How long would it have taken the British Empire and the Soviets to defeat the Nazis alone?

So in a alternate timeline, Japan's military junta falls apart for some reason (don't ask me to elaborate. It's not the point of this thread) and as a result, the US is never dragged into World War II in 1941, leaving the British Empire, the Free French and the Soviets alone to face the Nazis. The US is still supporting them through Lend-Lease, but they never send troops.

How long would it have taken for the Allies to beat the Nazis under these circumstances? Would the war extend past 1945?
 
So in a alternate timeline, Japan's military junta falls apart for some reason (don't ask me to elaborate. It's not the point of this thread) and as a result, the US is never dragged into World War II in 1941, leaving the British Empire, the Free French and the Soviets alone to face the Nazis. The US is still supporting them through Lend-Lease, but they never send troops.

How long would it have taken for the Allies to beat the Nazis under these circumstances? Would the war extend past 1945?

Problem is that simply not having the Japanese start the war in the Pacific would postpone US entry into the war in Europe, not avoid it. The US Navy was already in a de facto shooting war in the Atlantic and Doenitz was begging for the U-Boats to be allowed to operate in US coastal waters.
 

hammo1j

Donor
I would say victory is not a given, but Germany's odds 12/1. No US materiel 4/1.

Big question can Britain alone do D-Day in 44? How much German effort can it divert in Africa?

My guess D-Day May '45 with the end in late 45/early 46
 
I would say victory is not a given, but Germany's odds 12/1. No US materiel 4/1.

Big question can Britain alone do D-Day in 44? How much German effort can it divert in Africa?

My guess D-Day May '45 with the end in late 45/early 46
With Tube Alloys providing the Instant Sunshine Gotterdammerung.
 

hammo1j

Donor
Thanks for your response. I would probably guess that Tube Alloys would be some way to making a bomb but not quite there.There would be bad infiltration of the project by the soviets too.

Britain might save France and Benelux from Communism at most. Bomber command would have been defeated in the night bombing war, but may have switched to Mosquito based day raiders with escorts.

The cold war will be worse than OTL...
 
I would say victory is not a given, but Germany's odds 12/1. No US materiel 4/1.

Big question can Britain alone do D-Day in 44? How much German effort can it divert in Africa? ...

Britain will be forced to use Commonwealth forces in Europe, beyond the Canadians & what they deployed in Italy. They will also need to arm a new French army & other 'Allies' as the US did. Not sending as much assistance to the USSR helps this, but of course weakens the Red Army. The upside to that is the Red Army may not be assisting the implication of Socialism in eastern & central Europe.

Thanks for your response. I would probably guess that Tube Alloys would be some way to making a bomb but not quite there.There would be bad infiltration of the project by the soviets too. ...

If the Brits go straight for the Plutonium bomb, & avoid some of the other fast track inefficiencies of the US program they can save considerable costs of the two track US program. & if they avoid the eight months of delay 'thinking about it' they could start organizing it in late 1940, vs much later in 1941. Hypothetically its still possible for Britain to get to a breeder reactor and production of Plutonium bombs in 1945.
 
I actually think Germany wins because USSR quits by 1943 and Britain is broke by 44 and out of manpower. ANd no...zombie Indian legions are not invading Europe.
 
If the U.S. provides 'all aid short of war' than American equipment can be used to arm allied (French, Commonwealth, etc) troops. They can also continue with a Manhattan program maybe even on a more intensive track. they could still be involved in 'neutrality patrols' and escorting convoys in the Western Hemisphere. Without the second threat of Japan it frees a lot more assets up so when Hitler declares war there may not be a second 'Happy Time' along the Eastern Seaboard.

Even if Britain builds an atomic bomb they don't have an aircraft that can drop it safely. The Lancaster can't fly high enough to have time to escape the blast. So the U.S. is going to have to supply Washington B.1s to the RAF earlier or become involved in the air campaign if they want to employ atomic weapons.
 

hammo1j

Donor
If the Brits go straight for the Plutonium bomb, & avoid some of the other fast track inefficiencies of the US program they can save considerable costs of the two track US program. & if they avoid the eight months of delay 'thinking about it' they could start organizing it in late 1940, vs much later in 1941. Hypothetically its still possible for Britain to get to a breeder reactor and production of Plutonium bombs in 1945

Yes, I suppose it would be possible, but wasnt the tricky part building the exquisitely timed implosion lens? Or was the whole concept a stroke of genius?

