WW2 what if scenario

Being scared is not the same as surrendering. Every fucking Allied soldier that landed in Normandy was "scared shitless," how did that work out? Every Soviet soldier was shitting his pants, without even a rifle, in Stalingrad. How did that turn out?

Probably by literally raping its way through China.

Good theme OP lemme look at this.
>America never enters the war
With no war there's no nuclear program. In 5 years the Manhattan project basically accomplished 20-30 years worth of science at the cost of literally almost all the worlds leading nuclear physicists and $27 billion dollars (in 2016 adjusted for inflation money).
So it's safe to say that the Axis wouldn't have any nuclear weapons. (The Russians didn't have any of that shit during WW2 either and I haven't seen anything to indicate that Stalin pushed for it during the war in the degree that we did. They only had it after the war.)

Hitler still invades Russia since he did it in our timeline even with America supporting the allies so he'd still be down to do that. Russia pretty much handled that.

HOWEVER:
The entire war all depends on whether or not the final push into Moscow ever happened. Seriously Stalin was like at the train station ready to evacuate the city within hours of the German army. Assuming things play out as they do in our time...I dunno.

No D-Day so France isn't liberated and the war isn't turned in Italy. Japan makes an empire in the Pacific since there's no one to oppose them. China becomes a part of Japan.
Germany probably loses the war still they got their shit slapped by Russia but now post war Russia rules most of Europe and with Japan ruling China there's not Communist government in asia for Russia to align with. Sure you'll get revolts here and there but Vietnam, China, the mainland- all of it under an Imperial rule means that Russia's communist power in consolidated purely in Europe.

Russia reaches further than Berlin by the end of the war as they annex large regions run by Germany.

>and the Brits
Yet another Anglo being in denial of his irrelevance and trying to piggyback the Soviets and the Americans.

>WW2 what if scenarios #3002457

There should be a general for this sort of shit. Same with the Civil War, just call it /ahg/ - alternate history general.

>trying to deduce the nationality of a poster based on his position

Sorry bro, I actually studied history. No bias here.

>studied history under professor Chadwick Wollingsbottom at the University of Poppycock

>Russia pretty much handled that.
Only thanks to Lend-Lease.

The US gave Russia hundreds of thousands of trucks, millions of tons of food, all of its aviation fuel, and tons more shit. For instance, the Soviets only made 92 locomotives during the entire war. The Lend-Lease program gave them over 2000.

No Lend-Lease means the Soviet victory is nowhere near assured. Especially when you consider that no US involvement means no possibility of D-Day, meaning all German forces could go East. Also much much less strategic bombing.

Actually at Ole Miss.

America had to enter the war to assist the Soviets either way. If the Soviets lost the war, then they would not be able to repay the loans FDR (or his bank puppeteers) gave to them.

Also, the US attempted to wage war on Germany by provoking them many times, as Hitler mentioned in this speech. youtu.be/niiiHjIQu8s

They desperately wanted to join the war, but they needed to find a reason to. Thus, they let Japan attack Pearl Harbor despite knowing about the attack ahead of time, and they did nothing about it because they wanted to appear as the hero.

This same provocation is happening in Syria now against Syria and Russia. Perhaps because they are currently funding the rebels and ISIS. If ISIS can get control over the oil supply in the Middle East, then they can accumulate the funds to repay the US/Jews/Saudis back.

>If the Soviets lost the war, then they would not be able to repay the loans FDR (or his bank puppeteers) gave to them.

In fact, what's ironic is that the Lend Lease Act may have been the reason the Soviets collapsed in 91. How else could they repay the loans in a communist government. North Korea today is still standing, even if it is in terrible condition, but standing nevertheless.

underated idea

they already went to war against germany in ww1.

German-Americans were far more American by the time of WW2. hell some of hitler's nephews fought for the US

America was pro German in WW1. In fact they supported Germany through newspaper articles. It wasn't until the Balfour Declaration was discussed that they did a complete 180 and started to bash them.

Firstly, I doubt the Japs would send soldiers to the Western Front but they would certainly open a new front with Russia. Even though, I doubt that they could've beaten the Russians, has Russia ever had to fight a two front war against two capable Armies before?

Thats only because the US got KRAUT'd in the last century, the Germans were the USA's first case of the Mexicans

And it made America only better. To this day I don't understand the claim of Angloboos that the influx of German immigrants was something bad, it's like saying using cleaning products on a shit-covered bathroom is a bad thing.

