WI Hitler doesn't declare war on the US

this is what CalBear said when I asked that same question
At some point Hitler was going to have to act against USN defended convoys. Once the Pacific War started I can easily see the U.S. escorting American and neutral flag shipping all the way to the UK (our ally now, at least against the untrustworthy "Japs") or even to Murmansk (the Soviet Far East Front is holding down a big chunk of the IJA, even though they are not formally at war). The USN would also be set loose to prosecute to kill any submarine contact in the Atlantic (again, those IJN boys are tricky, might be one of them there "Jap" subs after all).

Those steps would be easy for FDR to put into play. At that point the Reich can either end the Battle of the Atlantic, with all the dreadful prospects that carried in relation to British manufacturing and receipt of American/Commonwealth materials, or decide that they are going to take the gloves off and go after U.S. flagged and protected vessels in a serious way. If Germany backs down, the U.S. can now do the same thing into the Med, put an Army Group into India (the IJA is right there in Burma, just itchin' to get killed) which by coincidence, would free up 10-12 divisions of the Indian Army for Service in the Med, followed by U.S. troops taking over for our gallant allies against the Japanese in the Middle East, etc. Eventually the U.S. can move enough forces into areas that are plausable that the entire Commonwealth can toss everything in the envelope at the Germans.

So, at some point Hitler HAS to go after the U.S. or he winds up facing off with the entire Commonwealth and the USSR with absolutely no way to interdict their supply lines while his supply situation is strangled just as happened IOTL (and by the exact same vessels in many cases). That is a sure way to lose the war.
 
I did a search and found squat. And I've never seen it before. So, I thought, why not?

Also, if Germany still fails, then what does the post-war world look like?
 

Markus

Banned
Isn't this one of those Done to Death threads?

Yep, FDR was already working 24/7 to create an incedent to get a pretext for declaring war. A few months down the road and a few more USN destroyers defending british convoys would have been sunk by U-boats in self defence, allowing FDR to cite a "pattern of Nazi agression that requires the USA to bla(freedom), bla(peace), bla(whatever)..." and get a DoW.
 
I did a search and found squat. And I've never seen it before. So, I thought, why not?

Also, if Germany still fails, then what does the post-war world look like?

Basically a more broken Germany, a weaker west and a more battered Soviet Union.

Not really fun for anyone.
 
While probably a gain for Germany, it is very hard to see Germany avoiding a war with the United States, with one caveat--if the UK is forced to the peace table, the USA is going to be hard pressed to get into the conflict.

It MIGHT be possible that Churchill is removed in a vote of no confidence in 1942, and perhaps this could open up some kind of Napoleonic Truce for time--not a permanent peace deal, but definitely an opening for action. While permanent peace is impossible, reading the Halifax TL does suggest that a temporary cease fire might be workable.

But the real hope of Nazi Germany is a slim one--that it can crush the Soviets as a conventional force as then withdraw half or more of their troops to defend themselves.

Expect cases of extreme sunburns to follow.
 
Most of Europe "joins" the Warsaw Pact.

IDK. If Germany is able to beat up the Red Army enough, they're not going to have the strength to roll them west. A LATE US war entry might lead to a very tough fight for Europe with the Soviet Union simply beaten up to the point where it can't successfully push the Wehrmacht across a wide front and a stalemate breaks out.

A better 1943, with something like Kursk turning into a stunning victory when German forces hit a lightly defended Prokhova and the Soviet Salient is cut off in spite of all efforts to prevent it and a quarter of a million soviet soldiers captured, could be enough to bog down the Soviets for good. A slower Soviet Advance than OTL? The Soviets get bled dry and Germany starts gaining much more ground? I think that if 1943 turns from turning the screws on Germany to Germany getting another year to really deck the Soviets, the Soviets may suffer too many casualties and economic damage to push the Germans across the board.

Or, Hitler could be an ass and throw all gains away, which is also quite possible.
 
IDK. If Germany is able to beat up the Red Army enough, they're not going to have the strength to roll them west. A LATE US war entry might lead to a very tough fight for Europe with the Soviet Union simply beaten up to the point where it can't successfully push the Wehrmacht across a wide front and a stalemate breaks out.

A better 1943, with something like Kursk turning into a stunning victory when German forces hit a lightly defended Prokhova and the Soviet Salient is cut off in spite of all efforts to prevent it and a quarter of a million soviet soldiers captured, could be enough to bog down the Soviets for good. A slower Soviet Advance than OTL? The Soviets get bled dry and Germany starts gaining much more ground? I think that if 1943 turns from turning the screws on Germany to Germany getting another year to really deck the Soviets, the Soviets may suffer too many casualties and economic damage to push the Germans across the board.

Or, Hitler could be an ass and throw all gains away, which is also quite possible.

It will probably be a mix of both if America somehow never join the war, Hitlers bumbling and an increasingly battered Red Army will probably allow the Soviets to reach the Rhine whilst Commonwealth forces land in France to exploit the German collapse.
 
