What if US not enter WW2?
- Thread starter nova2010
- Start date
yourworstnightmare
Banned
Some thoughts: Having the US not entering the war is very hard. Even with no Pearl Harbor I think the US still would enter the war, although somewhat later.
The USSR certainly has the resources to push the Germans back. Will they be able to do it? Probably, but it isn't certain. That Germany can't win Barbarossa is clear though. How far can the Soviets get on their own? Another good question. They can certainly push the Germans back from Eastern Europe and Poland, but it will be slower with almost all Germans tied to the Eastern Front. And it will get harder the closer to the German homeland they come. Eventually the Soviets would be able to reach Berlin if they pushed on, but are they willing to? The amount of manpower they'd lose would be disastrous. There are two way this can end:
1. The USSR approach the German prewar border under heavy opposition and realiz the amount of lives and time needed to invade Germany is a waste and try to get the Germans to the negotiation table. Hitler and the crazy Nazis refuse, but are quickly replaced by a Junta in a coup. Germany agree to secede all Eastern Europe to the Soviet sphere. Germany quickly sue for peace with Britain and evacuate the occupied countries both East and West.
2. Stalin think a prolonged war and more losses are worth it if it means he can invade Germany. Berlin falls in late ´46, and the German defences are completely crushed. Germany sues for peace and the Red Army occupies the whole country, immidiately starting to back the German Communist Party, to create a economically stron puppet state. The Soviets start to use their influence to help Communist regimes take control of the newly liberated France, and bankroll a Left Wing uprising against Mussolini, and later send the Red Army in to assist the rebels.
The USSR certainly has the resources to push the Germans back. Will they be able to do it? Probably, but it isn't certain. That Germany can't win Barbarossa is clear though. How far can the Soviets get on their own? Another good question. They can certainly push the Germans back from Eastern Europe and Poland, but it will be slower with almost all Germans tied to the Eastern Front. And it will get harder the closer to the German homeland they come. Eventually the Soviets would be able to reach Berlin if they pushed on, but are they willing to? The amount of manpower they'd lose would be disastrous. There are two way this can end:
1. The USSR approach the German prewar border under heavy opposition and realiz the amount of lives and time needed to invade Germany is a waste and try to get the Germans to the negotiation table. Hitler and the crazy Nazis refuse, but are quickly replaced by a Junta in a coup. Germany agree to secede all Eastern Europe to the Soviet sphere. Germany quickly sue for peace with Britain and evacuate the occupied countries both East and West.
2. Stalin think a prolonged war and more losses are worth it if it means he can invade Germany. Berlin falls in late ´46, and the German defences are completely crushed. Germany sues for peace and the Red Army occupies the whole country, immidiately starting to back the German Communist Party, to create a economically stron puppet state. The Soviets start to use their influence to help Communist regimes take control of the newly liberated France, and bankroll a Left Wing uprising against Mussolini, and later send the Red Army in to assist the rebels.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Needs PODs far enough back that the USA's not passing the Two-Ocean Navy Act which began the slide to Operation Z, and to have a US Administration not in the least interested in Cash and Carry, much less Lend-Lease or selling our old destroyers to the UK. A truly neutral USA plus the kind of devastation U-Boats wreaked (meaning the USA completely ignores any and all British requests for aid, meaning no extensions of US territorial waters, no occupation of Iceland, no joint strategic meetings) takes out the UK by 1941, by which point the Soviets will have decided "to Hell with the fun and games" and been overhauling their military system sufficiently that German victory is impossible, a stalemate may happen but only if the Soviet leadership is completely stupid and makes no improvements in their tactical-strategic concepts.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Given the USA was in an undeclared war against the Axis from 1940 onwards, the absence of US aid of the sort that was so crucial to Britain's ability to withstand the initial U-Boat offensives means the Soviets are going to figure out pretty quickly that Hitler's only got one more major target and that they're right in the middle of the Bull's Eye. By the time Hitler's got the hubris enough to launch a Barbarossa campaign his likelihood of tactical and strategic surprise is zilch, so you get the inverted version of Calbear's Anglo-American Nazi War and the rise of the Soviet Empire.