>comparing low IQ mestizos mutts to Germans

Good one. I wonder who is behind this post. Could it be an Anglo or (((them)))?

Or maybe because it had to do with the history of the United States and Britain.

Balfour declaration didn't even concern America.

>the US attempted to wage war on Germany by provoking them many times
>they let Japan attack Pearl Harbor despite knowing about the attack ahead of time,
> Perhaps because they are currently funding the rebels and ISIS. If ISIS can get control over the oil supply in the Middle East, then they can accumulate the funds to repay the US/Jews/Saudis back.

I'm not even sure if this is bait.

>And it made America only better

They definitely gave the US more bodies to throw at the Natives during the 19th Century but to be fair, you can't blame the Anglos suspicion of the Germans supporting their old country after having come to the US. Are we to hold them to a different standard?

It doesn't matter, most were either drafted or volunteered to fight the Germans in both wars so they've earned their place. The Irish, Italians and the worth while Latinos did/are doing the same today

>being this blue pilled

Assuming taht america does nothing but jacking off.

>Japan rapes the pacific
>GBs holdings fall like fruit flies
>they have the option to either loosen their grip on the german supply lines to africa or to completely lose their pacific holdings
>GBs ressources are strained because colonial ressources often don't reach GB due to loosing said colonies to japan (and the japanese naval superiority preventuing shipments)
>war in africa is drawn out and GB is in a real danger to go bancrupt
>at some point they probably sue for peace

>with no lend and lease whatsoever the soviet buildup is heavily delayed
>the far eastern theater has to be manned with far more troops
>at some pointjapan will attack in siberia
>the soviets will never be able to replicate the back breaking offensives of 1943 and 44
>lang and drawn out war with germany
>distinct possibility that germany successfully attacks the caucasian oilfields through the middle east preventing a stalingrad disaster
>a peace treaty is the most likely outcome

>Could it be an Anglo or (((them)))
Either answer would be accurate. I don't know what's with the Anglos, but they historically absolute fucking love non-whites and loathe other white Europeans. We have cases of English lords literally dressing up and LARPing as Indian rajas and muslim caliphs while calling the Irish a bunch of subhumans, in America the Anglos were throwing a shitfit over Germans and Italians while importing and breeding niggers, and even today in modern Britain the Anglos get angry about Polish and Lithuanian immigration while welcoming Pakis and Africans with open arms. It goes to such absurd length that Brits even deny being European, and during the 19th century they had a movement saying they're actually a lost Jewish tribe of Israel. Anglos have to be the most racially cuckolded ethnicity Europe has ever seen, without match.

plus all the Irish Americans didn't care much for England

Operation Barbarossa had already failed before the first lend lease shipment arrived. It would have been a longer bloodier conflict, but the Soviets still would have won. When Germany failed to win in 1941 they were finished.

>Every Soviet soldier was shitting his pants, without even a rifle, in Stalingrad.
that's a meme, rifles were one of the few things the Soviet army never had a shortage of. There's a reason that even today ww2 era mosin nagants are the cheaper to buy than modern rifles.

>muh rifles
Maybe it's time to open a book instead of watching Enemy at the gates and playing Cawadoody.

>Operation Barbarossa had already failed before the first lend lease shipment arrived

Had nothing to do with the might of Soviet power. It had more to do with the foolishness Mussolini did against Greece and being captured. Hitler put a halt on that operation and ordered his troops to retain Mussolini.

>It had more to do with the foolishness Mussolini did against Greece and being captured. Hitler put a halt on that operation and ordered his troops to retain Mussolini.
That was in late 1943 you fucking dumbass, not during Barbarossa.

Impossible, the only way the IJN could make a difference would be to participate in the Battle of the Atlantic, which would prompt American intervention.

Plus, the RN would have easily been able to take both the IJN and Kriegsmarine on if it concentrated all it's ships around England but we would probably have had to abandon our Far East interests.

No shit you dumbass. And the Lend Lease Act was passed in March 1941 and Operation Barborossa happened four months later.

>Operation Barbarossa had already failed before the first lend lease shipment arrived.

Lol retard.

>tfw too intelligent to win the war

So what the actual fuck are you babbling about the failure of Barbarossa having to do with the arrest of Mussolini, considering Barbarossa was long over by that point?

>campaigns in the same nation and the same war have nothing to do with each other

It's time to redo elementary school, special ed.

