What happens if Hitler and Stalin keep their Pact?

King Thomas

Banned
OK, that Hitler would be very different from the Hitler we all know and loath but what if Hitler and Stalin decide to conquer the world together as genuine allies, with the professionalism and blitzkrieg tactics of the German Army backed up by the sheer numbers of the Red Army? How hard would it be to defeat them both?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
They need an actual incentive to keep it. Neither of them saw it as anything else than winning time, and that a showdown was inevitable. Stalin was still taken by surprise by Barbarossa of course.
 
The Soviets were very instrumental in defeating the Nazis no matter what U.S. history books say. In basketball terms, Russia was the LeBron James of the war - whoever has them probably wins, and their absence (if they choose to stay neutral) also affects things drastically.

So with that in mind, there are two possibilities - Hitler and Stalin work together or they just agree to tolerate one another and sty neutral. Given Hitler's hard-on for anti-Communism, the former is borderline ASB without someone else leading Germany, but the latter is possible.

If Hitler and Stalin somehow form an alliance and the Soviets join the Axis - oh shit. Expect a world divided between Nazism, Soviet Communism, and Japanese fascism, with entire swaths of weaker nations exterminated or enslaved, and free states existing under repressive, Spartan regimes in the West and underground. The Cold War ends up between the Soviets, who overrun a huge chunk of Asia and the Middle East, and the fascist parties of Germany, who dominates Europe and a big hunk of Northern Africa and probably tells Mussolini to take a hike out of power in Italy, and Japan, which gets all of east Asia and the Pacific. I see a lot of attempts to take over the Americas with limited success on part of both the fascists and communists, but the big dominoes such as the U.S., Canada, and Brazil don't drop. Pseudo-fascist governments may take hold but nothing that obliterates the framework of constitutional democracy.

After about a generation of Cold War and a possible use of nuclear weapons, the USSR collapses, Germany moderates, Japan tries to hang onto its empire but fails to do so, and the 90s in the eastern hemisphere are, by and large, a whole lot of "what the hell do we do now?" Kind of like the fall of the USSR times 50. Some places pick up peacefully and start a new wave of freedom, a la Czechoslovakia, and some descend into chaos. The world becomes a few spots of freedom in a big mess of fighting for a while. The Americas continue much like OTL except a bit more conservative socially and with civil rights lagging behind - segregation is probably more open and notorious than OTL while the other various rights movements don't pick up the same steam. Assuming AIDS goes as it does OTL, it's again used as an excuse to oppress a minority; whether that minority is LGBT, black, or immigrant depends a lot on how it's seen at the time.

In the more likely scenario of Stalin staying the hell out of the war and Hitler not bothering him, the Allies still win, albeit in a more plodding fashion, and Japan most likely falls first - a naval blockade weakens them while fire-bombing allows the Allies to finish them off and keep their secret weapon in their back pocket.

This means that, while the Allies are still trying to fight the Germans, they have to rebuild Japan. This means that deals will probably have to be cut with the Japanese in order to finish the job - one such possibility is, "Help us beat the Nazis and we'll help you rebuild and transition into a functioning, powerhouse democracy. Oh, and we won't touch the Emperor or make you pay reparations." Basically things the Allies would be willing to do anyway but present to the Japanese as if the pot is being sweetened.

At this point, it takes another year or two to beat back the Germans, Italy falls and switches to the Allies in due time, and the A-bomb ends up being used on a German city. By this point, Hitler is long deposed, and a new Nazi leader decides after he first bomb, "The hell with this - we surrender." The Soviets come in to try to clean up the mess but are seen as interlopers and not to be trusted, and associating with them is seen as being a radical. As such, the UN doesn't include the Soviets, the KMT ekes out a win in China, and Japan becomes the other P5 member of the Security Council. Japan and China still distrust each other, but the relationship is more suspicion than blood hatred. Korea ends up united under ROK, Kim Il-Sung is executed for treason, and Kim Jong-Il ends up growing up in another country. The USSR forms its own group to counter the UN, but when the USSR collapses, perhaps ahead of schedule, the former republics petition to be added to the UN in short order, gradually being accepted. Russia is viewed with suspicion and eventually settled into a role as the country few people trust. Meanwhile, Germany is united from 1945 without the Berlin Wall and is rebuilt with more Japanese influence, turning it into an even more hard-working, industrious nation and an economic powerhouse. It doesn't join the EU due to its differences with the rest of Europe, and the EU looks for other nations to join to build up strength, eventually either relying on France and the U.K. or accepting a weakened status in Europe.

