Doppleganger
Active member
I don't think it would have made much difference that the Western Allies were 'fresher' and you're right; there's no way UK or US public pressure would have allowed the kind of casualties seen on the Eastern Front. Also, it would have been the difficulty in getting replacements to theatre quickly enough. Like against the Wehrmacht, the Red Army would have been triumphant due to its strategic reserve; it would be picking up and pressing the likes of Romanians and Hungarians into service whilst the Western Allies would have no such capacity to recruit extra men.This was a significant advantage to the western powers, wasn't? Anyway, like Germany, the US and Britain didn't have the capability to sustain hundreds of thousands of monthly casualties for a long time.
But, in 1945, the technology to manufacture hundreds of atom bombs to nuke these huge cities wasn't available. Also, the soviets would have reached the Atlantic before the allies could deploy nukes.
As you point out strategic bombers would be of little use in such a campaign. Also the Americans did have at least 2 nuclear weapons deployable but they would be in a quandary - deploy them against Japan or Russia? When I think about it, I doubt even the obliteration of Moscow or Leningrad would have stopped the Red Army. The British could have deployed Anthrax over Western Europe but this would probably never have happened due to the fact they'd essentially be infecting their own men, as well as poisoning the very territory they were trying to defend.