How would a British and Soviet only war against Germany go

Say pearl harbor doesn't happen and the US doesn't join world war 2

How would a British and Soviet war against Germany go

Would US still send land-lease to the Soviet Union

Could Britain push the axis out of north Africa and invade Europe
 
1)The war would be bloodier and longer
2)The Soviet Union would probably still win against Germany but it would be more difficoult
On one hand it is unlikely that the United States would help them, on the other Hitler is still Hitler, meaning that he would still make the same mistakes as OTL ( like repleacing competent generals at any moment, formulating suicidal strategies and diving his forces on more fronts) and the Soviet simply have more manpower
3)Either Hitler gets overtrown and the new government asks for pace or the soviets overrun Germany and most of Europe ends under their controll
4)The lack of american intervention also means that the sun never really sets on the british empire because unlike OTL they don't have reasons to decolonaise
 

Deleted member 1487

Arguably the BotA ends sooner, because the Germans remain restricted in where they can engage in the Atlantic and escort resource concentration on British convoys, plus no wide open American hunting waters in early 1942, means the Uboats effectively cannot engage convoys effectively by 1942 on the North Atlantic route. Britain by itself cannot invade Vichy North Africa without provoking war with the French, so it is highly unlikely that they even bother. Instead Monty gets resources, but Rommel gets reinforced against and saved from total defeat once again, so fighting in Libya continues into 1943 and Italy avoids invasion. The Mediterranean stays closed. Malta probably doesn't because the threat of OTL 1943 due to lack of US air and naval forces to supplement it and the lack of a Algerian front. Plus also perhaps no 'land link' with nearby Libyan territory to Malta to strengthen it and allow Force K to operate from it again.

Without the US strategic air war from August 1942 and on the Luftwaffe can focus more fighters in Russia, which is a big problem for the Soviets, while they can also invest more in night fighters to shut down the RAF. The Axis have a lot more resources going into 1943 without the US help in the Mediterranean leading to the disaster in Tunisia both on land and in the air. Italy stays in the war on the Axis side and remains uninvaded for a lot time if not entirely during the war, which is a huge help for the Germans, as they lost a lot of manpower replacing Italian forces all around the Mediterranean when they defected...and when they kept suffering disasters in Italy.

In the East this may well not prevent Stalingrad and the resulting German retreat in late 1942...but given no US in the war, one of the most important reasons for the campaign in the Caucasus is gone. Case Blue as it understand it may well not happen and if it does it probably stays in it's phased form, which prevents OTL encirclement. So a lot of butterflies there potentially. Assuming that there is functionally no change in how the East plays out in 1942-early 1943 then by Summer 1943 the Germans have a ton more resources to use in the East than IOTL due to no major disasters in the Mediterranean (other than the retreat from Egypt) and the continuing see-saw action there. Italy pulls out resources from the East, but can really now focus on the situation in Libya better thanks to no Eastern commitments. Kursk ITTL is an even bigger mess due to the Germans not needing to retreat and having significantly more resources to throw at the Soviets. Ukraine may well not be liberated in 1943 even if the Soviets are advancing in Belarus. If that happens the Soviets run into a serious manpower crunch come 1944 due to lacking the 4 million men they conscripted in Ukraine and other liberated territories in the 2nd half of 1943-1944. Weaker Soviets, plus more German manpower and material due to no US entry then really hurts the Soviet ability to advance potentially turning the Eastern Front into a stalemate in 1943-44 and opens the chance of a negotiated peace deal.

Britain lacks the ability to do much even with expanded LL due to manpower constraints and the situation potentially in Asia (not to mention the Indian nationalist movement) with all the butterflies that entails. Butterflies get pretty huge which makes it pretty hard to say for sure, but without active US help and potentially a neutral Japan (or at least one that didn't attack the US and drag them into the war) it is hard to see the British and Soviets alone defeating the European Axis powers. Stalemate is the most likely outcome IMHO and a deal in 1944 based on exhaustion.
 

Deleted member 1487

For this outcome, you probably need Hitler to be overtrown and replaced by someone who is less disconnected from reality and knows the reality of the situation
Maybe, maybe not. If Stalin loses hope of total victory at a reasonable cost he could well cut a deal separately and leave the war going between Britain and the Axis to see what happens next and lick his wounds.
 
