AHC/WI: Britain won WW2 by itself? (Grasshopper Lies Heavy)

What if the US stayed neutral in WW2, leaving Britain as the sole democratic country remaining in Europe fighting against the Axis; yet the British still win the war, leading to them (along with resurrected France) dominating Europe afterward?

As a bonus challenge, have the USSR temporarily fall to the Germans, so it is truly Britain winning on its own, rather than just leading the Western Allies.

As a further challenge, have the United Kingdom become more imperialist after winning the war than before it.

Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. still participate in the war.
 
Well, probably you need a POD before 1900.
I don't see why. The British on their own only had slightly less industrial war potential than the Germans. The British and Soviets combined had greater industrial potential than the Germans, even with France occupied.

The British could cooperate with Commonwealth, American immigrant, and perhaps even Soviet scientists to create an atomic bomb.

And Lend-Lease isn't absolutely necessary for the British to utilize some American resources. A US in the Great Depression for a few years longer would have cheaper exports.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
Yeah, not really going to happen unless you just bash the brains out of the German army.

With an OTL OOB, there's really no way Britain can win alone. I think they actually produced fewer tanks than the Germans, and theirs tended to be markedly inferior until late in the war. Add on top of that an amphibious assault, and you've got a mighty tall order on its own.

With Russia down, and most of the Panzerwaffe free to respond to anything the UK does, any invasion they manage gets utterly, and totally obliterated.



But more likely, they wouldn't even fight. Russia falling would only add to the Germans' aura of invincibility. Germany would have just smashed Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, and Greece in less time than it took the British to go 50 miles in the last war, and then annihilated the largest standing army in the world, and smashed Russia.

Britain would sue for peace.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
The British on their own only had slightly less industrial war potential than the Germans

There was a thread that focused solely on this issue and this was wrong. German industrial capability was in fact significantly larger, even when suffered from Nazi incompetent management. If you take a look at the German Empire during ww1, which could actually manage its own war industry, you can see how frightening Germany's industrial potential was.
 
Yeah, not really going to happen unless you just bash the brains out of the German army.

With an OTL OOB, there's really no way Britain can win alone. I think they actually produced fewer tanks than the Germans, and theirs tended to be markedly inferior until late in the war.

Witg Russia down, and most of the Panzerwaffe free to respond to anything the UK does, any invasion they manage gets utterly, and totally obliterated.



But more likely, they wouldn't even fight. Russia falling would only add to the Germans' aura of invincibility. Germany would have just smashed Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, France, and Greece in less time than it took the British to go 50 miles in the last war, and then annihilated the largest standing army in the world, and smashed Russia.

Britain would sue for peace.
I said Russia temporarily falling would be a bonus challenge to make it harder, it's not a required part of the scenario.

But even so, it could be that the Eastern Front follows OTL until Stalingrad, the Germans win at Stalingrad and take Baku, but are exhausted due to this Pyrrhic victory. Ultimately the Soviets still win, but 2-3 years later due to more German depth and fuel reserves. Allowing for a 1945 or 1946 British D-Day with nukes.

Or Germans could peak earlier and Russia could turn the tide even later; in a scenario where the Germans take Leningrad, Moscow, and Rostov, it still doesn't necessarily mean that the Soviet Union will fall due to the sheer amount of people the Germans were trying to conquer and the logistics involved. Lots of holes in the German frontline if they sacrificed too much too early.

There was a thread that focused solely on this issue and this was wrong. German industrial capability was in fact significantly larger, even when suffered from Nazi incompetent management. If you take a look at the German Empire during ww1, which could actually manage its own war industry, you can see how frightening Germany's industrial potential was.
Fair enough, but there's also the industrial capacity of Canada and Australia, as well as the Soviet Union.
 
You can get that if the Japanese unwisely decide for the Go North strategy. They get mired somewhere West of Vladivostok. They don't attack European colonies nor the USA; however, the USA were waiting for any one further aggressive move by the Japanese, and anyway some Japanese hot-headed naval officer does torpedo some USN vessel around the Philippines.

So Britain is not at war with Japan, but the USA are; the USA decide not to get involved in Europe, but to bankroll the British, chiefly, and the Soviets, secondarily.

With unlimited Lend-Lease help and no committment in the Far East, the BCE does explode the first atomic test in NE Canada and bombs Berlin and the Ruhr in the summer of 1946, a few days before the British landing in Normandy. The USA are at this time crushing the remnants of Japanese guerrillas in Hokkaido. Hitler happens to be out and about on the day of the bombing, and gets a lethal dose of radiations. Himmler commits suicide shooting himself with his own pistol (twice), and Goering has a car accident. The general staff takes command and manages to negotiate a peace with minimal conditions for Germany.

The Soviet Union suffers even worse than in OTL, but still provides all the bleeding the Heer needs to be downsized; they advance West far less than in OTL. The USA still provide all the industry and cash as per OTL, but on top of that they get enough of all of those flag-wrapped coffins and go back to isolationism (they will get the British to share atomic know-how). The British Commonwealth and Empire are the real winners, have suffered less than in OTL, are firmly in control of their own territories, aren't poorer than before, have hegemony over nearly all of Europe. They'll be the bulwark against Communism and "native upheavals" for decades to come, as well as the leading power in the UN.
 
