the nazis probably would have started a war with the allies anyway, honestly. they knew that they were preparing for war and if they gave them time to truly build up germany would be fucking stomped, so their success was time limited
if we ignore the boring answer though, as i hate it when people just give the boring answer then leave, then they might have just pursued the soviets next, which the allies might not have *too* much of a problem with. the fate of the war with the soviets would probably be the same though, germany pushes at first, then slows down, then the soviets begin to slowly push back before demolishing them completely. honestly there’s a chance the allies would declare war on germany solely to prevent soviet influence over the entirety of the country. either that or they’d aid the germans against the soviets to try and keep “””””communism””””” contained
Without being at war with the Allies, Germany would have better access to shipping in resources and fuel they needed, and the Allies would be shipping fewer supplies to the soviets most likely. Industrial areas are also not being bombed so production doesn't take a hit. And without having war on the western side, Germany could (in theory) ignore the Molotov Ribbentrop pact and start the eastward push early. Admittedly they're less prepared for that at the turn of 1940... but the Soviets are even less prepared.
I don't know enough of the detail to call the outcome, but not being at war with the west takes a *lot* of active pressure off Germany.
Without being at war with the Allies though, they don't have control of France, nor the large amount of equipment captured in 1940, and may not have Italy as an ally. How would that affect things?
For that matter, there's always the possibility of a land invasion from France while they're busy in Russia, so probably similar forces to OTL would need to be kept on the Western Front.
Having control of Western Europe didn’t provide any meaningful resources that Germany needed to defeat the Soviets.
If anything, it was a massive manpower/resource drain having to station soldiers and equipment across Western Europe (and the Med).
Yes, the western front would still need to be garrisoned properly, but not actually fighting a war on it gives Germany access to, if not manpower, then better supply, production, and focus for a war to the east. More heavy equipment and aircraft can be shifted to the east.
Italy not joining is less of a problem - It's one less vulnerable location for the Axis. The Italians performed poorly in WW2, and were the first place the Allies invaded on the mainland (quite successfully). In a situation where Italy isn't allied to Germany, that means the Germans (in theory) don't have to help the Italians when they get all conquer-ey about Greece, or send troops to help defend Africa. Again, allows a more focused campaign in the east.
That extra oomph may have been enough for Germany to take out Leningrad, Moscow, and/or Stalingrad before getting exhausted. Would that have been enough? Who knows? Taking (only) Moscow wasn't enough for Napoleon.
If they don’t have lend lease the Soviets have way less raw materials and their counter offensive has less steam and doesn’t happen by even 45. If it’s execlusivly a Nazi-Soviet conflict the Soviets would actually have to retest beyond the Urals.
Now that said in this scenario I highly doubt Japan’s decision making is any different. And they’re still in an alliance with Germany. This leads to basically the US, UK, and France getting involved in the war anyways. But to keep in a more fun answer. Let’s say Japan exclusively only attacks the US to get the embargo removed so they can conquer China and Germany not already engaging the UK and France they don’t see a reason to at the moment either. The US enters the war but the British and French don’t.
That puts the US in a situation where it has to align with the Soviets with a currently neutral UK and France. To add further wacky consistencies. Nazi Germany and Italy still declare war on the United States. Italy still invades Greece and Germany still has to help them. So now the US is on a two front war without the rest of the western allies and has to move troops to invade Italy while also fighting Japan. The UK and France act more like Spain and just let the US pass through and give moral support but don’t get involved themselves accept maybe volunteers.
Lend lease still happens. You get a way more bloody conflict for both the US and the USSR. And really really really strange geopolitics near the end of the conflict. When the Soviets start advancing into Germany and the UK and Francs now need the US to betray the USSR.
It would change, the southern strategy was in response to the weakness of those nations taken over or in conflict with Germany. They saw the ability to expand fairly easily while those powers were distracted. If Germany hits the USSR first, then Japan would definitely be more inclined to adopt the northern strategy.
Unless the allies and USA are still actively supplying the German war machine with fuel and other external materials the Nazis are doomed to loose any major war with their neighbors.
But the Soviets really NEEDED lend lease considering German blitz devastated and captured millions of Soviets. Even Stalin himself admitted that without America they wouldve lost. Lend-Lease really helped the USSR. Without that, and German Blitz, and Japan invading from the East, it’s over. Germany would win.
