AH Challenge: Have the UK and her colonies fight the Axis.

Just a point of interest that is oft overlooked. The Empire did fight along side The United Kingdom at a very crucial point in the war. Maybe a more interesting question would be 'How long would Britain have been able to hold out without the Commonwealth to support them? And maybe more importantly what would the world be like today if they hadn't?'

In the important period between the fall of France and Pearl Harbour the efforts of the Commonwealth in general and India and the Dominions in particular made sure that there was a bastion of the free world from which the economic and military juggernaut of the United States could advance from.

Without that Commonwealth effort, as slight as it may be seen to many, America would have stood alone against the world. America's might was the key to knocking down the Axis, but it was the Commonwealth committed efforts in standing to the guns in 1939 that guaranteed that success.

Sorry for the diatribe, but the sacrifices of the British Commonwealth made on behalf of free people the world over is too often down played or overlooked.
 
You know the way i see it is if japan stays out of off the way then yes britan and her empier can win as she can bring all the forces need in euorpe dont for get she did put 15million man under arms in ww2 from all over the empier . Japan will have all her inports off scarp metal and oil meet by the usa but FDR would have to take no notice of the china loby.
 
How so? They all have a reason to band together to crush the Nazis...:confused::confused:

Not really- the average Indian had zero stake in the outcome. There was a large faction which was in favour of seeking Axis assistance and starting an armed revolt in India. This was why Britain was so desperate to negotiate with Congress. The Axis-aligned Indian National Army are still regarded as patriots in India.

You could make the argument that Africans would have been totally screwed in the event of a german victory but at the time, getting that message across would have been quite difficult.
 
Just a point of interest that is oft overlooked. The Empire did fight along side The United Kingdom at a very crucial point in the war. Maybe a more interesting question would be 'How long would Britain have been able to hold out without the Commonwealth to support them? And maybe more importantly what would the world be like today if they hadn't?'

In the important period between the fall of France and Pearl Harbour the efforts of the Commonwealth in general and India and the Dominions in particular made sure that there was a bastion of the free world from which the economic and military juggernaut of the United States could advance from.

Without that Commonwealth effort, as slight as it may be seen to many, America would have stood alone against the world. America's might was the key to knocking down the Axis, but it was the Commonwealth committed efforts in standing to the guns in 1939 that guaranteed that success.

Sorry for the diatribe, but the sacrifices of the British Commonwealth made on behalf of free people the world over is too often down played or overlooked.

I don't think the OP meant to denigrate the Commonwealth. He was just wondering how the war would have proceeded with just Britain and the Empire. I, among others, still feel that the Axis had zero chance at a victory and am more interested in the political knock on effects, especially in India
 
I apologize for my rant, it was uncalled for and was in no way meant to slam the OP in any way. It was more of an observation that I let get out of hand. I'll make an honest effort to see it doesn't happen again.

Now as to a response to the original post if I maybe so bold ...

Properly led, trained and using tactics and doctrines in combined arms combat would be the first challenge to be addressed, but given the right conditions that was not beyond the the realm of reason. Manpower should not be a problem if all sources were properly tapped and managed.

Political interference would have to be curtailed in some way as well, as can be seen in the results of Churchill's interference in the Western Desert.

As to problems with Colonial Troops there were concerns but most were limited to non combat locales. Colonial troops from India served with distinction in North Africa, Italy and against the Japanese, While troops from East and West Africa did their part in the jungles of Burma.
Of particular note would be to ask any Axis soldier who happened to survive an encounter with a Gurkha patrol what he thought of British Colonial Troops.





 
As to problems with Colonial Troops there were concerns but most were limited to non combat locales. Colonial troops from India served with distinction in North Africa, Italy and against the Japanese, While troops from East and West Africa did their part in the jungles of Burma.
Of particular note would be to ask any Axis soldier who happened to survive an encounter with a Gurkha patrol what he thought of British Colonial Troops.

Colonial troops did serve with distinction but in a situation like this even more cooperation would be required from the colonies. This would necessitate giving the Indian Independence leaders a whole slew of concessions to ensure cooperation in moving India to a total war footing. The Indian National Congress' decision to support the British war effort counted quite a bit and would be even more important ITTL. I doubt that Britain would be able to get away with witholding aid from the famine in Bengal, for example.
 
Top