America stays truly neutral in WW@, would Briatain fall?

IF US stayed truly neutral in WW2 would Britain fall?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 29.7%
  • No

    Votes: 78 70.3%

  • Total voters
    111
No slaughter of shipping along the east coast because King wouldn't listen and form convoys. No Tizard mission giving away priceless technical and scientific advances. No shutting Britain out of future markets due to clauses in lend lease. Continued development of British transport aircraft. No glut of mass produced liberty ships post war, so continued work for UK Shipyards. US takes longer to finally pull out of the depression.

No invasion of Europe until the Russians have bled the German army white in their slow plodding drive to push the Germans back into Poland.
 

ccdsah

Donor
I think most of the posters who said Britain would not fall, don't really understand what limits the neutrality of US would have. Here's what being neutral entails per Hague Convention of 1907

Rights and responsibilities of a neutral power

Belligerents may not invade neutral territory,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(international_relations)#cite_note-2 and a neutral power's resisting any such attempt does not compromise its neutrality.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(international_relations)#cite_note-3
A neutral power must intern belligerent troops who reach its territory,[5] but not escaped prisoners of war.[6] Belligerent armies may not recruit its citizens,[7] but they may go abroad to enlist.[8] Belligerent armies' personnel and material may not be transported across neutral territory,[9] but the wounded may be.[10] A neutral power may supply communication facilities to belligerents,[11] but not war material,[12] although it need not prevent export of such material.[13]
Belligerent naval vessels may use neutral ports for a maximum of 24 hours, though neutrals may impose different restrictions.[14] Exceptions are to make repairs — only the minimum necessary to put back to sea[15] — or if an opposing belligerent's vessel is already in port, in which case it must have a 24-hour head start.[16] A prize ship captured by a belligerent in the territorial waters of a neutral power must be surrendered by the belligerent to the neutral, which must intern its crew.[17]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_(international_relations)#cite_note-16

 

ccdsah

Donor
On can go even further and say that if Us had stayed truly neutral in Japan's war with China (no oil embargo and other provocations) Japan might have never strike at Pearl Harbor. I don't know how the isolationists felt about Japan and China conflict
 
As Satan ice skates, all those american prayers finally hit and God restores OTL order. When those batty pre civic rights Americans discover he not only sounds but actually looks just like Morgan Freeman they all jump into the hole Satan carved on the Artic ice cap.

I would read a TL of this, FYI
 
First, I must state thank goodness the US was not a true neutral prior to Dec7th.

Yes, Hitler stupid to declared war on us in December 1941, but even Hitler would not have done it if the US had maintained full Neutrality.
No, Hitler would have declared war no matter what, Lend-Lease had been going for 9 months almost on the dot by Pearl Harbour, if he hadn't declared war already he obviously didn't think it important and/or, he had a drastically inflated view of Japan's military potential.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
There only hope is to starve the British into surrender. By 1941 the British were broke and needed lend lease to keep going. However all the Americans did was lend Britain raw materials and equipment with payment deferred. They could still stay neutral and just lend Britain money to get raw materials elsewhere. It's not like there aren't a lot of raw materials in Canada is it?

Giving credit and weapons to one side is not "truly neutral", which would be treating each side the same.
 
I think the British would still win the Battle of the Atlantic. Don't forget - they had Canadian warships and patrol planes supporting them too, and the Canadians had great bases from which to stage antisubmarine air patrols. And it was the British who first used the convoy system during WWII (after the US refused to listed to the Brits, there was what the Germans called the "Second Happy Time"). Plus, Britain still had the world's largest merchant fleet and shipbuilding industry at the time (even after the war, they still surpassed all other merchant fleets, sporting about 22% of the world's merchant shipping tonnage).

Overall, the Battle of the Atlantic would be much harder fought, but the British would almost certainly still have kept themselves supplied. And the British would probably manage to hold their own in North Africa and the Mediterranean - they did exceptionally well against the Italian Army, and together with their Commonwealth allies, they inflicted many defeats on the Germans, such as El Alamein. Don't forget that it was mainly the Royal Navy and Commonwealth warships that escorted the Malta Convoys. The RN would have been stretched to the limit, but it could have managed.

The only way for the Germans to win would be to invade and conquer Britain. And we all know how that would end.....
 
Im pretty sure The British were out producing in turns of GDP the Germans even before thew war

The Germans will most likely loose the war in 1949 and Europe will be much worse off without the martial plan Britain and the USSR might very well both collapse after their victories
 
The only way America could avoid war would be to let Japan have free reign, and that, I think, would not happen under even an isolationist president.

Actually, for a time, the US was in favor of basically letting Japan do their thing in Asia. You know the Tydings-McDuffie Act? That wasn't an act of charity on the part of the American government. It was an effort to dump the Phillipines, which were being eyed pretty heavily by the Japanese. That way, when Japan attacked and annexed the Philippines, the US government would have an excuse not to go to war over it.

Of course, WW2 changed all of this.
 
Actually, for a time, the US was in favor of basically letting Japan do their thing in Asia. You know the Tydings-McDuffie Act? That wasn't an act of charity on the part of the American government. It was an effort to dump the Phillipines, which were being eyed pretty heavily by the Japanese. That way, when Japan attacked and annexed the Philippines, the US government would have an excuse not to go to war over it.

Of course, WW2 changed all of this.
Not really it was more keep the Filipinos out of the US, keep cheap Philippine rice out of the US and get rid of the colonial trappings, the US would still protect it

It was made primarily because of some ugly racist incidents in California

It was not written to avoid conflict with Japan, that was not on the RADAR at the time

Or at least this is what my history professor says and it makes sense given the attitudes of the time
 
Last edited:
Giving credit and weapons to one side is not "truly neutral", which would be treating each side the same.

Sure, Germany could purchase weapons and take loans from US banks, actually, I think the UK would be quite happy for them to do so.

Then the UK just boards the ships, commandeers the cargo's and sends them back where they came from. :D

Free equipment.

Its called a blockade and as far as I know, its completely legal.
 
Sure, Germany could purchase weapons and take loans from US banks, actually, I think the UK would be quite happy for them to do so.

Then the UK just boards the ships, commandeers the cargo's and sends them back where they came from. :D

Free equipment.

Its called a blockade and as far as I know, its completely legal.

Though in that case I guess Germany would start to develop cargo submarines.
 
Top