How would a British and Soviet only war against Germany go

And Stalin isn't really going to accept a negotiated peace unless its the 1941 borders...

Can we be sure? I've heard someone say he would've agreed to a Brest-Litovsk-like deal around September 1941. And note that in July 1942, with his "Not another step back" order, he seemed deeply worried about German advances. What if the Germans had offered to negotiate then? Stalin was not only worried; he was angry because the western allies weren't yet launching a second front. Concerned about his own country, and doubting his allies would help enough, maybe he would've been pretty flexible.
 

DougM

Donor
Where is the US getting the money to indefinitely pay for lend lease much less increase it? Without the war coming to the US the American people are not going to keep putting up with the taxes and debt that lend lease brings.

And don’t forget the isolationists where doing reasonablely well before Peril Harbor pulled the rug out from under them. So it is easily possible that in the mid term 1942 election it was conceivable that an anti lend lease movement gets elected and remover the president can not dictate budget that is Congress’s job.

So it could happen that the US citizens and congress have enough of Lend Lease and get worried that it will bring us into the war. Remember the Adults of 1941 lived through WW1 so they probably have at least a bit of understanding that the US support of England and France was a large contributing factor to the YS entrance to WW1 so presumably it is possible that resistance to LL could develop.

One thing that is hard to know about history is what the people really thought. You seldom get actual studies that occurred at the time and the governments tend to control the story so things look the way they want them to.

So while the argument can be made that LL continues it can also be made that it goes away. But I have trouble seeing it increase. The cost to Americans and the increased chance it gets the US dragged into the war makes the liklyhood that LL increases all but non existent.

And while I will leave the argument over the exact numbers to those with better information then I have access to I do have to say that the idea that you take the largest economy, what would become the largest Navy, the largest manufacturer and what ultimately was not a small army/ Airforce out of the fight and somehow the war does not hardly change and instead of ending in mid 45 it ends in lat 45 or mid 46.
 
The chances of the US providing LL for years yet never entering the war is pretty much nil, yet this is considered more realistic than the US stopping to supply the British after they run out of cash... Also see the thread title. It say UK/USSR war only - not UK/USSR war with American support.

But that isn't what the opening post implied 'Say pearl harbor doesn't happen...' suggesting a December 1941 POD.
Perhaps this entire thread belongs in ASB. It isn't *impossible* but it is unlikely the US would keep supporting the Soviets and UK without a DOW coming eventually. If LL is 'on' then I suspect a US DOW on Germany is coming, even without Pearl. Some U-boat is going to torpedo the wrong US destroyer and then the US slides into war.

Alternatively, with no lend lease and none in sight, we move back to a (likely) Summer 1940 POD (or earlier) when it becomes clear that Robert Taft is going to win the Presidency in 1940 away from Roosevelt (or perhaps a shock November 1940 POD, with Roosevelt v Taft, and somehow Taft wins). But this changes things over a year out, and I'm bored of reading about 'LL stops - UK DEAD, SU DEAD. The whole world is DEAD. Nazis EVERYWHERE'. It's little better than the rubbish of 'Germany builds 1,000 U Boats before 1939 - they win'; completely forgetting that other countries might respond to a change in German naval plans by... oohhh... building destroyers of their own.

If there is no lend lease, then the UK will do things differently in 1940 onwards. They've got to, so they will.
And suggesting the US is going to just not offer anything at all isn't likely. The US came out of the depression because of World War II. I'll let you explain how Taft is going to say 'No siree, Mister Arms Manufacturer - we don't need those weapons - we've got enough. And no, we're not going to help you sell them to the British, that's against our policy'.

The only other way is the ASB 'poof' as the United States is replaced by a wall of ice in August 1940. And even then, you know what, I still think the UK and Soviet Union will win. Germany is just too messed up under Hitler to do much other than get it wrong and lose.
 
But that isn't what the opening post implied 'Say pearl harbor doesn't happen...' suggesting a December 1941 POD.
Indeed. This means the first protocol of lend-lease was already signed and in effect (signed october 7th 1941).
This was in effect until 30th of June 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease
http://lend-lease.airforce.ru/documents/files/Soviet_Supply_Protocols.pdf

So with a POD of december 1941, this would not change. Even though the second protocol was only signed in October 1942, shipments went on after June 1942. Of course, if the US never actually joined the war, things may change, but with this POD, lend-lease would carry on into 1942 at least.