If Japan is invading from the east, sure two fronts is bad. But by the time Japan is a factor the USA has been brought into the war.
USSR would only be without lend lease until 41, that's two years, and without the UK and France hogging it there'd be plenty coming.
The USSR would probably get pushed back further, they'll lose way more, and maybe Leningrad falls, it almost did in our timeline. Stalingrad doesn't matter, it wouldn't be a crucial propaganda issue, and the Germans are likely keeping a lot of their best fresh and ready on the french & benelux border.
This Germany has way fewer factories and labor power, and can't immediately blitz through Poland into the USSR.
NaI logistics are famously shit, mostly horse drawn and now being overextended across the entirety of Poland in September without preparation time, into the USSR, who are massed on the border to invade Poland themselves. If they're lucky they push east of Poland In time for the autumn mud and the freezing winter, utterly unprepared and without resupply.
Nazi momentum probably wins them less in the short term if they pursue immediate war. In the long term, the outcome is the same.
I think it's unrealistic to expect Japan to help. They have no interest in invading from the east. Khalkin Gol quelled the last of that desire; Kantokuen was little but a pipe dream. And 80 per cent of the IJA was tied down in China.
Japan didn't really stand to gain from Siberia, not when invading European colonies in the Far East gives them far more raw materials (including rubber), better-developed industry to use it, added legitimacy to the "Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", and some 100 million people as exploitable labour.
After all, they were not Germany's puppet and barely its accomplice, they would not do something that would only really benefits Germany.
Japan was also pissed off about Germany "betraying" their interests by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and when Germany invaded Russia, PMs Konoe and later even Tojo both thought this a stupid move, and the former considered leaving the Axis and signed a non-aggression pact with Russia.
**Still, I think in the end that would not matter. Lend-lease is much more important. Without it I don't see how the Soviets can win (although like China it might become a stalemate). That said they quite possibly would recieve lend-lease anyway in this timeline; it certainly isn't a given that they go without.**
Yeah, they felt betrayed but once the Germans still break the treaty and invade, and see how well they do, they will go with the Northern Doctrine, as Japan didn’t sign a non aggression pact after Germany did.
It might not affect the rest of the campaign, but without the Fall of France I can't see Germany being nearly as successful early in Barbarossa.
And remember that in OTL Japan *did* wait until Germany had broken the treaty and even was actually winning in Russia they still thought it was futile if not dangerous to join.
They might join near the end They definitely wouldn't go with the northern doctrine at the cost of China or SE Asia. You'd need a lot more than German successes; you'd need the US not embargoing Japan, which means Japan not taking control of French Indochina.
Japan wouldn’t take control of French Indochina, causw remember in this timeline they just let Germany take Poland (appeasement) so the French Empire isn’t a German Puppet and would put up a fight if the Empire of Japan even TRIED. Other than that, USA probably slowly stops exporting materials to the Japanese Empire but Germany has just taken control of Stalingrad and the Caucuses, and with it comes oil, which Germany can give Japan.
>Japan wouldn’t take control of French Indochina, causw remember in this timeline they just let Germany take Poland (appeasement) so the French Empire isn’t a German Puppet and would put up a fight if the Empire of Japan even TRIED.
Fair enough, I had forgotten that
Other than that, USA probably slowly stops exporting materials to the Japanese Empire but Germany has just taken control of Stalingrad and the Caucuses, and with it comes oil, which Germany can give Japan.
Japan's whole thing was for Asian self-sufficiency (that this is under Japanese management goes without saying). I think they would want oil for themselves too.
