An Impossible WWII: British Empire vs. United States

Alright, I've seen WWII timelines with weird alliances and oppositions, including the Nazi-Soviet alliance vs. American-Japanese one. But maybe this is the weirdest (and the most impossible) of all: a timeline where British Empire and United States are on the opposite sides in WWII.

So, how to make that happen? Which nations/empires that will join their respective sides? How would the war progress? And who will win eventually?
Anyway, with one condition: the Nazis, Fascists, Soviets, and Japanese are more-or-less similar with OTL.
 
I'm currently working on one where a Fascist govt comes to power in Britain and agression against Ireland prompts America to declare war.
 
the plot against america

Philip Roth book could serve has a backdrop for a starting point of how a pronazi, antisemitic USA might came about...

Plot_against_usa.jpg
 
The Plot Against America is an interesting read, but I really do doubt that a Lindbergh presidency would be as extreme as Roth potrays it.

As for creating a US/UK split, while keeping the Nazis/Soviets in tact that's hard. You'd almost certainly have to World War I at the latest to create such a split and that's going to effect how the German and Russian political situations unfold to say the least.

A peace of mutual exhaustion in 1918 or 1919 might do the trick, especially if the US remained uninvolved.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I could see it if you combine a socialist revolution in the United States with the rise of a fascist government in the UK. Neither of these is impossible, but I don't see how you get there with a single POD.
 
Edward the VIII stays king....with his supposedly nazi-friendly symphaties. Then butterfly away Churchill, or even better transform him into a Nazi (Maybe by some bizarre twist him and Hitler could build frienly relations :eek:), so that the nazis in UK assume power, and then in cooperation take on France.

Pretty farfetched I know, but someone on this forum, could proberly butterfly something up.
 
Here's one for you, with a POD in 1888. Note that this is really a bit of a different World War II, but I'm trying it anyhow.

1888 -- In OTL, the 'Year of Three Emperors' in the German Empire; ITTL, the beginning of Frederick III 'Frederick the Liberal' 's tenure as German Emperor. Frederick, a fan of British-style constitutional liberalism moves the German state into the British orbit, dismissing Bismarck and pushing for liberal reform from the top-down, allying the state with Britain as best he can as a buffer against France and Russia.

The reaction in France to the growing alliance of Britain and Germany is one of reaction and unease, leading to the seizure of power in 1890 by Georges Boulanger and the establishment of a proto-fascist state in France. Boulangist France reaches out to Russia in its own rearmament program while Britain and Germany reinforce ties. War comes in 1898 with the Fashoda Incident, with the Central Powers of Britain and Germany facing down the Entente of France and Russia.

For three bloody years, the Great War (1898-1901) ravages the Old World. Though President Roosevelt offers a conference to negotiate a peace in Washington, and the Centralists support the idea, the Entente rejects the offer and the war continues. Revolution in 1901 causes Russia to back out of the conflict, and a revolution/military mutiny in France likewise causes the defeat of the French forces and their eventual capitulation. With this, the Central Powers convene in Berlin to hammer out terms of a peace treaty. The British and Germans propose the creation of a 'Concert of Nations' to enforce international law and peace, and invite the United States to join. France will be demilitarized and forced to pay reparations, while the burgeoning socialist state in Russia will be, for the most part, ignored while the Central Powers focus on putting down the revolution there.

At the end of the day, a new republic is birthed in France and Russia is reorganized into the Workers' and Peasants' Social Republic of Russia (commonly the Russian Social Republic) following a bloody civil war that lasted until 1907. Britain and Germany enter economic boom periods, as does the United States, which by-and-large financed the war for the Central Powers, who were favored by Roosevelt. In 1904, Roosevelt is re-elected President over Democrat Alton Parker, and in 1908, William Howard Taft defeats Democrat William Jennings Bryan.

