Fighting the Soviet Union would be a pretty big war.
Umm, yeah. I thought it was self evident that by no war I meant no war in the West.
How much of a drain on materials was that really? The Nazis already had access to all of those countries war materials OTL.
You are wrong. The German economy was under a lot of pressure from lack of certain raw materials. This was not so bad when the USSR was sending them stuff (either directly or through its role as a transit route for Japanese materials). First, no occupation in the West means the Nazis can devote all their resources to the Soviet Union. It also means that there are no governments in exile. It means a real government in the Netherlands and Belgium, which controls their overseas colonies, in some kind of cooperation with Nazi Germany. France, Belgium, and the Netherlands have more or less the same resources as Germany. It's their colonies that have goodies like oil, uranium, rubber, and other resources. Combined with no British blockade, this means Germany has complete access to any raw material it means.
This is huge. It means Hitler has access to the world oil markets instead of just Ploesti. It means all sorts of rare metals, rubber, and other exotic raw materials are now available to the Nazis. It means they can buy edible fats and other food. This removes a gigantic burden on the German economy.
I think you're overestimating how much all of that did. Bombing of Germany had one very major effect, which was that it destroyed the Luftwaffe. It did not actually stop German industry to a significant degree.
Again, you are wrong. While it's true that Germany was able to keep up production during the bombing, you need to think of opportunity costs. Also, there were significant periods when Allied bombing severely disrupted German production of steel and armaments.
I recommend you read Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction which gives an excellent review of the Nazi German economy.
I really doubt that'll help much. The Germans already had contingents from various Axis nations behind them. The Soviets tended to attack them preferentially as they were the weak links in the Nazis lines.
It really depends on how much the other countries eventually contribute to the "Crusade Against Bolshevism." I am not talking about the odd Blue Division or SS Charlemagne. I am talking about a serious effort by a German dominated Europe to defeat Bolshevism. The Romanians and Hungarians are not going to field one of the best armies in Europe. A Petainist France will. If it appears that the Soviets may defeat the Germans, the western Europeans on the continent will not let the Red Army march into Central Europe unopposed. They will rally.
You fundamentally misunderstand British foreign policy. Halifax's position was not one of accepting Nazi dominated Europe, it was attempting to gain breathing room. Britain was already bankrupt and he believed it needed time to rebuild and find new allies.
Maybe so. But Britain's position will not have improved much from 1940 to 1942 or so. It's not going to enter the war, and after alreading been defeated, British morale will be low. The Munich clique will come back since they were proven "right." Unless Labor is elected in a new election (always possible), I don't see Britain helping the USSR at all. And if it does, it will be very, very limited. Not enough to make a difference.
So there's every reason to expect that the Britain and America will still aid the Soviet Union, even to a more limited degree.
No, there's not. The US Congress will not send anything like Lend Lease to the USSR. The USA will not give the Soviet Union free materials. Certainly nothing on the scale which the US actually did give the USSR during the war. Anything the USSR needs, they will need to pay for. And they won't have much hard currency or tradeable items.
It could happen that way, or given Hitler's pathology, he might refuse peace as he did OTL, and then once the Soviet advancement in operational tactics and the like roll around like they did OTL, he'll lose it all and the Soviets get Europe.
It certainly doesn't require much for it to go that way.
I disagree. The Soviets will not just roll the Nazis like they did. First, Germany can devote all of its resources to defeating the Russians. 2/3 of the Luftwaffe will not be over the skies of Germany; it will be in Russia. Half of the German air transport during the siege of Stalingrad will not be ferrying hundreds of thousands of troops to Tunisia. The German Navy will not be bottled up in German ports, but blockading Murmansk. The materials going to building U-Boats will be devoted to tanks. Those AA guns over the Ruhr are instead artillery pieces in Russia.
Second, the USSR does not have any of the benefits of the US and British intelligence. This is HUGE. No British ULTRA or American MAGIC intelligence that gave FDR and Churchill a lot of intelligence information. Other than maybe a few tidbits, it simply will not be done.
Third, the USSR was heavily dependent on the US for much of the capabilities they showed in 1943-1945 which they didn't have in 1941-1942. No American radios in Soviet tanks. That will make it hard to coordinate their deep operational attacks. No American trucks and jeeps that allow rapid advances if there is a breakthrough. No railroad tracks, trains, and trailers to replace all they lost that will allow them to ferry troops in the rear, or even to move production to the front line. No cans of spam or boots to keep those foot soliders marching. No aviation fuel to keep those planes in the air.
The simple fact is that the USSR does not have the economy they need to put their theories into operation. They NEED US Lend Lease if they intend to push to Berlin as opposed to simply bloodying the German's noses in distinct counter attacks.
Japan would never enter a war against Russia. Not after the Battles of Khalkhin Gol. They were terrified of the USSR.
This is debateable. If they think the Soviets have most of their forces in the west to fend off Europe, then there is an opportunity. Plus, the Japanese don't need to do much to really make things tough for the Germans. Simply the threat of Japanese intervention is going to keep Soviet troops in Siberia not killing Germans.
Plus, if the Germans blockade Murmanks, and there is no Anglo-Soviet occupation in Persia, then the only port the USSR can receive trade or aide becomes Vladivostok. I think over 50% of all Lend Lease aid reached the Soviet Union through the Pacific (the Japanese never stopped the convoys from the US to USSR in the Pacific). So the Japanese really only need to take Vladivostok, or even just blockade the Pacific ports, and the USSR is isolated.
The USSR proved in 1941 and 1942 that they could improve and defeat the Germans. But both the Moscow and Stalingrad counteroffensives happened when the Germans over extended themselves. That will not continue to happen. And by 1943, the Germans had to concern with shortages in the economy, devoting resources against the US and UK, and was dealing with a Red Army rebuilt by Lend Lease aid. None of those things exist ITL.
The Red Army will have a very, very tough time keeping the line stable, much less pushing the Germans back to Berlin. I think the most they can hope for is a stalemate and a negotiated peace that surrenders some or all of Belarus and Ukraine.