That said, the best way to get Germany to leave the USSR alone or work with them is to be led by someone other than Hitler.
 
They need an actual incentive to keep it. Neither of them saw it as anything else than winning time, and that a showdown was inevitable. Stalin was still taken by surprise by Barbarossa of course.
If Stalin can still be Stalin whilst not purging his best generals, an overt demonstration of Soviet force may be a suitable incentive for Hitler to keep his side of the pact. So, USSR crushes Finland, and in early 1941 sends into Poland a thousand T-34s, five hundred KV-1s, hundreds of ZIS-6 and other trucks and a large force of MiG-1/3 and LaGG-1/3 fighters, Pe-2 bombers. The German high command will quickly realize they have underestimated the Soviet level of fighting or logistics capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_combat_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II
 

Deleted member 1487

You mean that Hitler formalizes his alliance with Stalin via the Axis pact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks
The problem was they had very different, perhaps incompatible views on what such and alliance would be and Hitler was furious after the Soviets took more than was promised in Romania (plus some other issues). If they could actually make it work then Britain would likely exit the war in 1941 if the Soviets were formally tied to the Germans and it would mean triggering Soviet entry if the US entered the war on Britain's side (at least officially in the view of the Brits and US), which would make the American Far Left a political enemy of FDR. Effectively this would mean the war ends probably by mid-1941. After that Eurasia is formally divided into spheres of influence and the Soviets, Nazis, Italian Fascists, and Imperial Japanese rule their spheres and trade. The US has it's zone of defense in the Americas, Britain probably slowly become a satellite of continental Europe, the world is a dark place mostly ruled by dictatorships that mismanage their economies and societies.
 
Stalin thought he was in a better bargaining position than he really was, he wanted control of the Dardanelles Straits (not much has changed), and he had eyes on Romania. But that would give Stalin the power to strangle Germany, which Hitler couldn't allow, he wanted Russia to go south yes, but south into Iran, and India.
And of course Molotov couldn't take Hitler's proposals seriously when they were sheltering in an air-raid shelter from the 'defeated English' bombers.
 
wonder what it would take to get Allies to declare war on USSR? and could Germany do anything to prompt it?

(my scenario is always a pact with USSR that ENCOURAGES their entry into Med, not attempt to direct them elsewhere.)
 
wonder what it would take to get Allies to declare war on USSR? and could Germany do anything to prompt it?
Sure; just need a game of kurczak.

Germany dares USSR to go first into Poland, violating the Wallies security guarantee, and then Germany reneges and stays home.

IOTL Germany moved first, 15 days before the USSR so obviously there must have been some agreement. I'm just suggesting we flip the order, and then Hitler holds back.
 
You mean that Hitler formalizes his alliance with Stalin via the Axis pact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks

The problem was they had very different, perhaps incompatible views on what such and alliance would be and Hitler was furious after the Soviets took more than was promised in Romania (plus some other issues). If they could actually make it work then Britain would likely exit the war in 1941 if the Soviets were formally tied to the Germans

(my scenario is always a pact with USSR that ENCOURAGES their entry into Med, not attempt to direct them elsewhere.)

more plausible without Anti-Comintern Pact and (basically) suspension of any economic cooperation during 1930's? (although this almost implies a different German leader)

Stalin had vague obsession with building navy during 1930's which Germany could have encouraged and kept their trade in some closer balance (the imbalance of which was one reason for Barbarossa.)

the obvious (and stated) obsession was with Balkans (Bulgaria) and unrestricted access out of Black Sea, my scenario is allow Soviets base on Crete or Syria (exactly situation today.) not sure if it would make them a target of British RN but worth trying?
 