Without Lend Lease or any prospect of a second front Stalin finishes his negotiations with Hitler in early 1943, ceding the Baltic States, Belarus, half the Ukraine and border territories with Finland.

The British either sue for peace immediately or suffer a series of shattering defeats.

The US crushes Japan and eventually has to rebuild the British and Soviet positions while undergoing internal Brown scares against the Nazis within who acted against the national interest...
 
Without Lend Lease or any prospect of a second front Stalin finishes his negotiations with Hitler in early 1943, ceding the Baltic States, Belarus, half the Ukraine and border territories with Finland.

The British either sue for peace immediately or suffer a series of shattering defeats.

The US crushes Japan and eventually has to rebuild the British and Soviet positions while undergoing internal Brown scares against the Nazis within who acted against the national interest...

We've had this argument a million times, Lend Lease only makes a real impact after Mid 1943 and the Soviets would not accept those terms, the best the Germasn could hope for would be all of Poland and the Baltics.
 
The fact that the Soviets were negotiating when they had Lend Lease, the US in the war and a second front opening in North Africa does not bode well for Stalin's decision when he is lacking each of those things.

Since you've already got the negotiations down to half of Belarus and parts of the Ukraine...:(
 
According to Antony Beevors book 'Stalingrad', Stalin was considering making peace with Hitler at whatever cost or humiliation in the opening days of Barbarossa. Basically, the Soviet union would cede the Baltics/Ukraine and Belorussia to the Germans in the peace deal. The Bulgarian ambassador, Ivan Stamenov, was supposed to act as intermediary but he refused and it all came to nought. Hitler probably would have refused such a deal in the early stages of Barbarossa since he believed the Red army would crumble soon and the Germans could take as much land as they wanted from a militarily impotent and dissolving Soviet Union.
If the U.S does'nt enter the war then I'd imagine Stalin resurrecting the deal at some point. Events may go as follows:
1] With the threat of invasion in the West in 42 reduced, Hitler may send Units stationed in France or elsewhere to the Russian front.
2] The Extra units create a Strategic reserve for Operation blau, which can be used to reinforce the position of Axis forces on the R.Don.
3] Stalingrad is a bloodbath like OTL. However, when Operation Uranus rolls around, the Germans are better prepared. They blunt the attack but the 6th army and Army group A in the Caucasus are forced to retreat.
4]By early 43, German forces return to the lines they held in the winter of 41/42.
5]The main fighting in 43 will probably be around Leningrad. Expect an offensive here to finish off the City while in the Centre and South, the Germans fortify their positions. Leningrad either holds out or falls. Lets assume it falls.
6] Soviets are bled white on German defensive positions in the Winter of 43. They also loose out on recouping manpower from the Ukraine since the Germans are still entrenched here. With Leningrad gone, morale falling and no prospect of a second front, Stalin decides to try peace again.
7] Hitler is receptive this time. Soviets loose Baltics/Ukraine and Belorussia. Leningrad is returned to the Soviets. Demilitarised Zone is established along the new Soviet-German border. War in the East end in early 1944.
8] Soviets rebuild and prepare for round two at a future point..
 
IDK. If Germany is able to beat up the Red Army enough, they're not going to have the strength to roll them west. A LATE US war entry might lead to a very tough fight for Europe with the Soviet Union simply beaten up to the point where it can't successfully push the Wehrmacht across a wide front and a stalemate breaks out.

A better 1943, with something like Kursk turning into a stunning victory when German forces hit a lightly defended Prokhova and the Soviet Salient is cut off in spite of all efforts to prevent it and a quarter of a million soviet soldiers captured, could be enough to bog down the Soviets for good. A slower Soviet Advance than OTL? The Soviets get bled dry and Germany starts gaining much more ground? I think that if 1943 turns from turning the screws on Germany to Germany getting another year to really deck the Soviets, the Soviets may suffer too many casualties and economic damage to push the Germans across the board.

Or, Hitler could be an ass and throw all gains away, which is also quite possible.


I argue that the Soviets would win in the end, because they can afford to take the losses more than Germany. It might take them ten more years, but they would win in the end by simple attrition of the Reich with such long supply lines. A lot of the Soviet industrial capacity was moved to the Urals and east, and unless you have a Eurobomber, they are still going to be producing a lot more than the Germans, and since the T-34 was of higher quality than any panzer, they will just swamp the Germans in numbers.
 
I argue that the Soviets would win in the end, because they can afford to take the losses more than Germany. It might take them ten more years, but they would win in the end by simple attrition of the Reich with such long supply lines. A lot of the Soviet industrial capacity was moved to the Urals and east, and unless you have a Eurobomber, they are still going to be producing a lot more than the Germans, and since the T-34 was of higher quality than any panzer, they will just swamp the Germans in numbers.

