WW2: What could the British do if the USSR was defeated and the US remained neutral?

But there are no terms. Hitler's supposed peace plan was nothing more than incoherent rambling that simply revealed that he completely misunderstood the British strategic goals. And let's not forget he was completely untrustworthy.
I agree "terms" with Hitler are a non-starter. However, in an earlier post I did suggest "No Hitler" was a pre-requisite for any possible terms.
Given the OPs initial conditions are USSR collapse and no US, in effect you need to remove Hitler and perhaps (probably?) Churchill. I don't think Churchill agrees terms with Germany - however a lesser personality 'might' in a world where the OPs initial conditions are met.
 

Garrison

Donor
I agree "terms" with Hitler are a non-starter. However, in an earlier post I did suggest "No Hitler" was a pre-requisite for any possible terms.
Given the OPs initial conditions are USSR collapse and no US, in effect you need to remove Hitler and perhaps (probably?) Churchill. I don't think Churchill agrees terms with Germany - however a lesser personality 'might' in a world where the OPs initial conditions are met.
Well, the problem then is you are saying Germany defeats the USSR and the USA remains neutral and there is no Hitler in charge, at which point you are well past the limits of any plausible discussion because anything resembling OTL WW2 is all by impossible.
 

thaddeus

Donor
The Napoleonic Wars are the model. Britain negotiates some sort of peace with nazi Germany and works at preparing economically and militarily for the next round.

what I've always called the Phoney Peace (as a sequel to the earlier Phoney War), the British are going to act in their own best self-interest, if their naval operations in Norway and Dunkirk (and the subsequent evacuation attempts) go poorly, or some other intervening events happen? (having driven the British off the Continent, the KM concentrates all their naval forces in Norway and the Baltic)

harder to conceive would be the US neutrality and complete defeat of the USSR? (up to the A-A line, Ural mtns.) maybe the Soviets (Stalin) act uncharacteristically bold and move on Turkey (they pressed the issue of the Turkish Straits with Germany), in return for seizing Kars(?), they gain Turkey as an Axis foe. (the only scenario I can imagine for greater German advances in the Caucasus)
 
Well, the problem then is you are saying Germany defeats the USSR and the USA remains neutral and there is no Hitler in charge, at which point you are well past the limits of any plausible discussion because anything resembling OTL WW2 is all by impossible.
Well to an extent yes, but surely that is the OPs point - Germany beating the USSR is a completely different WW2.
I suppose it depends how you look at it. The USSR looked all but beaten in autumn 1941. If Hitler died and there were different decisions made perhaps Britain comes to terms 'thinking' the USSR is done. It is impossible for Germany to totally defeat Russian quickly, but something that looks like a fait accompli might 'encourage' Britain to stop fighting.
Once the US is in the war, all bets are off.
 
Last edited:
The British sue for separate peace with Germany. It is stated that Britain was on fumes if no Lend Lease happened. Or even destroyers for bases. I also read Britain had a hard time paying for those M1928 Thompson submachine guns the U.S. was sending, hence why the Sten gun was invented.
 

Garrison

Donor
Well to an extent yes, but surely that is the OPs point - Germany beating the USSR is a completely different WW2.
I suppose it depends how you look at it. The USSR looked all but beaten in autumn 1941. If Hitler died and there were different decisions made perhaps Britain comes to terms 'thinking' the USSR is done. It is impossible for Germany to totally defeat Russian quickly, but something that looks like a fait accompli might 'encourage' Britain to stop fighting.
Once the US is in the war, all bets are off.
But there is supposed to a degree of plausibility to the alt-scenario and this idea is leaving that far behind as PODs get piled on one another.
 
But there is supposed to a degree of plausibility to the alt-scenario and this idea is leaving that far behind as PODs get piled on one another.
This is a circular argument. The OP has asked what Britain does based on a number of PODs. You have stated there can be no terms with Hitler in power, which means the only course of action is for Britain to fight on because I am not allowed to add another POD which is to remove Hitler.

In my view, this is not piling on PODs - this is Hitler being removed Autumn 1941, and a perception the USSR is defeated -> a possibility of terms.
I don't see how the US can 'remain' neutral post Pearl Harbour, so you have a very short window.
 
Last edited:
The British sue for separate peace with Germany. It is stated that Britain was on fumes if no Lend Lease happened. Or even destroyers for bases. I also read Britain had a hard time paying for those M1928 Thompson submachine guns the U.S. was sending, hence why the Sten gun was invented.
But averting Lend-Lease requires either preventing the fall of France or major political changes in the USA. Simply having FDR lose wouldn't do it, because his opponent, Wendell Wilkie, also supported Lend-Lease.
This is a circular argument. The OP has asked what Britain does based on a number of PODs. You have stated there can be no terms with Hitler in power, which means the only course of action is for Britain to fight on because I am not allowed to add another POD which is to remove Hitler.