You mean that Hitler formalizes his alliance with Stalin via the Axis pact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German–Soviet_Axis_talks
The problem was they had very different, perhaps incompatible views on what such and alliance would be and Hitler was furious after the Soviets took more than was promised in Romania (plus some other issues). If they could actually make it work then Britain would likely exit the war in 1941 if the Soviets were formally tied to the Germans and it would mean triggering Soviet entry if the US entered the war on Britain's side (at least officially in the view of the Brits and US), which would make the American Far Left a political enemy of FDR. Effectively this would mean the war ends probably by mid-1941. After that Eurasia is formally divided into spheres of influence and the Soviets, Nazis, Italian Fascists, and Imperial Japanese rule their spheres and trade. The US has it's zone of defense in the Americas, Britain probably slowly become a satellite of continental Europe, the world is a dark place mostly ruled by dictatorships that mismanage their economies and societies.
I would disagree. There is no incentive for Britain to exit the war in any scenario whatsoever. The only thing making peace achieves is allowing Hitler the opportunity to build up a navy with which to invade. An honest question - would you make peace if you were in 10 Downing Street or controlled a majority in the House of Commons?

Grozny and Baku would be bombed. Effectiveness may vary, but eventually they'll take them out, even if it means two year's worth of night-time raids.

After that, depending on how far Stalin is willing to expand the war, there may be fighting in Iran, Afghanistan and/or Turkey, where logistics favor the defender (in this case the British Empire), and they'll conduct a fighting retreat long enough to buy time for US entry. There will be little in the way of consequences though, since even if by some miracle the Soviets reach Abadan and Basra, the British can (and did) still import oil from the US.

Depending on what Japan does, the US enters the war anywhere from '40 to '43.

The Allies will fight and win in any and all peripheral theaters and then start sending 3-4 nukes per month over to Europe starting in autumn '45.
 

Deleted member 1487

I would disagree. There is no incentive for Britain to exit the war in any scenario whatsoever. The only thing making peace achieves is allowing Hitler the opportunity to build up a navy with which to invade. An honest question - would you make peace if you were in 10 Downing Street or controlled a majority in the House of Commons?

Grozny and Baku would be bombed. Effectiveness may vary, but eventually they'll take them out, even if it means two year's worth of night-time raids.

After that, depending on how far Stalin is willing to expand the war, there may be fighting in Iran, Afghanistan and/or Turkey, where logistics favor the defender (in this case the British Empire), and they'll conduct a fighting retreat long enough to buy time for US entry. There will be little in the way of consequences though, since even if by some miracle the Soviets reach Abadan and Basra, the British can (and did) still import oil from the US.

Depending on what Japan does, the US enters the war anywhere from '40 to '43.

The Allies will fight and win in any and all peripheral theaters and then start sending 3-4 nukes per month over to Europe starting in autumn '45.
You are entitled to your opinion. I'd say the reason for the Brits to negotiate and end to the war is the fear the US isn't going to enter the war, which wasn't guaranteed even by late 1941 until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Even Churchill supposedly lost faith in US entry by December 1941. Losing Malta and Egypt would probably force a vote of no confidence and the fall of Churchill given that Greece would also be lost in the process. Staying in the war only makes sense if the USSR or US might get involved and if the USSR does the US probably won't. For one thing Japan under the Axis treaty would be able to get all the oil and things it needs from the USSR, mooting the ABCD Line embargo. Plus with Soviet naval and even potentially air units helping the Germans and potentially invading the Middle East, peace rescues part of the empire while that is still an option. So peace does have it's advantages, because continuing the war will be worse for them otherwise.
 
I would disagree. There is no incentive for Britain to exit the war in any scenario whatsoever. The only thing making peace achieves is allowing Hitler the opportunity to build up a navy with which to invade.

