Which combination of 2 of the 3 Allied Powers (British, Russian, American) could have won WW2?

Hopefully this idea will make sense but as we all know it required a combination of the British, Russians and Americans to finally defeat the Axis Powers in WW2, and all three powers played important roles that affected how the others fought.

Eg - The British not suing for peace in mid 1940 before the Battle of Britain meant that Germany had to keep over 500,000 troops either in the west, or in Africa that could have otherwise been used to fight Russia, not to mention 2000 aircraft lost in the battle of Britain and the 6 week delay to Operation Barbarossa because the British helped out the Greeks and as a result the Germans had 6 weeks less time to fight before the Russian winter hit. The British also provided an important base for the American troop build up.

The Russian contribution is obvious as well as from what I have heard 70% of German soldiers that died in WW2 died on the Western Front and they kept Hitler very busy with both men and resources, so much so that Hitler could never really fortify the coast of France like he would have wanted, allowing gaps for the British and Americans to punch their way through.

The American help was very important as well, both with troop numbers but also materials. America helped push the Germans out of Africa and it was a combination of America and Britain that knocked Italy out of the war, something the British could not have done without American assistance.

So the general idea of this thread is that one of these nations does not get involved in the war, which combination of the other two nations would be most likely to win WW2?

Eg

Scenario 1 (British out of the war)
Britain sues for peace before Battle of Britain
Hitler invades Soviet Union in May 1941
Japanese attack USA in December 1941 and Germany declares war on America, with Britain not being in the war.

Scenario 2 (Soviets never in the war)
British keep fighting
Germany decides to try and knock Britain out of the war before even considering attacking the Soviets
America enters the war in December 1941

Scenario 3 (American never enters the war)
British keep fighting
Operation Barbarossa takes place in 22nd June 1941
Japan never attacks the USA, USA never enters the war but does keep supplying the British and to a lesser extent the Russians.

Which scenario is most likely going to see an allied victory, which one would most likely see a German victory?

Also those above scenarios are just guides, as there could be more plausible ways for one of the three nations not to enter the war that I did not think about.
 
Last edited:
My first thoughts are that Scenario 1 is most likely to result in a German victory. That's not inevitable though. Barbarossa is still likely to stall short of Moscow but the Germans will be in a much better place economically. Especially if they can trade with the British Empire and the world outside the US. So it's possible that Germany can break the USSR during 1942-3 - maybe by a direct assault on Moscow, maybe by taking both Leningrad and the Caucasus first and then squeezing down on Moscow. A stalemate is also plausible as is a Soviet victor, especially if the US finds a way to deliver Lend-Lease equipment to the Soviets

Japan will still lose badly to the US of course. I can't see any way Germany can help them out.

I'm not sure which of the other two is more likely to result in Germany being defeated - I think at best it can obtain a stalemate in these.
The second is less likely than OTL to see a land invasion of occupied Europe but there will be nukes available probably as per OTL. And the Germans will need to keep substantial forces in the East to guard against a Soviet stab in the back. It's possible the US seeks to defeat Japan first also.
The third will see the Germans still being chewed up on the Eastern Front and the Commonwealth will be able to clear the Mediterranean by 1943 without the diversion of forces to India. (Some will be in Malaya/Singapore but the Brits won't suffer the OTL losses.) It may depend on whether the British can pursue an A-bomb programme successfully on their own - or rather by when it will be successful. I think 1946-7 is feasible but opinions probably differ.

On balance, probably the second is more likely to see an Allied victory - the US and British Empire simply outproduce Germany even with its access to European industry. iOTL French and other industrial areas were mishandled and unless there's a POD to change that Germany will still be ground down.
 
Scenario 1 - Britain out - what does it mean - In this case Germany has no reason to DOW on the US - the US have no reason to support the SU - so in this scenario its SU vs Axis Germany - in the long run an Anglo Axis war is probably happening...

Senario 2 - never happening - all the buildup so far was geared towards Germany attacking the SU

Scenario 3 - Supplying - to what extent and for how long.... In the end if the US does not constantly replace losses and supports multiple weapons, I fear UK has to give in due to German submarines strangling it (if in 1945+ the Germany use TYpe XXI to some extent ....) - The SU - depends also on what exactly the US supplies.