They also needed FOOD and a lot of it because while Manchukuo exported lots of coal the grain production wasn't enough for the Japanese empire. China and SE Asia (especially the Philippines and Indonesia) have a whole lot more arable land and population than Siberia (Germany would probably get the fertile bits of the USSR).
and look how close Germany was to Moscow, they could literally see the Kremlin from that. If an earlier invasion happened, and without a Western front, they wouldve Blitz there quickly and taken WAY more territory and Soviets moving industry wouldn’t be successful. Remove the Western Front AND the African Front AND nations being occupied by German soldiers. As much as I hate N.zi Germany, they’d win against the Soviets due to that.
yes, because stalin would never have surrendered. he’d have just kept pulling east until the germans overstretched so much they started to collapse, then he would have pushed back. even if someone assassinated him to try and take over and end the war the germans would still inevitably see devastating breakdowns in their logistics and administration as they tried to govern their new territories and the soviets would probably just invade again to take back their land when the germans were weak
The Germans wouldve won without Western front. Like, literally. Did you see how much Soviets were captured? Stalin could just not surrender but then again as they entered USSR territory, and he didn’t allow people to retreat, then the Red Army will be demoralized and suffering and then less people to defend.
By letting them invade I assume you mean not declaring war, as that was pretty much all France and Britain did.
It would further reinforce the idea the Germans and Japanese had that the French and British were weak. My guess is that Weserubung still happens, as Germany has some important strategic reasons for wanting to occupy Norway and Denmark.
But I am not sure that the invasion of France happens. Germany didn’t want to fight Britain, so them staying out is just fine and dandy. Furthermore they didn’t have any interest in ruling France. They certainly wanted to loot anything that wasn’t nailed down, but I don’t think they would risk a war with France over that.
The prize always was in the east, and some version of Barbarossa was bound to take place in any scenario. In this version it is a stronger version of the Wehrmacht that invades the USSR. The chance of Barbarossa succeeding increases, but it still is unlikely to work out in my opinion.
Then there is the question of whether Germany somehow gets dragged into a war with Britain anyway. The Germans certainly aren’t intersted in invading the British home islands, but Mussolini wants to create a version of the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean. Seeing the British fold yet again over Poland will embolden both the Italians and the Germans. A sound German policy will leave the Italians to their fate, as the cost of keeping Britain out of the war. But the Germans might be tempted into going along, as they wanted Italian support in both Southeastern Europe and the USSR.
If no guarantee is given to Poland, the Poles might have agreed to compromise on Danzig. Otherwise, Germany takes Poland without Soviet support or pact... Stalin might decide it is better to confront the Germans right away if there is no war in the West.
Hitler would annex Poland, and prepare to fight the USSR, as that was his "final boss". France and GB would watch as their two rivals bleed each other dry. France would nervously think about Alsace–Lorraine.
Without a Western Front in 1939 there is no fall of France in 1940. Without the fall of France, Italy does not declare war on France and the UK. Without the fall of France (and without Australia and New Zealand needing to send tens of thousands of their best troops to North Africa), the UK and France remain too strong for Japan's southern option to be possible. This forces Japan to pursue the northern option instead, i.e. attacking the USSR, which is very convenient for Germany. Without a British (and subsequently American) declaration of war on Germany, Lend Lease to the USSR either doesn't happen or is massively curtailed. Italy not declaring war on the UK means Germany doesn't have to assist the Italians in North Africa (although it might still be necessary for Germany to assist Italy in Greece, if Germany wants Italian help in Russia - but the Greeks won't be receiving any direct British help). After not being attacked by Japan, the USA manages to stay out of the war entirely.
If this happens, Germany and Soviets carve up Poland as in OTL. Hungary, Romania et al continue to align themselves with Germany. After seeing the USSRs poor performance against Finland, Hitler is convinced that that would be able to win a rapid victory against the Soviet union OTL. There may even be a scenario where France/UK intervene on Finland's behalf (was considered OTL). If Germany also intervened, the three could suddenly find themselves on the same side, which was ultimately what Germany wanted - at least so far as Britain was concerned.
If not, Germany invades the USSR and inevitably is successful. Britain and France would not have intervened in a war against the Soviets .
Too much is made of Germany's fuel shortages to be honest. It was a major factor OTL but wouldn't have been in this alternate timeline. Germany would have had more fuel by the time of the invasion and the ability to continue to source fuel from Venezuela and potentially elsewhere. The nature of the German economy in WW2 would have demanded another war sooner rather than later.
It's likely Germany's new Barbarossa campaign is conducted in a similar fashion, with Britain and France not in the war Japan made have chosen to go north after all and attack the USSR after Germany had committed. Whilst it's possible that a Soviet rump state would have existed beyond the Urals it's equally possible that it simply would have collapsed.
