Realistic Allied WW2 victory without either the USSR or the US?

[Ian_W]

Also colonial troops are a poor replacement for American/Allied troops,

I'm going to deal with this particular racist slur immediately.

When equipped to the same standards, which the Allies took great care to do, units recruited from the colonies performed as well as any other units.

Take, for example, the 4th Indian Division in Italy.

On the French side, look at the 1er Régiment de Spahis, also known as the 1st RMSM as the reconnisance battallion of the Free French 2nd Armoured Division.

Yes, the Nazis starved their allied units of decent equipment, and then when they did badly made up bullshit about German racial superiority.

Don't drink the Wehraboo kool-aid.

The Allied win was substantially because they made effective use of, well, Allies.

 

[Ian_W]

You cant correct something which was true in the first place.

Again nonsence. OTL Britain was broke by April 1941, this was with all the gold they took from Belgium, France, the colonies ect. So even if the French manage to fight well into 1941, they will run out of currency faster than the Germans.

A very important point you're missing is that with France in the war and Italy not in the war, the vastly improved shipping situation means the British can import, for example, Argentinian beef paid for in pounds, rather than American canned spam paid for in dollars.

The Germans, on the other hand, need to come up with hard currency to outbid the British and French buying Rumanian oil, or divert war production to make what Stalin wants.

 

[Ian_W]

Allthough this is an alternate history forum, there seems to prevail a deterministic belief that the Allies win WW2 - even in a scenario where either the US/GB or the USSR are removed from the equation. The explanations offered are fantastic and include: Millions of Indians defeating the Reich for Great Britain, the USSR managing the war by itself despite lack of food and pretty much everything else by 1942,and the WAllies just sitting out the war untill the atom bomb is ready - allthough they have no idea when it will be ready. Of course, they not only never lose, they also never negotiate. So I would like to see realistic scenarios where Germany/the Axis is completely defeated, even with the Allies missing one or even two players.

Scenario 1: On December 13th 1931 Winston Churchill is struck by a car driven by Edward F. Cantasano and dies immediately on the spot. The rest of history goes mostly as OTL until May 1940. Instead of Churchill, Lord Halifax becomes Prime Minister and arranges a negotiated peace with Germany.

Absolutely Alien Space Bats.

Do some actual research about the British government of early 1940.

Here is the most important point.

They had been through the First World War, seen gas, and they thought the Germans would use gas against civilians, and that the bomber would always get through. Put those things together and you can expect hundreds of thousands of gassed women and children.

And they declared war anyway.

Chamberlain was the architect of Britain's rearmament between 1935 and 1939. Ever found it odd the UK had two first-class fighters going into full production in 1939, and that Treasury had never gone 'Oh, thats excessive. Pick one to build', the way the Germans prioritised the Bf-109 over the FW-190 ?

That's because Neville Chamberlain was the Treasurer, and he had the UK rearming as fast as the money could be spent, and especially on single-engine fighters he knew would be vital for the war.

As far as Britain getting into the war and staying in the war, Churchill was an irrelevancy. Clement Attlee and Sir John Simon were 100% behind the war and that means the numbers are there in parliament regardless of a peace faction in the Conservatives.

So. Yeah.

Scenario 1 is Alien Space Bats. A failed First Sea Lord dying in a car crash doesn't affect things, which was that the British Establishment's intention to be armed to take care of Hitler if neccessary.

Don't believe me ? Read a cabinet document on German rearmament from before the occupation of the Rhineland which can be summed up as 'Hitler is rearming. We need lots of fighters, chaps. Get building'.

http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-23-80-cc-42-34-10.pdf

Bluntly, any British government comprised of people prepared to surrender in May 1940 doesn't declare war in September 1939.

 

[Ian_W]

Scenario 2: On February 15th 1933 Franklin D. Roosevelt is killed by shots from Guiseppe Zangara. Vice President Garner takes over and remains president until 1940. Garner is an isolationist and against the expansion of the military. The next President Thomas E. Dewey is an isolationist as well. So there is only very little support for Great Britain. Only nonmilitary products that are paid for in cash are delivered. There are no US convoys protecting British shipping, no LL stuff, no US troops. Everything Britain needs has to come from what the Dominions can give. How exactly is it even remotely realistic to assume that the British win the war under these circumstances? How exactly is it even remotely realistic to assume that the British dont negotiate under these circumstances? Even when/if the Germans invade the USSR in June 1941?

