WW2: What could the British do if the USSR was defeated and the US remained neutral?

[Look More Closely Later]

In this scenario the US doesn't enter WW2 and the Germans reach the Ural mountains. This leaves the UK as the only enemy of the Reich.
Can the British do anything in this scenario? Would they accept peace or just keep fighting in Africa and maybe harass the Kriegsmarine.
I imagine the Germans will start preparations for an amphibious assault, but it will take years.

Churchill himself put it to Roosevelt in writing in December 1940 that the UK was powerless without major allies when it came to defeating Germany:

...The form which this war has taken, and seems likely to hold, does not enable us to match the immense armies of Germany in any theatre where their main power can be brought to bear. We can however, by the use of sea-power and air-power, meet the German armies in regions where only comparatively small forces can be brought into action. We must do our best to prevent the German domination of Europe spreading into Africa and into Southern Asia. We also have to maintain in constant readiness in this Island armies strong enough to make the problem of an oversea invasion insoluble. For these purposes we are forming as fast as possible, as you are already aware, between fifty and sixty divisions. Even if the United States were our ally, instead of our friend and indispensable partner, we should not ask for a large American expeditionary army. Shipping, not men, is the limiting factor, and the power to transport munitions and supplies claims priority over the movement by sea of large numbers of soldiers...

'Lend-Lease' chapter, The Second World War, Volume II, Winston Churchill. (1951 reprint society edition.)
(There was a lot of 'the shipping losses situation in the Atlantic is getting critical' later in the same letter, too.)

Edit:
Apologies. Didn't see this was a necromanced thread, dead for half a year.

 

[BELFAST]

The Germans will spend the next 20 years bringing the infrastructure in the east up to German standards to exploit the land and resources there.
Meanwhile mega civil engineering projects and fascist economics bankrupt Germany.
The British soon run out of money and may come to terms.
This becomes a cold war scenario with neither side being able to do much to the other.

 

[BlueTrousers]

Meanwhile mega civil engineering projects and fascist economics bankrupt Germany.
The British soon run out of money and may come to terms.

This, of course, amounts to 'whoever runs out of money first, loses' - which is often the cause of the fall of an empire.

 

[Dave Howery]

this is a scenario we've looked at before, and IMO, it seems to come down to what Japan does. If they are hostile to the UK or even act threateningly, then the UK will be forced to leave a lot of troops and ships over in the far east. If Japan is mostly benign, then the UK has more options. Outside of that.... the UK and Germany have some problems actually defeating the other. Germany doesn't really have the means to force a Channel crossing (and the UK/RN will never let them get enough superiority at sea to let them), and the UK doesn't really have the 'oomph' needed to invade the Continent. What goes on in North Africa might be more interesting than it OTL....

 

[Garrison]

this is a scenario we've looked at before, and IMO, it seems to come down to what Japan does. If they are hostile to the UK or even act threateningly, then the UK will be forced to leave a lot of troops and ships over in the far east. If Japan is mostly benign, then the UK has more options. Outside of that.... the UK and Germany have some problems actually defeating the other. Germany doesn't really have the means to force a Channel crossing (and the UK/RN will never let them get enough superiority at sea to let them), and the UK doesn't really have the 'oomph' needed to invade the Continent. What goes on in North Africa might be more interesting than it OTL....

Problem with North Africa is that the British are far better positioned to support force in the theatre than the Germans. Defeating the USSR does nothing to improve the logistical issues of the Afrika Korps as the bottleneck is transport rather than supplies as such. The British will also focus hard on eliminating the Regia Marina and of course Bomber Command will get free reign. And of course the idea of a truly neutral USA is even more fanciful than the Nazis defeating the USSR, a ceasefire? Maybe.

 

[BELFAST]

This, of course, amounts to 'whoever runs out of money first, loses' - which is often the cause of the fall of an empire.

Indeed.

 

[BELFAST]

this is a scenario we've looked at before, and IMO, it seems to come down to what Japan does. If they are hostile to the UK or even act threateningly, then the UK will be forced to leave a lot of troops and ships over in the far east. If Japan is mostly benign, then the UK has more options. Outside of that.... the UK and Germany have some problems actually defeating the other. Germany doesn't really have the means to force a Channel crossing (and the UK/RN will never let them get enough superiority at sea to let them), and the UK doesn't really have the 'oomph' needed to invade the Continent. What goes on in North Africa might be more interesting than it OTL....

true.
With the German victory over the soviet union maybe turkey might decide to join in on the axis side to get back some of the old ottoman empire.
plus there could be rebellions in the Arab countries the British control.

