If Germany controlled all of Continental Europe, where are the likely points of Allied Attack?

[fredinno]

---Scenario---

The year in 1945. The Soviets have kicked the bucket, and Germany has Europe in its grip (except Naples, in a stalemate since the initial invasion in '43)

However, the Americans are still strong, and not fully mobilized. Where do the Allies plan to attack? Do they even attack at all?

(They have enough divisions to conduct 2 invasions.) The Germans have 1/2 their army available from the Eastern Front. 1/4th is helping the Japanese. The other 1/4th is in the MidEast.

In the Middle East, the Iranian front is stable. The Germans have overwhelmed the Allied hold on the Crescent (due to a massive push in that area), but the defensive line has now stabilized.

In the Pacific, the Americans are island-hopping, and are preparing to recapture the Philippines.
However, they have a much greater focus on Germany- due to Germany attacking the Americans, rather than the Japanese (don't question it for now).

In Italy, the Allies are holding on the Winter Line, and holding the position comfortably.

The Luftwaffe is still in a defensive role, and the Kregsmarine can only attack shipping.
----


I would assume the dual Normandy-Nimes plan of invading on both ends of France might be tried- though that never happened in OTL because there were only enough troops to support one or the other, not both.



---France---
Logically, the Normandy area is the best area, since once an army can get past the Atlantic Wall and take Chersberg, the Allies have a firm hold on Northern France.

South France is ok, but the invasion would likely travel up the Rhone, making it a bad idea, since the Germans could cut off the narrow corridor (due to the Massif Central), or towards Tolouse. In either case, the many barrier islands and Lagoons would make a better-defended coast more difficult to penetrate.
Valras-Plage looks promising, though.

Dragoon only worked because South France was barely defended due to the Germans' tenuous situation.

An invasion of Rochelle or Royan would likely be met with a less-complete Atlantic Wall than in Normandy. However, It's also quite far from potential Allied staging bases. I don't know how much of an issue this is.

---Italy---
The Winter Line was proving to be a pretty deep stalemate. Technically the Allies could try to push on...

Florence/Tuscany might be a promising site, allowing the Allies to cut off the Axis on the Winter Line. It is, however, also quite fragile- the hilly terrain would slow down an invasion, and the best chance is to quickly move across the Peninsula.

Venice (not Venice itself, realistically to its east or west) might work. It would, however, face the problem of being incredibly deep into Axis territory, and thus, and invasion would be under threat from Axis air bombing, for example.

A direct attack into the Po Valley could capture much of Italian Industry in a single swoop. Though this invasion would be fragile.

---Spain & Portugal---
Technically Neutral countries- however, they weren't exactly on the best terms with the Allies, being technically fascist. An invasion here could see easy early success.

However, they are also quite mountainous. Would the Allies even get to the Pyrannees?

---Yugoslavia&Albania---
I can't find any obvious natural weak points. Allied forces would likely just get bottled up in Zadar in the Galliopi-style scenario, for example. An invasion of Albania is going to have to face going up the Littoral Alps.

The only saving grace is that few Axis troops are stationed in this area. However, without the Eastern Front, that would obviously quickly change.

---Greece---
The Greeks hated the German occupiers. However, if an invasion of mainland Greece was attempted, though guerilla efforts would be much stronger here, it's also a pretty bad place to invade. Most of it is either hilly, or mountainous. Or an Aegean Island. The only reason the Allies did it in our TL is because the Germans had abandoned the area to defend Croatia, and to avoid being cut off by the Russians.

Edirne is probably a better idea for an invasion. Turkey being in the war probably makes things easier, and the Germans directly occupied this zone, instead of giving it to the Bulgarians, because it was a pretty obvious invasion point.

The Bulgarian section is also very flat, compared to the Turkish section.

There's also the possibilty of just doing Gallipoli again. Though that's probably not happening, especially considering how well that went last time. Also, it's a Peninsula.