Grozny and Baku would be bombed. Effectiveness may vary, but eventually they'll take them out, even if it means two year's worth of night-time raids.

the British would launch (solo) a planned joint Allied operation a year or more after its details have been discovered and the bases in Syria lost to them? and from where are they going to launch raids for two years?
 
You are entitled to your opinion. I'd say the reason for the Brits to negotiate and end to the war is the fear the US isn't going to enter the war, which wasn't guaranteed even by late 1941 until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Even Churchill supposedly lost faith in US entry by December 1941. Losing Malta and Egypt would probably force a vote of no confidence and the fall of Churchill given that Greece would also be lost in the process.


There is no way for the British to lose Egypt in the short and medium term with a POD like this. There's just no way for the Axis to supply more troops there than Britain can, not via Libya, not via Turkey - Syria - Palestine, and not via naval invasion (it became clear to Britain on November 12th 1940 that their naval dominance of the Mediterranean was secured).

Malta meanwhile is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things - they even considered abandoning it at the very onset, that's how much it meant to them. When it became clear they could hold it and use it to choke off Libya, it gained symbolic value. But that's all it was - symbolic. If Hitler shifts the LW to suppressing Malta in October '40, given their now continent-spanning troubles, chances are the British simply call it a day and evacuate it.

Also, with the USSR fighting alongside Germany, Churchill probably doesn't even send forces to Greece in the first place, and either pushes on in Libya or, more likely, keeps them as a reserve for fighting the Russians in the middle east. At most, he might consider occupying Crete if and when Greece set to fall (which will take a while, given that German intervention is probably delayed ITTL).

But let's not get into the weeds here - whoever is PM faces the same strategic challenge - there is a European-wide hegemon threatening to invade Britain, but which currently lacks the navy to do so. Questions about who gets more influence in Iran pale in significance when London itself is threatened. Thus, the only peace the British would be willing to accept would be one which doesn't leave them with a gun pointed to their head, i.e. no hostile militaries in western Europe. The Nazis however would be unwilling the offer such terms, since it's the Nazis we're talking about here, and they had just conquered the place.

Staying in the war only makes sense if the USSR or US might get involved and if the USSR does the US probably won't.
Why should that be the case?

For one thing Japan under the Axis treaty would be able to get all the oil and things it needs from the USSR, mooting the ABCD Line embargo..

That's true. That's why I figured a '40-'43 time frame should be plausible. FDR was itching for a fight, and American elites had no more intention of seeing hostile powers dominate Eurasia then the British did. Public opinion was coming around towards a pro-intervention stance, and you can be sure that if the Soviets begin fighting Britain and France, they will be demonized in the American press, with all the hallmarks of anti-russian bigotry and red scare tactics. Who in their right mind would praise two totalitarian superpowers stamping their boot over Europe in US politics? Because not even Wallace would stoop to that level.




Plus with Soviet naval and even potentially air units helping the Germans and potentially invading the Middle East, peace rescues part of the empire while that is still an option. So peace does have it's advantages, because continuing the war will be worse for them otherwise.
What naval units do the Soviets have that can threaten Britain? Also, if Stalin starts redeploying the Red Airforce to France, you''re probably going to see unbelievable kill-death ratios announce in the British press. And they'll likely be true :cool:


Lastly, the Empire exists purely to serve England and her interests (no, I didn't misspell), not the other way around. Making peace allows Germany to build up a navy with which to invade and conquer London. It had been British policy for centuries to oppose continental hegemons, and for good reason.

Also, you didn't answer - if you were PM, would you seek peace?

the British would launch (solo) a planned joint Allied operation a year or more after its details have been discovered and the bases in Syria lost to them? and from where are they going to launch raids for two years?
If Hitler and Stalin start fighting the Allies together in '39, the operation would probably given a green light shortly before the start of Fall Gelb, as it would take time to set the whole thing up. British reluctance however would be a non-issue here.

However, there is the possibility of the Soviets joining the Axis after the fall of France. In that case:

Presumably from Mosul. They had the bombers, and Baku was an obvious and high-value target, far easier to hit than various German factories spread out over central Europe.