The 1910s are a decade of relative liberalism after the constraining Victorian period, largely as a result of the harrowing effects of the war on Western civilization. Less so in the United States, which is more culturally conservative as a result of not having entered the war itself. This all comes to a close, however, in 1912 with an abrupt market collapse sending the world economy into a spiral. The Presidential Election that year does not exactly feel the effects of the crash (though it does happen a month before the election) and President Taft manages to secure a second term. By 1913, however, unemployment has sky-rocketed across the developed world and radical political movements begin to make inroads in the First World.

The 1914 midterm elections see the Socialist Party of America make big gains in Congress, winning a number of seats and becoming a vital force in passing national legislation. In France, the Fourth Republic collapses in 1916 with the appointment of a Communist-led Popular Front government that quickly becomes a Communist-only government. The Social Republic of France is proclaimed in 1917. The Russian Social Republic's leadership quickly imposes more authoritarian control over the state itself, further consolidating old territories into the Republic and developing new economic tools to increase and modernize production.

In Britain, the Conservative Party, out of power for the whole of the 1910s, is returned to power in a landslide election that sees the Liberals fall behind the Labour Party in terms of actual seats. Frederick III's death in Germany in 1910 and his replacement by Wilhelm II leads to a more conservative element in Germany gaining ground.

France and Russia begin a program of re-armament, with the French Social Republic calling the Great Depression a result of 'capitalism's failure and imperialist domination'. Plans are drawn up for a rapid war against Germany and Britain, while demands for annexed territories are loudly made at the Concert of Nations. The 1916 Presidential Election in the United States ousts the Republicans, putting into office Democrat Woodrow Wilson with the support of the Socialists under Allan Benson. The Socialists grow in number in the Congress, and demand measures to reduce unemployment, measures that Wilson is slow to adopt as President.

The 1918 midterm elections give the Socialists second-party status in the House of Representatives. With progressive Republicans and liberal Democrats, however, they command a majority and control legislative mechanisms, forcing Wilson to co-operate despite his opposition to a good deal of the Socialist program. In 1920, the Presidential Election sees Upton Sinclair elected President and the Socialists gaining a majority in the House of Representatives.

Sinclair tries to drive a neutral course between reactionary Britain and Germany, now determined to 'abolish socialism' and communist France and Russia, both of which now seek to 'abolish capitalism'. These efforts prove fruitless however and in 1923, denial of France to the whole of Alsace-Lorraine leads to general war in Europe once again. The Second World War (1923-1929) has begun.

President Sinclair, continuing in Woodrow Wilson's footsteps, asks for 'armed neutrality' and American military spending triples, easing the effects of the Depression. Sinclair wins re-election in 1924 over William Edgar Borah (R), an isolationist and Woodrow Wilson (D) and continues the American re-armament program. Relations deteriorate with Britain and Germany, who Sinclair decries as 'capitalism's enforcers' following his re-election. British attempts to influence policy in Latin America eventually lead to blows between the United States and the Central Powers, with the U.S. joining the 'Internationale' in 1925.

The war continues for four more bloody years. Britain's naval supremacy is matched by the United States' productive capabilities and leads to the eventual negotiated surrender of the British in the spring of 1929. The war with Germany continues on until September of 1929 when American expeditionary forces help break the front lines and press toward Berlin.

The war has, by this time, taken it's toll. A new international organization, the International Forum, is established by France, Russia, and the United States. Britain, thanks to the influence of American anglophiles, is allowed a relatively easy peace, while Germany is cut into pieces and occupied. The 1928 Presidential Election in the United States saw the Socialists kicked out of office in favor of Republican Theodore Roosevelt Jr., an anglophile suspicious of the French and Russians. The seeds of the cold war between the United States and her former allies were hence sown at the negotiations...
 
Alright, I've seen WWII timelines with weird alliances and oppositions, including the Nazi-Soviet alliance vs. American-Japanese one. But maybe this is the weirdest (and the most impossible) of all: a timeline where British Empire and United States are on the opposite sides in WWII.

