How would a British and Soviet only war against Germany go

Empra

Banned
Can be done with out the USA but it would be a long hard fight.
Just no. WITH LL Britain and the USSR can achieve stalemate and in a best case scenario defeat Germany by 1946. WITHOUT LL the Germans are victorious by 1944. A UK/USSR victory with no US help is ASB. Especially Britain was so weak, with no LL it probably capitulates by 1942.
 

Julio92

Banned
USSR would have collapsed to starvation without LL 1942 I think harvests in 1942 were only something like 38% of pre-war harvests, rails were being run ragged, and distribution infrastructure was breaking down. 1942 was a razor edge thing OTL with lend-lease, they would lose without it.
 
Lend-lease to the USSR began before Pearl Harbor, so the question is not whether it would happen (as it was already happening) but rather the scale on which it'd occur.

However, the OP is interested in a situation where the US doesn't enter the war. This is deeply tricky and requires a POD way in the past, as the US was already engaging in acts of war against Germany and had been hugely alarmed by the fall of France and the threat of German encroachment into the Americas. Nevertheless...

It's very hard to think of an ATL where the US would not be deeply alarmed by German expansionism and the overturning of the balance of power in Europe and the North Atlantic and hence automatically align itself with Britain, but it might happen via some internal crisis or political upheaval. But this fundamentally changes WW2:

Firstly, Britain will recognise that this US is disengaged from world affairs, and hence the historical British strategy of reaching out to the US... erm, tying the economy as close to the US as possible.... erm, spending every single last dollar as quickly as possible so that US becomes locked to Britain and will end up giving the rest for free.... is a non-starter. This fundamentally reorders British industrial strategy. Instead of blowing dollars ASAP and shipping everything from the US to maximise merchantman efficiency and build-up rate, they spend sterling inside the Imperial block in much slower but sustainable build-up. The historical issue of dollar bankruptcy disappears. Secondly, a US that's disengaged from Atlantic affairs in this manner is almost certainly similarly disengaged from Pacific affairs; if it isn't worried by the threat of German encroachment into Central America, then it won't care much about whatever Japan is doing in China. Hence, it's very likely that the Pacific War simply never happens.

What this means is that Germany still gets beaten outside Moscow. Britain probably still screws up North Africa and gets pushed back to Alamein, where both sides probably lack the strength to break through. The big question probably comes at Stalingrad, assuming it still happens. While historical Lend-Lease wasn't hugely important at this time, it was still real. If something like the historical Soviet victory occurs, then the Soviets should win eventually - although it'll be a lot bloodier and longer. Failing that, the U-boat war is Britain's big problem; while there is no OTL Battle of the Atlantic because there are no Atlantic convoys from the US, the route to Gibraltar will be brutal and the Arctic route to the USSR will be beyond horrific. It's possible that Britain diverts too much resource into Bomber Command, instead of Coastal Command and ASW, and is slowly crippled by shipping losses.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
1)
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
The fact that they promised independence to India before the war and the Indians would eventually rebel if the promise was reneged upon is enough reason already.
 
ASB Hitler was immune to being taken out. He had like a plus 100 there.

Eventually someone is bound to get lucky. Hitler did have an uncanny ability to avoid assassination but something would ultimately give.

Edit: that, or Hitler would run out of capable generals. IOTL forcing Rommel to kill himself was strategically one of the dumber things he did, or at least would be if it wasn't Hitler.
 
Even IOTL the Wehrmacht managed to reach the Moscow suburbs. It was damn close. Of course the Russians wouldn't have given up Moscow without a big fight, but still.
 
Britain by itself cannot invade Vichy North Africa without provoking war with the French,

They managed to invade:
Dakar
Syria
Madagascar

without setting off a full scale conflict, and of course supporting the Free French in their North America invasions.
 

Deleted member 1487

They managed to invade:
Dakar
Syria
Madagascar

without setting off a full scale conflict, and of course supporting the Free French in their North America invasions.
None of those were considered metropolitan France either. When the Americans were negotiating with Vichy commanders in North Africa about not opposing the landings they told the Americans they would fight back with full force against the Brits, but wouldn't oppose the Americans.
 
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

Well, that depends on how much the US stay "neutral" during WW2.

Let's assume that in this scenario, the US never push for Lend-Lease and only allow Cash & Carry for everyone (which in fact means only to the British because of the RN blockade of continental Europe). This means that the Soviet Union will have to fight back against the Germans without the benefits of US-trucks which ITTL they have to produce themselves (which means that they can't produce as many tanks in the same time as IOTL). Which will be important for the upcoming Soviet advances against Nazi Germany since 1943 (LL didn't help the Soviet Union in stopping the german advance in 1941/1942 so I don't think no LL would help the Germans in defeating the Soviets).

The UK will probably pay a higher price for driving out the Axis out of North Africa, but they were able to do so without much US aid so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to do it completely without US aid.

The Soviets will probably be able to drive out the Germans out of most Soviet territories until 1945, but then the war could become a stalemate. In this situation I think that the UK will probably pull off Operation Vegetarian and after that make a landing operation with the Commonwealth troops.