---Norway---
An invasion here could force Sweden to stop exporting Steel to Germany, and stop the Germans from using Norway as a naval base. However, it wouldn't really have any other realistic strategic objectives... and if the above is even possible is a serious question.

---Low Countries/North Germany/Denmark---
Marshy Terrain would slow any assault. Probably not a good idea, especially considering the barrier islands.

---Murmansk---
Probably not a good idea either, simply due to the fact any invasion would face the natural obstacles of the subarctic environment. And passing by Norway would be... vulnerable to Norwegian shipping attack.

---Levant---
Alexandretta (Syria) was a proposed invasion spot in WW1.

Before the Dardanelles operation was conceived, the British had planned to conduct an amphibious invasion near Alexandretta on the Mediterranean Sea, an idea originally presented by Boghos Nubar in 1914.[33] This plan was developed by the Secretary of State for War, Field Marshal Earl Kitchener to sever the capital from Syria, Palestine and Egypt. Alexandretta was an area with a Christian population and was the strategic centre of the Empire's railway network—its capture would have cut the empire in two. Vice Admiral Sir Richard Peirse, East Indies Station, ordered Captain Frank Larkin of HMS Doris to Alexandretta on 13 December 1914. At the same time, in the same area, the Russian cruiser Askold and the French cruiser Requin were performing similar operations. Kitchener was working on the plan as late as March 1915. This plan was also the beginning of Britain's successful effort to start an Arab Revolt. The Alexandretta landing was abandoned because militarily it would have required more resources than France could allocate and politically France did not want the British operating in their sphere of influence, a position to which Britain had agreed in 1912.[34]

Palestine is another possibility. Invading there would allow the Allies to potentially cut off the Germans in the Suez, encircling them. It would also allow the Allies to regain full control over a major strategic asset.

They could also attack through Iran, into Iraq. Though this would lack any real, strategic goals, except maybe encircling the German Army in Basra, if done correctly.


In summary, the ideas that might work are

1. Normandy
2. Southwestern France?
3. Dragoon?
4. Spain?
5. Florence?
6. Edirne?
7. Alexandretta or Palestine?

What would be the best place to invade in this scenario? (other than the obvious Normandy)

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

So . . . Germany controls everything from the Urals to the Pyrennes, but they are keeping their garrison forces at the same level?

Too many variables. Where's their army? What is the condition of the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine, where are they concentrated? Where are the Uboats? How is the bombing campaign progressing in the face of massed Luftwaffe fighters? Have the Allies lost their ability to enforce air superiority at will?

Personally, if Russia is out of the war, good luck. You'll need it.

 

[pithorr]

Yes, that is the point the Allies would have sought a way to peace. Further war would be just a nonsense.

 

[fredinno]

So . . . Germany controls everything from the Urals to the Pyrennes, but they are keeping their garrison forces at the same level?

Too many variables. Where's their army? What is the condition of the Luftwaffe, the Kriegsmarine, where are they concentrated? Where are the Uboats? How is the bombing campaign progressing in the face of massed Luftwaffe fighters? Have the Allies lost their ability to enforce air superiority at will?

Personally, if Russia is out of the war, good luck. You'll need it.

Garrison forces are kept at the same level, just as an experiment. It's not realistic- but I don't want to make things more complicated. 50 of the ~200 divisions in Russia are reserved to be sent to China, to help the Japanese (leaving 150 divisions available for other operations).

The Luftwaffe is still overstretched. Making small-scale offenses on Britain, but mostly concerned with defensive roles due to Allied Air Superiority, and low fuel. This would eventually change as time goes on though, due to the factories and oil in the East. Allies still mostly have air superiority. (basically, imagine 1943 OTL, but the Soviets gone.)

The Kregsmarine? As far as I know, I don't think they were ever a major threat, except to shipping.

The Axis control everything from the Urals and Suez to the Pyrenees (and only the north-eastern most part of Iran), from the Arctic to the Med.

You know what? If you want a more in-depth answer, here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-new-fatherland-alt-history-tl.1064670/
There's the TL this is for.

