How would the war(s) between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had gone if America had stayed out of W

More generally, what would have been the next wars after Germany subdued the Soviet Union.

This question is inspired by the following alternate history: http://www.angelfire.com/ut/branton/worldline.html

In this scenario Germany, Japan, and Britain fought against the Soviet Union. America experienced a prolonged great depression until 1960.

In 1974, Germany has Russia to the Urals. Japan has China and some of Siberia, but Southeast Asia is in European hands. There appears to be a rump Soviet Union in Central Asia. The British Empire is largely intact. America and Britain may or may not be allied with Germany. Could Germany (and its allies) have taken out both the Soviet Union and Japan in one war? Could Germany and allies have allowed Japan to exist once Japan developed ICBMs?
 
I don't see why the Americans would support Germans Nazis who would not only be massacring ethnic members of key electoral demographics but be closing the continent to all American businesses. Even with Ford Motors, where Hitler idolized Henry Ford, they were making it were all the products and employees were German.
 
1. I find it hard to believe Britain would let Nazi Germany to take over the entirety of Europe.
2. Why does a depression last that long??
 
The soviets had the Germans essentially beaten by 1941. I fail to see how this occurs unless you want to make it asb.
 
1. I find it hard to believe Britain would let Nazi Germany to take over the entirety of Europe.
2. Why does a depression last that long??

From the story:
It wasn't until approximately 1960 that the United States was able to surmount the pitfalls created by the Great Depression. We did not enjoy the unique and tremendous economic advantages that allowed the America of this world-line to so spectacularly flourish. There was little transfer of hard assets (principally undertaken by Great Britain in your time-line) to our coffers. There was no post-war worldwide captive market for our exports and investments. And there was no returning throng of potential consumers prepared to re-vitalize the domestic economy. Consider the ramifications of that last absent phenomenon. We didn't have a baby-boom! There was no demographic displacement to the suburbs (of course there was some inevitable expansion in that direction)! On the other hand, we too have an interstate highway system-and one completed earlier than yours (faciltates troop-movements you know). Our material quality of life would seem spartan, somewhat shabby, and rather technologically unsophisticated to you (even allowing for the 25 year discrepacy in our 'temporal velocities'), but a preservationist would regard my U.S. of A. as a paradise.

Basically the world remained divided into the markets of the Great Powers and the rate of technological progress was lower. I get the sense that only Germany would have enjoyed 1950s like prosperity after the war, but much of it was from outright plunder rather than trade.

The soviets had the Germans essentially beaten by 1941. I fail to see how this occurs unless you want to make it asb.

In the story Japan had been fighting the Soviet Union since May 1939. Germany had made peace with Britain (and Britain provided some naval support to Germany). The isolationists had won in America, so the Soviet Union would not have benefited from lend lease. This is the perhaps the most favorable scenario for the Nazis short of someone like Huey Long being elected president in America. If the Nazis couldn't have won in this scenario, then practically all Germany wins WWII scenarios are fanciful.
 

iddt3

Donor
From the story:


Basically the world remained divided into the markets of the Great Powers and the rate of technological progress was lower. I get the sense that only Germany would have enjoyed 1950s like prosperity after the war, but much of it was from outright plunder rather than trade.



In the story Japan had been fighting the Soviet Union since May 1939. Germany had made peace with Britain (and Britain provided some naval support to Germany). The isolationists had won in America, so the Soviet Union would not have benefited from lend lease. This is the perhaps the most favorable scenario for the Nazis short of someone like Huey Long being elected president in America. If the Nazis couldn't have won in this scenario, then practically all Germany wins WWII scenarios are fanciful.
I don't think that quite works, the American economic growth post war was mostly internal, and the recovery was on track by the late 30s. It would have taken more time, but even under a completely non interventionist government the recovery would have been completed by the 40s. I can get tech being held back a bit by the lack of IP transfer during the war, but in the long term continued division into blocks would probably be a bigger drag (plus, racism and mass murder).
 
From the story:

In the story Japan had been fighting the Soviet Union since May 1939. Germany had made peace with Britain (and Britain provided some naval support to Germany). The isolationists had won in America, so the Soviet Union would not have benefited from lend lease. This is the perhaps the most favorable scenario for the Nazis short of someone like Huey Long being elected president in America. If the Nazis couldn't have won in this scenario, then practically all Germany wins WWII scenarios are fanciful.