U.S. totally out of the war say with an isolationist President who continues to help the Japanese war machine by selling oil and steel to them and who doesn't go for Lend Lease changes alot. It's quite likely then that the UK makes peace with Germany in 1941 and it's a one front war Germany vs the USSR.
Germany's massive handicap is Hitler's declining mental health which means his military decision making goes down as the war goes on while Stalin's goes up. The German Army's best hope to avoid being crushed would be getting rid of their handicap and his lackies.
Germany's massive handicap is Hitler's declining mental health which means his military decision making goes down as the war goes on while Stalin's goes up. The German Army's best hope to avoid being crushed would be getting rid of their handicap and his lackies.
Seconded; in Europe, Lend-Lease was probably at least as big of a contribution as anything the US military directly did. The USSR will lose a lot of fighting strength if soldiers have to be pulled off the frontlines and put into farms and factories to make up for the lost goods, not to mention materials like aluminum and high-octane aviation fuel that the USSR can't replace.
And Lend-Lease has to go if you want a neutral US; even before Pearl Harbor Lend-Lease had already dragged the US into an undeclared naval war with Germany, and it was probably only a matter of time until a full conflict broke out.
Snake Featherston
Banned
And the UK will not last one year of sustained U-Boat campaigns, much less two. Hitler will starve it out of the war, but as this is going on, the Soviets will realize damned well where Hitler's only other target is and they aren't going to be exactly idle. The tactical and strategic surprise of OTL Barbarossa does not exist in this scenario.
1933 assassination attempt on FDR by Zangara is successful. In 1935 Huey Long survived the attack by Carl Weiss. USA is still in depression in 1940 with either Huey Long or wining the 1940 presidential race.
Possible, but by no means certain. After all, Stalin was well aware that conflict with Germany was inevitable OTL too, he just thought that if he played his cards right he could delay Barbarossa to 1942, when the USSR would be in a much stronger situation overall. I don't see any reason for Stalin to change that policy in this ATL; the USSR is still going to want to play for time to give their army a chance to finish rebuilding, reorganizing, and recovering from the Purges.
The big question in the scenero you are discussing is how soon the war against the UK ends. If they come to peace at the start of 41 then you don't have all the forces of the Afrika Corps on the Russian front when the battle begins.
The question is if Stalin puts his troops on Red Alert or not. If not the added troops could take Leningrad in 41 freeing up large numbers of German and allied troops in the North for operations elsewhere That along with the lack of Lend Lease makes the war in the East a whole new ball game which either ends early or goes on many more innings.
Your POD implies a WW2 with some sort of settlement between Germany and UK - Hitler was willing to let Britain keep colonies and RN if they let him alone on the continent. While this is not something the UK would want, it is a deal they would take if the alternative was starvation/complete collapse.
While the Soviets have space and manpower, absent Lend-Lease and also no German resources directed towards the west (steel for U-Boats, aircraft & guns to defend against Allied air raids, etc.) a Brest-Litovsk solution (or even worse) for the Soviets is not unrealistic.
Also note that while the German atomic weapons program might get more money in this scenario, they were not doing well theoretically. Soviet atomic weapons researched benefitted greatly from Lend-Lease (in that some resources were available during the war that did not have to go elsewhere), and from information stolen from the Manhattan Project - which in this scenario is likely to either not exist or be going forward at a slower pace. This means it is unlikely either power would have an atomic bomb prior to 1950 at the earliest if then. (BTW the first Soviet a/c that could carry this was a copy reverse engineered B-29 from one that landed in the USSR during WW2 & was interned.
While a "total" Nazi victory against the USSR is probably ASB, acquiring significant Lebensraum is not.
Just to throw some more stuff in the mix, IF the US is selling Japan everything it needs (and no UK/Netherlands oil embargo as well), no need for Japan to go south. While the USSR did kick butt at Kholkin-Gal, a USSR fighting Germany in this scenario will have little to spare in the far east and may get jumped by the Japanese who may want to bite off the Soviet Pacific territories.
