Germany vs The Soviet union - One on one

The problem with a 1939 war between Germany and the USSR is that France and Britain will jump in the war over Poland, so that's a no go. Staying neutral in that is impossible for them politically. Really the only viable "one on one", which really means Germany+vassals, just no British or US belligerency, is after Germany has conquered Europe in 1940 and Britain is knocked out of the war via diplomacy (Churchill would have to be dead for that to be an option, which probably means the torpedoing of the Nelson in 1939 works and he dies as the ship sinks) after the Fall of France. Post-peace Britain is not going to be rejoining the war due to the Axis pact and the Quit India movement meaning a renewed British war would happen without India. And Britain would lack LL to sustain a war effort if they quit in 1940. After peace Germany has access to France's $3 Billion in gold reserves stashed all around the world, same with Belgium and the Netherlands, plus their colonial resources. Trade with the US is still going to happen in that case because the US cannot afford to totally relinquish the European trade market, which Germany would dominate post-war. Britain would not be able to make up for the shortfall and the approved military spending in 1940-41 wasn't enough to make up for it either. No LL also means no major stimulus for US industry that tided them over IOTL until the US entered the war. So they need Europe and Germany would be able to buy. Thanks to American companies making US designs in Europe (Opel) Germany could buy up a bunch of Ford trucks from the US in preparation for Barbarossa and have all the common spare parts already being made in Germany (plus be able to buy more from the US), which would make a huge difference in the East, as they'd have a lot of four wheel drive trucks. Even things like being able to buy or loot oil from the DEI would be hugely helpful, as they wouldn't need to invest in synthetic oil production or synthetic rubber. And they could buy up US made agricultural equipment to free up manpower from farming.
On the no UK & France DOW over Poland bit, the POD would probably have to be Hitler not annexing Bohemia in March 1939. Leaving it nominally independent even though with a client regime would have left Appeasement as still viable while rearming went on. IF Poland still grabbed Teschen (sic) defending it would have been less popular than iOTL. While letting the Nazis and Siviets fight it out would have its attractions. Implausible though I agree.

I'm not so sure that any plausible Peace Treaty in June-July 1940 would give Nazi Germany free access to all the FX and gold reserves of western Europe. Let alone enough to buy everything it needs from the US or British Empire to improve its logistics on the scale you envisage. Still, it would be worth finding (or devising if I could) an economic model to simulate the possiblities open to Germany with a rational strategy for organizing European production.
 
Which means the US and UK have to trade with Germany, because they now dominate the European market and there is no way that either could survive without European trade.

Despite the fact that the US and UK did just that...

then the Germans can still source from neutrals and conquered European states' colonies.

So not a 1v1 Nazis vs Soviet scenario.
 
The only scenario that is remotely viable for the 1v1 between the Nazis and Soviets has to be where the West is neutralized. Which means OTL 1940, but Britain quits in July. That ends the blockade and the world economy tries to go back to peace time trade. Which means the US and UK have to trade with Germany, because they now dominate the European market and there is no way that either could survive without European trade. If they are willing to tank their economies over sanctions, an act of war and probably violation of the agreement between Germany and the UK, then the Germans can still source from neutrals and conquered European states' colonies.
I really don't think either the UK or US have to trade so much with Europe as you think. But if they do it will be in ways that don't help the Nazis as much as you expect. For instance Britain would want to import eggs, dairy produce and bacon from the Netherlands and Denmark. Paying for it with coal that these countries and others needed to run their industries. (Italy and France relied on British coal IIRC.) For that matter the Netjerlands and Denmark needed to import concentrated feedstuffs, probably from S. America or the US? But this is food that the German army needs for Barbarossa or to feed slave workers in its factories. Would there be a deal or not? The Germans could simply pay cash for coal but for how long?

