World War II without the USA

[Akiyama]

What if the US had elected an isolationist government in 1940 that signed a non-agression pact with Germany and Japan?

Japan does not invade Pearl Harbour but still attacks British, French and Dutch possessions.

I have my own idea of how the war in Europe will go:

1942: Germany still loses in North Africa but wins at Stalingrad (the absence of lend-lease vehicles and food makes a difference to the Soviet forces).

1943: British forces invade Italy. Back and forth fighting in the USSR, with Germany completing its conquest of the Caucasus (oil!), and Soviet attempts to recapture Rostov and Stalingrad ultimately failing. A Soviet offensive in northern Russia is more successful.

1944: British forces in Italy stall, faced with tough German resistance. More fighting in the USSR, on every front. Soviets advance to the Polish border, but a counterattack forces them back (USSR is having fuel difficulties). Germany besieges Moscow. In the autumn, the Soviets again attempt to recapture Rostov and Stalingrad. Winter spells bad news for the Germans. The seige of Moscow fails, and Rostov and Stalingrad are captured.

1945: The size advantage of the British Commonwealth and the Soviet Union starts to pay dividends (more size = more men and more production). Soviet forces advance everywhere. Italy surrenders. British and Commonwealth forces land in northern France.

1946. Germany surrenders and is occupied by the Soviet Union.

What do you think, is this plausible?

Now, I have no idea how the war against Japan might progress. Can anyone help me?

I am assuming Churchill will be unwilling to come to an agreement with the Japanese. Suppose Japan attacks Australia in 1942. What happens? And what would happen in China and India?

Also, do you think there would be more Indian or African soldiers involved in the war in Europe? How willing were the Indians to fight for Britain, really? Would Churchill have to promise them independence?

What would be the consequences of the Soviet Union capturing all those German scientists at the end of the war?

 

[Xen]

Does this non-aggression pact between the US and Germany/Japan end lend lease to Britain? If so the this is going to hurt the British considerably, they might not lose the war because of it, but its likely to delay it and have a major effect on morale. Its possible after Germany wins Stalingrad they could knock the USSR out of the war shortly later, and Britain makes some sort of peace with Germany.

 

[Max Sinister]

Some historians claim Russia was on the verge of collapse in 1941. No Lend-Lease, and it might actually happen. I don't say an invasion of Britain could work, but Hitler could continue his conquests in Africa and the Middle East. However, if the Germans pwn the European continent, Africa and the Middle East (oil), and the Japanese China and the Pacific, even an isolationist POTUS should get the idea to do something.

 

[Akiyama]

Does this non-aggression pact between the US and Germany/Japan end lend lease to Britain? If so the this is going to hurt the British considerably, they might not lose the war because of it, but its likely to delay it and have a major effect on morale. Its possible after Germany wins Stalingrad they could knock the USSR out of the war shortly later, and Britain makes some sort of peace with Germany.

Yes, the US is completely isolationist, so no lend-lease to Britain or to the USSR.

BTW I feel a decisive victory at Stalingrad is likely to be hard won, because the most likely date for the German capture of Stalingrad (9th-13th November 1942) is the same time the USSR launched Operation Uranus to surround the Sixth Army - which would have led to a confused situation in which the Sixth Army cut off the southern Soviet forces at the same time the Soviets cut the Sixth Army off!

 

[Wozza]

There are great difficulties with this.

Complete isolationist means no embargo on Japan and leaving China to its fate.
This situation leaves the Phillipines isolated.

It is hard to see how the British can continue the war on all but the most limited scale without lend-lease, inevitably leading to a peace treaty.

Then you can see how long it takes the Soviets to finish the Germans on their own...

 

[Akiyama]

There are great difficulties with this.

Complete isolationist means no embargo on Japan and leaving China to its fate.
This situation leaves the Phillipines isolated.

It is hard to see how the British can continue the war on all but the most limited scale without lend-lease, inevitably leading to a peace treaty.

Then you can see how long it takes the Soviets to finish the Germans on their own...

