What would be the effects of US neutrality in WW2?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date
People tend to forget, even here, that it was not just Britian, Germany was fighting the British Empire. The empire had a population of over 450 million. US lend lease made thing easier and quicker. The empire will strike back and the empire will win.
 
People tend to forget, even here, that it was not just Britian, Germany was fighting the British Empire. The empire had a population of over 450 million. US lend lease made thing easier and quicker. The empire will strike back and the empire will win.

I don't buy it. The Empire was not a single political entity and I don't think there is the industrial and financial strength to defeat Germany via invasion or strategic bombing. Japan makes a true-neutral US very difficult to achieve. I don't believe that Japan would assume that the US would remain neutral as it tries to grab the DEI, with the PI sitting across her lines of communication.

So, at a guess, perceiving no hope of US support and not believing that it has the strength to defeat Germany by invasion or by strategic bombing, the UK puts out peace feelers in late 1940/earliest 1941, from a position of relative strength following victory in BoB and in Cyrenaica. Somewhat surprisingly, Germany accepts. I think I have to get Hitler to slap Mussolini into line here, to retreat from Greece in exchange for the return of Cyrenaica, maybe? Some of my dates may be out a bit. A generous (for the UK) peace deal is announced in early 1941 - maybe a German withdrawal from bits of Norway and France, in exchange for their neutrality and no rearmament? Germany's interests lie east, anyway.

Germany plans for Barbarossa. The UK plans for a resumption of hostilities with Germany in the not-too-distant future. Without active war, longer-term plans can be made. No Tizard mission means that all high-tech industrial capacity has to be built in the UK or Canada. Tube Alloys begins a Pu bomb programme (AFAIK, the cheaper but less certain method?), Barnes Wallis designs a high-altitude bomber capable of surviving the experience of dropping it. :rolleyes:

Barbarossa occurs broadly on schedule. Strategic surprise is not achieved because Germany isn't at war and those troops aren't massing there for no reason. Barbarossa is not as damaging as OTL. Realising that a 1942 attack will be necessary, Germany digs in for the winter, although since they're not as far east, logistics is somewhat easier.

By December, Japan has a problem. She has to strike south, she cannot assume that the US will remain neutral with the PI across her communications, and Malaya is much stronger than OTL because of "peace" in Europe and Africa. I still think she attacks PH, with similar results, but the first attack on Malaya is repelled.

That takes us to early 1942. What then? The UK and US are, if not allies, then at least cobelligerents in the war against Japan. But the US isn't interested in Europe, and the UK is too busy dealing with Japan. Is Singapore a defensible base - does it require holding bits of the DEI too? I'd assume that Germany is bogged down in the east for 1942, and very probably 1943 too. What does the UK do? Finish off Japan and wait for Pu bombs in 1945-6, hoping that Germany doesn't win in the east and gain strategic depth? Without a base in a neutral France, how does the UK actually get troops into Germany, even if she wanted to invade? It looks like there'd be a hostile superpower in Europe no matter who wins in the east...
 
People tend to forget, even here, that it was not just Britian, Germany was fighting the British Empire. The empire had a population of over 450 million. US lend lease made thing easier and quicker. The empire will strike back and the empire will win.

The Empire basically bankrupted itself in OTL with the USA in the Allies so to win now just image with the USA truly neutral and 'simply' pretending more money for they goods and not forget that we are not talking about an unified country but a more loose ensemble IRC South Africa almost voted for remain neutral, Australia will be more worried about the Japanese, India will be more troublesome if the UK is seen more weak or just pretend more for continuing give support, etc. etc.
Without the USA the UK and the commonwealth sue for a white peace very soon and adjust to a Nazi dominated Europe and a Korea-like situation in Asia with Japan.
 
Personally I don't see the UK lasting much beyond April / May of 1941 without US oil. Britain I suppose could use every bit of its gold reserves to purchase the high octane fuel the fighters of bomber command relied on to give them the edge in the BoB but then it has to forsake other things such as manufacturing materials and goods or food.

Therefore the British would not hold off the Luftwaffe in the air. After all the primary aim of the Brits in the BoB was to prevent LW dominance in order to give Churchill time to persuade the US to join in. If there is no hope of the US entering the war there is no point for Britian to stay in the war except to restore a bit of pride.

