British surrender in 1940 - Can the Germans beat the Soviet Union?

Deleted member 1487

Nyet, comrade Stalin has more soldiers then the facists have bullets.
It will take longer and cost more in blood but the Russian 14 year olds will take Berlin from the German 12 year olds.
Stalin, Zhukov, and Khrushchev certainly don't agree with you. They thought they would have lost if not for the US and UK
 
Nyet, comrade Stalin has more soldiers then the facists have bullets.
It will take longer and cost more in blood but the Russian 14 year olds will take Berlin from the German 12 year olds.

LOL. Of course the Russian 14 year olds will not be hurt when Panzers roll over them. Russia has a lot of manpower, but as their food supply goes away, as their industry becomes more and more constricted, if the Germans cut of the flow of oil from the Caucasus (no need to take the oil fields right away - just occupy rail routes), throwing bullet sponges at the Germans simply won't work. Underfed soldiers can't fight well so give them more rations, oops now the workers are starving so production suffers. Nothing is certain in war but with no distraction of the Germans to protect against the UK (and build all those U-boats), no North Africa, probably no Yugoslavia or Greece, no LL or much less, the Soviets can only trade space and bodies for so long before they have to seek some sort of war termination.

With the UK and USA out of the war, Germany can get all the raw materials it needs either by confiscation or payment. The industries of the conquered countries are even more useful to them without allied air attacks (as limited as they were) and no resistance sabotage, and more as has been talked about here. Numbers count but when one force has plenty of mechanized forces and fuel, more weapons etc and the other side is hurting for these (and few radios to control mechanized forces) warm bodies can't stop steel longer term.
 
Absent an active Red Army the partisans will be a nuisance but will eventually fade to a very dull roar. A long term antipartisan low level conflict will bleed the Germans, but no partisan movement can succeed without some outside support materiel or another front to occupy the enemy or both.
 

Deleted member 1487

Absent an active Red Army the partisans will be a nuisance but will eventually fade to a very dull roar. A long term antipartisan low level conflict will bleed the Germans, but no partisan movement can succeed without some outside support materiel or another front to occupy the enemy or both.
No partisan movement could even last at a low level without outside support. The only reason the partisan movement even happened was because Moscow organized it and expanded upon it, parachuting men, supplies, and equipment in, while organizing it from Moscow; they even would infiltrate more men by land if they could get troops deep enough, plus they would even evacuate wounded via plane at night. As it was though despite the extraordinary effort, it was only then with the Soviets on the offensive that they were able to rally the public to fight the Germans and weren't nearly as effective as the Soviets claim. Much like their claims of front line units wiping out the entire German army several times over (if you add up all their official claims of casualties inflicted the German army would have ceased to exist in 1943).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_partisans#Formation_of_anti-German_Soviet_resistance
 
No partisan movement could even last at a low level without outside support.
Once the hope of the Red Army returning and the fear of the NKVD returning as well is gone, Nazi brutality and viciousness will convince even the most ardent Soviet patriot not to give aid to the partisans if it means their village won't be burned down and they get to avoid starvation for another week.
 
Yeah this isn't 1805 and the Rothschild's can't finance the entire British war effort, plus the Tripartite Pact exists and India is leaving the empire ASAP after the shooting in Europe stops. There can be no peace of Amiens, but there can be a negotiated deal to end the war by July 1940, but as you say it won't a surrender without a physical occupation of Britain.

Its the closest example I could think of - just change Rothschilds to Roosevelts ;)
 
If the British sued for peace I do wonder what they would do after it happened. I wonder if they would spend the next 2 years arming themselves to the teeth, building thousands of Lancasters and tens of thousands of Spitfires so even if Germany did beat the USSR what happened next would be interesting.
 
With Britain out, Could Germany just get stuff without war from the Soviet Union by bully tactics. Just demand oil, food and strategic metals be shipped for cut rate prices. Demand Buknovia, Galacia and Lithuania???? After all the Soviets are faced with a victorious German war machine that just punked France and Britain. The Soviets know this and know they can't fight Germany in 1941.
 
