How long would it have taken the British Empire and the Soviets to defeat the Nazis alone?

[TerenceofGod]

Without US entry, the war in the East continues.

The German Army could take Grads+Moscow, but that does not make USSR surrender. The German Army bleeds itself white trying to capitulate the Soviets.

The end is that Allies stroll in with little resistance.

 

[yulzari]

Even if Britain builds an atomic bomb they don't have an aircraft that can drop it safely. The Lancaster can't fly high enough to have time to escape the blast. So the U.S. is going to have to supply Washington B.1s to the RAF earlier or become involved in the air campaign if they want to employ atomic weapons.

Swap from airburst to ground burst and add a delay fuse.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

So in a alternate timeline, Japan's military junta falls apart for some reason (don't ask me to elaborate. It's not the point of this thread) and as a result, the US is never dragged into World War II in 1941, leaving the British Empire, the Free French and the Soviets alone to face the Nazis. The US is still supporting them through Lend-Lease, but they never send troops.

How long would it have taken for the Allies to beat the Nazis under these circumstances? Would the war extend past 1945?

Assuming (A) there is no additional change to that favors the WAllies (namely something in Barbarossa or Blau or the North African campaign going even more horribly wrong for the Germans/going better for the Soviets or British) and (B) the Anglo-Soviet coalition is able to eventually prevail, then late-‘45 is the earliest it could be, with a ‘46 ending being more probable.

 

[Michele]

Thanks for your response. I would probably guess that Tube Alloys would be some way to making a bomb but not quite there.There would be bad infiltration of the project by the soviets too.

And? That is a problem postwar, maybe the Soviets get their bomb earlier. But it doesn't change the fate of the first German radioactive city.

 

[Michele]

British manpower limitations probably rule out a spring 1944 landing, but by spring 1945 the German position is probably so critical that little could be sent to oppose one.

The British will be under some manpower limitations, but absolutely nothing comparable to OTL. Because as you'll remember, the Japanese are peaceful. There's no Burma theater. There's no tens and tens of thousands of POWs captured in Malaya and Singapore.

 

[Analytical Engine]

What's the likelihood that large "volunteer brigades" and "totally Canadians, eh" turn up to help?

 

[Alan]

The bulk of German resources, including the Luftwaffe, remain deployed in the East. The Luftwaffe retains air superiority. At Kursk, the Germans were achieving a kill ratio of 6 to 1, and had to call of the offensive at a time when Manstein felt it could be continued to decisive effect, because of Anglo-American landings in Sicily. This particular battle would presumably be butterflied away by the divergent timeline being proposed, but it does show the extent to which American involvement critically changed the outcome in the East.

Events in the West would take a decisive turn in favour of the Germans because of emerging technologies, such as the type XXI U boat, synthetic oil production, the German version of the proximity fuse, and the jet engine. The V2 rocket offensive may well have caused a catastrophic collapse in British morale if extended in time and scale. Even on the limited scale it was employed, it resulted in mass evacuations from London.

Tube Alloys would probably not have borne fruit until the 1950's. Germany had the capacity to produce the bomb much earlier if it could have effectively mobilised the resources necessary, which it was probably not capable of doing in practice, The bomb would not have been a factor on either side.

 

[sloreck]

The question is if the USA stays out of the war, no delayed entry as the US finally gets pissed off at the Germans and the U-boat campaign, what is the rate of LL here? LL was shaky to start with, and really only ramped up to mega levels once the USA was in the war. For all the talk about "returning the hose after the fire was out", true LL supplies as opposed to purchases ended up being paid for by the American taxpayer/citizen between taxes, bonds, and wartime inflation and absent the USA at war there won't be rationing, price controls, etc which tamped inflation down. IMHO it is really problematic that the USA would give anything like the amount of aid to the USSR they did OTL if the USA is not in the war. Even delaying the US entry by 12-18 puts LL that far behind.

