If Roosevelt decides not to run for a third term and is replaced by an isolationist Republican, who is much less keen on getting involved in a submarine war with the Germans and somehow keeps out of a war with Japan can Britain and the Soviet Union eventually defeat Nazi Germany, I based this scenario on an earlier thread but wish to know whether Britain and The Soviet Union could beat Nazi Germany alone.
Can the allies win without America
- Thread starter ximmer
- Start date
If its a matter of numbers and on paper considerations, I believe that as long as they can maintain a higher industrial output than the axis, yes, they probably could 
Allies industrial output was higher than the axis throughout the war, they used their resources more effectively and they had better logistics, which I believe was the biggest factor in their winning of the war.
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/le...ry/ww2-by-the-numbers/wartime-production.html
Allies industrial output was higher than the axis throughout the war, they used their resources more effectively and they had better logistics, which I believe was the biggest factor in their winning of the war.
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/le...ry/ww2-by-the-numbers/wartime-production.html
Deleted member 1487
There was only one Republican that wanted that and he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell to win, that would be Robert Taft. Every other Republican wanted to help, because the public did. Maybe you'd get a non-interventionist like Dewy, but even he wanted to give the British a $5 Billion one time credit in lieu of LL. Its really hard to get him a path to victory, but assuming so the Brits still get aid and probably end up getting more in time.
I think LL probably still happens later on. But assuming the US stays out of the war for some reason, still providing some aid, then I think stalemate is most likely. The British don't have the strength to invade, don't have enough ability to do more than perhaps win in North Africa, and don't have enough ability to achieve much other than making rubble bounce in Germany, as they aren't bombing major industrial targets directly like the US was and thanks to Harris were more focused on burning cities. Without the pressure the USAAF exerted the Soviets, who probably wouldn't get as much aid from the US without FDR in office, would have a lot harder time, especially without the Torch landings drawing off significiant German forces in November.
So in the end, no I don't think the UK+Soviets win, but they do push the Germans back a lot before there is a ceasefire.
Allied production was a function of LL aid, especially the Soviets. Without US aid the British are insolvent and have to drop out in 1942. Without US and British aid the USSR cannot produce nearly as much as IOTL, falls into famine, and experiences production shortages, nevermind manpower issues.If its a matter of numbers and on paper considerations, I believe that as long as they can maintain a higher industrial output than the axis, yes, they probably could
Allies industrial output was higher than the axis throughout the war, they used their resources more effectively and they had better logistics, which I believe was the biggest factor in their winning of the war.
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/le...ry/ww2-by-the-numbers/wartime-production.html
Martynn
Banned
I recall a similar thred just a week ago?
The answer is a clear no.
Without free American supplies Britain is bankrupt in late 1941 or early 1942. Without American help in the BotA Britain is starved out by late 1942 or early 1943.
As for the Soviets - without western intervention they are swarmed by additional thousands of German aircraft, tanks and guns - while they miss between 10 and 50% of all metals, fuel, motor vehicles, tanks, aircraft and food. They would be hard pressed to keep the Germans contained at their late 1942 front line.
The answer is a clear no.
Without free American supplies Britain is bankrupt in late 1941 or early 1942. Without American help in the BotA Britain is starved out by late 1942 or early 1943.
As for the Soviets - without western intervention they are swarmed by additional thousands of German aircraft, tanks and guns - while they miss between 10 and 50% of all metals, fuel, motor vehicles, tanks, aircraft and food. They would be hard pressed to keep the Germans contained at their late 1942 front line.
They can fight a successful defensive war.
Whether the USSR and Britain can defeat Germany and destroy the Hitler regime is another question. But the war will certainly last much longer.
Whether the USSR and Britain can defeat Germany and destroy the Hitler regime is another question. But the war will certainly last much longer.
Best case scenario for Germany/Italy, the change from an apparently friendly and helpful Roosevelt to a cold, disinterested, unhelpful successor, impacts Churchill massively - a sense of personal betrayal and disillusionment - and he has a stroke/heart-attack in early 1941 which removes him from office. His successor looks at the hopeless economic situation (no lend lease coming) and comes to terms.
Question is, can Germany/Italy and company still manage to get as effective a surprise attack on Stalinist Russia as in the original timeline? If so, with no economic blockade from the RN (and possibly reparations coming from the UK in terms of rubber/tin) and no bombing, the Axis might be better set to go into a second year of a campaign in Russia.
Deleted member 1487
Churchill's political position would be badly undermined by the lack of a friendly US president that is working toward getting to public into the war. In fact Churchill himself wouldn't be as optimistic without FDR actively working towards him. Even if the Soviets weren't surprised in 1941 the huge amounts of extra stuff that Germany could throw at the Soviets in 1941 would offset any preparatory advantage the Soviets could manage (they really couldn't have gotten that much more ready than IOTL anyway), as they had so many systemic problems as it was.