I can accept Japan being at war with the Soviets still in 1939, I can even accept Britain making peace although it's very unlikely. Giving naval support to Germany post such peace? ASB
 

BooNZ

Banned
I don't see why the Americans would support Germans Nazis who would not only be massacring ethnic members of key electoral demographics but be closing the continent to all American businesses. Even with Ford Motors, where Hitler idolized Henry Ford, they were making it were all the products and employees were German.
The USA led the world in eugenics in the 1920s and early 1930s...
1. I find it hard to believe Britain would let Nazi Germany to take over the entirety of Europe.
The British were broke by the end of 1940, so without Lend Lease they would have little choice.
The soviets had the Germans essentially beaten by 1941. I fail to see how this occurs unless you want to make it asb.
Without Lend Lease the Soviet air force and logistics (among many others) would perform much worse. Also, no allied blockade, no allied strategic bombing, no panzer divisions in North Africa and much less steel 'sunk' into uboats or AAA - likely changes things.
 
The British were broke by the end of 1940, so without Lend Lease they would have little choice.

Without Lend Lease the Soviet air force and logistics (among many others) would perform much worse. Also, no allied blockade, no allied strategic bombing, no panzer divisions in North Africa and much less steel 'sunk' into uboats or AAA - likely changes things.

A few vital points that people usually overlook. Britain were broke by the end of 1941, not 1940. Germany was broke BEFORE the war even started. Hence Mefo bills. Being broke does not stop you buying arms if you have to, although it may restrict foreign buys. Britain could simply have given IOU's to manufacturers, which is exactly what Mefo bills that Nazi Germany used to purchase armaments were.

Lend Lease. It's not all that in terms of the Soviets. Yes, it helped. The Germans were stopped in 1941. Lend Lease impact of that was exactly zero. Once the war went past 1941, the German chances of winning plunged to almost zero.

What is required for Germany to have a chance is no Battle of Britain, but I'm not sure how you make this happen.
 
The USA led the world in eugenics in the 1920s and early 1930s...
Fun fact. The Germans put down eugenics because of the Anglophonic founding of it. Also, their eugenics involved sterilization. Not the murder of hundreds of thousands of babies, as well as tens of millions of other people.
 

BooNZ

Banned
A few vital points that people usually overlook. Britain were broke by the end of 1941, not 1940. Germany was broke BEFORE the war even started. Hence Mefo bills. Being broke does not stop you buying arms if you have to, although it may restrict foreign buys. Britain could simply have given IOU's to manufacturers, which is exactly what Mefo bills that Nazi Germany used to purchase armaments were.

Lend Lease. It's not all that in terms of the Soviets. Yes, it helped. The Germans were stopped in 1941. Lend Lease impact of that was exactly zero. Once the war went past 1941, the German chances of winning plunged to almost zero.

What is required for Germany to have a chance is no Battle of Britain, but I'm not sure how you make this happen.

By the end of 1940, Great Britain’s war effort against Germany had reached a point of crisis. On November 23, Britain’s ambassador to the U.S., Lord Lothian, arrived at New York’s La Guardia Airport where he held an impromptu press conference. “Well boys,” he announced to the assembled journalists, “Britain’s broke; it’s your money we want.” This remark was widely reported by the American news media, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill questioned its diplomatic tact. Even so, it was no exaggeration. https://fdrlibrary.org/lend-lease

Effectively without Lend lease, Britain would not have been able to afford armaments from abroad and in many cases the oil that fueled them. Game over.

Without Lend lease the Russians would have little in the way of aviation fuel, radios or truck transportation. Without Britain, the Germans would have little need for uboats, AAA, decentralised industry or the Africa Corps. OTL Lend Lease meant that Russia and Britain could probably fight the war indefinitely - Germany is done. Without Lend lease, Britain is out and Russia's fighting ability is seriously impaired.
 
By the end of 1940, Great Britain’s war effort against Germany had reached a point of crisis. On November 23, Britain’s ambassador to the U.S., Lord Lothian, arrived at New York’s La Guardia Airport where he held an impromptu press conference. “Well boys,” he announced to the assembled journalists, “Britain’s broke; it’s your money we want.” This remark was widely reported by the American news media, and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill questioned its diplomatic tact. Even so, it was no exaggeration. https://fdrlibrary.org/lend-lease

Effectively without Lend lease, Britain would not have been able to afford armaments from abroad and in many cases the oil that fueled them. Game over.

Without Lend lease the Russians would have little in the way of aviation fuel, radios or truck transportation. Without Britain, the Germans would have little need for uboats, AAA, decentralised industry or the Africa Corps. OTL Lend Lease meant that Russia and Britain could probably fight the war indefinitely - Germany is done. Without Lend lease, Britain is out and Russia's fighting ability is seriously impaired.