As I mentioned before, up until the end of 1942 I don't see a lot of changes (on the battlefield) happening to OTL. It's hard to imagine that the US would suddenly stop lend-lease in juni 1942. I would see them continuing it at least throughout 1942. And in 1943 the tide will be turning towards the UK and USSR.

It isn't *impossible* but it is unlikely the US would keep supporting the Soviets and UK without a DOW coming eventually. If LL is 'on' then I suspect a US DOW on Germany is coming, even without Pearl. Some U-boat is going to torpedo the wrong US destroyer and then the US slides into war.
Although I agree that it would be unlikely, it is not impossible. The Germans already had sunk a destroyer (the USS Reuben James was sunk in october 1941). It is possible that to avoid the US getting involved in the war, after the first incidents the Germans would instruct their U-boats to be more cautious with US ships. This though would probably worsen the German position in the Battle of the Atlantic in 1942. The second happy time would be avoided.
 
Can we be sure? I've heard someone say he would've agreed to a Brest-Litovsk-like deal around September 1941. And note that in July 1942, with his "Not another step back" order, he seemed deeply worried about German advances. What if the Germans had offered to negotiate then? Stalin was not only worried; he was angry because the western allies weren't yet launching a second front. Concerned about his own country, and doubting his allies would help enough, maybe he would've been pretty flexible.

Their isn’t any evidence just some claims floating around the internet that have been endlessly propagated
 

Empra

Banned
Why not go through all scenarios?

Scenario 1:The US ramps up its industry despite not actively participating in the war, US gives LL, American merchant ships with American crews, American warships for escort and even personell to build the Iranian route - basically everything short of hot war. As said before, its not very realistic that the US shows this kind of involvement and isnt dragged into the war, but oh well. In this scenario the British and Soviets are supplied with the same amount of food, resources and tanks, aircraft, trucks as OTL, but have no American troops and air forces helping them. This means:

The NA campaign doesnt change much in 1941/42, the British need a few months longer to win in NA. However without the US air force, Germany sustains much less aircraft casualties and might even defeat the British Bomber Offensive in 1944; additionally it sustains less damage to its cities/industry. While the British might invade Sicily and slowly advance through Italy, they have no way of invading Western Europe.
Meanwhile the Soviets are faced with a lot more German aircraft and other equipment due to less damage to German industry and with a lot more infantry due to the absence of American troops, so their advance is slower. If the US continues to supply the USSR/UK with LL even after Roosevelts death in April 1945, then the war might end in 1946 with the Soviets on the Rhine. If the US stops giving LL after Roosevelt is replaced by Truman, the Germans get a stalemate.

Scenario 2:The US ramps up its industry despite not actively participating in the war, US gives LL,but no American merchant ships with American crews, no American warships for escort and no personell to build the Iranian route. This means the British get most of their OTL LL food and resource supply, the Soviets get far less (basically what the British can supply through the Northern Route). The British need untill the end of 1943 to clear North Africa and they might invade Sicily in 1944. If they invade Italy the Germans can contain them. The Soviets are stretched to their limit; their advance is much slower than OTL. In this scenario a German defeat/stalemate is dependent on more than Roosevelts death and can lead to total defeat or stalemate by 1947.

Scenario 3: The US doesnt implement LL and stops Cash&Carry after the British run out of cash. That means no US support at all. Britain starves and compromises by 1942/43, the Soviets starve and compromise by 1943/44, Germany wins the war by 1944 or gets a very favourable stalemate.

Any objections?
 
Any objections?

Lots :)

eg

Scenario 2:The US ramps up its industry despite not actively participating in the war, US gives LL,but no American merchant ships with American crews, no American warships for escort and no personell to build the Iranian route. This means the British get most of their OTL LL food and resource supply, the Soviets get far less (basically what the British can supply through the Northern Route). The British need untill the end of 1943 to clear North Africa.

Why?

Without Torch, the Germans still get pushed back Benghazi, Malta is reinvigorated, German supply route interdicted and Tripoli is taken from the East in early 1943.

Without the US, Torch might still happen, but it will be focussed further East, taking Tunis before the end of 1942.
 

Empra

Banned
Without Torch, the Germans still get pushed back Benghazi, Malta is reinvigorated, German supply route interdicted and Tripoli is taken from the East in early 1943. Without the US, Torch might still happen, but it will be focussed further East, taking Tunis before the end of 1942.
Its because of remarks such as these that I cant take some people seriously. So the British are missing the support of some 200 000 US soldiers and a few thousand US Air Force aircraft,yet they win faster than OTL? Dont be silly.
 
Its because of remarks such as these that I cant take some people seriously. So the British are missing the support of some 200 000 US soldiers and a few thousand US Air Force aircraft,yet they win faster than OTL? Dont be silly.