Difficult

I tend to assume that the scenario 4 is the most likely - UK makes peae in 1940, SU is defeated in 1941+ and in 194x the US and UK defeat a depleted GErmany
 
Maybe trouble for Scenario 2, as the Germans believed they could not continue trade with the Soviets as they needed to pay in finished military goods and precious metals. Though as some mentioned on another thread, the Soviets did do a bit of credit, but I think they still expected to be paid with the good stuff. When the Soviets decided they wanted to change the terms accepted in the Molotov-Rippentrop treaty so the Soviets would get Lithuania, I think the trade that The Soviets got Lithuania, the Germans got both a chunk of central Poland and a lot of credits to by used for their purchases of grain and raw materials. I see the Germans really, truly trying to get the British to come to terms with them. Otherwise they would be spending precious money they stole to get materials to blow up English buildings. They would likely be paranoid they would end up an appendage of the Soviets, dancing to their tunr as Stalin chuckles from the Kremlin and writes up plans to give them as much dignity and power as communist Mongolia had.
 
Anyone of the 2 could win it, end of story. Except in scenario 1 one of the 3 surrenders. Thats a loss.
 
Scenario 1 (British out of the war)
Britain sues for peace before Battle of Britain
Hitler invades Soviet Union in May 1941
Japanese attack USA in December 1941 and Germany declares war on America, with Britain not being in the war.

Scenario 2 (Soviets never in the war)
British keep fighting
Germany decides to try and knock Britain out of the war before even considering attacking the Soviets
America enters the war in December 1941

Scenario 3 (American never enters the war)
British keep fighting
Operation Barbarossa takes place in 22nd June 1941
Japan never attacks the USA, USA never enters the war but does keep supplying the British and to a lesser extent the Russians.

In scenario 1:
Barbarossa: Germany has saved hundreds of aircraft not used in Battle of Britain and Crete, a handful of divisions extra will be available vs not used in Balkans and North Africa (and even garrisons could be reduced in France and Norway). Germany can its employ sea power vs Murmansk and use it more aggressively in Baltic. A larger Italian contingent could be committed (an extra armored division). Invasion could be launched a couple weeks earlier. Initial Lend Lease would not arrive. Moscow and Leningrad could both fall in 1941. Soviet war effort could be hobbled by 1942 follow operations. Soviets could be tempted to make a peace offer in November 1941 without anyone else in.

With USA in war. Britain however would come back in eventually and the Soviets could still be fighting in a limited manner (similar to China). USA+Britain+dominions+rump Soviets+rump China still should win.

In scenario 2:
Malta falls, Tobruk falls, Attacking Egypt logistically difficult by mid to late 1941, British would be focused on defensive, British Matildas sent to the Soviets as Lend Lease could be sent to Egypt. If the Axis expand their Seibel ferry fleets, employ air transport extensively, and expand light rail use in North Africa maybe 1942 offensive could take the Delta, but a big maybe.

Stalin is a cautious guy, he wouldn't attack Germany without a second front on the ground in France and breaking out. A 1944 invasion of France would be a grinder but the Allies would take Paris eventually and Stalin would come in then.

In scenario 3:
British take North Africa late 1943. But a Sicily invasion is not possible. British focus on Bombing and Lend Lease.
In the East. With less Lend Lease and more Germans available the liberation of the Soviet Union is a real grinder. A compromise peace or armistice with the Soviets is likely.
This scenario is the most likely to continue for years and end without German defeat.
 
Here's my take on it:

Britain, US vs the Axis: The war will last longer. Like in WW1 the Axis powers will surrender, before the Allies occupy them, simply because of starvation as a result of naval blockade. Needless to say millions of Americans and British soldiers will have to die.

Britain, USSR vs the Axis: Allied victory with more Soviet casualties than OTL and more of Europe being taken over by the USSR at the end of the conflict.

US, USSR vs. the Axis: Earlier German defeat as US invades France in 1942, instead of 1944, but with considerably more American casualties. Poland, Czechoslovakia and all of Austria will likely be liberated by the Americans instead of the Soviets, ITTL. If the war in Europe ends until nukes are invented, Japan will get invaded by both US and USSR.
 
Top