Without US supplies: food, trucks, boots, all sorts of raw materials, aviation gasoline, RR rolling stock/engines/rails the USSR is going to be deep in the hurt locker. The USSR will then have to decide - build steam engines or tanks, scout cars or trucks because they can't do both. Some things like food, boots, aviation gasoline they simply cannot make enough of on their own. Sure they used T-34s rather than LL Shermans most of the time, but if you can't build enough T-34s because you have to build RR engines instead, or you build T-34s but the RRs can't get them around efficiently...

 

[Raferty]

Well without L-L, the Soviets have two big logistical problems:

Their army remains unmotorized for the most part, and they have massive food problems.

The big gains of Bagration are impossible in this case. The Soviets could make tons of vehicles of low quality and without necessary spare parts. These were more hindrances than help on the battlefield in 1941. A sustained motorized advance was not possible until L-L kicked in.

And there is the real possibility that they would have armies starving in the field, not to mention the civilian population. Leningrad almost certainly falls in this scenario by early 1943 as Lake Ladoga freezing over means little without foodstuffs coming down from Murmansk.

Industry was movable to the Urals, but the grain of Ukraine was not movable to Kazakhstan.

I think it is very possible as well that Soviet armies continue to be vulnerable to deep penetration offensives without reserve mobility outside of the rail network.

Now, if shadow L-L happens then this gets butterflied.

 

[Khanzeer]

Well without L-L, the Soviets have two big logistical problems:

Their army remains unmotorized for the most part, and they have massive food problems.

The big gains of Bagration are impossible in this case. The Soviets could make tons of vehicles of low quality and without necessary spare parts. These were more hindrances than help on the battlefield in 1941. A sustained motorized advance was not possible until L-L kicked in.

And there is the real possibility that they would have armies starving in the field, not to mention the civilian population. Leningrad almost certainly falls in this scenario by early 1943 as Lake Ladoga freezing over means little without foodstuffs coming down from Murmansk.

I think it is very possible as well that Soviet armies continue to be vulnerable to deep penetration offensives without reserve mobility outside of the rail network.

in short there is a good chance of a stalemate in the East favorable to germans

in the west I doubt if Britain will invade France on its own , but an invasion of sicily with a huge indian/australian/canadian and british army is possible and with objective of taking italy out of the war first

 

[hammo1j]

Sloreck: very good point about the LL being less without US in war. As Wiking pointed out in a WW1 thread the same situation occurred in WW1 with the British only allowed secured credit.

1. Was Roosevelt's LL terms as stringent as that up to Dec 41

2. Did the US provide any aid to the SU June to Dec 41?

IMHO the question should not be settled on US aid after Dec 41, but before.

 

[manav95]

I think the US would continue to provide aid and arms to the Allies, seeking to end the Depression and ensure British repayment of war loans. The Germans would not have guaranteed that unless Hitler or his finance minister realized they could use that as a tool to get the US out of the war.

 

[pattersonautobody]

Except that the Soviets can't quit. They are literally fighting against an invader who wants to exterminate them as a people.

Meanwhile, the Soviets pretty much did defeat the vast bulk of the German military on their own. By the time Lend Lease had an effect, the War was pretty much decided - it was only a question of how long.

With no USA in the war, there's an ATL torch which means Germany is far stronger position in 43. Luftwaffe assets are stronger in the east. Germans consolidate eastern possessions and draft more ostruppen, mine more materials, etc. Russia faces a massive manpower shortage if they dont retake Smolensk and most of Ukraine by the end of 43. With no USA in the war, I don't see i happening. By 44, they must accept terms.

 

[Raferty]

With no USA in the war, there's an ATL torch which means Germany is far stronger position in 43. Luftwaffe assets are stronger in the east. Germans consolidate eastern possessions and draft more ostruppen, mine more materials, etc. Russia faces a massive manpower shortage if they dont retake Smolensk and most of Ukraine by the end of 43. With no USA in the war, I don't see i happening. By 44, they must accept terms.