Hmm...
If however Churchill's health breaks down due to 'shock', removing him from office, Churchill ceases to be a factor in the equation.
Churchill's political position might not be undermined sufficiently to remove the UK from the war in early 1941, if Churchill remains in power and determined to keep on fighting. The man can appeal to sheer bloody-mindedness and to emotion. He can paraphrase Shakespeare and other great writers by the dozen. I'm not convinced that an ultra-isolationist US president (who I assume will be prepared to push China under the bus, meaning no war with Japan, anyway, in the Pacific) would be enough, if Churchill remains in power, to see the UK (plus allies) exit the war pre-Barbarossa.
If however Churchill's health breaks down due to 'shock', removing him from office, Churchill ceases to be a factor in the equation.
Last edited:
A lack of interest in Europe might butterfly the Pacific War, since without US insistence, Britain won't stop selling oil to Japan. Of course, they eventually go broke and have to start selling off land, but this sort of provides an opportunity to industrialise the Commonwealth.
At the end of the day, my view is that provided there's no Pacific war, the War reaches a sort of grinding stalemate, with neither side having the upper edge, until the British nuke Berlin, probably somewhere around the mid 50s.
At the end of the day, my view is that provided there's no Pacific war, the War reaches a sort of grinding stalemate, with neither side having the upper edge, until the British nuke Berlin, probably somewhere around the mid 50s.
Martynn
Banned
OTL Britain and Canada invested close to 99% of their military power against Germany. How are an extra 1-2% gonna help them reach stalemate if Britain is broke by the end of 1941 and starved by the end of 1942?
Also where is Britain going to take the money from to finance its nuclear program when it is broke by 1941.
Also if the Brits have the Nuke post 1950 - so will the Germans.
Deleted member 1487
Its hard to say. Churchill could be as bloodyminded as he wanted, if the Brits don't see a path to victory they are going to want to get out, especially with their finances collapsing by early 1941 and them having to rely on loans from the CW and allies until LL kicked in (announced in December 1940). Without LL, but even with a one time grant for $5 billion the British are going to run through that by the end of 1942 and be broke. So while Britain may not leave the war until after Barbarossa (ensuring OTL Soviet failure to mobilize), then they do drop out come 1942 unless the US provides more financing. The USSR meanwhile is in a lot of trouble without LL in 1942, especially with no allies.
Deleted member 1487
Part of Japan's problem was that when the US froze their assets Japan lost its ability to finance purchasing; of course without the ABCD Line then Britain can trade with them and let them raise alternative money assuming the embargo and frozen funds are an issue by mid-1941.
Not necessarily. There's a tendency to both overestimate the importance of lend lease to the overall Soviet effort and project the LL situation late in the war back to the early days, as if the fact that %45 of the Red Army's car fleet in 1945 was LL were relevant to Stalingrad.
Martynn
Banned
In 1942 LL delivered 79 000 trucks and jeeps - the Soviets produced 35 000. By the end of 42 - around 10% of soviet vehicle park came from LL stock.
Also by mid 1942 LL had delivered 300 000 tons of food - by mid 43 it was 1.3 Million. Also during 1942 LL delivered some 5000 aircraft and 5000 tanks - these were helpful as well.
The Soviets could most likely have won at Stalingrad without LL - but they could have never pushed the Germans to Kursk. Without LL they are lucky to push them to Rostov. And this is just LL - not counted the thousands of additional aircraft the Germans would have had in 1942.
Deleted member 1487
It wasn't just shipment of weapons, but also machine tools, metals/raw materials, fuel, whole factories, British LL, industrial advice, food, chemicals, etc. All of that started in 1941.
http://www.o5m6.de/Routes.html
Deleted member 1487
Keep in mind they transferred over 1600 Luftwaffe aircraft to the Mediterranean right before Operation Uranus, plus over 200k veteran troops. Already 50% of Wehrmacht spending was for Wallied fronts. By the end of 1942 over 50% of the Luftwaffe was no longer on the Eastern Front. That changed briefly during Kursk, then they went back West.
Penny for The Guy
Banned
Less Final Solution?
I seem to have read something about how the US entry into the war convinced Hitler the Jews weren't worth keeping as hostages, and proceeded with the Final Solution. If the US is not involved, Hitler might have put off that until later. Maybe not, if he was convince the US would stay out of the war.
I seem to have read something about how the US entry into the war convinced Hitler the Jews weren't worth keeping as hostages, and proceeded with the Final Solution. If the US is not involved, Hitler might have put off that until later. Maybe not, if he was convince the US would stay out of the war.
Last edited:
Martynn
Banned
AFAIK the Germans had 6300 aircraft in mid 1943 - of these only 2400 were on the Eastern Front. If I reall correctly the ratio of fighters was 1500 in the west/south and 600 in the east and 480 bombers in the west/south and 800 in the east.