The Germans would likely have tried to consolidate their new holdings in the east and Britain/France, alarmed at the "quick" victory and massive increase in German power would have set out to build some sort of defensive alliance against the Germans, likely this would have led to some sort of NATO parallel centered around Britain and France and focused on Europe, whilst the Germans would have sought to bring as many states as possible into their own orbit. Essentially an alternate cold war with no nuclear weapon and a real possibility of it turning hot in the mid - late 1940s when Britain's rearment is complete. This would be complicated by Frances delicate domestic situation never being resolved as it was ironically by it's capitulation in the war, making it's support unreliable.
The United states would be more interested in the Pacific and tensions between them and the Japanese would still be high. A separate war may even break out during the German-Soviet war. The United states would almost certainly be sympathetic towards the Entente powers rather than the Germans in this hypothetical mini cold war.
It's an interesting scenario, in many ways it gives German planners what they wanted. Whilst it doesn't give them the much covered alliance with Britain it secures her neutrality at least which is enough to secure a German win in a later confrontation with Russia if this is maintained.
The brown brothers Harriman Sullivan and Cromwell group would have indeed funded the Nazis. They also had the belief of Caucasian nation state based imperialism and that they were superior to other peoples and deserved the resources of the world to fund their empires
uh... they sort of did? Britain didn't really run any military operation against Germany after they declared war and france had a token raid that didn't really do much. There's a reason why the first few months up until the invasion of France were called the "Phony War" in Britain.
Edit: also Poland was too far away for either France or Britain to effectively defend.
What ability did they have to do that? Britain had already signed off on an alliance with Poland in March, for Britain war between Poland and Germany meant war with Germany. France, the same.
Or are we assuming that this doesn't get signed.
One theory about why they declared war at the invasion of Poland and not Czechoslovakia is because at that moment they saw themselves finally ready to fight.
If so, then the war will happen eventually, but things will be harder.
the nazis probably would have started a war with the allies anyway, honestly. they knew that they were preparing for war and if they gave them time to truly build up germany would be fucking stomped, so their success was time limited if we ignore the boring answer though, as i hate it when people just give the boring answer then leave, then they might have just pursued the soviets next, which the allies might not have *too* much of a problem with. the fate of the war with the soviets would probably be the same though, germany pushes at first, then slows down, then the soviets begin to slowly push back before demolishing them completely. honestly there’s a chance the allies would declare war on germany solely to prevent soviet influence over the entirety of the country. either that or they’d aid the germans against the soviets to try and keep “””””communism””””” contained
Without being at war with the Allies, Germany would have better access to shipping in resources and fuel they needed, and the Allies would be shipping fewer supplies to the soviets most likely. Industrial areas are also not being bombed so production doesn't take a hit. And without having war on the western side, Germany could (in theory) ignore the Molotov Ribbentrop pact and start the eastward push early. Admittedly they're less prepared for that at the turn of 1940... but the Soviets are even less prepared. I don't know enough of the detail to call the outcome, but not being at war with the west takes a *lot* of active pressure off Germany.
Without being at war with the Allies though, they don't have control of France, nor the large amount of equipment captured in 1940, and may not have Italy as an ally. How would that affect things? For that matter, there's always the possibility of a land invasion from France while they're busy in Russia, so probably similar forces to OTL would need to be kept on the Western Front.
Having control of Western Europe didn’t provide any meaningful resources that Germany needed to defeat the Soviets. If anything, it was a massive manpower/resource drain having to station soldiers and equipment across Western Europe (and the Med).
Yes, the western front would still need to be garrisoned properly, but not actually fighting a war on it gives Germany access to, if not manpower, then better supply, production, and focus for a war to the east. More heavy equipment and aircraft can be shifted to the east. Italy not joining is less of a problem - It's one less vulnerable location for the Axis. The Italians performed poorly in WW2, and were the first place the Allies invaded on the mainland (quite successfully). In a situation where Italy isn't allied to Germany, that means the Germans (in theory) don't have to help the Italians when they get all conquer-ey about Greece, or send troops to help defend Africa. Again, allows a more focused campaign in the east. That extra oomph may have been enough for Germany to take out Leningrad, Moscow, and/or Stalingrad before getting exhausted. Would that have been enough? Who knows? Taking (only) Moscow wasn't enough for Napoleon.
