If the USSR is defeated and the US is neutral, what is Britain's strategy?

[Britannicus]

Assume a scenario in which the Soviets have been defeated (Germany annexing Russia up to the Urals) and America is neutral (no Pearl Harbour and no subsequent flashpoint which brings them into the war), but more than willing to provide Britain with any funding or supplies (Lend-Lease, etc.) necessary.

How does Britain fight the war from this point onwards, if we assume that peace is not on the cards?

 

[killertahu22]

I'd imagine that's it for the Brits

 

[Odinson]

"We shall never surrender!"
The British will fight them on the beaches if they have to. The Nazis, given time, could attempt ..... SEA LION.

Given. Enough time to plan and prepare, it might work.

 

[Britannicus]

"We shall never surrender!"
The British will fight them on the beaches if they have to. The Nazis, given time, could attempt ..... SEA LION.

That might actually be the best case scenario for Britain in this timeline. If Hitler orders the go-ahead for Sea Lion, it will almost certainly fail, leaving the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe crippled and providing Britain with a huge morale boost.

 

[Lafayette_]

I highly recommend @varyar ‘s In and Out of the Reich series. Although the stories are set in contemporary times, it builds from roughly the same premise: Britain is forced to sue for peace in 1940, slaughter of the Soviet Union shortly after, and then a long, long Cold War.

But to answer your original question: the Royal Navy and the RAF would most likely prevene Sea Lion, whether the US joins in or not. However, victory in Europe becomes impossible.

 

[Zen9]

The effort in Canada, will continue until the Empire achieves the Bomb....

 

[tallthinkev]

How well does Italy do, if not that good, the soft underside?

 

[ReconGuy02]

Fortress Britain.

 

[Evil Crusader]

How well does Italy do, if not that good, the soft underside?

All in all, not too bad. Loses the Horn of Africa, keeps Libya, may obtain Malta and keeps the gains in Greece, France, Yugoslavia.

 

[Odinson]

That might actually be the best case scenario for Britain in this timeline. If Hitler orders the go-ahead for Sea Lion, it will almost certainly fail, leaving the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe crippled and providing Britain with a huge morale boost.

So a sea lion with say... 10-20 years of planning still can't best the royal navy? Not even with all the satellites and allies helping out?

 

[thaddeus]

Assume a scenario in which the Soviets have been defeated (Germany annexing Russia up to the Urals) and America is neutral (no Pearl Harbour and no subsequent flashpoint which brings them into the war), but more than willing to provide Britain with any funding or supplies (Lend-Lease, etc.) necessary.

How does Britain fight the war from this point onwards, if we assume that peace is not on the cards?

How well does Italy do, if not that good, the soft underside?

All in all, not too bad. Loses the Horn of Africa, keeps Libya, may obtain Malta and keeps the gains in Greece, France, Yugoslavia.

my speculation would be UK tries to convert more and more French colonies to Free French? which becomes ridiculous at some point with no viable way to capture metropolitan France but that might continue for several years? and as mentioned capture Italian East Africa.

you could probably extend that action to the colonies of Netherlands and Belgium? so the British and their gaggle of governments-in-exile rule everything outside the North African coast?

Germans probably have enough of French prerogatives and Italian intrigue, and you have a version of Case Anton and Italian Social Republic where they have more direct control?

 

[starman]

Assume a scenario in which the Soviets have been defeated (Germany annexing Russia up to the Urals) and America is neutral (no Pearl Harbour and no subsequent flashpoint which brings them into the war), but more than willing to provide Britain with any funding or supplies (Lend-Lease, etc.) necessary.

How does Britain fight the war from this point onwards, if we assume that peace is not on the cards?

If Germany takes European Russia and the US stays out the Germans will attack British possessions in the Near East if the war goes on. Despite logistical issues the Germans would probably send forces to take Iran and Iraq, besides Egypt. Imagine what they could commit to overwhelm those areas without a Russian front, or a realistic prospect of invasion....The Japanese too will cause a lot of problems if the war goes on. Realizing this, Britain may sue for peace by '42.

 

[sendô]

No war in the far east with Japan, so the Empire can concentrate on the north Atlantic and north Africa.

You've not given a timescale for the defeat of the USSR, so I'm going to assume it doesn't happen during Barbarossa and takes a few campaigns - 44 perhaps?

Ergo Britain has time to build up in north Africa and push Rommel into a corner. No Torch, or perhaps a smaller landing, but eventually Britain is going to win north Africa and get the upper hand in the med. Could Italy be toppled here? Perhaps not.

