WI: Neither USA nor the USSR are involved in WWII

[Mario]

How could WWII developed if neither USA nor the USSR would have been involved?

Like:

- Nazi Germany never tries to invade USSR and respects the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement (and also the USSR, of course).
- Japan never attacks the US and the isolationist policies prevail in Wahington DC.

I guess the UK alone would have hard time to pull a continental invasion against Nazi Germany, but in the other hand it would be also complicated for Nazi Germany to keep the mid-war status (before Barbarossa) stable for long.

 

[Histor32]

Ww2 in Europe ends with the fall of France, Germany didn't want war with the UK. So you wind up with a proto eu on the continent.

In Asia, this would have to entail Japan getting supplies to fight its war otherwise they will remain at war with the British, free French forces, and potentially the USA and Soviet union along with of course China. The British will remain at war with Japan so long as the threaten British commerce

 

[Admiral Bloonbeard]

That would require a different Nazi party not lead by Hitler. But is off the topic. To answer your question :

Germany with it’s u boats knock Britain out of the war, and Britain with a tiny army cannot do a d day alone.

 

[Mr_Fanboy]

Does it fulfill the OP if the Soviet Union is “merely” involved in the initial invasion and division of Poland?

 

[GTStinger]

For purposes of this discussion, does the Soviet invasion on Poland Count as being involved in The WII?

 

[GTStinger]

Wow. Simultaneous posting.

 

[Seandineen]

So Poland stayed divided and Vichy still exists?

 

[Mario]

For purposes of this discussion, does the Soviet invasion on Poland Count as being involved in The WII?

Well, it could be a minor involvement (war with Finland could also happen). I was mostly refering to avoiding war with Nazi Germany and his allies.

 

[James Ricker]

Germany goes bankrupt because nazi a financial policy is unsound and the government collapses.
Japan bankrupts itself fighting China and the government collapses.
Both of those Nations had a history with communist movements. Stalin would be ready to advantage of that, the Soviet Union wins

 

[Garrison]

How could WWII developed if neither USA nor the USSR would have been involved?

Like:

- Nazi Germany never tries to invade USSR and respects the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement (and also the USSR, of course).
- Japan never attacks the US and the isolationist policies prevail in Wahington DC.

I guess the UK alone would have hard time to pull a continental invasion against Nazi Germany, but in the other hand it would be also complicated for Nazi Germany to keep the mid-war status (before Barbarossa) stable for long.

Can I first ask why you chose not to look up any of the dozens of threads that ask the same question? As to the question itself its all but impossible for Germany to avoid conflict with the USSR. leaving aside Nazi ideology for a moment after the Summer of 1940 Nazi Germany controls the whole of Western Europe and promptly sees a collapse in industrial and agricultural output as it is cut off from foreign imports, so the only way to exploit the base efficiently is with food and raw materials from the USSR. Sure under the M-R pact the Soviets are willing to supply them, but that not only makes Nazi Germany utterly dependent on the USSR they are also having to trade valuable technology that ultimately strengthens the USSR's war machine. Ultimately Nazi Germany faces either subservience to Moscow or it seizes control of those resources for itself. Turning back to ideology of course there was no way Nazi Germany and the USSR could co-exist, the M-R Pact was little more than a postponement of hostilities with both sides knowing that war was inevitable sooner or later.

As to the USA isolationist sentiment is often overstated, yes the voters in the USA were against getting dragged into fighting the war but supporting Britain was another matter, remember Roosevelt was no dictator, he had to get Congress to support his measures and reluctant as they may have been they progressively approved ever greater US support for Britain, not out of altruism but because they recognized the strategic nightmare that would face the USA if Britain were to fall under Nazi influence and the Royal Navy was at Hitler's command. As for the Pacific Japan in 1941 needs resources as badly as Nazi Germany and the only place they can get them is in the so-called 'Southern Area', which will inevitably mean escalating tensions with the USA, which might be reluctant to confront Nazi Germany but is altogether more proactive in the Pacific.

Short version, to keep the USA and USSR out of the war you are going to have to offer up some fairly major PODs and honestly few if any of the previous threads on the same topic have offered up anything convincing.

 

[Mario]

Can I first ask why you chose not to look up any of the dozens of threads that ask the same question?

Short version, to keep the USA and USSR out of the war you are going to have to offer up some fairly major PODs and honestly few if any of the previous threads on the same topic have offered up anything convincing.

Because many of them only focus on the United States OR the Soviet Union being outside WWII, but not both at the same time.

 

[Garrison]

Because many of them only focus on the United States OR the Soviet Union being outside WWII, but not both at the same time.

And many of them cover both. Regardless the point still stands, it needs a massive POD to keep either out of the war and both is implausible at best.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Whiteout the Americans and the Soviet Union, you’re probably looking at an Axis victory.

