Democracies beating the Nazis

Had Hitler decided that a two front war was not in his interests but had somehow still ended up at war with the US as well as the UK what would have happeend.

My guess is that, even with supplies from Stalin, Hitler would eventually have lost.

Britain would have suffered much more bombing and a more intensive U Boat war but that US + UK industry would have been decisive.

I also think that the murder of Roma and Jewish people would not have reached the industrial scale it did in OTL..


I do not see that the Atomic Bomb would have been usable unless the West developed a V2 equivalant simply becaase air superiority, let alon air supremacy woudl have been so much harder to achieve.

I assume that a lot more British and American Service peopel woudl die but not on the scale of death that happened in the USSR in otl.


If I am correct about the broad thrust of events at what point would Stalin have chagned policy?

How long does the war last?

What consequences does it have?

Does the US beomce even more isolationist than in the aftermath of WW1. As comparred to OTL there would have been a lot more dead Americans and probably there woudl not be quite the horrors to show justifying it
 
How does Hitler lose if he's written off a war in the East for the foreseeable future? All of his resources can be thrown at Britain and its empire.
 
How does Hitler lose if he's written off a war in the East for the foreseeable future? All of his resources can be thrown at Britain and its empire.

Not all his resources, he'll still need to keep sizeable forces in the east. America and Britain easily outproduce Germany so it's only a matter of time until Germany is defeated, although it will probably take atomic bombs.
 
Not all his resources, he'll still need to keep sizeable forces in the east. America and Britain easily outproduce Germany so it's only a matter of time until Germany is defeated, although it will probably take atomic bombs.

It is in fact far worse. Stalin could back-stab the Reich after a couple of years, watching Germany pissing away blood & money on an unwinnable air & naval war.

Hell, even if Stalin pulls a Sweden by simply staying neutral and trading with Germany. The Nazis still lose the air-war and get nuked.
 
It is in fact far worse. Stalin could back-stab the Reich after a couple of years, watching Germany pissing away blood & money on an unwinnable air & naval war.

Hell, even if Stalin pulls a Sweden by simply staying neutral and trading with Germany. The Nazis still lose the air-war and get nuked.

Cue a Cold War with the Iron Curtian running through the middle of Poland. THat's an improvement.

Mmm, would the Soviet Union still be offered a seat in the Security Council of the UN?

After all they were nominally allies of Nazi Germany. And as you said, probably made good money trading with them thoughout the war.
 
It is in fact far worse. Stalin could back-stab the Reich after a couple of years, watching Germany pissing away blood & money on an unwinnable air & naval war.

Hell, even if Stalin pulls a Sweden by simply staying neutral and trading with Germany. The Nazis still lose the air-war and get nuked.

Oh of course, and Hitler's going to need to be paying for the materials and resources he gained from the Soviets earlier on. The war would realistically end around early 1944 when the Soviets storm eastern Europe in 1943.
 
Had Hitler decided that a two front war was not in his interests but had somehow still ended up at war with the US as well as the UK what would have happeend.

My guess is that, even with supplies from Stalin, Hitler would eventually have lost.

Britain would have suffered much more bombing and a more intensive U Boat war but that US + UK industry would have been decisive.

I also think that the murder of Roma and Jewish people would not have reached the industrial scale it did in OTL..


I do not see that the Atomic Bomb would have been usable unless the West developed a V2 equivalant simply becaase air superiority, let alon air supremacy woudl have been so much harder to achieve.

I assume that a lot more British and American Service peopel woudl die but not on the scale of death that happened in the USSR in otl.


If I am correct about the broad thrust of events at what point would Stalin have chagned policy?

How long does the war last?

What consequences does it have?

Does the US beomce even more isolationist than in the aftermath of WW1. As comparred to OTL there would have been a lot more dead Americans and probably there woudl not be quite the horrors to show justifying it

With no war in the east the Western Allies have absolutely no chance of winning the war.

Even if they win the Battle of the Atlantic and liberate NA and even by some miracle manage to keep up the bomber offensive - any attempt of an invasion of the fortress Europe would be suicide.

And the whole Nuke thing is silly. The nukes were ready by mid 45 - that would be 4 years of war for the west - even if they dont loose the losses will be so enourmous that they come begging for peace.
 
Had Hitler decided that a two front war was not in his interests but had somehow still ended up at war with the US as well as the UK what would have happeend.

My guess is that, even with supplies from Stalin, Hitler would eventually have lost.

Britain would have suffered much more bombing and a more intensive U Boat war but that US + UK industry would have been decisive.

I also think that the murder of Roma and Jewish people would not have reached the industrial scale it did in OTL..


I do not see that the Atomic Bomb would have been usable unless the West developed a V2 equivalant simply becaase air superiority, let alon air supremacy woudl have been so much harder to achieve.

I assume that a lot more British and American Service peopel woudl die but not on the scale of death that happened in the USSR in otl.


If I am correct about the broad thrust of events at what point would Stalin have chagned policy?

How long does the war last?

What consequences does it have?

Does the US beomce even more isolationist than in the aftermath of WW1. As comparred to OTL there would have been a lot more dead Americans and probably there woudl not be quite the horrors to show justifying it


1) At least the Russian jews should be save ( but under Stalin you are never truely save)

2) Can#t see the allies winning, while loosing the Air War. Without an Eastern front Germany should be able to crush any bridgehead before the Alllies get enough troops on the ground.

3) Atomic bombs should still be able to get a bomber through to drop a nuke, even if losing the Air War.
 
Cue a Cold War with the Iron Curtian running through the middle of Poland. THat's an improvement.

Mmm, would the Soviet Union still be offered a seat in the Security Council of the UN?

After all they were nominally allies of Nazi Germany. And as you said, probably made good money trading with them thoughout the war.

They weren't allied for a start. Even co-belligerency vis-a-vis Poland is a stretch,, also while war-profiteering isnt pretty but it's a time honored tradiation in Eurpoe. Many people will think Stalin was a canny diplomat by enabling his county to stay out of WW2 and make money at the same time. So I doubt that will be a major diplomatic factor.

The UN likely wont exist, we don't know how post-war Europe stands. That depends on if the Soviets remain passive and when the Allies win.

I would expect the Soviets to be more active in China and the Far-East if anywhere. Also their not being devastated by war will have monumental demographic and economic benefits for the U.S.S.R in the long-term.

Oh of course, and Hitler's going to need to be paying for the materials and resources he gained from the Soviets earlier on. The war would realistically end around early 1944 when the Soviets storm eastern Europe in 1943.
Heh, the Germans will run out of money long before 1943, unless Stalin is willing to put things ''on tab'' so to speak.

With no war in the east the Western Allies have absolutely no chance of winning the war.

Even if they win the Battle of the Atlantic and liberate NA and even by some miracle manage to keep up the bomber offensive - any attempt of an invasion of the fortress Europe would be suicide.

And the whole Nuke thing is silly. The nukes were ready by mid 45 - that would be 4 years of war for the west - even if they dont loose the losses will be so enourmous that they come begging for peace.

Well the Germans cannot keep up with British aircraft production alone, without inordinate expenditure of raw materials & spamming obsolescent designs. The same is true in the Atlantic. The Germans will be squeezed in secondary fronts such as North Africa. Germnan losses will therefore be much higher than Allied losses overall and without the Eastren Front I'd expect Allied landings in places like Norway to cut off Swedish iron ore supplies.
 
Last edited:
Top