AHC: Make the Allies win World War II, without the USA fighting Germany or Italy

Drunkrobot · Nov 6, 2014

There can't be a PoD before the 1st September 1939. Nazi Germany must be, in geopolitical terms, 'crushed' to count as an Allied win. At no point does either the United States or Germany/Italy declare war on each other. The US can fight Japan. The Soviet Union may join the Allies, as OTL.

Big swooping invasions and operations asides, how would the combatant nations and their peoples be affected? I would suppose that the Axis would have a slightly easier time and the Allies would have to make up for an awful lot of material advantage, and fight for a period beyond 1945. What sort of repercussions would that entail? Also, how about the post-war world, what would the Balance of Power be?

For added difficulty, have the PoD after the 22nd June 1940, when France signs the armistice. It is totally fine for French colonies to either immediately or eventually come over to the Allied cause.

Maeglin · Nov 6, 2014

Roosevelt opts not to run for a third term, and is replaced by an isolationist President, who is much less keen on getting involved in a submarine war with the Germans.

Hitler (in a rare moment of sanity) doesn't declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour. Our isolationist in the White House has no interest in pursuing Germany, and instead focusses entirely on Japan.

The Soviet Union gradually pushes back the Germans, until the Soviets enter Berlin, as in OTL.

RPW@Cy · Nov 6, 2014

Maeglin said:
Roosevelt opts not to run for a third term, and is replaced by an isolationist President, who is much less keen on getting involved in a submarine war with the Germans.

Hitler (in a rare moment of sanity) doesn't declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour. Our isolationist in the White House has no interest in pursuing Germany, and instead focusses entirely on Japan.

The Soviet Union gradually pushes back the Germans, until the Soviets enter Berlin, as in OTL.

Agreed. For bonus points, the British don't hand Tube Alloys over to the Americans and focus resources on a domestic bomb project meaning several German cities get A-bombed around 1946 or so (not having the USA in has got to delay the war at least that long).

pattersonautobody · Nov 6, 2014

Even with Lend Lease, without US participation you need PODs like worse Hitler decisions (not impossible) or the war goes on to the late 40s and the UK gets the bomb.

By 1943 without US entry, the Germans still probably lose Stalingrad due to ineptitude, though it is possible they avert total collapse as many reserves were kept back due to US entry. Anyhow, the USSR is now locked into a war with attrition with Germany. Without US entry, Germany still wants to maintain the offensive initiative in the East.

Yet, the Allies have superior intelligence. So, let the Germans do a Kursk or two and they still lose initiative in the East. It just becomes a slower grind to death. Honestly, as long as Hitler refused retreats and overruled his generals, he was going to lose the war against a foe like the USSR.

pdf27 · Nov 6, 2014

Drunkrobot said:
There can't be a PoD before the 1st September 1939. Nazi Germany must be, in geopolitical terms, 'crushed' to count as an Allied win. At no point does either the United States or Germany/Italy declare war on each other. The US can fight Japan. The Soviet Union may join the Allies, as OTL.

For added difficulty, have the PoD after the 22nd June 1940, when France signs the armistice.

<cough> https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=287285 </cough>
Having the POD prior to France signing an armistice is very easy. Afterwards is when it gets hard.

Drunkrobot · Nov 6, 2014

pdf27 said:
<cough> https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=287285 </cough>
Having the POD prior to France signing an armistice is very easy. Afterwards is when it gets hard.

I know, that's why I put in the alternative PoD. I talked about it a little in the Sealion thread elsewhere in After 1900, but a decade-long war between Germany and the USSR/UK is a fascinating What If, at the very least a good background to a 'grounded' Wolfenstein-esque story.

I have a theory that the Fall of France was the apex of a decades-long game played by the Almighty, were He took the most evil son of a gun he could find, elevated him to the highest possible point, then make him lose it all in the messiest way imaginable.

Realist01 · Nov 6, 2014

Maeglin said:
The Soviet Union gradually pushes back the Germans, until the Soviets enter Berlin, as in OTL.

Not going to happen without all the Lend Lease supplies - by May 45 they would at best stand where they stood in January 44 OTL - with much greater losses - and a major famine on their way.

pattersonautobody · Nov 6, 2014

Realist01 said:
Not going to happen without all the Lend Lease supplies - by May 45 they would at best stand where they stood in January 44 OTL - with much greater losses - and a major famine on their way.

