Could the British Empire have defeated the Third Reich if the USA and USSR had never gotten involved?
No Eastern Front, no Lend-Lease, etc. USSR and USA both mind their own business and trade with both Britain and Germany without playing favorites.
How would WWII turn out?
Other urls found in this thread:
dtic.mil
jmss.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
theguardian.com
twitter.com
I say that while an invasion of the British Isles would still be very unlikely to succede, Britain would have had hard times "alone" in the conflict. Rommel and the italians probably would have taken North Africa, and with that seized control over the Suez canal. Without the murricans the japs could have had concentrated their efforts against Australia and India.
Victory for the brits? Very hard
Complete defeat? Still unlikely
>Could the British Empire have defeated the Third Reich if the USA and USSR had never gotten involved?
Look how they fared in 1940 it'll give you an idea
Stalemate at best with the UK conceding Europe, and many of its territories.
Had Dunkirk happened and the soviets weren't there, and the US weren't aiding.
The war would've ended there.
Although looking back it would've been in hitlers best interest to have never signed the non-agression pact with the Soviets and attacked them first.
Likely GB and the US would not have given two fucks and stayed neutral.
Sounds like a complete defeat if they fail in their objectives to prevent Nazi domination of Europe and lose their empire.
I'd say it's most likely it'd be a German victory but not an unconditional British surrender. If the Americans hadn't favored the Brits in trade the way they did I think the Brits would've toppled eventually, probably on unfavorable terms.
Stalemate.
Britain was unable to get into mainland Europe. Germany was unable to get into Britain.
>Could the British Empire have defeated the Third Reich if the USA and USSR had never gotten involved?
Yes. Literally the greatest threat to the British Empire (other than the Japanese) was the fucking Italians.
The British take:
Total Control of the Sea.
Total Control of their own air space (Germans cannot)
Total Strategic Initiative.
Germany can do nothing while Britain bombs and blockades them.
>USSR and USA both mind their own business and trade with both Britain and Germany without playing favorites.
Without playing favorites? Germany doesn't even make it as far as they got without the Soviets Playing favorites.
The Americans are irrelevant, because they're going to trade with Britain and not Germany because of the blockade.
The Soviets, meanwhile, will trade as they did in OTL until 1941, when they become annoyed that Germany won't pay Denbts.
Meanwhile Britain is free to harass the Germans wherever they pick, and bomb them continuously, while the German economy shits itself.
No.
Assuming the RN scrapped the Italian navy as they did IRL they would have still had to deal with 1) German U-boat production that would seemingly have continued unimpeded and unhindered as the withdrawal of Soviet and US trade would never occur and 2) The IJN which was in some ways ahead of the RN in certain areas (more willing to apply the use of Carriers) and if the US continues to trade with Japan then they would have been able to produce far more ships capable of projecting force as far West as the Indian Ocean.
In short; the RN would have had to have faced both an increasingly large U-boat menace and a Japanese Navy that fielded Carriers effectively.
On land it's not really a question of if the British could defeat the Germans early war, but how long they could fight defensively until the British economy along with the Commonwealth nations began fielding large armies of troops capable of defeating the Axis forces.
At best it would have been a stalemate with Britain acknowledging German hegemony in Europe, which would have inevitably led to another naval race and war.
At worst the RN would have a decisive blow dealt to it in Asia and the ability of the RN to defend British convoys from U-boat attack severely hampered. It would have made the possibility of an 'underwater blockade' of Britain far more likely, as well as the possibility of the British mainland being starved of necessary resources to continue the war against the Germans.
Britain would have bombed Germany into submission. Superior navy and superior air force.
>Germany can do nothing while Britain bombs and blockades them.
Yes, but without an eastern front the Germans have CONSIDERABLY more resources to devote to combating Britain as the years go on. At the very least I'm willing to bet they'd finish Africa off and take Suez, and possibly even threaten India while Britain is stuck on their island.
>Yes, but without an eastern front the Germans have CONSIDERABLY more resources to devote to combating Britain as the years go on.
So what? They can build more tanks that develop rust and can't be fueled?
>At the very least I'm willing to bet they'd finish Africa off and take Suez,
You can't fix supply lines by throwing more shit that needs to be supplied at it. The Germans were never going to reach Alexandria, nevermind Suez.
>and possibly even threaten India
Top fucking kek.
> Rommel and the italians probably would have taken North Africa, and with that seized control over the Suez canal.
You're an idiot. The odds of this happening are virtually zero. Quite simply, the lack of railroads in Libya, and the inability to capture ports intact, means that the DAK has to burn most of its supplies just getting to the front; they were seesawing over Tobruk, they'd never have gotten to the Suez where the British can reinforce almost infinitely and use an actual rail network to bring up supplies.
This is good reading on the subject.
dtic.mil
>Without the murricans the japs could have had concentrated their efforts against Australia and India.
Without the Americans, it's extremely unlikely that Japan would go to war with Britain at all, instead preferring to consolidate their reach in China.
>Stalemate at best with the UK conceding Europe, and many of its territories.
Why would they concede any of their territories, let alone "most" of them?
>Had Dunkirk happened and the soviets weren't there, and the US weren't aiding.
And if Dunkirk "happens" and the French take away the time to reorganize their own line? Or worse, your 50% operational strength panzers get clobbered in the swampy terrain?
You might find this enlightening.
jmss.org
Britain was in no way reliant on U.S. trade to survive; never take back the mainland in Europe, sure, but they were nowhere near "toppling".
>never take back the mainland in Europe
Even that's questionable. A huge part of why the Germans were able to control so much is that everyone they occupied KNEW this thing would be over soon even if they did fuck all. The longer this thing drags out, the more Germany has to either:
1) Make real concessions to the defeated nations, weakening their overall position
or
2) Deal with a restless Europe eager for allies.
