Would the conclusion of WW2 have been different in any major way if the UK simply didn't get involved...

Would the conclusion of WW2 have been different in any major way if the UK simply didn't get involved? Seems like it's greatest feats were just surviving until the USA and USSR knocked Germany out.

Yes, Britain was essential to American involvement. The war would have probably stalled out and ended in a ceasefire once Germany could no longer afford a war in the Soviet Union though.

>Japan attacks Pearl Harbor
>Germany declares war on America in soldarity
Britain was a non-factor

Germany would not have allied with Japan if it did not need Japanese navy to tie down Britain.

The USA used Britain as a staging ground for every operation in Western Europe, without it the logistics of the war would have been much more difficult.

Torch was directly from Norfolk.

Not that difficult. The USA was so absurdly powerful that any involvement automatically meant victory, even if some factors might delay it.

and how does america do D-Day without Britain exactly?

>this thread

Without Britain, the Commonwealth and its allies in the war, the Germans would have enjoyed unrestricted control of the Atlantic, a free hand in North Africa to subjugate Free French territory, and nobody would have challenged Japan in Asia until 1941.

Furthermore, no Britain means no RAF bombing campaign on German industry, no logistic support for D-Day, and no contribution from Canadian and British troops in Europe.

Say Britain surrendered or signed a white peace with Germany, you'd be looking at a longer war in the Eastern front, the US completely unable to open a second front in Europe, and ultimately a Soviet victory with Stalin ruling directly or indirectly everything between the Atlantic and the Bering Strait.

>its the argentine roseposter angloboo again
Fuck off Britain was worthless without America not the other way around

>tracking my posts
>being this autistic

what about the north africa campaign?would mussolini have his new roman empire?

It would have been over by 1940.

Separate wars between the USA and Japan and USSR and Germany might have subsequently taken place.

Germany didn't declare war "in solidarity" but because they were already de facto at war in the Atlantic, BECAUSE THE US SUPPORTED THE UK. Without the UK there would have been no reason for the Germans to declare war, and the US could have only invaded from the USSR.
Torch was miniscule compared to Overlord, there was no German resistance to Torch, also without the UK there wouldn't be a North African front.

Germany declared war on the US because they were actively arming Britain, not out of "solidarity with Japan". If Britain is nonbelligerent Germany wouldn't have any reason to declare war on America.
Torch required the British navy and British forces in Africa.

Hitler would never have accepted a ceasefire.

>being this mad because he's right.

Without Britain, it's likely France wouldn't have fought either, and the Nazis could focus on the USSR.

>The USA was so absurdly powerful
this isnt actually true WW2 is an extremely unique time cause before ww2 the usa had about the 17th smallest military in the world it was actually irrelevant

ww2 was a few select countries all vying to establish themselves as world superpowers

at the time britain and germany were the worlds only super powers both of them losing this status at the end of the war and the USSR and USA gaining that status

(1) WW2 (from 1941 onwards) was mainly a war of resources and economies, therefore the US became a superpower with their perfect setting for such a war.
(2) Britain was a superpower before WW2, but Germany wasn't. Germany had a powerful military, but the power projection capabilities (which are a requirement to be considered a superpower) were very limited. Germany had neither the naval strength nor the colonies (bases) that Britain had.

If Britain wasn't in the war then the war would've ended in France, it's hard to have a conflict carry on when there's no war to be fought, the european balance of power and the general British continental strategy would've never allowed for it though, silly thought.

Britain itself was of arguable use, But the contribution of the Empire as a whole, on the African and Western Front is often understated, this was the twilight of the British empire, and in the modern understanding events of history we often consider Britain as the Small island rather than the collective whole of the Empire.

Honestly, all of it is in the end Hitler's fault. Prior to the outbreak of the war, every single European nation had been appeasing Germany. It was simply a matter of time before Hitler did something the UK and the allies couldn't ignore.

I mean, they ignored the Anschluss. They even ignored the invasion of Czechoslovakia, which by all intents and purposes was pure imperialism.

the sole purpose for the UK going to war with germany was simply that they wanted to prove they were the dominant power in europe which they didnt do

now the dominant power in europe is the USA since USSR fell

That might be somewhat true, but thank god they did or we would be living in a very different world today.

The US Navy was pretty far from irrelevant. US air power, both ground based and naval, while hampered by mediocre fighters early on, was quite competent

>this isnt actually true WW2 is an extremely unique time cause before ww2 the usa had about the 17th smallest military in the world it was actually irrelevant
And enough industrial power that it took trivial time and sacrifice to become #1. America could do in a few years what would take an entire generation for almost anyone else.

Would it really be that different? Germany doesn't have direct control over the rest of Europe, but it's influence is very dominant and so far Germany has been able to dictate a lot of internal policy for other European nations. It's a very soft Reich, but essentially the same power dynamic.

Navy wasn't a factor outside the pacific. The Kriegsmarine were tiny.