Nazi Germany actually tried to cut itself off from world trade, partly as it wasn't the export machine West Germany came so had BoP constraints, and partly ideologically. While both the UK and US did trade with Western Europe, this trade wasn't essential to either. The UK could source everything it needed from the Empire or other Sterling zone countries (Argentina), with no U-boat threat. The US simply wasn't dependent on exports, hence the Smoot-Hawley tariff. So neither's economy will tank if it doesn't trade with Nazi Europa and refusal to allow trade on German terms is unlikely to be a cause for renewal of conflict with the UK. Something that would just plunge Germany back into a two front war that it can't win anyway.

Still, since Britain (rightly) didn't feel it had to surrender in June 1940, and barring a collapse of morale wouldn't, we'll never know.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The only scenario that is remotely viable for the 1v1 between the Nazis and Soviets has to be where the West is neutralized. Which means OTL 1940, but Britain quits in July. That ends the blockade and the world economy tries to go back to peace time trade. Which means the US and UK have to trade with Germany, because they now dominate the European market and there is no way that either could survive without European trade. If they are willing to tank their economies over sanctions, an act of war and probably violation of the agreement between Germany and the UK, then the Germans can still source from neutrals and conquered European states' colonies.
Does it mean neutral? Or does it mean something else?

The U.S. wouldn't sell helium to Germany. Period. Not because of the very real chance of war in 1939, just flat refused to sell it to them (refused to sell it to most countries) and had done so for decades. During the Cold War the U.S. flat refused to sell numerous high tech equipment to the Soviets, still refuses to do so today with the Russian Federation, although the list is shorter. It is, quite literally, a crime to even attempt to do so. There are entire lists of products that can not be sold to different countries, not just purely military but "dual-use" equipment. If there is a deal that prevents the UK from deciding not to export to Germany, or any other country, in 1940 it has to be part of a British SURRENDER. Otherwise the UK would not give up that sort of economic independence. Germany, absent a whole big formation of butterflies not mentioned to date, is not going to be able to defeat and impose terms on the UK.

In 1940 there is no global trade agreement, no open market system at all. The U.S. or UK can pass a law that makes it illegal for a U.S. or British flagged vessel to enter ports in or controlled by country "X" and the only two options that country "X" has is to: A) retaliate in kind or B) go to war. The UK/Commonwealth and U.S. (along with Norway, whose shipping has fled to the UK & U.S.) control somewhere north of 3/4 of the PLANET's total tonnage. If these ships are forbidden by law from enter a Reich controlled post the only option for Berlin is harsh alnguage or war. If the UK chooses not to provide materials to Germany, that is business and politics. The Germans can go elsewhere but the number of countries that are not British Empire/Commonwealth/U.S. with vital materials is very low, in some case there are NO sources besides those under control of the Anglo-Americans (Japanese figured that out rather quickly in the case of oil).
 

Deleted member 1487

Despite the fact that the US and UK did just that...
Temporarily in wartime with rationing and stimulus on war spending, sure. In peacetime though with normalizing trade relations? Not so much.

So not a 1v1 Nazis vs Soviet scenario.
That is an ASB scenario assuming a 1v1, as we'd have to pretend the rest of the world didn't exist. In practical real world terms of what was possible to get a Nazi vs. Soviet war without any outside major power participating it would be a victorious Germany in 1940 then fighting the USSR in 1941 without Britain or the US involved beyond selling to the USSR. Germany would have conquered Europe at its disposal.
 

Deleted member 1487

Does it mean neutral? Or does it mean something else?

The U.S. wouldn't sell helium to Germany. Period. Not because of the very real chance of war in 1939, just flat refused to sell it to them (refused to sell it to most countries) and had done so for decades. During the Cold War the U.S. flat refused to sell numerous high tech equipment to the Soviets, still refuses to do so today with the Russian Federation, although the list is shorter. It is, quite literally, a crime to even attempt to do so. There are entire lists of products that can not be sold to different countries, not just purely military but "dual-use" equipment. If there is a deal that prevents the UK from deciding not to export to Germany, or any other country, in 1940 it has to be part of a British SURRENDER. Otherwise the UK would not give up that sort of economic independence. Germany, absent a whole big formation of butterflies not mentioned to date, is not going to be able to defeat and impose terms on the UK.