Maybe, maybe not. If Stalin loses hope of total victory at a reasonable cost he could well cut a deal separately and leave the war going between Britain and the Axis to see what happens next and lick his wounds.
The problem is that if Hitler stays in power, he will never sign an armistice with the Soviet Union
 

Empra

Banned
Without active US involvement in the war except Lend-Lease: The British have NO way of invading the European continent, should they try, it will end in disaster. Expelling the Germans from NA will take an additional 6 months. The British Bomber offensive does far less damage to German industry and is probably defeated/or has to be paused indefinitely in 1944. As for the Eastern Front: The Soviets receive far less LL than OTL because with the US out of the war there are no Americans building up the transportation system in Iran and no US merchant ships (and escorts) to transport the goods. Additionally the Germans can reinforce the East with thousands of additional aircraft, guns, and men. They either stalemate the Soviets in 1943/44 or significantly slow down their advance. The most likely scenario is a cease-fire sometimes in 1944. At the latest the war would end shortly after April 1945 when Truman would cancel LL. The British cant continue the war without it and the Soviets standing between 750 and 1000 kilometres away from Berlin wont continue it.
 
Not sure why no PH stops the US joining the war. Pretty soon a U-Boat is gonna take a shot at a major US warship, or something similar, and the US is in the war.

You need a MUCH bigger POD than "avoid Pearl Harbor."

Alternatively, I'm not sure how PH is avoided without the Japanese somehow behaving differently in Asia which seems unlikely.
 
1946 617 squadron operating modified Lancaster bombers drop the first of Britain's nuclear weapons on Nuremberg it would take another four bombs all the Brits had to force the Germans to surrender with the Soviets pushing of the vistula and driving towards the polish border
 

Deleted member 1487

Really?
I didn't know about it
I knew he had refused a soviet proposal in 1943 but this is the first time i heard about it
Whatever deal was offered by the Soviets in 1943 wasn't acceptable because it was predicated on the US having issued the unconditional surrender proclamation and was a pretty harsh deal for the Germans. IIRC it was basically reverting to the 1941 border before Kursk had happened. Still, Hitler did muse about it privately but wouldn't pull the trigger. If Stalin approached him with an acceptable deal, say on where the front line was at the time of the deal I could see Hitler saying yes.
 
Whatever deal was offered by the Soviets in 1943 wasn't acceptable because it was predicated on the US having issued the unconditional surrender proclamation and was a pretty harsh deal for the Germans. IIRC it was basically reverting to the 1941 border before Kursk had happened. Still, Hitler did muse about it privately but wouldn't pull the trigger. If Stalin approached him with an acceptable deal, say on where the front line was at the time of the deal I could see Hitler saying yes.

Hitler got the chance of peacing out with the Soviets in 1943 for pre-Barbarossa borders and didnt took it?

What a moron!

Any further info you can post on this?
 
It was pretty clear the US was going to get into the war eventually. Just look at the content of Roosevelt's speeches. The Federal government was openly and avowedly anti-Nazi long before Pearl Harbor, and was promising open support to all of Germany's adversaries, including the Soviet Union. By December 1941, American entry into the war was seen as inevitable. If Hitler did not declare war after Pearl Harbor, the United States would have found an excuse to intervene.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hitler got the chance of peacing out with the Soviets in 1943 for pre-Barbarossa borders and didnt took it?

What a moron!

Any further info you can post on this?
You think Stalin would have honored the deal after what happened in 1941? I mean he'd take the territory build up and then get revenge especially if Germany was going to be overrun by the Wallies anyway.

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/01/04/...nd-soviet-officials-met-in-43-to-discuss.html
https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=133177
https://ia800203.us.archive.org/0/i...inAndProspectsOfSeparatePeaceInWorldWarIi.pdf
 
Well... How alone is the US leaving the Brits and Soviets?

I think lend-lease is necessary for the two to win here.

If Barbarossa goes as OTL, 1942 is much worse for the Soviets without US aid. I'm not sure if it's fatal... It depends if Britain is able to afford to send aid to the Soviets if the US are completely neutral.

For Britain, the country faces real serious problems if the US won't sell to them or US banks won't lend to them, which is possible in the worst case "most isolationist US". On the other hand, if they can access US resources and credit on reasonable terms, even without LL Britain can probably stay in and keep the Soviets going through the dark times in 1942. If the UK has access to lend-lease (basically, the US government guaranteeing sales and loans to the UK, meaning that prices are lower) then the Germans are doomed, but it may take longer for final victory.

In the best possible case for the Germans, they might be able to win a truce on both fronts, but I have real doubts about whether a lasting peace would emerge... Much depends on what the US decides to do next.

If you were to brutally oversimplify my view, Germany couldn't win WW2 unless other powers allowed them to do so - and the US does have a big part to play in deciding what Germany is or is not allowed to do.

fasquardon
 
Without U.S. aid the Soviets are out by 1943 at the lastest and its questionable, to say the least, if the Brits can even make it into 1942 without aid either.
 
Top