Can anyone provide any good threads or other material on what might have happened if the US never came to the UK's aid...

australia is busy fighting the japanese and india isn't invading europe

how do you propose the empire ships over these planes and resources when germany can intercept these shipments

They still both produce resources and generalized economic output which aids things in the UK.

See the above link in post Germany's ability to intercept convoys is grossly overstated. U-boats ultimately just don't have that much firepower or ability to cover vast distances the way a real surface fleet with aerial escort does. And it's Britain, not Germany, that has bases that can be regularly supplied all over the world to provide those air umbrellas.

They can't. 90% of convoys were never attacked, and most of the merchant ships in the convoys that were attacked made it out, most of the time.

berlin disappears under a mushroom cloud sometime in 1947-8

in the meantime the british hold north africa and the eastern front essentially stalemates

>US never came to the UK's aid on the Western front?

The result would either be a world where Nazi Germany completely controls continental Europe, or a world where the Soviet Union completely controls continental Europe.

This. The US was asisting in materials and Germany could not keep up unless Britain ran out of men.

The US was making supply ships faster than Germany could sink them.

If the US had refused to help the bongs in 1939 and following, then the bongs would have gone fully bankrupt (as they admitted they were in December 1940 irl, even though the US had been supporting them), and likely been forced to seek terms from the Nazis. Unable to replace shipping destroyed, trade slowly restricted by U-boat attacks, critical materials in shortage, weapons production severely encumbered... it would have been untenable for them. They would have gone the way of Vichy.

Britain had more manpower than Germany too.
There's no plausible way for Germany to defeat the British, and eventually the British could have landed in Italy with a few million pajeets and worked their way up

fairly certain we have had this conversation before.

there is a difference between a lack of liquidity, i.e. gold reserves, and bankruptcy, the UK was forced to take a loan, but by definition if they were considered capable of meeting the loans terms then they were not bankrupt, in the same way that if you dont have the money for gas one day and I loan you $50 to be paid back next month, you were not bankrupt, you still had credit and I believed you could service your debt.

also fyi the US didnt 'help' the british, they sold weapons at extortionate prices to the british, the british on the other hand did help the US by giving them a massive technological leap with the tizzard mission

According to Stalin and Khrushcev, Germany wins.

except without the US there would have been a prolonged North Africa campaign, no invasion of italy or france thus allowing germany to have 95% of its forces on the eastern front rather than about 60%

The Empire's GDP was misleading. Almost nothing outside of the UK itself has usable industry. India and Africa which account for the bulk of that GDP by way of having lots of people, but they were largely just subsistence farmers.

>I am fucking retarded: The post
Go look up how much convoy ships and ASW were produced in Canada, and how much primary resource extraction occurred in places like Port of Spain, South Africa, Australia, Malaya, British guyana, etc. Let's not forget that agricultural importation (including yes, from places like India and Africa) from the empire is what allowed Britain to a markedly smaller agricultural sector than Germany.

And let's also not forget that the only thing that makes Germany even come near it is the occupied nations that they overrun, many of whom are also rather shattered economically and not producing fully.

Bankruptcy is when you're broke and begging others, lad. The bongs were bankrupt. They were begging.

Yes, I can bet you have this discussion often, lad. Revisionist history is like that, when it's retarded.

So Germany was also bankrupt since 1939 with the MR pact goods that they weren't actually paying for? What's the problem? "Bankruptcy" doesn't seem to mean all that much in WW2.

Child, Canada's population was less than 10M at this time. You are retarded if you think Canadian shipbuilding was some sort of powerhouse. The US probably outproduced their yearly output in an afternoon.

...

>bongs weren't bankrupt but then again maybe they were but so was somebody else so it's alright but oh that's right the bongs weren't bankrupt but even if they were it doesn't mean anything but NO THEY WERE NOT BANKRUPT

Whew, lad. That's a lot of agony you got goin' on. Keep it simple on yourself. Think "bankrupt" and "on their knees begging". Make it easy on yourself.

kek, Canada produced more trucks than Germany did.

>Is bankrupt
>But can get credit

At least we can avoid the Sealion autism this time

>Everyone who disagrees with me and calls me a moron must a samefag.
Kill yourself.

The bankrupt bongs avoided Sealion by getting on their knees and begging, lad.

If you say so, fag.

But the only "aid" the US was giving by the time of Sealion was cash and carry

Not a history fag but I thought that I would come and visit. Wasn't germany close to solving the nuclear weapon during the last months of the war? I know that they had figured out long range missles (not icbm range but ~200 miles far). Wouldn't a few well placed nukes absolutely devastate the British morale and force them into capitulation just like America did to Japan? Also a few nukes could have completely halted the russian advance and could have bought time for Germany.

Canada wasn't part of the British Empire you complete fucking retard.