In 1940 there is no global trade agreement, no open market system at all. The U.S. or UK can pass a law that makes it illegal for a U.S. or British flagged vessel to enter ports in or controlled by country "X" and the only two options that country "X" has is to: A) retaliate in kind or B) go to war. The UK/Commonwealth and U.S. (along with Norway, whose shipping has fled to the UK & U.S.) control somewhere north of 3/4 of the PLANET's total tonnage. If these ships are forbidden by law from enter a Reich controlled post the only option for Berlin is harsh alnguage or war. If the UK chooses not to provide materials to Germany, that is business and politics. The Germans can go elsewhere but the number of countries that are not British Empire/Commonwealth/U.S. with vital materials is very low, in some case there are NO sources besides those under control of the Anglo-Americans (Japanese figured that out rather quickly in the case of oil).
Helium wasn't sold because it was considered a strategic resource and AFAIK they weren't selling to anyone. Instead they stockpiled it. I'm sure the US would ban the sale of military weapons to Germany and have some minor embargoes like they had against Japan pre-Indochina invasion. Germany would have symbolic tit-for-tat versions that wouldn't make much of a difference to the US. Britain could have similar embargos in terms of military stuff, but a full on embargo like they did to Japan in 1941 would probably be written into the peace as an act of war like was written into the Israeli deals with Egypt prior to 1967. Also Britain couldn't do that, because it needed trade with the continent in peacetime otherwise it's economy could not function and with Berlin controlling the continent embargoing Germany entirely would mean a full scale continental retaliation, which means British economic collapse. I'm sure you could have tariffs, but given that Germany would have control over the continent's trade policy as part of the formal deals it was working out with the defeated continentals, then all trade negotiations then would run through Berlin, like it was the modern EU. So while you're theoretically right that anyone could do anything, the consequences for doing so would be highly problematic economically for Britain or the US.
 
Britain could have similar embargos in terms of military stuff, but a full on embargo like they did to Japan in 1941 would probably be written into the peace as an act of war like was written into the Israeli deals with Egypt prior to 1967.

The only conceivable peace deal the British would take is a Peace of Amiens type of deal. They are not going to accept any kind of peace which has any kind of actual terms in it beyond "we'll stop shooting at you for now" and maybe a prisoner swap. But that's it. The moment the Germans try to make the British do anything more, they walk out of negotiations.

Temporarily in wartime with rationing and stimulus on war spending, sure. In peacetime though with normalizing trade relations? Not so much.

Which is pretty much what will happen, in the case of Britain. And neither are going to normalize their trade relations with Nazi Germany. Too much anti-fascism.

That is an ASB scenario assuming a 1v1, as we'd have to pretend the rest of the world didn't exist. In practical real world terms of what was possible to get a Nazi vs. Soviet war without any outside major power participating it would be a victorious Germany in 1940 then fighting the USSR in 1941 without Britain or the US involved beyond selling to the USSR. Germany would have conquered Europe at its disposal.

Leaving aside that this still is not a sure-fire German (or Soviet one, for that matter) victory, that's nonsense. One can postulate easily a scenario where the Anglo-French let Poland hang (maybe Hitler doesn't tear up Munich) and Hitler moves on to the USSR next. It's not remotely likely (Hitler is more liable to turn around and attack Framce anyways), but it's conceivable.

Also Britain couldn't do that, because it needed trade with the continent in peacetime otherwise it's economy could not function and with Berlin controlling the continent embargoing Germany entirely would mean a full scale continental retaliation, which means British economic collapse.