Without the British and Commonwealth troops to threaten his western or southern flanks Hitler is free to commit as many troops as he has to the west. After a year or two he might even get support (unofficially of course) from anti communist volunteers in Britain and America giving him even more troops to combat the Soviets.

As for technology, Hitler can now call on the electronics, nuclear avionics and code breaking skills of the British to help in his war against the Soviets. Germany will get the nuke first and have much better developed jet propelled delivery systems with greater guidance on board.

In the far east the Japonese will carry on their little war against a forgotten China whilst the US sits back and hopes that Japan gets bogged down and leave the Pacific threat to grow smaller and smaller.

After Hitler has crushed the Russians he can have the expansion he desired, the living space he thought he needed and his thoughts can turn to the development of his land, air and sea forces whilst staring across the expanse of water that is the Atlantic formulating his grand invasion plans ...
 
Ian Hathaway wrote:

Personally I don't see the UK lasting much beyond April / May of 1941 without US oil. Britain I suppose could use every bit of its gold reserves to purchase the high octane fuel the fighters of bomber command relied on to give them the edge in the BoB but then it has to forsake other things such as manufacturing materials and goods or food.

Britain had massive oil supplies of its own. Abadan alone produced more than enough to supply Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain - and Abadan represented only 50,000 tons out of total British supplies of 280,000 tons. Britain also took over Dutch oil installations in Aruba and Palembang - and if the US is neutral, the Japanese will be too.
 
One more less obvious effect, the Women's Liberation movement would probably be held back by fifty years, or simply die in the cradle. American women got a taste of independence by proving their competence in fields, factories, offices, even in sports, as in A League of Their Own. Without that opportunity most women would still be automatically discouraged from seeking much more than the traditional ones open to them, ie, secretary, nurse, teacher; the more demanding ones would still be kept for the "deserving men" who presumably had families to provide for.
It would be fairly similar to the segregation issue. A few determined souls would persevere, but most women would still accept their lot as Wife&Mother, there wasn't much else.:(
 
Ian Hathaway wrote:



Britain had massive oil supplies of its own. Abadan alone produced more than enough to supply Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain - and Abadan represented only 50,000 tons out of total British supplies of 280,000 tons. Britain also took over Dutch oil installations in Aruba and Palembang - and if the US is neutral, the Japanese will be too.
Ooops I see I mentioned US oil to start with ... I meant specifically the 100 Octane aviation fuel supplied by the US (I did say that in the second part of my sentence just not in the first ... sorry). This fuel increased the performance of the Spitfire and Hurricane by 10% or so over the usual 87 Octane fuel.

And for some reason I also said the fighters of bomber command ... *must engage brain before fingers start a tapping*
 
One more less obvious effect, the Women's Liberation movement would probably be held back by fifty years, or simply die in the cradle. American women got a taste of independence by proving their competence in fields, factories, offices, even in sports, as in A League of Their Own. Without that opportunity most women would still be automatically discouraged from seeking much more than the traditional ones open to them, ie, secretary, nurse, teacher; the more demanding ones would still be kept for the "deserving men" who presumably had families to provide for.
It would be fairly similar to the segregation issue. A few determined souls would persevere, but most women would still accept their lot as Wife&Mother, there wasn't much else.:(

WW2 gets way too much credit for revolutionizing views on race and woman in America. It certainly helped in a number of ways, but the movements of the 1960s and 70s would at best have been delayed a bit without it. The greatest force for the promotion of woman's equality and breaking down segregation in American and in recent years breaking down negative views on homosexuality is the TV IMHO.
 
Churchill was able to convince the British Cabinet to fight on in 1940 because he offered an alternative to making peace with the Nazis , namely to wage war, with the aim of bringing the USA in on the UK's side. If there was no hope of the USA entering the war, then the peace option would probably have been taken up. Even if the UK had fought on, the British war effort would have been seriously curtailed by the end of 1940 due to the reduction of our gold reserves.Basically, without America's economic help, Britain would cease to pose a serous threat to Hitler by the end of 1940.
 
After Hitler has crushed the Russians he can have the expansion he desired, the living space he thought he needed and his thoughts can turn to the development of his land, air and sea forces whilst staring across the expanse of water that is the Atlantic formulating his grand invasion plans ...

