No Britain, no Lend-Lease?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Based on the POD in this thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=6905&highlight=torpedoes
What if, as a result of Churchill dying in 1939, the British agree to a peace deal in 1940 after the fall of France? What happens to lend-lease in this scenario as the Germans turn East and go after the Soviets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Lend-Lease only started in 1941, but if the British are out of the war, will Congress be willing to support the Communists if the Nazis invade? Also, would the US sell to the Nazis after the British exit the war and the Soviets are invaded. There was strong anti-communist sentiments in the US at the time, so perhaps the Nazis will build up enough good will for attempting to destroy the Comintern (obviously covering up their crimes).

As a side note, would this scenario allow the Germans to deport the Jews instead of killing them? IIRC up until the Wannsee Conference, it was not policy to exterminate the Jewish populations of Europe, but rather to deport them to another non-European location. Would access to the world market and free transit allow them then to push out European Jews?

Also, would the Nazis withdraw from France and other European nations sooner if there was no threat from Britain? OTL the occupation was only supposed to last until a final peace could be negotiated, put on hold by the war. This would also mean the 2 million French prisoners in Germany would be returned, depriving them of a means of ensuring France would not rearm. But would a France, having lost so much so quickly, be willing or able to try to build an army of aggression?
 
The whole deporting Jews didn't work too well, because the Americas weren't acceting them until really late in the war. The British did, however.
 
Based on the POD in this thread:

As a side note, would this scenario allow the Germans to deport the Jews instead of killing them? IIRC up until the Wannsee Conference, it was not policy to exterminate the Jewish populations of Europe, but rather to deport them to another non-European location. Would access to the world market and free transit allow them then to push out European Jews?

Expect as part of the formal peace terms for the British and French to have to take all the "Untermensch" the Germans hand them. Jews and later Poles.

As to the rest with the UK out of the war expect the US to go deeply isolationist. The US might sell to the Soviets but on a pure cash and carry basis.

As to Europe and how that plays out? No clue it would depend on many things. The problem is Hitler didn't want a formalized setup. As a WAG pre-ww1 borders restored in West with some choice annexations, a laundry list of wish items like demilitarized France, Low Countries, German interference in Denmark, Norway, etc. Lop sided trade deal with Germany, trade in D-Mark, perhaps currency union with several nations.

Michael
 
Expect as part of the formal peace terms for the British and French to have to take all the "Untermensch" the Germans hand them. Jews and later Poles.

I think that would be pretty unlikely. While I hope that whatever government replaces the broken-back one that makes peace with Hitler will provide refuge for some Jews, and possibly support some Madagascar plan I can't see them agreeing to mass expulsions from eastern Europe.

As to the rest with the UK out of the war expect the US to go deeply isolationist. The US might sell to the Soviets but on a pure cash and carry basis.

The US would quite possibly go even more isolationist. Possibly greater attention to events in China, partly because that is one of the few areas that their goods wouldn't be excluded from. Also, with having failed to exert influence in the European theatre its the one area they will still be able to play a role. Furthermore, presuming British military spending cuts back the US could see a bit of a slump although by this time its own military build-up would take up a lot of the slack.

As to Europe and how that plays out? No clue it would depend on many things. The problem is Hitler didn't want a formalized setup. As a WAG pre-ww1 borders restored in West with some choice annexations, a laundry list of wish items like demilitarized France, Low Countries, German interference in Denmark, Norway, etc. Lop sided trade deal with Germany, trade in D-Mark, perhaps currency union with several nations.

Michael

The key point would probably be the status of Britain. Its the only power with the industrial base to be a potential rival plus with its navy and the RAF to have security. If you have some collaborationist group in power, refusing to look after Britain's interests because they fear another war, then things could go very good for the Germans. Alternatively a national reaction which means people start thinking of sorting out economic and military problems ready for a re-match things could be very nasty for the Nazis, especially if. as is likely, they get bogged down in Russia before they realise what's happening to their west.

The other uncertainty is how unprepared Stalin would be and the potential results. Most reports suggest that he refused to accept warnings OTL because he refused to believe that Hitler would be stupid enough to launch an attack while still at war with Britain. Presuming this isn't post-war propaganda then that would mean the Red army is better prepared positionally for the German attack. [This could back-fire however if Stalin is too over-confident and tries counter-attacking the Germans near the border]. However, avoiding that disaster, the Germans have a very long fight ahead of them, although without a British war and blockage their position is much stronger.

Steve
 
I think that would be pretty unlikely. While I hope that whatever government replaces the broken-back one that makes peace with Hitler will provide refuge for some Jews, and possibly support some Madagascar plan I can't see them agreeing to mass expulsions from eastern Europe.