No. All it needs is the support of the United States. Which it certainly has.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The only conceivable peace deal the British would take is a Peace of Amiens type of deal. They are not going to accept any kind of peace which has any kind of actual terms in it beyond "we'll stop shooting at you for now" and maybe a prisoner swap. But that's it. The moment the Germans try to make the British do anything more, they walk out of negotiations.
Not necessarily. A Cold War mentality could develop, with Britain waiting for a chance to take advantage of a situation like a Soviet-Nazi war. Of course the British have a problem, the Axis Pact signed after the likely peace date, which would mean a war in which Britain started against Germany would necessarily trigger Italian and Japanese attacks on her. Plus there is the India problem. The Quit India movement is going to mean any Indian help in a renewed war won't happen. And there are the issues of British finance. So while the desire for future war at a favorable opportunity may be there, there isn't the means to restart the war really. As to terms, both Churchill and Halifax when discussion the issue in May 1940 said they wouldn't accept reparations or anything that limited British rearmament, but would consider giving Germany back some of her pre-1918 colonies. Based on that they'd pretty much accept German domination of the continent so long as the British didn't have to do more than exchange PoWs and perhaps kick out governments in exile. It seemed that was what Hitler was looking for too, as he was hoping for a White Peace with Britain, not reparations, major colonial gains, or military restrictions. Just a recognition of the German domination of the continent, perhaps the return of some of the Imperial German colonies and perhaps some bones tossed to Italy. So the peace was feasible, British reentry though would be tough to work out.

Which is pretty much what will happen, in the case of Britain. And neither are going to normalize their trade relations with Nazi Germany. Too much anti-fascism.
They don't really have a choice if they want a functioning economy. Trade with the continent was non-negotiable, because trade relations with the US weren't good enough, nor were the colonies enough to sustain them. Pre-war the Brits were fighting a trade war with Germany over the Balkans and Baltic states because British exports needed buyers to avoid a recession. Their finances after the 1939-40 war will be even worse and if they want to rearm they will need European trade to have enough of a functioning economy to raise funds to make it happen.

Leaving aside that this still is not a sure-fire German (or Soviet one, for that matter) victory, that's nonsense. One can postulate easily a scenario where the Anglo-French let Poland hang (maybe Hitler doesn't tear up Munich) and Hitler moves on to the USSR next. It's not remotely likely (Hitler is more liable to turn around and attack Framce anyways), but it's conceivable.
Actually no, not with OTL France-Britain and lead up to the Polish conflict. Even if they let Poland hang and the Allied politicians avoided lynching in the streets, they'd have to join sooner or later if the Soviets looked in danger of falling apart, which isn't a Nazi-Soviet war really. Same if the Soviets start looking like they'll invade Germany. There is no way the Britain and France would stay neutral in a Nazi-Soviet war in the long run.

No. All it needs is the support of the United States. Which it certainly has.
Not really. Pre-1940 the US was out for itself and was competing hard with Britain for market access. They couldn't even agree on a policy toward the Nazis leading up the war in 1939. The US has no interest in bankrolling the British economy in peacetime, they didn't really do it that much post-WW2 other than give a loan to ensure they got paid back for WW2 LL and loans. The US economy wasn't really stable enough without European and Chinese trade to subsidize Britain except when they had the temporary political will to make loans to her; Britain knew that running an economy on American loans was not a via medium or long term strategy (as the German economy during from 1929 on showed) and it would mean being totally beholden to the US and their demands of effectively ending the empire via ending Imperial preference (which meant British goods got preference in the colonies and commonwealth). I'm sure they could get FDR to grant them most favored nation trading status, but that isn't enough to survive on without European trade; the existing British trade network was dependent on European markets in addition to their colonies and the Commonwealth and could not exist without Europe. Hell the loss of German trade post-WW1 and WW2 was very bad for the British economy and a big part of the rebuilding and ending of industrial dismantlement of Germany post-WW2 was to keep the French and British economies from falling into Depression.
 
As to terms, both Churchill and Halifax when discussion the issue in May 1940 said they wouldn't accept reparations or anything that limited British rearmament, but would consider giving Germany back some of her pre-1918 colonies.

They specifically ruled out anything which would (and I quote) "abrogate British independence". So clauses kicking out the governments-in-exile and requiring trade with minimal restrictions are both no goes as those abrogate British independence in foreign and trade policy (respectively).

So the peace was feasible, British reentry though would be tough to work out.

But hardly impossible. Which is really my point: you treat things that might happen and favor the Germans as inevitable, while completely treating the things which could also happen and not favor the Germans (like the British re-entering or the Soviets handling the invasion better) as impossible. When they hardly aren't.

