User blog:SupcommMonroee/WWII Alternate History

A while back over Steam, Nra and I had a debate over whether the Allies could've won World War II without the US directly intervening, with me sayting that they could, and Nra insisting that the Axis would prevail. I would like to start here a civil discussion of this.

Assumptions

 * The Kido Butai does not strike Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7, 1941
 * The Allies receive full Lend-Lease aid
 * The USS Panay is never sunk by the Japanese off of Shanghai
 * Colonel Chennault's Flying Tigers fight on in the ROC, and expand their ranks as the USAAF never began to openly fight against the Japanese in Asia
 * The Pan-American Security Zone is in effect, allowing the expanding US Navy to engage any German convoy raiders in the central Atlantic, and Westward.
 * The Imperial Japanese Army is slowly slugging through China, later makes moves into Burma
 * ABDACOM (minus the first A, America) engages the IJN, inconclusive results
 * The Japanese invade Australia from Darwin, but become quickly bogged down by the weather, desert, distances, fauna, militias, and regular Australian troops

My Reasons

 * At Khalkhin Gol, the IJA with supporting Manchu troops was crushed by the Soviet Far Eastern Army and their Mongolian puppet allies, on account of many things, but most notably, their armour. Japanese armoured doctrine considered the tank to be purely an infantry support platform, with their main combat tanks barely capable of standing up to the (quite) light Soviet BT-7. Later, in actual events, Japanese tanks would be effortlessly crushed by US Shermans. In this alternate history (as with real history), the Lend-Lease would supply the Allies with Shermans.
 * Japan struggled greatly against the Republic of China, whose military was, in almost every way, deplorable. Disorganized, undersupplied, badly-led, corrupt, and with little consistency in equipment (the ROC held the distinction of utilizing every infantry weapon manufactured during WWII), they still managed to incur heavy losses on the Japanese while biding time for their Western factories, in Yunnan. If Japan struggled against such an inferior foe (ROC partisans also were devastating the IJA), how well would the Kwantung Army really do in the Soviet Far East, or in British Burma?
 * Japan invaded Burma for (in my humble opinion) two major reasons. The first was to expand the empire, and the second was to cut off the Burma Road, a vital supply route into China. At first, this succeeded, but an air route was soon established into China (known as The Hump)
 * Japan was soundly defeated in Burma by the much-superior British forces in the region
 * Germany's brilliant blitzkrieg tactics proved ineffective in the prolonged warfare in the Soviet Union, failing against Soviet defense-in-depth and their use of cities as defensive points. Places like Sevastopol, Stalingrad, Leningrad, and Pskov, among others, were locations where the German blitzkrieg stalled in the face of demolished urban areas, forcing the Germans to fight in grueling urban combat.
 * Germany suffered terrible losses to the Russian winters, while the Soviets suffered relatively few casualites
 * Germany was forced to stretch out its army over a vast distance, from Karelia to the Caucasian Mountains
 * Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, Slovakian, and Bulgarian troops were inferior to their German counterparts, and were relied on heavily to maintain the offensives in the Southern Soviet Union
 * German forces never reached Baku and its vital oilfields
 * The Luftwaffe was not built to carry out prolonged campaigns. Instead, it was designed to support the blitzkrieg, a doctrine that had failed in the face of the Soviet's defensive strategies
 * Soviet scorched earth policies meant that the Germans captured nothing but barren land
 * Soviet industry was moved to the safety of Siberia, untouched by any German air or ground forces
 * The Soviet Union reinforced the West with its Far Eastern Army
 * The Luftwaffe was demolished by the RAF, who later began conducting bombing campaigns against German targets in France and the Low Countries
 * Operation Sealion was little more than a pipe dream. Germany lost many ships attacking Norway, including a heavy cruiser, two light cruisers, and ten destroyers. Germany lacked air or sea dominance around Britain. Two invasions going on at the same time would be a massive resource drain. Even without the Royal Navy or RAF, German forces were not predicted to last long in Britain, faced with millions of prepared defenders and fortifications (as well as those Scots)
 * While Rommel met great success in North Africa with his Afrika Korps, he fell out of favour eventually with Hitler, receiving less aid (though some veteran Eastern Front pilots and soldiers were eventually transferred to him) and having to deal with the incompetent Italian forces he was with
 * The German nuclear program died with the destruction of its heavy water at the hands of Norwegian resistance fighters

What I think would go down
I am willing to discuss any suggestions or objections.
 * Germany might take Moscow, but not advance past the Urals. Overextension and the devastating Russian winters would be enough to give the Soviets a great edge against their foes
 * Japan would still lose in China and Burma, albeit slower
 * The Soviets would roll into Poland, and then Germany, allowing a Commonwealth-only Operation Overlord to take place
 * Japan would be isolated, and starved of resources
 * Josip Tito would liberate Yugoslavia
 * Greeks would take advantage of the Soviets closing in on Germany and shake off the German and Italian occupiers
 * The Commonwealth would reinforce North Africa, and push the undersupplied Rommel back
 * Commonwealth invasion of Italy would go slowly, but surely
 * Soviet Union would invade Manchukuo, Mengjiang, and Mengkukuo. Would later seize Korea
 * Joint Soviet-Commonwealth invasion of Japan
 * Liberation of Europe with overwhelming Soviet control of Germany and the Low Countries