WW2 Europe, no US involvement, post fall of France.

[yerm]

No. The USA didn't match the British strategic bombardment volume of bombs dropped until Nov43, Feb 44. Further, allied strategic air forces were focussed on the infrastructure of Northern France and Benelux to support the upcoming invasion of Europe.

Additionally, Tooze points out that the industrial turning point of the strategic bombardment campaign occured in mid 1943. From this point onwards, German equipment productions drop.

Further, it wasn't about German ability to replace destroyed equipment (which was already affected in 1945 before US support really had an impact), it was about German ability to support strategic offensives. In 41 this ability had already waned where Barbarossa had relied on an economy that had built up a strategic reserve over the 1936-1941 period. Once this had been used up (in Barbarossa), German offensive capability reduced dramatically.

It is extremely important to keep in mind, here and in many other hypotheticals, that ww2 military success was never just linear with force totals. If you double the aircraft deployed you far more than double their impact. Likewise, halve the aircraft and you risk jeopardizing their entire purpose. WW2 was far less about diminishing returns and instead was repeatedly a factor of breakthroughs and force multipliers and strategic advantages. Allied bombing was something Germany lacked a decent level of defense against, but it did have some answers for the damage at least. So the british were very effectively destroying German industry a bit past what could be efficiently dealt with, and American aircraft added to the amount already beyond German means to recuperate from. Remove American aircraft and the damage to Germany goes down far more than just as a % of those planes.

Likewise in the USSR, small differences can make or break an offensive or a stand. Russia BARELY held. Their offensives were very difficult at first. It is certainly true that the USSR held without the need for US aid, but it is not so easy to claim their counterattack and eventually eastern European conquests go close to the same. They are missing a significant (I believe 8?) percentage of their total while Germany is able to squeeze a slight bit more to the east. I think it could become reasonable to assume that both sides will fall into a stalemate and the soviets never reach Berlin, as eventually neither has the means to overwhelm the other until well after the historical war's endpoint.

Germany still doesn't win in this hypothetical, but its losing circumstances are going to wildly change - anywhere from a negotiated peace after the Nazis are finally ejected to a collapse and civil war that makes Russia's from the prior world war look tame in comparison.

 

[Easy-Kill]

It is extremely important to keep in mind, here and in many other hypotheticals, that ww2 military success was never just linear with force totals. If you double the aircraft deployed you far more than double their impact. Likewise, halve the aircraft and you risk jeopardizing their entire purpose. WW2 was far less about diminishing returns and instead was repeatedly a factor of breakthroughs and force multipliers and strategic advantages. Allied bombing was something Germany lacked a decent level of defense against, but it did have some answers for the damage at least. So the british were very effectively destroying German industry a bit past what could be efficiently dealt with, and American aircraft added to the amount already beyond German means to recuperate from. Remove American aircraft and the damage to Germany goes down far more than just as a % of those planes.

Likewise in the USSR, small differences can make or break an offensive or a stand. Russia BARELY held. Their offensives were very difficult at first. It is certainly true that the USSR held without the need for US aid, but it is not so easy to claim their counterattack and eventually eastern European conquests go close to the same. They are missing a significant (I believe 8?) percentage of their total while Germany is able to squeeze a slight bit more to the east. I think it could become reasonable to assume that both sides will fall into a stalemate and the soviets never reach Berlin, as eventually neither has the means to overwhelm the other until well after the historical war's endpoint.

Germany still doesn't win in this hypothetical, but its losing circumstances are going to wildly change - anywhere from a negotiated peace after the Nazis are finally ejected to a collapse and civil war that makes Russia's from the prior world war look tame in comparison.

I absolutely agree. My point wasn't to decrease the impact of US efforts but to highlight the relative impotence of Germany before the (immense)weight of the US effort was felt.

