Britain and the USSR v Germany, Italy and Japan

Without US lend-lease the USSR is going to be unable to take much more than the original RSFSR territory, Germany will likely keep the Ukraine, Belarus, Balkans, Baltic states, and perhaps more. Without support from American bombers they are also likely to have greater success maintaining their industry and probably able to bring synthetic oil facilities online. With more industrial capacity intact and the development of assault rifles, tactics, newer tanks, and new aircraft, I think the Germans might be able to win a line in the East similar to Brest-Litovsk in mid-late 1945. Millions die, millions more are homeless, and the Germans are left in charge of the most powerful state on the planet. But after all is said and done Germany survives and thrives, with rumors of war crimes and pockets of resistance persisting well into the late 20th century.

This might be possible without L-L but if you read the OP it is actually in place. Furthermore, if Roosevelt can't get the US into the war it is likely to increase further, especially as the US isn't building up massive forces itself.

I would say Russia would still win, although it could go either way. Apart from anything else they have the decisive advantage of Hitler as their opponent. It is going to be even bloodier for all involved.

Even if the Germans 'win' they are going to be exhausted and unless they can throw off the Nazis will continue to decline due to the insanity of their 'ideology'.


Italy is certainly a junior partner but still does well, taking Tunisia, southeastern France, and most of the eastern Adriatic. It develops into a market for German goods, a refuge for escaping political refugees, and perhaps the most "free" state in the Nazi orbit. Its navy becomes the pride of Europe, especially as the British leave it disproportionately intact.

Italy is likely to survive if the Axis do but I doubt if will be able to maintain its' empire in Libya. It doesn't have the economic base to maintain a great navy and I think the British will continue to do a hell of a lot to remove what is left of the existing one.;)

Japan develops into a new powerhouse, taking its historical conquests along with China (1943), New Zealand (1944), Madagascar (1944), Western Australia and the Northern Territory (1945), Ceylon (1945), Tibet (1945), and Mongolia (1945). Russia is so badly defeated and drained in 1945 that it refuses to defend its Mongolian satellite and the Japanese seriously consider relieveing them of Central Asia and Siberia but still fear the Russian bear. Its industries quickly expand and make it the most powerful naval player on Earth with its new Shinano class carriers, transitioning after the brutal loss of two Yamato-class battleships to aircraft at the Battle of Botany Bay in 1944. Australia fights hard but had already planned a retreat to a defensive perimeter in New South Wales and Victoria, though Queensland was never entirely evacuated. India remains British only for another two years but soon becomes an economic partner of Tokyo, as does Persia and a sizable portion of eastern Africa after decolonization in the late 40s/early 50s. Technology here advances quickly and soon Japanese consumer products are 5 years ahead of almost anyone else while military technology is ahead by another decade.

ASB squared. Japan doesn't have the cultural background to become the sort of economic power it did OTL with the military regime in place. Furthermore there's no way their going to get to New Zealand/Australia as anything other than suicide missions. They might try a bid at Ceylon but are going to have great difficulty holding any foothold there and it would ensure Indian hostility. It's doubtful they can continue the war in China and sustain one against a US supported Britain. Best they can hold to do is persuade Britain to concede Malaya and the Dutch colonies and make peace, which will allow the war in China to limp on. India, barring a sudden lurch into some form of fascism [and even then probably not] will be nothing but an opponent of Japan.


Russia survives with its industries intact and a breadbasket in Khazakstan but with almost 1.3 of its population missing. Stalin dies around the same time and the Russians are consumed with irredentalism even after Germany tests an atomic weapon in 1948. Germany does not attack Russia but leaves it to its fate, a mistake in the years to come as Russians have an average family size of 6 and develop very sturdy though rudimentary equipment functionally equal to those of powers 20 years ahead of themselves.

Do you mean 13% or 1/3 of population missing. I would agree that if Germany was forced to the sort of peace suggested then very likely the war would be resumed within a decade or so.

The idea of a German nuke by 1948 with a Dec 41 is also ASB. They don't have the resources and are heading in the wrong direction. Also with everything else on their hands they are not going to be seriously developing such an expensive programme.