Also, they took over Syria in June-July '41 OTL, and would probably do so earlier ITTL, possibly instead of going to Greece.
 

Deleted member 1487

There is no way for the British to lose Egypt in the short and medium term with a POD like this. There's just no way for the Axis to supply more troops there than Britain can, not via Libya, not via Turkey - Syria - Palestine, and not via naval invasion (it became clear to Britain on November 12th 1940 that their naval dominance of the Mediterranean was secured).
Actually in 1941 the Axis could get more troops with decent training and equipment into the field in North Africa than the Brits could given that their supply lines were MUCH shorter, as the Brits had to route around Africa, which took 40 days, while the Axis came in a matter of days across the Central Mediterranean. Once Malta is dealt with there is no threat to supply lines. The situation in Greece wrecked British forces in North Africa for a while and without Malta interdicting Rommel's supply lines Tobruk and it's supplies can be taken in August, which then leaves Egypt on the chopping block. British forces on the Egyptian-Libyan border couldn't stop him at that point, they were only strong enough to confront Rommel in November after his supply lines had been wrecked by Malta for months. Even then he very nearly beat them during Crusader. So Egypt can actually be taken in Autumn 1941. Malta was very near to falling in May 1941, the Brits had written it off until X. Fliegerkorps shifted to Greece, then they sent more convoys in because the Brits knew they Italians couldn't stop them on their own. Without Barbarossa the Luftwaffe doesn't have to leave Sicily as they can send another air corps to Crete in May-June instead. The Brits wouldn't send a supply convoy and Malta surrenders in June-July and Axis supply lines never hit the historical lows from July-December 1941. June was a peak month for supplies getting through, over 125k tons, more than 25k more than all needs in Libya, including civilian. No Barbarossa=Malta falling in June-July and never becoming a threat to Rommel's supply, he builds up the necessary supplies to storm Torbuk no later than August and it falls, then as per OTL in July 1942 he uses captured supplies and any remaining stocks to quickly invade Egypt with more forces than the Brits have in the region to commit to Egypt. The loss of the garrison of Tobruk means the Axis actually outnumber British forces in Egypt in August-September 1941.

Malta meanwhile is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things - they even considered abandoning it at the very onset, that's how much it meant to them. When it became clear they could hold it and use it to choke off Libya, it gained symbolic value. But that's all it was - symbolic. If Hitler shifts the LW to suppressing Malta in October '40, given their now continent-spanning troubles, chances are the British simply call it a day and evacuate it.
Actually no it is not, it is the singular reason that Rommel couldn't get supplies to storm Tobruk, which bought time for shipment around Africa to arrive in Egypt and then Operation Crusader to be launched in November. Malta saved Egypt in 1941. If you look at how much damage Malta did from July-December 1941 it is very obvious how critical it was; in June 1941 supplies arriving to Libya totaled over 125k tons; by July that had fallen to around 75k tons due to Maltese interdiction, by December 1941 it was less than 30k tons. By January with the arrival of 2nd Air Fleet Rommel's supplies picked up again because Malta was bombed into submission once again and British offensive forces had to leave again. Had the Luftwaffe never left in May-June 1941 then Malta falls in June-July 1941 as they had just about run out of supplies. It was the Luftwaffe leaving for Greece that saved the Island and let it be used as an offensive base against Axis supply lines. If the July-December interdiction never takes place Rommel keeps getting 125k tons per month and can successfully storm Tobruk in August, long before Operation Crusader reinforcements arrive. Then British forces in Egypt are left outnumbered.

Also, with the USSR fighting alongside Germany, Churchill probably doesn't even send forces to Greece in the first place, and either pushes on in Libya or, more likely, keeps them as a reserve for fighting the Russians in the middle east. At most, he might consider occupying Crete if and when Greece set to fall (which will take a while, given that German intervention is probably delayed ITTL).
I didn't say the Soviets would enter the war immediately under the Axis pact, they would only if the US entered the war, while giving Germany war materials on credit. If not sent to Greece the forces in Libya get rotated out so there are fresh forces, but logistically they could not advance any further than they did IOTL. Rommel then bags British fresh forces like he did in 1942 like during the battle of Gazala and the lead up to it. In fact Rommel probably just gets two full Panzer divisions, probably the 3rd and 7th (the first providing part of the forces them formed 5th light division and the latter was his divisions from France), rather than the ad hoc forces he got IOTL. He'd get all the equipment, trucks, and supplies he'd request too. German intervention in Greece wouldn't be delayed because historically the Brits had already sent troops to Crete in October 1940, which triggered German invasion plans.