>Without playing favorites?
>The Americans are irrelevant, because they're going to trade with Britain
But they wouldn't provide them with tons of free shit. Without American involvement and without the Eastern front, the air war is also going to look completely different.
>no Lend-Lease
Could the British still take out loans from the US? Remember Lend-Lease was signed when the US was still neutral, so Lend-Lease could still occur without America "getting involved" in the war.
>Without American involvement and without the Eastern front, the air war is also going to look completely different.
No, it's not. Industrial Capacity isn't completely fungible. Even when Germany DID have no one but the British to worry about, they didn't even come close in Aircraft production. The British produced 150%-200% the Germans, which doesn't even tell you the whole story because the Germans weren't producing 4 engined bombers.
Not him, but it was more like 130% in total airframes, although you do have a point about the heavy bombers.
And by that time (March of 1941) the Brits had already expended their foreign assets and were severely cash strapped so it changes the question drastically if the UK can't even take out loans from neutral powers. Which is how LL was framed;
>"No act of a neutral power ever contributed more to the defeat of an aggressor."
John G. Winant, US Ambassador to Britain
>And by that time (March of 1941) the Brits had already expended their foreign assets and were severely cash strapped so it changes the question drastically if the UK can't even take out loans from neutral powers.
They can still take out loans without cash (that's the point of the loan), they just need reasonable credit. And the longer the war goes on, the better they'll have compared to the Germans.
Also a handful of pre-LL agreements between allies that didn't necessarily involve the US in the war;
How to you reckon he'd get to Moscow with neutral Poland in his way? via the Baltic States and Romania?
en.wikipedia.org
Of course it's going to look different, the British could have never pulled off a similar strategic bombing campaign in the same manner if they had to battle the full capacities of the German air force without American support. As a result, the total output would have been significantly higher once the Germans switched to war economy; and they would have focused more on aircraft production from the start.
I think this would have led to a patt situation where each side can defend its own air space while bombing enemy soil leads to unsustainably high losses.
>They can still take out loans without cash (that's the point of the loan), they just need reasonable credit.
They can, but they won't get nearly as much as they actually did get from the US because there would be no hope of them being able to pay it back after the war.
There was a British study in 1939 re: the u-boat threat and if the Brits could survive on only domestic food production.
>Before the war, Britain imported half its meat, more than half its cheese and a third of its eggs. Much of the protein in the British diet would therefore be lost if a shipping blockade succeeded. The rationed diet had to provide enough fuel for the long hours in factories and farms needed for the war effort.
>British food production in 1938 became the basis for the experimental diet: one egg a week (a third of the pre-war consumption); a quarter of a pint of milk a day (half the pre-war consumption); a pound of meat and 4oz of fish per week, assuming trawlers would be commandeered for patrols. No butter and just 4oz of margarine. But they could eat as much potato, vegetables, and wholemeal bread as they wanted. The eight guinea pigs would follow this diet for three months.
>The guinea pigs felt fit and well on the ration and could do their usual work. But there were two main difficulties. One was that meals took a long time to eat. Wholemeal bread without butter took ages to chew. The sheer quantity of potato needed to make up calories also took time to eat. All the fibre in the diet caused 250% bigger poos. They measured it.
>The other problem with eating all that starch was the amount of flatus – gas – that it produced. The consequences could be, in Widdowson and McCance's description, "remarkable".
theguardian.com
>250% bigger poos
amazing how the lads were vastly outnumbered but still came out on top. makes me proud to be english really.
>came out on top
The Germans simply didn't attack in force, while the Brits and French desperately tried to evacuate the continent. Hardly a victory, just not a complete disaster.
>The other problem with eating all that starch was the amount of flatus – gas – that it produced. The consequences could be, in Widdowson and McCance's description, "remarkable".
>"remarkable"
KEK! Damn, you just have to love british stoicism, there's no way around it.
Although Germany would have considerably more resources to devote to the campaign against the British empire. If neither the US or USSR are contributing resources then Germany would not have received all the raw materials it obtained under the the 1939 German-Soviet Credit Agreement or as a consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which by August 1940 constituted 50% of Germany's total imports. Britain on the other hand would still have the imports from its Empire.
>Germany can do nothing while Britain bombs and blockades them.
Germany would just bomb and blockade them back. One is an island with meager resources that literally needed American help to survive and the other has the resources and manpower of Europe.
On its own? Read a fucking history book m8
This thread is dumb and you're stupid OP.
That said, no, Britain could not have beaten Germany. Outlast them? Perhaps. Without Lend Lease Africa becomes a lot more iffy, and the food situation in the UK would have been shaky at best. But the Germans had no way to actually force England to peace. At best they could have worn them down due to the U-Boat campaign and achieved success in Africa and Britain would have accepted a lopsided peace whereby the Germans keep what they gained and the British keep the rest of their Empire. But of course the issue the Germans had was they were losing the naval war on the surface and under it. The British would have won the seas slower, but assuredly.
Neither country would be in any position to defeat the other at all.
>before battle of france
Britain could have very well won. Even Fall Gelb was a huge gamble.
>after battle of France
It becomes harder. At best they take North Africa, but I don't see them successfully landing in Europa.
>But the Germans had no way to actually force England to peace
Change of government. Churchill wouldn't be in forever, and the British tired of war even when they were winning. Germany could easily have outlasted them.
nazis pissed off a lot of people. a stalemate would probably not have been the best deal for them.
even if they magically didn't upset USA and USSR they're still a despotism and invader so their territory isn't the most stable and helpful kind.