Cold War after WW2 w/o American Intervention

So the question has been asked quite consistently about what if America stayed neutral in WW2 but still gave Lend-Lease to the Allies and the response seems to be the Allies would've won the War in Europe (East Asia/Pacific too). My question is this : Without American Intervention, how far do the Soviets get as Germany collapses and from that Europe and a potentially stronger USSR, what does the Cold War look like? How much worse is the Red Scare? What will be the politics of the UK and USA going forward? Questions like these have been burning my mind and I would like to see what the thought process would be.
 
So the question has been asked quite consistently about what if America stayed neutral in WW2 but still gave Lend-Lease to the Allies and the response seems to be the Allies would've won the War in Europe (East Asia/Pacific too). My question is this : Without American Intervention, how far do the Soviets get as Germany collapses and from that Europe and a potentially stronger USSR, what does the Cold War look like? How much worse is the Red Scare? What will be the politics of the UK and USA going forward? Questions like these have been burning my mind and I would like to see what the thought process would be.
Difficult to see the URSS stronger, no american direct intervention mean just the commonwealth and the UK so we can not only decide what campaign we can butterfly away, Italy or D-Day but also the bombing campaign campaign will be diminished all that mean more resources for the estern front and while in the end the URSS can win, well it will be in a much worse state than OTL
 
Tbh i dont see the Soviets ever getting past the Rhine, if the nazis begin to loose too bad to the soviets they would redirect troops to the east and the western allies can just swoop in on the west, and i just doubt they could cross the rhine without an allied presence in France and such
 
Tbh i dont see the Soviets ever getting past the Rhine, if the nazis begin to loose too bad to the soviets they would redirect troops to the east and the western allies can just swoop in on the west,
Commonwealth troops aren't enough to do anything, they would even struggle to get the Axis out of Tunisia. A D-day invasion has no chance of succeeding and that's not counting the fact that Churchill was obsessed with the "soft underbelly". The Soviet may be delayed a bit on their path but the Germans have no way of stopping them, their position is simply hopeless.
and i just doubt they could cross the rhine without an allied presence in France and such
Why? The Soviets crossed a LOT of rivers on their way to Germany. Why would they not be able to do the same thing on the Rhine?
 
Last edited:
Answering OPs question, the USSR is likely to have a whole united Germany as part of their communist block alongside eastern and Central Europe given they would eventually defeat them but they wouldn't try for a communist Italy or France for instance but definitely would help the local partisans, combine that with more and more German and axis troops being thrown into the Soviet meat grinder, means the rest of allies can try their own smaller version of D-Day to liberate France and then do a negotiation with Italy to end the war, without the USA to mediate things, Allies can't deny Stalin the whole of Germany in exchange for not inspiring communists in Italy and France. Meanwhile they take their armies and go on to directly fight Japan and ensure Mao's guerrillas will win in China which sends Japan in panic mode allowing for the Brits to steadily push the Japanese out of Asia, given the US won't be there too, it means a United communist Korea and possibly communist Japan or at least, one defeated in their conquests and forced to the negotiation table.

USA would still have a very good but not as good economy as they had otl post ww2, so they would still be willing to ally and do their own version of the Marshall plan in Western Europe, plus with the atomic bomb project not being needed ASAP, it would have some effects on how exactly US anti communist policy would go
 

thaddeus

Donor
So the question has been asked quite consistently about what if America stayed neutral in WW2 but still gave Lend-Lease to the Allies and the response seems to be the Allies would've won the War in Europe (East Asia/Pacific too). My question is this : Without American Intervention, how far do the Soviets get as Germany collapses and from that Europe and a potentially stronger USSR, what does the Cold War look like? How much worse is the Red Scare? What will be the politics of the UK and USA going forward? Questions like these have been burning my mind and I would like to see what the thought process would be.

Difficult to see the URSS stronger, no american direct intervention mean just the commonwealth and the UK so we can not only decide what campaign we can butterfly away, Italy or D-Day but also the bombing campaign campaign will be diminished all that mean more resources for the estern front and while in the end the URSS can win, well it will be in a much worse state than OTL

cannot conjure up a scenario wherein the US opens the floodtide of L-L but does not enter the war? guess the US might remain out of the war if the Axis powers including Japan invade the USSR?
 
If the US doesn't enter the war does Russia get Lend Lease? And if Russia doesn't get LL how does that effect the eastern front? IIRC somewhere between a quarter and a third of the Red Army's food and fuel in '43 was coming from the US.

Seems to me that without pearl harbor and subsequent direct involvement in the war, there would be a sizable isolationalist faction that would be in favor of just letting the national socialists and the international socialists bleed eachother dry.
 
Why? The Soviets crossed a LOT of rivers on their way to Germany. Why would they not be able to do the same thing on the Rhine?
Because long before they cross the Rhine, they're invading the German heartland and most likely troops will be pulled out of France.
 
Because long before they cross the Rhine, they're invading the German heartland and most likely troops will be pulled out of France.
By that point I would like to remember you the Soviets had pretty much annihilated the Germans, you would have to successfully pull of D-day in the narrow window of time between when the Germans pull enough troops out of France and the Soviets come to liberate the area.
 
By that point I would like to remember you the Soviets had pretty much annihilated the Germans, you would have to successfully pull of D-day in the narrow window of time between when the Germans pull enough troops out of France and the Soviets come to liberate the area.
I'd say they already pull out troops when the Soviets are at the gates of Berlin. Probably even sooner.
 
I'd say they already pull out troops when the Soviets are at the gates of Berlin. Probably even sooner.
If they reach Berlin and that's not a given, no USAAF mean less efficient bomber campaign and this mean more resources for Germany, no considering that just diverting the force for OTL battle of the Bulge wil give the German a real needed shoot in the arms. Sure that in the end the Nazist will lose but in OTL the URSS payed an enormous price and ITTL that price will be even higher
 
Top