WW2: What could the British do if the USSR was defeated and the US remained neutral?

[EnzoLux]

In this scenario the US doesn't enter WW2 and the Germans reach the Ural mountains. This leaves the UK as the only enemy of the Reich.
Can the British do anything in this scenario? Would they accept peace or just keep fighting in Africa and maybe harass the Kriegsmarine.
I imagine the Germans will start preparations for an amphibious assault, but it will take years.

 

[Garrison]

In this scenario the US doesn't enter WW2 and the Germans reach the Ural mountains. This leaves the UK as the only enemy of the Reich.
Can the British do anything in this scenario? Would they accept peace or just keep fighting in Africa and maybe harass the Kriegsmarine.
I imagine the Germans will start preparations for an amphibious assault, but it will take years.

Well they would make peace in this scenario, assuming by neutral you mean that the USA commits strategic suicide by refusing to help the British and that Nazi Germany somehow magics up all the logistical resources needed to reach Moscow never mind the Urals. In short your scenario is on the very furthest edges of the plausibility curve.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

Depends on a few more details. With No Lend-Lease I would expect Britain to make peace by mid-1942.

Although that assumes:
1) No Pearl Harbour,
2) Barbarossa is successful or the Soviets collapse because???

Neither condition is very plausible and TBH Lend-Lease is pretty much a certainty under FDR.

No FDR requires some PODs that make WW2 as we know it implausible.

 

[marathag]

Peace, while working on Tube Alloy in Canada.

 

[Issei Uzumaki]

No FDR requires some PODs that make WW2 as we know it implausible.

FDR could easily lose in 1940 and it would not impact WW2 as we know it up to that point. Wilkie is the usual suspect due to OTL but not impossible that Taft or other isolationist could win. That is certainly plausible and not some pod that makes ww2 as we know it implausible .

UK would be worse off initially but not certain that the Japanese still don’t attack US, so that could still bring them into war. Even if Wilkie were to win, he wanted to avoid war but still supported idea of lend lease. So I guess i am not understanding this statement you made?

 

[thevaliant]

FDR could easily lose in 1940 and it would not impact WW2 as we know it up to that point. Wilkie is the usual suspect due to OTL but not impossible that Taft or other isolationist could win. That is certainly plausible and not some pod that makes ww2 as we know it implausible .

UK would be worse off initially but not certain that the Japanese still don’t attack US, so that could still bring them into war. Even if Wilkie were to win, he wanted to avoid war but still supported idea of lend lease. So I guess i am not understanding this statement you made?

Willkie was at LEAST as interventionalist as FDR, possibly more so.

Just saying "Willkie wins" doesn't get you what you want. In fact, a Willkie win won't.

Turning to the scenario, as ever, its the usual two sentences and no background and OP has run off.

How and when is the Soviet Union defeated? 1941? 1942?
What is the state of the surviving Soviet government east of the Urals? Cohesive, still engaged in skirmishs along the Eastern front, along with massive partisans in the occupied Soviet territory? Or a complete collapse and little partisan activity at all?
What is the state of the United States?
Who is the President?
Is Lend-Lease in effect?
Is the United States at war with Japan?
Is the United Kingdom also at war with Japan?
If so, is the United States supplying vast war material to the UK on the pretext of 'helping them fight the Japanese' whilst all of it is instead being used to fight Germany and the US doesn't really give a hoot that that is the case?
What is the status of France, Vichy and/or Free as the case may be?

If the Soviet Union is behind the Urals, but still engaged in heavy skirmish activity and trying to build up, along with significant partisan activity in the occupied Soviet Union; along with a UK-US alliance against Japan, then no, I don't think the UK will give up and indeed, in the long run the US will end up in this war and Germany will get buckets of instant sunshine come late 1945.

If the SU is virtually gone, the US run by Robert Taft and Charles Lindberg and the UK-US don't have any alliance against Japan, then yes, I can see the UK being forced to the table.

But the first scenario is vastly more likely than the second, and I wouldn't even know how you'd realistically get to the second.

 

[Post]

FDR could easily lose in 1940 and it would not impact WW2 as we know it up to that point. Wilkie is the usual suspect due to OTL but not impossible that Taft or other isolationist could win. That is certainly plausible and not some pod that makes ww2 as we know it implausible .

