Deleted member 1487
That is a dumb meme that is uncritically repeated, with people seeming to think WW2 was no different than the Napoleonic Wars. It was not an option to reenter once they leave because for one thing India will be demanding immediate independence and will not reenter the war, without which Britain could not fight a war, plus they'd have serious financial issues (they ran out of foreign exchange by January 1941 IOTL), while the Axis Pact would mean declaring war on Germany mean declaring war on Japan and Italy, which Britain would not do. There is no reasonable chance to restart a war, given that to save currency they'd need to rely on imperial resources to rebuild and it would take until 1942 to do so, as IOTL that is about how long it took for the BEF to rebuild, retrain, and expand after Dunkirk with full on war spending to bankruptcy AND Lend-Lease support. It isn't in Britain interest to see Germany defeat the USSR, but they aren't going to be in a position to stop them if they exit the war, something Churchill realized, which is why he didn't want to make a deal in 1940. The Brits on their own aren't going to be able to just role in and seize Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, etc. that's crazy, they required US entry into the war and the full conquest of Africa first to do that in 1943 IOTL. They never got Rhodes either or Crete prior to the Germans pulling out of the region. Frankly it is beyond silly to even suggest that. A lot of practical realities keep Britain out of the war once they drop out.Just thought that I should mention that, in this scenario, Britain will be just waiting, poised to restart the war against Germany as soon as a reasonable chance of success appears. It is not in Britain's interest to see Germany dominate the continent, nor the Soviets doing the same. Plans to seize Crete, Sicily, Rhodes, Sardinia and Corsica will be put into effect at the earliest possible opportunity. Forces from the (British) Home Islands, Commonwealth and Empire will be put together in southern England, awaiting the possibility of a landing in France.
It really isn't possible to have a German-Soviet one-on-on indefinitely. An interesting scenario nevertheless.
Voted 'maybe' because the situation of the USSR could become so bad ITTL that a political collapse occurs, especially if Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad were all lost and held by Germany. Militarily, the Soviets can simply continue to withdraw until the Germans outpace their supply lines - politically, they are more fragile.
The Soviets also cannot simply continue to withdraw; the Germans getting to the Volga and moving into the Caucasus red lined their economy and food supply even with increasing Lend-Lease support; had they not won at Stalingrad and liberated the Caucasus and East Ukraine in Winter 1942-43 they'd fall into a famine that would kill most of their working population; as it was they had millions of deaths due to famine in 1943-44 even after liberation of Ukraine and increased LL to levels undreamed of in 1942. So Soviet collapse just on material grounds is inevitable if they don't hold the Kuban and East Ukraine even with LL.