Or he would focus on building his grand capital city thus crashing the German economy... either way a truly neutral U.S. is a prescription for the UK leaving the war by late 1940 to early 1941 and the German economy and war machine with world markets opened up to her, no Lend Lease to the Soviet Union and the German economy and military entirely focused on one front lets just say they are going conquer quite a lot of the USSR. If Stalin manages to hold the line somewhere and bleeds Hitler into something short of taking half the Soviet Union it will be a success in my view for Stalin under the circumstances.
 
Or he would focus on building his grand capital... either way a truly neutral U.S. is a prescription for the UK leaving the war by late 1940 to early 1941 and the German economy and war machine with world markets opened up to her, no Lend Lease to the Soviet Union and the German economy and military entirely focused on one front lets just say they are going conquer quite a lot of the USSR. If Stalin manages to hold the line somewhere and bleeds Hitler into something short of taking half the Soviet Union it will be a success in my view for Stalin under the circumstances.

It's hard to say how well Germany would do in the east, because it's unlikely that an alt-Barbarossa would achieve the same degree of strategic surprise as OTL, assuming that a peace deal is reached between the UK and Germany. Plus it's likely that the UK would send some materiel to the USSR. But whatever happens, it'll still be a brutal slog in the east.
 
People tend to forget, even here, that it was not just Britian, Germany was fighting the British Empire. The empire had a population of over 450 million. US lend lease made thing easier and quicker. The empire will strike back and the empire will win.

How are we playing Japan on this one. With the US out, are we supposed to build an alternate WW2 were Japan still attacks in the Pacific, but going after everything but the US?
 
There are two ways to interpret the phrase 'Strict Neutrality'

1) The path taken by the U.S. in 1939 - Sales are available on a 'cash and carry' basis. This was quickly bankrupting the British. If every purchase required hard currency the British reserves og gold and exchangeable foreign currency (Primarily dollars) were being exhausted. The British had a hard time making up for the drain of reserves since most industry that would normally be producing goods for export had converted to war production. On top of that the losses of shipping due to submarine and raider attacks as well as the inefficiensies of convoys was causing a shortage of merchant ships that British shipyards could not make up. The losses of 'small ships' (Destroyers, sloops and other escort vessels) was also becoming critical and the shortage of such vessels was making the proper escort of convoys difficult.

Without 'liberal credit' (Which is what Lend Lease was especially in the early days) Britain would not have been able to continue the purchase of munitions, including the planning and purchase of ships.

2) If the U.S. took a path reminiscent of Jefferson's Embargo of the early 1800s there would not be as much of a credit crunch simply because the U.S. supplliers would be prohibited from selling to belligerents. In this case the British would simply be short of supplies.

I don't see a quarantine being successful. There would be too much pressure from American business to be allowed to sell to anyone who could take delivery.
 
Last edited:
But Project Tube Alloys (the UK nuclear program) began BEFORE Project Manhattan, and the Soviet program was based in part on the UK one.

The British were doing research but the actual production of Atomic Weapons was a huge industrial undertaking. I believe the U.S. was the only nation that had the extra capacity to throw into the effort required. The U.S. attacked the problem on 4 fronts

Two different methods of purifying nuclear material each requiring HUGE amounts of electricity that was only available because of the prior building of the TVA and Columbia River power projects. Then there was the building of the bomb itself in New Mexico

And finally the development of a delivery system (The B-29) that diverted a great amount of aircraft engineering capacity from other programs.

I would like to believe that the Soviets had the capacity to divert the resources needed for such a project but given the disruption of their European production base I don't think they had the SPARE capacity for such a project.

The British had too much of their industrial base concentrated in the British Isles where damage from German attacks and being at the end of a dangerous supply chain would make it difficult to divert the resources. Canada, South Africa, and the rest of the Empire could help but I do not believe had the infrastructure in place to begin the industrial work until the infrastructure (mainly power generation) was in place
 
Churchill is still PM of the United Kingdom; they're going to fight Germany as long as he's running the show. But Churchill faced a vote of no confidence in 1942 over his conduct of running the war, he's not invincible and while he's likely to going to look good after rallying the country in 1940, he's got to win in North Africa or he's probably out.

