German vs. Russia - No England.

That was his original plan, but latter Hitler changed his mind in which he had to take up to the ****ING URALS to force the Soviets farther than Urals effectively freeing Europe of all Soviet presence. Hitler isnt taking the Urals, it was extremely hard even for air support to reach there.

 

Kurgan:

Re: England, and strictly speaking there is no such independent entity judging by UN membership - England is part of the UK (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

With that correction out of the way, when 'No England' is refered to I assume it means the cessation of hostilities after the Battle of France. Perhaps, no Churchill, but no Sealion - Germans would have lost (but that's another thread),equally no Battle of Britain. In return the Germans may occupy less of Western Europe, but for the sake of this thread, I think that there is a Non-aggression pact between Germany and the UK.

Lend-lease, only came about as a means to support Britain, seems very unlikely that FDR would propose it for the Soviet Union, especially considering the problems getting it to the Russians.
Though, some supplies may reach them, it would only be a trickle.
While in comparison US industrialists with 'peace' in Western Europe, will flock over to Germany to do business.

Britain And the US will be more concerned with the problem of Japan, but because of the 'peace' with German, the 'concern' will generate less co-operation than OTL. Yet, because of the 'peace' its possible that the German will less pro-Japan.

Without the distractions in the Balkans is the start date earlier, and does that make a difference.

Problem for the Germans - complacency, Russians maybe less surprised and better prepared.
Problem for the Russians - you don't have any friends, the Germans are on a rolll, they have no distractions, there have moe men and equipement than OTL, and what will the Japanese do?

 

After bowing out after the fall of France they wont come in again for the sake of the Commies.

A desire many Conservatives wanted even the ex PM Stanley Baldwin.

No.

I would think they would refrain unless the Japnese attacked the British Empire too.

I cant see America getting involved in a Nazi-Soviet conflict now Britain is out of the war.

The Japanese may just get away with taking the Dutch East Indies with no US intervention but it is a risk for them to take.

 

Everyone from Hitler to Stalin called the UK England at the time.
Even Churchill called himself the Prime Minister of England.

 

I could see it like this with no war in the west -

1941 - Moscow surrounded.

1942 - Early in the year Moscow falls, Germany offensive in the South East takes the Caucasus (Stalingrad placed under siege rather than stormed after heavy loses at Moscow), Late 1942 Soviet counter attacks across the Volga but not as successful as OTL.

1943 - Axis pincer attacks along the Volga to cut off Soviet bulges, Leningrad surrenders, Axis forces dig in along the Volga-Don line, Efforts made to integrate minor Axis allies into German weapon production, Stalingrad falls.

1944 - Soviet winter offensives at the start of the year defended against, Giant Pincer East from Moscow and North East from Stalingrad capturing all land West of the Volga, Axis bombers now hitting Soviet factories around the Urals, Soviet counter offensive in the Winter across the Volga fails.

1945 - Axis offensive from Kazan East towards the Urals, German inspired rising in Central Asia, Urals reached by late September.

1946 - Start of year Soviet counter offensive pushes Nazis back around 1000 miles but suffers heavy causalities, Stalin cedes all land west of the Urals to Hitler but gets to keep Soviet Central Asia.

 

I see that you have to assume as well , because having read the entire thread I still fail to see what the exact terms are how this 'What if' is played out. But, from BE, I guess, Halifax has become PM instead of Churchill. As you say, there's some sort of non-agression pact (due to Halifax) between Germany and the UK after the invasion of France and the US just sits by and watches.

I don't see any real problems getting it to the Soviet Union: Persian Corridor and Pacific Route are both viable methods as in OTL; nothing what has happened in this scenario changes that. Main question is: will the US support the Soviets via an LL construction?

Like some already did in the thirties (read this interesting article btw: Jacques R. Pauwels | Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler | Labour/Le Travail, 51 | The History Cooperative).
So, with no agression towards the US from Germany, would that mean that Mammon would rule, and the US would only think of its financial investments? That might be plausible, especially if the industrialists are looking at the short term primarily.

Hmm, you imply here that the US would rather have seen the UK still at war with the Germans? And exactly why is that? For financial gain through a LL construction, and/or because of other motivations?
The Germans being less pro-Japan would help, but would that mean that the Tripartite Pact will not be signed?

I don't think the date matters too much (as several threads on this forum indicate), because of the weather conditions that would plague the Germans (rain and mud) when they start out earlier than OTL, and will help them (in the beginning, due to the hot summer) if OTL is followed.
Stalin might worry about the fact that the Germans can open a one-front attack on Russia, so he should be wary of an imminent invasion and therefore his troops would be better prepared. If that's enough? Not in the beginning...I guess the Germans and their allies will be able to defeat the initial Russian forces, but then their major Achilles heel will play up: their logistics. With more men and machines on the front than OTL that will lead the Germans even faster in trouble.
The vastness of Russia is just too big a problem, as well as the underestimation of their opponent: in number as well as in character. The Russians were more resilient than the Germans had hoped for.

Maybe if Hitler could convince the Japanese to attack the Russians in Siberia this could have any influence on the outcome (no Siberian reinforcements), but I can't imagine that the Japanese (after their earlier 'skirmishes' with the Russians) are willing to consider that option. There's just not enough in it for them to perform such a gamble...
Would the Japanese just focus on the DEA and some other territories? I don't know, it's more or less a stalemate in the pacific with the UK able to focus more on that theater. The RN would be able to be deployed there in greater numbers, then again, they won't trust the Germans if they are wise, so the homefleet will be at strength.

For the sake of the thread I go along with the non-agression pact the UK has with Germany; However, I don't believe this could ever have been realized...not on terms Germany would have liked IMO...