 

[Kovax]

I concur, pretty much. The German offensives were blunted and driven back a bit even before US assistance arrived in enough quantity to make any real difference, but that added support significantly improved the SU's ability to go on the offensive. Without it, Germany still loses, but in a much longer and even more painful war than IRL, unless one or both sides break down politically first.

 

[delta180]

I think it is important to note that Germany was already on its last legs even before invading the Soviet Union, the British tactic was not one of protect, hold and counter attack, it was one of protect, hold and starve the Germans into surrendering

Europe could not produce enough food to feed itself, the German population was down to half rations (half of what is healthy to eat), the situation got so bad the Americans sent free food in humanitarian aid to German occupied countries, which the British in turn berated them for. In fact a lot of the German food was supplied by the USSR and Stalin was not letting it go cheaply which led to even more economic problems for the Germans since there main source of income came from invading and looting countries

Since the Germans had little oil or food they started making demands on there smaller Balkan neighbours to get supplies and failing that they invaded the Balkans to acquire those resources, still finding it not to be enough to avoid a massive European famine, this is when Germany invaded the USSR

The Soviet Union, who were well prepared for the attack and had moved industry and agriculture into the east during the 5 year plans, proceeded to employ scorched earth tactics from 1 month into the war, this quickly turned into a race between the red army who attempted to burn down supplies before the German army got to them and the wehrmacht who attempted to advance and steal the supplies before the red army could destroy them

even with the limited success that the Germans had in pillaging areas of the Ukraine and Poland, many of the occupied countries began to starve and then rebel and I think this would had defeated the Germans in the end without a 2nd front

 

[Yakman]

I think it is important to note that Germany was already on its last legs even before invading the Soviet Union

this is silly.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

this is silly.

Seconded

 

[fr-rein]

it was one of protect, hold and starve the Germans into surrendering

...and at the same time you need to remember that they would be still fighting Nazi U-boats and have no victory like in history in 1942-1943 on the sea. Without USA victory in seas wouldn't be an obvious fact, which begs to ask if Britain wouldn't exhaust itself in process.

Since the Germans had little oil or food they started making demands on there smaller Balkan neighbours to get supplies and failing that they invaded the Balkans to acquire those resources

Oh, really? And here I thought that Nazis delayed Barbarossa and invaded Balkans only because of sudden coup in Yugoslavia, making it a possible ally for Allies.

even with the limited success that the Germans had in pillaging areas of the Ukraine and Poland, many of the occupied countries began to starve and then rebel

More Ukrainians starved to death under Soviets (in multiple famines even after war) than under pillaging Nazis.

The Soviet Union, who were well prepared for the attack and had moved industry and agriculture into the east during the 5 year plans

Okay, this is either trolling or lack of at least superficial WWII knowledge.

 

[Kovax]

This is almost as bad an effort at explaining the war as attempted by my one neighbor's kid, who described American History to his step-father as "George Washington convinced Abraham Lincoln to free the slaves, so Lincoln declared war on the South, starting WWI". I basically stood there dumbfounded. Worse, in less than a decade, that kid will be able to vote.

 

[fr-rein]

Worse, in less than a decade, that kid will be able to vote.

That boy's name - Albert Einstein.

 

[yerm]

I think it is important to note that Germany was already on its last legs even before invading the Soviet Union, the British tactic was not one of protect, hold and counter attack, it was one of protect, hold and starve the Germans into surrendering

Europe could not produce enough food to feed itself, the German population was down to half rations (half of what is healthy to eat), the situation got so bad the Americans sent free food in humanitarian aid to German occupied countries, which the British in turn berated them for. In fact a lot of the German food was supplied by the USSR and Stalin was not letting it go cheaply which led to even more economic problems for the Germans since there main source of income came from invading and looting countries

Since the Germans had little oil or food they started making demands on there smaller Balkan neighbours to get supplies and failing that they invaded the Balkans to acquire those resources, still finding it not to be enough to avoid a massive European famine, this is when Germany invaded the USSR

The Soviet Union, who were well prepared for the attack and had moved industry and agriculture into the east during the 5 year plans, proceeded to employ scorched earth tactics from 1 month into the war, this quickly turned into a race between the red army who attempted to burn down supplies before the German army got to them and the wehrmacht who attempted to advance and steal the supplies before the red army could destroy them

even with the limited success that the Germans had in pillaging areas of the Ukraine and Poland, many of the occupied countries began to starve and then rebel and I think this would had defeated the Germans in the end without a 2nd front

Others have rightly shreded the finer points; I want to take a shot at the big picture.