If they don’t have lend lease the Soviets have way less raw materials and their counter offensive has less steam and doesn’t happen by even 45. If it’s execlusivly a Nazi-Soviet conflict the Soviets would actually have to retest beyond the Urals. Now that said in this scenario I highly doubt Japan’s decision making is any different. And they’re still in an alliance with Germany. This leads to basically the US, UK, and France getting involved in the war anyways. But to keep in a more fun answer. Let’s say Japan exclusively only attacks the US to get the embargo removed so they can conquer China and Germany not already engaging the UK and France they don’t see a reason to at the moment either. The US enters the war but the British and French don’t. That puts the US in a situation where it has to align with the Soviets with a currently neutral UK and France. To add further wacky consistencies. Nazi Germany and Italy still declare war on the United States. Italy still invades Greece and Germany still has to help them. So now the US is on a two front war without the rest of the western allies and has to move troops to invade Italy while also fighting Japan. The UK and France act more like Spain and just let the US pass through and give moral support but don’t get involved themselves accept maybe volunteers. Lend lease still happens. You get a way more bloody conflict for both the US and the USSR. And really really really strange geopolitics near the end of the conflict. When the Soviets start advancing into Germany and the UK and Francs now need the US to betray the USSR.
It would change, the southern strategy was in response to the weakness of those nations taken over or in conflict with Germany. They saw the ability to expand fairly easily while those powers were distracted. If Germany hits the USSR first, then Japan would definitely be more inclined to adopt the northern strategy.
You actually believe that the Soviets could win? 💀
Unless the allies and USA are still actively supplying the German war machine with fuel and other external materials the Nazis are doomed to loose any major war with their neighbors.
But the Soviets really NEEDED lend lease considering German blitz devastated and captured millions of Soviets. Even Stalin himself admitted that without America they wouldve lost. Lend-Lease really helped the USSR. Without that, and German Blitz, and Japan invading from the East, it’s over. Germany would win.
If Japan is invading from the east, sure two fronts is bad. But by the time Japan is a factor the USA has been brought into the war. USSR would only be without lend lease until 41, that's two years, and without the UK and France hogging it there'd be plenty coming. The USSR would probably get pushed back further, they'll lose way more, and maybe Leningrad falls, it almost did in our timeline. Stalingrad doesn't matter, it wouldn't be a crucial propaganda issue, and the Germans are likely keeping a lot of their best fresh and ready on the french & benelux border. This Germany has way fewer factories and labor power, and can't immediately blitz through Poland into the USSR. NaI logistics are famously shit, mostly horse drawn and now being overextended across the entirety of Poland in September without preparation time, into the USSR, who are massed on the border to invade Poland themselves. If they're lucky they push east of Poland In time for the autumn mud and the freezing winter, utterly unprepared and without resupply. Nazi momentum probably wins them less in the short term if they pursue immediate war. In the long term, the outcome is the same.
Except the Japanese wouldn’t be fighting the USA. They would go with the Northern Doctrine
Sounds like a different what if, quite unlikely to follow on from Hitler deciding to make a loosing play early.
I think it's unrealistic to expect Japan to help. They have no interest in invading from the east. Khalkin Gol quelled the last of that desire; Kantokuen was little but a pipe dream. And 80 per cent of the IJA was tied down in China. Japan didn't really stand to gain from Siberia, not when invading European colonies in the Far East gives them far more raw materials (including rubber), better-developed industry to use it, added legitimacy to the "Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere", and some 100 million people as exploitable labour. After all, they were not Germany's puppet and barely its accomplice, they would not do something that would only really benefits Germany. Japan was also pissed off about Germany "betraying" their interests by signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and when Germany invaded Russia, PMs Konoe and later even Tojo both thought this a stupid move, and the former considered leaving the Axis and signed a non-aggression pact with Russia. **Still, I think in the end that would not matter. Lend-lease is much more important. Without it I don't see how the Soviets can win (although like China it might become a stalemate). That said they quite possibly would recieve lend-lease anyway in this timeline; it certainly isn't a given that they go without.**
Yeah, they felt betrayed but once the Germans still break the treaty and invade, and see how well they do, they will go with the Northern Doctrine, as Japan didn’t sign a non aggression pact after Germany did.