So, how to make that happen? Which nations/empires that will join their respective sides? How would the war progress? And who will win eventually?
Anyway, with one condition: the Nazis, Fascists, Soviets, and Japanese are more-or-less similar with OTL.

Rex

That last bit is the difficult bit as it ties in a lot of restrictions. Especially if you have Nazis in Germany anything like OTL it makes it bloody difficult to get Britain and/or France on the same side. Even if they were themselves fascists the fact their major powers in their own right and with long histories as independent states means they are likely to be bitter rivals to Germany.

As such I think you would have to have a pro-facist America, which is possible but difficult. To then get a war which isn't a walk-over you either need it to be highly Nazi, which gives it a hell of a lot of problems and/or be late enough/disruptive enough in the rise to power that America isn't too overwhelming.

Possibly the best bet is that the allies win WWI markedly earlier and more cheaply. Russia is weakened and after the war falls into chaos that sees a communist coup. This weakens the allies enough that, probably largely due to fear of communism, they relax their fears about keeping Germany under control. Then suddenly finding their got a very nasty regime on their hands.

At the same time America has political differences with the allies which led to economic conflict after the war. A period of acute protectionism causes problems especially for the US which goes for internal laisse faire policies like OTL. This results in serious problems in a Great depression which ends up with say civil conflict and a right wing take-over that ends up with a very racist regime.

The problem with this is probably Japan as it could go either way. It wants to make gains in China and from the European allies but will also have tensions with the US and Russia.

Steve
 
Have the Anglo-Japanese Alliance be extended long enough, then get Japan and Britain into a separate war with the US. The British would never ally with Nazi Germany barring a POD decades beforehand.

SotR

A way along those lines is possible, although somewhat unlikely. However it fails to meet the conditions of the OP on three points:

a) It's not really a world war.

b) That pre-supposes that we still have a Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. If so it's very unlikely that Britain would be able to concentrate on the US, which would be necessary even for a Britain that had revived substantially from OTL. [Unless somehow you have TTL Hitler and Stalin keeping each other busy tearing their respective empires apart. In which case what are France and Italy doing.

c) Furthermore if Japan is more-or-less similar with OTL then it's an highly militaristic and deeply racist dictatorship, which makes a very strange alliance partner for Britain. More likely, unless Britain has gone fascist [extremely unlikely] or America has gone totally insane, you get OTL Britain and America seeking to restrain Japan.

Steve
 
Don't use The Plot Against America as a basis for this pleased. That book was shoddily researched in my opinion.
 
Edward the VIII stays king....with his supposedly nazi-friendly symphaties. Then butterfly away Churchill, or even better transform him into a Nazi (Maybe by some bizarre twist him and Hitler could build frienly relations :eek:), so that the nazis in UK assume power, and then in cooperation take on France.

Pretty farfetched I know, but someone on this forum, could proberly butterfly something up.

Pro-Nazi Churchill wouldn't entirely surprise me, just have to convince him that the Communists are a worse threat, which would require the Nazis doing less aggressive, expansionistic actions that overtly challenge Britain's interests for Europe.

Accomplishing such a feat is another matter entirely...
 
Don't use The Plot Against America as a basis for this pleased. That book was shoddily researched in my opinion.

In Roth's defence, isn't it meant to be autobiographical? It's his memories as an old man of what he experienced as a child, rather than omnipotent narrator.
 
You might need a much stronger British Empire. One which either avoids WW1 or manages to come out smelling like flowers.
 
In Roth's defence, isn't it meant to be autobiographical? It's his memories as an old man of what he experienced as a child, rather than omnipotent narrator.

I'm not going to insult a published author. It was an entertaining read, if a bit out there. I don't agree with his potrayal of Lindbergh at all.

But everyone who insults published AH authors for "shoddy research" or our favorite term to apply to any new member who dares to have the audacity to start a new tread, "ASB" instead of critizing other people's works, why not do something yourself?
 