Yes, that is the point the Allies would have sought a way to peace. Further war would be just a nonsense.

Churchill wouldn't want that. And in the TL I'm writing, the Americans enter the war after a successful Operation Pastorious. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-new-fatherland-alt-history-tl.1064670/

The Allies also would have control of Naples- and potential military superiority. While the Germans would have to rebuild Eastern Europe to get anything of use out of it, the USA would be mobilizing war industry.

 

[pithorr]

Churchill wouldn't want that. And in the TL I'm writing, the Americans enter the war after a successful Operation Pastorious. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/a-new-fatherland-alt-history-tl.1064670/

Churchill would have had to leave the office rather soon in such circumstances

The Allies also would have control of Naples- and potential military superiority. While the Germans would have to rebuild Eastern Europe to get anything of use out of it, the USA would be mobilizing war industry.

What for? They would rather agree for the status quo, like with the USSR IRL.

 

[fredinno]

Churchill would have had to leave the office rather soon in such circumstances




What for? They would rather agree for the status quo, like with the USSR IRL.

The USSR did not really want anything more. This is Stalin we're talking about here, not Lenin or Trotsky.

The Allies have lost their homelands. That's a different matter entirely. You think De Gaulle is going to accept the Allies just telling him that they won't fight on, or you think he's going to fight a guerilla war in Africa until he dies?

There's an entirely different mindset here.

Also, the USSR were on the end of their leash in 1945. They had a larger army than the Allies, but lacked the manpower or logistics to continue their campaign westwards. Meanwhile, the Americans were arguably just getting started.

 

[Zinegata]

Postulating an invasion without figuring out your strategic requirements basically means it's impossible to plan for it.

For example: If attrition and tying down German forces was the aim, then Italy doesn't come off as a very bad idea. However, if the aim is to have the Allied armies drive into the German industrial heartland of the Ruhr in a year or two, then invading Italy only to eventually reach the top of it known as "The Alps" and having battles there decided by the number of avalanches each side manages to cause is not a very good one.

Normandy, Pas-de-Calais, and Holland (and only with a lot of luck in the final case) were the only realistic options if the plan was for a knock out blow of the German war effort. Everything else ultimately leads to a dead end.

 

[pithorr]

The USSR did not really want anything more. This is Stalin we're talking about here, not Lenin or Trotsky.

So and probably Hitler, who would just has got the whole continental Europe.

The Allies have lost their homelands. That's a different matter entirely. You think De Gaulle is going to accept the Allies just telling him that they won't fight on, or you think he's going to fight a guerilla war in Africa until he dies?

Why would need the Americans and British care about the French any longer? And De Gaulle especially?
Did they care about Poland in Yalta IRL?

Also, the USSR were on the end of their leash in 1945. They had a larger army than the Allies, but lacked the manpower or logistics to continue their campaign westwards. Meanwhile, the Americans were arguably just getting started.

And the (Western) Allies still did not wage a war against them to bring freedom... Would they against the well entreched 1000-year Reich?

 

[fredinno]

Postulating an invasion without figuring out your strategic requirements basically means it's impossible to plan for it.

For example: If attrition and tying down German forces was the aim, then Italy doesn't come off as a very bad idea. However, if the aim is to have the Allied armies drive into the German industrial heartland of the Ruhr in a year or two, then invading Italy only to eventually reach the top of it known as "The Alps" and having battles there decided by the number of avalanches each side manages to cause is not a very good one.

Normandy, Pas-de-Calais, and Holland (and only with a lot of luck in the final case) were the only realistic options if the plan was for a knock out blow of the German war effort. Everything else ultimately leads to a dead end.

Not cutting off german troops through an invasion in Alexandriople (syria), or Tuscany?

Holland seems like a bad place for the reasons I pointed out above. Especially since the Germans could pull an Anzio and potentially re-flood a landing zone.

The goal is to push on to Germany proper, or weaken Germany enough to be able to do so.

So and probably Hitler, who would just has got the whole continental Europe.