The US is making friendly noises towards Japan (no embargo on Japan), so Japan does not expect US aggression - they would not attack the Phillipines as this would risk war with the US.

Lend-lease didn't start until October 1941, although I'm sure it made a significant difference from 1942 onwards. According to Wikipedia, in 1943-44 a quarter of British munitions came from lend-lease, and there was food too (Spam!).

But that still leaves three quarters not coming from lend-lease. And Britain without the US is not totally cut off from the world. There is Canada, remember.

And by the end of 1942 the Soviet Union was outproducing the Third Reich something like 3 to 1. They had a HUGE economic advantage. Losing the Caucusus would hurt bad, and help Germany, but my guess is that the USSR and the Commonwealth still have an economic advantage and that if Germany doesn't pick up some more decisive victories (like Moscow) in 1943 or 1944 it's done for.

But I don't know exactly what the effect of a German capture of the Caucasus would be. Anyone?

And does anyone have any thoughts on Australia?

 

[DoleScum]

Yes, the US is completely isolationist, so no lend-lease to Britain or to the USSR.

Without lend-lease, or destroyers for bases Britain's credit in the US runs out in mid-1941 and the nation would either be forced into an armistice, or would have to drastically scale back operations - possibly suing for peace in the Pacific.

There is a break in the Commonwealth as ANZAC nations cannot 'look to Amercia' for help in 1941 and would probably be forced to either reach a seperate compromise with Japan, or prepare for an invasion.

Not so sure about the Soviets... certainly the Red Army would be far less mechanised and this would probably have a big impact on the counter-attacks after 1942 - can't imagine something like Operation Uranus succeeding without US built trucks and jeeps.

Is the complete cutting of all links with the allies likely?? Particularly with relation to the Pacific, once the Japanese launch their attack into SE Asia then US embargos against Japan would cease to have any impact and the US would either be forced to except Japan as the paramount power in the Pacific, or to fight.

 

[Wozza]

The US is making friendly noises towards Japan (no embargo on Japan), so Japan does not expect US aggression - they would not attack the Phillipines as this would risk war with the US.

This is about threat vs risk.
All there gains are still at risk is the US fleet at Hawaii and the US bases in the Philippines are still intact.
What does Japan give the US in return for a massive shutting out of various Asian markets?

Lend-lease didn't start until October 1941, although I'm sure it made a significant difference from 1942 onwards. According to Wikipedia, in 1943-44 a quarter of British munitions came from lend-lease, and there was food too (Spam!).

Destroyers and bases come to mind.
So the Americans are still letting the British buy arms? But are happy for this to stop when the British run out of cash? And for Britain to then fall and the British fleet to maybe fall into German hands.

Lend-lease lets the British make more weapons because they do not have to pay their own way through exports. Of course what with controlling a quarter of the world thr British would have been able to make alternative arrangements, eventually.

Fundamentally any US president who signed such treaties in 1940 has just massively undermined his country's position unless a string of other concessions are made. The question is what those concessions would be.

 

[Alratan]

With an isolationist US there may well not be war in the Pacific. Without an embargo Japan does not need to attack.

 

[Max Sinister]

Wouldn't the Brits rather make peace with Hitler than with Japan? To Hitler, they'd lose not much - Mussolini may wish for Malta, Cyprus, parts of Egypt and Somaliland, and even that may be negotiable, since Hitler is more interested in peace with them. (After he defeats Russia - if he does - , he may decide to go for colonies in Africa, though.) OTOH, in Japan there are Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Burma, India... more to lose, I'd say.

 

[Akiyama]

What does Japan give the US in return for a massive shutting out of various Asian markets?

Peace. The President was elected on a peace ticket. And perhaps they can come to an agreement - US access to Asian markets in return for Japanese access to the US market.

So the Americans are still letting the British buy arms? But are happy for this to stop when the British run out of cash? And for Britain to then fall and the British fleet to maybe fall into German hands.