Its hard to see them accepting terms as in a Brest-Litovsk type scenario. You have to understand that Stalin knew a loss in the war meant an end to his regime; he would have been overthrown by the military, which had grown in power during the war, and the loss of face would be too much to bear for the Party, even as pruned as it was post purge. He was going to fight to the last Soviet citizen.

Now, what MIGHT have happened, was basically a ceasefire scenario. Germany takes essentially what they had at Brest-Litovsk in WW1. They get Ukraine, the Baltics, and perhaps up to Smolensk in the center, as being their lines, but the Russians of course have no intention of keeping it that way. It could be a timed ceasefire, of course blatantly violated by both sides, but a ceasefire in that neither side undertakes significant offensive operations before an end. I could see it lasting maybe 2-3 years like that at most. In the meantime, it would give the Germans time enough to squash any Allied ground forces on the continent (say, in Greece, or the Yugoslav Partisans) and perhaps divert air and ground assets southwards to fight the British in Africa, assuming the Italians are able to keep the sea lanes open and the position has not completely collapsed (all very possible with more Luftwaffe assets in the region).

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Sloreck: very good point about the LL being less without US in war. As Wiking pointed out in a WW1 thread the same situation occurred in WW1 with the British only allowed secured credit.

1. Was Roosevelt's LL terms as stringent as that up to Dec 41

2. Did the US provide any aid to the SU June to Dec 41?

IMHO the question should not be settled on US aid after Dec 41, but before.

Before L-L it was Cash and Carry only. L-L was extended to the USSR IOTL in October 1941. The Brits also started their own aid program about the same time. The USSR had been buying before June 1941:
https://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/ll_routes.php

 

[Maeglin]

With no USA in the war, there's an ATL torch which means Germany is far stronger position in 43. Luftwaffe assets are stronger in the east. Germans consolidate eastern possessions and draft more ostruppen, mine more materials, etc. Russia faces a massive manpower shortage if they dont retake Smolensk and most of Ukraine by the end of 43. With no USA in the war, I don't see i happening. By 44, they must accept terms.

And again: the only terms available were "fight on" or "extermination." The British (whom Hitler admired) and even the French (whom Hitler hated) were in a position to make or accept terms with Berlin. The Soviet Union did not have that option, either as a political entity, or as a People. Remember what Hitler's war aims actually were.

 

[sarahz]

I actually think Germany wins because USSR quits by 1943 and Britain is broke by 44 and out of manpower. ANd no...zombie Indian legions are not invading Europe.

er no. It is possible maybe for Germany to achieve a stalemate in Europe, but to defeat the UK no chance. For all of its faults the Uk had a much better economy than Germany and Italy and not having a Pacific War would also reduce costs and free up a large volume of manpower. On this point the British Empire and Free France have the manpower available and in a fight to the death, if that's what it comes to then it will be used whatever the consequences for the future in relying on colonial forces. The country that made the Balfour declaration and offered to sign an act of union with France if need be will offer the Indian National Congress et al whatever it takes. The USSR will not quit, even if they wanted to Hitler wont allow it if he thinks he can win. Once he thinks he cant then it will be too late and the USSR will be rolling over him. I suppose that if Hitler somehow over -dosed on medication there might possibly be a change of view, but otherwise no The UK can survive and probably re-take the Med islands including Sicily and Sardinia and maybe Corsica with the resources available especially with the savings from the Far East. To invade the continent it needs significant US funding to equip its manpower and the various Free Forces. I do not see why the US would not provide this. If it did not, however its wait and produce instant sunshine and I think the estimates of the mid 19-50's for this are extremely pessimistic btw,or scrap the wasteful heavy bomber offensive and spend the money on building up for a truly large scale effort o make Nazi Europe ungovernable through assisting assymetric warfare or indeed both.

