no invasion of Russia, hows the rest of WW2 in europe go down?

i'm sure this has been done before but idk where. So if Germany doesn't invade the USSR in 1941 & just keeps fighting Britain & later the US how would WW2 turn out? anyone that can give ideas please give them.
 
Russia would invade Germany?

Not immediately, of course. Give it another year or more of military build-up in the USSR and German failure to defeat Britain, though, and at the very least one would think Stalin would start driving a hard bargain for any continued resource subsidy.
 
I would imagine that it would be disastrous for the Allies. Without the troop commitments in Russia, Hitler would be able to concentrate on the West. Especially since for the later half of 1940 until the US entry into the war in late 41 early 42, I think it was pretty much just Britain against Germany. Not good odds if Germany isn't fighting on 2 fronts.
 
Not immediately, of course. Give it another year or more of military build-up in the USSR and German failure to defeat Britain, though, and at the very least one would think Stalin would start driving a hard bargain for any continued resource subsidy.

The bargain was already pretty hard, the Germans would need to start paying him off soon if they didn't launch Barbarossa.

Presuming the Soviets stay completely neutral, which is rather unlikely, the war probably ends around 1946 with Germany being nuked into submission.
 
I would imagine that it would be disastrous for the Allies. Without the troop commitments in Russia, Hitler would be able to concentrate on the West. Especially since for the later half of 1940 until the US entry into the war in late 41 early 42, I think it was pretty much just Britain against Germany. Not good odds if Germany isn't fighting on 2 fronts.

Not very much that Germany could do against Britain either.
 
The opposite notion is also very true. So If Germany does not invade Russia the two countries will watch out each other's steps for a wrong move. But this would also mean that the Western Front stabilises and with no fighting between Germany and Great Britain we won't be seeing the extend of involvement of the US we know from history. My opinion is that not even a year later the USSR would invade west. There just isn't anything else to be done by Moscow.
 
Didn't Germany almost win against Britain when they bombarded London, but stopped bombing when Britain was about to give up?
 
Didn't Germany almost win against Britain when they bombarded London, but stopped bombing when Britain was about to give up?

No. In fact, only the opposite is even half-true. The RAF were in serious trouble when the Luftwaffe were bombing airfields and, according to some, were only a week or so away from losing any hope of maintaining air superiority over their own country. However, in the nick of time, Hitler came up with the excellent idea of bombing cities instead and terrorising the people into submission. The opposite happened, as we all know - people came together and were more united in favour of continuing the war now the Germans were being so barbaric as to murder their friends and families from the air. The RAF rallied, got back up to speed and the rest, as they say, is history.

Very abridged and somewhat simplified, but illustrates my point rather well - what you said isn't true, but the opposite is sort of true. Bombing cities actually hurt the German chances of beating Britain to submission.
 
Didn't Germany almost win against Britain when they bombarded London, but stopped bombing when Britain was about to give up?
From what I've read Great Britain was morally nearly in collapse. The RAF Fighter Command was almost in ruins. If I remember correctly the number of operational fighters was a little bit over 400 units. So the higher military and civilian British officials looked to a way to give it a fresh breath of air. The Bomber Command made a massive bombing of civilian targets in Germany with the exact goal to drive Hitler mad and to make him give orders to divert the pressure of the Luftwaffe from the RAF installations onto the British cities. We all know what followed.
 
Last edited:
I would imagine that it would be disastrous for the Allies. Without the troop commitments in Russia, Hitler would be able to concentrate on the West. Especially since for the later half of 1940 until the US entry into the war in late 41 early 42, I think it was pretty much just Britain against Germany. Not good odds if Germany isn't fighting on 2 fronts.

Why is it 'not good odds'? Our prospects for beating Germany on our lonesome are not big because, and here's the thing, Britain was on about an equal footing with Germany in terms of resources although not, in the early parts of the war, military efficiency. But a) people worship the flashy Wehrmacht and forget the formidable and effective organisational infrastructure behind our victory in the BoB, or our successful innovation in the Atlantic war and b) as true Britons know, taking war too seriously is unsporting and precisely the sort of thing Germans do. :p What exactly is Germany going to do to us?

To nick Faeelin's phrase, people frequently buy Britain's own romantic self-image and assume we were a Green and Pleasant Land of shopkeeper's and inept bank-clerks leading home-guard platoons, rather than a nation that was in much the same league as Germany concerning industrial productivity and had access to world-wide imperial and investment resources, and was heavily mobilised to boot.