But let's not get into the weeds here - whoever is PM faces the same strategic challenge - there is a European-wide hegemon threatening to invade Britain, but which currently lacks the navy to do so. Questions about who gets more influence in Iran pale in significance when London itself is threatened. Thus, the only peace the British would be willing to accept would be one which doesn't leave them with a gun pointed to their head, i.e. no hostile militaries in western Europe. The Nazis however would be unwilling the offer such terms, since it's the Nazis we're talking about here, and they had just conquered the place.
Depends, if they are left without an empire because they waited to long for peace they are just as screwed. Plus there is no guarantee that the US would enter the war with the Soviets in the Axis, especially as Soviet entry with US entry would make liberation of the continent impossible and continuing the entire war a waste of time. Continuing to fight only make sense if there is a chance of liberating Europe, otherwise it is just an expense without an end goal.

Why should that be the case?
Because Britain cannot liberate Europe on it's own and continuing the war when broke and racking up debt to the US is a pointless endeavor. Might as well make peace and salvage what you can.

That's true. That's why I figured a '40-'43 time frame should be plausible. FDR was itching for a fight, and American elites had no more intention of seeing hostile powers dominate Eurasia then the British did. Public opinion was coming around towards a pro-intervention stance, and you can be sure that if the Soviets begin fighting Britain and France, they will be demonized in the American press, with all the hallmarks of anti-russian bigotry and red scare tactics. Who in their right mind would praise two totalitarian superpowers stamping their boot over Europe in US politics? Because not even Wallace would stoop to that level.
Very few Americans wanted to declare war on Nazi German or Japan, they had to be attacked before they would be willing to fight a war. FDR's desires aside the public and a lot of congress wasn't interested in being the first to initiate a war. They were certainly willing to supply Britain at the risk of being attacked and didn't want to see Britain invaded, but again even as late as December 1st 1941 FDR was convinced he couldn't convince the US public to declare war against Hitler. The US public only considered 'intervening' by supplying Germany and Japan's enemies. But if Germany doesn't invade the USSR and in fact allies with the USSR, then the Ameri-Left is left in the lurch, as they generally supported Stalin and were part of FDR's political base. Not only that, but the war in Europe is not escalated even further, so the US public isn't as interested in stopping Hitler, especially when 'uncle joe' is on Hitler's side against Imperial Britain. The press did everything it could to convince the public Hitler was the devil, but the public was no closer to declaring war before Pearl Harbor than they were in May 1941.

What naval units do the Soviets have that can threaten Britain? Also, if Stalin starts redeploying the Red Airforce to France, you''re probably going to see unbelievable kill-death ratios announce in the British press. And they'll likely be true :cool:
Submarines, some surface vessels. The best Soviet units would be sent with the latest equipment and probably the big night bombers would be sent, which would be actually pretty helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petlyakov_Pe-8
They also carried giant 5 ton bombs and could bomb at night.

Lastly, the Empire exists purely to serve England and her interests (no, I didn't misspell), not the other way around. Making peace allows Germany to build up a navy with which to invade and conquer London. It had been British policy for centuries to oppose continental hegemons, and for good reason.
Losing the Empire leaves peace time Britain a small island without captive markets to fuel their industry. As the post-war demonstrated British industry was not prepared to deal with international competition in globalized trade with fair market access. Germany and the US (and later Japan) cleaned their clock, which forced Britain to specialize their economy in financial services. 1941 is not 1800; the Rothschilds can't finance endless wars on their own anymore.

