How would a British and Soviet only war against Germany go

Empra

Banned
As already covered, this was the result of a deliberate strategy to tie the US as close as possible to Britain. If the US is engaged in international affairs then it will oppose Germany and support Britain; if the US is disengaged then Britain will be following an entirely different sterling zone strategy.
The British Chiefs of Staff Commitee concluded in May that if France collapsed, "we do not think we could continue the war with any chance of success" without "full economic and financial support" from the United States of America. So no different sterling zone strategy is even possible and the war ends in 1940 or 1941. If the US doesnt give LL food for free then it doesnt matter if Britain has a gazillion pound sterling, famine will come to Britain which will force it to surrender/compromise by 1942/43 at the latest.

It won't be pretty, as British military buildup will be much slower. They could squander everything on Bomber Command, or find themselves unable to push convoys around Norway, allowing Germany to slowly grind down the Soviets.
Without free LL shipments of machine tools, food, iron ore, fuel,steel, coal and a thousand other things there wont be a military build up but a British surrender/compromise.

You could even make a reasonable argument that North Africa is cleared in 1941, as the British consider themselves too weak to help Greece, and that there is no political gain in doing so with a disengaged US, and hence push on after Compass. Probably not the most likely outcome, but not an absurd idea either.
Which even if possible, is absolutely irrelevant.
 
The British Chiefs of Staff Commitee concluded in May that if France collapsed, "we do not think we could continue the war with any chance of success" without "full economic and financial support" from the United States of America. So no different sterling zone strategy is even possible and the war ends in 1940 or 1941. If the US doesnt give LL food for free then it doesnt matter if Britain has a gazillion pound sterling, famine will come to Britain which will force it to surrender/compromise by 1942/43 at the latest.

Without free LL shipments of machine tools, food, iron ore, fuel,steel, coal and a thousand other things there wont be a military build up but a British surrender/compromise.

Which even if possible, is absolutely irrelevant.

Of course the British Chiefs of Staff Comitee said that IOTL. They had to convince the US that without their help, Europe would be totally Nazi-dominated. The British in this scenario still have the Commonwealth and Imperial trade to support themselves in the war effort. Expect that Canada or Australia become industrial powerhouses in an Anglo-Soviet war and the Pound Sterling becomes a major currency.
 

Empra

Banned
Of course the British Chiefs of Staff Comitee said that IOTL. They had to convince the US that without their help, Europe would be totally Nazi-dominated. The British in this scenario still have the Commonwealth and Imperial trade to support themselves in the war effort. Expect that Canada or Australia become industrial powerhouses in an Anglo-Soviet war and the Pound Sterling becomes a major currency.

We are not dealing with the average ASB anymore, your arguments just went SUPER ASB!
 

Anchises

Banned
Care to elaborate why the UK using the Commonwealth to stay in the war (until they develop Operation Vegetarian) is ASB?

Because it is simply unrealistic?

IOTL there already was a famine in India, with U.S. support for Britain.

Britain can attempt to suck the Commonwealth dry but that won't work.

Canada and Australia simply don't have the population or treasure to support a titanic war effort.
 
Could britian not just more troops from the raj, the raj is needed could produce more troops than germany the brits however need to give something to it to get the more troops.
 
Two countries with a combined population of 17 million becoming "industrial powerhouses" ?

Well, Canada and Australia had one of the largest militaries in the world after WW2. If the UK is really in danger I don't see why they wouldn't have the ability to produce enough to let the UK stay in the war (not enough for an ambitious D-day landing of course).
 
The British Chiefs of Staff Commitee concluded in May that if France collapsed, "we do not think we could continue the war with any chance of success" without "full economic and financial support" from the United States of America. So no different sterling zone strategy is even possible and the war ends in 1940 or 1941. If the US doesnt give LL food for free then it doesnt matter if Britain has a gazillion pound sterling, famine will come to Britain which will force it to surrender/compromise by 1942/43 at the latest.

Without free LL shipments of machine tools, food, iron ore, fuel,steel, coal and a thousand other things there wont be a military build up but a British surrender/compromise.

Which even if possible, is absolutely irrelevant.

They were correct to say that Britain alone can't win the war. But the elephant standing right in front of you, which you are studiously ignoring, is the Soviet Union.
 
Given that the vast majority of LL deliveries to the Soviets took place in 1943-5, we can conclude that LL was probably not a pre-requisite for the victories at Stalingrad and particularly Moscow, particularly if Britain chooses its industrial and military strategy well enough to take up some of the slack during 1941 and 1942.

The key difference would then lie in the inability of the Soviets, via inadequate motorisation, to exploit any victories in 1943 onwards. Hence the conclusion that that Soviets are probably capable of winning the war, but it would be a much bloodier and slower victory at best.

For Britain, it requires astute diplomacy and industrial and military strategy to make effective use of limited resources. They need to keep Japan out, avoid wasting scarce resources on strategic bombing (the response to the Butt Report will be absolutely critical here) and focus entirely on supporting the Soviets via the Arctic route and, later, the Persian corridor. Difficult, certainly - particularly with the wild schemes of one WSC liable to run amok. It's arguably improbable, but it's not ASB.
 