The DAK could get rolled into Tunisia in 1943, but there would still be French ports to supply them and there might well be an ongoing campaign instead of the mass encirclement in OTL. Sicily would be a stretch when Rommel and company could potentially withdraw into Algeria instead of being encircled.

We forget, also, that Churchill wanted to invade in Greece. That plan goes forward, and while it might succeed, it probably rules out landing in Italy.

The Soviets are in real trouble here. With the UK in the war, they can probably hold on in a disadvantagous draw, but they need the vast resources of Lend-Lease to launch the great encirclements they used to destroy the Wehrmacht. More sane leaders than Hitler could probably beat Stalin given his economic advantages, and that would be a worst case scenario for the Soviet Union--if Hitler dies around 1946, and the war has been a draw deep inside their territory, this is probably dooming.

The UK probably clears North Africa by 1944, aims for Greece and Yugoslavia. Something like Operation Jupiter--landing in Norway--might well be tried and lead to Churchill's ouster. A Truce with Hitler is unlikely, given that he's dishonorable scum. A deal post-Hitler with whoever replaces Churchill isn't out of the question, but would probably mean making real concessions to the Brits. Not impossible, but not likely either.

If there is no peace of exhaustion, I think Germany wins if Nazi Germany outlives Hitler. This is tied mostly to economics--Germany is sitting on the Ukraine and might get more. If Germany loses, its going to be Hitler losing it.
 
Winston wanted the Italian invasion, stupid as it was, so it's likely to go off anyhow.

That does not mean it will be successful. Even if it is there will be great difficulty moving past a Foggia-Naples line, the terrain in Italy above that favors defense

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?

Britain was working on ASDIC systems and other anti-sub programs from early in the war. Besides, US ships might still be able to carry goods to the UK or via a neutral but pro-Allied Ireland.

Just like that, no logistic issues at all?:rolleyes:

UK has a better navy and the war will drag on for years. IF they can take North Africa and hold Malta, their naval supply routes to Crete, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and elsewhere would be open.

Just like that?:rolleyes:

Given the choice between the Russians and Allies with no hope of an alternative? I'd say yes.

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.

Respectfully disagree. The massive mobilization of World War II had profound effects on the US economy and it was still in the midst of recovery when war broke out. If a strict neutrality is in place and the UK is forced to upscale her industrial capacity elsewhere, the dominance enjoyed by Washington in the post-war years will not be present - she will be one power among many. Also without the GI bill many of her best and brightest will remain locked into whatever parts of the country they came from without the massive demographic changes noted during the war.

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.

There were muscle cars involving '32 Fords well before WWII and gangsters were certainly customizing automobiles, even FDR used one of Capone's cars at one time. And NASCAR was built on the premise of moonshiners racing hotrods, so the timeline may change but it's not going away. Otherwise changes will be significant and diverse.

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

Is that a bad thing?

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.

Concur.

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).
TV is a pre-war technology

Without U.S. Lend Lease, it's likely Canada, Oz, NZ, SAfr, & India are more industrialized.

That is going to take time, and in the interim the UK will suffer greatly. You could see Henry Kaiser contracted to build shipyards for Canada's East Coast though...

Not a chance. (Even presuming it takes that long.)

Russia will want it and the Germans will pursue it. Even with the US involved the UK did not produce a bomb until 1952 and the USSR certainly benefitted directly from US technology/personnel. If the war ends in 1947 the funding will be for rebuilding, and development of such a system will slow down significantly. At best I think the Russian might get it in 1955 *if* the are willing to devote disproportionate resources to it in the midst of reconstruction, if the war goes into 1946 or 1947 then how many more Russians are dead? And how many more fields/industries have to be rebuilt?
 
Probably some ugly stalemate in Europe as Britain, Germany and Russia all gear up for the shitfest that will be round two.
 
