In an alternate WW2 involving less "wallies", who wins?

I was brainstorming a bit about the possibility of a neutral US in WW2 and came up with a half-baked scenario.
Let's assume the americans take a neutral stance in all of ww2 (an earlier PoD like FDR being assassinated, aggravating the great depression and forcing the americans to commit to "america first" could work). Perhaps they send some supplies for the allies, but nothing beyond that.
The nazis start WW2 at about the same time as OTL. They invade Poland, then France, and then proceed to harass the british while planning for Operation Barbarossa. The nazis still don't manage to get Britain to surrender (partly because of Hitler's refusal to cease attacks and allow the british to surrender through internal pressure), or if they do, the british don't maintain neutrality for too long. the british employ help from their dominions and colonies in order to attempt to supply the lack of an US to back them. Come 1941, the germans attack the USSR.
Question is, with the allies mostly comprised only of the UK, its dominions, Free France, and the USSR, how differently does WW2 play out? Will the germans manage to deal a knockout blow to the USSR or will they lose momentum and be forced to retreat just like OTL? How much harassment will the japanese be able to deal against the USSR, unless Stalin reaches a compromise with them? How bloodier will the war be in its later stages? What happens to the Mediterranean and North African Fronts?
 
I'd suggest a lot depends on Japan, if Japan isn't going to strike south then that frees up the forces deployed to and lost in Asia, forces that could have usefully employed in the Med in the second half of 1941.

I think a stalemate and negotiated peace in about 1943 would be a reasonable outcome, since I doubt the British and Soviets have the power to crush the expanded Reich.
 

trurle

Banned
Basically answer is eventual stalemate with 3 dominant superpowers. It is close to the scenario George Orwell thought of back in 1944 while making plot for his "1984" novel.
 
If the war is as OTL except The USA doesent get involved in any way against Germany I see there only being three options for resolution of war.

1. Stalin negotiates some sort of peace settlement with nazis I dont know how likely that ever was under any circumstances.

2. USSR collapses internally due to power struggle resulting in nazi victory in Europe.

3. The USSR outnumbers and out produces the reich and crushes the Germans eventually advancing all the way into central and Western Europe depending on when Britain makes a landing in France/how effective anti nazi revolts are. Much more costly as the Russians will lose millions more men and land in this war and it probably is extended by years.

The nazis could not have beaten the USSR in a conventional war if it was United under Stalin.

A good example of This would be "the falcon cannot hear" timeline I think it provides a very plausible account of this war in Europe.
 

Deleted member 1487

I was brainstorming a bit about the possibility of a neutral US in WW2 and came up with a half-baked scenario.
Let's assume the americans take a neutral stance in all of ww2 (an earlier PoD like FDR being assassinated, aggravating the great depression and forcing the americans to commit to "america first" could work). Perhaps they send some supplies for the allies, but nothing beyond that.
The nazis start WW2 at about the same time as OTL. They invade Poland, then France, and then proceed to harass the british while planning for Operation Barbarossa. The nazis still don't manage to get Britain to surrender (partly because of Hitler's refusal to cease attacks and allow the british to surrender through internal pressure), or if they do, the british don't maintain neutrality for too long. the british employ help from their dominions and colonies in order to attempt to supply the lack of an US to back them. Come 1941, the germans attack the USSR.
Question is, with the allies mostly comprised only of the UK, its dominions, Free France, and the USSR, how differently does WW2 play out? Will the germans manage to deal a knockout blow to the USSR or will they lose momentum and be forced to retreat just like OTL? How much harassment will the japanese be able to deal against the USSR, unless Stalin reaches a compromise with them? How bloodier will the war be in its later stages? What happens to the Mediterranean and North African Fronts?
So are you saying there is no LL, just sales? If so then Britain has to exit the war in 1941 probably right around Barbarossa due to lack of money to finance critical foreign purchases from the US. LL gave them over $30 Billion in effectively free war materials in 1940 value dollars. The USSR got over $11 Billion.
Britain could not finance the war, nor give the LL it gave to the USSR in 1941 on and without the US; if the US doesn't give to Britain or the USSR but let's them purchase, the USSR could still do limited purchasing with gold it has from mining, but nothing like OTL. So they can partially make up for some of the LL they got, but are much worse off materially than they were IOTL especially if Britain is too broke to continue the war with Cash and Carry by 1941 and cannot start the strategic bombing offensive or maintain pressure in other fronts due to finance. Very bad news for Stalin.
Stalin will probably try and make peace offers, which probably get rejected so long as Hitler thinks he can win all the marbles. Likely Hitler makes all the same mistakes he does IOTL until Summer 1942. Then without the US in the war and Britain out, he doesn't need to rush to take Caucasian oil, so probably focuses on Stalingrad to cut the Volga and strangle the Soviet supply artery. Lack of LL would be very painful for the USSR by this point. In fact with the British out due to no LL, then by 1942 the Germans can Cash and Carry, which saves them a LOT of trouble if they can buy oil and rubber on the global market. This might well be a scenario where the Soviets can't rally and do lose the war as they are left on their own.
If LL is still approved, but the US isn't in the war then things are a fair bit different, but without the US in the war the need for Caucasian oil is still lessened, as in the US army monography about German 1940-42 planning for the Russian campaign they strongly reference the impact on US entry into Hitler's planning and rashness for the Summer 1942 campaign.
 