Here is your problem. You don't need the Alien Space bats to mind-control Thomas E. Dewey and stop him recognising the Nazis taking over Europe would allow the US to be threatened once they build a navy and start destabilising South America.

You need the Alien Space Bats doing their mind control in Tokyo, because the Nazis cannot conquer the UK in 1940-41 because Sealion is impossible given any two of the Royal Navy, the RAF and the English Channel being more than six feet deep.

Once the Japanese do Pearl, then isolationism evaporates and the US can be expected to support their ally.

 

[Ian_W]

Scenario 3: Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotsky dont act like complete idiots, Stalins rise to power is prolonged by a few years. As a result the military build up of the USSR starts a few years later than OTL .When the Germans attack in 1941, the USSR has "only" 12 000 tanks and 12 000 aircraft at its disposal (half of what they had OTL). Most of this equippment is destroyed by the end of August 1941, by November the Germans reach the AA line and the USSR surrenders.

Alien Space Bats clearly came in and rebuilt all the roads in Western Russia to western European standards and changed the Soviet rail gauge to be the same as the German one, allowing the German Army to get to the AA line by November.

Oh yeah, and the autumn rasputita didn't happen.

It's all I've got on this one.

 

[History Learner]

Corrected that for you.

It's also important to remember that the Germans run out of hard currency to pay for fuel before the Entente does.

I don't believe it can accurately be termed a correction when its false. The Germans outclass the English and French to the extent it's not even funny; there's a reason it took four years even after the Soviets and Americans were brought in to finish the Reich.

Yes, the Anglo-French bloc has such a truly minuscule war making capacity....
(although why Haiti and Turkey are part of the Anglo-French empires is something which I have never quite been able to figure out...)

Territorial Size =/= War-Making capacity

Speaking of which, I'd like to point out The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, which shows the following for 1937:

Germany, prior to even its first round of annexations, was already tied with the Anglo-French.

 

[Ian_W]

Speaking of which, I'd like to point out The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, which shows the following for 1937:

Germany, prior to even its first round of annexations, was already tied with the Anglo-French.

The edge the Entente has is the same one that led to victory in 1918.

The Entente has access to the world market, and Germany does not.

 

[RodentRevolution]

I don't believe it can accurately be termed a correction when its false. The Germans outclass the English and French to the extent it's not even funny; there's a reason it took four years even after the Soviets and Americans were brought in to finish the Reich.



Territorial Size =/= War-Making capacity

Speaking of which, I'd like to point out The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, which shows the following for 1937:

Germany, prior to even its first round of annexations, was already tied with the Anglo-French.

Every one of the OPs original scenarios consists of not one but at least 4 PODs and Kennedy confused a single measure of industrial output with war making potential. They are not the same, in fact war making potential is both entirely made up and mutable, the same nation will have different potentials in regards to different wars. This should be obvious, a war fought three thousand miles away across sea lines of communication is a very different affair from a land war on one's own borders.

I mean Germany fought and lost both kinds of war but hey some folks want to push illiberal views of history and argue that dictatorships are better than democracies despite their historical track record.

The issue Germany has in every scenario is that it cannot beat Britain without handwaves. Britain likely cannot beat it in a direct fight without external aid but here is the thing Britain is likely to get that aid and besides it has the option of simply outlasting the Nazis. The Nazi economy was not equipped to face a long war, a war with just Britain and the Governments in Exile opposing the Germans might last until 1950 but Britain could last that long. It would be in the sea yes but the sea was still very much its natural environment and thus those same defensive forces would still blockade Germany and that would add costs to the German pursuit of raw materials that they could not afford.

Then of course we have the potential roles of America. America depends for its wealth on global trade. Global trade is the source of America's wealth. Yes it really is so important it is worth repeating twice. Forget the Hollywood BS about getting involved in European wars out of the goodness of its heart or the machination of financiers, it went to war on each occasion for its factory workers. Allowing a huge swath of the world's markets to be closed off to you is not an option when your factories running at an average 60% of capacity still produce some 41.7% of the world's manufactured goods. You need to be able to sell stuff and if the British are buying then you are going to find the President and a lot of folks in Congress are going to find a way to give them credit to do so whatever they have to call it to get around the isolationists.