POD did not say no Lend Lease. Britain could be taking on massive debt and essentially be giving Russia free stuff to fight a proxy war.

Even worst-case scenerio, the USSR was essentially where they were by the end of 1942 without any real assistance aside from UK. So, we know they can hold the line against the Nutzis OTL. After that point, where the USSR without US entry would be scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel and the Germans will have high production, can still win given Hitler's growing idiocy when conducting war.

Maeglin · Nov 6, 2014

Realist01 said:
Not going to happen without all the Lend Lease supplies - by May 45 they would at best stand where they stood in January 44 OTL - with much greater losses - and a major famine on their way.

Losses or not, the Russians still win. By that point the result of the war had been decided for a good two years. Lend Lease helped the Russian advance towards the end, but did little in the period that actually decided the war (1941-1942).

Drunkrobot · Nov 6, 2014

Maeglin said:
Losses or not, the Russians still win. By that point the result of the war had been decided for a good two years. Lend Lease helped the Russian advance towards the end, but did little in the period that actually decided the war (1941-1942).

Little fun fact, Operation Barbarossa ended with the Battle for Moscow on the 5th December. Many within the German Army cited this point as where Germany had lost the war on the Eastern Front, or at least entered a war of attrition. America would enter the war two days later.

Realist01 · Nov 6, 2014

pattersonautobody said:
POD did not say no Lend Lease. Britain could be taking on massive debt and essentially be giving Russia free stuff to fight a proxy war.

Even worst-case scenerio, the USSR was essentially where they were by the end of 1942 without any real assistance aside from UK. So, we know they can hold the line against the Nutzis OTL. After that point, where the USSR without US entry would be scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel and the Germans will have high production, can still win given Hitler's growing idiocy when conducting war.

Incorrect - by the time of Stalingrad the west had delivered over 4500 tanks over 4000 aircraft over 50 000 trucks and jeeps and substaintail amounts of food and resources - it is doubtfull if the Soviets can even advance as far as Kursk without LL.

Realist01 · Nov 6, 2014

Maeglin said:
Losses or not, the Russians still win. By that point the result of the war had been decided for a good two years. Lend Lease helped the Russian advance towards the end, but did little in the period that actually decided the war (1941-1942).

Lend Lease helped a lot in the 41/42 period. By the end of 41 British tanks and aircraft were used in the defence of Moscow and made up around 10% of Soviet supply.

Also " towards the end"? LL played a major role from early 1943 at the latest.

Gudestein · Nov 6, 2014

Maeglin said:
Roosevelt opts not to run for a third term, and is replaced by an isolationist President, who is much less keen on getting involved in a submarine war with the Germans.

Hitler (in a rare moment of sanity) doesn't declare war on the US after Pearl Harbour. Our isolationist in the White House has no interest in pursuing Germany, and instead focusses entirely on Japan.

The Soviet Union gradually pushes back the Germans, until the Soviets enter Berlin, as in OTL.

In this POD, it is not clear why Japan would attack the US. Likely there will be no US embargo. Question is whether Japan will concentrate on China in that case or go after Britain or Russia as well.

pattersonautobody · Nov 6, 2014

Realist01 said:
Incorrect - by the time of Stalingrad the west had delivered over 4500 tanks over 4000 aircraft over 50 000 trucks and jeeps and substaintail amounts of food and resources - it is doubtfull if the Soviets can even advance as far as Kursk without LL.

Perhaps, but how many of those made it to the front? They surely had an effect in 1943, but marginal in 1941 and 1942.

pattersonautobody · Nov 6, 2014

Gudestein said:
In this POD, it is not clear why Japan would attack the US. Likely there will be no US embargo. Question is whether Japan will concentrate on China in that case or go after Britain or Russia as well.

How well to do is the US today with no entry in WW2, a cold war against a weaker enemy, and tons of money from no embargo and Lend Lease?

Drunkrobot · Nov 6, 2014

pattersonautobody said:
How well to do is the US today with no entry in WW2, a cold war against a weaker enemy, and tons of money from no embargo and Lend Lease?