Last edited:
TV is a pre-war technology

Yep. See the 1939 move Raffles, starring David Niven as the "amateur cracksman" and star cricketer. In one scene, two Scotland Yard bosses discuss the latest exploit of the mystery jewel thief. Who can he be? Then they turn on the TV to watch the big cricket match at Lord's - with Raffles bowling.
 

katchen

Banned
I think if the Russians truly became desperate for manpower, say Hitler takes Moscow and Stalingrad and the Caucasus,in the interest of saving Marxist-Leninism Stalin would ask Mao and the Chinese Communists for reinforcements--and likely get them. It might well mean admission of Communist China (in 1942, mostly Shensi and possibly Shansi with expansion to Kansu and Central Asia--more as Mao uses Russian weaponry against Chiang Kai Shek, likely defeating him--how could Chiang last against Mao without continuing American support--while remaining neutral when it comes to Japan if possible. Chinese support would eventually turn the tide against Hitler with armies led by Lin Piao and P'eng Teh Huai, but by then, Mao would be on the Politburo of the USSR and Stalin's heir apparent.
If the UK continued the fight against Hitler, without Roosevelt restraining Churchill, the British would use chemical weapons in a wide variety of applications. Churchill never had any problems with using chemical weapons. It was Roosevelt and the threat of losing Lend-Lease that restrained Churchill.
But that is a big if. Most likely, without having a credible way of bringing the US to the fight, the UK would make peace with Hitler. :(
And if a multiracial USSR, with China swept past the USSR's old western border into Poland, Hungary, maybe Italy, for both the UK and the US, peace with Hitler might well turn into alliance with Hitler. Because if there is one thing that would frighten both the British and Wall Street it would be the prospect of a Communist Eurasian continent. :eek::eek:
 
King Augeas said:
I don't think there is the industrial and financial strength to defeat Germany via invasion or strategic bombing.
If Britain continues to follow the OTL path, maybe not. In changed conditions, however, why do the Brits stick to the same solutions?:confused:

Britain lacked the industrial & manpower capacity to achieve victory by city-bombing, & to survive U-boats with OTL A/S. So, what does she do? What can she do instead?

Two simple changes: basing Stirlings in Newfoundland cut losses to U-boats quite dramatically. Switching to mining of rivers & canals, bombing of canals, & bombing of railyards, cuts bomber & crew losses to nearly nothing, & creates chaos in Germany's power grid, weapons production, & weapons/equipment delivery, in a matter of weeks.

Enough change to defeat Germany? IMO, more than enough.
King Augeas said:
UK puts out peace feelers in late 1940/earliest 1941, from a position of relative strength following victory in BoB and in Cyrenaica
With Winston as PM, I really doubt it.

If it's somebody else, tho, this could just happen. And I think Hitler would go along.
King Augeas said:
Tube Alloys begins a Pu bomb programme (AFAIK, the cheaper but less certain method?)
The uranium (Thin Man) design was easier, simpler, & more reliable. The implosion design (Fat Boy) was much more likely to fail:eek:--& needed plutonium, which is harder to make...:eek:
King Augeas said:
[Japan] has to strike south, she cannot assume that the US will remain neutral with the PI across her communications, and Malaya is much stronger than OTL because of "peace" in Europe and Africa. I still think she attacks PH, with similar results
I find this likely, but it could happen Japan gambles the U.S. will stay out & leaves the P.I. alone. In that event...
King Augeas said:
The UK and US are, if not allies, then at least cobelligerents
...the U.S. will inevitably enter the war against Germany, because the U.S. knew Germany was the greater threat, & Hitler planned to attack the U.S. eventually.
King Augeas said:
how does the UK actually get troops into Germany
Why do you presume the Free French won't still want the country liberated?:confused::confused:
Ian Hathaway said:
Personally I don't see the UK lasting much beyond April / May of 1941 without US oil. Britain I suppose could use every bit of its gold reserves to purchase the high octane fuel the fighters of bomber command relied on to give them the edge in the BoB but then it has to forsake other things such as manufacturing materials and goods or food.
There's also Venezuela, & Western Canada...

I agree, the U.S. had the know-how to produce 100 octane. This is cheap to get, compared to all the other stuff Britain can source elsewhere. (Or she could get it from {patriotic} Canadian subsidiaries of U.S. petro companies...:p)

As for gold, a lot of that was because Winston chose to give away radar & other tech with no licence fees. Plus South African gold could cover expenses... Plus Canada (at least) was willing to just give the Mother Country stuff.

Add a change in approach...