WI the USA demands crippling trade concessions in British colonies?
WI Amaerican banks lend billions of dollars to British Colonies. When those colonies default on loans, American banks foreclose and acquire the most profitable mines, plantations, factories, etc. in the British Commonwealth.
Either way, the USA ends up owning the most profitable portions of the British Commonwealth.
 
. The USSR outnumbers and out produces the reich and crushes the Germans eventually advancing all the way into central and Western Europe

How do you figure that? Sure IOTL the Soviets and British Empire made about double the AFVs and combat aircraft but LL distorted the production balance of these countries, the British built few transport aircraft and landing craft and the Soviet relied heavily on LL trucks, boots and food. Without LL these two powers would have to produce with more balance which would mean less AFVs and combat aircraft.

But most importantly the Germans were tactically and operationally superior to both the British and the Soviets and routinely won battles against much greater numbers of troops and amounts of materiel, so the greater resources and production is a requirement simply to create a reasonably level playing field against the Germans' tactical and operational superiority.
 

Deleted member 1487

WI the USA demands crippling trade concessions in British colonies?
The US historically did demand end of Imperial Preference, which effectively ended colonialism. They got it.

WI Amaerican banks lend billions of dollars to British Colonies. When those colonies default on loans, American banks foreclose and acquire the most profitable mines, plantations, factories, etc. in the British Commonwealth.
Either way, the USA ends up owning the most profitable portions of the British Commonwealth.
Why would the US even need to loan money to those colonies? Plus all of those assets were generally not owned by governments, rather private companies, which couldn't be touched by banks if the government defaulted. Not only that, but banks don't want to run industries in foreign countries, they just want their money.
 

Ryan

Donor
A good example of This would be "the falcon cannot hear" timeline I think it provides a very plausible account of this war in Europe.

I enjoyed that TL but I thought the European war was unrealistic. IIRC Germany won a war of attrition against the Anglo-French after the sickle cut failed, then they successfully invaded allied Spain across the Pyrenees, then after making peace with the allies they invaded the USSR which was knee deep in Asia, the USSR was then able to beat the Germans back and eventually occupy half of France and everything east of whilst having lost 25% of it's population.
 
1. Is there any remote possibility that the USSR could win the war within this Neutral 'States scenario? Would a lack of the Winter War favor the soviets here, so that they don't waste so many troops and resources?
2. Will the soviets be forced to make peace with the japanese in order to relieve the east and bring more more troops to the western front?
3. Is a british lend-lease still possible in this scenario? Or would it be too costly to be implemented?
 
@Riain

I'm not denying that American neutrality would be a massive help to the Germans and would definitley make the war more easy for the Germans to resolve through some sort of peace treaty however if we accept the premise that Stalin refuses to make a deal and will fight to the bitter end you have to see that the Germans;

1. Didn't have the resources or manpower to occupy Russia west of the urals never mind the entirety of Russia that it would take to knock out the soviets for good.

2. Had half the population of Russia

3. If it occupied just the amount of territory taken IOTL it would be occupying tens of millions of hostile foreign subjects.

So if Stalin refused to make a peace deal at any point and the soviets did not internally collapse somehow then sooner or later the soviets will simply push back the Germans using sheer brute force of having greater population greater industry and an infinite space to retreat to if defeated which the Germans do not have.

I am by no means incredibly knowledgeable so feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong with this.
 