If the British sued for peace I do wonder what they would do after it happened. I wonder if they would spend the next 2 years arming themselves to the teeth, building thousands of Lancasters and tens of thousands of Spitfires so even if Germany did beat the USSR what happened next would be interesting.

Because of their limited foreign exchange reserves - and the lack of Lend-Lease - you have to figure that Britain would continue to rearm, but at a somewhat less frenetic pace. They'd rearm to the limits of what they could actually pay for. Air assets would have priority.

Beyond that, it would depend on the outcome of the almost inevitable election, which Labour would stand good odds of winning. But there have been a few timelines on what a post Halifax-brokered peace would look like. What becomes of India, for example?
 

Redbeard

Banned
Nyet, comrade Stalin has more soldiers then the facists have bullets.
It will take longer and cost more in blood but the Russian 14 year olds will take Berlin from the German 12 year olds.
No, the Soviet population would last for 7 WW IIs. The German would last for 10 WWIIs, even counting in losses outside the East front.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Gallup's polling in late 1940 shows a pretty sizable level of what I might call "freak-out" over what was happening in Europe. (For example, Dec. 1940: "Do you think our country's future safety depends on England winning this war?" Yes 68%/No 26%) It is especially how remarkably intolerant of strikes the public had become. The public was not keen to enter the war, but it was *very* keen to rearm as quickly as possible.

The results are certainly more reactionary than I would have thought, but based on the polling provided, any US support for the British appears very much tethered to the British actually fighting the good fight. If Britain had surrendered, as suggested by the OP, then the US dog in the fight is dead. Alternatively, if there is a 'white peace', which appears to the be the consensus on this thread, then the US are unlikely to back a dog that as no interest in fighting. The polling makes it clear the US public had no interest it fighting the good fight itself.

What was also interesting from the poll result is the US public had very little interest in defending the free world from the Japanese. Aside from the Monroe doctrine, the US public seamed to be of the firm opinion that nothing was worth [Americans] fighting for - unless they are sailors.

The real concern was more about the mounting naval threat, since obviously the Wehrmacht could hardly just drive to New York - the prospect that the Nazis might get hold of the French fleet (then a very respectable fourth largest in the world) made passage of Vinson's Two Ocean Navy Act in July 1940 a cake walk. But looming behind that was the even greater fear that the Royal Navy (tied with the US Navy for largest) might be at risk, too. A situation where Britain has dropped out of the war will make the Nazis loom even more dangerously: this is a public which was formed by witnessing four years of successful, dogged Anglo-French resistance to the German army (the last year of which with Americans at their side) just a generation before. Suddenly, the Germans knock them both out in a matter of weeks using a terrifying new form of warfare, and now there's no Royal Navy blockade to hem them in. It's hard to see how such American fears could be otherwise. At that point, Roosevelt could get blank checks from Congress for rearmament.

A white peace with Britain removes even the mathematical possibility of the Nazis cobbling together a Frankenstein like Vichy-German-British fleet. If the British are out of the war and retain control of the Royal Navy, then the naval threat to the US for the foreseeable future is removed entirely. The poll you provided indicates the US public were evenly divided on whether participation in the first world war was a mistake. The poll makes it very clear that the US public was not interested in actively participating in another war in either Europe or Asia. Without British belligerence and the US lend-lease commitment, OTL US military rearmament was probably already on schedule by 1940 to outstrip US domestic military requirements.

Further, if Europe is at peace for a period of time and the sky has not fallen, I am sure the US public would calm down and deal with the new reality/ regime.
That's "freak-out" attitude is also reflected in a Life magazine poll done in July 1940.

https://books.google.com/books?id=xz8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA20&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false

"If Germany and Italy should win the war, do you think the U.S. will be in any kind of danger?"
-Yes: 66.9%.
-No: 19.6%.

That poll appears to be somewhat leading, since "any kind of danger" is really broad criteria . Britain pulling out effectively results in Germany and Italy 'winning the war' and if the sky does not fall, the US public will learn to deal with the it.

