US neutral WW2

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
As far as I can see, the most plausible end to this scenario is the dreaded Red Tide, possibly with English invasions of France and the Low Countries. There was NO real Lend-Lease benefits in '41, and after the winter of '41 the Soviets held all the cards.

There is a great possibility of a German '42 offensive reaching Moscow- but that is not a good thing for the Axis! Considering Hitler's actions, it's likely that he would throw everything into a conquest of Moscow once it was besieged, and that would be disastrous for the Wehrmacht. Moscow would be like Stalingrad, except larger, better-defended, with better fortifications, more men, greater patriotism among the natives, and, being the hub of Soviet railways, easy to relieve and refresh with more manpower throughout the battle.

Moscow would be a hellish waste for the German army, and probably lead to a collapse of both the army and morale; following that, the Soviets simply had to repeat what they did historically: slowly overwhelm the Germans and push them back in a deliberate, methodical manner. They'd have to be even slower than OTL without American supplies and food to energize them, but once the Wehrmacht's been ground down and collapsed it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to reach Berlin by '46.

And if the Churchill panics and decides to use some gas attacks against Germany, then a Soviet Europe suddenly looks very, very possible.
 
I dunno. Even isolationists like Lindbergh wanted a larger military.

To give it some context, the US military, even at it's immediate post-WW2 high water mark in 1946, on a peace footing, consumes barely a tenth of the resources of a fully mobilized for war British Empire in 1940. A military at war, especially a full on, no quarter given type conflict, consumes a huge amount of critical expendibles like beans, bullets and fuel. A single bombing raid will burn vast amounts of fuel and bombs, day after day. Peace time militaries may run live-fire exercises, but not every day.

Even if the US trebled it's peacetime forces, they'd still be miles behind the amount of industrial production shift to a war footing that Lend-Lease represented. As well, Roosevelt couldn't just order the industries in the US to start producing war material over consumer goods the way that Hilter or Stalin could. There needs to be a market for those goods that US industries could sell to and without LL, there wasn't.

The initial reaction of the British Empire to the Japanese attack on PH was a large concern that military stores and goods bought/promised to the UK would be diverted to the US military. In fact, a large amount of it was, but not all of it.

An interesting POD would be to examine in detail how the US would have faired in the Pacific if they hadn't brought in LL. They'd have come to the same conclusion eventually, but with Japan having an extra two years or so to consolidate and/or press home their advantage. Heck, it would even slow down the US movement into the ETO for the same reasons.
 
I think the Blitz would have had a greater chance of success if the British aren't being regularly resupplied from the U.S.

The Blitz was effectively over by spring 1941, having achieved virtually nothing, and by that time the supplies from the USA had just begun flowing in.
 
If the RAF is obliterated on the ground by the Luftwaffe,

which did not happen when the Luftwaffe had its best chance, in the summer of 1940 - a time when no US help was coming.

then all of the foodstuffs in the world won't matter, ad the RN will face the Kriegsmarine alone.

And sink it at ease. In a straight navy only vs. navy only engagement, the Royal Navy wins every time. There is a reason if the Germans tried to achieve air superiority over the sea first. And failed catastrophically.
 
Without US help (Lend Lease) the USSR could not hold out, and neither could Britain. Britain would surrender and the USSR would have been destroyed by the Nazis.

The Nazis, without an opponent, would seize the Middle East and thus cut off US access to oil reserves, making it impossible for the US to grow economically. The US would become a second rate power, while Nazi Germany would rule the world.
 
UK GDP was roughly 12% of world GDP at the time, whilst the Axis controlled over 35%. A Russian/British alliance with no USA would have had about 25% of world GDP. So they would have been at a clear economic disadvantage.

Whether the military advantages of the Russians could have offset that economic disadvantage is open to question but the best case for Britain IMO is hanging on until the Soviets win.

I'm not sure if you are aware that in OTL the British turned more of their economy over to the war than any other belligerent. They were able to do this because of the economic support of the USA. In this TL they would have been able to produce fewer weapons. Nationalization would have had no effect on this IMO.

Is that British GDP or British Empire GDP?
 
Well for the USA to stay neutral we must assume that the USA has stayed out of Asian business since 1930 and put no sanctions on Japan.
Japan would then just attack the British and Dutch colonies in 1941.
Neutrality Acts from 1935-1937 attempted to prevent U.S. involvement in international disputes by restricting arms sales and establishing a "cash-and-carry" policy in which belligerents could only purchase nonmilitary goods, pay cash, and use their own ships would be kept on indefinatly.

So Britain would now be with a lot less tanks (no Grants and Shermans), less destroyers and less thompson sub machine guns.

That could mean British forces in North Africa have a far harder time of it all especially with more men needed to defend Australia from a likely Japanese invasion.
 
Well for the USA to stay neutral we must assume that the USA has stayed out of Asian business since 1930 and put no sanctions on Japan.
Japan would then just attack the British and Dutch colonies in 1941.

If the US has stayed neutral and placed no sanctions I doubt if Britain would do either. As such Japan can buy the goods it needs. It might try a strike to the south to seize them but with the ongoing war in China and bad relations with the Soviets it might not take that risk.

Steve
 
Without US help (Lend Lease) the USSR could not hold out,

The USSR had effectively stopped the Germans by the end of 1941, providing them with a good dose of their own medicine in that winter. At the time, no Lend Lease aid had helped them. Most people agree that after 1941, the Germans have no chance of defeating the Soviets, regardless of anything else. For most of 1942, the Lend Lease aid was not a lot, and it did not receive the front lines until the end of that year. By that time, the Soviets had already stymied the last in-depth German offensive in the East.

Without Lend Lease, the Soviets can't be in Berlin by spring 1945.
 
Top