The Soviet scenarios are the same the Soviets are always going to look to their defences. The Red Army was the home of some quite sophisticated military thinkers. Without a paranoid bureaucrat at the helm these folks are a lot more likely to be given their head and woe betide the Heer facing a Red Army even modestly capable of deep operations if it should plunge into the depths of Russia. Even assuming certain incompetence intact defensive lines of the kind Stalin had uprooted to move west would sound a death knell for the landsers.

 

[Medved]

@Ian_W

When you quote me could you do so in one single Post and not in 5? That would make a response far easier. As for your claims:

I'm going to deal with this particular racist slur immediately.

SIGH..... Colonial troops are a poor replacement for US/Allied troops - because most of them have to be forced to fight for their Colonial Overlord. Also there are not as numerous as you think: During all of WW2 less than 15 Allied divisions of colonial troops fought in North Africa/Europe. Of the 3 million or so Indians that enlisted, less than 500 000 served abroad - and most of these were sent to Burma. Compare this to the 60 or so US divisions with 3 million+ men used in NA and the ETO and you might see why they are a poor replacement. Also who is going to train and equip them?

A very important point you're missing is that with France in the war and Italy not in the war, the vastly improved shipping situation means the British can import, for example, Argentinian beef paid for in pounds, rather than American canned spam paid for in dollars.

Even if France remains in the war until the end of 1940, it does not guarantee no Italy in the war, and it sure as hell does not guarantee a better shipping situation. As for Argentina, OTL they allready supplied the maximum they could to the UK: 349 millions of pesos of meat exports in 1939 to the UK to 772 millions in 1944. The meat was transported on Argentinian ships which were safe from German attacks.

As for your dismissal of all three scenarios: Seeing your comments on how one of the most successful military campaigns in human history can be turned into catastrophic defeat "quite easily" - your assesment that all of these scenarios are ASB-ish and that Germany loses regardless - holds very little weight.

 

[Medved]

The edge the Entente has is the same one that led to victory in 1918.

Once again a wrong claim by you: The "edge" was the FULL backing by US Industry and 2 million US troops. Something not there in 1939-1941.

 

[Aber]

OTL aircraft production 1942-1944. British Empire: 80 000 - Germany: 80 000

That's a false equivalence - you're effectively comparing Lancasters with Fw190s.

 

[Medved]

Britain likely cannot beat it in a direct fight without external aid but here is the thing Britain is likely to get that aid and besides it has the option of simply outlasting the Nazis. The Nazi economy was not equipped to face a long war, a war with just Britain and the Governments in Exile opposing the Germans might last until 1950 but Britain could last that long. It would be in the sea yes but the sea was still very much its natural environment and thus those same defensive forces would still blockade Germany and that would add costs to the German pursuit of raw materials that they could not afford.

Everything other than the historcial LL dooms Britain to lose the war due to lack of supplies. OTL they were scrapping the barrel by 1944 - WITH full US support. The Nazi economy, supposedly not equipped for a long war, was doing relatively fine until 1944, despite the blockade, despite 2 million tons of bombs, despite fighting 3 of the largest powers on the planet besides itself. Yet even without full US support, people claim that weak GB just wins anyway. Because they just remain in the war until 1950..... no explanation needed how they would managed this, or how they would never negotiate......

 

[Ian_W]

@Ian_W


SIGH..... Colonial troops are a poor replacement for US/Allied troops - because most of them have to be forced to fight for their Colonial Overlord.

There's a point where I just get sick of people lying on the internet.

Colonial troops were volunteers. Full stop.

This is alternative history, not alternative facts.

 

[Medved]

That's a false equivalence - you're effectively comparing Lancasters with Fw190s.

We were not talking about weight but about numbers. If we talk about weight than the 20 000 to 37 000 spg production difference becomes even more overwhelming in favor of the Germans because their spgs were a lot heavier than the British ones.

 

[Bad@logic]

Territorial Size =/= War-Making capacity

Speaking of which, I'd like to point out The Rise and Fall of Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, which shows the following for 1937:

Germany, prior to even its first round of annexations, was already tied with the Anglo-French.

