Could the British Empire have won WWII on its own ?

[skarosianlifeform]

What I mean is, could Britain have used

• Industry in Britain and Dominions
• Industrialization of India
• Manpower from the Empire (esp. India)
• Control of the seas
• Better R&D

to drown the Axis and win the war through attrition ?

Let's assume, in this post, that
1 ) The USA give LL to Britain, as they did IOTL
2 ) The USA don't enter war (Roosevelt wants to, but Congress blocks it, and the Axis doesn't declare war or start unlimited submarine warfare)
3 ) Japan declares war in December 1941 on Britain and Netherlands (but not the USA)
4 ) Germany doesn't start Barbarossa (for whatever reason)
5 ) USSR doesn't attack anyone and respects trade treaties with Germany
6 ) Britain keeps her resolve.
British public and elites elites refuse to let the Reich dominate Europe, or control French and Low Countries coasts. They don't believe a genuine peace with the Axis is possible, as Hitler promised peace at Munich and broke the promise invading Slovakia and Poland... And then during the war, invaded the Low Countries, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece.
If push really comes to shove, Britain may negotiate a deal with Japan though.

So basically it's
Britain
Free France
Dutch government in exile (DEI, Surinam)
Belgian government in exile (Congo)
China

VS
Germany
Italy
(Hungary)
(Romania)
(Bulgaria)
(Slovakia)
Japan
Manchukuo
Siam

Can Britain win this, as in in building sufficient air force to destroy the Luftwaffe and then the German economy, sinking the entire KM + Regia Marina, and building an army (using colonies) to liberate Europe and invade Germany ?

 

[Ato]

The problem is that this requires Britain to fight a three front Naval War by itself. They were simply incapable of doing so, especially not with one of those fronts effectively cutting the lines of supply and communication between the other two.

Remove either Japan or Italy from the fight and it becomes far more doable.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

The problem is that this requires Britain to fight a three front Naval War by itself. They were simply incapable of doing so, especially not with one of those fronts effectively cutting the lines of supply and communication between the other two.

Remove either Japan or Italy from the fight and it becomes far more doable.

Precisely, wouldn't they offer a favorable peace deal to Japan ? Of course it would be distateful but fighting Germany right across the sea is worth abandoning some SEA colonies (especially Indochina and DEI not theirs to begin with...) and throwing China under the bus...

Let's assume Britain reaches a deal with Japan and then focuses on Europe.

 

[Ato]

The problem is that Japan at this point basically wants to take over all the British SEA and Pacific holdings.

Losing Malaya is a heavy blow, and would put the Japanese on the border of India. Which they would exploit ruthlessly. It would also terrify Australia who would immediately put their safety in American hands. This would consequently also worry the Canadians who would begin looking to the US as well.
Giving into Japan pretty much means giving up on the Empire outside of Africa.

 

[WaterproofPotatoes]

Japan would have gone to war with the USA due to the oil embargo and the militarists in charge. Plus, Japan's conduct in China was despicable enough, and the China Lobby strong enough, that something at some point would have been a case for sanctioning Japan.

Now, if the Americans and Brits were simply co-belligerents rather than allies, that I could see as a likelier scenario.

Britain would still lose most of her Empire, but Britain herself would repulse an invasion.