What would be the effects of US neutrality in WW2?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

Suppose America never joins the war for whatever reason (no Axis attack or something) and keeps a policy of strict neutrality, what would be the effects on the war and post war period?
 
Japan would probably stay militarist, but sooner or later lose China to the Communists just as Chiang did IOTL.

Continental Europe would probably be either all Communist or all Fascist, or half-and-half.
 
How nuetral? In OTL the US was providing large scale aid to both Britain and the USSR before the Axis nations declared war on the US. There was also a defacto naval war going on between the US and Germany during 1941, the US occupied Iceland replacing British soldiers there, and had been in secret discussions with the Vichy government. There were preparations underway for building a massive logistics base in the Persian Gulf and plans for other similar if smaller bases around the globe. Those were intended to supplement British efforts so the Commonwealth could concentrate its resources in the battle zone.

There is a huge difference between the sort of nuetrality envisioned under the old Nuetrality Acts of the 1930s, and that the US had after they were repealed in 1939.
 

Deleted member 67076

Complete neutrality. No lend lease, large scale aid, undeclared naval warfare, nothing. The US doesn't do absolutely anything to favor one side or the other and refuses to involve itself in any other countries problems.
 
The Soviets were recieving large amounts of US trucks to right the Nazis, and the Chinese were also getting US aid. China probably still goes communist, since its population is too high for Japan to control, but the Greater Germanic Reich comes to fruition, at least until the death of Hitler, when it breaks apart.
 

Narnia

Banned
This is a way Hitler might be able to win WWII. If he did a few other things right he might have a German Reich. It's also very likely Stalin would defeat Hitler and we would have a fully red Europe. Either way it's pretty dystopian.
 
In Europe, it's a gory knock-down drag-out fight between the Soviets and Germans which devolves into a stalemate. Britain develops the atom bomb sooner or later and nukes the Nazis into submission.

In Asia, I think the Japanese would win if the Americans observed strict neutrality. They were more than capable of brushing aside the British and Dutch to secure the resources required to continue their war in China. IOTL, the Japanese judged it was wiser to accept war with America on Japan's terms, than the *possibility* of war on America's terms. But if America was staying neutral, no aid to China, no oil embargo, etc, Japan could conceivable secure the "southern resource zone" and actually win their war in China. Japan's got everything it needs, America's neutral, and all the other great powers are bled white and bankrupt. Japan would win.
 
Suppose America never joins the war for whatever reason (no Axis attack or something) and keeps a policy of strict neutrality, what would be the effects on the war and post war period?

What about Japan? The US might stay strictly neutral in regards to Europe but the moment the Japanese start tooling around in the Pacific something's going to happen. American isolationism, especially at this point in time, was more oriented towards Europe and its seemingly endless struggles. The Pacific was very firmly seen as part of America's sphere of influence and they would respond accordingly to any Japanese attempts to upset that.
 
Germans force the British out of the war leaving Britain free to run their empire.
German get bogged down in Russia and lose the war on the eastern front.
Soviet take all of europe occupied by the Nazis.
The strain of occupying europe and dealing with rebellions leads to an earlier collapse of communism.
Japan take the Dutch east Indies for the oil and continues in war in China.
 
Last edited:
My take is strict nuetrality was not remotely in the US economic interests. The US has alsways depended on large scale exports, typicaly 60% or better of its product. A world war dragging on, a eventual Axis victory, or Soviet victory, simply mutual collapse of all parties would leave the US economically stagnated, probablly into the 1950s. Between various communist socialist, facist, imperialist, autuarkial, & just plain dysfunctional governments the sort of economic miasma of the Depression might drag on through the 1970s or beyond. Globally the 20th Century might be remembered as the 'Lost Century'.
 
-UK might be able to retake Africa and maybe Sicily, but they will not go beyond Naples in Italy (maybe not even into mainland Italy at all)
-UK will retake Corsica, Sardinia, Crete, and probably some of the islands in the Adriatic as well.
-USSR will win Stalingrad and Moscow but will have major trouble mounting a significant offensive without US trucks, planes, boots, etc.
-Overall, European war drags into 1947-1948 with eventual destruction of Germany and millions more dead in USSR and Europe
-Germans in France and low countries will surrender to UK en masse once Russia crosses the Oder as will much of Italy
-Rhine and Italian-Austrian frontier become the new Iron Curtain, Germany reunited as Communist state (might be made a totally neutral, agricultural country if the Russians are amenable)
-US loses major chance to evolve into a world power and are a strong nation but not nearly what came from OTL
-Loss of GI bill means the "greatest generation" develops much more slowly and US remains among the powers not dominant among them

Overall tech slowed by 2-5 years especially in electronics and nuclear technology is *much* less developed. No atom bomb until the late 1950s or early 1960s and then likely a Russian development.
 

Sabot Cat

Banned
Overall tech slowed by 2-5 years especially in electronics and nuclear technology is *much* less developed. No atom bomb until the late 1950s or early 1960s and then likely a Russian development.

But Project Tube Alloys (the UK nuclear program) began BEFORE Project Manhattan, and the Soviet program was based in part on the UK one.
 

Deleted member 67076

What about Japan? The US might stay strictly neutral in regards to Europe but the moment the Japanese start tooling around in the Pacific something's going to happen. American isolationism, especially at this point in time, was more oriented towards Europe and its seemingly endless struggles. The Pacific was very firmly seen as part of America's sphere of influence and they would respond accordingly to any Japanese attempts to upset that.
Assuming Japan doesn't attack any US territories, the US doesn't do any military action.
 
But Project Tube Alloys (the UK nuclear program) began BEFORE Project Manhattan, and the Soviet program was based in part on the UK one.

Correct. Some estimates suggest the Brits could have produced some sort of atomic weapon circa 1946-47, tho I have not seen the details or logic behind those estimates. When the Brits combined their research with the newly reorganized US project there was not yet a clear plan with the Brits for what sort of device would be built - Plutonium or Uranium, or how the isotopes would be produced. The experiments of 1942, particularly Fermis sucessfull atomic pile experiment, resolved a lot of questions and allowed plans for the industrial plant to go forward. The accounts I have read dont make it clear if the Brits had the critical research underway, or the resources at hand to progress as fast as the US Manhattan Project. They did in paralle to the US build a research/production facility in Canada 1942-1945.
 
I presume that the UK does not finish the weapon before the end of the war and I am not aware of resources available to do so even going into 1947. A UK effort to build one separately from the US will suffer significantly, especially as the US will take the lion's share of the scientists fleeing from Europe. Even with the help of the US the UK did not build their own weapon until 1952, so without the US to kick-start the effort I think that the UK will not be able to build one before the late 1950s. If they dedicate disproportionate amounts of resources to doing so maybe a few years earlier but at the cost of conventional military equipment and maybe some changes in territory controlled at war's end.
 
If the USA are really really neutral, well the most probable outcome is the UK making a white peace with the Nazi with maybe some minor concession to Italy aka somaliland (as the only thing conquered by Mussolini) and concentrate their effort on making the Japanese thing twice before attacking them.
The East Front will be the usual slugfest, the lack of land lease and other distraction for the nazi will be probably partially upseat by the fact that now Stalin has no excuse for not believing in the warning, in the end they will probably repulse the nazi to pre-war position but not much else and they will be in a worse state than OTL.
 
Assuming the US is neutral - no lend lease although "cash and carry" allowed (for either side) then the UK is in big trouble and so is the USSR. The eventual outcome is a stalemate long before 1945 in Europe. The UK & Commonwealth simply do not the the manpower and economies to invade Europe absent the USA, and Sealion is never happening. The UK can win in North Africa, probably some Aegean Islands, maybe Sicily - though that would be the best they can do. At some point there is an armistice, IMHO Hitler will be more than willing to make a deal on that basis with the UK who he never really wanted to fight.

On the Eastern Front, especially after there is an armistice in the west which allows resources to go east, and of course the USSR not getting LL from UK & USA, IMHO you get a settlement similar to Brest-Litovsk. Germany will get to keep Eastern Europe and at least some of Byelorussia & Ukraine. If in this scenario, the Germans/Finns take Leningrad the treaty may cost Russia the Baltic coast.

IMHO the UK won't do VEGETARIAN if things are at a stalemate/armistice, that's not a war winner but a retaliation move. I doubt the UK can have an atomic bomb in 1947 - resources both human and capital are simply not there for them to do it all by themselves that quickly...sooner or later yes but...

As far as the Pacific goes - if the USA is as neutral with respect to Japan/China, then no need for the Japanese to fight to get oil, the Brits & Dutch stopped selling it (as well as the USA) at the urging of the USA. Again, with the USA on the sidelines, Japan can occupy French Indochina, and control if not completely occupy Dutch East Indies - so most of what they need falls in to their hands - no war with UK necessary.
 
Complete neutrality. No lend lease, large scale aid, undeclared naval warfare, nothing. The US doesn't do absolutely anything to favor one side or the other and refuses to involve itself in any other countries problems.

PoD for this: Franklin Roosevelt has a heart attack a few days before the 1940 Democratic convention. He doesn't die, but it is clear that he is not fit for another term as President.

It happens while he is traveling across the country; he is treated at a small-town hospital. FDR tries to cover up, claiming it was only a case of mild food poisoning; the chief attending physician gets mad and blows the whistle. FDR is toast for re-election.)

This throws the convention up for grabs.

NOTE: I have never been able to locate any serious contemporary (from 1940) speculation about who might be the candidate if Roosevelt does not run.


The two men who had declared candidacies while FDR had been playing coy were Vice President John "Cactus Jack" Garner, an elderly conservative, and James Farley, who had been FDR's campaign manager and political fixer (DNC chairman, Postmaster General). Neither had developed any serious support.

Another man had been maneuvering behind the scenes for the nomination, in case FDR withdrew: Sen. Burton Wheeler of Montana. He had even lined up a a campaign committee to back his possible announcement. He was the first and best prepared to jump in. Wheeler was an ardent New Dealer, with a long history of liberal activism. In 1920, as Attorney General of Montana, he publicly refused to collaborate in U.S. Attorney General Palmer's "Red Scare" persecution of socialists and labor organizers. In the 1924 Presidential election, he was "Fighting Bob" Lafollette's running mate on the Progressive ticket.

He had also shown that he would stand up to Roosevelt on principle, when he led opposition to FDR's "court-packing" scheme in 1938.

Wheeler opposed FDR in one other area: he shared the isolationist sentiments common in the Great Plains and upper Midwest, and indeed was more isolationist than most. (Though not all: Wheeler's fellow Montanan, Republican Jeanette Rankin, voted against declaring war on Germany in 1917 and even against Japan in 1941.)

OTL, Wheeler inveighed passionately against Lend-Lease. Alluding to the practice of destroying "surplus crops" under the Agricultural Adjustment Act, he said "The lend-lease-give program is the New Deal's triple-A foreign policy; it wil plow under every fourth American boy" (by getting them killed in foreign wars).

Some in the convention were reluctant to endorse such a controversial figure, but others were attracted by his uncompromising energy. While Garner led on the first ballot, the delegates were deeply split - Garnner had only 209 votes out of 1,093. Farley had only 94. Wheeler had 133. When the convention adjourned after six ballots, Wheeler led with 322. Garner had stalled at 238 votes, and Farley had fallen to 86. The remaining votes were divided among Sen. Millard Tydings, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, former Indiana governor Paul McNutt, House Speaker William Bankhead of Alabama, and some others.

Wheeler had previously offered Farley the VP slot for his support. Farley, seeing that his quest for the nomination was futile, now accepted. He won over several key "city bosses", including Kelly of Chicago and Flynn of the Bronx. Wheeler surged to the nomination over the next two ballots.

The Republicans had nominated businessman and political novice Wendell Willkie. Though Willkie had many strong features, his inexperience hurt him; he made a lot of foolish impromptu statements. Also, he was torn between two forces. The Republican "base" in the Midwest was strongly isolationist. Many "Eastern" Republicans were internationalist, though, and the situation in Europe turned ever more doubtful, with the Battle of Britain followed by the Blitz. Many "Eastern" Democrats were internationalist, and Willkie was urged to take an internationalist stance and win them over - it was thought that this issue would override domestic concerns. Willkie wavered; then allowed some of his surrogates in the east to attack Wheeler's isolationism. This move backfired - alienating Midwesterners without winning Easterners.

Wheeler swept the "Solid South" (though by reduced margins compared to Roosevelt) and the West, and split the Midwest and East, winning with 310 electoral votes to 221 for Willkie.

Wheeler took office in 1941 with an unconditional pledge to keep the U.S. out of war. The U.S. would not aid any other country in any way. U.S. businesses would be strictly prohibited from selling munitions in any form to belligerents, or extending any credit to belligerent countries - their governments or private businesses.

==================

OK, that sets up the condition.

What are the consequences?

First: it puts a squeeze on Britain from the middle of 1941. Britain's financial resources are exhausted; its demands on the Commonwealth nations and the Empire are intensified.

Second: it limits what Britain can send to the Middle East to fight the North African campaign. This doesn't start to bite until Operation BATTLEAXE in June 1941, or maybe later, but it will really hurt by CRUSADER in November 1941. Most likely, the Axis defeats CRUSADER and captures Tobruk.

Third: if the U.S. will be strictly neutral, and Japan knows it, Japan is very likely to seize the European colonies in the "Southern Resource Area": Indochina, Malaya, and the East Indies. With Wheeler as President, that would be clear. Some Americans would be upset, but it's very hard to see how Wheeler could be forced to renounce his very strong convictions by events literally on the other side of the world.

Also bear in mind that by late 1941, Japan was running out of money to pay for oil imports from the U.S., and Wheeler would prevent any sales on credit. So Japan would be driven to attacking south.

Fourth: Once Japan has seized the East Indies, it can expand at will into the South Pacific. There is nothing but distance to stop them. Japan cannot invade and conquer Australia - but Japan can send naval task groups to sail all around Australia, bombarding and strafing at will. There are no warships or warplanes to stop them. Australians will be very angry at their abandonment by the Mother Country, despite sacrifices by their troops in the Middle East. It seems probable to me, that to avoid such Japanese attacks, and gain the release of their PoWs (many would be taken in Malaya), Australia and New Zealand would leave the war and declare neutrality. Under Wheeler, the U.S. would never intervene in affairs 10,000 miles away.

Fifth: After the conquest of southeast Asia, Japan could drive the British fleet out of most of the Indian Ocean, practically blockading India. This would probably lead to a collapse of British authority in India, where Gandhi, Nehru, and the Congress Party were calling for resistance. Japan might not bother; OTOH they don't have much else to do with their fleet, and the British are a continuing nuisance. It's possible that Japan moves into the French base at Diego Suarez in Madagascar; the French won't resist, and it puts a stranglehold on the Indian Ocean.

Sixth: All of this will make it much harder for Britain to maintain its sea communications against U-boats and surface raiders. British food shortages will be increasingly acute, especially in 1942, if as OTL the Germans adopt a secure U-boat cipher.

Seventh: None of the above will have much effect on the Eastern Front between BARBAROSSA and late 1942. However, by that date, the lack of U.S. and British material aid will start to bite. Not much - but at this point the USSR has nothing to spare. The British position in the Middle East will collapse, forcing the USSR to allocate forces there, and freeing Axis forces for the Eastern Front. There will be no Tunisian campaign, freeing even more forces for the East. The Soviet victory at Stalingrad was very costly and difficult. Adding substantial Axis forces would make it even more costly and less decisive - if it is a Soviet victory at all.

Eighth: By mid-1943, Britain will be exhausted. She will have lost half of her overseas possessions and supporters. Food shortages will be severe. Very probably, Germany will renew the "Blitz". It may not be especially effective, with Britain now having radar-guided nightfighters, but London will again be ravaged. Churchill's bravado of 1940 will appear increasingly hollow.

Ninth: By mid-1943, the USSR will be severely strained. The Soviets can still resist Axis attack, but that's all; the Axis will still call the tune in the East, and Soviet losses and shortages will be mounting to crisis levels. There will be no aid - and OTL, by this time, aid was substantial. It replaced much (sometimes all) Soviet production in key areas, freeing labor for other areas or military service. With the USSR essentially on its own, that means fewer shells, fewer tanks, fewer soldiers. A lot fewer - perhaps 25%.

At this point, there is somewhat of a stalemate. The Axis cannot invade Britain, and their own losses and limitations bar any decisive further blow against the USSR, though they can probably make local pushes. But there is very little the Allies can do offensively.

The next likely change is political, with Spain or Vichy France (or both) joining the Axis. There are conflicts between them, but if Spain joins, Vichy France may join to prevent its possessions being given to Spain.
OTL Vichy France actually considered declaring for the Axis in early 1942; with America not in the war and explicitly neutral, and the Axis much more successful, this decision might go the other way.

This would be a calamity for Britain - it would give the Axis control of the African coast from Morocco to Dakar. Gibraltar would be neutralized. Axis navies, augmented by much of the French navy, would disrupt British control of the Atlantic.

Portugal might also join the Axis, again from fear of Spanish ambitions, and also due to the quasi-fascist politics of its regime.

This would leave Britain practically under siege, cut off from all outside support except Canada, with nothing to show for three years of war but nearly continual defeats.

I think at this point either Britain or the USSR or both would try to make peace. Hitler would accept a status quo peace with Britain; with the USSR he might demand some further withdrawals - say from Leningrad and Karelia, plus future tribute of oil, grain, and minerals. Mussolini would want East Africa back, if the Italians haven't recovered it themselves. (I don't think Hitler would bother helping them.) They might manage it if the British forces in the theater collapse as suggested above.

Probably the war ends in mid-1944 with an Axis victory on the lines above, and Japan still bogged down in China.
 
lycan said:
lose China to the Communists just as Chiang did
Superman said:
China probably still goes communist
Why presume this? AIUI, the CCP victory depended a lot on weaps left behind after the Sov invasion of Manchuria, which TTL isn't likely.

Also, the SU was giving more aid to Chiang than Mao, & apparently Stalin didn't trust Mao much. (How much of that was Stalin being more paranoid than Nixon, IDK.:rolleyes:)
M79 said:
UK might be able to retake Africa and maybe Sicily, but they will not go beyond Naples in Italy (maybe not even into mainland Italy at all)
Winston wanted the Italian invasion, stupid as it was, so it's likely to go off anyhow.

Better question is, does Britain even have the shipping to last that long? Where's it coming from? How's she preventing the enormous losses to U-boats?

Yes, she could do it--but that requires a change in Coastal Command & maritime air patrol policy, a shift away from bombing cities.
M79 said:
UK will retake Corsica, Sardinia, Crete, and probably some of the islands in the Adriatic as well.
Just like that, no logistic issues at all?:rolleyes:
M79 said:
European war drags into 1947-1948
That's rather a long time for Britain to hang on against U-boats, when she's considering abandoning convoy in mid-'43.:eek::rolleyes:
M79 said:
Germans in France and low countries will surrender to UK en masse once Russia crosses the Oder as will much of Italy
Just like that?:rolleyes:
M79 said:
US loses major chance to evolve into a world power
Wrong. The U.S. was already a major world power. Once she came out of the Depression, everybody would know it. Even in '39, U.S. GDP was greater than all the other major nations involved in WW2, combined.
M79 said:
Loss of GI bill means the "greatest generation" develops much more slowly and US remains among the powers not dominant among them
Wrong again.

It does mean there's no Baby Boom, which means The Beatles & The Beach Boys & the Stones & Elvis (among others) aren't huge. It probably means no muscle cars & no pony cars. It might mean no NHRA (which depended a lot on returning vets getting together).:eek: It may mean no NASCAR. It means hot rodding & customizing generally are going to be less professional, & lower quality, for much longer: the war trained a lot of mechanics in how to do things with the right tools, & with good machine tools, & a lot of them came back & became rodders & customizers--& racers.

It means no Hell's Angels (same cause: returning vets).:cool::cool:

It almost certainly means no explosion of urban sprawl (with no G.I. Bill). It means segregation persists in the U.S. a great deal longer.

It does mean no Vietnam War (after the French get booted), & no Korean War (& no 50yr division, & no nutty North Korean dictator with nukes:eek::cool::cool:).
M79 said:
Overall tech slowed by 2-5 years especially in electronics
Why? TV is going to happen sooner, tho it might take awhile longer to get popular in the U.S. (with less production of CRTs for the war). It's also going to be harder to get it fixed (fewer radar repair techs).

The microwave oven is likely invented in Britain (or perhaps Canada:cool::p), what with the U.S. not making magnetrons.

Without U.S. Lend Lease, it's likely Canada, Oz, NZ, SAfr, & India are more industrialized.
M79 said:
No atom bomb until the late 1950s or early 1960s and then likely a Russian development.
Not a chance. (Even presuming it takes that long.)
 
Last edited:
Top