That's...yeah we really should do that. I mean even Veeky Forums could hold it or something.

you said barbarossa's failure was due to "the foolishness Mussolini did against Greece and being captured. Hitler put a halt on that operation and ordered his troops to retain Mussolini."

that is not true

>Barbarossa failed because of something that happened 3 years after Barbarossa
You're a literal brainlet

Except it is true

>a chain of events have nothing to do with each other

K

>X happens AFTER Y
>therefore X caused Y
You can't even grasp basic chronology. inb4 just pretending to be retarded

I don't think you understand how cause and effect works

Coming from someone who said "Operation Barbarossa had already failed before the first lend lease shipment arrived"

The irony

I didn't write that.

>>America never puts a blockade on Japan
You mean like in real history? I'm assuming you mean before Pearl harbor ofc.

America would've entered the war regardless of Pearl Harbor. US public opinion was steadily lurching ever closer to favoring of intervention in Europe from 1940 onward. From the average American's perspective (Henry Ford and Silver Shirts notwithstanding), Germany had more or less declared war on the institution of democracy itself seeing as virtually every country Germany invaded except the USSR was either a Republic or a parliamentary monarchy (at least on paper). Nazi leaders were largely unconcerned with the increasingly negative foreign opinion of their regime and took no steps to rectify it. As a result, they failed to realize just how deeply offensive Americans found their lack of respect for even the facade of democratic government and continued to naively believe America would either stay out of the war unless provoked or would only be half-heartedly committed at best.

TL;DR By attacking one nominally democratic country after another, Germany had in effect, declared war on the American way of life and it was only a matter of time before American patience with them ran out.

you don't surrender when your enemy has no way to really get at you. worst case scenario the brits just negotiate some kind of peace and remain intact, perhaps less some overseas territory

The British navy was more than capable of holding the Germans off for years. They had already proven they had the means to defend themselves in the air. The worst that could have happened was a ceasefire or favorable peace, and then, sooner or later, America gets involved and the Germans just cannot compete. The Era of great land powers with navies not worth mentioning was over.

>it's another German-Americans are more loyal to Krautland than America post

America also had a decent-sized Japanese and Italian diaspora that weren't nearly as well integrated (they were the victims of racist discrimination and most had only immigrated in the past 50-60 years) and they were still tripping over each other to sign up to kill their cousins overseas.

Why?

Because America was the only home most of them had ever known. Rome and Tokyo would've been more alien to them than the boroughs of New York or the orange groves of California.

>smartest wasn't a nazi
>dumbest was the one who wrote anti semitic propaganda for children

Really gets that noggin joggin...

If you believe the USA wanted to remain neutral without Pearl Harbor, or that they didn't intend to join the first world war, you must simply look at the way they made their investments.

The USA bet on the Allies and the Entente in both world wars. It profited immensely from the downfall of its only competitors by lending them money at high interest, demanding political influence when these countries were indebted and as soon as things began to look dubious - joining the war.

The USA was interested in money which it couldn't get back if the Allies lost the war. It joining was inevitable from the beginning, it wouldn't have allowed its efforts to destroy its competition to get replaced by Germany and Japan.

>no rifles meme
Why are you on this board?

Ah yes, I remember all the US Newspapers praising the sinking of the RMS Lusitania

>using Hitler as a source

There is no situation where America doesn't enter. There would be a completely faked attack if required.

>being this much of a kike

Japan would still want the Philippines, which means war with America.

>>Japan goes to Europe to assist Germany
hmmm

you sure you didn't miss a small piece of land in between

> The Japanese in China head north to battle the Soviets
it is not a "what if" -- it happened

> Soviets would have been decimated without lend-lease.
1941 called.

>american never blockades

then Japan is free to build his sea Empire and grow big enough to challange the US navy apart from a sudden attack, which the US could NEVER allow

>no attack
the US will still get involved in the war in europe, anti communism sentiment, business opporutinities

>america never enters the war
this is just not realistic, they would, under all circumstance

>japan to europe
how? anyway the Jap army was of axis allies tier, completely useless against modern armies

>new front
so what? a few soviet divisions remind the gooks whos boss in continental warfare

>Germany would have won if I was Führer

>A good 30-40% of the US was German at the time.
Yeah and thankfully almost all of them were well integrated and had no loyalty to the Reich.

>American not in the War
>Western Front
>Exists