what if? Britain allies with Germany and fights the USA

[dragoon9105]

Just fortify America ? Just ? I mean we are talking about several 1000 km of coastline vs a submarine programm. Are we a little out of touch with reality ?

Not in a literal sense 'fortify america' More, 'Prepare for an invasion' which would have to be somewhere in Canada from a jumping point in Greenland, or a Jumping point from Africa to Brazil. A Trans Atlantic Landing would be a literal nightmare unless the US atlantic fleet suddenly evaporated.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Not in a literal sense 'fortify america' More, 'Prepare for an invasion' which would have to be somewhere in Canada from a jumping point in Greenland, or a Jumping point from Africa to Brazil. A Trans Atlantic Landing would be a literal nightmare unless the US atlantic fleet suddenly evaporated.

I see. Well ok that makes much more sense to me

 

[Mder1]

That title promises a video that is five seconds long, but it actually is forty five seconds long. Never have I felt so betrayed in my life.

 

[Vonbach]

If Britain and Germany were allied WW2 wouldn't have started in the first place.
There wouldn't have been a war for America to enter. Poland would've given the
Germans the Danzig corridor without the British blanket support. The USSR would've
eventually invaded but how far could they get without American lend-lease support?
There wouldn't have been a war at all if Britain and Germany were allies.

 

[keynes2.0]

Poland would've given the
Germans the Danzig corridor without the British blanket support.

And then Germany would have wanted the rest of Poland. And then Alsace. And then Lorraine. And then the Low Countries. And then the Baltics...

 

[Vonbach]

And then Germany would have wanted the rest of Poland. And then Alsace. And then Lorraine. And then the Low Countries. And then the Baltics...

No thats what Stalin wanted to do. The Communists have been projecting their crimes and desires onto everyone else for ages.
The narrative that Hitler wanted to take over Europe or the world is silly. Unlike the Soviets who openly stated they did want to take over the world.
The simple fact is without Britain to start the war WW2 would've never taken place to begin with. Hitler's terms for the Danzig corridor were in fact quite
generous. It was British back room dealing that kept Poland from excepting it.

As for either country challenging the USA the idea is laughable. Both countries combined couldn't
have taken on the USA in their wildest dreams.

 

[Gordy]

No thats what Stalin wanted to do. The Communists have been projecting their crimes and desires onto everyone else for ages.
The narrative that Hitler wanted to take over Europe or the world is silly. Unlike the Soviets who openly stated they did want to take over the world.
The simple fact is without Britain to start the war WW2 would've never taken place to begin with. Hitler's terms for the Danzig corridor were in fact quite
generous. It was British back room dealing that kept Poland from excepting it.

As for either country challenging the USA the idea is laughable. Both countries combined couldn't
have taken on the USA in their wildest dreams.

Neville Chamberlain has been reincarnated.

 

[keynes2.0]

The narrative that Hitler wanted to take over Europe or the world is silly.

You are silly.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

The narrative that Hitler wanted to take over Europe or the world is silly.

You are silly.

This makes me think of a thought experiment about an alternate history where the Wallies backed the Czechs prior the Munich, thus starting WWII in 1938. In such a timeline Vonbach would probably be saying that had the allies not backed the Czechs than WWII would have never happened..

 

[Gordy]

Anyway ignoring pro-Nazi revisionism, my take on the question.

In the event of the British being smashed at Dunkirk and lacking the power to oppose Hitler directly, signing a peace treaty might have been fairly likely. Electing a far-right government is not. Going to war with the US is even more insane for both the UK and Germany.

The German have defeated the British and about to defeat the French, they are free to fight the war that they want to fight, the Eastern front. Why would they want to start a war against the Americans? In the OTL the Germans declared war on the US partly because the US was helping the UK. They wouldn't have that reason.

The UK would have what remains of its army free to deal with the Japanese. With no UK-US alliance, the Japanese might not need to attack Pearl Harbor and bring the US into the war.

Even if the combined British and German navies could defeat the US navy, what would they do next? They could hardly invade the US. Neither the British nor the Germans would have enough land forces. The logic of the British deciding that they can't oppose Hitler because they don't have the land forces, but believing themselves to have enough to conquer the US is one that escapes me.

 

[keynes2.0]

If only Britain hadn't objected to Hitler occupying London, WWII could have been avoided.

I am reminded of a time that someone just read a pop-history hagiography of Ghengis Khan and told me that he got a bad rap. He only killed people who resisted him you see...

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

The simple fact is without Britain to start the war WW2 would've never taken place to begin with. Hitler's terms for the Danzig corridor were in fact quite
generous. It was British back room dealing that kept Poland from excepting it.

Sadly its rather unknown that these nasty Poles and Brits caused so much misery and death. Well at least the Poles paid a high price for their evil machinations.
Its really good to know that at least you know the truth.

 

[BBBD316]

To make this scenario happening, in some alt universe.

