvious, I know), The Soviets had a vengeful horde driven by a leader who didn't give two farts for casualty counts, and C) the Allies had soldiers who were products of basically ethical democracies. The progress of Allied troops through Europe, and especially Germany, was much slower than expected, even as resistance crumbled, driven by cautious commanders and GI's who wanted to make it home alive. Did we have manpower reserves after VE day? Yep. Were they low-value green troops? Yep. Was that already a HUGE issue with our current frontline troops? Yep.
 
A co got it - we didn't have the will to mount a war against the Soviets after VE day.
 
Nor am I saying that (in a conventional war) the Soviets would have done better against us in August of '45. Defensively, the Allies (along with every willing German POW, which would have been many) would have easily stopped Stalin in his tracks, esp. with air superiority. That's why he didn't do it.