The allies and after Barbarossa the Soviets are not merely fighting Germany. They are also fighting popular support for the party in charge of the government, economic concerns among their citizens, and diplomatic rivalries among each other.

Stopping the German war machine and causing the nation to start gradually losing its most outlying conquests and internally to suffer food and resource shortages is NOT a guarantee of victory. They need to actually defeat the nation, have the government collapse and be replaced by one amenable to harsh demands (eg Russia 1917), or have the conquered regions manage to free themselves from German control.

The British don't have to be conquered or starved or etc. They need to be sick of fighting. They need to have the businesses sick of no continental market. They need to have peacemakers take control of parliament. They need to have the French begging them to just stop so they can finally have the German half given back, and the Norwegians saying yes us too.

Basically, without the USA involved, Germany are hoping to BE the USA in their war of independence. Britain cannot win and eventually has to give it up when something more important (France in 1700s, probably India in 1940s or even 50s if it drags out that long) requires them to give it a rest.

This is almost as bad an effort at explaining the war as attempted by my one neighbor's kid, who described American History to his step-father as "George Washington convinced Abraham Lincoln to free the slaves, so Lincoln declared war on the South, starting WWI". I basically stood there dumbfounded. Worse, in less than a decade, that kid will be able to vote.

I mean he did get one right (Lincoln technically did DOW the south) and he got them in order. He will get there!

 

[Kovax]

There's a huge difference between "fighting an almost unwinnable war" and "on their last legs". Germany was anything but "done" when they launched their offensive into the Soviet Union, although the hoped-for result was probably unattainable without some miraculous breakdown of the SU, the UK government collapsing, and/or America deciding to let Europe fall to a dictator and deal with the problem when it crossed the Atlantic in another decade. Considering that it took the combined efforts of the SU, UK, US, and a host of smaller countries to end it by 1945, I wouldn't say that Germany was on the brink of starvation or collapse in 1941 by any standard of measure. Heading there, but still a long way from it, and to most of the world at the time, it looked like Germany still might pull it off. We have a lot more information now, showing just how bleak the long-term picture was for them, but a lot of that was unknown at the time.

As pointed out, a lot of the finer details of delta 180's post were less than accurate, not that my own memory is even remotely close to flawless.

 

[delta180]

...and at the same time you need to remember that they would be still fighting Nazi U-boats and have no victory like in history in 1942-1943 on the sea. Without USA victory in seas wouldn't be an obvious fact, which begs to ask if Britain wouldn't exhaust itself in process.

the Nazi U-boats were an attempt by the Germans to starve Britain from supplies not to get supplies themselves, but it failed terribly because the allies were still able to run the blockade, in no way was Britain's shortage of supplies as bad as Germany's

Oh, really? And here I thought that Nazis delayed Barbarossa and invaded Balkans only because of sudden coup in Yugoslavia, making it a possible ally for Allies.

and you are right, now look up why they invaded Romanian and take oil off them, sorry sent troops to train them who happened to also guard oil fields here is source http://www.indiana.edu/~league/1940.htm under 8th October

More Ukrainians starved to death under Soviets (in multiple famines even after war) than under pillaging Nazis.

never heard of the great famine of Greece, how about the dutch famine? It is one thing to have people starving in a war zone on the front line, it is another to have fully occupied countries starve

 

[delta180]