 

[BELFAST]

this is a scenario we've looked at before, and IMO, it seems to come down to what Japan does. If they are hostile to the UK or even act threateningly, then the UK will be forced to leave a lot of troops and ships over in the far east. If Japan is mostly benign, then the UK has more options. Outside of that.... the UK and Germany have some problems actually defeating the other. Germany doesn't really have the means to force a Channel crossing (and the UK/RN will never let them get enough superiority at sea to let them), and the UK doesn't really have the 'oomph' needed to invade the Continent. What goes on in North Africa might be more interesting than it OTL....

even if the Germans could cross the channel, what would they do with Britain?
It needs food imports from the empire to feed itself and needs oil imports too from overseas that will not be coming.
A cannot see it being worth the effort even if it was possible.

 

[Horton229]

It is hard to see Britain stopping. I see a few 'requirements':
1. No Hitler. Not sure who 'might' be trusted, but not Hitler
2. The fighting needs to stop before Pearl Harbour - if the US are in the war, Britain is not stopping
3. The Soviets need to be 'defeated' or at least in a worst state than OTL to prompt Britain to consider terms
4. Any treaty needs to be 'generous' to Britain

Any semblance of a Soviet state east of the Urals will support partisans in the occupied areas. They can also likely expect covert support from Britain and the US.
The Germans would have to expend significant resources keeping occupied areas 'safe' so they can utilise the resources. Suspect the Caucasus would be a priority for oil, grain etc. with much of the rest ignored due to resource constraints.
Britain will rebuild, and Tube Alloys will proceed. However, this is not quite the panacea some appear to think. In the early days of nuclear weapons, they were not the megaton city-busters of today, but 'low' yield weapons which were all but custom built. It will be many years before Britain has a large nuclear arsenal.

 

[thaddeus]

the Nazis could back the Vichy regime over the Japanese operations in Indochina, revive their (German) cooperation with China, not sure the outcome but it seems a definitive break with Japan.

this is a scenario we've looked at before, and IMO, it seems to come down to what Japan does. If they are hostile to the UK or even act threateningly, then the UK will be forced to leave a lot of troops and ships over in the far east. If Japan is mostly benign, then the UK has more options.

in trying to plot a scenario where the US remains neutral, my speculation is the Nazi regime has dealings with Vichy France and KMT China, which does not equate to Germany and the US being allies but at least better than recruiting Japan into the Axis?

With the German victory over the soviet union maybe turkey might decide to join in on the axis side to get back some of the old ottoman empire.

there is almost no worse scenario than historical where the Germans involved themselves and the Vichy regime in the Iraqi coup, but only enough to cost France control over Syria-Lebanon, which in turn made a big impression on Turkey and how much support they could expect from the Axis if they involved themselves in the war.

absent that fiasco, seems likely Turkey would join the Axis, they wouldn't need to project forces into the USSR, just serve as a staging area for German forces, police the oil pipeline to Batumi, etc.?

 

[Hugh Third of Five]

Neither condition is very plausible and TBH Lend-Lease is pretty much a certainty under FDR.

Even if FDR lost, Lend-Lease would still happen, assuming he got defeated by his OTL opponent, Wendell Wilkie. Wilkie despised Hitler.

This scenario does not seem very plausible to most on the forum.

Would an isolationist President put the same sanctions on Japan that triggered their attack on the USA? Without US support Britain probably wouldn't cut off supplies of rubber, oil etc. from its colonies.

As for Japan, since Wilkie was a Sinophile, he would almost certainly sanction Japan and might actually pursue a Pacific first strategy. That could mean US troops fighting alongside Brits in Burma to open the supply route to China. I don't think you can get an isolationist to win unless you avert the fall of France.

 

[psteinx]

Napoleon achieved, sporadically, domination of continental Europe, but was unable to defeat Britain, and eventually made enough enemies, such that he was taken down.

Hitler perhaps follows a similar course. How many non-German Europeans can a finite # of Germans put the jackboot to, and keep it there?

 

[Ordinary]

Does Britain have the air force needed to pull off Operation Vegetarian? For some context, Operation Vegetarian was a mass anthrax attack against Germany planned for 1944. The strike would do so by dropping up to 5 million infected cattle cakes on German farmland, infecting cattle and other livestock with extremely lethal anthrax. This disease would spread to humans and kill millions of Germans due to starvation and plague. If Britain can end Germany with anthrax, they either win the war or become victim to a desperate German anthrax counterstrike.

 

[brunohusker]

I think we would see Britain hold out, but with defense resources from the US, who is neutral but is more supportive of Britain. I think you’d see low key help on building air raid defense systems and and help with the Navy and Air Force but nothing more.

