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

Is this best case scenario for Germany where Stalin dies at Moscow in 1941, the USSR split into warlords/ethnicities/republics and the US is truly neutral, as in no lend and lease at all? Germany crushes, the UK simply can't pay the war effort any longer.

Assuming the US keeps supplying Britian, I think its a toss up if the German Empire collapse after Hitler's death or not, which is nigh. To be frank I don't see Britain countrinuing the war at all if the USSR collapses in 1941 and the US remains neutral. It is going to be War Cabinet Crisis 2 and it will be way worse than the first one over France.

Again, let's remember Churchill told Halifax that he would be willing to make a peace giving Germany overlordship over central Europe in exchange of a ceasefire as long as rearm limitations were not put on Britain, Churchill considered said terms to be extremely generous and I even recall reading Churchill said he would even be willing to cede British territory to the reich, I think at times people don't appreciate just how close Britain was to peace with Hitler and it could had taken anything to tip the balance in the peace faction favor, a distaster at Dunkirk, Hitler making a bold formal public proposition on worldwide news for peace in the terms Churchill told Halifax he would accept, etc.

So here we have Britain alone again in the continent, with the only country in the continent that could had countered Germany in the continent defeated. This would certainly lead to another war cabinet crisis, also even Churchill banked on "the new world with all its industrial might" coming to the rescue, even he had no apetite or hopes Britain would defeat Germany alone, at some point the fact that the USA is not going to participate in the war is going to become evident and negotiations will ensue.
 

Zen9

Banned
So let us start with the premise of this thread
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?

More than willing to provide Britain with any funding and supplies.....
With a line of credit the US is effectively loaning money to be spent in the US on goods for the UK, which the UK will have to pay for later......
This means there is plenty of profit for the businesses that get in and can deliver the goods. The US has plenty of capacity, plenty of people to work in the factories and generally everything needed to engage in large scale production.

So the UK is really has 3 choices
1. Do a deal with the Axis and accept a Cold War scenario
2. Fight on at the same intensity racking up enormous debts to the US that effectively puts them in the driving seat, despite being 'neutral'.
3. Fight on at a lower intensity

What's really needed is when this collapse happens in the USSR?
 
So let us start with the premise of this thread


More than willing to provide Britain with any funding and supplies.....
With a line of credit the US is effectively loaning money to be spent in the US on goods for the UK, which the UK will have to pay for later......
This means there is plenty of profit for the businesses that get in and can deliver the goods. The US has plenty of capacity, plenty of people to work in the factories and generally everything needed to engage in large scale production.

So the UK is really has 3 choices
1. Do a deal with the Axis and accept a Cold War scenario
2. Fight on at the same intensity racking up enormous debts to the US that effectively puts them in the driving seat, despite being 'neutral'.
3. Fight on at a lower intensity

What's really needed is when this collapse happens in the USSR?

Scenario 3 might be the smart choice because of the possibility of the Reich collapsing once Hitler dies, which will not take long unless he dumps his doctor. Fight at low intensity to keep German pressure, wait until the collapse, sign an acceptable peace with Germany.
 

Zen9

Banned
I think option 3 is most logical to a state with a long history of fighting long drawn out grinding wars.
It can support insurgents and bribe states into more conductive behaviour.
But I would not presume that a change of leader is enough to satisfy the British Empire.
Rather it would take advantage of any chaos and lack of leadership to further leverage states out of German control.
However the Nazi regime is one of such internal conflict, chaos and incompetence, that constant war and success is the only glue holding things together.
Hitler knew this and that's why he sought war repeatedly.
A peace, or even a low intensity war is a situation that leaves the Nazi Regime at risk of collapse.
They are just not as good at things as the Communists.
 
Wouldn't the UK still be able to liberate Norway? I assume in any protracted war or cold war scenario, the UK would want to keep Norway as an ally (or occupied land, if it comes to it) rather than as part of the German Reich. And Germany would be very hard pressed to fight a major British operation against Norway due its much smaller fleet
 
Britain would've most likely continued the war until people either got tired of the war, or Nazi Germany collapses. Maybe, there could be a prospect for peace, but that would have to mean churchill dies or he decides to give into hitler. A cold war type scenario could be possible.
 
Wouldn't the UK still be able to liberate Norway? I assume in any protracted war or cold war scenario, the UK would want to keep Norway as an ally (or occupied land, if it comes to it) rather than as part of the German Reich. And Germany would be very hard pressed to fight a major British operation against Norway due its much smaller fleet

Doubt it. It would require a massive amphib assault, across the North Sea, over a much longer distance than Normandy. In that sea, many of the light boats used on D-day, to carry/ferry troops and supplies UK->France, could not be used. And the U-boat fleet would have a much better area to engage the convoys than teh restricted waters of the channel.
 