The allies and after Barbarossa the Soviets are not merely fighting Germany. They are also fighting popular support for the party in charge of the government, economic concerns among their citizens, and diplomatic rivalries among each other.

we are talking about pre-America allies, which means for the most part the USSR and GB, both of which found ways of getting rid of having elections and popular support during the war, the USSR banned elections for all but his own party shortly before the great purge so had no opposition to compete against, meanwhile Churchill created the war ministry which consisted of 5 parties including the 3 largest parties, so if the government did something terrible, they would all be to blame. Oh and Churchill also suspended elections so it would take an army of peasants with pitch forks and firearms to get rid of him

Stopping the German war machine and causing the nation to start gradually losing its most outlying conquests and internally to suffer food and resource shortages is NOT a guarantee of victory. They need to actually defeat the nation, have the government collapse and be replaced by one amenable to harsh demands (eg Russia 1917), or have the conquered regions manage to free themselves from German control.

and look at Austria and the Ottoman empire in WW1, there was no full scale invasion of Austria or Anatolia that succeeded, both countries suffered food and resource shortages and that made them riot and surrender, the British had already made gains in Africa even before American involvement, most countries had a British backed resistance force as well, most notably the french resistance but few people risk revolts if they do not have to which is why a wartime famine will normally destroy an empire

The British don't have to be conquered or starved or etc. They need to be sick of fighting. They need to have the businesses sick of no continental market. They need to have peacemakers take control of parliament. They need to have the French begging them to just stop so they can finally have the German half given back, and the Norwegians saying yes us too.

in 40s Britain there were no massive supermarket chains like today and factories and mines often welcomed the large subsidies and steady demand they got from converting to a war time modal (producing guns and such) so there was little risk of them stopping the government, also no peacemakers could get in power because there were no elections as I said before and neither the French or Norwegian government in exile or the defectors were under the impression they could just get back to what they were doing before the war if they returned, after all the allies executed much of the nazi government

Basically, without the USA involved, Germany are hoping to BE the USA in their war of independence. Britain cannot win and eventually has to give it up when something more important (France in 1700s, probably India in 1940s or even 50s if it drags out that long) requires them to give it a rest.

now we get to the point of the eastern front where than 60% of the German army was. The USSR deployed on its front line twice the amount of soldiers the Germans had and killed twice the amount of soldiers the western front ever did even though it lasted half the time, Germany in WW2 got furthest into Russia in 1942, d-day happened in mid 1944, 2 years later by which time the USSR had recaptured Russia and pushed into Poland, Romania, Hungary and Slovakia, even if Britain on its own could not win Britain and the USSR could

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

even if Britain on its own could not win Britain and the USSR could

Britain and the Soviets against Germany? Absolutely zero, and I mean zero, US involvement? Anything they sell to one side they sell to both. God help the side that interdicts US shipping first, and shipments to Germany can handled by the proliferation of shell companies located in 'neutral' countries such as Spain. Once France falls, the border is no longer an issue and German shipments can reach Berlin by rail in a matter of days.

No Former Navy Person? No SOE using America as a base? No Lend Lease? No under the table arms shipments? No Destroyers for Bases? No US Merchant Marine and their Liberty Ships? No jeep carriers forming hunter/killer ASW teams?

Even if you leave Japan out of the mix to prevent confusion . . . I think I'm taking Germany.

The reality is what you are suggesting now allows Henry Ford to sell Herr Hitler (who keeps a picture of Henry Ford on his desk) all the trucks he wants at reasonable prices paid in gold through shell companies and third-party intermediaries in Switzerland. You take all those Ford Trucks used to fuel the Russian offensives, and give half of them to the Germans, what comes next? Not to mention Ford selling knock off B-24's, one an hour, to Goering at quite reasonable prices.

For offloading US shipments to Germany, I highly recommend the top-secret U-boat base at Vigo with its massive infrastructure of hidden tunnels and strong rail lines connected directly to the Ruhr. If you can just pull into Brest and thumb your noses at the British, so much the better.