Regarding North Africa

To be honest the shipping needs are probably more of an issue than the numbers of boots on the ground, the necessary airpower and manpower would have been avialable from the UK. Without wishing to be negative about the US forces involved I would see a purely British operation as easier to command and control with simpler logistics support needs, so it could have moved faster once on the ground. I don’t know if the UK alone had sufficient invasion capable shipping or carriers for initial air support at that point?
 

Empra

Banned
OTL French Vichy troops stopped fighting because of American participation; if its a British only invasion the British will face a lot more hostility and resistance from the French. So its not exactly easier but now the British are missing around 50% of "their" historical air power and around 1/3 of "their" troop and armour strenght.
 
Its because of remarks such as these that I cant take some people seriously. So the British are missing the support of some 200 000 US soldiers and a few thousand US Air Force aircraft,yet they win faster than OTL? Dont be silly.

The options are

- no Torch and so no German reinforcement via Tunisia. Eighth Army captured Tripoli on 23 January 1943 only 73 days after El Alamein. With no access to Tunisian ports any German reinforcements will be much slower and it will certainly not take another year to take Tripoli.

- Torch with no US elements. This will ignore Casablance and land much further east than OTL, probably at Bone. Allied forces were within 15 miles of Tunis in November 1942 (after a 500 mile advance from Algiers), so it is not a great stretch to believe that Tunis could be taken by the end of 1942, after an advance of c200 miles from Bone (now Annaba).

OTL Torch was a poor strategic choice in that it opened a front in NW Africa, but allowed the Germans just enough time to stabilise the front and pour reinforcements in. The II US Corps and the air forces contributed to the longer Tunisian campaign, but the delay in taking Tunis allowed the Germans to send a Panzer Army.
 
Last edited:
OTL French Vichy troops stopped fighting because of American participation; if its a British only invasion the British will face a lot more hostility and resistance from the French. So its not exactly easier but now the British are missing around 50% of "their" historical air power and around 1/3 of "their" troop and armour strenght.

I think you are missing my point on the forces involved.

Operation Torch did not involve the entire British Army or the entire RAF, it could have involved more of the RAF, or more of the British Army (or Canadians) in place of the historical formations. The real issue is how the army is transported there and the shipping to support it, that needs lend lease support.
 

Empra

Banned
- no Torch and so no German reinforcement via Tunisia. Eighth Army captured Tripoli on 23 January 1943 only 73 days after El Alamein. With no access to Tunisian ports any German reinforcements will be much slower and it will certainly not take another year to take Tripoli.
The Germans can occupy Tunisia even without Torch, also this is a scenario where the British are missing some historical LL so their advance will be slower giving the Germans time to establish a defensive line.

- Torch with no US elements. This will ignore Casablance and land much further east than OTL, probably at Bone. Allied forces were within 15 miles of Tunis in November 1942 (after a 500 mile advance from Algiers), so it is not a great stretch to believe that Tunis could be taken by the end of 1942, after an advance of c200 miles from Bone (now Annaba).
Why should the landings be much further East without US involvement? Also this ignores the Vichy troops that didnt fight the Americans, but will fight the British.
 
In "The Shockwave Rider", John Brunner (who'd have known it) has his protagonist state that during WW2, nutrition experts made sure that the Brits would get as much nutrition as possible, even with few calories. And as a result, the generation growing up with this became the healthiest in Britain's history. They didn't have much - two ounces of margarine per week, one egg per month, but it seemed to work.
 
...
Why should the landings be much further East without US involvement? Also this ignores the Vichy troops that didnt fight the Americans, but will fight the British.

Which "Vichy troops" did not fight the Americans? The two US Corps involved in Op TORCH suffered better that half the casualties in the three days the French fought. There were negotiations previous to this operation that attempted to bring the French over without fighting, but those failed. Perhaps had the Brits been handling those instead of the Yanks they would have succeeded? Petain had sent Admiral Darlan to Algeria with instructions to take those three colonies to the Allied side if the Allies came in force (Sources: Paxtons 'Vichy France' Jacksons 'The Dark Years') Petain by late 1942 had realized the Germans were not going to negotiate a peace treaty with France, was feeling betrayed when the Germans agreed with the Japanese occupation of French Indochina, in violation of the Armistice. & by this time Petain was starting to doubt Germany could win the war. Given Darlans instructions skilled Brit negotiators would have a fair chance of bringing the NW African colonies over without a fight.
 

