If the UK signs a peace treaty with the Germany in 1940 how does the US fight a war with Germany?

Without going full Sealion things go a little worse for the UK in 1940 and without being actually invaded decide they have no hope of defeating Germany in Europe and sign a treaty to stay out of it.

Japan is still doing their thing in Asia and still end up attacking the US in Hawaii, so the US is definitely going to war with Japan and Hitler may still declare war on the US after that. Hitler declaring war on the US IOTL was pretty illogical and wouldn't be much more so in this scenario.

So how does the USA wage its war on Germany without having a base to launch from in the UK?
 
Let's say for the sake of argument that the UK continues to stay out of it, since that seems like the OP's intent. Most likely by supporting the Soviets and jockeying for position. Without the African front the US doesn't have a lot it can directly do. No reasonably nearby bases to launch an invasion, so it would focus on supporting enemies of the Germans and blocking German economic and diplomatic efforts abroad.

Though I suspect that is the UK's out the Germans don't bother to declare war on the USA. The same conditions wouldn't be there with no Battle of Atlantic leading to an unofficial state of war between the two before then, so the calculus for all concerned is a little different.
 
Why would it? The US didn't start fighting Nazis until Hitler declared war on the US. Why would he do so ittl, and with Britain out, mightn't the US stay focused on Japan?
 
Why would it? The US didn't start fighting Nazis until Hitler declared war on the US.
USS Reuben James and USS Kearny beg to differ. While the US was not "at war" with Germany until Germany declared war on the US, the US very actively supported and assisted Germany's adversaries.
Why would he do so ittl, and with Britain out, mightn't the US stay focused on Japan?
.
If Britain is out of the war in 1940, the US will not fight Germany, unless Hitler tries something stupid like taking over French and Dutch colonies in the Americas as spoils of war.

As to Japan: I don't really see the US "focused" on Japan.
 
Last edited:
Japan is still doing their thing in Asia and still end up attacking the US in Hawaii,...
Japan attacked the US because Japan assumed the US would intervene to protect the European colonies in SE Asia, which Japan wanted to seize for oil. If the war in Europe is over, Japan is in a very different position. Occupying indochina would be much trickier if France is not a German-occupied satellite. Pétain won't hold still for such offenses. Britain, no longer at war in Europe, can put much stronger forces in Malaya. The Netherlands can defend the East Indies better. Will Japan launch the Pacific War, taking on all these opponents, and the US?
 
Last edited:

DougM

Donor
Japan and the US most likely would not change. Japan wants to dominate the western pacific and the US does not want them to. That is not effected by Germany and England no longer fighting each other.
In Europe the US would rather not see Germany dominate. But unless the treaty that England signs is such that England truly loses (Like France) then odds are the US doesn’t get actively into the war.
As for Ruben James that was going after subs because the subs where going after merchant ships because the merchant ships where delivery supplies to England. No war with England, no German subs going after the Merchant ships so no reason for the US nave to basically be hunting German subs.
The US population is not going to put up with the US doing something that will get it in a war with Germany when Germany is at peace with everyone on Europe. You will get a bit of “England gave up why should we care?” Going on.
I think we will help by doing a lend lease kind of thing to anyone that is actually fighting Germany, So if Germany attacks Russia I think we may send supplies. And that may eventually result in a Aruban James type of thing but it will be delayed. And assumes Germany goes to war with Russia. Personally I think with no war rushing the matter you may see Germany consolidate what it has for a bit and thus I think Barbarossa is delay a year or so. While Germany builds itself back up a bit.
That would delay the US helping Russia until 42 so you may see the war starting in 43 or later between the US and Germany. If then. It is possible that with the US fully concentrating on Japan Only in this TL that things go as well or better for the US so by the time the US is sending aid to Russia and German subs start sinking merchants and the US started hunting subs that the war is going so well that it is obvious the US will win so Germany may very well not actually declare war on the US.
There is an argument to be made that Germany declared war in the US because they thought the US was going to be so busy with Japan that they could get away with it. And it gave them free reign to do whatever they wanted in the Atlantic against the ships supplying England and to a much lesser degree the ships going to Russia (the US never did send Russia as much as we did England). So with a US fully geared up for war. And with the US in a very strong position in its fight against Japan because it it is 42 or 43 with everything fighting only Japan. Germany may very well look at it and say they can put up with the occasional lost sub and not declare war on the US.

Or Hittler could be insane and Declair war on the US the week he gets peace with England, you never really can know as he was insane.

But odds are the war is delayed unti 43 or later. So you will see the B36 being MUCH more important. You may also see the US basing bombers in bases provided by Russia. I don’t think you see US ground troops in Russia unless things are going very very very bad for Russia as Stalin was paranoid. So odds are it is mostly an air war. And in 45 Germany Cities start to be turned into glass craters. Assuming the Germany was crazy enough to declare war on the US between whenever the US starts hunting German Subs (say 43) and when the US gets the Bomb. Because even Hittler is not insane enough to declare war on the US if we have the Bomb and long range bombers.
 
Japan by attacking the USA, Dutch, and UK bring the UK back into the war. Germany would have to declare on both, or if Germany just declares war on USA, USA would pressure UK to enter war again.

What did UK loose in peace deal in '40, maybe nothing at all, just a cease of hostilities with Germany?

With a peace in '40, Italy does not go after Greece in '41. Italy does go into Balkans, but does not need German help. Brits supply Yugoslav resistance fighters. So Russians receive full German effort.

Question is, what happened to Russia in '41? Also, did UK shift units to SE Asia after peace with Germany is met? Is Germany more successful in Russia with the same three objectives in South, Center, North? Logistics on the eastern front are the same but with more troops from Africa and less German troops occupying France, Germans have to be more successful somewhere in Russia. Perhaps this results in full capture of Leningrad in '41 which then releases more resources for Moscow and Caucus in summer of '42.

