Effects on WW2 in Europe w/ no Pacific theater

[Synecdoche]

The difference in this timeline is that Japan is not a part of the Axis, and doesn't start any wars after the Russo-Japanese War.

I'm wondering, from a military-strategic perspective, how would the unfolding of events occur in Europe during the ALT-WW2? I'm fairly certain that Germany will still initiate the war, and that after enough time has passed, the US will join the Allies.

Here are specific questions of mine, though any discussion about this timeline would be greatly appreciated:

When does Germany invade the USSR? Do they remain neutral for the entire war?

How does US not feeling (as) threatened in the Pacific impact their wartime decisions? Do they still aid the USSR as much as OTL? Does the Yalta conference go the same if the US doesn't need immediate Soviet help in the Pacific?

Finally, does the war effort speed up for the US since they don't have to send troops to the Pacific?

 

[CalBear]

Without the U.S. as a fully locked in participant?

Not going to be pretty. Lend-Lease is going to be less generous, especially to the Soviets. Not just because they are the "Commies", although that would remain a factor, but because the U.S. will not have switched over to a full war-time economy. The astounding industrial output that the United States generated during the war was not done by "9:00-5:00" 40 hour workweeks with regular strikes at contract time or by even the major spending permitted under the Two Oceans Navy Act. Lend-Lease allowed for 307 cargo ships to be provided, mostly to the UK, Over the course of WW II the U.S. produced 2,710 Liberty ships (a more or less throwaway design/wartime expedient) and 500+ of the somewhat more traditional, long service life, Victory ships. A good 40% of those were Lend-Leased to the UK or Russia, not to mention the number of U.S. flagged cargo ships used to carry Lend-Lease goods.

There is effectively zero chance that the British Commonwealth can, on its own, even manage to press an offensive into Italy, much less across the Channel. The logistics of it simply don't work. The Soviets will likely "win" in the East. Too many Soviets, too few Wehrmacht to maintain an offensive across the width of the Soviet Union, so the Reich is in a difficult position to actually outright defeat the Soviets. That said, the Red Army walked to Berlin wearing American shoes, wearing American made uniforms (or cloth produced in the U.S.) that was transported across 1,000 miles of Europe in Studebaker and Ford Trucks, communicated using literally MILLIONS of miles of copper wire made in the U.S., and fed, not just the Red Army, but a significant part of the Soviet population U.S. supplied food (if you take pretty much every able bodied man to fight, all the fuel to power tanks and war industries, a good number of able bodied women to work in the war industries, while simultaneously having some of the best growing land on the European Peninsula turned into a battle field for a few years, agricultural production is going to simply evaporate). At best the Soviet manage a Status Quo Antebellum armistice.

The longer the U.S. stays out, the harder it will be to defeat the Reich. If the U.S. isn't in the war by early 1944 (possibly last Fall of 1943), there is a not unreasonable chance that without some seriously idiotic provocation from the Reich (which is, of course, entirely possible Hitler was a Loon) the U.S. doesn't get involved. It is extremely unlikely that FDR runs for a 4th term, and both 1944 candidates will have almost certainly put themselves into a box regarding intervening in "another European War".

tl;dr - The Reich survives.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Without the U.S. as a fully locked in participant?

Sooner or later something would happen in the Atlantic that would force the US to formally join the war. The current situation before December 1941 wasn't tenable in the long run. Battles had already been fought, ships been sunk on both sides and men killed. I doubt things would have gone on as they were beyond mid 1942.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

The difference in this timeline is that Japan is not a part of the Axis, and doesn't start any wars after the Russo-Japanese War.

I'm wondering, from a military-strategic perspective, how would the unfolding of events occur in Europe during the ALT-WW2? I'm fairly certain that Germany will still initiate the war, and that after enough time has passed, the US will join the Allies.

Japan as a Axis partner had little effect on the decision of the German government 1939-1941. Japan was not officially a partner unit the Tripartite Pact was signed, & even with that it was a weak one.

Here are specific questions of mine, though any discussion about this timeline would be greatly appreciated:

When does Germany invade the USSR? Do they remain neutral for the entire war?

I can't see this changing. Hitler still makes his decision for war with the USSR in late 1940 & attacks as per OTL.

How does US not feeling (as) threatened in the Pacific impact their wartime decisions? Do they still aid the USSR as much as OTL?

Yes. War with Japan came relatively late in the game. The core US policy decisions were congealing 1938-1940, before Japan threatened French Indo China & got the attention of the US leaders. Until then the Cina lobby was being outspent by the Japan lobby, sanction over the China War were weak token actions. The US was transferring naval assets from the Paacific to the Atlantic as late as the first half of 1941. It was not until Japan went ahead with the occupation of all French Indo China, & went ahead with further offensive actions in China that the US leaders accepted war with Japan could happen soon. Until then such a war was a abstraction & seen as avoidable & not worth the cost. Decisions about supporting Britain and the USSR were taken with little reference to a future Pacific war before the summer of 1941.

Does the Yalta conference go the same if the US doesn't need immediate Soviet help in the Pacific?

The character of the conference would change.

Finally, does the war effort speed up for the US since they don't have to send troops to the Pacific?

In the short and long run yes. & its not the 'troops'. Its in the immense savings in cargo shipping. This alters dramatically the number of cargo ships available for supporting the war in Europe & Mediterranean.

The early foundations for US military mobilization were laid in 1938 in the Federal budget for 1939-1940. Industrial mobilization started in 1939-1940 with the influx of cash and orders from Britain, France, and many smaller nations. The cash up front policy did wonders for the US economy. The Neutrality or Maritime Exclusion Zone was established in the Atlantic, leading to the undeclared naval war between the US and Germany. In late 1940 US military mobilization took off. The 'concern' after the collapse of France caused a massive Naval construction and training program to start, and the US Army to be expanded from 280,000 men to 1,600,000 in a single year. The Lend Lease Act was conceived and planned out in the winter of 1940-41 & passed into law in March 1941, before Japans position was recognized for what it was.

So, the US was well positioned for war in Europe before Japan was seen as a true threat.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Sooner or later something would happen in the Atlantic that would force the US to formally join the war. The current situation before December 1941 wasn't tenable in the long run. Battles had already been fought, ships been sunk on both sides and men killed. I doubt things would have gone on as they were beyond mid 1942.

I'm a bit surprised it did not come sooner. Hitler had discussed a DoW on the US with his staff several times but took no action. He was angered over the US occupation of Iceland & establishment of a US naval base in what German policy considered a War Zone. The just started invasion of the USSR took his attention away from it, but had he been a little less focused that day... The US had a plan on the table for occupation of the Portuguese Azores. Had that been executed in the winter or spring of 1942 theses high odds Hitler would have declared war on the US. Other wise attacking more subs, taking German weathermen in Greenland prisoner, seizing German cargo ships in the western hemisphere, ect... could do it.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

Perhaps a few of the comments to this related question I posted some years ago may be of help? (Necro warning)

WWII Europe Only U.S. Navy

Assuming that the US & Japan never come to blows but that the US enters WWII in Europe (say, no later than the end of 1942), what do you envisage the US Navy's build program to look like? There were a lot of fleet carriers built (and planned) for the Pacific but I don't know if that would have...

www.alternatehistory.com