Five word OP, five word answer:
Red Europe. Japan still fucked.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Afrika Korps is two divisions. That's exactly nothing. OKW reserve was bigger.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.
Afrika Korps is two divisions. That's exactly nothing. OKW reserve was bigger.
Well, actually supplying two divisions in Africa took many more trucks that supplying two divisions in USSR (or so i heard), so...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...
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.