Let's say the Americans are not selling arms to the British. I'm thinking of a scenario like that in The Plot Against America where the US president is a neutral admirer of Hitler, rather than a neutral adversary. BTW, this doesn't mean the US will be helping the Axis powers either - that would probably make the President too unpopular.

 

[Wozza]

1. Peace. The President was elected on a peace ticket. And perhaps they can come to an agreement - US access to Asian markets in return for Japanese access to the US market.

2. Let's say the Americans are not selling arms to the British. I'm thinking of a scenario like that in The Plot Against America where the US president is a neutral admirer of Hitler, rather than a neutral adversary. BTW, this doesn't mean the US will be helping the Axis powers either - that would probably make the President too unpopular.

1. The Japanese want a closed market of their own, which was what the Axis economies "learned" was needed from the Great Depressio. Letting US goods in would simply remove the point of the Co-prosperity sphere. Beside, you have changed the US government not the Japanese, who are perfectly willing to fight ths US because they know nothing about it. Tojo in particular had quite an ignorance of the outside world.
Of course, a deal was nearly down OTL, so the US government may get such a deal this time, the Japanese will consolidate their gains and perhaps go north when they sense an opportunity.

I agree with the comment that a general assault on SE Asia is unlikely without an embargo. The Navy weren't the mad ones.

2. If the British cannot buy weapons at all then the war really is over for them in due course and will end with a peace arrangement sometime in 1941.

 

[Saladin]

1942: Germany still loses in North Africa but wins at Stalingrad (the absence of lend-lease vehicles and food makes a difference to the Soviet forces).

The lend lease vehicles the Russians liked and used most were the trucks, as they augmented the Russian stock and allowed greater focus on manufacturing arms -- with the Brits still fighting there would still be some lend lease, although not as much, and some trucks.

That being said, assuming Staingrad remains the same in otehr ways then 6th army is still a dead duck -- the envelopment was permitted by Hitler not allowing a withdrawal, not the speed of the Russian Advance, which wouldnt be much reduced anyway but ther would be many more Tank riders than in OTL

That being said, overall the TL is quite believable -- There would be interesting ramifications, such as the NZ Division and 9th Aussie Div being sent to the SW Pacific earlier, Amendment of the Aussie law prohibiting conscripts from serving outside Australian territory, greater use of Indian troops (and possibly conscription in India) etc. WW2 would cause an even greater overall loss of like in the UK than did WW1 and be an even greater scar on the national psyche

 

[Saladin]

Universal Conscription throughout the Empire would be a must, when I think about it some more -- as much use as possible of Canadian, South African, Aussie and Kiwi manpower.

I also suspect a surprisingly large number of Canadias would in fact be US citizens, an enlarged form of the few who served with canadian forces in 1940 -- Ideological wars always produce those who will fight for or against something regardless of the government stance (just look at the world today and the spanish civil war)

 

[Anaxagoras]

With an isolationist US there may well not be war in the Pacific. Without an embargo Japan does not need to attack.

This is a good point. Without a British/American embargo of oil, I suspect the Japanese will not attack to the south because they want to finish up things in China. There would be no offensive against Malaya/Singapore, because the only reason that they went to war with Britain IOTL was because they needed to gain access to the oil in the Dutch East Indies.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

I think even the most isolationist president (and/or his electorate) would be pretty worried if Japan seized British, Dutch and French colonial possessions, and perhaps also joining in an attack on the USSR in 1941, especially with the intention of excluding US trade from these areas.

At the very least, I think great pressure would arise to enact lend-lease to the anti-Axis forces, if only to avoid the USA ending up being left alone with a dominant Fascist bloc ruling half the world and most of the ocean (i.e. trade and oil routes), notwithstanding any likely increased American defence expenditure - especially on the Navy - which could only raise tensions.

 

[Akiyama]

Okay, so let's say with no US embargo of Japan, Japan concentrates on China, and does not attack US, British, French or Dutch territories.

Presumably Britain can be more relaxed about getting troops from Australia and India - and would not have to fight in Burma.