With the Germans in Paris the French will agree to whatever the Germans tell them to. The UK would have more freedom to maneuver but in the sense of being picking or perhaps dumping the entire problem onto the French.


The key point would probably be the status of Britain. Its the only power with the industrial base to be a potential rival plus with its navy and the RAF to have security. If you have some collaborationist group in power, refusing to look after Britain's interests because they fear another war, then things could go very good for the Germans. Alternatively a national reaction which means people start thinking of sorting out economic and military problems ready for a re-match things could be very nasty for the Nazis, especially if. as is likely, they get bogged down in Russia before they realise what's happening to their west.

I expect that the UK would get compared to France a sweat heart deal. Hitler had some idea's from his table talk and saw the UK as key to order in the world. Also the UK isn't occupied. Some bits of territory, perhaps the WW1 colonies back even if they are a waste of effort, some trade deal but in general ending the blockade is key.

The other uncertainty is how unprepared Stalin would be and the potential results. Most reports suggest that he refused to accept warnings OTL because he refused to believe that Hitler would be stupid enough to launch an attack while still at war with Britain. Presuming this isn't post-war propaganda then that would mean the Red army is better prepared positionally for the German attack. [This could back-fire however if Stalin is too over-confident and tries counter-attacking the Germans near the border]. However, avoiding that disaster, the Germans have a very long fight ahead of them, although without a British war and blockage their position is much stronger.

Steve

The big thing for the Germans is that without the RN blockade their own economy and the rest of Europe's is far more effective just being able to import fertilizer and the rest changes things a great deal.

Michael
 

Deleted member 1487

I think it is very likely the British sign a treaty that lets them off easy, its just that they have to recognize German victory on the continent. Much like OTL they will then rebuild and eventually redeclare war if and when the opportunity presents itself. This will take many years, so if the Germans are truly bogged down in Russia for more than 4-7 years, they will be attacked, but other than that, I think the British stay out and enjoy watching Germany and Russia rip each other apart while getting wealthy on trade.

Russia is in trouble here though. They have an undistracted Europe that is open to world trade against them. They will also not likely have lend-lease, meaning their war effort is severely hampered with mass starvation unless Stalin decides that a massive army isn't within Russia's power.
I do question the offensive/defensive version of events that Russia claimed. Its true that they were not anywhere near defensively ready, but perhaps they ready themselves to attack Germany instead when it becomes apparent that the Axis are building up on their borders. It is more likely that the Soviets stand on the defensive while the Germans are able to build up much more thanks to world trade being open to them and the conquered countries like France under their control will also be able to have access to the necessary industrial resources to build modern weapons of war.

We could see Vichy France getting their reparations reduced for weapons and equipment, so that post war it is in a decent position for economic recovery and development. Though an undestroyed Germany industry is going to be a powerful rival in the postwar world.
 
I think Britain might have a better time of it in the far east, but not by much. I take it the rest of TTL goes as per the original with the Pearl Harbour attack going in?
If so, I think Japan could either be out of the war by early 1944, or, the war could drag on until 46 or later if the Allies have to invade the Japanese home islands. Once Operation Olympic begins, it won't be possible to pull the troops out of contact to drop the atomic bombs as per OTL.

Without lease lend to the Soviets? I think the result could be pretty much the same but with the Soviets having all of Northern Europe to the French & Dutch borders under their control, but it would take far longer, possibly 48 if Stalin survives that long?
How the Swedes would deal with this is unknown.
 
I think the result could be pretty much the same but with the Soviets having all of Northern Europe to the French & Dutch borders under their control, but it would take far longer, possibly 48 if Stalin survives that long?

Are you sure about that? The Soviets not getting L-L is a considerable German advantage by itself. That not even considering the advantages of not having to fight in Africa, not needing large garrisons in Western and Northern Europe, not having their industry bombed all the time, not being cut off from the world market, large numbers of aircraft and crews not being killed in the BoB.

All this would probably be enough to stalemate the Soviets somewhere in Eastern Europe if they start pushing back.
 
Although the Lease Lend facilities greatly improved the Soviet war fighting ability, it was probably the supply of the 2 1/2ton trucks that were the biggest help.
Without these the Russians are on foot mostly and their advance would be glacial - slow but unstoppable through sheer weight of numbers.
It could be said, and only half jokingly, that only the USSR and China could make General Haig's tactics work - advance slowly towards the enemy until they run out of machine gun bullets - then attack.
 
Without these the Russians are on foot mostly and their advance would be glacial - slow but unstoppable through sheer weight of numbers.
It could be said, and only half jokingly, that only the USSR and China could make General Haig's tactics work - advance slowly towards the enemy until they run out of machine gun bullets - then attack.

By the end of WWII, Stalin was taking people out of Gulags to fill the Red Army ranks, so his manpower pool wasnt endless. Plus, the German will have much more bullets then OTL to throw at the advancing canon fodder called the Red Army.
 