In my view, this is not piling on PODs - this is Hitler being removed Autumn 1941, and a perception the USSR is defeated -> a possibility of terms.
I don't see how the US can 'remain' neutral post Pearl Harbour, so you have a very short window.
Even without Pearl Harbor, with Lend-Lease, it would only be a matter of time before the u-boats brought America into the war.

I think you can have the USSR fall (as in have the regime collapse into something like China's warlord era) and I think you can keep the USA neutral, but I don't think you can do them together. If France holds, Germany isn't going to defeat the USSR. If Japan doesn't invade China beyond Manchuria, and the war in Europe proceeds with minimal butterflies until Barbarossa, then you might get the USSR to fall if Japan attacks the Soviets shortly after the Nazis invade; that could also delay or (less likely) avert a war between the USA and Japan, but America would still be going to war against Nazi Germany. It would also be pretty difficult to get Imperial Japan to exercise that much restraint from 1937 to 1941.

Also how do you plan on removing Hitler in 1941?
 
But averting Lend-Lease requires either preventing the fall of France or major political changes in the USA. Simply having FDR lose wouldn't do it, because his opponent, Wendell Wilkie, also supported Lend-Lease.

Even without Pearl Harbor, with Lend-Lease, it would only be a matter of time before the u-boats brought America into the war.

I think you can have the USSR fall (as in have the regime collapse into something like China's warlord era) and I think you can keep the USA neutral, but I don't think you can do them together. If France holds, Germany isn't going to defeat the USSR. If Japan doesn't invade China beyond Manchuria, and the war in Europe proceeds with minimal butterflies until Barbarossa, then you might get the USSR to fall if Japan attacks the Soviets shortly after the Nazis invade; that could also delay or (less likely) avert a war between the USA and Japan, but America would still be going to war against Nazi Germany. It would also be pretty difficult to get Imperial Japan to exercise that much restraint from 1937 to 1941.

Also how do you plan on removing Hitler in 1941?
Regarding Japan invading the Soviet Union in 1941 I'm curious how they will do any better than in 1939 when they got seven bells knocked out of them.
OTL, the eastern troops stayed put in 1941 even though times were desperate, so unless Soviet Union is doing even worse (possible but not very likely given how badly they performed OTL), those same troops will still be there. The Japanese will likely be outnumbered and will certainly be outclassed in armour. Logistics will also favour the Soviets who are defending near their bases, even before considering the Japanese track record on supplying distant troops.
A strictly limited strike against the coast might succeed, but then this doesn't really do much to aid Barbarossa (and some unpredictability could be expected as the local Japanese forces have a rather independent mind set, so might well decide they have a better idea. This isn't great for achieving goals.
 
Regarding Japan invading the Soviet Union in 1941 I'm curious how they will do any better than in 1939 when they got seven bells knocked out of them.
OTL, the eastern troops stayed put in 1941 even though times were desperate, so unless Soviet Union is doing even worse (possible but not very likely given how badly they performed OTL), those same troops will still be there. The Japanese will likely be outnumbered and will certainly be outclassed in armour. Logistics will also favour the Soviets who are defending near their bases, even before considering the Japanese track record on supplying distant troops.
A strictly limited strike against the coast might succeed, but then this doesn't really do much to aid Barbarossa (and some unpredictability could be expected as the local Japanese forces have a rather independent mind set, so might well decide they have a better idea. This isn't great for achieving goals.
I did say if they don't invade China. In OTL Japan was already bogged down in China when they attacked the USSR. More importantly in OTL the Soviets received most of their Lend-Lease Aid through the port of Vladivostok. I doubt that would be happening if they were in a full scale war against Imperial Japan. With that being said, I also doubt Japan could restrain the military (ie keep junior officers from starting something) long enough to strike at just the right moment. If they just go after Russia instead of China, they'd probably do it before operation Barbarossa, which would probably butterfly away plenty of Stalin's purges in the Red Army.
 
It would be a stalemate Britain didn't have the industrial capacity or manpower to retake Europe single handily. And the Germans wouldn't be able to take on the Royal Navy and land in England.
 
In order for the US to "not enter ww2", you almost certainly need a combination of increased isolationism (doable) and a benign Japan (tough, but not impossible). Otherwise, conflict between the Anglo-Americans and Japan in the Pacific inexorably morphs into an Anglo-American alliance.

About the only way, imho, for Nazi Germany to defeat the USSR and reach the Urals in anything resembling our ww2 is in the case of a Soviet political collapse in the aftermath of a Stalin death coupled with Germany rolling 6s from start to finish.