In the German-Soviet stalemate peace and end of war in 43 or 44 scenario...

How long would it be until a WW3 starts after Europe being Nazi dominated for so long?

50s? 60s?
 
In the German-Soviet stalemate peace and end of war in 43 or 44 scenario...

How long would it be until a WW3 starts after Europe being Nazi dominated for so long?

50s? 60s?

Why shouldn't the Anglo-Soviets just wait until 1944 and then drop Operation Vegetarian?
 

Empra

Banned
Well, Canada and Australia had one of the largest militaries in the world after WW2. If the UK is really in danger I don't see why they wouldn't have the ability to produce enough to let the UK stay in the war (not enough for an ambitious D-day landing of course).
So 17 million Canadians and Australians are enough to compensate for the absence of 140 million Americans? Grasping at straws here! Not to mention that the distance Australia-UK is between 4 and 5 times longer than UK-Canada/US. So even IF the Australians could for some reason produce more than OTL - which they cant - it would take far longer to ship it to Britain which would basically be a waste of shipping space.

Why shouldn't the Anglo-Soviets just wait until 1944 and then drop Operation Vegetarian?
Firstly because without LL Britain will have capitulated/negotiated long before 1944 and second the fear of retaliation.

Given that the vast majority of LL deliveries to the Soviets took place in 1943-5, we can conclude that LL was probably not a pre-requisite for the victories at Stalingrad and particularly Moscow
True for Moscow, debatable to some degree for Stalingrad.

The key difference would then lie in the inability of the Soviets, via inadequate motorisation, to exploit any victories in 1943 onwards. Hence the conclusion that that Soviets are probably capable of winning the war, but it would be a much bloodier and slower victory at best.
Mostly false. The absence of LL food, aluminium (50% of wartime Soviet supply) , radios, power stations, gun powder, fuel, tanks, aircraft, motor vehicles ect ect would have put so much strain on the Soviet economy and military that stalemate would have been the best achievable option. Just holding the mid 1943 frontline would have taken everything the Soviet economy and military had, large offensive operations would have been out of the question. Especially in this TL where German industry would have been less damaged by Allied bombing and where the Germans could transfer additional troops to the Eastern Front.

For Britain, it requires astute diplomacy and industrial and military strategy to make effective use of limited resources. They need to keep Japan out, avoid wasting scarce resources on strategic bombing (the response to the Butt Report will be absolutely critical here) and focus entirely on supporting the Soviets via the Arctic route and, later, the Persian corridor. Difficult, certainly - particularly with the wild schemes of one WSC liable to run amok. It's arguably improbable, but it's not ASB.

How exaclty can the British make a greater effective use of limited resources than OTL? How exactly can Britain keep Japan out of the war if the Japanese decide to go south? What exactly are the British doing when they dont bomb Germany? How exactly are the British building up the transportation system in Iran without American rails and help? And what convoys are they sending via the Arctic if they need everything for themselves and cant spare nothing??

As noted before Britain HAS to spend every piece of gold/Dollar it has in the September 1939-April 1941 period because it NEEDS all those things from the US. No other nation can supply as much as quickly as the Americans. So the British are broke by April 1941. If LL doesnt kick in they will continue to get shipments until September/October for stuff they paid in advance and thats it. Thats means NO expansion of British industry in 1942 because there are no resources. That means severe food shortages in the winter of 1941/42 and constant famine thereafter, that means no LL aircraft, no LL tanks (50% of British OTL supply in 1942) no 8 million tons of additional shipping space built in 1942 by the Americans. The British loose Malta, they loose at El-Alamein and they loose Cairo. Hell they even might loose Gibraltar. Thousands of people starve to death every month, the Germans sink between 3-4 times more shipping space than the British can produce, even without a happy time in American waters. Should they still continue the war under these circumstances then there is the winter of 1942/43 which will be absolutely disastrous. Even if Britain doesnt surrender/compromise by late 1942 it will have effectively been knocked out of the war.

As for the Soviets, they get NOTHING from the British because they need everything for themselves. So 1941 plays out much like OTL in the East. There are some minor changes during 1942 though, the Soviets probably have to decide between Mars or Uranus because without LL they cant do both. The real changes start to kick in by 1943. The British are either out of the war or reduced to a nuisance. That means thousands of additional aircraft for the Luftwaffe, hundreds of additional tanks for the Army. German industry will produce more during 1943 than OTL. The Soviets on the other hand are short on food, short on resources, short on everything. So Soviet industry produces less than OTL. The Red Army is missing 150 000 US trucks and jeeps, 8000 LL tanks, 15 000 LL aircraft ect ect. Just keeping Soviet industry going and repelling all German attacks will require everything the Soviet state has. Most likely the Germans win at Kursk. Most likely the USSR experiences a famine in the winter of 1943/44. Even if all of these things dont happen, the Germans will be strong enough to repell all Soviet attacks resulting in a stalemate. A stalemate that will keep Soviet economy deteriorating, forcing them to abandon the war sooner or later.
 
