WI: the US stayed totally neutral in WW2 (Binkov's Battlegrounds)

Fernan3451

Fernan3451


So the military strategy channel Binkov's Battlegrounds uploaded a few days ago a video in which the US was isolationist in its totality (that means no Lend Lease and no sanctions to Japan). So let me give you a brief rundown of the video:
* The UK would be safe from a German invasion, since the Battle of Britain wuld occur as IOTL (since the RAF is overall more powerful than the Luftwaffe).

* While the Lend Lease Act was helpful for the Soviets in getting to defeat Germany, it didn't contribute too much to the Soviet war effort. But without the US's logistical help, the Soviets would not be able to defeat Germany without the US's help, ending the Eastern Front in a stalemate. The British would still send aid to the Soviets though, since it controls the Norwegian Sea and Atlantic Ocean.

* Japan would still attack south (since Khalkin Gol would destroy any chance for an attack north), but the Japanese-Soviet non-agression pact is not signed.

* During the Pacific War without the US, Britain loses even more to Japan than IOTL, with the Japanese taking all of New Guinea and the Solomon Islands, New Zealand, and Ceylon, cutting British lines to Australia, Iran, and the British Raj.

* While the Axis still loses Libya to the British and Free French, without Operation Torch to liberate French Africa from Vichy French control, the Axis maintains presence in Western Africa.

* All parties involved would suffer enormously from the war.

Eventually, a peace treaty is signed, leaving Japan as the main Asian suerpower, a neutral zone created in Eastern Europe, and Germany and Italy dominant on Europe and Africa.

IMO, I think a stalemate is more reasonable than a full-on Axis victory in the case of the US not joininh(Axis victories requires massive amounts of divergences to occur).

With this now explained, what do you think of Binkov's scenario? If possible, how do you think the US can be neutral entirely in WW2?
 
Last edited:

Bellacinos

in this timeline does the US just not even attempt the Manhattan project? Also what’s going on with the Holocaust?
 

Pete55

Bellacinos said:
in this timeline does the US just not even attempt the Manhattan project? Also what’s going on with the Holocaust?
Click to expand...
Probably, though likely slower.

The US Navy was going to be built to the same enormous size as historically due to the two ocean navy act, and the other branches were ramping up as well. It stands to reason that among the spent money will be dollars for fission research.

Regarding the holocaust, things are much more grim. It wasnt US entry that made the nazis decide to eradicate entire ethnicities, and this go around there won't be as swift an end to the war. It's worth noting that the holocaust was close to complete historically, and this TL would add a half million dead Jews, several million others from "bad" ethnicities, and likely eat through a lot more Soviet POWs.

------

Regarding the rest of the war, the UK will be forced to continue fighting on the peripheries. I'd bet that they eventually find success on the Eastern side of North Africa, but I have serious doubts about any operation torch happening, let alone an invasion of sicily, Italy or France.
 

Vabasion

A good analysis but... I don’t see Japan being a dominant power in Asia. Even without US intervention and with total success against Britain and other allies they can’t retain the newly gained colonies. World war just finished, there’s plenty of weapons to go around and they will find way into Indonesian, Vietnamese and other hands. Japan will bleed for decades until it’s bled dry. I don’t see it giving up and pulling out unless forced to. Asian death count may overshadow Europe completely in the coming decades.
 
Admiral Bloonbeard

Admiral Bloonbeard

Vabasion said:
A good analysis but... I don’t see Japan being a dominant power in Asia. Even without US intervention and with total success against Britain and other allies they can’t retain the newly gained colonies. World war just finished, there’s plenty of weapons to go around and they will find way into Indonesian, Vietnamese and other hands. Japan will bleed for decades until it’s bled dry. I don’t see it giving up and pulling out unless forced to. Asian death count may overshadow Europe completely in the coming decades.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, Japan is not a democracy that cares about human lives and public opinion
 

Shevek23

I don't agree in the least that denying the Soviets US LL means they cannot defeat the Reich ultimately. On paper, there might be some possibility of the Reich and USSR agreeing to a truce--but that would require Hitler to have died I think, and is most unlikely anyway.