Even if Britain builds an atomic bomb they don't have an aircraft that can drop it safely. The Lancaster can't fly high enough to have time to escape the blast. So the U.S. is going to have to supply Washington B.1s to the RAF earlier or become involved in the air campaign if they want to employ atomic weapons.

The Lincoln would be around by '44 with a longer thinner wing and able to make 10,000 m. A carefully prepared prototype would be able to fly the bomb to Germsny with mosquito escorts. It would have to be a night drop though.
 
Yes, I suppose it would be possible, but wasnt the tricky part building the exquisitely timed implosion lens? Or was the whole concept a stroke of genius?

LtCdr Parsons had Brit assistance on designing the shaped charges that impeled the Plutonium slugs. The US had a lot less experience with shaped charge behavior. Parsons had the power to bring together the top technicians for explosive mixing, detonator design, electrical circuits, capacitators, timers, barometric sensors, proximity sensor fuzes, One of the experts was a Polish explosives tech, come to the US Army by way of Britain. He was hijacked from the engineers designing the explosive charges to clear the obstacles on the Normandy beaches. His CO protested loudly, but a mystery project with a Presidential signature had priority.
 
Germany might last into 1946, but I wouldn't count on it.

As defined, we have lend-lease but no US-Germany war. This basically means that Germany quit the Battle of the Atlantic, and US lend-lease can reach Britain and the USSR relatively unhindered. British manpower limitations probably rule out a spring 1944 landing, but by spring 1945 the German position is probably so critical that little could be sent to oppose one.
 
Without Americans dictating where to fight, Churchill isnt doing a D-Day at Normandy. The British had always wanted to finish up Italy and go after Greece and the Balkans first. He's going North Africa, Sicily, Italy, the Balkans. He's going to allow the Soviets to bleed themselves against Germany in the North European Plains. The Soviets will weaken Germany enough for a much later assault by the British and Free French, perhaps along Mediterranean coast taking over Vichy first. The Soviets may have more territorial gains in Germany at the expense of less in the Balkans.
 
Even if Germany 'wins' on the Eastern Front, there's no way it's breaching the Royal Navy, Airforce, and Army to crush the UK outright. After that it's just a waiting game to see if Germany's economy inevitably fails before a UK morale falls far enough to finally make peace (although unless Germany somehow crushes the African front entirely, especially with the freed up Indian troops, the UK isn't going to lose much territory)
 
Honestly probably never. Even with L-L the US military was still necessary to actually put the kibosh on Nazi Germany+allies.
That is vastly underestimating the Soviet role in the war. While L-L was a vital part of the Soviet war economy, especially when it came to supplying Moscow with resources to better funnel its remaining industry into armaments, the vast majority of the war effort was on the USSR's soldiers.

80% of all German troops post-1941 were focused on the Eastern Front, along with the majority of Axis forces except Italy. The Allies didn't want to open a new front on Normandy until they were sure the Soviets wouldn't get overwhelmed and get those Axis troops reassigned to the West.

And even with 80% of Axis troops in the East, it was not enough to break the Russians. Oh sure, the Soviets caught hell (27M casualties including 13-15M civilians), but they did it. They broke the freaking Wehrmacht. What the US "broke" in Africa and France were the bare remnants Hitler could afford to put there as a safeguard, and even that was a struggle.

Admittedly, a considerable chunk of US forces were in the Pacific, but that was mostly the Marines. The main focus was still on the European theater.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

That is vastly underestimating the Soviet role in the war. While L-L was a vital part of the Soviet war economy, especially when it came to supplying Moscow with resources to better funnel its remaining industry into armaments, the vast majority of the war effort was on the USSR's soldiers.

80% of all German troops post-1941 were focused on the Eastern Front, along with the majority of Axis forces except Italy. The Allies didn't want to open a new front on Normandy until they were sure the Soviets wouldn't get overwhelmed and get those Axis troops reassigned to the West.

And even with 80% of Axis troops in the East, it was not enough to break the Russians. Oh sure, the Soviets caught hell (27M casualties including 13-15M civilians), but they did it. They broke the freaking Wehrmacht. What the US "broke" in Africa and France were the bare remnants Hitler could afford to put there as a safeguard, and even that was a struggle.