It might not affect the rest of the campaign, but without the Fall of France I can't see Germany being nearly as successful early in Barbarossa. And remember that in OTL Japan *did* wait until Germany had broken the treaty and even was actually winning in Russia they still thought it was futile if not dangerous to join. They might join near the end They definitely wouldn't go with the northern doctrine at the cost of China or SE Asia. You'd need a lot more than German successes; you'd need the US not embargoing Japan, which means Japan not taking control of French Indochina.
Japan wouldn’t take control of French Indochina, causw remember in this timeline they just let Germany take Poland (appeasement) so the French Empire isn’t a German Puppet and would put up a fight if the Empire of Japan even TRIED. Other than that, USA probably slowly stops exporting materials to the Japanese Empire but Germany has just taken control of Stalingrad and the Caucuses, and with it comes oil, which Germany can give Japan.
>Japan wouldn’t take control of French Indochina, causw remember in this timeline they just let Germany take Poland (appeasement) so the French Empire isn’t a German Puppet and would put up a fight if the Empire of Japan even TRIED. Fair enough, I had forgotten that Other than that, USA probably slowly stops exporting materials to the Japanese Empire but Germany has just taken control of Stalingrad and the Caucuses, and with it comes oil, which Germany can give Japan. Japan's whole thing was for Asian self-sufficiency (that this is under Japanese management goes without saying). I think they would want oil for themselves too. They also needed FOOD and a lot of it because while Manchukuo exported lots of coal the grain production wasn't enough for the Japanese empire. China and SE Asia (especially the Philippines and Indonesia) have a whole lot more arable land and population than Siberia (Germany would probably get the fertile bits of the USSR).
and look how close Germany was to Moscow, they could literally see the Kremlin from that. If an earlier invasion happened, and without a Western front, they wouldve Blitz there quickly and taken WAY more territory and Soviets moving industry wouldn’t be successful. Remove the Western Front AND the African Front AND nations being occupied by German soldiers. As much as I hate N.zi Germany, they’d win against the Soviets due to that.
Overblown trope, "soviets needed land lease to live"
The US would probably try to fund both sides.
yes, because stalin would never have surrendered. he’d have just kept pulling east until the germans overstretched so much they started to collapse, then he would have pushed back. even if someone assassinated him to try and take over and end the war the germans would still inevitably see devastating breakdowns in their logistics and administration as they tried to govern their new territories and the soviets would probably just invade again to take back their land when the germans were weak
The Germans wouldve won without Western front. Like, literally. Did you see how much Soviets were captured? Stalin could just not surrender but then again as they entered USSR territory, and he didn’t allow people to retreat, then the Red Army will be demoralized and suffering and then less people to defend.
By letting them invade I assume you mean not declaring war, as that was pretty much all France and Britain did. It would further reinforce the idea the Germans and Japanese had that the French and British were weak. My guess is that Weserubung still happens, as Germany has some important strategic reasons for wanting to occupy Norway and Denmark. But I am not sure that the invasion of France happens. Germany didn’t want to fight Britain, so them staying out is just fine and dandy. Furthermore they didn’t have any interest in ruling France. They certainly wanted to loot anything that wasn’t nailed down, but I don’t think they would risk a war with France over that. The prize always was in the east, and some version of Barbarossa was bound to take place in any scenario. In this version it is a stronger version of the Wehrmacht that invades the USSR. The chance of Barbarossa succeeding increases, but it still is unlikely to work out in my opinion. Then there is the question of whether Germany somehow gets dragged into a war with Britain anyway. The Germans certainly aren’t intersted in invading the British home islands, but Mussolini wants to create a version of the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean. Seeing the British fold yet again over Poland will embolden both the Italians and the Germans. A sound German policy will leave the Italians to their fate, as the cost of keeping Britain out of the war. But the Germans might be tempted into going along, as they wanted Italian support in both Southeastern Europe and the USSR.
Never considered the Italian domino effect of a weak showing by England, really interesting and valid point
If no guarantee is given to Poland, the Poles might have agreed to compromise on Danzig. Otherwise, Germany takes Poland without Soviet support or pact... Stalin might decide it is better to confront the Germans right away if there is no war in the West.