By the time the tide turned at Stalingrad, the European Axis was on the ropes already, and that happened before a very significant magnitude of LL had made its way to Russian shores. It is kind of silly to say "LL didn't contribute too much to the Soviet war effort," and clearly "Binkov" does not mean to say that anyway since they conclude "The USSR won't be able to destroy the Reich." I'd put it like this: LL clearly did contribute tremendously to the Soviet war effort, but in a fashion such that it hardly proves the Soviets would not win without it. What would happen is, the Soviets, at least as long as Britain does not make a separate peace, would win later.

But once the German drive eastward stalled and was reversed at Stalingrad, momentum was on the Soviet side, Lend Lease or no Lend Lease. Certainly with the British preventing the Axis from being able to trade for world goods or maneuver militarily on the high seas, it became a question of time. But there is no reason for the Soviets to ever make a truce with the Reich, and nothing to stop the Soviets from eventually tearing their way through all resistance the Germans could put up and marching into Berlin--and then, with no Western D-Day army to greet them, keep slogging on to Frankfurt, Hamburg, Mannheim, Strasbourg, Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam. Maybe they mop up by going into Spain (and having dealt with Franco if he doesn't decide to run for it first, if he can, there is nothing to stop them from invading Portugal too).

It might take a long time to get to that point. Conceivably Britain might offer terms to the Reich--but as with the USSR, it is unclear what if anything the British gain by doing that. The Soviets at least would be ending quite painful bloodshed, but by this late phase of the wars, the British would be fairly well insulated. Both nations want to see Hitler dead, I think both will stick it out as long as that is prospect one could hope to be making progress toward.

Meanwhile--the probability the USA really stays out of the war strikes me as practically zero anyhow. Too many powerful Americans have ambitions of world influence, and sitting out the war shuts them out of important decisions. Sooner or later the US will stumble into the war on some pretext or other.
 

Richard V

Even if there is a truce, Germany will run out of petroleum, USSR and the British Empire wont. Not to mention they will run out of other strategic materials like chromium, tungsten, rubber, and low on aluminum. Germany can’t win a long war. A truce costs them time they don’t have.

As for Japan not being a democracy. The Soviets lost in Afghanistan. In this scenario Japan would certainly have the upper hand. But the Soviets would be supplying resistance against Japan in Asia, and whatever America feels about neutrality, it holds too much territory in the western Pacific to remain at peace with Japan indefinitely.
 

Post

Shevek23 said:
I don't agree in the least that denying the Soviets US LL means they cannot defeat the Reich ultimately. On paper, there might be some possibility of the Reich and USSR agreeing to a truce--but that would require Hitler to have died I think, and is most unlikely anyway.
Click to expand...
This.
Meanwhile--the probability the USA really stays out of the war strikes me as practically zero anyhow. Too many powerful Americans have ambitions of world influence, and sitting out the war shuts them out of important decisions. Sooner or later the US will stumble into the war on some pretext or other.
Click to expand...
And this. But it's not just powerful Americans. The average American was very worried after the fall of France and wanted to support the UK (although not by going to war). With elections in 1940, this means that it's ASB that an isolationist president wins the elections. Unless you can avoid the fall of France, but that changes WW2 significantly and means the Entente can most likely win on its own.
 
Vitalian

Vitalian

Eventually, the Soviets would probably run out of manpower to outright push Germany out of Russia proper, as iotl they had to rely on fresh troops from reconquered areas to keep pushing into German occupied areas. That doesn't mean that the Union loses, but they are stuck in a forever war nobody wins. Britain also likely wins in the colonial theaters against Germany and Italy and the British war cabinet would likely launch offensives into Crete, Greece, or Italy to desperately try to prevent a feared German occupied Russia.

If Germany doesn't have her industry systematically destroyed by the Wallies, Germany's in good position to keep on the war for a very long time, as Britain can't invade the continent and Germany keeps slogging it out against Russia.
 

Gingerdave

If the US stays out of the war, the UK Tube Alloys project will continue.

How long before the RAF starts dropping nukes on Germany?
 

Deleted member 2186

Gingerdave said:
If the US stays out of the war, the UK Tube Alloys project will continue.

How long before the RAF starts dropping nukes on Germany?
Click to expand...
Not before 1945, remember the United States put huge amount of resources and people in their atom bomb project, the British one will be smaller as they will also have to focus on keeping the Germans at bay.
 
Gillan1220

Gillan1220

I guess the U.S. would build its military but for hemisphere defense rather than expeditionary warfare. It would take long for the government to know their interests would be threatened especially with the Philippines and Guam right at Japan's doorstep.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top