Getting an isolationist to win in 1940 is not as plausible as you think. Even before the fall of France there was broad support for support of Britain. That only grew after the fall of France. I posted some results of Gallup polls in another thread yesterday:

In 1940 Gallup polls showed that a majority wanted to support Britain (but didn't want to enter the war).

http://ibiblio.org/pha/Gallup/Gallup%201940.htm

For instance:

Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do — to keep out of war ourselves, or to help England win even at the risk of getting into the war?
Keep out...........................40%
Help England....................... 60

If you were voting for President, which type of candidate (on card) do you think you would be more likely to vote for: (A) A candidate who promises to keep us out of war and refuses to give any more help to England and France than we are now giving them, even if they are being defeated by Germany; or (B) A candidate who promises to keep us out of war, but who is willing to give England and France all the help they want, except sending our army and navy.
Refuses help........................ 34%
Aid except troops.................... 66
Nine per cent expressed no opinion.

Do you think we are giving enough help to England, or do you think more ways should be found to give England help, short of going to war?
Give more help...................... 53%
Enough help now....................41
Give less help....................... 6
Ten per cent expressed no opinion.

If it appears that England will be defeated by Germany and Italy unless the United States supplies her with more food and war materials, would you be in favor of giving more help to England?
Yes................................ 90%
No................................ 10
Six per cent expressed no opinion.

I'd expect that to translate into the opinions of the candidates and thus be reflected into congress.

Especially the last one is interesting. although that one is a few weeks after the elections.
Now if you avoid the fall of France, that might change. But obviously that also rules out Britain being on its own (and probably means Germany won't even last past 1943).

If the SU is virtually gone, the US run by Robert Taft and Charles Lindberg and the UK-US don't have any alliance against Japan, then yes, I can see the UK being forced to the table.

But the first scenario is vastly more likely than the second, and I wouldn't even know how you'd realistically get to the second.

I think you're going to need a POD way before 1940 to get them president and that might butterfly WW2.

The thing is: it's not in the US's interest to have nazi-Germany conquering Europe and it's not what the US voters would want to happen. Even an isolationist would be pushed to support the UK after the fall of France.

 

[Finbarr the Fair]

FDR could easily lose in 1940 and it would not impact WW2 as we know it up to that point. Wilkie is the usual suspect due to OTL but not impossible that Taft or other isolationist could win. That is certainly plausible and not some pod that makes ww2 as we know it implausible .

This scenario does not seem very plausible to most on the forum.

UK would be worse off initially but not certain that the Japanese still don’t attack US, so that could still bring them into war. Even if Wilkie were to win, he wanted to avoid war but still supported idea of lend lease. So I guess i am not understanding this statement you made?

Would an isolationist President put the same sanctions on Japan that triggered their attack on the USA? Without US support Britain probably wouldn't cut off supplies of rubber, oil etc. from its colonies.

 

[thaddeus]

the Nazis could back the Vichy regime over the Japanese operations in Indochina, revive their (German) cooperation with China, not sure the outcome but it seems a definitive break with Japan.

Nazi Germany could use that backdrop to "carrot and stick" some type of agreement with the Vichy regime, something that would have been wise to conclude prior to any invasion of the USSR.

the KM could refocus on the Med and North Sea to further avoid (immediate) conflict with the US? (they needed to block any Arctic Convoys)

 

[RuneGloves]

Well they would make peace in this scenario, assuming by neutral you mean that the USA commits strategic suicide by refusing to help the British and that Nazi Germany somehow magics up all the logistical resources needed to reach Moscow never mind the Urals. In short your scenario is on the very furthest edges of the plausibility curve.

Strategic Suicide? US has lost many wars post-1945, and been led into subsidizing movements around the globe to counter Communist influence.

This would not be the case in a German victory, because German ultranationalism isn't internationalist/globalist.

 

[Starslayer_D]

Practise german?

 

[Garrison]

Strategic Suicide? US has lost many wars post-1945, and been led into subsidizing movements around the globe to counter Communist influence.

This would not be the case in a German victory, because German ultranationalism isn't internationalist/globalist.