While the Soviets have space and manpower, absent Lend-Lease and also no German resources directed towards the west (steel for U-Boats, aircraft & guns to defend against Allied air raids, etc.) a Brest-Litovsk solution (or even worse) for the Soviets is not unrealistic.
Also note that while the German atomic weapons program might get more money in this scenario, they were not doing well theoretically. Soviet atomic weapons researched benefitted greatly from Lend-Lease (in that some resources were available during the war that did not have to go elsewhere), and from information stolen from the Manhattan Project - which in this scenario is likely to either not exist or be going forward at a slower pace. This means it is unlikely either power would have an atomic bomb prior to 1950 at the earliest if then. (BTW the first Soviet a/c that could carry this was a copy reverse engineered B-29 from one that landed in the USSR during WW2 & was interned.
While a "total" Nazi victory against the USSR is probably ASB, acquiring significant Lebensraum is not.
Just to throw some more stuff in the mix, IF the US is selling Japan everything it needs (and no UK/Netherlands oil embargo as well), no need for Japan to go south. While the USSR did kick butt at Kholkin-Gal, a USSR fighting Germany in this scenario will have little to spare in the far east and may get jumped by the Japanese who may want to bite off the Soviet Pacific territories.
If Japan enters the war against Russia and gets some land and Germany gets a Brest-Litovsk on steroids. Then its only a matter of time before Japan finishes taking over China. Then round two of the war will be quite interesting. Lets say in this instance the Isolationist U.S. doesn't invest in a Manhatten Project. With the war in Europe over for the time being Germany and the UK will be researching furiously for technological advancements for round two. Russia will be for the most part out of the running and would be easy pickins for Germany if they develop nukes.
informationfan
Banned
well, yes
but the logistics to feed em was similar to a big german army in the east...
logistics was the real problem for the germans in 1941 (and later)... so, without africa corps the germans have 2 good divisions to use (that is fine but not really important), but they have trucks and supply for a tank army to move...
Maur
Banned
Well, actually supplying two divisions in Africa took many more trucks that supplying two divisions in USSR (or so i heard), so...
but then again, using trucks to supply eastern front armies, no (that's supply, not operational movement speed). Not enough roads, not enough trucks, not enough oil, far too long distances. I mean, it broke the allied offensive in France.
Ancien Regime
Banned
1st scenario might happen. Second is virtually ASB.
First off, no USA means for all intents and purposes, no strategic bombing. Strategic bombing wasn't *quite* a war-winner, but crippling German industry did a lot to cripple the overall war effort. In 1943 the factories that were bombed or kept from their raw material sources are cranking up into full gear from the investments made in them years before. Speaking of raw materials, if the UK is out of the war then the Germans can actually trade on world markets for raw materials again unless the USA embargoes then (and they can't do this as a neutral power).
For this same reason the Axis is going to maintain at worst air parity (more likely air superiority) for the rest of the war.
The Soviet Union in OTL simply did not have the logistical capability to extend an offensive into Central Europe without American trucks and other supplies. Those not existing in this scenario, Soviet blitzkrieg-esque tactics simply aren't going to achieve the kind of breakthroughs they want.
Also, in OTL 1945, the Soviet Union was scraping the very bottom of the manpower barrel. I know it sounds unbelievable but the Soviets were not truly capable of extending the war into 1946 or beyond, especially with the Germans offering heavy resistance every step to Berlin. Maybe if they stripped the factories of workers they could pull it off, but that could end badly for obvious reasons.
This does not consider as well that Italy will still be "in the game", and France will likely send support if it seems like the Soviets will go after them.
I agree that Barbarossa might not go off though because Hitler might not achieve the kind of strategic surprise that made it work so well, but on the other hand this depends on when/if the UK capitulates, and if Stalin is still thrown off by the Balkan expedition.
Basically, without the USA, the USSR can withstand the initial invasion, and eventually push the Germans back to the pre-war border, or at least the pre-war eastern Polish border. But capturing Berlin is a long-shot, and the idea of a Red Europe is ASB in this scenario.
Last edited: