What happens to Britain without ANY American aid in WWII?

if Churchill still goes ahead with the Greece misadventure... what happens to the forces in N. Africa? In OTL, they were badly short on AFVs and received quite a few from the US... can they make up the shortfall here?
At the same time one of the motivations for Greece was to show the UK as "defending freedom" in the eyes of the world (read the US). So again the butterflies flap. If the US definitely, absolutely isn't coming in, the option exists for more pragmatism with Greece. If the UK doesn't go to Greece Africa gets wrapped up earlier.


Italy is very interesting because freeing up the Mediterranean frees up a heck of a lot of shipping. Cutting Italy in half gives a nice defensible narrow front and control of the Med. It definitely rates as a "periphery" to target to tie up before hitting the continent.
 
Was reading a bit about Britains financial problems of late 1940. Occurred to me there is another half to the is question. When the Nuetrality Acts were repealed in 1939 there was a surge of French and British money into US industry. Obviously the French portion of that abruptly ceased in june 1940. The cash flow from France was partially made up when the War Acts of latter 1940 & mobilization caused the Federal government to toss blank checks at the War & Navy Departments. And, the British purchases from the US increased, at least temporarily. Temporarily is the key word here.

Lets assume here the situation the OP describes occurs, the US does not start a Lead Lease program, and otherwise does not aid Britain. Then British purchases will decline greatly in 1941. Perhaps with many existing orders canceled as delivery cannot be paid for. What effect does this large scale roll back have on the US economy? With both French and British purchases gone how far does the economic surge of winter 1939-40 decline?

The US mobilization of the autumn of 1940 was designed to peak in mid 1941 & was not budgeted much beyond that. The Two Ocean Navy Act programs may have continued, but the active service of the Reservists and National Guards would expire in October 1941, returning apporx 1,500,000 Army and Navy men to the civilian economy. Neither were new purchases for the Army Air Corps budgeted much beyond 1941. OTL that changed in the summer of 1941 as tensions between the US and the Axis nations rose. But, in this TL a US that is not aiding Britain is liable to be a US not interested in a European war. The mobilization of 1940 may very well be reciended as 1941 expires.

So what happens to US industry and economy as the cash flow from Europe declines. The credit of the Axis nations was poor, and their reserves of US dollars and gold low. Japan was headed towards its credit limit with the US banks before the embargo Acts were passed. So, where will the US derive its trade that sustained its growth pre Depression? Is it possible that lacking strong exports the US will sink back to the stagnate levels of 1938, or worse?
 
Strategically, it would make sense for Britain to cut down on the amount of fronts they are fighting on. They might focus on a defensive policy in North Africa and allow the Americans to take over from them on the Pacific front to preserve their resources for a strike against Germany. Britain may even try to appease Mussolini to cut down on the total amount of enemies they are fighting. Before he invaded Albania, Mussolini was viewed positively by the British. He was considered far more trustworthy than Hitler. They may decide a loss of all influence in the Mediterranean was worth being able to focus all resources towards attacking Germany.
 
I'm of a different opinion, in that Germany could have beaten the UK. *IF* Hitler allowed his generals to think for themselves, Dunkirk would have been a total disaster for the UK. Most of the UK based army would have been wiped out, either killed or in POW camps. Then the blitz, followed by Operation Sea Lion. With a ring of U-Boats (every U-Boat Germany had from September of 1939) around the UK, they wouldn't have a chance of winning. No supplies getting through the U-Boats, and battle hardened Germans goose stepping all over UK. UK would be speaking German.

Sure the US stayed out of the German war (at lease for the short term), but they can see the Japanese invading more and more countries, taking more and more by the day it seemed. That said the US continues to build up arms to defend themselves. The US don't want a war, but is willing to defend the country.

Now the question becomes, what happens in the Pacific? The Philippines in my view is where things fall apart. Fresh in the Japaneses minds is the oil embargo. Japan will want the Philippines, and the US not want to give it up. Japan at this point is used to getting (taking) what they want.

Most of what the US had was in Hawaii, and stateside. They would have most likely sent more troops and some Navy ships to reinforce the Philippines. The US will not win the fight in the Philippines. Now with the Philippines in Japans hands, the US is clearly at war.

Now the arsenal of democracy which is already cranked up, only has the Pacific War to fight (in the short term). Everything the US has moves West.

In moving West, I don't mean the South Pacific. I mean nothing South of the Equator. Clearly the US wants the Philippines back, and most likely Guam as well. The US don't want or need South sea islands. But they do want to destroy Japan. No need to loose Americans fighting over anything they will have to give back. Yep, I'd keep Japan as well.
 
Last edited:
I'm of a different opinion, in that Germany could have beaten the UK. *IF* Hitler allowed his generals to think for themselves, Dunkirk would have been a total disaster for the UK. Most of the UK based army would have been wiped out, either killed or in POW camps. Then the blitz, followed by Operation Sea Lion.
A failed Dunkirk combined with the Blitz could make it easier to bring the poms to the table (that, of cause, is a negotiated peace... not the abject surrender demented wehrboos like), but it does nothing to solve the big problems (RAF and RN) that stand in the way of an actual invasion.
With a ring of U-Boats (every U-Boat Germany had from September of 1939) around the UK, they wouldn't have a chance of winning. No supplies getting through the U-Boats, and battle hardened
Germany had a total of 26 long range U-Boats in September 1939. And the reality is you can't keep the entire force at sea all the time, the boats' need maintiance and the crews'. Even with the shorter-ranged types and new vessels entering service during 1940, the number of U-Boats at sea rarely exceeded 20 well into 1941.

Also, isolated U-Boats were relatively ineffective against convoys. Convoys vastly educe the mean-density of merchant traffic... Given the relatively small search radius of a surfaced U-Boat this makes it hard for a sub to find a convoy without offboard support (air recon etc.). Plus even a light escort (or just defensive guns on some of the merchantmen) makes it risky to the U-Boat to attempt a surface attack during daylight hours... and if not operating on the surface a WW2 vintage U-Boat (excluding the limited production of late war streamlined vessels) was so slow even the most poorly maintained rust bucked of a tramp-steamer could outrun it with ease.

That's not to say U-Boats weren't a threat... They certainly caused independent sailings and stragglers from convoys MAJOR issues. And once Wolfpack tactics really got implemented in late 1940 things do tip in the U-Boats' favour... Of cause, by April 1941 increased use of HF/DF, Radar and Ultra decrypts went A LONG WAY to swinging things back in the poms favour...

Finally, the Battle of the Atlantic is usually reckoned to be a tonnage war... The danger was that attrition of the merchant fleet might result in the British hitting a supply and food shortage in a year or two, not that if the next convoy didn't arrive everyone would starve.
Germans goose stepping all over UK.
Goose stepping all over the bottom of the English Channel you mean?
 
Per the OP...

A lack of American aid (rather than exports) is of little material impact to the British's ability to hold ground during 1940 and early to mid-1941, but it probably will limit the poms ability to go on the offensive in late 1941 and onwards, and the poms ability to provide aid to the USSR (assuming Barbarossa still happens).

The economic impact (the poms running low on US$ reserves combined with reduced ability to export to third parties due to the shift to a war economy) is more of a problem, but again only really bites hard in mid-to-late 1941 and after.

The political and morals impacts of a clear US decision to stay out, well, both are hard to predict, and these are the fields where I could see US non-involvement leading to the poms seeking a negotiated peace with the Axis. There's too many question marks about what happens in the Med, in Russia and to East to say for certain...

Overall, with the US clearly staying out of the European conflict, not providing the British with aid and not dragged in by Japan, I'd be inclined to suggest unless the Soviets have some decisive successes in 1942/early 1943, or if the Soviets (somehow) stay out of the conflict, it's likely the poms start suffering from war exhaustion and consider a negotiated peace with Germany during 1942-44.
 
A failed Dunkirk combined with the Blitz could make it easier to bring the poms to the table (that, of cause, is a negotiated peace... not the abject surrender demented wehrboos like), but it does nothing to solve the big problems (RAF and RN) that stand in the way of an actual invasion.



Germany had a total of 26 long range U-Boats in September 1939. And the reality is you can't keep the entire force at sea all the time, the boats' need maintiance and the crews'. Even with the shorter-ranged types and new vessels entering service during 1940, the number of U-Boats at sea rarely exceeded 20 well into 1941.

I do agree you must rotate U-Boats back to port for refit and supply. When I said "all U-boats", I should have said all available U-Boats.

Also, isolated U-Boats were relatively ineffective against convoys. Convoys vastly educe the mean-density of merchant traffic... Given the relatively small search radius of a surfaced U-Boat this makes it hard for a sub to find a convoy without offboard support (air recon etc.). Plus even a light escort (or just defensive guns on some of the merchantmen) makes it risky to the U-Boat to attempt a surface attack during daylight hours... and if not operating on the surface a WW2 vintage U-Boat (excluding the limited production of late war streamlined vessels) was so slow even the most poorly maintained rust bucked of a tramp-steamer could outrun it with ease.

That's not to say U-Boats weren't a threat... They certainly caused independent sailings and stragglers from convoys MAJOR issues. And once Wolfpack tactics really got implemented in late 1940 things do tip in the U-Boats' favour... Of cause, by April 1941 increased use of HF/DF, Radar and Ultra decrypts went A LONG WAY to swinging things back in the poms favour...

Finally, the Battle of the Atlantic is usually reckoned to be a tonnage war... The danger was that attrition of the merchant fleet might result in the British hitting a supply and food shortage in a year or two, not that if the next convoy didn't arrive everyone would starve.
Goose stepping all over the bottom of the English Channel you mean?

A failed Dunkirk combined with the Blitz could make it easier to bring the poms to the table (that, of cause, is a negotiated peace... not the abject surrender demented wehrboos like), but it does nothing to solve the big problems (RAF and RN) that stand in the way of an actual invasion.
Germany had a total of 26 long range U-Boats in September 1939. And the reality is you can't keep the entire force at sea all the time, the boats' need maintiance and the crews'. Even with the shorter-ranged types and new vessels entering service during 1940, the number of U-Boats at sea rarely exceeded 20 well into 1941.

Also, isolated U-Boats were relatively ineffective against convoys. Convoys vastly educe the mean-density of merchant traffic... Given the relatively small search radius of a surfaced U-Boat this makes it hard for a sub to find a convoy without offboard support (air recon etc.). Plus even a light escort (or just defensive guns on some of the merchantmen) makes it risky to the U-Boat to attempt a surface attack during daylight hours... and if not operating on the surface a WW2 vintage U-Boat (excluding the limited production of late war streamlined vessels) was so slow even the most poorly maintained rust bucked of a tramp-steamer could outrun it with ease.

That's not to say U-Boats weren't a threat... They certainly caused independent sailings and stragglers from convoys MAJOR issues. And once Wolfpack tactics really got implemented in late 1940 things do tip in the U-Boats' favour... Of cause, by April 1941 increased use of HF/DF, Radar and Ultra decrypts went A LONG WAY to swinging things back in the poms favour...

Finally, the Battle of the Atlantic is usually reckoned to be a tonnage war... The danger was that attrition of the merchant fleet might result in the British hitting a supply and food shortage in a year or two, not that if the next convoy didn't arrive everyone would starve.
Goose stepping all over the bottom of the English Channel you mean?

In my opinion, allowing generals command control and not an ex corporal would make all the difference. As we know the "corporal" stopped the generals advance at Dunkirk. Wiping out the Dunkirk force (bulk of the army at the time stationed in the UK), removes many fighters before you invade.

The only "peace" Hitler the corporal would accept is unconditional surrender (like every other country Germany overrun). Until then, the rape and pillaging would continue.

The RAF would be removed. As we know from history the RAF received a break. Germany stopped going after the RAF, and started with city bombing. As we know you must air superiority, so keep after the RAF. Once you get rid of the fighters, now you can carpet bomb the cities. Even Churchill wanted to kiss the Germans for bombing his cities, and giving the RAF a break. Plus they stopped bombing the radar, another corporal move.

Once Sea Lion starts Germany can move far more supplies into the UK, than a few ships coming in from overseas for the UK. So just one or two "lucky U-Boats is all that's needed to slow down the UK supplies. And Germany has most all of Europe to draw supplies from.

Now as for the over stretched navy ..... many things can be done. Much of the UK navy was not in home waters. Bombers are an option. Mining both ends of the channel is another option. Shore artillery and naval ships are other options.
 
Compare the number of Royal Navy ships in home waters to the number of German warships in total. Either before or after Norway, it makes little material difference given the difference in scale between the opponents.

Remember that ME-109’s had enough range for only a few minutes over London. So what happens if the RAF withdraws slightly to the west of London? They can still defend just as well, but can only be attacked by unescorted bombers. Unless you want to send in ME-110’s....
 
.... Of course, this only means a war of attrition, which the USSR can only win in the end, with Britain enduring rather than claiming any real victory.

My thought as well. Britain will endure, even if at a terrible cost to their own population. I mean, if the Russians would rather starve themselves to death then surrender, the Brits would as well, just out of sheer stubbornness. In the meantime Canada, Australia, British Africa and India- especially India- will play a much greater role in the war effort and expect to be repaid for it with more authonomy- may be even independence- when the war is finally ended.
 
Compare the number of Royal Navy ships in home waters to the number of German warships in total. Either before or after Norway, it makes little material difference given the difference in scale between the opponents.

Remember that ME-109’s had enough range for only a few minutes over London. So what happens if the RAF withdraws slightly to the west of London? They can still defend just as well, but can only be attacked by unescorted bombers. Unless you want to send in ME-110’s....

You make very good points. As for the navy, no question German is very out numbered. Germany capital ships however are newer, well built, and can out gun (range) most UK ships. That clearly makes a real cat and mouse game.

The ME 109's clearly needed drop tanks. If I recall they had only about 20 minutes over the UK. My thought here is allot of damage can be done within 50 miles of the coast. Going after the radar stations for one. Moreover, with radar stations knocked out, less fighter cover would be needed for bombers. My thought is without radar, UK fighters have to wait to take off until spotters see German planes. Bombers then have a chance to hit and run. With Radar they could see German fighters over France.

If UK fighters pull back from German fighter range, UK opens the coastal areas to attack. No UK fighter cover on the coast gives Germany coastal air superiority.
 
The only "peace" Hitler the corporal would accept is unconditional surrender (like every other country Germany overrun). Until then, the rape and pillaging would continue
Except that's blatantly false... France was given terms, even if not very good one. And with the British in a much less assailable position than the frogs... Well, with invasion almost impossible, fairly lenient peace terms are the only way to get the poms out of the war.
The RAF would be removed. As we know from history the RAF received a break. Germany stopped going after the RAF, and started with city bombing. As we know you must air superiority, so keep after the RAF. Once you get rid of the fighters, now you can carpet bomb the cities. Even Churchill wanted to kiss the Germans for bombing his cities, and giving the RAF a break. Plus they stopped bombing the radar, another corporal move
A pop-history myth... Even before the shift to attacking London British fighter production and pilot training was more than keeping up with their losses, while the Germans were struggling to make up their losses. And that's with only 11 Group Fighter Command heavily engaged...
Once Sea Lion starts Germany can move far more supplies into the UK, than a few ships coming in from overseas for the UK. So just one or two "lucky U-Boats is all that's needed to slow down the UK supplies. And Germany has most all of Europe to draw supplies from
Except the British didn't just have 'a few' ships coming in... they had tens of convoys a month each of dozens of multi-thousand-ton-dispalcment ships arriving and departing each month. Against that a 'lucky' U-Boat or two is nothing...

Meanwhile, the Germans' need to rely on two thousand river barges with very limited cargo lift, landing cargo over beaches and through badly damaged small ports in the face of surface attack by the Royal Navy.

Which one do you think can actually shift more supplies?
Now as for the over stretched navy ..... many things can be done. Much of the UK navy was not in home waters. Bombers are an option. Mining both ends of the channel is another option. Shore artillery and naval ships are other options.
Per British forces in home waters... Multiple capital ships, more than a dozen cruisers and in excess of a hundred destroyers plus numerous lighter vessels. Opposing them? No operational modern capital ships, one clapped out pre-dreadnought, one operational panzerschiff, all of three cruisers and less than a dozen destroyers...

IOTL the Luftwaffe had a couple of dozen float plane torpedo bombers equipped with rather dodgy torps as their only dedicated anti-shipping force. Anything more requires diverting the 300-odd Stukas which are also suppose to be doing a million other tasks at once...

Mining the Channel is possible but doing it on the scale to 'seal' the Channel requires a large number of mining operations by warships. Which is liable to tip the poms off to the plan and is also liable to loose you more than a few minelayers.

Most coastal guns don't have the range to engage ships the other side of the Channel, and OTL use of coastal guns against slow British merchant convoys in the Channel proved rather ineffective. Against a large force of fast warship? Not gonna help much at all.

German naval ships? Please see comment on numbers above.

Edit to add:
You make very good points. As for the navy, no question German is very out numbered. Germany capital ships however are newer, well built, and can out gun (range) most UK ships. That clearly makes a real cat and mouse game.
S&G were out of action after taking torpedo and Destroyer hits off Norway. Bis commissioned in September 1940 and was still working up and undergoing trials for months thereafter. Tripitz didn't commission until the end of Feb 1941.

So, no German capital ships available...

Per gun range... theoretically, yes (). In practice, however, without either extensive aerial spotting or radar spotting (not really functional until 1942-43...) hits rates beyond about 25,000 yards were so abysmal that this nominal advantage can be effectively ignored.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, allowing generals command control and not an ex corporal would make all the difference. As we know the "corporal" stopped the generals advance at Dunkirk. Wiping out the Dunkirk force (bulk of the army at the time stationed in the UK), removes many fighters before you invade.

Or don't.

The "stop" order was done by the generals; Hitler just agreed with it.

Contrary to popular belief, what became known as the "Halt Order" did not originate with Adolf Hitler. Generalobersten (Colonel-Generals) Gerd von Rundstedt and Günther von Kluge suggested that the German forces around the Dunkirk pocket should cease their advance on the port and consolidate to avoid an Allied breakout. Hitler sanctioned the order on 24 May with the support of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dunkirk


Once Sea Lion starts

This forum has a dedicated sticky thread on Sealion, that I suggest you read.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/glossary-of-sealion-threads.180901/
 
I'm of a different opinion, in that Germany could have beaten the UK. *IF* Hitler allowed his generals to think for themselves,
Thankfully that's verging on ASB territory. Unless he screwed up parts of the early campaigns and didn't develop the aura of invincibility. But in that case Germany is probably screwed earlier
 
Top