>Not a history fag but I thought that I would come and visit. Wasn't germany close to solving the nuclear weapon during the last months of the war?
No. If you believe Heisenberg's statements, then they were close to having what the Americans had near the end of 1942, a self-sustaining atomic reaction. It took the Americans years to get from that point to a working nuclear weapon, and it will probably take the Germans even longer to do that, since they had much less in the way of industrial tooling and manpower and general resources to throw at the problem.

>I know that they had figured out long range missles (not icbm range but ~200 miles far). Wouldn't a few well placed nukes absolutely devastate the British morale and force them into capitulation just like America did to Japan?
Even assuming the Germans can make atomic weapons, this is innacurate on several counts.

First off, the V weapons could only carry a payload of about a metric ton; the first generation atomic weapons were about 5 times that heavy, so you'd need a radical redesign of the rocket to be able to carry a payload. Secondly, they missed. A lot. And nukes were expensive. The Americans were only up to building 3 a month come october 1945. nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/72.pdf Assuming the Germans can do the same (They can't, they don't have nearly the same access to uranium), you're talking about 1-2 effective nukes a month.

Secondly, a well placed 1st gen nuke is only about as devastating as a massive 1000ish plane bombing raid; something akin to Dresden or Operation Gomorrah. Bombing raids of that magnitude did not destroy German morale, and it's not clear why it would work the other way around. Don't forget, that Japan was utterly and completely fucked in every conceivable metric even before the nukes, a last minute atomic strike by Germany would not be anywhere similar in effect.
1/2

> Also a few nukes could have completely halted the russian advance and could have bought time for Germany.
And this is just ridiculous. Play around with this simulation program. nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ The early nuclear bombs are relatively tiny in effective radius. And if you're trying to stop a military unit in the field, as opposed to a relatively concentrated city, you'll do less damage. An airburst Fatman has a 20 psi radius of less than a kilometer. If you're dealing with WW2 troops in a line, you're talking of casualties in the 4 figures, maybe 5. It won't stop the Soviets, it'll barely slow them down.

It was a dominion, and economically and politically strongly integrated with Great Britain. It is part of the "Empire" in all but the most strictly technical sense.

Britain was in a different situation than germany financially during the war. Although both were "bankrupt" during the war in a sense that they could no longer afford to pay for the war effort, Britain still had an empire to financially manage. When the money pit dried up, Britain's colonies suffered or started to rebel. In order to restore the flow of money to the empires colonies, the crown was forced to give up territories and agree to disadvantageous treaties that would make US lend lease "free". When the money started to strain in germany, the state would just sieze private assets and pay for the war effort that way because they could. Huge sectors of private industry were siezed and the germans were all for it. That shit wouldn't fly in Britain.

Nuclear Power is basically always "A few months away", assuming you got the raw materials. So when your basic tools is graphite and nuclear material, you are just "doing it right" away from a real nuke, assuming you got the right kind of isotopes.
So you essentially do not have Nuclear Bombs, unless you do.

Never mind that the tools for testing was contested for most of the period, so the chances of break troughs is limited, because you can't increase testing.

> I know that they had figured out long range missles
Not really. They had long range missiles, but not accurate enough to be worth it. Nor the moderation to reduce research once they had something that could have been produced cheaply.
So even if they figured out Nukes, it would still have to be dropped via airplane, because its vital that it actually hits its target, instead of merely killing a few civilians and missing critical infrastructure.
And as it turns out, nukes is fine tech, and mass producing them is a pain.

>Wasn't germany close to solving the nuclear weapon during the last months of the war?
Flat out no. They just didn't have the manpower or resources working on it like the Americans did. Like the other user said, they had a nuclear engine but nothing further. ghdi.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=2320 is a transcript of the researchers themselves talking about it right after Hiroshima

Thank you for the explanation

But what territories were given up and treaties were the UK making in 1940 to give them the cash to directly buy material from the US (emphasizing the cash part of cash and carry)

The crown gave up a bunch of rent free basing rights to british new world territories in return for destroyers in 1940. Later on they would give the US some of those territories permanently in return for lend lease

So how did this agreement pay for cash and carry before September, and how did it stop Sealion from occurring, which was cancelled a week after the agreement was made because they could not establish air superiority?

The first agreement to trade rights for destroyers was a predecessor to full scale lend lease. Lend lease happened a few months later and UK had the raw materials they desperately needed to manufacture a proper air force. They were also taking in american equipment on top of raw materials. This rapid buildup of airforce caught the Germans by surprise and the increasingly large naval presence prevented operation sea lion from happening

So the destroyers for bases agreement, in just over a week, considering it take about a week to cross the Atlantic, gave the UK the material to manufacture enough air craft to maintain air superiority enough to dissuade Hitler to cancel Sealion, months before Lend lease even started in 1941? Repeating again that Hitler canceled Sealion just over a week after the destroyers for bases agreement was made.

>the increasingly large naval presence prevented operation sea lion from happening
D-Day nearly fucked up and that was years of planning, complete air and naval superiority, and dedicated artificial harbors and transportation. Do you really think 1 airborne division and a bunch of Dutch river barges is going to have any realistic chance?

I'm retarded don't listen to me