Deleted member 1487

The options are

- no Torch and so no German reinforcement via Tunisia. Eighth Army captured Tripoli on 23 January 1943 only 73 days after El Alamein. With no access to Tunisian ports any German reinforcements will be much slower and it will certainly not take another year to take Tripoli.
The German troops will instead pour into Tripoli instead, rather than Tunisia in November. So then we repeat the see-saw around Benghazi in Janaury when 5th Panzer army strikes back.

- Torch with no US elements. This will ignore Casablance and land much further east than OTL, probably at Bone. Allied forces were within 15 miles of Tunis in November 1942 (after a 500 mile advance from Algiers), so it is not a great stretch to believe that Tunis could be taken by the end of 1942, after an advance of c200 miles from Bone (now Annaba).
Which means the Brits have only the lift capacity for one landing and the French fight back hard. They are not going to tolerate the Brits landing in North Africa after they attacked the French fleet and killed over 1000 French sailors and sank numerous French ships shortly after being allied to France. Plus the French fleet isn't neutralized and could be an active threat, while Bone is within distance of Axis land based bombers in Sardinia. Plus if the British land and beat the French the Axis forces will pour into Tunisia and defeat them given how few there are there compared to OTL and the likeliness of the French aiding them to maintain their neutrality and the independence of Vichy (however nominal that was).

OTL Torch was a poor strategic choice in that it opened a front in NW Africa, but allowed the Germans just enough time to stabilise the front and pour reinforcements in. The II US Corps and the air forces contributed to the longer Tunisian campaign, but the delay in taking Tunis allowed the Germans to send a Panzer Army.
How do you think the British alone could take Tunisia more quickly? If anything it would just mean the British troops there get cut off and destroyed.
 

Empra

Banned
Which "Vichy troops" did not fight the Americans? The two US Corps involved in Op TORCH suffered better that half the casualties in the three days the French fought. There were negotiations previous to this operation that attempted to bring the French over without fighting, but those failed. Perhaps had the Brits been handling those instead of the Yanks they would have succeeded? Petain had sent Admiral Darlan to Algeria with instructions to take those three colonies to the Allied side if the Allies came in force (Sources: Paxtons 'Vichy France' Jacksons 'The Dark Years') Petain by late 1942 had realized the Germans were not going to negotiate a peace treaty with France, was feeling betrayed when the Germans agreed with the Japanese occupation of French Indochina, in violation of the Armistice. & by this time Petain was starting to doubt Germany could win the war. Given Darlans instructions skilled Brit negotiators would have a fair chance of bringing the NW African colonies over without a fight.

The first days of Torch were pretty chaotic but it would seem that it was American involvement that swayed Darlan. Had it been a British only operation, the French might have continued their resistance especially remembering Oran: http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_torch.html

Regardless Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham suggested Torch to land at Bizerta but the plan was rejected because of insufficent shipping capacities. And that was WITH American involvement.
 
Last edited:
Why should the landings be much further East without US involvement?

Simply because the US was worried that Spain would intervene and shut the Straits of Gibraltar, and so they insisted on a landing at Casablanca.

The British, with better intelligence, were convinced that Spain would not act, and even if they did, it would not be effective, and believed that for strategic success landings had to be made as far east as possible, certainly Bone, and possibly Bizerta.

Also this ignores the Vichy troops that didnt fight the Americans, but will fight the British.

Torch casualties against the French - British dead 574; US dead 526

Which means the Brits have only the lift capacity for one landing

Don't assume that US forces all landed from US ships..

The German troops will instead pour into Tripoli instead, rather than Tunisia in November

Sea route to Tripoli is much longer and exposed to interdiction from Malta, and IIRC cargo capacity of Tripoli is much lower than Tunis/Bizerte.

So then we repeat the see-saw around Benghazi in Janaury when 5th Panzer army strikes back.

That worked out so well for Rommel at Alam Halfa and Medenine.:biggrin:

He is trying to attack me in daylight with tanks, followed by lorried infantry. I have 500 6pdr atk guns dug in...I have 400 tanks...good infantry...and a great weight of artillery. It is an absolute gift, and the man must be mad
 
The German troops will instead pour into Tripoli instead, rather than Tunisia in November. So then we repeat the see-saw around Benghazi in Janaury when 5th Panzer army strikes back.
Tripoli was already used to maximum capacity, according to Van Creveld's Supplying War. There won't be a lot of pouring going on.

Also according to him the Tunisian invasion actually improved the german situation: logistics were not such a bottleneck anymore when the harbors in Tunisia were available.
 
Top