And our old friends at Standard Oil are more than happy to make a profit in time of war selling to the highest bidder. Bye-bye German Oil problem.

Trains? American Locomotive Company has quite the inventory to pick from; using steam and disel-electric configurations of the finest quality imaginable. And they can make cheap single use locomotives like those that ran up and down the Persian supply lines as well. What do you need today?

I'd hit up Alfred Sloan over at GM real quick if I'm Britain and see what kind of deals they can cut. And I'd make a stop at North American Aviation, Boeing, Consolidated, Vought, Republic, and US Steel while I'm over here. Prices are about to go up. The shipyards, btw, are reserved for our own use.

Good luck.

 

[fr-rein]

the Nazi U-boats were an attempt by the Germans to starve Britain from supplies not to get supplies themselves, but it failed terribly because the allies were still able to run the blockade, in no way was Britain's shortage of supplies as bad as Germany's

Yes, but all strategic bombings, industrial capacity and so on weakens in since 1941 period. Which means German industry taking less damage and running better.

and you are right, now look up why they invaded Romanian and take oil off them, sorry sent troops to train them who happened to also guard oil fields here is source http://www.indiana.edu/~league/1940.htm under 8th October

Open eyes and notice that all eastern part of Romania, Moldova, was occupied that summer by USSR.

never heard of the great famine of Greece, how about the dutch famine? It is one thing to have people starving in a war zone on the front line, it is another to have fully occupied countries starve

I don't say that there was no plunder or casualties. But you're wrong in estimating how desperate they were or that they wanted to invade those countries just to plunder.
If anything, they only went for Greece after Yugoslavia coup and when there was a huge risk of a potential enemy in the rear.

 

[delta180]

Britain and the Soviets against Germany? Absolutely zero, and I mean zero, US involvement? Anything they sell to one side they sell to both. God help the side that interdicts US shipping first, and shipments to Germany can handled by the proliferation of shell companies located in 'neutral' countries such as Spain. Once France falls, the border is no longer an issue and German shipments can reach Berlin by rail in a matter of days.

No Former Navy Person? No SOE using America as a base? No Lend Lease? No under the table arms shipments? No Destroyers for Bases? No US Merchant Marine and their Liberty Ships? No jeep carriers forming hunter/killer ASW teams?

Even if you leave Japan out of the mix to prevent confusion . . . I think I'm taking Germany.

The reality is what you are suggesting now allows Henry Ford to sell Herr Hitler (who keeps a picture of Henry Ford on his desk) all the trucks he wants at reasonable prices paid in gold through shell companies and third-party intermediaries in Switzerland. You take all those Ford Trucks used to fuel the Russian offensives, and give half of them to the Germans, what comes next? Not to mention Ford selling knock off B-24's, one an hour, to Goering at quite reasonable prices.

For offloading US shipments to Germany, I highly recommend the top-secret U-boat base at Vigo with its massive infrastructure of hidden tunnels and strong rail lines connected directly to the Ruhr. If you can just pull into Brest and thumb your noses at the British, so much the better.

And our old friends at Standard Oil are more than happy to make a profit in time of war selling to the highest bidder. Bye-bye German Oil problem.

Trains? American Locomotive Company has quite the inventory to pick from; using steam and disel-electric configurations of the finest quality imaginable. And they can make cheap single use locomotives like those that ran up and down the Persian supply lines as well. What do you need today?

I'd hit up Alfred Sloan over at GM real quick if I'm Britain and see what kind of deals they can cut. And I'd make a stop at North American Aviation, Boeing, Consolidated, Vought, Republic, and US Steel while I'm over here. Prices are about to go up. The shipyards, btw, are reserved for our own use.