@Riain

I'm not denying that American neutrality would be a massive help to the Germans and would definitley make the war more easy for the Germans to resolve through some sort of peace treaty however if we accept the premise that Stalin refuses to make a deal and will fight to the bitter end you have to see that the Germans;

1. Didn't have the resources or manpower to occupy Russia west of the urals never mind the entirety of Russia that it would take to knock out the soviets for good.

2. Had half the population of Russia

3. If it occupied just the amount of territory taken IOTL it would be occupying tens of millions of hostile foreign subjects.

So if Stalin refused to make a peace deal at any point and the soviets did not internally collapse somehow then sooner or later the soviets will simply push back the Germans using sheer brute force of having greater population greater industry and an infinite space to retreat to if defeated which the Germans do not have.

I am by no means incredibly knowledgeable so feel free to correct me if I got anything wrong with this.

Stalin may not have a choice in the matter, the Germans will likely reach 'natural' frontiers like the Volga and other major rivers and stop regardless of what Stalin wants.

The Germans planned to starve 30 million Russians to death, forced and volunteer expulsions would also occur, making the problem far more manageable. However the partisan issue is vastly overblown; like regular armies partisans depend on some sort of chance of success and can be subverted by people who think partisans are going to win and so cause more trouble than they're worth.

The Germans captured vast amounts of Soviet resources IOTL and would take more ITTL, the term 'simply' does not apply when talking about defeating the might of Nazi Germany.
 
Stalin may not have a choice in the matter, the Germans will likely reach 'natural' frontiers like the Volga and other major rivers and stop regardless of what Stalin wants.

The Germans planned to starve 30 million Russians to death, forced and volunteer expulsions would also occur, making the problem far more manageable. However the partisan issue is vastly overblown; like regular armies partisans depend on some sort of chance of success and can be subverted by people who think partisans are going to win and so cause more trouble than they're worth.

The Germans captured vast amounts of Soviet resources IOTL and would take more ITTL, the term 'simply' does not apply when talking about defeating the might of Nazi Germany.
One word: the holocaust.
Why waste excrupulous ammounts of gas, bullets, and steel or concrete when you could just use them for your war effort?
Starving thirty million slavs would not be an easy task, especially if there's still possibly a siberian rump state backing partisans covertly.
I don't think germany's chances of defeating the soviets ITTL are even remotely close to 90%.
 

hipper

Banned
So are you saying there is no LL, just sales? If so then Britain has to exit the war in 1941 probably right around Barbarossa due to lack of money to finance critical foreign purchases from the US. LL gave them over $30 Billion in effectively free war materials in 1940 value dollars. The USSR got over $11 Billion.
Britain could not finance the war, nor give the LL it gave to the USSR in 1941 on and without the US; if the US doesn't give to Britain or the USSR but let's them purchase, the USSR could still do limited purchasing with gold it has from mining, but nothing like OTL. So they can partially make up for some of the LL they got, but are much worse off materially than they were IOTL especially if Britain is too broke to continue the war with Cash and Carry by 1941 and cannot start the strategic bombing offensive or maintain pressure in other fronts due to finance. Very bad news for Stalin.
Stalin will probably try and make peace offers, which probably get rejected so long as Hitler thinks he can win all the marbles. Likely Hitler makes all the same mistakes he does IOTL until Summer 1942. Then without the US in the war and Britain out, he doesn't need to rush to take Caucasian oil, so probably focuses on Stalingrad to cut the Volga and strangle the Soviet supply artery. Lack of LL would be very painful for the USSR by this point. In fact with the British out due to no LL, then by 1942 the Germans can Cash and Carry, which saves them a LOT of trouble if they can buy oil and rubber on the global market. This might well be a scenario where the Soviets can't rally and do lose the war as they are left on their own.
If LL is still approved, but the US isn't in the war then things are a fair bit different, but without the US in the war the need for Caucasian oil is still lessened, as in the US army monography about German 1940-42 planning for the Russian campaign they strongly reference the impact on US entry into Hitler's planning and rashness for the Summer 1942 campaign.


if the us is not in the war and does not invoke lend lease, but more importantly does not lead Churchill to believe lend lease is possible then the war is very different. The UKs war making efforts have to be very different in scope and lesser no taking over the French orders for example after the fall of France, no orders of P40's

In short lend lease would severely change how the UK fought the war but not if they would fight the war.
 
Top