Now, even if that were the case, I have considerable doubts that the Heer reaching the Urals necessarily leads to peace - the Soviet remnant will still have ample manpower and industry in western Siberia, and the Nazis aren't the kind of people who tend to leave a job half-finished. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume this is the case, and a political settlement between Nazi Germany and USSR-across-the-Urals is reached - where is there still fighting?

1. Caucasus.
Britain and the USSR jointly occupied Iran at the outset of Barbarossa. Germany will absolutely insist on taking direct control of Baku, which puts them within spitting distance of the British zone in Iran. However, I doubt it would ever come to this, as Britain is very likely to send troops into the Caucasus itself (likely with the agreement of whatever Soviet faction controls the area) in order to hold off the Germans, if the front truly looks like it has collapsed. Whatever Soviet forces are left in the area fighting side-by-side with the British probably end up rolled into a separate command set up by London and not answerable to whoever is in charge in Siberia, and the fight continues. During Case Blue in '42, Germany found it impossible to supply large forces so far forward in the south. More trucks available should alleviate some of that, but the British can also match them to some extent, including using Indian Army troops that aren't that needed back home (since we established Japan is peaceful in this scenario), and the defenders also have a massive advantage thanks to the terrain. Now, in time (certainly not in '42, or even '43), Germany may eventually, and with great difficulty, push across the mountains and into north-western Iran, but any hopes of getting a single drop of oil from Baku is likely close to zero.

2. Central Asia
The area between the Caspian and Aral Sea may or may not be off-limits to combatants, depending on what kind of political settlement, if any, is reached between the Nazis and rump-USSR. If it ends up a battlefield, it's yet another ulcer Germany has to deal with, in a theater similar in style to North Africa, i.e. where everything has to be hauled over enormous distances via truck - once again, an area where logistical limitations favor the British, and which likely ends up in a similar back-and-forth as North Africa did OTL.

3. North Africa
Yet another place where Germany will be bleeding thousands of trucks and precious fuel. In the long run, the British are probably favored to take Libya. At best, Germany forces a stalemate. Strong possibility of the fighting eventually shifting to Algeria&Tunisia if and when Libya falls to the Brits. Regia Marina, whilst putting up a decent fight, is still outmatched here.

4. Atlantic
Britain will continue its blockade, Germany its U-Boat war. In the long run, the U-boats are destined to lose even absent direct American involvement, but a shift in emphasis on increased U-Boat construction may keep them viable as a major threat maybe an extra year?

5. Battle of Britain part 2, Electric Boogaloo
Given British stubbornness to quit, coupled with Nazi feelings of invincibility following their defeat of the USSR, coupled with Hitler's tendency to pick the most agressive option in order to solve a problem, the likelihood of seeing renewed mass air raids against Britain in order to force an end to the war is super high. Eventually, V-weapons will be added into the mix. While this will invariably draw away some British resources from the side-theaters, it's an area where Britain is massively favored, yet Germany will still try to bash their head against the wall put up by Fighter Command regardless.

6. Aegean Sea
Now, this of course depends on the whos, whats and hows of 1940 and 1941, but a successful Barbarossa is much more likely without a Balkan campaign (wear and tear having cost the Germans dearly in trucks OTL here). This means that, post Soviet collapse, there's either a continued Italo-Greek fight on the Albanian border, or Italy starts a fight on its own except now instead of 1940, for the same prestige and idiocy reasons it did OTL. Of course, a total Axis victory in the area like OTL is not off the cards, but neither is a stalemate, with Britain keeping control of Crete and some islands, and a naval-and-air war grinding on for years, with the UK's own mini island-hopping campaign.

7. Bomber offensive against Europe
Much weaker without America and with the extra theaters, but this will still continue, and only grow in intensity over the years. Certainly no shift to daytime bombing anytime soon though.

8. Odds and Ends
- Germany may attempt an invasion of Turkey in '42 or '43 to try and break the various stalemates with Britain in the region. If so, likely heavy fighting there if they're lucky to secure a crossing over the Bosphorus at the start.
- Spain. Hitler may attempt regime change in Madrid, and if so, Britain will likely try and intervene, at least for a while. Or Spain joins the war, in which case we may end up with another front somewhere in French Morocco, as the fighting inevitably spreads.
- northern Norway. If the British feel like this is something worth pursuing, they could in theory attempt a landing at Narvik in '44 or later; remote enough that bringing in large force is difficult for Germany

9. Endgame
At great cost, Tube Alloys eventually comes online.
 
Good post Magnum.
However I think that failure to deal with Briain before Barbarossa and possibly how they treated France, along with dumb interventions such as dive bombing capability on everything, and Me 262 fighter having to be a bomber suggests that the Nazis didn't always finish a job properly.
 
