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. This means no Western Front, no air war, no war in the Med or North Africa. Germany strikes the USSR in 1941 with full power - and while the Soviets are better prepared than OTL, the Germans have thousands of additional aircraft because they were not destroyed by the British as OTL. The USSR gets no Lend-Lease, the Wallies are not destroying anywhere between half and 3/4 of the Luftwaffe, German industry runs undisturbed. By the end of 1942 the Soviets are running out of food and out of precious metals and minerals (LL delivered 40% of the wartime aluminium supply). How exactly is it even remotely realistic to assume that the Soviets win the war under these circumstances? How exactly is it even remotely realistic to assume that the Soviets dont negotiate under these circumstances?
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?
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. Even if the Japanese attack PH and even if Hitler declares war on the US - and even with partisan warfare in the East:How exactly is it even remotely realistic to assume that the Wallies win the war under these circumstances? How exactly is it even remotely realistic to assume that the Wallies dont negotiate under these circumstances? How exactly is it even remotely realistic to assume that they would continue the war, waiting for a weapon they have no idea will work, have no idea when it will be ready and 9999 out of 10 000 people have no idea that this weapon even exists?