Here's my idea for how Britain could have won the war alone:

First things first, one change must occur before the outbreak of WW2 - Japan must not become overtly militaristic during the 1930s, and they must remain friendly towards the Western Allies. That way, the Second Sino-Japanese War never happens, and by extension WW2 never extends to the Pacific Theatre. Instead, during WW2, we have Japan supporting Britain (albeit remaining officially neutral) and remaining with its post-WW1 borders, while far less British troops need be stationed in the East.

Meanwhile, WW2 breaks out and proceeds initially as it did in our timeline. However, events start to change following the Battle of Britain - after the RAF is able to decisively defeat the Luftwaffe, Hitler decides to try and save face by by launching Operation Sealion anyhow (maybe in this timeline he is even more incompetent in military affairs than in our timeline).

And so, the German forces start to cross the Channel - unsurprisingly, they are overwhelmed by Royal Navy ships which bombard them from the sea, and RAF planes which bombard them from the sky. This cripples the invasion force to the extent that most of the invasion fleet is either destroyed or forced to turn back, and only a few landings take place in Kent. These German landings are quickly overwhelmed through a combination of British regulars and the Home Guard - after only a few days of fighting, the Germans are forced to surrender, and thus Britain has secured a major victory. Meanwhile, the botched landings have crippled the German Army significantly - the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine are all but annihilated, while a lot of supplies and equipment have been lost.

With the threat of a German invasion almost entirely gone, during 1941, Churchill and the British Government are able to dedicate more troops to the front-line who IOTL remained stationed in Britain. This means that Operation Compass results in further advances by British and Commonwealth forces in Libya (eventually leading to the entirety of Libya falling under Allied control by the end of 1941), while British and Greek troops are able to hold Crete (as German paratroopers were crippled in the botched Sealion landings). Meanwhile, Iraq and Syria, and Italian East Africa are still secured by British and Commonwealth troops at the same time as OTL.

During this time, the US continues to send support to Britain through Lend-Lease and other agreements, although the US has no appetite for actually entering the war (no conflict in the East, no Pearl Harbour). In addition to this, Britain is also dedicating a significant amount of funding towards Tube Alloys (the development of an atomic bomb).

As 1942 dawns, Britain and the Commonwealth are in a strong position, and aim to knock out the final Axis outposts outside of Europe. Operation Torch is launched several months earlier than IOTL, and has the same outcome - French West Africa is liberated by British, Commonwealth and Free French troops, and shortly afterwards Tunisia is also liberated. As a result, all of Africa (aside from Portugal's colonies) is under the control of the Allies by the end of 1942.

Now, at this point I shall accept your 'bonus challenge' - in this timeline, Barbarossa is delayed, due to the damage inflicted on German forces as a result of the failed Sealion landings. So, it is launched in 1942 rather than 41 (Axis campaigns in the Balkans still occur in 1941, though). Let us assume that, during this alternate invasion of the Soviet Union, events go better for the Germans, and thus by mid-1943, German troops have reached Moscow. Shortly afterwards, the Soviets are forced to sue for peace, and Germany annexes all of Russia up to the Urals, and beyond there a rump Soviet state exists.

Yet the Allies do not despair at the Soviets' defeat, for, during 1943, plans are drawn up by British, Commonwealth and Free French troops for landings in Sicily as preparation for an invasion of mainland Italy. At this point, Italy is incredibly unstable, as the loss of its colonies means that there is a major oil shortage in Italy, and many Italians blame Mussolini for their country's setbacks during the war. In mid-1943, landings take place in Sicily, and (like IOTL), the island is overrun after several weeks. From this point, the Italian Campaign plays out along similar lines to OTL (although Allied advances are slower, due to a lack of American troops) - Mussolini is overthrown, Italy requests an armistice with the Allies, Germany invades Italy and installs a puppet regime, and so the Allies start a full-scale invasion of Italy. Eventually, in this timeline, the Italian Campaign comes to a standstill in mid-1944 as fighting comes to a standstill near Rome.

In this timeline, the D-Day landings do not take place, as not enough troops are available to undertake such an operation. However, during this time, Tube Alloys is proceeding well for British and Commonwealth scientists, and by early 1945 Britain has tested its first atomic bomb in the Pacific Ocean. In order to force Germany to surrender and bring the war to an end, Britain drops an atomic bomb on Hamburg. Shortly after dropping the bomb, Britain demands that Germany surrender, or face further attacks. Hitler refuses to surrender, and so another atomic bomb is dropped on Bremen. At this point, may German officers are terrified that Germany could face annihilation due to Hitler's stubbornness, and so an Operation Valkyrie-style event occurs which sees the military successfully depose the Fuhrer. Shortly afterwards, a military junta assumes control in Berlin, and requests an armistice from Britain, bringing an end to the Second World War.