The UK and France outmatch Germany in every single category of production by 1940. More aircraft procurement, more tank procurement, more automobile procurement, vastly more artillery supplies and probably greater production, vastly more oil (especially when taking into account that Germany was running out of international reserves to actually purchase oil), access to the international market, a far larger population (even just taking into account whites, and not colonized peoples), vastly more food, incommensurately larger financial resources, and access to international markets. About the only thing the Germans had any advantage in was steel production, but even that is inflated since the French had plentiful excess capacity with production having peaked at 9 million tons and fallen during the great depression, and coal, but coal and steel alone a war economy does not make. Germany's supposed industrial parity quickly evaporates once you taken into account the painful weaknesses of the German economy and its vulnerability in the long run to being throttled by international blockade.

A simple comparison of industrial power is meaningless in this regards. I also find it fascinating how you can take from the point that the French and British have roughly equivalent industrial power to the Germans under your highly artificial and meaningless table to somehow mean that they "outclass the English and French to the extent it's not even funny."

You seem to be becoming increasingly irrational in your Germanist delusions, such as the insistence on the ability of the Germans to build a fleet to defeat the Americans, the Germans standing against the entire world in 1919, and now insisting on the Germans on their own having the resources to match the French and British in a war of attrition, in contradiction of every other serious poster on this board.... Even Hitler admitted the Germans were badly outmatched by the British and French; 'Hitler remarked on 27 September: 'The "time factor" is in general not on our side, unless we exploit it to the utmost. Economic means of the other side are stronger. [Enemies] able to cash and carry.'" as the Wages of Destruction points out on pg. 328. When even Hitler is insufficiently delusional to match your arguments, you need to seriously start re-evaluating what you are saying.

 

[Medved]

There's a point where I just get sick of people lying on the internet.

Colonial troops were volunteers. Full stop.

This is alternative history, not alternative facts.

With all the absrud claims made by you - you should be VERY carfel of accusing others of lying. Of 3 Million Indian volunteers less than 500 000 served abroad and less than 100 000 served in NA/Europe. Also provide sources that show that colonial troops in Africa/Asia volunteered specifically to go fight in Europe against the Germans - without any pressure from their colonial overlords.

 

[Medved]

@All

As written in my introduction. The determinism regarding this topic borders on Allied Wanking. While one of the greatest military victories in human history can apparently be turned around quite easily, German defeat seems to be inevitable. Even if they just fight 2/3 of what they were faced with historically. Or half, or 1/3. Little Britain prevails no matter what - it didnt really need the US and the 20 million+ tons of shipping space built by the US or the 3 million US soldiers and all the other stuff. It doesnt matter that OTL they very scrapping the barrel both in terms of manpower and finance by 1944 - another 6 years of war is a cakewalk for Britain...... And dont mind Germany. Its economy cant take a long war- just look at OTL where their economy collapsed by September 1944 - after just 5 years of fighting. The results will be same even without the 1 million tons of bombs released by the Americans. This doesnt help Germany industry/economy at all.....

 

[Bad@logic]

SIGH..... You may change the ground campaign, but this will not change the air campaign. Even if the French do much better on the ground, by early June their air force is still practically non existent. The British without the advantages they enjoyed during the BoB will also do a lot worse than OTL, and they will still not commit all of their air forces to the continent out of fear that France might still fall.

The French Air Force collapsed in the context of its bases being overrun, confusion and chaos of a fast moving war it was not capable of undertaking, and its industrial base and infrastructure being captured. In the case that the French are not defeated on the ground, this disappears, and conversely it becomes a case of improving French and British forces and declining German fores.

The British were also establishing a radar network on the continent, although this would not be as effective as the UK one in any case. The present of a major ally however, is well worth the loss of a radar chain, and the lack of disruption to UK air production is also a major boon.

As for the claim that the LW runs out of steam by July - after just 2 months of fighting: A complete ridiculous claim proven wrong bei the BoB and most other air campagins coonducted by the LW during WW2.

The Germans constantly had time between campaigns to refit, repair, and re-adjust. Once they were thrown into constant high intensity combat against peer enemies, starting from 1943-1944 onward, their back was broken - and that was with much more time to prepare and build up. The Luftwaffe is a much more fragile tool in 1940, and its constant high intensity combat will put a strain on it which will ultimately lead to diminishing effectiveness. Becoming a non-entity will take longer, probably until 1941, but ultimately the path for the German air force is clear: being out-produced and swamped under the far larger aerial resources of Britain and France.