And allow the 'soft underbelly' to be vulnerable? Because that's going perfectly, what with the invasion of Italy.

Speaking of Italy, the Allies probably aren't giving up Naples, which is going to forever be a thorn in the Germans-back.

Not to mention this is Hitler we're talking about here. If there was any man with ambition...

Why would need the Americans and British care about the French any longer? And De Gaulle especially?
Did they care about Poland in Yalta IRL?

No- because that would mean invading the Soviets. It was obvious in Yalta where Poland would end up.

They did care about the Greeks though.

And the (Western) Allies still did not wage a war against them to bring freedom... Would they against the well entreched 1000-year Reich?

Maybe. The Germans were scraping the barrel in OTL 1945, after all. (and even, arguably, in 1944). The Allies didn't declare war on the Soviets because that would end in revolts in the home front due to war exhaustion- and the fact they were backstabbing a former ally would not end well with the morale of the population.

The USA and Britain are already at war with Germany. They were already public enemy #1.


It seems I need to up the scenario a bit with more details.

 

[Zinegata]

Not cutting off german troops through an invasion in Alexandriople (syria), or Tuscany?

There is nothing in either Syria or Tuscany that would hurt the Germans. Why even bother?

Holland seems like a bad place for the reasons I pointed out above. Especially since the Germans could pull an Anzio and potentially re-flood a landing zone.

The goal is to push on to Germany proper, or weaken Germany enough to be able to do so.

Holland is very close to the German border and starting there essentially removes the Rhine as an obstacle. It would require a high-risk operation to immediately capture a couple of major ports (and would likely involve ramming entire ships into the docks ala Saint Nazaire) but it's far from unfeasible; particularly since the ports themselves can't be flooded.

Moreover any attempt to "Anzio" the beachhead means that the Germans have to weaken everything else, allowing a second invasion to come in. Such a second invasion leaves the Germans two choices: abandon France, Holland, and Belgium, or risk getting hemmed in between the Holland beachhead and the second invasion.

This was actually why the whole Pas De Calais ruse worked in the first place. If the Germans had left it to strike Normandy then they would have been open to getting completely surrounded and wiped out in Normandy if a second, larger invasion did go through Pas De Calais. As it stood the Allied invasion wasn't actually as strong as they expected it to be; in part because delaying the invasion of France from 1943 to 1944 caused so many resources (e.g. landing craft) to be diverted away from Northwestern Europe.

That said, for this invasion to work a much more massive effort would be required. Basically millions of men in the first wave of invasion Divisions to deal with the millions of Wermacht troops no longer fighting in the Eastern Front. The historical D-day would be a skirmish in comparison.

 

[DoomBunny]

Nuke from orbit?

 

[fredinno]

There is nothing in either Syria or Tuscany that would hurt the Germans. Why even bother?

Did you even read what you quoted?

cutting off german troops

There's a significant amount of Germans troops in Rome. If you can surround them...

Holland is very close to the German border and starting there essentially removes the Rhine as an obstacle. It would require a high-risk operation to immediately capture a couple of major ports (and would likely involve ramming entire ships into the docks ala Saint Nazaire) but it's far from unfeasible; particularly since the ports themselves can't be flooded.

So the sense I'm getting is that the Allies need to hold off any attacks until they concentrate a single, massed assault on France if they have any chance to win?

What about the other fronts? The Mid East, Bulgaria?

Also, flooding Holland would make it difficult for any future allied invasion to begin. The flooded land isn't going to become navigable sea. It's going to be probably some sort of marshland, or shallows. I'm still not convinced on the idea.

 

[ramius3443]

There's a significant amount of Germans troops in Rome. If you can surround them...

You do realize that , in the process of "cutting off" that German army in the lower 2/3rds of the Italian peninsula (where they can get supplies pretty easily either locally or from just across the adriatic), your Allied expedition in Tuscany would also be surrounded ?

So the sense I'm getting is that the Allies need to hold off any attacks until they concentrate a single, massed assault on France if they have any chance to win?

What about the other fronts? The Mid East, Bulgaria?