Depends on whether or not they are roped into a war with Japan. With no war with Germany, the US could throw all of its resources, minus whatever it is sending to the Allies, at the Pacific Theatre. I'm not sure how many US naval assets were gobbled up by the European Theatre, but given the huge amount of air and ground forces used in Europe by the US, the Japanese military is going to be overwhelmed much more quickly than OTL. On the downside, if the US gets to the point it did after OTL Iwo Jima in, say, 1943 or 1944, and they are not collaborating with Britain and Canada on the Atomic Bomb, then an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands might be needed to get a surrender. How many Americans and Japanese would be killed by that, depends on how good the US had gotten at waging war.

The thing is, the United States will be in a very different post-war environment than OTL. All of their military assets would be in the East, occupying the Philippines, Japan, possibly the East Indies, possibly Korea and Manchuria along with the Chinese. They might decide to make 'East of Singapore' their Sphere of Influence, with not a single US soldier in Western Europe. This is, to some extent, what the US Armed Forces want nowadays, with Europe defending itself and the bulk of American forces stationed in the Far East.

If there is a Cold War, they'll be more behind than you might think. Sure, they are very prosperous and now have a colossal conventional military, but Western Europe doesn't owe them anything, and while the US might not have either advanced rockets or the Bomb, the Allies would likely have both.

pattersonautobody · Nov 6, 2014

Drunkrobot said:
Depends on whether or not they are roped into a war with Japan. With no war with Germany, the US could throw all of its resources, minus whatever it is sending to the Allies, at the Pacific Theatre. I'm not sure how many US naval assets were gobbled up by the European Theatre, but given the huge amount of air and ground forces used in Europe by the US, the Japanese military is going to be overwhelmed much more quickly than OTL. On the downside, if the US gets to the point it did after OTL Iwo Jima in, say, 1943 or 1944, and they are not collaborating with Britain and Canada on the Atomic Bomb, then an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands might be needed to get a surrender. How many Americans and Japanese would be killed by that, depends on how good the US had gotten at waging war.

The thing is, the United States will be in a very different post-war environment than OTL. All of their military assets would be in the East, occupying the Philippines, Japan, possibly the East Indies, possibly Korea and Manchuria along with the Chinese. They might decide to make 'East of Singapore' their Sphere of Influence, with not a single US soldier in Western Europe. This is, to some extent, what the US Armed Forces want nowadays, with Europe defending itself and the bulk of American forces stationed in the Far East.

If there is a Cold War, they'll be more behind than you might think. Sure, they are very prosperous and now have a colossal conventional military, but Western Europe doesn't owe them anything, and while the US might not have either advanced rockets or the Bomb, the Allies would likely have both.

POD is isolationist Prez, so the US would still be selling oil to Japan.

Fenwick · Nov 6, 2014

Well as 80% of German soldiers died fighting Russia, it is not like US did that much. Yes we gave supplies, but the Soviets still had numbers, and a effective dictatorship refusing surrender.

deathscompanion1 · Nov 6, 2014

Fenwick said:
Well as 80% of German soldiers died fighting Russia, it is not like US did that much. Yes we gave supplies, but the Soviets still had numbers, and a effective dictatorship refusing surrender.

And 80% of the Luftwaffe not tied up fighting the USAF will make no difference at all?

The USSR literally facing famine without American foodstuffs won't impact things?

The USSR doing without meaningful logistics capable of the major drives of OTL and thus being years behind scheduale at best?

Honestly without the US the soviets are in a much weaker position and may well make a truce to their advantage instead of total victory which may seem out of reach ITTL.

pattersonautobody · Nov 6, 2014

Fenwick said:
Well as 80% of German soldiers died fighting Russia, it is not like US did that much. Yes we gave supplies, but the Soviets still had numbers, and a effective dictatorship refusing surrender.

Well, it is not a given without US entry, however. US shipments of food and supplies allowed the Russians to keep millions off the fields and out of the mines, and into the army. The German military further had to commit more men in result against the Russians, plus have men to oppose the west, plus have their cities bombed away.

Without that, the losses the Russians experienced in the first two years of the war means they eventually will lose an attritional war, barring Hitlerian stupidity on behalf of the Germans.