As a side note, would this scenario allow the Germans to deport the Jews instead of killing them? IIRC up until the Wannsee Conference, it was not policy to exterminate the Jewish populations of Europe, but rather to deport them to another non-European location.?
Not true, from the very beginning of the invasion of the Soviet Union, the murder squads of the Einsatgruppen were murdering Jews and members of the civilian Communist leadership as fast as they could, for example on the 1st December 1941, Einsatzkommando 3 was able to report that it had executed a total of 137,346 people, the vast majority of them Jews, and that Lithuania was now 'Jew free'.:(
Other Einsatgruppen detachments were sending out similar reports from the other Baltic states and Russia itself.
The Wannsee Conference was organised merely to work out a more effective and efficient method of the ongoing mass murder of the Jews.
 
I think Britain might have a better time of it in the far east, but not by much. I take it the rest of TTL goes as per the original with the Pearl Harbour attack going in?
If so, I think Japan could either be out of the war by early 1944, or, the war could drag on until 46 or later if the Allies have to invade the Japanese home islands. Once Operation Olympic begins, it won't be possible to pull the troops out of contact to drop the atomic bombs as per OTL.

If we're not fighting the Germans and Italian, and hence not allied with the Soviets, then the Japanese have virtually no chance of getting into Malaya. They could probably give the RN a nasty and costly shock or two but are going to go down, given all the other commitments the Japanese have. Mind you the situation is so different and difficult for Japan that the Pacific war may be totally butterflied.

If allied forces are fighting in Japan when the bomb becomes available it will almost certainly get used. There will be military and industrial targets outside the immediately areas of conflict if Japan has anything left.

Without lease lend to the Soviets? I think the result could be pretty much the same but with the Soviets having all of Northern Europe to the French & Dutch borders under their control, but it would take far longer, possibly 48 if Stalin survives that long?
How the Swedes would deal with this is unknown.

I would agree with the other posters. With only a single front war and no blockage for the Nazis plus no L-L for the Soviets I can't see even Hitler losing it. At least not that badly. [Unless he initially gets forces even deeper into Russia and then suffers a couple of defeats that see Army Groups encircled and destroyed perhaps]. More likely, presuming no intervention by other powers, is that Germany 'wins' in terms of having marginally more of a state left when the blood-letting finally ends.

Steve
 

Deleted member 1487

can i just ask, why is churchill dying essential to keeping out of, or withdrawing from the war?

Check the link in the OP, the posters to that thread seemed to be of the mind that if Churchill was dead the British people and government would not be inspired continue to resist.

I would agree with the other posters. With only a single front war and no blockage for the Nazis plus no L-L for the Soviets I can't see even Hitler losing it. At least not that badly. [Unless he initially gets forces even deeper into Russia and then suffers a couple of defeats that see Army Groups encircled and destroyed perhaps]. More likely, presuming no intervention by other powers, is that Germany 'wins' in terms of having marginally more of a state left when the blood-letting finally ends.

If anything, this scenario seems to mean that a "Fatherland" situation is most likely. The Axis is able to better prepare for the invasion of Russia for a year, plus have their vassals (France et al) also add their full economies to the war effort. Also, the Italians are likely to have a larger contribution as they won't have commitments elsewhere (like North Africa), and the Spanish might even commit more, as they won't have to worry about the reaction of the West. Who knows, maybe Finland will decided to go full tilt for Leningrad, as they won't have to worry about the West seeking vengeance and the Soviets seem more likely than ever to fall.

True, the Soviets are likely to be anticipating an invasion and plan accordingly, so they perhaps do better in 1941, stopping the Blitz much earlier. The only problem with this is that the Axis is then able to sustain a multi-season campaign much better than OTL, while the Soviets are forced to rely solely on their own resources, meaning fewer men for the front, as the civilian population is forced to turn to agriculture, mining, and manufacturing to make up for the loss of lend-lease. Otherwise mass starvation is likely, and even with the changes to the Soviet planning, it is likely that some starvation still happens anyway.

Once the Axis take Ukraine, the Soviets will be in dire straights because of the loss of food, mining, and manpower without the replacement of goods through lend lease.
The likely outcome is a Brest-Litovsk peace deal, but worse, with Stalin falling to internal house-cleaning and a wrecked Soviet Union incapable of aggression.
The Axis proceeds to ethnically cleanse large areas of their newly-won territory, but things slow down once Hitler dies and the lack of a replacement with the necessary gravitas to hold the Nazi party together (Göring is about 5 years from a heart attack or diabetes doing him in, Himmler is hated by everyone, Bormann also has enemies and is a faceless bureaucrat, Goebbels is a joke). Germany probably falls to a stooge who is supported by the army, which then either opts for bringing the Monarchy back, or running the country indefinitely. Or a civil war between the SS and Wehrmacht.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
As a side note, would this scenario allow the Germans to deport the Jews instead of killing them? IIRC up until the Wannsee Conference, it was not policy to exterminate the Jewish populations of Europe, but rather to deport them to another non-European location. Would access to the world market and free transit allow them then to push out European Jews?