Also by July the LW is practically unopposed, so even if they have problems they can scale back their involvement and still be very effective.

Unopposed in the context of the original 1940 battle, in the event of the front lines holding then the air battle will be much more even and gradually creep into the Anglo-French favor.

Also if the campaign should take until 1941, then its the French collapsing, not the Germans.

Yes, the Germans who are outmatched in almost all industrial categories, cut off from the world markets, and with a much more populous, richer, and powerful enemy, are the ones who will win the war of attrition....

Also colonial troops are a poor replacement for American/Allied troops, and in terms of numbers didnt even represent 10% of Allied armies. Also - colonial troops will no die for their colonial overlords indefinitly.

I would again recommend for you to read The Breaking Point and To Lose a Battle: both will point out that some of the most effective, motivated, and courageous units that the French fielded in 1940 were colonial troops, as can be testified by the heroic actions of French Spahi forces, colonial machine gun brigades, and various African units. The idea of colonial units being useless cannon fodder is a historical fallacy of the highest degree.

@All

As written in my introduction. The determinism regarding this topic borders on Allied Wanking. While one of the greatest military victories in human history can apparently be turned around quite easily, German defeat seems to be inevitable. Even if they just fight 2/3 of what they were faced with historically. Or half, or 1/3. Little Britain prevails no matter what - it didnt really need the US and the 20 million+ tons of shipping space built by the US or the 3 million US soldiers and all the other stuff. It doesnt matter that OTL they very scrapping the barrel both in terms of manpower and finance by 1944 - another 6 years of war is a cakewalk for Britain...... And dont mind Germany. Its economy cant take a long war- just look at OTL where their economy collapsed by September 1944 - after just 5 years of fighting. The results will be same even without the 1 million tons of bombs released by the Americans. This doesnt help Germany industry/economy at all.....

The Battle of France swung on critical and key decision points which do not require much altering to change. Decisive results do not mean that something is guaranteed to succeed and inevitable. Both sides took heavy risks, and if the German risk didn't pay off, then their ability to defeat France in 1940 is nil.

Isn't it interesting that you can turn around the war ever so easily by killing off Churchill, Stalin, or FDR in petty accidents or assassinations, but the minute I suggest that the French choose a different deployment plan in 1940 or even just pump out more artillery fire during the Sedan operation instead of husbanding their shells, I am engaged in artificially vaunting the Allied powers?

 

[Ian_W]

With all the absrud claims made by you - you should be VERY carfel of accusing others of lying. Of 3 Million Indian volunteers less than 500 000 served abroad and less than 100 000 served in NA/Europe. Also provide sources that show that colonial troops in Africa/Asia volunteered specifically to go fight in Europe against the Germans - without any pressure from their colonial overlords.

Well, we're getting there by baby steps.

You're admitting the Indians were volunteers.

Now, if the war develops the way the Entente expected, whats the odds of more of those 3 million volunteers being fed into the European Front in 1941 ?

 

[RodentRevolution]

Everything other than the historcial LL dooms Britain to lose the war due to lack of supplies. OTL they were scrapping the barrel by 1944 - WITH full US support. The Nazi economy, supposedly not equipped for a long war, was doing relatively fine until 1944, despite the blockade, despite 2 million tons of bombs, despite fighting 3 of the largest powers on the planet besides itself. Yet even without full US support, people claim that weak GB just wins anyway. Because they just remain in the war until 1950..... no explanation needed how they would managed this, or how they would never negotiate......

The British are on higher rations, working shorter hours and dying less....yeah clearly your notion of scrapping the barrel is different to mine.

Further but the British are supporting an offensive into Western Europe, Italy and the Far East all at the same time. Germany is simply falling back on all fronts.

As to how Britain wins in a long war is simple. It spends less on efforts at offence, so portions of the RAF and the Army and focuses its, if indeed they are, more limited resources on the Navy and Merchant Navy, both protecting itself and denying resources to the Nazi regime. A regime that is built on the promise of quick victory. A long war calls into question the entire propaganda rationale of the Nazi project. Thus Germany will either find itself looking to invade some new and increasingly peripheral conquest or in deep trouble with its own military elites.

Besides as time moves on the nature of warfare become more technological, more capital and more industry intensive which does suit the British whose lack was comparative manpower.