I don't think you read what I wrote. Yes, Britain would have been unable to afford armaments from overseas. Much like Germany never purchased arms overseas. How does this stop them producing arms domestically exactly? Oil. The U.K had ample supplies of oil via Persia, Iraq and Kuwait.

How did Lend Lease assist in 1941, for that is the crucial Eastern Front year? No real impact.

Lend Lease had a massive impact, but it's scarcely game over without it and on the most crucial front, Russia in 1941, it was not a factor at all.
 
Last edited:

BooNZ

Banned
Fun fact. The Germans put down eugenics because of the Anglophonic founding of it. Also, their eugenics involved sterilization. Not the murder of hundreds of thousands of babies, as well as tens of millions of other people.

I was merely pointing out that many in Germany were inspired by the American eugenics movement in the 1920s and 1930s and the historic treatment of minorities...

Not a subject I am familiar with, because I don't think any facts about the Nazi ideology are fun. That said, I suspect your math might be a little out.
 
I was merely pointing out that many in Germany were inspired by the American eugenics movement in the 1920s and 1930s and the historic treatment of minorities...

Not a subject I am familiar with, because I don't think any facts about the Nazi ideology are fun. That said, I suspect your math might be a little out.
Probably a lot of babies in Eastern Europe.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I don't think you read what I wrote. Yes, Britain would have been unable to afford armaments from overseas. Much like Germany never purchased arms overseas. How does this stop them producing arms domestically exactly? Oil. The U.K had ample supplies of oil via Persia, Iraq and Kuwait.

How did Lend Lease assist in 1941, for that is the crucial Eastern Front year? No real impact.

Lend Lease had a massive impact, but it's scarcely game over without it.

Yes, you said Britain was broke at the end of 1941. In 1941 without lend lease, Britain would have been unable to afford armaments from overseas (eg tanks and munitions) or the materials used to produce them domestically (eg steel). Britain would therefore be unable to defend those sources of oil it did control (also Dutch East Indies?). Britain still remained heavily dependent on US oil to a significant extent - and that oil would need to be paid for.

I recall the Lend lease impact in 1941 on Russian survival has been discussed on this forum and its impact was significant, but perhaps not crucial in 1941 alone (some disagreed). Lend lease and the special relationship between Churchill and FDR was crucial to Britain's survival in 1941. Russian prospects without Britain or Lend lease are not good - ITTL Russia does not have the Germans beaten.
 
Yes, you said Britain was broke at the end of 1941. In 1941 without lend lease, Britain would have been unable to afford armaments from overseas (eg tanks and munitions) or the materials used to produce them domestically (eg steel). Britain would therefore be unable to defend those sources of oil it did control (also Dutch East Indies?). Britain still remained heavily dependent on US oil to a significant extent - and that oil would need to be paid for.
Forget about fighting. They needed food, as well as the ships to bring it home. Part of why the Norwegian-government-in-exile was seen as one of the few to pay there way was because, along with their bringing their gold reserve, they had a massive merchant marine that didn't end up in German hands. And even this suffered during the war by Germans sinking them left and right. So yah, ships are needed, wages are needed, and of course foreign exchange is needed. The British nationalized the stocks and overseas possessions of British citezns to sell them off, but still wasn't quite enough. And without the profits those people were making from their stocks... Well yah.
 

BooNZ

Banned
I can accept Japan being at war with the Soviets still in 1939, I can even accept Britain making peace although it's very unlikely. Giving naval support to Germany post such peace? ASB

I agree. Why would Germany need the assistance of the Royal Navy against the Soviets - when Japan and probably Italy are also in the war...
 
I agree. Why would Germany need the assistance of the Royal Navy against the Soviets - when Japan and probably Italy are also in the war...
No mention for Italy in the OP, but it can be implied. Still, they wouldn't be of much use, though I suppose if the British were not he same side they would have more of navy they could bring into the Caspian. Though Operation Barbossa might move swifter than that. And the Japanese being in the war would tie down troops that would otherwise have been sent west, and cut off the Lend-Lease through Vladistok that wouldn't be coming in this universe. I suppose we should focus upon the future wars, though. If the British were in the war, whatever they occupied would NOT go into German hands. Why let them annex so much land Gained by British blood? So maybe Turkestan, Caucasian, and the Arctic shores get White governments. Then problems arise between the Germans and Japanese about earlier agreements to split the world. I imagine the Germans wouldn't might at all if the British take loads more Asians under their wings. Maybe they even see about resettlement of Poles and Russians in India or Turkestan. Convince the British that they are expanding Europe outwards.
 
Top