 

[thaddeus]

Whiteout the Americans and the Soviet Union, you’re probably looking at an Axis victory.

this is really how to force UK out before the US enters? and whether we consider any subsequent conflict(s) part of "WWII"

just my view but the torpedo issue for Germany really harmed their effort to get the UK to quit? say they are moderately more successful while the RN is more "successful" against the French fleet?

you could have some type of Phoney Peace if further British efforts looked about to bring the Vichy regime into the war?

likely the USSR ramps up delivery of materials to Germany for a year or two? if Germany invades in 1942, still part of WWII?

 

[Lee-Sensei]

this is really how to force UK out before the US enters? and whether we consider any subsequent conflict(s) part of "WWII"

just my view but the torpedo issue for Germany really harmed their effort to get the UK to quit? say they are moderately more successful while the RN is more "successful" against the French fleet?

you could have some type of Phoney Peace if further British efforts looked about to bring the Vichy regime into the war?

likely the USSR ramps up delivery of materials to Germany for a year or two? if Germany invades in 1942, still part of WWII?

I imagine that the Germans would try to starve them out with their submarine campaign. Without American backing and with the Soviets being neutral, the British would likely come to the peace table. Would this last? It depends. I imagine that the British would declare war again if they see a moment of German weakness. British Grand Strategy for centuries was to expand their Empire outside of Europe, while trying to blockade the major European continental power, forming coalitions against them and fighting on the periphery. If the British made peace and the Germans got into a war with the Soviet Union for example, they’d probably rejoin the war against the Germans.

 

[Garrison]

I imagine that the Germans would try to starve them out with their submarine campaign. Without American backing and with the Soviets being neutral, the British would likely come to the peace table. Would this last? It depends. I imagine that the British would declare war again if they see a moment of German weakness. British Grand Strategy for centuries was to expand their Empire outside of Europe, while trying to blockade the major European continental power, forming coalitions against them and fighting on the periphery. If the British made peace and the Germans got into a war with the Soviet Union for example, they’d probably rejoin the war against the Germans.

Problem is that Doenitz estimated that it would take 18 months to completely cut Britain off from its outside sources of supply if he had his theoretical fleet of 300 U-Boats and then months more to actually starve them into submission, time Germany doesn't have given that its far worse off for food and resources than the UK is. Germany's plan for 'defeating' Britain was to defeat the French and hope the British would choose to negotiate. Once that failed they spent the next year floundering around looking for some sort of solution. Now maybe if you take the idea of US neutrality to the absolute max because, reasons, then maybe the UK has to negotiate at some point, but I'm far from sure since the situation between Germany and the USSR is so unstable conflict is inevitable.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

How could WWII developed if neither USA nor the USSR would have been involved?

Like:

- Nazi Germany never tries to invade USSR and respects the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement (and also the USSR, of course).
- Japan never attacks the US and the isolationist policies prevail in Wahington DC.

I guess the UK alone would have hard time to pull a continental invasion against Nazi Germany, but in the other hand it would be also complicated for Nazi Germany to keep the mid-war status (before Barbarossa) stable for long.

Does this mean no L-L? That means the war is basically over by 1941 when Britain runs out of cash to buy from the US and cannot maintain the war effort except to defend the Home Isles in the event of invasion.

 

[Wendell]

That would require a different Nazi party not lead by Hitler. But is off the topic. To answer your question :

Germany with it’s u boats knock Britain out of the war, and Britain with a tiny army cannot do a d day alone.

Or Hitler is killed before Barbarossa.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Problem is that Doenitz estimated that it would take 18 months to completely cut Britain off from its outside sources of supply if he had his theoretical fleet of 300 U-Boats and then months more to actually starve them into submission, time Germany doesn't have given that its far worse off for food and resources than the UK is. Germany's plan for 'defeating' Britain was to defeat the French and hope the British would choose to negotiate. Once that failed they spent the next year floundering around looking for some sort of solution. Now maybe if you take the idea of US neutrality to the absolute max because, reasons, then maybe the UK has to negotiate at some point, but I'm far from sure since the situation between Germany and the USSR is so unstable conflict is inevitable.

Yet they somehow survived for years in WW2 while they were in a life and death struggle with the Soviet Union. It was literally, the largest military confrontation in history. This doesn’t sound right at all. The Soviet Union was one of the leading agrarian powers in the world. From what I’ve read, only the United States and Argentina could compare in this area at the time. Why wouldn’t they be able to get food from the Soviet Union and other neutrals?

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Yet they somehow survived for years in WW2 while they were in a life and death struggle with the Soviet Union. It was literally, the largest military confrontation in history. This doesn’t sound right at all. The Soviet Union was one of the leading agrarian powers in the world. From what I’ve read, only the United States and Argentina could compare in this area at the time. Why wouldn’t they be able to get food from the Soviet Union and other neutrals?

They did, but the USSR wasn't necessarily a reliable trading partner, especially once Stalin felt strong enough to resist invasion; his plan was to keep Germany fighting the UK so that both sides weakened one another, but if the British looked like they were on the way out Stalin could claim bad harvests and cut exports.