So can Japan win in China? I know nothing about the war in China, but looking at a map, China looks a lot bigger than Japan . . . I imagine the Japanese would need a lot of manpower just to occupy the territory they had already conquered.

If anyone knows any good books on Japan's war in China, could they let me know, as I have a relative who was in China at the time, so it's something I'd like to know more about.

Wasn't there some fighting between Japan and the USSR in the early 1940s? What was that about? Would the absence of war with the USA mean Japan would continue fighting the USSR?

 

[Shadow Knight]

And by the end of 1942 the Soviet Union was outproducing the Third Reich something like 3 to 1. They had a HUGE economic advantage. Losing the Caucusus would hurt bad, and help Germany, but my guess is that the USSR and the Commonwealth still have an economic advantage and that if Germany doesn't pick up some more decisive victories (like Moscow) in 1943 or 1944 it's done for.

A good article on military production during WWII Good ol' Wikipedia


lend lease article from Wiki

But just to point out no US lend lease now means the Soviets need to produce these items yielded by lend lease on their own (the UK and commonwealth if they are drafting across the board cannot supply them with it) if they even can without access to the raw materials that the US supplied them with. Not to mention some things the Soviets just coudln't produce in numbers like radios, weather proofed telephone lines of good quality, etc.

Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
Cargo ships..............................90
Submarine hunters.......................105
Torpedo boats...........................197
Ship engines..........................7,784
Food supplies.....................4,478,000 tons
Machines and equipment.......$1,078,965,000
Noniron metals......................802,000 tons
Petroleum products................2,670,000 tons
Chemicals...........................842,000 tons
Cotton..........................106,893,000 tons
Leather..............................49,860 tons
Tires.............................3,786,000
Army boots.......................15,417,000 pairs

And while Germany was outproduced by the Soviet Union that was before Speer took over and Germany really went into war footing. So you'll need to look at those number too and modify them upwards considering no large strategic bombing campaigns by the US 8th AF and the need to rebuild after those bombings.

Another thing to consider is the US may be willing to sell stuff for hard currency and make the proviso is the buyer has to find the way to get it there (shipping not included in price).

 

[jolo]

Without the US, I see big advantages for the Axis. But I suppose, the US would continue trade with some countries, and that Japan and Germany wouldn't be favourite trading partners - similar to Russia, btw.

Instead of lend-lease, the British have to pay in good money. That would only work by selling their colonies to the US. A wise move would be to sell endangered colonies to the US, to keep the Axis from capturing them, or to try to get the US to join in the war, while at the same time being able to buy the needed ressources from there. Expect large parts of the Middle East to go to the US, lots of unimportant smaller colonies, and the less useful ones. The biggest prize, Canada, would probably only become part of the US when Britain becomes desperate.

Russia would not be able to afford taking all their factories to the east without allied supplies. More new ones would be built from scratch, while more old ones would continue producing until they have to be destroyed. This might even be good, as it would give Russia much more of their own weapons much faster, and more modern production facilities in the east.

The weak German sub and air fleets would ensure British and maybe Russian survival for quite some time. Britain could also support resistance movements in Axis-occupied parts of Europe, Africa and Russia for quite some time. British planes were superior and being produced in larger numbers to Germany. British ships still controlled the oceans, and would probably keep doing that for a long time. British tanks were nearly equal to German tanks and becoming better, while Germany made the mistake of making them far to heavy. They were also being produced in similar numbers to German tanks, afaik. Germany also invested lots of money in pretty ineffective weapons - V1, V2, and many more.

The longer the war continued, the less effective the German state capitalism became, while Britains brand of capitalism was becoming more and more adept to the war.

Also, the fact that Germany bombarded a pretty much evacuated city, while all the military and infrastructure stayed nearly untouched, was a big advantage for Britain.

All in all, I'd say that Britain, China, and Russia together would be enough to beat Germany, Italy, and Japan, though narrowly.