Why would the Anglo-American alliance give a damn about the Bulgarian "front"? In real life, a significant number of high-ranking officers threatened to resign when the British tried to convince Roosevelt to go along with a Balkans campaign because it was so obviously a rush to grab states before the USSR could, rather than an operation of any military significance. Remove the imperialist land grab vis a v the Russians, and there isn't even a bad reason to care.

As for the Middle East, the goal is getting into France and then Germany: the Middle East does not achieve any of those goals.

---Levant---
Alexandretta (Syria) was a proposed invasion spot in WW1.

Um, that was because the Ottoman Empire was a major combatant in the war....

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

I cant see them landing with the German army free to deploy. A giant meatgrinder plays into German strengths and not Allied strength.
Either peace and cold war or a batshit crazy air war with nukes.

 

[Rich Oliver]

---Scenario---

The year in 1945. The Soviets have kicked the bucket, and Germany has Europe in its grip (except Naples, in a stalemate since the initial invasion in '43)

---Italy---
The Winter Line was proving to be a pretty deep stalemate.

Why what kind of fantasy reality is this? Winston Churchill, brilliantly and correctly identified the Med as the soft underbelly of Hitler's empire. The Mediterranean campaign was a great success and is recognised as such by every historian with half a brain. It tied down and consumed (for the allies) a very good ratio of forces. The reasons it wasn't an utterly brilliant success were the poor quality of the majority of the British army divisions, the lack of resources given to the theatre and the insanely low allocation of shipping and landing craft. I think the Americans were sending 7 or 8 landing craft to the pacific for every one to the ETO.

Any Axis troops deployed in the Peloponese, Italy south of Rome, Sicily, and Tunis should have been gifts for the allies to isolate, surround and destroy. The pas de Calais was obviously the first choice for an allied invasion, close to the vast array of allied air bases and army deployments, but it was impossible to cut off supplies to the Pas De Calais and the Germans knew it was the allies first choice.

 

[NapoleonComple]

If the Germans are at the Suez, as postulated by the OP in his second post, then the first step has to be to get that situation sorted. The Germans have to be driven back from that position and control over North Africa secured. Because the Germans have finished in Russia, they may be able to start reinforcing that front. Imagine if Rommel suddenly got a second Africa corps and much needed supplies. The British and Americans had enough trouble with him when he had only his existing forces. I would imagine the state of the naval and air war in the Mediterranean would be critical.

As for Europe, perhaps the only approach available would be a campaign of constant harassment and a wearing down approach. Never give the Germans a stand up fight. Never give them a chance to deploy those battle-hardened divisions in the situations they want to fight in. Instead, use your naval and air dominance to take everything the Germans can't defend. I would aim to take Norway, the Mediterranean islands, North Africa, Japan, achieve the liberation of China and perhaps even try to knock the Germans out of Italy and anchor my defensive line on the Alps. If that couldn't be done, I'd find a strong, defensive line along Italy, do everything in my power to turn southern and central Italy into a bloody and expensive place to invade, and sit there for the time being.

Beyond that, would a Fabian strategy work? Keep bombing their war industry, kill their administrators and leaders, harass them wherever they don't leave enough garrisons and disappear when the main German army turn up, turn any peripheral campaigns into a bloodbath for them, choke off their economy, strike at their infrastructure to cut Germany off from the rest of the continent... things like that? The idea would be to make Europe a bloody and expensive place for the Germans to hold for ten years, followed by a real invasion when they are reeling and they can't maintain their war engine anymore.

The arrival of the nuke might also decide matters.

 

[fredinno]

You do realize that , in the process of "cutting off" that German army in the lower 2/3rds of the Italian peninsula (where they can get supplies pretty easily either locally or from just across the adriatic), your Allied expedition in Tuscany would also be surrounded ?


Why would the Anglo-American alliance give a damn about the Bulgarian "front"? In real life, a significant number of high-ranking officers threatened to resign when the British tried to convince Roosevelt to go along with a Balkans campaign because it was so obviously a rush to grab states before the USSR could, rather than an operation of any military significance. Remove the imperialist land grab vis a v the Russians, and there isn't even a bad reason to care.