Good luck.

you probably did not read my first post, my point was that Germany was under heavy blockade throughout the war and could not trade overseas

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

you probably did not read my first post, my point was that Germany was under heavy blockade throughout the war and could not trade overseas

Who is going to blockade out the US Navy?

So, if I understand you, 'pretend the United States does not exist, can Great Britain and Russia defeat Germany' is your question?

 

[delta180]

Yes, but all strategic bombings, industrial capacity and so on weakens in since 1941 period. Which means German industry taking less damage and running better.

I was talking about the German shortage of raw materials not industrial capacity, Germany at the time had most of Europe and probably the biggest industrial capacity in the world at the time, but it could not feed itself nor could did it mine enough oil, manganese or rubber to use its industry effectively

Open eyes and notice that all eastern part of Romania, Moldova, was occupied that summer by USSR.

I was aware of this fact, but why are you bringing it up? Germany expected the USSR to lay claim to the rest of Romania so it stopped being diplomatic with the Romanians and de facto turned them into a client state to gain access to its oil

I don't say that there was no plunder or casualties. But you're wrong in estimating how desperate they were or that they wanted to invade those countries just to plunder.
If anything, they only went for Greece after Yugoslavia coup and when there was a huge risk of a potential enemy in the rear.

I never said they invaded countries to loot, I said that looting and invading countries was there main source of income, after all they had the french pay 400 million franks a day to the Germans, a frank being worth about half as much as the modern day USD, but in the war with the USSR looting and secruring resources was the main objective that is the main reason they pushed on Stalingrad not Moscow in 42

 

[delta180]

Who is going to blockade out the US Navy?

So, if I understand you, 'pretend the United States does not exist, can Great Britain and Russia defeat Germany' is your question?

I did not ask a question, I stated to you that a blockade did happen, GB banned all food, animals, raw materials, clothing, arms, fuel, tools and money from being shipped to its war enemies, the British navy searched and pillaged ships that carried these items (yes American ships as well, but merchant ships since warships were not used to run the blockade because they were neutral). The only time the US took issue was when the British stopped letting mail get though the blockade, but Britain ignored the complaints

 

[fr-rein]

I was talking about the German shortage of raw materials not industrial capacity, Germany at the time had most of Europe and probably the biggest industrial capacity in the world at the time, but it could not feed itself nor could did it mine enough oil, manganese or rubber to use its industry effectively

You heavily underestimate how Nazis built up self-sufficient sources for most of such materials.
They synthesized fuel, in so huge numbers that it carried them through war (not Romanian oil or anything like that).
They secured Norway to not get winter shipments of metals from Sweden (delivered across Norway shores in winter) disrupted or worse, get Sweden occupied/swayed to Allies.
They relied on Spain and other 3rd countries whenever possible to get resources.
They made rubber too.
They even heavily increased local food production, severely decreasing needed food imports and significantly optimizing food situation compared to WWI.

If anything, you underestimate how much German military economics was prepared to answer such challenges. And if not for 1943-1945 bombings with USA help, it would last much longer.

I was aware of this fact, but why are you bringing it up? Germany expected the USSR to lay claim to the rest of Romania so it stopped being diplomatic with the Romanians and de facto turned them into a client state to gain access to its oil

Except that the regime itself changed because of huge failures of government?
Surely Germany wanted oil, bit it didn't just occupy Romania. It also wasn't in awe from having to occupy Greece and Yugoslavia, but the former's regime changed forced them to do it.

but in the war with the USSR looting and secruring resources was the main objective that is the main reason they pushed on Stalingrad not Moscow in 42

Hello, 2nd battle of Kharkov wants to talk to you. The one where Axis destroyed a whole army and opened a path to the operations in Stalingrad direction. Here is a map which shows how they could advance after eliminating a whole army there:

Sure, resources and Stalingrad's strategic and symbolic meanings also played a role, but main argument was the fact that they could make a resultative offense there with strategic gains.

And more generally, they looted what they occupied indeed, but they didn't count on it that critically.