As such, Britain is essentially always under threat. Hitler hopes to bomb them into submission or surrender and if Britain is basically holed up, they might just do it by 1945 when Churchill is out. A treaty is then signed in neutral Switzerland, creating a greater German Reich, rump nazi states in France, Scandinavia , and the rest of Europe.

If this happen, Britain will want to consolidate what dominions and possessions it has. I could see them invading Ireland or at least trying to install a neutral but very anti-nazi government if possible, and also try to keep SouthAfrica in the fold as many Afrikaners might feel it better to ally with the Germans. Indii is a might see harsh reprisals against their independence movements as well.

 

[marktaha]

Conquering and occupying Russia-big place.Would take a lot of men to occupy.

 

[sparky42]

I think we would see Britain hold out, but with defense resources from the US, who is neutral but is more supportive of Britain. I think you’d see low key help on building air raid defense systems and and help with the Navy and Air Force but nothing more.

As such, Britain is essentially always under threat. Hitler hopes to bomb them into submission or surrender and if Britain is basically holed up, they might just do it by 1945 when Churchill is out. A treaty is then signed in neutral Switzerland, creating a greater German Reich, rump nazi states in France, Scandinavia , and the rest of Europe.

If this happen, Britain will want to consolidate what dominions and possessions it has. I could see them invading Ireland or at least trying to install a neutral but very anti-nazi government if possible, and also try to keep SouthAfrica in the fold as many Afrikaners might feel it better to ally with the Germans. Indii is a might see harsh reprisals against their independence movements as well.

They already had that in Ireland throughout the war, invading would only have meant having to use up troops on garrison duties.

 

[Garrison]

Even if FDR lost, Lend-Lease would still happen, assuming he got defeated by his OTL opponent, Wendell Wilkie. Wilkie despised Hitler.

A lot of people assume Roosevelt helped the British because he was an Anglophile, he did it because it was in the USA's strategic interest to see Britain stay in the war and avoid Nazi hegemony over Europe. especially if the worst came to the worst and they got hold of the Royal navy and/or British colonies in the Caribbean. The latter probably would have happened for any German strategic gain, just Goering wanting a nice holiday home.

 

[Garrison]

I think we would see Britain hold out, but with defense resources from the US, who is neutral but is more supportive of Britain. I think you’d see low key help on building air raid defense systems and and help with the Navy and Air Force but nothing more.

As such, Britain is essentially always under threat. Hitler hopes to bomb them into submission or surrender and if Britain is basically holed up, they might just do it by 1945 when Churchill is out. A treaty is then signed in neutral Switzerland, creating a greater German Reich, rump nazi states in France, Scandinavia , and the rest of Europe.

If this happen, Britain will want to consolidate what dominions and possessions it has. I could see them invading Ireland or at least trying to install a neutral but very anti-nazi government if possible, and also try to keep SouthAfrica in the fold as many Afrikaners might feel it better to ally with the Germans. Indii is a might see harsh reprisals against their independence movements as well.

You make the flawed assumption of assuming that the mythology of Churchill somehow keeping Britain in the war singlehanded is true. Churchill got the job of PM because Parliament and the country wanted a PM who would prosecute the war more effectively. And if comes to a competition for who can bomb the enemy into submission my money is on Bomber Command, not that I believe that either side could achieve that goal.

 

[Horton229]

You make the flawed assumption of assuming that the mythology of Churchill somehow keeping Britain in the war singlehanded is true. Churchill got the job of PM because Parliament and the country wanted a PM who would prosecute the war more effectively. And if comes to a competition for who can bomb the enemy into submission my money is on Bomber Command, not that I believe that either side could achieve that goal.

Whilst I agree no Churchill does not mean surrender, I wonder if another leader would have been as inspirational.
If the USSR collapses before Pearl Harbour, it might appear to a less bellicose leader that Britain is alone, and terms (NOT surrender) make sense to allow regeneration of the armed forces, and perhaps Tube Alloys to proceed.

I also agree it is not possible to bomb a country into submission, at least conventionally. In a situation where one side has a stockpile of large nuclear weapons (i.e., >100kT), I think it is not only possible, but inevitable.

 

[Garrison]

Whilst I agree no Churchill does not mean surrender, I wonder if another leader would have been as inspirational.
If the USSR collapses before Pearl Harbour, it might appear to a less bellicose leader that Britain is alone, and terms (NOT surrender) make sense to allow regeneration of the armed forces, and perhaps Tube Alloys to proceed.

I also agree it is not possible to bomb a country into submission, at least conventionally. In a situation where one side has a stockpile of large nuclear weapons (i.e., >100kT), I think it is not only possible, but inevitable.

But there are no terms. Hitler's supposed peace plan was nothing more than incoherent rambling that simply revealed that he completely misunderstood the British strategic goals. And let's not forget he was completely untrustworthy.