In any case Britain is going to slowly but surely over run Vichy possessions everywhere.

After that it's stalemate. I'm not sure the Germans would ever be able to build up an invasion force big enough to make Zeelowe successful. IOTL it took the allies 2 years of planning and production, and only then they just about managed it despite virtually no air or sea opposition. The RAF and RN will skullfuck to death any invasion fleet, and whatever lands is destined for a POW camp in Canada.

 

[Historyman 14]

The UK is just up a river. Sure, they can win in North Africa, but I doubt they can invade Europe on they own.

 

[sendô]

In any case I can't see the US staying neutral forever in a world where the Nazis run all Europe up the Urals, and re threatening the last bastion of democracy between them.

It's hard to imagine in this scenario that Nazi Germany's ally Japan just sits back meekly and does what the USA tells them.

 

[starman]

The UK is just up a river. Sure, they can win in North Africa, but I doubt they can invade Europe on they own.

I doubt Britain could even win in North Africa. If the USSR is essentially beaten by say, November 1941, the Germans could've sent far more forces to North Africa. Even if logistical issues prohibited sending enough to win, they still should've been able to hold out there. They also could've struck at British Near Eastern possessions with almost the full weight of their army, from former Soviet or Turkish territory.

 

[starman]

No war in the far east with Japan, so the Empire can concentrate on the north Atlantic and north Africa.

Just because there's no PH doesn't mean Japan stays neutral.

You've not given a timescale for the defeat of the USSR, so I'm going to assume it doesn't happen during Barbarossa and takes a few campaigns - 44 perhaps?

Already by '42 in the OTL the German army was too worn to advance along the whole front as it did the previous year. The reich's best chance was in '41 so I assume the USSR would be beaten then--probably by Guderian advancing to Moscow.

Ergo Britain has time to build up in north Africa and push Rommel into a corner. No Torch, or perhaps a smaller landing, but eventually Britain is going to win north Africa and get the upper hand in the med.

Stalemate is most likely. Britian is forced to send troops to watch Iran and Iraq.

 

[creighton]

If we’re in the Cold War scenario, what’s the general thought on how the German and UK economies are doing? Nazi economics were a total house of cards, but would stripping Russian assets and industrial output start propping this up for a while? Likewise, the UK economy sagged for decades after OTL WWII, does the fortress Britain concept rely on some US aid to keep up military spending with Nazi Europe, or could they hold out on their own?

 

[starman]

If we’re in the Cold War scenario, what’s the general thought on how the German and UK economies are doing? Nazi economics were a total house of cards, but would stripping Russian assets and industrial output start propping this up for a while?

Sure and the reich is by no means limited to Russian assets on the continent.... Also, if Japan seizes and retains the "southern important territories" they could import rubber and other commodities from there if need be. Another possibility: Force a residual Soviet state east of the Urals to let the reich import/export via the trans Siberian railway.

Likewise, the UK economy sagged for decades after OTL WWII, does the fortress Britain concept rely on some US aid to keep up military spending with Nazi Europe, or could they hold out on their own?

Without substantial US aid, many more people would leave Britain, on account of spartan conditions and political siege mentality/ uncertainty.

 

[sendô]

Just because there's no PH doesn't mean Japan stays neutral.

The OP said:

America is neutral (no Pearl Harbour and no subsequent flashpoint which brings them into the war)

so if Japan is at war with Britain in the far east, then they've struck south and invaded Hong Kong/Malaysia/Singapore etc and bypassed the Philippines, which is suicidal as the USA will surely intervene here given their foreign policy of stopping Japan from doing exactly what they're doing, but now they've got enemies at their back as well as in front.

So for Japan to not be at war with USA, they're surely not at war with Britain, and most likely striking north against the Russians?

Already by '42 in the OTL the German army was too worn to advance along the whole front as it did the previous year. The reich's best chance was in '41 so I assume the USSR would be beaten then--probably by Guderian advancing to Moscow.

For them to win in 41 they need to start earlier, and not have the Austrian Corporal intervene in September and halt the Moscow advance, if Japan strikes north ITTL then Zhukov can't come to the rescue. Personally I think this would have just been another Stalingrad, and the USSR would continue. It was a war of extermination, the Soviets aren't just going to offer terms. It'll take the Germans a few campaigns.

Stalemate is most likely. Britian is forced to send troops to watch Iran and Iraq.

Yes, most likely. Britain can never invade Europe alone, but it'd take more might than the Germans can muster to neutralise both the RAF and RN enough to cross the English Channel.