India should be able to ward off Japan and take Indochina, supplying China with enough weapons to beat Japan in the far east. It should also bring in enough soldiers to make Egypt and the Middle East safe, to later advance into Libya, similar to OTL, though maybe a few months later. If the Arabian peninsula is already American at the time, Britain would have to advance via Iran, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt.

Operation Torch or the likes would probably not happen.

The war between the British and the Italian navy should be pretty similar to OTL, giving Britain control over the Med. From there, it can attack Italy or Germany (the Balcans). I suppose Italy would be the better target, as that would take away much more danger in the area at the time. Expect that part to happen similar to OTL, though with no American troops.

There'd be no landing in the Normandy, as that would stretch British ressources too much. This again would create the danger of Stalin making peace with Hitler - but Hitler would be too foolish to accept that before the tides have turned enough to make Russia not accept peace anymore.

Italy would be freed similar to OTL, though a year later.

Russia, in the meantime, would probably have fared similar to OTL, mainly due to fighting back earlier with the tanks and other weapons being produced in the Ukraine. Possibility 1: The Germans haven't made it to Stalingrad, and the Russians are advancing from 1943 on, similar to OTL. Possibility 2: The Germans were as lucky as IOTL, even grabbed some more territory (inluding Moscow), but at very high losses. Too outstretched and faced with lots of resistance fighters, the slightly later but more efficient production of weapons in eastern Russia leads to the Russians gaining the upper hand a year later, in 1944. The atrocities of the Germans will make sure the Russians stay in the war, despite the hardships and the lack of help.

Conquering the mountaineous regions north-east of Italy will be difficult for the British. The British might instead concentrate on liberating Mediterranean isles and maybe later Greece and the rest of the Balcans, if possible. The war there will still drain enough ressources from Germany to make it easier for Russia to win.

With Germany having conquered France a few months later than IOTL, and mainly to quell resistance in northern France (unlike OTL), Britain can make a probably very willing Algeria join the Allies, including quite some troops and ressources. De Gaulle would command the French troops, and they would probably help out in the Balcans in 1944.

With Germany still overstretched, Britain would have a good opportunity to conquer Norway, thus simplifying helping Russia and threatening Finland. Finland would probably agree to a cease fire quickly, thus relieving pressure on Russia and the Murmansk supply line even more.

Fewer bombings in Germany mean a higher military production and a better moral there. Germany is much more dangerous for the allies in 1944 and 1945, leading to more German offensives, more fighting, more casualties than IOTL.

Only the racial politics of the Nazis make sure that India and their millions of recruits stay in the war (and, for the time being, even in the Kingdom).

The loss of Norway and Finland accelerrates the downfall of the Axis, though. In 1945, a commando raid consisting of only a 150 000 French and British soldiers manages to land in southern France. New anti-tank weapons and the support of the locals make them pretty successful in this theater. Indian and African troops quickly swell the presence to a million or more Allied soldiers. Those clear France of Germans nearly as fast as IOTL.

In 1946, Allied troops cross the German borders at the Rhine and in the east. In 1947, Germany is conquered.

Unlike OTL, Germany is not made independent again. Northern Germany goes to Britain, western Germany (a larger Rhineland) goes to France, Austria and the Balcans go to Russia or Britain, depending upon the success of Russia at the beginning of the war, the rest of eastern Europe goes to Russia. The US will have little say in this, which means eastern Europe becomes a bunch of SSR's instead of a Warsaw Pact. Italy becomes part of Britain. Japan looses it's continental holdings to China in the far east and Britain/France in the south east.

Britain develops the bomb much faster than IOTL, probably in 1949 or so, two years before Russia (which starts much later and poorer in this TL).

I suppose despite all the butterflies there will still be the civil war in China and the crumbling of the British Empire, followed by the decolonisation of Africa and Asia. Germany would still probably not dare more than increasing autonomy leading to independent German states - a reunification would be out of question for a long time.

 

[Akiyama]

Shadow Knight - that's a really intersting article.

Looking at the difference in oil between Germany and the USSR, grabbing that oil would really make a difference to Germany's prospects.