What If America Had No Part in World War II

Germany can't be victorious in the Battle of Britain without a far larger degree of change than just US doesn't get involved. Without a victorious Battle of Britain a successful Sealion is impossible. As I was trying to say in my timeline the US not involved still leaves Germany with the same logistical/military/economic limitations, it is not a magic wand making Hitler make good decisions and making the Reich more powerful.
 
the Germans will struggle to defeat just USSR & Britain, and their is zero chance of an a bomb in 1944. This US with an industrial output vastly larger could not manage it till 45 and yet the Germans while fighting the soviets in the east and UK in africa do it in 44? that is ASB
 
If Churchill falls after Dunkirk, Britain may come to an armistice with the Germans. In that case the Russians are toast. BTW if Britain quits, the Dutch won't really have any way to avoid selling oil to the Japanese.

Assuming the UK stays in but no lend-lease, and Japan goes north.. big question is do the Germans get to/isolate Moscow. Given a diminished Brit capacity due to more effective U-boats absent 50 destroyers, and partial US escorting, and less willingness on US shippers to risk trips to UK, this is not ASB. Also, anything left in Siberia that OTL went west hurts - the japanese can certainly put the hurts on the USSR pacific provinces.Putting the logistic hub of the USSR out of business or seriously impacting it makes life more difficult for the USSR winter 41-42. Expect essentially zero supplies from UK to USSR as there is not much to send that they don't need in the UK. From 1942 on lack of US lend-lease hurts the UK, and really cripples the USSR.

Sure the UK might be able to invade northern Norway..but so what. Invading the Balkans was a bad idea with US support, without it no way. By 1944-45 the UK & USSR were scraping the bottom of the manpower barrel, without the US help both directly and through aid they will be worse off & the Germans better off (not necessarily great though). I think britain comes to an accommodation first, and then the Russians do (after Stalin has an accident) as the Russians see that a rumo Russia Urals to most of Siberia better than complete collapse.

Neither UK nor Germany get the bomb - no resources &/or theoretical problems. USSR not even in the race.
 
Assuming the UK stays in but no lend-lease, and Japan goes north...

Goodness. It's like one of these turns up every three days on average.

There is only one outcome of Japan going north - it's expedited collapse on the Asian mainland, Germany or no.

big question is do the Germans get to/isolate Moscow. Given a diminished Brit capacity due to more effective U-boats absent 50 destroyers, and partial US escorting, and less willingness on US shippers to risk trips to UK, this is not ASB.
The moon is not pink therefore the USA will always defeat the Confederates. Prove causality between insufficient German anti-convoy capabilities and the Battle of Moscow. Oh wait, you can't.

Further you have to convince me that the Germans, who got bogged down in much smaller Stalingrad could realistically even do as well in Moscow as they did there.

I think britain comes to an accommodation first, and then the Russians do (after Stalin has an accident) as the Russians see that a rumo Russia Urals to most of Siberia better than complete collapse.
As usual, too many Hearts of Iron fans. There was never going to be an Arhangelsk-to-Astrakhan border, because that does not leave a viable state for the USSR nor can the Germans hold all that area down.

If there's any settlement, it's going to happen after the Germans are already on retreat but the Red Army cannot raise another 30 divisions or so to finish the job, and it will lie somewhere in Western Ukraine/Belarus.

----

I have a major theoretical problem with all these Nazi-wanks in absence of lend-lease. First, they don't consider the timescales of when the lend-lease arrived and when it went into exploitation. Second, they don't consider what it was that was really critical in the LL (food for civillians) and instead assume that the fighting units will not be capable without LL material. They won't be unable to fight, however, they will be unable to make quick sweeps to create pockets as efficiently. That does not mean, however, that the Germans will not eventually have to retreat. Thirdly, even considering how many lucky dice the Germans already rolled OTL, most of these scenarios assume better rolls still. However, it's not inconceivable that a lot of things could go wrong for the Germans instead of inevitably better.
 
Logistics!

There is no doubt that if the USA does not take part of the burden of convoy escort and give the Brits those 50 destroyers more ships and their cargoes will be lost than OTL. As a result of this the UK needs to do several things:
(1) replace more merchant bottoms either through building them (competing against warship production) or buy them for cash meaning a quicker outflow of hard currency than OTL. - If the USA is that isolationist expect them to tell US flag vessels you're on your own if you go in the war zone, which combined with increased insurance costs will reduce the number of US bottoms going to Britain below whatever it was OTL.
(2) replace the "stuff" that was in those ships either by re-allocating production priorities in the UK or Commonwealth which means something else doesn't get made or by buying more "stuff" (wheat, trucks, a/c whatever) again for hard currency.

All of the above weakens Britain, and will run through her gold reserves in a relatively short time making cash & carry purchasing difficult. Will a weakened Britain be able to engender the will in the Yugoslav military to have the coup against the regent go through? If Yugoslavia is neutral, along the lines of Spain (forget joining the Axis directly) then Barbarossa goes sooner & stronger. Likewise if the military sees the threat from the UK as weaker, resources kept in the west can be moved east. The Germans do not have to go house to house in Moscow. Putting the city under siege and being able to majorly disrupt rail traffic not only messes with production in Moscow and the food ration for civilians (including the bureaucrats who make the USSR run) but also makes all rail logistics west of the Urals more difficult further disrupting production & military movement. This brings in to question the effectiveness of the Spring 1942 offensives.

In this scenario Russian overall war production is down over OTL and now they have to produce tens of thousands of trucks/jeeps competing with tank factories. Where do the boots and radios come from? with more of western Russia occupied, food supplies are even worse and no Spam.

Given that fights in the east are painful for the Japanese, the Russians won't be able to make big gains because they won't have the logistics. How defensible is the Vladivostok area?? The IJN will sink the Pacific Fleet in short order, and replacements for Russian a/c shot down need to come all the way via trans-Siberian RR & how many are available to send east (remember decreased production & probable increased losses) - and no US AVGAS shipments.

This is not a Nazi-wank where you see the swastika from Siberia to Capetown. The war can very easily end with a stalemate in N. Africa, and the Germans having bitten off a large chunk of Russia. Without the US the UK cannot invade Europe in any meaningful way. Without the US and given my scenario for 41-42 siege of Moscow & transport disruption the USSR cannot produce what it had OTL which included lots of vital stuff from the US plus raw materials.

Very specifically the Germans don't get the bomb neither do the Brits. Germany does not invade the UK. The Germans and the Japanese don't shake hands somewhere in Russia or India. don't forget that not only will german production be having less bombing damage, but so will French, Dutch etc - they have most of the industrial plant in the countries they have conquered going for them, and every 100 cal/day the occupied don't eat goes to Germany.

Could Hitler force the German military to throw away this advantage of no USA in the war? Sure, but the pattern was Hitler interfered more and more as things did not go well.
 
A major advantage that the Germans had over the Americans is that they don't care about depopulating the areas with partisans by any means necessary.

Manifest Destiny??? :D couldn't resist!!

Back to topic, the biggest loser of the USA not being involved in WW2 would be the USA itself economically. Their victory in WW2 put them at the top of the world, with client states, especially in western europe and asia, where US culture and technology has been exported in return for welcome revenue for the last 50 years. A globe with a Britain that wasn't bankrupted by US lend lease and a Commonwealth not ended by the Atlantic Charter would be interesting, never mind the outlook for Dutch and French colonies in asia...
 
Top