That's without considering what Free France is doing...:rolleyes: It seems possible (if a bit unlikely) there's a deal for Free France to buy weapons & gear & "Lend Lease" it to Britain. (That does need Winston not to treat de Gaulle like a lapdog,:rolleyes: which may be ASB.:p)

bsmart said:
The British were doing research but the actual production of Atomic Weapons was a huge industrial undertaking. I believe the U.S. was the only nation that had the extra capacity to throw into the effort required. The U.S. attacked the problem on 4 fronts

Two different methods of purifying nuclear material each requiring HUGE amounts of electricity that was only available because of the prior building of the TVA and Columbia River power projects. Then there was the building of the bomb itself in New Mexico
Why do you presume the Brits take the same Cadillac approach, rather than going with a single-track uranium bomb program?:confused::confused:

As for electric power, Canada's hydro could be upgraded quite a bit, even if a major hydro project wasn't done to support the Bomb. (I'm thinking of Kemano in particular, which was in development before war started; there may be others.)
bsmart said:
delivery system (The B-29)
A bomber that had to deliver a 12000 pd load from Saipan... The Lanc could already deliver more than that to Berlin. More engine power & higher altitude performance would be useful; add jet pods & pressure cabin?
M79 said:
Britain was working on ASDIC systems and other anti-sub programs from early in the war.
And you think I don't know this why?:rolleyes: It wasn't helping against U-boats much OTL, especially since they mostly operated on the surface.
M79 said:
Besides, US ships might still be able to carry goods to the UK or via a neutral but pro-Allied Ireland.
Which they didn't OTL. And if they're carrying war material, U-boats can still sink them.:rolleyes:
M79 said:
UK has a better navy
You haven't demonstrated any improvement over OTL.:rolleyes: Indeed, TTL RN is denied U.S.-built corvettes & DEs.
M79 said:
their naval supply routes to Crete, Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, and elsewhere would be open.
Which presupposes the ships aren't being slaughtered by U-boats the Brits don't have enough escorts to stop.:rolleyes:
M79 said:
The massive mobilization of World War II had profound effects on the US economy
Which doesn't change the fundamental statement: the U.S., in a depressed state, still outproduced all the others combined.:rolleyes:
M79 said:
the dominance enjoyed by Washington in the post-war years will not be present
Britain will be burdened with enormous war debt, plus the need to rebuild & retool. The U.S., untouched, won't.
M79 said:
without the GI bill many of her best and brightest will remain locked into whatever parts of the country they came from
This much is true.
M79 said:
There were muscle cars involving '32 Fords
No, there weren't. There were custom-built hot rods. A muscle car is a factory package: large engine, small (relatively:rolleyes:) car. This was a product of Delorean at Pontiac, in response to the Baby Boom. It does not happen without the Boom. At best, you get the likes of the Chrysler 300, & even that, without the War, I'm dubious happens.
M79 said:
NASCAR was built on the premise of moonshiners racing hotrods
:rolleyes: I am so sick of the "NASCAR was made up entirely of moonshiners".:rolleyes: Yes, there were racers. Yes, NASCAR had some shinerunners (tuners for stock cars). Would both those things still converge TTL?
M79 said:
Is that a bad thing?
:rolleyes: That's a bit like asking if the Mafia is a bad thing.:rolleyes:
M79 said:
TV is a pre-war technology
Which didn't become commonplace until the '50s...
M79 said:
in the interim the UK will suffer greatly
So you do or don't think ASDIC & lack of escorts harms Britain's chances?:confused::confused:
M79 said:
You could see Henry Kaiser contracted to build shipyards for Canada's East Coast though...
There were yards. They needed expanding. An expansion in St John's or St John, so there was a repair yard for escorts near the departure point (instead of having to sail all the way to Halifax:rolleyes:) would have been a good idea.

I'm also not sure why you think Canada was incapable of building shipyards without Kaiser.:rolleyes:
M79 said:
Even with the US involved the UK did not produce a bomb until 1952
After the U.S. actively interfered with Britain's efforts...
M79 said:
If the war ends in 1947
Fat chance.

And this is presuming Britain doesn't start a Bomb project during the war. Frankly, I doubt that, so a start is going to be even later. If it is, the Sov program will be later, too. And that presumes it survives the death of Stalin--or gets started at around the same time, with the SU doing much worse in the war...:rolleyes:
 
Top