"Do you favor the immediate adoption of compulsory military training for all young men?"
-Yes: 70.7%.
-No: 22.6%.

"If Germany and Italy should win the war, which one of these two things comes closer to what you think the U.S. should do?"
-Stop spending so much for armaments and try to get along peacefully with them: 7.6%.
-Arm to the teeth at any expense to be prepared for any trouble: 88%.

The US will continue to prepare for war, but without the British in the fight, it will be more difficult for FDR to keep the imagined threat of Germany 'on-trend'.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I haven't researched it closely, but I remain skeptical. British assistance in the first months of the war was minimal; Operation LUSTRE wasn't even mounted until March 1941.

OTOH, Mussolini can devote forces he would otherwise have had to send to Libya, and that would be an advantage. Even so, the Greeks would but up a very stiff fight, and if they overwhelm the Greeks, it would take deep in 1941 for them to do so, a prospect which would agitate Berlin with BARBAROSSA looming. The Yugoslavs probably don't rise up, but a German intervention is still likely - it's just that without the Yugoslav Campaign or British intervention, they'll be able to wrap up Greece more quickly. BARBAROSSA can't likely start a week earlier now.

Without even the minimal British assistance in the first months of the war, the Greek resistance to the Italian navy and air force is likely to fade very quickly. I suspect relatively undisputed Italian naval power would be a big deal in the conflict, due to the logistical challenges that difficult terrain and limited infrastructure present. The most likely scenario is that without Britain in the picture, Greece accepts OTL German offers of mediation. It is not inconceivable that Greece (which OTL had an anti-communism regime) finds itself actually part of Barbarossa.
 
Without even the minimal British assistance in the first months of the war, the Greek resistance to the Italian navy and air force is likely to fade very quickly. I suspect relatively undisputed Italian naval power would be a big deal in the conflict, due to the logistical challenges that difficult terrain and limited infrastructure present.

I would not be so sure about that.

British assistance to the Greeks in the first months of the war was minimal. And yet, they not only halted the Italian offensive, but drove it back into Albania.

The most likely scenario is that without Britain in the picture, Greece accepts OTL German offers of mediation. It is not inconceivable that Greece (which OTL had an anti-communism regime) finds itself actually part of Barbarossa.

Actually, there's a fair chance of this.

But certainly the Yugoslav and Greek campaigns of our timeline will not happen, and that probably does allow the Germans to move Barbarossa up a week or two (and saves their airborne units from destruction).
 
The results are certainly more reactionary than I would have thought, but based on the polling provided, any US support for the British appears very much tethered to the British actually fighting the good fight. If Britain had surrendered, as suggested by the OP, then the US dog in the fight is dead. Alternatively, if there is a 'white peace', which appears to the be the consensus on this thread, then the US are unlikely to back a dog that as no interest in fighting. The polling makes it clear the US public had no interest it fighting the good fight itself.

What was also interesting from the poll result is the US public had very little interest in defending the free world from the Japanese. Aside from the Monroe doctrine, the US public seamed to be of the firm opinion that nothing was worth [Americans] fighting for - unless they are sailors.



A white peace with Britain removes even the mathematical possibility of the Nazis cobbling together a Frankenstein like Vichy-German-British fleet. If the British are out of the war and retain control of the Royal Navy, then the naval threat to the US for the foreseeable future is removed entirely. The poll you provided indicates the US public were evenly divided on whether participation in the first world war was a mistake. The poll makes it very clear that the US public was not interested in actively participating in another war in either Europe or Asia. Without British belligerence and the US lend-lease commitment, OTL US military rearmament was probably already on schedule by 1940 to outstrip US domestic military requirements.

Further, if Europe is at peace for a period of time and the sky has not fallen, I am sure the US public would calm down and deal with the new reality/ regime.


That poll appears to be somewhat leading, since "any kind of danger" is really broad criteria . Britain pulling out effectively results in Germany and Italy 'winning the war' and if the sky does not fall, the US public will learn to deal with the it.