Admittedly, a considerable chunk of US forces were in the Pacific, but that was mostly the Marines. The main focus was still on the European theater.
No, I'm weighting their effort accurately. Soldiers are meaningless without the food or weapons for them to fight. You are underestimating the role of the US in providing vital shipping, air support, naval forces, and yes even ground troops to the equation.
Something like 75% of the German army in 1941, less every year after that on average. As of 1943 75% of the Luftwaffe's fighters were on the Western Front, 40% of all the Luftwaffe had been killed off in Tunisia in 6 months, 80% of the German navy fought in the west throughout the period of the Eastern Front was going on, and even in 1941 of the total Wehrmacht less than half were in the East and that proportion dropped every year.
https://www.feldgrau.com/WW2-Germany-Statistics-and-Numbers
In Wehrmacht Service*, 1941: 8,154,000+
*Includes Wehrmachgefolge - those considered armed forces auxiliaries and in the direct employement, assistance or aid of the Wehrmacht, but not considered part of the Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine or Waffen-SS. Inlcudes those from groups such as the RAD, NSKK, OT, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
That's for all Axis powers that participated in Barbarossa in June 1941, not just the Germans, who made up somewhere around 3.1 million men. Out of 8.1 million men in military service in 1941.

Of course you're leaving out the role of the UK in this, as they had inflicted over 2000 aircraft losses in 1940-41 just over Britain not counting what they did in France, the Mediterranean, or the Balkans. That also leaves out the role of the British in blockading Europe and effectively leaving it in famine as of 1940, while also shipping L-L to the USSR in 1941 before the US.

Then there is the role of the USAAF and RAF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_of_the_Reich#Defeat_(1945)

Don't forget the impact of bombing of industry, cities, and oil, not to mention transport, which ultimately collapsed the German economy.

Meanwhile on the Eastern Front:
http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.com/2012/04/eastern-front-aircraft-strength-and.html
loss rate.jpg


The USAAF alone destroyed 300% more Luftwaffe aircraft than the Soviets; with the historical exchange rates, if the Luftwaffe had been more present in the East Soviet losses would have been much worse from 1943 on. Since Soviet Deep Battle doctrine depended on air superiority if the Luftwaffe is present in the East in strength even with LL the Soviets aren't going to be pulling off their deep advances.
https://media.defense.gov/2017/Mar/...LD_BROWER_CANBY_AIRPOWER_MANEUVER_WARFARE.PDF
35. An interesting statistic is that 11 percent of German counterattacks were in the battle for the first position, 58 percent for the second, and 30 percent for the third position. Thus, about 89 percent of the counterattacks had to be repelled beyond the limits of the first position, that is, where the enemy reserves were not dependably neutralized by fire during the period of artillery preparation.


To evade the superior German fighters, minimize aircraft losses, and enable downed pilots to be rescued, the Red Air Force generally limited its attacks to within 10 kilometers of friendly lines,42 a method that had the further advantage of helping draw the enemy into antiaircraft fire traps. To the extent that 90 percent of Soviet aircraft downed during this period (the summer and autumn of 1941) were lost over Soviet territory, these tactics worked. 43 On the other hand, most German combat losses were caused by ground air defense.

42. Ten kilometers is not restrictive when considering the fact that the Russians were mostly concerned about protecting their own troops from the Luftwaffe and from the very beginning focused their ground attack upon the thrusting German tank pincers (often ignoring marching infantry). Ten kilometers could thus be from the deep flank as well as the front.
 
I also think that, if American was doing lend lease, US Entry into the war would've been inevitable, as submarine warfare was already happening. It is not hard to imagine Roosevelt baiting Hitler into sinking even a small warship, which would be instant causus belli for war.

If the US had been completely absent, then the war would've lasted a LOT longer.
 
I actually think Germany wins because USSR quits by 1943 and Britain is broke by 44 and out of manpower. ANd no...zombie Indian legions are not invading Europe.

Except that the Soviets can't quit. They are literally fighting against an invader who wants to exterminate them as a people.

Meanwhile, the Soviets pretty much did defeat the vast bulk of the German military on their own. By the time Lend Lease had an effect, the War was pretty much decided - it was only a question of how long.
 
UK finishes up North Africa and Algeria goes Free French.
They follow up with Sardinia/Corsica and Sicily eventually.
Greece or Norway becomes a slow “We’re still in the fight!” campaign until the artificial suns appear.
 
Top