Germans would be fully engaged in Russia even more. USA and UK are able to keep Russia in the fight, but Germans are in a stronger position in Russia.

Torch is postponed as first US/UK landings are in Persia to set up base in fall of '42. They hold the German line at the Caucuses, able to defend Middle East oil and ensure that Baku does not produce much for the Germans.

North Africa landings occur in '43

Sicily and Italy and southern France in '44 along with Balkans in '44

English channel to France in '45

Germany surrenders in '46. Western allies liberate Poland, Czech, Hungary, and Slovakia ….. Soviets liberate Romania, Slovakia and Bulgaria so Iron Curtain is more East.

Japan is screwed whenever USA captures Mariana islands. Say this is same in '44.

Nuke timetable is same, August of '45 USA has three, produces three per month. Where are they dropped? Is Japan still first, probably so. So Hiroshima and Nagasaki still occur. There is no Russians in Manchuria yet, so does Japan surrender? Probably not, USA might land in southern Korea first in Sept of '45. Japanese cities may keep on being lit up with nukes so a third and fourth are lit up. Japan finally surrenders in Sept '45. Would a German city or two be targeted for atom bomb? Probably, so which one? Dresden, Hamburg, Munich, Frankfurt. Say the south and East are targeted as least likely to be in allied path to Berlin but supplying German war effort. Munich is first German city to be nuked. Dresden is second. So a total of six nukes are deployed, four on Japan and two on Germany.

So outcome of war
- Iron curtain is rolled back east and with no Soviet conquer of Berlin, is there a cold war? Probably smaller.
- Soviet influence in Asia is less. Soviets resupply Chinese communists but not at same rate as OTL. So do Chinese communists still win civil war? Probably so as Nationalists find ways to squander advantages, may take one to two years more.
- Korea is united and an American protectorate. No Korean war.
- USA takes a stronger stance at de-colonizing Asia and Africa. Pressures France into releasing Indochina which it does in the 1950's

- in the Middle East
- West still props up Israel
- With smaller eastern Block, does USA back Britain and France with Suez crisis? It probably is more of a silent backer.
 
If say the evacuation at doesn't occur and Nazi Germany suddenly has over 300,000 British POW's to use as a bargaining chip even if it is just for the British to remain neutral until the conflict in mainland Europe is done. This would still mean the armed forces in the far east would be stretched thin as many would be recall back to Britain to defend it if the uneasy truce with Germany broke down. This means there is a good chance Japan would do as in OTL try to take Indonesia and its much need oil, as any oil shipments back to the home island would pass by the US owned Philippines making them easy to attack the dominoes of war would fall much the same. The USA would do most of the fighting in the Pacific War with British forces playing a defensive role to India and Australia which without the Greece & North Africa Campaign would have more troops in New Guinea. However without the expense fighting Britain could funnel more money into Tube Alloys its nuclear research program with Canada and not sharing information with the USA meaning they get the A-bomb first maybe a bit earlier or a bit later then our time. The German invasion of Russian would have gone better then OTL without the having to fight on two fronts and also the Soviets not being supplied by US industry but still is hard with Russians retreating and stretch the German supply lines finally in early 46 after failing to once more negotiate the release of it long held POWs British long range bombers drop several A-bombs on key cities on the supply lines to the German forces in Soviet territory.
 
Without going full Sealion things go a little worse for the UK in 1940 and without being actually invaded decide they have no hope of defeating Germany in Europe and sign a treaty to stay out of it.

Japan is still doing their thing in Asia and still end up attacking the US in Hawaii, so the US is definitely going to war with Japan and Hitler may still declare war on the US after that. Hitler declaring war on the US IOTL was pretty illogical and wouldn't be much more so in this scenario.

So how does the USA wage its war on Germany without having a base to launch from in the UK?
Hitler won't declare war on the US if Britain is already out of the war. He was pissed off because Britain was still in the war and the US was actively supporting Britain.

However, if Hitler, for some bizarre reason, nevertheless declares war on the US, the US might have to send a lot of its troops to the Soviet Union so that they can fight on the Eastern Front. Of course, it's certainly going to be a huge bloodbath for the Americans.
 
If japan goes to war with the UK after the UK has signed a peace with Germany the UK will most definitely not go back to war with Germany at that point, they have other "issues" to deal with. The treaty between Germany and Japan was a defensive treaty, although Germany declared war on the USA OTL they were not obligated to do so. If the war ended between Germany and the UK in 1940, the issue of US supplies to England no longer matters, and U-boats are not roaming the Atlantic. Both the Reuben James and Kearny incidents took place in 1941, so they have not happened here. The USA may be selling war material to the USSR, but on a cash and carry basis - I very much doubt the Congress will allow American flagged ships to carry goods to the USSR given there will be U-boats on the approaches to Murmansk, and no doubt some operating in the Med out of Italian ports to deal with cargo going to Crimea (assuming the Germans don't have naval forces based in Romania or haven't taken the Crimea). If the USA is involved in a Pacific War with Japan you can bet there won't be LL for the USSR as "sending valuable war goods to the communists while we are in a war" won't fly.

If Germany is at peace with Britain, so they are fighting a one front war and are not blockaded, Hitler would have to be much crazier than he was to declare war on the USA if Japan attacks. Basically the USA will not fight a war of choice with Germany if the only war going on in Europe is Germany & Allies against the USSR and the USA is at war with Japan. IF Japan does not attack, and they might not, the USA still won't be attacking Germany in 1941 or any time soon.
 
Top