Hitler called for the Jews to be wiped out (across Europe, not in limited cases) in a meeting on the 12th, just after declaring war on the USA. Long before the Wannsee Conference. RedcoatT's post indicates that things were already rolling in the east by the time that general order went out on 12th Dec, 1941.

The outcome of Lend-lease to the Soviet Union after Britain comes to peace is that all of continental Europe falls behind the iron curtain. The Soviets won the second world war. Give them more lend lease and they would do it again. The extra trucks allow them to reach Paris/Madrid. They didn't even need lend lease after early 1942. It was just a cold war bonus. The early lend lease from Britain in Dec 1941 made the largest difference. Maybe the outer streets of Moscow (west of the river/canal) might fall without that (but the Soviets would still win).
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Hitler called for the Jews to be wiped out (across Europe, not in limited cases) in a meeting on the 12th, just after declaring war on the USA. Long before the Wannsee Conference. RedcoatT's post indicates that things were already rolling in the east by the time that general order went out on 12th Dec, 1941.

So the POD is long before then, perhaps creating butterflies that will prevent the "Final Solution". From the limited reading I've done on the Holocaust, it seems that this decision was reached due to all other 'options', if you'll call them that, being exhausted (can't ship them out, can't convince all to leave, etc.). So if there is no embargo on German controlled Europe after 1940, is there any chance that the "Madagascar" option will still be floated and prevent the Holocaust?
 

Eurofed

Banned
So the POD is long before then, perhaps creating butterflies that will prevent the "Final Solution". From the limited reading I've done on the Holocaust, it seems that this decision was reached due to all other 'options', if you'll call them that, being exhausted (can't ship them out, can't convince all to leave, etc.). So if there is no embargo on German controlled Europe after 1940, is there any chance that the "Madagascar" option will still be floated and prevent the Holocaust?

A very high chance. In 1940, it was seen as the default option.
 
The outcome of Lend-lease to the Soviet Union after Britain comes to peace is that all of continental Europe falls behind the iron curtain. The Soviets won the second world war. Give them more lend lease and they would do it again. The extra trucks allow them to reach Paris/Madrid.

Except they dont get lend lease. It has already been mentioned a couple of times.


They didn't even need lend lease after early 1942. It was just a cold war bonus. The early lend lease from Britain in Dec 1941 made the largest difference. Maybe the outer streets of Moscow (west of the river/canal) might fall without that (but the Soviets would still win).

Are you kidding? Wiking already covered how important lend lease was for the Soviets.
 
Who knows, maybe Finland will decided to go full tilt for Leningrad, as they won't have to worry about the West seeking vengeance and the Soviets seem more likely than ever to fall.

I consider this unlikely. Firstly, Finland doesn't want Leningrad. Mannerheim et al. still considered conquering big foreign cities in terms that must have seemed quaint and old-fashioned the their German allies, namely that they would have to (sort of) feed and look after the captive population, which they can't afford. Secondly, resource-wise Finland could only launch a "full tilt" attack on Leningrad at the expense of the troops deployed for the attack in Eastern Karelia. From both strategic and nationalist-irredentist perspectives, East Karelia and the projected "Three Isthmus line" offered a better cost-benefit ratio.

Even in this changed situation, the immediate and middle-term benefits of conquering Leningrad would not outweigh the cost of the operation for Finland. Just let Germany finish of the Soviets and then pick up some of the pieces if the Germans are successful.
 
I consider this unlikely. Firstly, Finland doesn't want Leningrad. Mannerheim et al. still considered conquering big foreign cities in terms that must have seemed quaint and old-fashioned the their German allies, namely that they would have to (sort of) feed and look after the captive population, which they can't afford. Secondly, resource-wise Finland could only launch a "full tilt" attack on Leningrad at the expense of the troops deployed for the attack in Eastern Karelia. From both strategic and nationalist-irredentist perspectives, East Karelia and the projected "Three Isthmus line" offered a better cost-benefit ratio.

Even in this changed situation, the immediate and middle-term benefits of conquering Leningrad would not outweigh the cost of the operation for Finland. Just let Germany finish of the Soviets and then pick up some of the pieces if the Germans are successful.
Mostly agreed, but it is possible that Finland might decide to offer some support for a German attack on Leningrad in exchange for German aid in accomplishing their other goals.
 
Top