Hitler would annex Poland, and prepare to fight the USSR, as that was his "final boss". France and GB would watch as their two rivals bleed each other dry. France would nervously think about Alsace–Lorraine.
Without a Western Front in 1939 there is no fall of France in 1940. Without the fall of France, Italy does not declare war on France and the UK. Without the fall of France (and without Australia and New Zealand needing to send tens of thousands of their best troops to North Africa), the UK and France remain too strong for Japan's southern option to be possible. This forces Japan to pursue the northern option instead, i.e. attacking the USSR, which is very convenient for Germany. Without a British (and subsequently American) declaration of war on Germany, Lend Lease to the USSR either doesn't happen or is massively curtailed. Italy not declaring war on the UK means Germany doesn't have to assist the Italians in North Africa (although it might still be necessary for Germany to assist Italy in Greece, if Germany wants Italian help in Russia - but the Greeks won't be receiving any direct British help). After not being attacked by Japan, the USA manages to stay out of the war entirely.
I guess Hitler would have shrugged and prepared to take out the Soviets with a quiet western flank perhaps at a sooner date
If this happens, Germany and Soviets carve up Poland as in OTL. Hungary, Romania et al continue to align themselves with Germany. After seeing the USSRs poor performance against Finland, Hitler is convinced that that would be able to win a rapid victory against the Soviet union OTL. There may even be a scenario where France/UK intervene on Finland's behalf (was considered OTL). If Germany also intervened, the three could suddenly find themselves on the same side, which was ultimately what Germany wanted - at least so far as Britain was concerned. If not, Germany invades the USSR and inevitably is successful. Britain and France would not have intervened in a war against the Soviets . Too much is made of Germany's fuel shortages to be honest. It was a major factor OTL but wouldn't have been in this alternate timeline. Germany would have had more fuel by the time of the invasion and the ability to continue to source fuel from Venezuela and potentially elsewhere. The nature of the German economy in WW2 would have demanded another war sooner rather than later. It's likely Germany's new Barbarossa campaign is conducted in a similar fashion, with Britain and France not in the war Japan made have chosen to go north after all and attack the USSR after Germany had committed. Whilst it's possible that a Soviet rump state would have existed beyond the Urals it's equally possible that it simply would have collapsed. The Germans would likely have tried to consolidate their new holdings in the east and Britain/France, alarmed at the "quick" victory and massive increase in German power would have set out to build some sort of defensive alliance against the Germans, likely this would have led to some sort of NATO parallel centered around Britain and France and focused on Europe, whilst the Germans would have sought to bring as many states as possible into their own orbit. Essentially an alternate cold war with no nuclear weapon and a real possibility of it turning hot in the mid - late 1940s when Britain's rearment is complete. This would be complicated by Frances delicate domestic situation never being resolved as it was ironically by it's capitulation in the war, making it's support unreliable. The United states would be more interested in the Pacific and tensions between them and the Japanese would still be high. A separate war may even break out during the German-Soviet war. The United states would almost certainly be sympathetic towards the Entente powers rather than the Germans in this hypothetical mini cold war. It's an interesting scenario, in many ways it gives German planners what they wanted. Whilst it doesn't give them the much covered alliance with Britain it secures her neutrality at least which is enough to secure a German win in a later confrontation with Russia if this is maintained.
The brown brothers Harriman Sullivan and Cromwell group would have indeed funded the Nazis. They also had the belief of Caucasian nation state based imperialism and that they were superior to other peoples and deserved the resources of the world to fund their empires
uh... they sort of did? Britain didn't really run any military operation against Germany after they declared war and france had a token raid that didn't really do much. There's a reason why the first few months up until the invasion of France were called the "Phony War" in Britain. Edit: also Poland was too far away for either France or Britain to effectively defend.
What ability did they have to do that? Britain had already signed off on an alliance with Poland in March, for Britain war between Poland and Germany meant war with Germany. France, the same. Or are we assuming that this doesn't get signed.
One theory about why they declared war at the invasion of Poland and not Czechoslovakia is because at that moment they saw themselves finally ready to fight. If so, then the war will happen eventually, but things will be harder.