Another element that is forgotten is that Germany was only able to mobilise so much of its manpower by relying on slaves taken from the Soviet Union to the tune of a couple of millions. Obviously Soviet neutrality means in the immediate term that the Germans have vastly more manpower at their disposal for use against the Commonwealth in the armed forces or in industry.

But over the long haul, they physically can't mobilise as many soldiers as they did and still build them weapons. Not unless they start to treat the French and Dutch the way they treated Poles and Ukrainians, and that causes more problems.
 
Why is it 'not good odds'? Our prospects for beating Germany on our lonesom are not big because, and here's the thing, Britain was on about an equal footing with Germany. What exactly is Germany going to do to us?

To nick Faeelin's phrase, people frequently buy Britain's own romantic self-image and assume we were a Green and Pleasant Land of shopkeeper's and inept bank-clerks leading home-guard platoons, rather than a nation that was in much the same league as Germany concerning industrial productivity and had access to world-wide imperial and investment resources, and was heavily mobilised to boot.

According to The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:

The UK's percentage of world manufacturing in 1938 is 9.2%, Germany is 13.2%.

War potential (1937): 10.2% to 14.4%.

Still, hardly an overwhelming edge for Germany, since this is the UK, not the British Empire.
 
According to The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers:

The UK's percentage of world manufacturing in 1938 is 9.2%, Germany is 13.2%.

War potential (1937): 10.2% to 14.4%.

Still, hardly an overwhelming edge for Germany, since this is the UK, not the British Empire.

Germany, of course, had its own empire in Europe that changes the balance again; but that was a) smaller and b) blockaded by us and looted by them in a way that played merry hell with its production.

The main point is indeed that we are discussing countries in the same league, whereas people sometime assume that Britain was indeed nothing at all except Airstrip One.
 
From what I've read Great Britain was morally nearly in collapse. The RAF Fighter Command was almost in ruins. If I remember correctly the number of operational fighters was a little bit over 400 units. So the higher military and civilian British officials looked to a way to give it a fresh breath of air. The Bomber Command made a massive bombing of civilian targets in Germany with the exact goal to drive Hitler mad and to make him give orders to divert the pressure of the Luftwaffe from the RAF installations onto the British cities. We all know what followed.

You must have read some very odd books.

At no time in the Battle of Britain was fighter production and pilot availability significantly reduced from the original strength of the front line squadrons.

The bombing of German targets was in response to the accidental bombing of residential areas in the German bombing campaign notably at Croydon and Harrow. Like the germans the British did not intend to bomb residential areas - the problem was that bombing accuracy on both sides was poor.

Once bombs had landed on both sides cities neither side saw the need to refrain from area bombing particularly as it was recognised that precision bombing of targets was a fantasy given the air defenses on both sides.
 
Germany, of course, had its own empire in Europe that changes the balance again; but that was a) smaller and b) blockaded by us and looted by them in a way that played merry hell with its production.

The main point is indeed that we are discussing countries in the same league, whereas people sometime assume that Britain was indeed nothing at all except Airstrip One.

Agreed.

At worst, Britain (not counting the Commonwealth and what remained of the Empire) was weaker by enough to be deeply burdened by the costs of war.

At best...its not as if Germany wasn't.

Britain's main problem in my understanding is being spread thin due to the problems of being a global empire, with enemies both near (Germany, Italy) and far (Japan).

But its hardly screwed - to paraphrase what a certain admiral said of an earlier enemy: "I do not say the enemy cannot come, but he cannot come by sea."

And as long as that's true, Germany is ultimately not going to be able to do more than inflict heaps of civilian and RAF Fighter Command (is that the term?) casualties.

Anyone thinking that'll make Britain lose the war has not studied British history.
 
wasn't it the war with Russia that prompted the Germans to build up the big armies they did and develop the bigger tanks and stuff that they did in OTL? Without the invasion, it seems that Germany's incentive to do so will be slowed down somewhat (no T-34 to prompt development of bigger tanks, etc.)...
 
USSR can invade Middle east. Another possible variant is anew war with Finland or Japan. But not invading Germany - i believe, that Stalin wouldnt risk his power , because he know, that German were able to defeat France, which had been believed to be more powerful, and USSR could hardly defeat Finland. I think, he didnt want to repeat Nicholas II's mistakes.
 
Top