The USA remains isolationist and stagnates, and though it gets a serious boost from the immigrant refugees who flee there the best minds are unable to alert the populace to the potential danger of German and Japanese imperialism. What changes their minds is the Space Race between Japan (first satellite, 1953) and Germany (first man in space, 1955), allowing the Americans to advance radically and put the first man on Mars in 1969 after just missing the chance to beat Germany to the moon in 1962. Otherwise overall technology remains about 5-10 years behind OTL with a gap that slowly resolves as time goes by. The South African War in the 1960s becomes a drain for Germany, USA, and Japan with veterans sharing their common experiences and forming the basis for a peaceful co-existance later in the 20th century - the desire to avoid another continent-scale war does that for the generation before.

I can see technology being seriously retarded in the world you propose and space technology, at least up til 69 will be no exception. There will probably be a cold-war between the US [with Britain doing what it can] and Germany but the weakened state of Germany and undermining of it's tech base will make it less prominent that the OTL one between US and USSR.


The UK is decimated with the loss of most of her colonies after the war, especially India. She grows closer to the USA and Latin America, forming a series of more equal and profitable alliances with help lent to the Americans to help close her technological gap with the rest of the world. She is a junior partner with the USA but on more of an equal pairing with Washington than Rome is to Berlin.

The UK will lose India no doubt but will hold the ME and N Africa barring extreme events. It may be forced to make peace, especially if Russia is also forced to do so, and could suffer a lot from bombardment if/when Germany gets the V2 working in large numbers but is unlikely to lose the Atlantic battle, which is the only thing that could knock it out.

Steve
 
Assuming no carrier losses in 1941 the Japanese would be able to amass at least six frontline carriers all of them manned by very experienced naval pilots. By 1943 he Royal Navy would likely be able to assemble no more than three with both pilots and naval aircraft of lesser quality.

The British might suffer a catastrophic defeat.
 

HarryH

Banned
The ability to lift three divisions a few hundred miles by sea does not equate to the ability to lift three divisions a few thousand miles by sea.

They can't teleport to New Caledonia. The Japanese force that took Singapore was down to its last days of food.

They would island hop down the Solomon’s and New Hebrides.
Of course the leap from New Caledonia or Fiji to New Zealand would be the biggest but not beyond their capabilities.
 

HarryH

Banned
Furious, Illustrious, Formidable, Victorious, Indomitable could probably be used in the Indian Ocean in 1943 by the British with Seafire fighters on board.
Better though for the British to wait another year to confront the Japanese when they greater production levels will work against Japan.
North Africa could still be taken by the British in 1943 after which it could concentrate on supplying Australia and building up to take on the Japanese Fleet.
The Soviets would have a much harder time moving West in this situation.
 
Guys

The best bet for the RN is to avoid fleet conflict with the IJN. Not only does the latter outclass them in carrier air power [although they won't know that] with the commitments against Germany and Italy the RN doesn't have the strength. Use land based air power and subs to whittle down the Japanese fleet and merchant marines, without which the Japanese can't threaten much, along with strengthened ground forces to defend - ideally say Malaya-Sumatra-Java if done early enough. If not the Indian border and New Guinea and approaches to Australia. As other people have said the Japanese weakness is logistics and the ability to move men and supplies to distant locations.

What will be vital will be to protect the sea links to Egypt, India and Australia [presuming the Malaya barrier is lost]. This should be possible but probably not without losses.

Steve
 
Without the US Navy's support the Royal Navy just has too much on its plate to risk a major naval battle in the Indian Ocean. They have to protect the convoys in the Atlantic, protect the Home Islands, protect the convoys to Egypy and Malta, try to stop supply shipments to the Africa Corps, and hunt down enemy U-Boats as well as surface ships.

They are not going to risk all of their carriers. Especially not when India is no serious danger of being invaded. Land based air and a sizeable ground force should be enough.
 

HarryH

Banned
Without the US Navy's support the Royal Navy just has too much on its plate to risk a major naval battle in the Indian Ocean. They have to protect the convoys in the Atlantic, protect the Home Islands, protect the convoys to Egypy and Malta, try to stop supply shipments to the Africa Corps, and hunt down enemy U-Boats as well as surface ships.

They are not going to risk all of their carriers. Especially not when India is no serious danger of being invaded. Land based air and a sizeable ground force should be enough.

If Australia and New Zealand are under serious threat Malta may well be abandoned and the forces in Egypt sit on the defensive.
 
Top