Also, you didn't answer - if you were PM, would you seek peace?
Depends on the war circumstances, the terms, and if I thought there was actually a chance to defeat Hitler. If not and the terms were good enough I would cut bait and suck up to FDR to get subsidies to keep my economy afloat so I didn't become Hitler's economic satillite.
 
The press did everything it could to convince the public Hitler was the devil, but the public was no closer to declaring war before Pearl Harbor than they were in May 1941.

It's late and I'm tired, so I'll pick up on the rest later.

http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm
upload_2016-11-1_22-4-15.png


less than 3 weeks before Pearl Harbor.

I believe the odds of America joining war, even in the absence of a Japanese attack, are pretty damn high even in this asb scenario, 1943 at the latest.

Also, we need to establish exactly WHEN Stalin decides to initiate hostilities.
 

Deleted member 1487

It's late and I'm tired, so I'll pick up on the rest later.

http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup 1941.htm
View attachment 293396

less than 3 weeks before Pearl Harbor.

I believe the odds of America joining war, even in the absence of a Japanese attack, are pretty damn high even in this asb scenario, 1943 at the latest.

Also, we need to establish exactly WHEN Stalin decides to initiate hostilities.
That doesn't necessarily mean the people want to declare war and we don't know the methodology of how they compiled that. The terms of the Axis pact would be if the US declares war on any member of the pact all others would declare war on them (as a defensive pact, there is no obligation if one member DoWs the US first).
 

It's

Banned
Actually in 1941 the Axis could get more troops with decent training and equipment into the field in North Africa than the Brits could given that their supply lines were MUCH shorter, as the Brits had to route around Africa, which took 40 days, while the Axis came in a matter of days across the Central Mediterranean. Once Malta is dealt with there is no threat to supply lines. The situation in Greece wrecked British forces in North Africa for a while and without Malta interdicting Rommel's supply lines Tobruk and it's supplies can be taken in August, which then leaves Egypt on the chopping block. British forces on the Egyptian-Libyan border couldn't stop him at that point, they were only strong enough to confront Rommel in November after his supply lines had been wrecked by Malta for months. Even then he very nearly beat them during Crusader. So Egypt can actually be taken in Autumn 1941. Malta was very near to falling in May 1941, the Brits had written it off until X. Fliegerkorps shifted to Greece, then they sent more convoys in because the Brits knew they Italians couldn't stop them on their own. Without Barbarossa the Luftwaffe doesn't have to leave Sicily as they can send another air corps to Crete in May-June instead. The Brits wouldn't send a supply convoy and Malta surrenders in June-July and Axis supply lines never hit the historical lows from July-December 1941. June was a peak month for supplies getting through, over 125k tons, more than 25k more than all needs in Libya, including civilian. No Barbarossa=Malta falling in June-July and never becoming a threat to Rommel's supply, he builds up the necessary supplies to storm Torbuk no later than August and it falls, then as per OTL in July 1942 he uses captured supplies and any remaining stocks to quickly invade Egypt with more forces than the Brits have in the region to commit to Egypt. The loss of the garrison of Tobruk means the Axis actually outnumber British forces in Egypt in August-September 1941.


Actually no it is not, it is the singular reason that Rommel couldn't get supplies to storm Tobruk, which bought time for shipment around Africa to arrive in Egypt and then Operation Crusader to be launched in November. Malta saved Egypt in 1941. If you look at how much damage Malta did from July-December 1941 it is very obvious how critical it was; in June 1941 supplies arriving to Libya totaled over 125k tons; by July that had fallen to around 75k tons due to Maltese interdiction, by December 1941 it was less than 30k tons. By January with the arrival of 2nd Air Fleet Rommel's supplies picked up again because Malta was bombed into submission once again and British offensive forces had to leave again. Had the Luftwaffe never left in May-June 1941 then Malta falls in June-July 1941 as they had just about run out of supplies. It was the Luftwaffe leaving for Greece that saved the Island and let it be used as an offensive base against Axis supply lines. If the July-December interdiction never takes place Rommel keeps getting 125k tons per month and can successfully storm Tobruk in August, long before Operation Crusader reinforcements arrive. Then British forces in Egypt are left outnumbered.