As part of the Treaties ending the war, borders in most of Europe are re-set to their state before Hitler's rise to power - the exception is the border between Germany and Poland, with Poland gaining the territory it gained from Germany ITOL, all the while retaining its territory in the East. In addition to this, Italy's colonies are partitioned between Britain and France, while Heligoland is ceded to Britain. Meanwhile, Russia ends up in a similar state to what it was in the Anglo/American-Nazi War Timeline, with the Soviets still controlling Siberia and European Russia being established as either a Russian Republic or a restored Russian Empire.

In this alternate post-war world, Britain and France are still dominant in Europe - Germany has been humbled and demilitarised, and the nations of Europe are on friendly terms with the Allies. Meanwhile, on the global scale, Britain continues to dominate world affairs for several decades longer, while the US remains isolationist unless something major happens during the late 20th century.
 
There was a thread that focused solely on this issue and this was wrong. German industrial capability was in fact significantly larger, even when suffered from Nazi incompetent management. If you take a look at the German Empire during ww1, which could actually manage its own war industry, you can see how frightening Germany's industrial potential was.

Perhaps the German industrial potential was larger, but the British produced more aircraft, more warships, and in many years more tanks than the Germans did.
 
Maybe with the Anglo-French Union become a temporary reality and Italy remaining neutral can be obtained; you still need Stalin to be a lot blind over Hitler intention...and will be more difficult without the North African theatre but possible; with more unit available due to no African and Balkan campaign (and occupation) the URSS is in a much dire situation
 
Maybe Labour embarks on a major public works/infrastructure investment scheme and the Dominions follow suit. Closer economic/strategic cooperation with the Dominions?

France never officially surrenders?

German loses vital transport infrastructure and most its navy after attempting Sealion?

Republican victory during the Spanish Civil War, meaning the Germans flight their guts out in Spain before turning to the USSR?

All of the above?

This assuming a post Depression PoD.
 
Last edited:
Now, at this point I shall accept your 'bonus challenge' - in this timeline, Barbarossa is delayed, due to the damage inflicted on German forces as a result of the failed Sealion landings. So, it is launched in 1942 rather than 41 (Axis campaigns in the Balkans still occur in 1941, though). Let us assume that, during this alternate invasion of the Soviet Union, events go better for the Germans, and thus by mid-1943, German troops have reached Moscow. Shortly afterwards, the Soviets are forced to sue for peace, and Germany annexes all of Russia up to the Urals, and beyond there a rump Soviet state exists.
Barbarossa as it was couldn't have succeeded in 1942, the Soviets were too prepared by that point. If most of the Luftwaffe was destroyed in a failed Sealion, the invasion of Russia never would have gotten off the ground.

The only way I can see the Germans reach OTL success in the Eastern Front with a late start in 1942, is if the Soviets are actually the ones to strike first and do it in a foolish way. The Soviets opt for an risky surprise invasion through Poland thinking they'll encircle the Germans in Prussia, but instead they themselves get encircled losing dozens of divisions, many of the losses being armored and motorized divisions. In that case, with the Soviets taking such losses, maybe the Germans could push to their OTL extent but it would be too late to actually win due to shortages of fuel, food, trucks, and trains that are still an issue ITTL.
 
Barbarossa as it was couldn't have succeeded in 1942, the Soviets were too prepared by that point. If most of the Luftwaffe was destroyed in a failed Sealion, the invasion of Russia never would have gotten off the ground.

The only way I can see the Germans reach OTL success in the Eastern Front with a late start in 1942, is if the Soviets are actually the ones to strike first and do it in a foolish way. The Soviets opt for an risky surprise invasion through Poland thinking they'll encircle the Germans in Prussia, but instead they themselves get encircled losing dozens of divisions, many of the losses being armored and motorized divisions. In that case, with the Soviets taking such losses, maybe the Germans could push to their OTL extent but it would be too late to actually win due to shortages of fuel, food, trucks, and trains that are still an issue ITTL.

I admit that that part of my scenario wasn't terribly realistic, and was only there to fulfil the OP's 'bonus challenge'.
 
As I outlined in my scenario above, Britain could have won without either of those from happening.

In your scenario, leaving aside the totaly implausibilities of a 1942 Barbarossa doing even as well as the OTL one let alone better, it would be the US who takes the leading role and not Britain. The British also lack the resources to complete Tube Alloys without either the US or France. Absent the great mass of US forces, the comparatively paltry British Army attempting to land anywhere in continental Europe would be wiped out by massively reinforced German forces. Italy might be the weakest link in the Axis alliance, but without the Soviets or Americans the Germans do have the forces to hold that link together.
 
Obviously it's not impossible - regardless of anything else, if the Germans launched Seelowe and got beaten back then they would lose massive amounts of men, materiele, and prestige, whilst Britain would open up credit markets, volunteer recruitment, and have a huge morale boost. Commonwealth countries would pour more in to the effort at an earlier stage, and Britain could win Libya on her own, if the Germans even bother trying to prop up the Italians. The British don't have to bother about Greece, they can write it off as a tactical, but not strategic, loss without risking ships, men, aircraft and vehicles.
 
Top