Actually no, not with OTL France-Britain and lead up to the Polish conflict.

Agreed, actually. Which is why you would have to alter the lead up to the Polish conflict. My thinking was that Hitler doesn't rip up the Munich agreement by dismembering Czechoslovakia, instead quietly installing a client government as a fop to western opinion, and instead turns to Poland after spending the spring lulling the west into a false sense of security.

they'd have to join sooner or later if the Soviets looked in danger of falling apart, which isn't a Nazi-Soviet war really. Same if the Soviets start looking like they'll invade Germany.

By the time the Anglo-French deign attack Germany, one side or the other would have basically already lost and thus the German-Soviet war would have essentially been concluded. Then it either becomes an Anglo-French vs German war or the Anglo-French just occupying a large section of Germany as a buffer against the Soviets. Either way, the condition of a German-Soviet 1v1 war with a victor would have been fulfilled, in spirit if not in name.

Pre-1940 the US was out for itself and was competing hard with Britain for market access.

US policy from September 1939 onwards was consistently anti-German and pro-British. Their going to be far more inclined to trade with Britain then they are with Nazi dominated Europe.
 
Last edited:

tenthring

Banned
There is no way you replicate the first few weeks of Barbarossa's success without the element of surprise.
 
They specifically ruled out anything which would (and I quote) "abrogate British independence". So clauses kicking out the governments-in-exile and [requiring trade with minimal restrictions] are both no goes as those abrogate British independence in foreign and trade policy (respectively).! ,M!


Agreed, actually. Which is why you would have to alter the lead up to the Polish conflict. My thinking was that Hitler doesn't rip up the Munich agreement by dismembering Czechoslovakia, instead quietly installing a client government as a fop to western opinion, and instead turns to Poland after spending the spring lulling the west into a false sense of security.


By the time the Anglo-French deign attack Germany, one side or the other would have basically already lost and thus the German-Soviet war would have essentially been concluded. Then it either becomes an Anglo-French vs German war or the Anglo-French just occupying a large section of Germany as a buffer against the Soviets. Either way, the condition of a German-Soviet 1v1 war with a victor would have been fulfilled, in spirit if not in name.

US policy from September 1939 onwards was consistently anti-German and pro-British. Their going to be far more inclined to trade with Britain then they are with Nazi dominated Europe.
I agree with nearly all these points. It's remotely possible that a demoralized UK under a weak leader could concede a lot for peace in July 1940 after the Fall of France but anything that gives the Nazis a real economic boost is very unlikely. The British thought that they were still economically superior to Greater Germany alone (and counting the Empire they were right) and didn't need more than a Peace of Amiens type ceasefire to rearm. So anything that helped the Germans exploit the rest of Europe more effectively would have been a big ask in genuine negotiations. Wiking seems to think Germany could simply dictate what terms it wants, which is unlikely even in July 1940 and ASB implausible with any peace agreed later. A deal in late 1940 or early 1941 on the basis of Germany withdrawing from much of Western Europe but retaining the Germanic lands taken from it in Versailles is more plausible, but still unlikely. In such a deal its economy could benefit from external trade but it wouldn't be able to loot Western Europe.

Regarding the guarantee to Poland, your POD is plausible IMHO. While popular opinion in Britain and France was beginning to see war as inevitable, it was the annexation of the Czech lands that was the tipping point for Chamberlain and the establishments in both states. A client state would have enabled them to pretend Hitler was still seeking only the reversal of Versailles, something that was acceptable given the Revisionist historians viewpoint of WWI. Should a Nazi-Soviet war thus result in 1939 or 1940 they could well have stood on the sidelines for as long as possible before stabbing Germany in the back at the appropriate time. Not certain but plausible and as they rearmed Hitler would have needed to keep ever larger forces watching them.

U.S. Policy was anti-Nazi and pro-British to an extent, but anti the Empire. But I agree it would still have restricted trade with Germany post a peace deal. An oil embargo on a combatant nation (as Germany would be once it attacked the USSR) is consistent with US policy and other strategic goods are likely to be embargoed also.
 
Top