I could see it if you combine a socialist revolution in the United States with the rise of a fascist government in the UK. Neither of these is impossible, but I don't see how you get there with a single POD.

Interesting...socialist US-Russia vs. fascist Europe (plus Britain)...

The problem with this is probably Japan as it could go either way. It wants to make gains in China and from the European allies but will also have tensions with the US and Russia.

Steve

in US-Russia vs. Europe scenario I suppose Japan will be allied to the former, because Japan might think that European colonies were easier to conquer and perhaps because of the US offer for alliance in order to secure her back on Pacific while she focused on Atlantic...
 
In Roth's defence, isn't it meant to be autobiographical? It's his memories as an old man of what he experienced as a child, rather than omnipotent narrator.

His use of actual personalities in history lacked foundation. In some respects, he makes the same mistake as do modern advocates of one conflict or another; Roth conflates skepticism about the European war in our timeline with sympathies for Nazism.

I'm not going to insult a published author. It was an entertaining read, if a bit out there. I don't agree with his potrayal of Lindbergh at all.

His portrayal of Burton Wheeler has even less of a basis in fact.
 
a timeline where British Empire and United States are on the opposite sides in WWII.

The simplest hinge: Edward VIII, King of the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth, Emperor of India. Reigned in 1936, abdicated to marry an American divorcee. Very pro-Nazi; enough that during WWII he was sent off to Barbados to keep him out of the public eye.

In 1936, the National Social German Worker's Party and its charismatic leader Adolf Hitler were still a worldwide sensation. Like Mussolini and his Fascists, Hitler and the NSDAP had taken a broken shell of a country and were rapidly turning it into a happening place. Nobody was hearing much about the dark side yet.

Albert Speer mentioned in his autobiography that Hitler seriously expected Britain to side with Germany against Poland and France. Winston Churchill was the main reason that didn't happen, but if Edward VIII had kept his zipper up and remained on the throne, Hitler's expectation of British support would have had some real substance behind it.

According to Speer, Hitler was hoping for an Anglo-German alliance at the very least, and perhaps a Fascist Britain as an official part of the Greater German Reich.

With Edward VIII on the throne and Britain part of the Axis, (that was easy enough) you wouldn't even have a war, just uninterrupted conquest from the Reich and the Italians. It's hard to visualize the USSR holding out from a sneak attack against the greater amount of men and material Germany could have thrown into Barbarossa without having to deal with the British and Americans.

Hmm... you could have Hitler and Mussolini fall out over territory, or the British suddenly deciding to remove themselves from the Reich, but my imagination isn't working too well today.
 
Britain still won't join the Axis just because of a changed king, you have to get rid of Churchill and then you have to have a Britain that is somehow okay with the Germans blatantly violating every provision of Versailles, attacking and conquering British allies in Europe, and then attacking Belgium (the funny little country that helped motivate Britain to enter the war the last time Germany tried something) with the explicit purpose of attracting France, another British ally. The British aren't going to change policies based on centuries of geopolitical politicking, so the Germans have to somehow ignore angering Britain, which their policies of aggressive expansionism will do.

Barbarossa OTL was a huge campaign, the Germans were plagued by all sorts of problems and even if Germany has (somehow) an uninterrupted situation in which to throw every last man and tank it has at the Soviets they're still vastly outnumbered fighting in a gigantic, hostile territory that can be rendered unlivable by proper application of scorched earth tactics. Germany can win, but it will cost them everything to do that. Over the long term, they don't have the manpower to police the territories they would want to take from the Soviets, they'd be a hopelessly outnumbered force fighting a people who have literally no alternative but to be slowly worked to death as slaves of Nazi Germany.

This potential falling-out between Hitler and Mussolini however, shows promise, I never tire of discussing that particular scenario. The region in question is probably South Tyrol, our spark can be provided by the crisis in Austria if Mussolini makes good on his promises to back up the Austrian fascist regime with military force from being overtaken by Nazi Germany.
 
Top