 

Thanks!
I just wanted to be sure what your look on the situation is!

 

And over this period of six years the UK and US would do nothing at all? (Even) if the events work out the way you describe above, these nations would recognize that in time they'll get into trouble with Germany, especially the UK.

I also can't imagine that the US will leave the Japanese the DEI (or anything else for that matter), because they see the threat Japan poses for the Pacific rim area. They will go to war eventually and if the Tripartite Pact is made that means Germany will be at war with the US as well. This spells the end for Germany, because Russia will undoubtedly get support now (as in the LL arrangements), and the US will put so much pressure on the Brits (if they are still hesitant to act) that they will side with the US and than it's game over for the Axis...it will take a couple of years but their fate is sealed.

 

That was then, this is now ....

 

Well since we are talking about "then" and not "now" we best stick to the terms of the day dont you think?

 

I would expect the US may well act against Japan as I think at the time 80% of the DEI oil was US owned.
This means Japan will either have to strike first or go North.
I think if they do strike first however it will just be a US v Japan war.
I cant see Hitler coming in with England no longer getting supplies to hurt him from America.

 

I don't have any numbers for this, but my guess is that most oil in the DEI was exploited by the Anglo-Dutch oil company Royal Dutch Shell, but nevertheless, the US (accompanied by the Dutch government) cut the oil supply to the Japanese on 26 July 1941. In this scenario I don't see that changing from OTL.
That meant that Japan only received 7% of their original oil supply and so, for any further actions from their side (whether on land or by sea) they would have to capture the DEI oilfields or they would run out of oil after a year and a half (or perhaps even earlier).
IMO this forbids them to look north and yes, they will have to strike first, but we all know they won't gain too much from that, and there is an even greater obstacle to their hostile intentions, because the RN might have a greater presence than in OTL.
In this scenario, Japan is pretty much screwed; how much exactly depends on the precise number of additional RN vessels in this theater, but their odds are worse than in OTL.

This would also mean that due to the oil embargo Russia can send its Siberian reserves to bolster the forces in the West, which would further contribute to the (inevitable IMO) defeat of the Germans.

Also, when Japan strikes first and Germany upholds the Tripartite Pact than Germany and the US are at war as well, which will spell doom for the Germans. (I don't even mention the fact that the UK will be drawn into the conflict again through pure pressure of the US; they might even join willingly in the fight against the nazis!)
So, any which way you look at this, the Germans will lose, as nothing could match the industrial might of the US at that time!

 

I doubt Japan would try to take on both the US and Royal Navies.
Besides with Britain neutral the Dutch Nazi backed government would have taken over the DEI by this time and Britain may well not go along with any US embargo against Japan.

 

This creates an interesting point with Britain bowing out of the war in the summer of 1940 as this scenario suggests then Japan may well occupy the DEI in the name of the Axis Dutch government.
Under such circumstances Britain would ignore it and the USA would be unlikely to go to war over it.
Much like the situation with Vichy and Indo-China.

 

I doubt that too, but with the oilsupply almost reduced to zero, the Japanese would be desperate for oil. Attacking the DEI would cause problems with the US (why else would Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor in OTL?), and even if they wouldn't attack Pearl in this scenario, the US motive to have this embargo, being circumvented through an invasion of the DEI, would lead to war.

The Dutch Nazi government with puppet Mussert in place would have no support whatsoever in the DEI. The Dutch government in exile would still govern the territories overseas (Dutch Antilles, Dutch Guyana (Suriname) and the DEI). You have to remember that even before the war, the Dutch fascists were only a minor faction in the Netherlands (during the 1937 elections they had a little over 4% of the votes) and didn't receive much sympathy from the Dutch population. In DEI this wouldn't be otherwise. There was even a hate campaign after the declaration of war by Germany against the Dutch fascists overseas.
This means that the Dutch fleet in the DEI would remain loyal to the government in exile (as in OTL).

And what would the UK do about the embargo by the US? Ok, they would still be able to supply Japan with some stuff, but there wouldn't be enough oil from the Brits to mitigate the Japanese hunger for the black gold. (I guess the US would even buy this surplus oil from the Brits, just to prevent it from falling in the hands of the Japanese.)

Either way, the Japanese are in dire need of oil, which will lead to war with the US, which Japan cannot win.

 

See my other reply...

 

The Dutch government with German, Italian or Japanese help would soon be back in charge of the DEI.
Most likely the Japs would see this an a good opertunity for them.
If they think the USA will go to war over this then Pearl will have to be hit.
The only other option is to strike North with Germany and hope the Germans and Italians can take the Caucasus and start supplying the Japs with oil before they run out.
All three options are a gamble.
With the benefit of hindsight the attack on Pearl may well have been the worst choice.
An attack on DEI and no Pearl could end up worse still if the USA attacks them but the Soviet option could well be the lesser of evils.

 

Perhaps I am missing something, but how does a cease fire with Great Britain affect Japan's desire for expansion and how they go about it?

 

The fact that the biggest navy in the world would be able to deploy against them if they moved on British turf.

 

You have hit on one of the biggest problems of this thread. Given the title you could have situations as far apart as the two below.

1) Hitler talks the Soviets into attacking Poland first. He then double crosses them and comes in on the side of the Poles (for certain territorial concessions). In such a scenario he might actually have better access to weapons, equipment, and supplies from the rest of the world than the Soviets. Not to mention anticomunist volenteers from a number of countries.

2) While "England" is taken out of the war (gas and or biologicals perahps) the rest of the British commonwealth remains at war with Germany and due to the maner that they attacked England the US enters the war in mid 41 or perhaps earlier.