The US will continue to prepare for war, but without the British in the fight, it will be more difficult for FDR to keep the imagined threat of Germany 'on-trend'.

Two things the press in the US are very cooperative with the Government. An example FDR after PH told them to NOT show dead soldiers and they didn't. Mid 1942 he thought the population was getting to complacent he told the press to show dead soldiers and they did. For the most part FDR was a great at publicity and Germany has so many atrocities they could never hide them all and every day a new on appeared each getting worse. Even most antisemitic people in the US would not agree with the Holocaust! Two I don't think you give the American public enough credit the "the any " would not mean Germany will not send luxury cars or certain food's the average person would think IMO something with their military against the US. Do you have any other things it might be?
 

BooNZ

Banned
Two things the press in the US are very cooperative with the Government. An example FDR after PH told them to NOT show dead soldiers and they didn't. Mid 1942 he thought the population was getting to complacent he told the press to show dead soldiers and they did. For the most part FDR was a great at publicity and Germany has so many atrocities they could never hide them all and every day a new on appeared each getting worse. Even most antisemitic people in the US would not agree with the Holocaust! Two I don't think you give the American public enough credit the "the any " would not mean Germany will not send luxury cars or certain food's the average person would think IMO something with their military against the US. Do you have any other things it might be?

My understanding was the US media downplayed the extent of anti-Semitism in Germany before the war, despite FDR's dislike for the Nazi regime. The examples of the US press being very co-operative during wartime is neither surprising, nor relevant to this discussion. I understood the US did not receive confirmation of Nazi plans in respect of the Holocaust until mid 1942 and the initial action of the State Department was to suppress this information. If Britain is no longer in the war, then Europe would have been substantially at peace for around a year and FDR does not have much to work with.

From the poll provided, the only rational fear of Germany appears to relate to perceived German influence in South America.
 
My understanding was the US media downplayed the extent of anti-Semitism in Germany before the war, despite FDR's dislike for the Nazi regime. The examples of the US press being very co-operative during wartime is neither surprising, nor relevant to this discussion. I understood the US did not receive confirmation of Nazi plans in respect of the Holocaust until mid 1942 and the initial action of the State Department was to suppress this information. If Britain is no longer in the war, then Europe would have been substantially at peace for around a year and FDR does not have much to work with.

From the poll provided, the only rational fear of Germany appears to relate to perceived German influence in South America.

The difference between pre-war and post British in the was is vast. Any one over 25 would remember WW1 and the horrors it produced, sadly today would not bother people as much, and how Germany lost to GB, France, Russia and later in the war the US. Suddenly GB, France are out of the war, a defeat is a defeat no matter how you word it, and Russia is losing the war. I think it would be irrational not to be concerned if I was a US citizen. Hitler was talking about his wonder weapons, true they were mostly over hyped, but some had worked. The Battle of Britain and the blitz would have been shown in every newsreel in the US. Almost everyone would be horrified and could picture London being their town NY, Detroit ect. Read below the URL is at the bottom it was mentioned in 1942 and through out the war. IMO it was given enough press to be known but not to make it a priority for the Governments. This is seldom mentioned but the resources in men, building and running the camps, the railroad usage were not a small amount drain in the Nazi's that could be used in the war effort. I don't know why the "German influence in South America" would be a worry since they were not asked that question. As you contention that the Press was not relative here the amount of trust that people had in the press and the Government was much higher then. They would exaggerate or under play any the story the Government wanted. Europe would be at peace but during the cold war the press jumped on the least little incident behind the Warsaw Pacts borders and with Russia still fighting at least a gorilla war there would be no let up on the news coverage. This is a country that went from Russia is a monster allied with Hitler to Russia is being attacked by that monster Hitler overnight and the public did not take long to believe it. Just showing how life is different in European countries before and after the Nazis took over would make the threat seem as great that it is. Lastly Hitler wanted to be accepted so they would have tourists i and they would get the E-Ticket. When they got home everything would come out. Year of peace would not be enough to make Americans feel secure. Plus FDR had one thing Hitler could not ever compete with HOLLYWOOD! No pictures or escapees from Europe make some need a horrific scene shot one and if you don't think the would/ maybe did your sorely mistaken.