I didn't say the Soviets would enter the war immediately under the Axis pact, they would only if the US entered the war, while giving Germany war materials on credit. If not sent to Greece the forces in Libya get rotated out so there are fresh forces, but logistically they could not advance any further than they did IOTL. Rommel then bags British fresh forces like he did in 1942 like during the battle of Gazala and the lead up to it. In fact Rommel probably just gets two full Panzer divisions, probably the 3rd and 7th (the first providing part of the forces them formed 5th light division and the latter was his divisions from France), rather than the ad hoc forces he got IOTL. He'd get all the equipment, trucks, and supplies he'd request too. German intervention in Greece wouldn't be delayed because historically the Brits had already sent troops to Crete in October 1940, which triggered German invasion plans.


Depends, if they are left without an empire because they waited to long for peace they are just as screwed. Plus there is no guarantee that the US would enter the war with the Soviets in the Axis, especially as Soviet entry with US entry would make liberation of the continent impossible and continuing the entire war a waste of time. Continuing to fight only make sense if there is a chance of liberating Europe, otherwise it is just an expense without an end goal.


Because Britain cannot liberate Europe on it's own and continuing the war when broke and racking up debt to the US is a pointless endeavor. Might as well make peace and salvage what you can.


Very few Americans wanted to declare war on Nazi German or Japan, they had to be attacked before they would be willing to fight a war. FDR's desires aside the public and a lot of congress wasn't interested in being the first to initiate a war. They were certainly willing to supply Britain at the risk of being attacked and didn't want to see Britain invaded, but again even as late as December 1st 1941 FDR was convinced he couldn't convince the US public to declare war against Hitler. The US public only considered 'intervening' by supplying Germany and Japan's enemies. But if Germany doesn't invade the USSR and in fact allies with the USSR, then the Ameri-Left is left in the lurch, as they generally supported Stalin and were part of FDR's political base. Not only that, but the war in Europe is not escalated even further, so the US public isn't as interested in stopping Hitler, especially when 'uncle joe' is on Hitler's side against Imperial Britain. The press did everything it could to convince the public Hitler was the devil, but the public was no closer to declaring war before Pearl Harbor than they were in May 1941.


Submarines, some surface vessels. The best Soviet units would be sent with the latest equipment and probably the big night bombers would be sent, which would be actually pretty helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petlyakov_Pe-8
They also carried giant 5 ton bombs and could bomb at night.


Losing the Empire leaves peace time Britain a small island without captive markets to fuel their industry. As the post-war demonstrated British industry was not prepared to deal with international competition in globalized trade with fair market access. Germany and the US (and later Japan) cleaned their clock, which forced Britain to specialize their economy in financial services. 1941 is not 1800; the Rothschilds can't finance endless wars on their own anymore.


Depends on the war circumstances, the terms, and if I thought there was actually a chance to defeat Hitler. If not and the terms were good enough I would cut bait and suck up to FDR to get subsidies to keep my economy afloat so I didn't become Hitler's economic satillite.
 
the British would launch (solo) a planned joint Allied operation a year or more after its details have been discovered and the bases in Syria lost to them? and from where are they going to launch raids for two years?

If Hitler and Stalin start fighting the Allies together in '39, the operation would probably given a green light shortly before the start of Fall Gelb, as it would take time to set the whole thing up. British reluctance however would be a non-issue here.

However, there is the possibility of the Soviets joining the Axis after the fall of France. In that case:

Presumably from Mosul. They had the bombers, and Baku was an obvious and high-value target, far easier to hit than various German factories spread out over central Europe.

Also, they took over Syria in June-July '41 OTL, and would probably do so earlier ITTL, possibly instead of going to Greece.

good point about early strike, Soviet response? invade Iran as likely they are not "invited" thru to reach Iraq? bonus of being able to menace British refinery.

something that is starting to look like WWII probably keeps Italy neutral?
 
Top