The really interesting question is what happens in Asia. I can imagine a scenario where the Anglo-Soviet alliance will fight a (cold/hot?) war against Japan in the 1950's.

Edit:

The economic factors would be pretty important as I think: The UK would not hang on the US but would develop an intra-Imperial trade which could help setting up something of a Commonwealth Union after the war.

Also the domestic butterflies in the US could be huge: A US which sees itself threatened by an Anglo-Soviet alliance would be quite interesting.
 
Last edited:
Even IOTL the Wehrmacht managed to reach the Moscow suburbs. It was damn close. Of course the Russians wouldn't have given up Moscow without a big fight, but still.

So? Even if they would have taken Moscow, the Soviets would have never surrendered (the Russians didn't surrender even in 1812 and back then they weren't fighting against an enemy which pledged to wipe them out). So taking Moscow would only mean that the Wehrmacht has even more over-stretched supply lines which means that they will probably get beaten even faster after the Soviets have reorganized.
 
The really interesting question is what happens in Asia. I can imagine a scenario where the Anglo-Soviet alliance will fight a (cold/hot?) war against Japan in the 1950's.

There is no way that any "Anglo-Soviet Alliance" could persist after the immediate war with Germany ended. Even IOTL they largely only stayed toghether towards the end because of Roosevelt, who was on good terms with both Churchill and Stalin. Without this influence, they have completely different goals, agendas, and visions of the postwar world. They might not actively oppose each other after Germany is defeated until Japan is dealt with, but the Soviets will be occupying Manchuria, Korea, and maybe Japanese-occupied China while the Brits deal with the Japanese in Burma, Siam, and Malaya and then either start island hopping north or go through the south of mainland China. Eventually the Brits probably make a negotiated peace with Japan leaving the Soviets unable to oppose Japan on the Pacific while the Japanese don't want to land troops in suicide ops against the Red Army. Britain will be happy to have most of the Red Army tied up in the Far East.
 
So? Even if they would have taken Moscow, the Soviets would have never surrendered (the Russians didn't surrender even in 1812 and back then they weren't fighting against an enemy which pledged to wipe them out). So taking Moscow would only mean that the Wehrmacht has even more over-stretched supply lines which means that they will probably get beaten even faster after the Soviets have reorganized.

Not necessarily--Moscow was the main rail hub by 1941 so it would take forever for the Soviets to reorganize. Furthermore every year they go without the Ukraine and Belarus as well as occupied Russia is a year without the draftees from that region. Now, they might still ultimately tie up the Nazis for a very long time esp. with guerilla or irregular tactics but the war does fundamentally change if the Germans can take and hold Moscow. Even if the Soviets tear up the rail in a modernized version of the burning of Moscow they are still without their supply hubs.
 

Deleted member 1487

Ah ok, would Britain push for MAUD?
They didn't really have the resources for it even with LL and the US wasn't really interested in sharing their research with the British or supplying them with the resources to make their own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAUD_Committee#United_Kingdom
In response to the MAUD Committee report, a nuclear weapons programme was launched. To co-ordinate the effort, a new directorate was created, with the deliberately misleading name of Tube Alloys for security purposes. Sir John Anderson, the Lord President of the Council, became the minister responsible, and Wallace Akers from ICI was appointed the director of Tube Alloys.[79] Tube Alloys and the Manhattan Project exchanged information, but did not initially combine their efforts,[80]ostensibly over concerns about American security. Ironically, it was the British project that had already been penetrated by atomic spies for the Soviet Union.[81]

The United Kingdom did not have the manpower or resources of the United States, and despite its early and promising start, Tube Alloys fell behind its American counterpart and was dwarfed by it.[82] The British considered producing an atomic bomb without American help, but the project would have needed overwhelming priority, the projected cost was staggering, disruption to other wartime projects was inevitable, and it was unlikely to be ready in time to affect the outcome of the war in Europe.[83]
 
There is no way that any "Anglo-Soviet Alliance" could persist after the immediate war with Germany ended. Even IOTL they largely only stayed toghether towards the end because of Roosevelt, who was on good terms with both Churchill and Stalin. Without this influence, they have completely different goals, agendas, and visions of the postwar world. They might not actively oppose each other after Germany is defeated until Japan is dealt with, but the Soviets will be occupying Manchuria, Korea, and maybe Japanese-occupied China while the Brits deal with the Japanese in Burma, Siam, and Malaya and then either start island hopping north or go through the south of mainland China. Eventually the Brits probably make a negotiated peace with Japan leaving the Soviets unable to oppose Japan on the Pacific while the Japanese don't want to land troops in suicide ops against the Red Army. Britain will be happy to have most of the Red Army tied up in the Far East.

I know that Churchill and Stalin weren't best friends but that's not important in this scenario. IOTL the UK could rely on the US so Churchill could develop his anti-Sovietic policies, but ITTL the UK and the SU are alone out there in their struggle against the Axis so they will probably be much more closer to each other (even if Churchill privately despises Stalin).

Also I think that the US would after the end of the war in Europe somehow become active in world politics. So either they try to win over the UK to team up with them or they support Japan as a force against communism in Asia.
 
Top