"The US and Britain had a number of sources of intelligence on the progress of the conduct of the Holocaust and Final Solution.

First, the Allies had close contacts with Polish resistance organisations who kept them informed about the concentration of Jews in ghettoes and camps in the General Government, and the Final Solution when it started in early 1942.

Second, the Britain and the US had some insight into the activities of the Einsatzkommandoes and police actions in Eastern Europe thanks to their code breaking efforts. The Allies were able to read some of codes used by the German railway organization.

All the intelligence coming in about the scale of killing in Eastern Europe prompted the Allies to issue a joint statement on December 17, 1942:

The attention of the Belgian, Czechoslovak, Greek, Jugoslav, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norwegian, Polish, Soviet, United Kingdom and United States Governments and also of the French National Committee has been drawn to numerous reports from Europe that the German authorities, not content with denying to persons of Jewish race in all the territories over which their barbarous rule has been extended, the most elementary human rights, are now carrying into effect Hitler's oft-repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe.

From all the occupied countries Jews are being transported in conditions of appalling horror and brutality to Eastern Europe. In Poland, which has been made the principal Nazi slaughterhouse, the ghettos established by the German invader are being systematically emptied of all Jews except a few highly skilled workers required for war industries. None of those taken away are ever heard of again. The able-bodied are slowly worked to death in labor camps. The infirm are left to die of exposure and starvation or are deliberately massacred in mass executions. The number of victims of these bloody cruelties is reckoned in many hundreds of thousands of entirely innocent men, women and children.

The above-mentioned governments and the French National Committee condemn in the strongest possible terms this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination. They declare that such events can only strengthen the resolve of all freedom-loving peoples to overthrow the barbarous Hitlerite tyranny. They reaffirm their solemn resolution to insure that those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution, and to press on with the necessary practical measures to this end.

The Allies issued further joint statements called attention to Germany's ongoing genocide in 1943 and 1944 promising prosecution of war crimes committed by Germany.

There was also coverage in the press, for example:

London, July 1 - The Polish Government in London has been urged in a report on the slaughter of 700,000 Jews in German-occupied territories to call on the Allied governments to adopt a policy of retaliation that will force the Germans to cease there killings.

New York Times, July 2, 1942

London, July 26 - The German murder toll in Poland is reaching a new high with the total victims estimated at 3,200,000, including 1,800,000 Jews, as of May 1, it was asserted today by WladyslawBanaczyk, Polish Minister of Home Affairs.

New York Times, July 27, 1943

London, Feb. 16 (U.P.) - The Polish Government in Exile charged today that "Germany's diabolical attempt to exterminate the Polish nation" had resulted in the death of "scores of thousands" of Polish children and the complete extermination of all Jewish children in Poland.

New York Times, February 17, 1944"

I would hardly call this censorship.

https://www.quora.com/Did-the-US-know-about-concentration-camps-before-the-end-of-World-War-II
 

BooNZ

Banned
The difference between pre-war and post British in the was is vast. Any one over 25 would remember WW1 and the horrors it produced, sadly today would not bother people as much, and how Germany lost to GB, France, Russia and later in the war the US. Suddenly GB, France are out of the war, a defeat is a defeat no matter how you word it, and Russia is losing the war. I think it would be irrational not to be concerned if I was a US citizen.

Someone else's defeat is not your own - the US was neutral in 1940. I would expect the average US citizen would initially be relieved about peace in Europe, since it would eliminate the chances of the US being dragged into someone else's war - again. When hostilities recommence on the Eastern Front, how much empathy would the average US citizen have for the Soviets?

Hitler was talking about his wonder weapons, true they were mostly over hyped, but some had worked.

Was Hitler talking about 'wonder weapon's' earlier in the war?

The Battle of Britain and the blitz would have been shown in every newsreel in the US. Almost everyone would be horrified and could picture London being their town NY, Detroit ect.