• Dunkirk turns into a fiasco, with the entire army being captured and the awaiting navy suffering a blood nose.
• Mosley rallies pacifist parliamentry members to start peace talks
• Hess makes his flight at this time and due to pressure is allowed to speak of Peace with Honour at the parliament. Also setting a timeline for the return of non-core French lands and the low countries independence.
• Churchill threatens to resign if parliament look to debat the matter, parliament is split enough that the debate takes place and the government folds.
• Rallies and protests across England force the King to appointment Mosley as the new PM. Many quite parliament, Mosley uses executive powers to put his partymen in those seats vacated, eventually Mosley stacks the parliament to gain a majority.
• 1941 a new Europe conference is held in Rome, German, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Vichy, England, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Sweden and Finland sign a revised Anti-Commintern Pact. Soon after the signing the remaining neutral states are pressured to join. Within the agreement border changes within Europe are forced on a number of smaller countries. Africa has a drastic redrawing of its borders, Spain, Italy and South Africa being the biggest winners.
• The Commonwealth nations declare the Commonwealth dead and sign new security agreements with the US, except for South Africa which accepts an offer to join the axis for old british colonies.
• Before protests in London can begin regarding the loss of African colonies, the navy sails out in force and a british landing in the Arkangeslks and cut off the Kola Peninsula as the Finns move across the border, the Germans invade as per OTL. Turkey gives full passage to Axis shipping and a joint task force of Axis navies sinks the Black Sea Fleet.
• The US embargoes all Axis members, their allies following suit.
• As the Soviets look to crumble as the are assaulted from all sides, the US begins lend lease.
• The Axis demand that the US stops lend lease
• US says no.
• Axis nations declare unrestricted naval warfare in Soviet waters.
• The sinking of US shipping leads to the US Navy sortie out and sinking a number of Axis warships.
• Axis declares war on the US.
• Protests grow against Mosley in the UK, German soldiers are brought into to help keep the peace.

See what happens when you have too much time on your hands.

 

[DoomBunny]

Mosley was never particularly popular. I'd suggest the better way to consider this problem is in a theoretical ASB way rather than trying to find some logic in it.

Neville Chamberlain has been reincarnated.

Surprisingly enough, the man who took Britain into the Second World War was not either a Nazi apologist or someone who regarded Hitler's actions towards Poland as "generous".

 

[Gordy]

Surprisingly enough, the man who took Britain into the Second World War was not either a Nazi apologist or someone who regarded Hitler's actions towards Poland as "generous".

No, but he was overinclined to believe that Hitler's word meant something and he'd be satisfied with some minor border changes.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

No, but he was overinclined to believe that Hitler's word meant something and he'd be satisfied with some minor border changes.

Brings to mind the old adage "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".

 

[DoomBunny]

No, but he was overinclined to believe that Hitler's word meant something and he'd be satisfied with some minor border changes.

And also a man who realised the weaknesses of his own position and (as a reasonable man) sought to avoid war. Really history is far too hard on a man who was massively influenced by a desire to avoid past events and an opponent who was very hard to understand from a traditional perspective (indeed the reverse would seem to be true of many on this forum, who misunderstand traditional diplomacy and its practices).

Brings to mind the old adage "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".

Given that Neville was only fooled once, I'd hold judgement there.

 

[yerm]

If only Britain hadn't objected to Hitler occupying London, WWII could have been avoided.

I am reminded of a time that someone just read a pop-history hagiography of Ghengis Khan and told me that he got a bad rap. He only killed people who resisted him you see...

I feel like there are valid arguments around things like Allies giving false assurances and going to war without intending to fight the war was wrong of them, or Poland suddenly negotiating in bad faith (eg they were pro-Germany over Czech land), or Hitler might have been dealt with better via continued containment and suppression until the economy buckled.

Then someone comes in and posts his kind of crap. Suddenly my arguments sound too close to apologetic pro-Nazi drivel. I hate it.

 

[nuarbnellaffej]

or Hitler might have been dealt with better via continued containment and suppression until the economy buckled.

That likely would have been the best possible course of action, thanks to hignsight of course. I have heard at the time that most average people in Germany and around the world ,were impressed at the seemingly brilliant economic recovery created by the Nazis.

Were there any economists at the time who publicly(or privately) predicted the problems that would have eventually occurred with such high deficit spending?

I think irl, that if the war hadn't started when it did and time went on, that once things got bad enough, the Nazis would have started some kind of conflict to at the very least, distract the German masses. To me it seems, anything that delays the Germans' DOW, hurt them in the long run since their opponents have more to gain overall, through more preparation than Germany.

 

[BBBD316]

I am not sure there would have been the economic data that we now have, or the Nazis would have fudged the figures anyway.

From the limited experience I have with those that fought in WWII for the Germans they still seem to feel that Danzig was rightfully German and given everything else it should have been returned. However they don't feel the same for the actual war and its outcomes.

Chamberlain understood what Hitler was but realised they were in no position to oppose him without getting the economy right, plus I think he really hoped that the war could be averted.