As for the Middle East, the goal is getting into France and then Germany: the Middle East does not achieve any of those goals.


Um, that was because the Ottoman Empire was a major combatant in the war....

Not if the Allies move quickly. Though to be fair, Tuscany isn;t the best place to land.

Turkey is in the Axis.

Why what kind of fantasy reality is this? Winston Churchill, brilliantly and correctly identified the Med as the soft underbelly of Hitler's empire. The Mediterranean campaign was a great success and is recognised as such by every historian with half a brain. It tied down and consumed (for the allies) a very good ratio of forces. The reasons it wasn't an utterly brilliant success was the poor quality of the majority of the British infantry divisions, the lack of resources given to the theatre and the insanely low allocation of shipping and landing craft. I think the Americas were sending 7 or 8 landing craft to the pacific for every one to the ETO.

Any Axis troops deployed in the peloponese, Italy south of Rome, Sicily, and Tunis should have been gifts for the allies to isolate, surround and destroy. The pas de Calais was obviously the first choice for an allied invasion, close to the vast array of allied air bases and army deployments, but it was impossible to cut off supplies to the Pas De Calais and the Germans knew it was the allies first choice.

The Med was successful. It, however, slowed down heavily during parts of the campaign. The Winter Line was the most infamous of these stalemates.

In this scenario, the Med has already been 'won'. The Allies are slowly moving up Italy.

Beyond that, would a Fabian strategy work? Keep bombing their war industry, kill their administrators and leaders, harass them wherever they don't leave enough garrisons and disappear when the main German army turn up, turn any peripheral campaigns into a bloodbath for them, choke off their economy, strike at their infrastructure to cut Germany off from the rest of the continent... things like that? The idea would be to make Europe a bloody and expensive place for the Germans to hold for ten years, followed by a real invasion when they are reeling and they can't maintain their war engine anymore.

The arrival of the nuke might also decide matters.

Maybe. But the only place where Allied and Axis troops are in contact are in Italy and the Mid East. We may need to open up a new front.

 

[Minodrin]

If the Germans are at the Suez....

What the man said.

Raise hell everywhere, threaten to invade anything and everything. After Japan falls, the allies the naval power to dominate every sea the German continent touches. And that's a lot of territory to defend with a seriously depleted army.

Then, once the allies have slowly bled the German army dry and forced the Germans to move their factories way east, then the Allies can strike in force. Maybe they can even directly invade northern Germany - nice ports there and all.

 

[krieger11b]

Nuke from orbit?

/thread

 

[NapoleonComple]

Maybe. But the only place where Allied and Axis troops are in contact are in Italy and the Mid East. We may need to open up a new front.

If a new front is to be opened up against a militarily stronger opponent (and make no mistake, a Germany without the USSR to fight is at least initially a militarily stronger opponent), then the front needs to be somewhere they can't bring their full brunt to bear without overextending themselves. The problem with a full-scale amphibious attack on the continent is that the situation is reversed; the Germans can bring everything they have to the party, while the Allies are restricted to whatever they can get ashore and supply. Fighting in Iran or Turkey would be more appropriate for that kind of warfare; the Germans would be further away from their supply lines. However, so would the Allies, and it would be the Allies fighting on occupied territory there (Iran was occupied by the British and Soviets in 1941, and they stayed until 1946). Unless Turkey could be persuaded to join the war on the Allies side, the Allies would have a hard time against German forces pouring in from Western Russia, though there might also be Soviet remnants to help. I'm also doubtful that the Allies could bring their air power to bear due to the infrastructure there. They certainly couldn't use their naval strength.

What I'd be concerned about is those three German armies that in this scenario crushed Russia turning south and smashing the Allied forces in the middle east. Considering that the Allies still haven't taken North Africa in this scenario, the Germans could potentially turn the entire Middle East gun-metal grey if things go south.