The USA would face a world dominated by Nazi Germany in exactly the way they feared the USSR might IOTL. If Britain goes under then the Royal navy might end up in the hands of the Nazis. Standing around and doing nothing while Britain is forced to capitulate would be an act of strategic suicide and despite many attempts no one has ever offered a plausible reason for the USA to do so beyond handwaving about isolationism. The OP is not the first one to offer up this scenario and like all the previous attempts has failed to offer any scenario for how this sequence of events is supposed to happen. Also since the Op has failed to make any further contribution since starting the thread I don't see much point in keeping it alive.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Peace, while working on Tube Alloy in Canada.

The Napoleonic Wars are the model. Britain negotiates some sort of peace with nazi Germany and works at preparing economically and militarily for the next round.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Strategic Suicide? US has lost many wars post-1945, and been led into subsidizing movements around the globe to counter Communist influence.

This would not be the case in a German victory, because German ultranationalism isn't internationalist/globalist.

In practice it did have negative global economic effects. Traditionally the US has depended heavily on exports to Europe as one of its economic engines. Investment money from Europe was still important despite the growing dominance of the US banking system. The nazi regime had ideas about reorienting Europes economy to benefit Germany & no ne else. That included the colonial empires of the European nations. There was also a effort to build business connections in Latin America and support racist & progeiman politicians in Latin America. 1940-1945 the US and Germany fought a clandestine war in Latin America.

That the US economy had been & was or is completely enmeshed in the global economy made the Isolationist position untenable. The relatively free trade of the 19th Century brough the US to the edge of global dominance in the early 20th Century. The restrictive & autarkical ideas of the Facist or imperialists governments ran directly against the auS economic structure. Dupes like Ford or DuPont thought they could do business with the Facist nations. The reality was they were just one Fuher Order away from losing every bit of their European investments.

 

[Aber]

The USA would face a world dominated by Nazi Germany in exactly the way they feared the USSR might IOTL.

How do you enforce the Monroe doctrine when the UK offers naval bases in the Caribbean as part of a peace treaty...

 

[Coivara]

Two words: Tube Alloys.

WWII ends as a German win.

WWIII begins as a rain of british nukes falls upon Fascist Europe, followed by British Invasion. Probably a few "German-friendly" countries switching sides, too - like Spain, Portugal, Vichy France, Turkey and perhaps even Fascist Italy.

Doesn't matter how many fancy cybernazi armies the Germans can conjure up if the British can simply nuke everything with no reprisal whatsoever, followed by british armored trusts and complete naval domination.

The British cannot and will not let a single continental power rule over Europe, especially not with a neutral US. Its an existential threat. Otherwise, the Germans can just sit tight and build a massive fleet, not to mention help their allies like Italy conquer North Africa and the Middle-East. Then it will all but over. Before Barbarossa, Hitler was straight up dividing the British Empire with his cronies and Stalin, until Stalin demanded too much and Hitler decided to fight him instead.

The Japanese probably get some of that bucket of instant sunshine, too.

 

[Post]

Strategic Suicide? US has lost many wars post-1945, and been led into subsidizing movements around the globe to counter Communist influence.

This would not be the case in a German victory, because German ultranationalism isn't internationalist/globalist.

Economically the US did very well after WW2. I have doubt it would do as good in a world where Europe is dominated by nazi-Germany. It would take a lot longer to get out of the Great Depression, and the 50s and 60s wouldn't be nearly as good, which has repurcussions on the 70s, 80s and 90s as well.

 

[Garrison]

Economically the US did very well after WW2. I have doubt it would do as good in a world where Europe is dominated by nazi-Germany. It would take a lot longer to get out of the Great Depression, and the 50s and 60s wouldn't be nearly as good, which has repurcussions on the 70s, 80s and 90s as well.

I suspect in such a world it would end up as armed camp, with the Nazis and their allies closing it off from world markets and given the Nazis friendly relations with a number of Latin American countries slowly pressing in around the USA.

 

[Bellacinos]

I feel like it’s general consensus in this forum that a Nazi Germany led by Adolf Hitler because of ideological and logistical reasons, simply could not and would not defeat the USSR.

I have never seen a scenario outside of fundamentally changing the ideology of the Nazis or just hand waving the logistical issues away, that could lead to this.

 

[ghappy1000]

Another possibility will be for the British to continue fighting at sea and in the skies and wait for the Axis to be defeated or to collapse not unlike AANW.