You are ignoring the POD. Britain exiting the war in 1940 likely means no Battle of Britain or Blitz, but at a minimum a greatly reduced Blitz.

Read below the URL is at the bottom it was mentioned in 1942 and through out the war. IMO it was given enough press to be known but not to make it a priority for the Governments. This is seldom mentioned but the resources in men, building and running the camps, the railroad usage were not a small amount drain in the Nazi's that could be used in the war effort.

So the Soviets are expected to survive two campaign seasons unassisted, before some US citizens start to become slightly unsettled about rumors in Europe.

I don't know why the "German influence in South America" would be a worry since they were not asked that question.

An extract below from the Gallup poll cited on post 57 of this thread...

SOUTH AMERICA

Special Survey

If Brazil, Argentina, Chile, or any other Central or South American country is actually attacked by any European power, do you think the United States should fight to keep that European power out?

Yes................................ 86%

No................................ 14

Eight per cent expressed no opinion.

Which of the following statements best describes Central and South America? (on card)

Central and South America have very few natural resources such as good farm land, oil, coal, silver, gold, water-power, etc., and will probably always be poor, weak, and backward........ 8%

Central and South America have many natural resources and some time may become fairly wealthy and strong..... 33

Central and South America have many natural resources and probably will become very wealthy and powerful.... 48

Don't know.........................11

Do you think Germany will try to get control of Central and South American countries?

Yes................................50%

Germany is already trying............ 38

No................................ 7

Don't know......................... 5

As

you contention that the Press was not relative here the amount of trust that people had in the press and the Government was much higher then. They would exaggerate or under play any the story the Government wanted. Europe would be at peace but during the cold war the press jumped on the least little incident behind the Warsaw Pacts borders and with Russia still fighting at least a gorilla war there would be no let up on the news coverage. This is a country that went from Russia is a monster allied with Hitler to Russia is being attacked by that monster Hitler overnight and the public did not take long to believe it. Just showing how life is different in European countries before and after the Nazis took over would make the threat seem as great that it is. Lastly Hitler wanted to be accepted so they would have tourists i and they would get the E-Ticket. When they got home everything would come out. Year of peace would not be enough to make Americans feel secure. Plus FDR had one thing Hitler could not ever compete with HOLLYWOOD! No pictures or escapees from Europe make some need a horrific scene shot one and if you don't think the would/ maybe did your sorely mistaken.

No, my contention was citing wartime behavior of the US press is not relevant if Britain and Western Europe are not at war. OTL the US followed the British lead in supplying the Soviets and in this scenario there is no such inspiration. Conditions in occupied Western Europe are likely to be better without a blockade, even if FDR somehow manages to implement an embargo on strategic materials. I was not aware of Hitler's Euro-Disney plans...

OTL when Britain was actually fighting the war, over two thirds of the US population supported Britain in principle, but only 15% of the American population supported joining the war. Given that starting point, HOLLYWOOD would need to incorporate some powerful Jedi mind control techniques to interest the US public in a pre-emptive war against Nazi Germany. Per OTL, the only way the US enters this war is if it is attacked or its interest in the Americas is directly threatened.

"The US and Britain had a number of sources of intelligence on the progress of the conduct of the Holocaust and Final Solution.

First, the Allies had close contacts with Polish resistance organisations who kept them informed about the concentration of Jews in ghettoes and camps in the General Government, and the Final Solution when it started in early 1942.

Second, the Britain and the US had some insight into the activities of the Einsatzkommandoes and police actions in Eastern Europe thanks to their code breaking efforts. The Allies were able to read some of codes used by the German railway organization.

All the intelligence coming in about the scale of killing in Eastern Europe prompted the Allies to issue a joint statement on December 17, 1942:

The thing is timing and a joint statement will not save the isolated Soviets, who are either on their last legs or have already fallen by 1943. In other threads, I believe the general consensus among those not emotionally invested in the subject, is Europe is very unlikely to be liberated if the Soviets have already been eliminated as a military force.
 
Top