Zen9

Banned
The English state which sits at the heart of the UK, was built to fight wars in a logistical manner.
That's how it was unified by the Cirdicingas, that's how it ended up being the milk cow for Norman ambitions in France, how it worked to fight the 100 years war, how it fought the Spanish, the French again and again and again until the French state broke.
It then went on to fight the Prussian/German Empire (which was used to fighting quick wars) and brought them to their knees.

Let's mention Napoleon, he win right. Shaping vast swathes of Europe. With access to a great deal of European resources.
Yet he then lost. ......

Tired of war? The UK has a history of just constant war lasting generations. That's why the bulldog is such a good symbol, an animal known for bringing down bulls by sheer tenacity.

At Mers-El-Khabir the signal was firmly raised, we were in it for the long haul and that should have given any continental leader deep disquiet.
 
The premise seems rather illogical, to be honest. The US basically decides to follow a path of tossing unlimited amounts of money into an open-ended proxy war fought on its behalf by the British empire, with most likely no prospect of ever getting its money back since if Britain wins it would be so comprehensively beggared it would be trying to repay with grass and seawater?

If it does play out that way I would imagine Britain eventually comes out on top after the Nazis eventually disappears up their own assholes but they would be envying the luxurious existence of OTL 1945 soviets.

Historically the Brits finished the war with the average British civilian owning a single pair of trousers, a ruined economy and their armed forces gasping for breath. Despite the “two world wars and one World Cup” brigade howling about the unstoppable Indian hordes coming to save the empire, they were so short of bodies OTL they were having to choose between cutting back on war production or cutting back on strengthening the army even by 1943, and that’s despite US help and basically drafting grannies to work in the factories.

The US is going to have to go “Britain is our armed forces now, we supply food, weapons, clothes, heating, everything the nation needs so even the teenage girls and grandads can march off to kill Germans”. Which is a super tempting prospect to look forward to, especially when the reward for victory is going to be living in eternal debt to the US as a sort of cold foggy Puerto Rico with extra bomb craters.
 
Yes, you can. Before Barbarossa, the combined Italin and German air ofensive had almost brough Malta to it's knees. The germans alone had hundreds of fighters and bombers (like the famous Fliegerkorps X, or the Jagdgeschwader 26); in the first few months of 1941, they achived total air superiority over Malta and the central med, wrecking the Grand Harbour, wiping out most of the RAF there (including every Wellington brought up late 1940), and cutting down supplies to the point where rationing had to be enforced. The HMS Illustrious was probably the most famous victim, barelly escaping being sunk. In the first quarter of 1941, over 90% of axis supplies reached Africa, thanks to this cover.

And then most of the german aicraft were pulled out, first to the Balkans, then to Greece, then to Russia. Which allowed Malta to survice, reinforce and make the massive nuisance of itself that ruined axis supplies latter on.

No you cant, because those units still are withdrawn to beat the soviets. You dont get to magically beat the soviets without assembling at least similar to ITL forces.

Once they return, the tactical situation doesnt return to 1941 status but close to the 1942 status outline earlier. Germany can shift units back to North Africa but the initiative is lost and they have the problems descrined earlier. You can try to reimpose that air superiority but the luftwaffe doesnt have its initial advantage as the war drags on and higher british plane production and naval superiority comes into play as their forces are fighting in Russia.
 
Last edited:
Overall, the UK received over 17000 Shermans, including those supplied to Canada and Free Poles. There is no way this would happen with a neutral US; the US industry would not have been geared up for these numbers, and the UK would not be able to aford them anyway...

British forces equipped with Rams and Grizzlies instead.
 
Sad to say, but Britain would not be able to do much if USSR folded, even with U.S. backing. The empire does not have the means to land a sizeable force in the continent for any foreseeable future, and it did not have the manpower to go it alone. The most viable option would be to strangle trade, but that would risk adding yet more countries to the enemy camp. Driving Italians and Germans out of Africa is also very iffy, and would require some blunders from the Axis side. Norway is not an option, if the the Germans have ability to reinforce and keep their troops supplied, which they could rather easily via Sweden and Finland.

If Germany collapsed into a civil war at some point, it might be better to just wait that out as well and secure allies from some of the countries aligned with Germany, which for sure would already be fed up with the Nazis. Even some factions within Germany would probably be amenable for British aid for some concessions. The Nazi ideology of autarky was not viable, which would become apparent sooner or later. Neither was the mass killing in the east, since it could ramp up societal problems very quickly, when the murderers come back home. When the conquest and exploitation stops, Hitler would actually need to come up with a viable and actable plan to run the country. The Germans were somewhat used to poverty but worsening economic situation always creates unrest.
 
Top