But averting Lend-Lease requires either preventing the fall of France or major political changes in the USA. Simply having FDR lose wouldn't do it, because his opponent, Wendell Wilkie, also supported Lend-Lease.

Even without Pearl Harbor, with Lend-Lease, it would only be a matter of time before the u-boats brought America into the war.

I think you can have the USSR fall (as in have the regime collapse into something like China's warlord era) and I think you can keep the USA neutral, but I don't think you can do them together. If France holds, Germany isn't going to defeat the USSR. If Japan doesn't invade China beyond Manchuria, and the war in Europe proceeds with minimal butterflies until Barbarossa, then you might get the USSR to fall if Japan attacks the Soviets shortly after the Nazis invade; that could also delay or (less likely) avert a war between the USA and Japan, but America would still be going to war against Nazi Germany. It would also be pretty difficult to get Imperial Japan to exercise that much restraint from 1937 to 1941.

Also how do you plan on removing Hitler in 1941?
The only way I can see America not getting involved is if Britain is out before PH. If this happens, L-L and the u-boat threat bringing the US into the war is gone as well.

Removing Hitler - health issues or an accident. I'd say health issues as we know his doctor was prescribing all sorts of things, perhaps during one of the tricker weeks in October. It offers only a tiny window for Britain to agree terms, but if the Soviet Union collapses politically (see Magnum's post above) Britain is alone.
In the event they have terms with Britain I think the Nazis drop Japan like a hot potato after PH.
 

thaddeus

Donor
In order for the US to "not enter ww2", you almost certainly need a combination of increased isolationism (doable) and a benign Japan (tough, but not impossible). Otherwise, conflict between the Anglo-Americans and Japan in the Pacific inexorably morphs into an Anglo-American alliance.

Good post Magnum.
However I think that failure to deal with Briain before Barbarossa and possibly how they treated France, along with dumb interventions such as dive bombing capability on everything, and Me 262 fighter having to be a bomber suggests that the Nazis didn't always finish a job properly.

In the event they have terms with Britain I think the Nazis drop Japan like a hot potato after PH.

the Nazis could back the Vichy regime over the Japanese operations in Indochina, revive their (German) cooperation with China, not sure the outcome but it seems a definitive break with Japan.

my earlier posting I was alluding to axing their putative alliance with Japan, it gained them nothing economically, no military help during the important early stages of the conflict, and guaranteed to bring the US into the war (midleap into their invasion of the USSR.)

not likely, but Germany could have concentrated their naval warfare to the Med and North Sea (once the decision to invade East had been made)

edit. this wasn't very clear, I meant all of the above to maintain US neutrality, at least for a more prolonged period
 
Last edited:

thaddeus

Donor
About the only way, imho, for Nazi Germany to defeat the USSR and reach the Urals in anything resembling our ww2 is in the case of a Soviet political collapse in the aftermath of a Stalin death coupled with Germany rolling 6s from start to finish.

Now, even if that were the case, I have considerable doubts that the Heer reaching the Urals necessarily leads to peace - the Soviet remnant will still have ample manpower and industry in western Siberia, and the Nazis aren't the kind of people who tend to leave a job half-finished. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume this is the case, and a political settlement between Nazi Germany and USSR-across-the-Urals is reached - where is there still fighting?

TBH I disregarded the Urals as a speculative border due to the scale of operations needed to reach there, and the fact occupying so much Soviet territory almost precludes a political settlement(?)

stumbled upon an Atlantic article from the period, and of the many points the absolute necessity for the Soviets of using their waterways system to move oil has converted my view of the Stalingrad fiasco. I've come around to the idea of holding a position on the Volga, albeit not the necessity of occupying the city. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1942/06/russias-oil-and-hitlers-need/653693/

goes hand in hand with my thinking they could have better controlled the Baltic and Black Seas https://www.jstor.org/stable/44641609#metadata_info_tab_contents
 
TBH I disregarded the Urals as a speculative border due to the scale of operations needed to reach there, and the fact occupying so much Soviet territory almost precludes a political settlement(?)
Tend to agree - in fact, I am not sure any potential border is hugely relevant. Even if there was a political settlement, the Nazis will be facing partisans for years. A political collapse/retreat to the Urals means they are unlikely to be facing large set-piece battles at the border, but I think the Nazis will be more focused on controlling the near-east for years.

Thanks for that article.
 

thaddeus

Donor
stumbled upon an Atlantic article from the period, and of the many points the absolute necessity for the Soviets of using their waterways system to move oil has converted my view of the Stalingrad fiasco. I've come around to the idea of holding a position on the Volga, albeit not the necessity of occupying the city. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1942/06/russias-oil-and-hitlers-need/653693/

Thanks for that article.

you're welcome. I've never been convinced before about interrupting the oil on the Volga, but it made that scenario very clear.
 
Top