Firstly because without LL Britain will have capitulated/negotiated long before 1944 and second the fear of retaliation.
Why should Britain not be able to stay in the war and defend/sustain itself? Of course they can't be an industrial powerhouse compared to the US, but they won't have to give Germany free hand on the continent.

And with what should the Germans retaliate? The V-weapons had no capacibility to use chemical warheads. The only thing they can do is using Tabun (which is dangerous, but not only for their enemies).
 

Empra

Banned
Why should Britain not be able to stay in the war and defend/sustain itself?
I explained that in detail several times.

And with what should the Germans retaliate?
The Germans had Tabun, Sarin, and Soman at their disposal of which they produced 80 000 tons OTL. Not to mention the political implications that could cost Britain any support it still had "Britain started chemical warfare, something even the Germans and Soviets didnt do, how disgusting". Britain as an island is also far more vulnearable to Chemical attacks than Germany. But since there is no way Britain is still in the war by early 1944 without LL this whole discussion remains ASB.
 
The German economy is in shambles by 41. The only way they survived to 45 was because they plundered the wealth of their conquests and the wealth of the Jewish people they killed, without it they would of collapsed in 1940 at the earliest. Assuming Japan stays out of the war thanks to British and Dutch oil shipments
 
Last edited:

Empra

Banned
The German economy is in shambles by 41. The only way they survived to 45 was because they plundered the wealth of their conquests and the wealth of the Jewish people they killed, without it they would of collapsed in 1940 at the earliest. Assuming Japan stays out of the war thanks to British and Dutch oil shipments

How exactly is this relevant to the discussion? Yes Germany needed resources to continue the war, it aquired these resources by conquest. Britain needed resources to continue the war, if it doesnt aquire them from the Americans-for free- then it cant continue the war.
 
Mostly false. The absence of LL food, aluminium (50% of wartime Soviet supply) , radios, power stations, gun powder, fuel, tanks, aircraft, motor vehicles ect ect would have put so much strain on the Soviet economy and military that stalemate would have been the best achievable option. Just holding the mid 1943 frontline would have taken everything the Soviet economy and military had, large offensive operations would have been out of the question. Especially in this TL where German industry would have been less damaged by Allied bombing and where the Germans could transfer additional troops to the Eastern Front.

How exaclty can the British make a greater effective use of limited resources than OTL? How exactly can Britain keep Japan out of the war if the Japanese decide to go south? What exactly are the British doing when they dont bomb Germany? How exactly are the British building up the transportation system in Iran without American rails and help? And what convoys are they sending via the Arctic if they need everything for themselves and cant spare nothing??

As noted before Britain HAS to spend every piece of gold/Dollar it has in the September 1939-April 1941 period because it NEEDS all those things from the US. No other nation can supply as much as quickly as the Americans. So the British are broke by April 1941.

I've never been convinced by the concept of stalemate in the East. There's too much space; it's too easy for motorised forces to manoeuvre, you don't get static front lines and without static front lines I don't think you can get stalemate. One side, I think, will win - eventually.

German industry didn't really take much damage from bombing until mid 1943, by which point the uncertainties in this speculation become very great. I don't the freeing up of production to send East guarantees German victory, however, which is my position.

Britain can make more effective use of limited resources by drawing the correct conclusion from the Butt Report - that strategic bombing didn't work very well. The OTL British response to the Butt Report appears to have been "Build more heavy bombers and we're bound to do hit something!". Here, Britain needs to realise that she doesn't have the resources to make effective use of large-scale strategic bombing and hence there is no alternative to focus on supplying to the Soviets. There may be still be a role for a fast medium bomber force. OTL they had the all evidence they needed to make this decision, but chose not to - in part, at least, because they could build the giant bomber fleet. Without American support, they simply can't build it. Although they might still try, in which case Germany's task just got a hell of a lot easier...

Why did Japan want to go south? To secure resources to continue the war in China in face of the US embargo. If the US is uninterested in the threat of German encroachment into Central America - which cause a serious panic OTL - I don't see why she would care two hoots about China and Japan. Hence no embargo and continued access to Dutch oil, hence no Pacific war. Avoiding war in south-east Asia is critical - if this goes wrong, then Britain is screwed.

Stop banging on about dollars - you're fundamentally misunderstanding what such a war would look like. The magnitude of the changes required to make the US not care about potential German violation of the Monroe doctrine will be obvious years in advance. It will be obvious to the British well before 1939 that they will have to rely on imperial resources and industry in the sterling zone, rather than buying US industrial production with dollars. The problem here isn't dollars or resource availability, it's shipping capacity and distances.
 

Empra

Banned
It will be obvious to the British well before 1939 that they will have to rely on imperial resources and industry in the sterling zone, rather than buying US industrial production with dollars. The problem here isn't dollars or resource availability, it's shipping capacity and distances.
Imperial resources are not enough. To few people, longer shipping distances, less avaliable non british warships for escort duty etc ect Britain can't continue the war without the US for very long - if you don't accept this fact any further discussion is pointless
 
Top