What are the chances the WAllies accept Nazi hegemony if the USSR falls?

[TDM]

That wasn’t my point.

My point was that Stalin and the Politburo were very callous when it came to the lives of their soldiers, many times more so than the WAllies.

Just on this point here's the whole paragraph:

Also Stalin didn't send a 20m Russian to die because he relished sending people to die*, it was fight and die or just die, because Germany victorious is going depopulate Russia! (also frankly this also buys into the "Russia just zerg rushed their way to Berlin", which is a much over stated meme, yes they had a numbers advantage but it wasn't the only reason why they beat the Germans even if this gets in the way of the "German quality drowned in Soviet masses" narrative)

Either way as I said you are drawing the wrong conclusion from Russian callousness and it does not support your assumptions of the wallies or how this ATL will go. Your entire argument seems to be based on the idea that without the Russians the wallies will have to just stop being the wallies abandon their advantages etc and become just like the Russians. And not just that but a less enthusiastic version of the "WW2 meme Russians, as bloodthirsty lemmings" .

As I said this idea that the Russians only won by zerg rushing and the only possible way the Germans could beaten was by them doing so, is not actually a very good analysis of the war. But your arguments are pretty much based on it

 

[David T]

Please remember that in 1940, so far as the US, UK,, etc. were concerned, Germany and the USSR were for all practical purposes allies--so that Hitler and his allies did have hegemony over most of Europe and northern and east Asia. Yet they didn't accept this. (Granted, one factor in this non-acceptance was the hope for a German-Soviet breach. But that was only a hope and it was only one factor in the non-acceptance.)

 

[thaddeus]

my first question would be does Japan detour North? understand the reasons they did not historically but under this scenario Leningrad and Moscow fall in 1941, so prior to Pearl Harbor? (ask the question because if they do enter the conflict it closes easy route to supply a surviving Soviet state)

the conflict in the East is over by '43, but the Soviets are "falling" before that, what is rotated to the Med? are the Axis using the Tunis route earlier? and Malta? (a close run whether IT was going to fall before Operation Torch could be staged)

doesn't mean the Allied side "giving up" with all of the above favoring the Axis but it seems possible US troops would have to be sent to Egypt rather than open a broad N. African front, or even that the Med could be closed off?

then the Allies are starting all the way from Iraq-Iran and having to consider a landing in France without an Italian campaign or secondary landings in S. France?

 

[Captain Homicide]

first question would be does Japan detour North?

No. Germany defeats the USSR on its own not with the help of Japan in this scenario.

 

[thaddeus]

my first question would be does Japan detour North? understand the reasons they did not historically but under this scenario Leningrad and Moscow fall in 1941, so prior to Pearl Harbor? (ask the question because if they do enter the conflict it closes easy route to supply a surviving Soviet state)

No. Germany defeats the USSR on its own not with the help of Japan in this scenario.

thanks for clarifying.

then you have a burnt out wreck of USSR and Germany's erstwhile ally will not even close the resupply route, would they declare war in support of Japan after Pearl Harbor? or at least insist on some change to Japanese policy?

 

[NK_Tesla]

With the Reich triumphant and in control of everything between the English Channel and the Urals along with a mostly intact and experienced military what are the chances that the US and Britain would accept the status quo and end the war with Germany

So from my limited understanding, the Nazi's had three issues with their war machine.
1) Hitler messing with active war plans. This isn't a big deal here since there are no active European fronts.
2) lack of resources like oil. Technically solved with Romania and the Caucuses under Nazi control, however I would assume that the Soviets would have continued their salted earth campaign and sabotaged anything they couldn't take with them. There will be less than full production and extraction for a couple years.
3) lack of population. Nazi Germany was already suffering from economic overheating where they didn't have enough people for their army and industry. Nazi racial policies paints Slavs and Communists as subhuman, you aren't getting any soldiers out of that and not willing collaborators.

If anything this will require even more Holocaust camps as Hitler will want to cleanse the newly gained land to make room for his perfect people. This'll only embolden everyone that the Nazi's have to go. There could be a large shift where Japan is prioritized so that a secure supply line to the USSR can be maintained and potentially American army groups marched to the Urals. Funnily enough, as long as Japan is denied oil, their navy can't do anything. There is no need to capitulate them as long as you just keep them suppressed, they can sit on their island.

0%

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

Unfortunately Stalin was the lesser of two evils . If Hitler defeated Stalin it is unclear that the Western Allies could have defeated Hitler.