 

[sloreck]

Massive amounts of LL, whether it went to the UK, USSR, building up the Free French etc only kicked in well after the USA was in the war and went to a war economy. Sure even if not in the war the USA needs to rearm and expand its military, even the "isolationists" were on board with that, however they were not on board with the sort of massive US government spending needed to rearm the USA and provide the massive LL that eventuated after December 7. Basically their point was that the USA ended up getting stiffed for the WWI "bill", and that basically loaning huge amounts of money to one side (which what LL was when you come down to it) meant the USA became "invested" in one side winning and might eventually be drawn in to protect the investment. This was a very common meme.

The Republicans in 1940 were still pretty viscerally anti New Deal in any respect, and were foot dragging on even US military rearmament/expansion. To a lot of Americans, still dragging out of the Depression, spending huge amounts of money on armaments to go to the Europeans, money they expect will never be repaid (or "gently used" military goods being returned), is not going to fly. IF you're going to spend that money why not on more internal improvements by the CCC, farm supports, rural electrification, and so forth. Simply expanding production in existing facilities to supply LL is going to be expensive, and the ship building facilities that Kaiser built cranking out Liberty Ships like toys (and the suppliers delivering parts) need to be built from the ground up, and where does that money come from. Sure some folks will make financial contributions like "bundles for Britain", but the significant money has to come from the US Treasury. No war, no bond drives, no price controls to counteract inflation, no increase in tax rates, etc.

As far as the atomic bomb, the UK, on its own in the middle of this war is going to have a hard time getting this done. Even if they know to go plutonium only, which is very iffy, and don't try multiple approaches, they are resource constrained not only in money and materiel, but also scientists and engineers. What they have are quite good, but the reality is that their numbers were smaller per capita in the UK and Commonwealth, and they are mostly busy doing other more urgent tasks. IMHO the UK would really have to base their Tube Alloys project in Canada, once it got beyond the paper and blackboard stage, simply to have room, electric resources, and safety. Even if the Germans knew the exact location of the Tube Alloys research center in Ontario or Alberta, what could they do. Can the UK/Commonwealth get an atomic weapon absent the US involvement and the shared Manhattan Project, yes but the late 1940s soonest. No USA means some sort of conclusion/stalemate in Europe before instant sunshine can make a contribution. BTW while the USA may start its own atomic project even if not in the war, funding and progress will be at a much lower level.

NO USA and the UK/Commonwealth can probably clear North Africa. Good odds that most of the islands in the Med end up in UK hands, at least the smaller ones, maybe Crete, and some or all of Sicily/Sardinia/Corsica. If the Germans knock Russia out (more in a moment) there is no way they can invade the continent, whether France, Norway, Italy, Greece etc. The Germans will have too big an edge and the UK advantage stops where the water ends. Even if Sicily and Sardinia go, Benny will stay in power as long as there are no enemies on the Italian boot.

Germany can't go all the way to Siberia no matter what, at least not in the 1940s. Absent the sort of massive US LL, even if there is some, the USSR simply cannot stage the offensives they did OTL. Absent the air effort over Germany, much more of the Luftwaffe is in the east, and the USSR is further handicapped by the absence of aviation gasoline from LL. At some point the USSR will need to accept the inevitable and have an armistice with lines somewhere between the Ukraine and the Urals. Leningrad will go, and if the Germans don't occupy Baku you can expect there will be mandatory petroleum shipments to Germany. Sure the Russians will want round two, and if Stalin wants to keep fighting even as the armies are simply ground down I expect sooner or later even he would have an "accident".

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
Even if Britain builds an atomic bomb they don't have an aircraft that can drop it safely. The Lancaster can't fly high enough to have time to escape the blast. So the U.S. is going to have to supply Washington B.1s to the RAF earlier or become involved in the air campaign if they want to employ atomic weapons.

The original B29 models could no do the job either. Hence the Silverplate models
The Brits must do the same. Maybe a Mosquito derivative with larger fusalage, four engines, a robust electronics package... Stick those new jet engines on a suitable fusalage, the possibilities are not ASB

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I dabbled in gaming this one years ago. Wish I had time to do it again soon.