I'm not sure that I agree. While the Soviets could probably pay the price in lives, the UK and Soviet Economy combined were close to parity with Germany in 1943. Late US war entry means that it takes another year or year and a half for the US presence in the war to make itself felt--so if FDR joins the war in 1943, US forces aren't going to be ready to invade Germany for at least 18 months.

In OTL as well, Germany was actually able to levy a lot of slavs to fight against the Soviets as well--manpower issues might be a problem if the Germans were stuck fighting for the Oder and the Rhine, but in this situation they're going to have a lot of Ostruppen to call upon--arguably, they are using the Soviet's own manpower against them.

If the US never joins the war, I think it more likely that the Red Army is never able to clear Germany from its territory, and that at least in terms of economics, time favors Germany over the UK and Soviet Union. Of course, Hitler is quite able to make his own forces lose this war--but without that kind of answer, I think the Soviets are either going to be unable to stop the German Summer Soviet Winter Cycle or the whole front will bog down.
 
I'm not sure that I agree. While the Soviets could probably pay the price in lives, the UK and Soviet Economy combined were close to parity with Germany in 1943. Late US war entry means that it takes another year or year and a half for the US presence in the war to make itself felt--so if FDR joins the war in 1943, US forces aren't going to be ready to invade Germany for at least 18 months.

In OTL as well, Germany was actually able to levy a lot of slavs to fight against the Soviets as well--manpower issues might be a problem if the Germans were stuck fighting for the Oder and the Rhine, but in this situation they're going to have a lot of Ostruppen to call upon--arguably, they are using the Soviet's own manpower against them.

If the US never joins the war, I think it more likely that the Red Army is never able to clear Germany from its territory, and that at least in terms of economics, time favors Germany over the UK and Soviet Union. Of course, Hitler is quite able to make his own forces lose this war--but without that kind of answer, I think the Soviets are either going to be unable to stop the German Summer Soviet Winter Cycle or the whole front will bog down.


Perhaps if the Reich was ran by reasonable men, then you would have a valid point. But it was not. Its Fuhrer had really poor impulse control, and the government in general was ran by ideolouges. They also expended a great deal of their resources on Concentration and Extermination Camps. They had the technical ability to start building jet fighters in 1942, but didn't. And when they finally did, Hilter demanded they be made into bombers. You'd still have the RAF bombing German cities. However, without the USAAF doing precision strikes, the German industry would not be as badly hampered, I'll give you that. As for some people thinking Germany might get The Bomb; I say nonsense. They were nowhere near producing one at war's end. No we'd still build one, if for no other reason than to use on Japan. And after that, Stalin would stop at nothing to steal those secrets. When he did... well, it would not bode well for the Jerries.
 
Perhaps if the Reich was ran by reasonable men, then you would have a valid point. But it was not. Its Fuhrer had really poor impulse control, and the government in general was ran by ideolouges. They also expended a great deal of their resources on Concentration and Extermination Camps. They had the technical ability to start building jet fighters in 1942, but didn't. And when they finally did, Hilter demanded they be made into bombers. You'd still have the RAF bombing German cities. However, without the USAAF doing precision strikes, the German industry would not be as badly hampered, I'll give you that. As for some people thinking Germany might get The Bomb; I say nonsense. They were nowhere near producing one at war's end. No we'd still build one, if for no other reason than to use on Japan. And after that, Stalin would stop at nothing to steal those secrets. When he did... well, it would not bode well for the Jerries.

Well, first of all, Nazi Germany has an outside chance of outliving Hitler due to natural causes. Hitler might well die in 1946, and whoever replaces him is probably going to be a more competent administrator. If Germany has managed a stalemate with the Soviets, this is PROBABLY enough to break them.

The UK is actually in a hell of a mess--yes, the USA steaming against Japan is going to make quick work of them, but the UK is now without the resources of Malaya, and has to dedicate resources to Japan as well.

I think the decisive answer to this question is what does Germany do to the Soviet Union in 1943--if they have enough of a leg up to punish the Soviets and turn the 1943 offensive into another massive move, Germany might well get to Moscow (although taking it would be a Double Stalingrad). If OTL replays itself and the Soviets wind up with decisive victories over the Reich, I'd agree, Europe is going to be Red.

But not losing the quarter million men in Tunisia, not facing industrial damage owing to bombardment, and keeping Italy in the war as an ally--these might be enough to tip the balance in Eastern Europe, or at least to even the odds.

I think the cases of the Soviets getting too beaten up to win or unable to launch a broad counterattack are very possible; While I'd discount the idea of Germany winning the war in the East with Hitler at the helm it is not impossible that 1943 and 1944 lead to more of the same summer advances and winter withdrawals against the Soviets.

It seems, IMHO, that no matter what happens, the Soviet Advance in Europe would be at best slowed, and at worst, nonexistent. If Germany is still deep in Russia and able to slowly consolidate some of its gains, I don't see why Germany couldn't hold onto something like the Dnieper as a solid defensive line.
 
Max, do you think the Americans will eventually get into the war? If so, what do you think the Post-War world will look like?
 
Top