what if? Britain allies with Germany and fights the USA

[arctus]

i opened a thread in about a fight between the USN and the Royal Navy and who would win, but it was closed. Maybe this time we can ceep chemical attacks out of the thread and stick to the topic. I would like to expand that question to the scenario of a fight between UK, Germany, Italy and Japan on the one side and US on the other side. I know its maybe unlikely of this to happen, but its interesting to think about. The scenario sets in 1940, brits are destroyed at dunkirk and a right wing government comes to power in UK, they ally with Germany and Hitler convinces them that the US it the biggest danger for the empire and has to be destroyed. An Invasion of the US is planned. Do you think this 4 powers could make it into the US and win this fight?

 

[FOARP]

i opened a thread in about a fight between the USN and the Royal Navy and who would win, but it was closed. Maybe this time we can ceep chemical attacks out of the thread and stick to the topic. I would like to expand that question to the scenario of a fight between UK, Germany, Italy and Japan on the one side and US on the other side. I know its maybe unlikely of this to happen, but its interesting to think about. The scenario sets in 1940, brits are destroyed at dunkirk and a right wing government comes to power in UK, they ally with Germany and Hitler convinces them that the US it the biggest danger for the empire and has to be destroyed. An Invasion of the US is planned. Do you think this 4 powers could make it into the US and win this fight?

Britain had a right-wing government: Winston Churchill was a member of the Conservative Party. There was pretty much no-one in the Conservative Party who would have actually supported siding with Hitler. Even fringe nutcases like Mosley didn't actually openly support siding with the Nazis in the war and I can't think of anyone who actually saw the US as a threat.

So, basically, for this scenario to play out the USA would have had to have become some kind of danger to the world in general for some reason such that everyone wanted to invade them. In that situation then, sure, with the entire world against them the USA would have been defeated.

PS - that quote I've seen thrown around on the other thread about a rifle being behind every blade of grass is basically made up.

 

[Jongmaster]

Basically the US still wins, the only nation able to beat the US is the USSR, and vice versa. The only thing that matters in a modern war is industry, and the US has that in spades. It is fairly cut and dry in that regard. There is a reason why the US was able to fight a 2 front war, one of which being the largest theater of the Second World War.

Or at least that is how I view it.

 

[Denkt]

Soviet and USA would likely become allies in such scenario and togther they would likely prevail.

 

[teamgene]

Problem with these scenarios is they tend to focus on build up in actual war if it suits the person writing and then we get flights of fantasy if it doesn't. For instance, USA was already working behind the scenes in 1940 preparing for war with Germany and possible invasion of Europe. The people were not behind it, but that would soon change with the fall of Britain. No doubt, USA and Soviet Union would have kissed and made up for mutual survival as Stalin would know what this alliance meant to his nation.

Since we are talking 1940, we then must assume that Britain has as they did historically shared vital tech with USA. What must be defined is does Canada continue the war against Germany? Much more likely scenario. Then you must decide how much of the Royal Navy set sail for Canada as part of the resistance and how much became part of the alliance? We got a ton of what ifs in a scenario like this.

I would propose that US build up numbers be moved up a year, so in reality in 1940 3600 aircraft were build, the numbers in this scenario would mean between 40-42 the build up probably would have been greater.

However, I see the real winner in this to be the Soviet Union and possibly Japan as the USA and Soviets align and co-operate. The fall of UK brings about major build ups in USA and Russia. The UK fleet is able to prevent US shipments to murmansk, but creates added hostility in the pacific between Japan, Russia, and USA. Manchuria goes hot for Soviets and Japan and Japanese army suffers disaster quickly just like in '39 and coming to the peace table satisfied with the holdings they have gained from the fall of Great Britain (much like France). In agreement for peace with Soviets, USA lifts embargo and Japan gains its pacific empire it desires though its a thin peace between USA and Japan, USA has bigger fish to fry and Japan turns a defeat into a strategic victory.

USA adopts German tactics on UK shipping with surface naval support creating far more havoc than German Happy Days ever dreamed of. Meanwhile a bomber capable of reaching London are built and put into production. UK wants focus to America, Hitler says he is a genius and Russia is main target and will be a quick war. The rest is history.

 

[WSnova]

Invade directly? I find it unlikely.

Win the Naval war? Maybe, depends if they go against the USSR or not. But I think it would be close.

Thing is the USA had so much more production capability than everybody else, and a war like WW2 production and replacing losses is much more important than anything else.

But really, invading the US is like invading the USSR, a big expansive terrain, hostile population and add to that the naval component.

The US will probably get some nice Canadian clay if they win though. But I think they would need the USSR as an ally to really win, I can see a stalemate happening

 

[MajorHeartfire]

For this to be plausible, the USA would had to have been more antagonistic. Let's assume they invade Mexico and create a puppet state to reduce the risk of anyone being able to open a home front against them by convincing Mexico. As many of you know, Germany tried to feel this out during WWI, but ultimately the US found out and Mexico had declined anyway.

If that happens, perhaps the UK could believe their Caribbean and Central American colonies would be at risk. However, I do not know how we make that the greater risk than a Germany that could conquer Europe. If France has a successful fascist coup, maybe that would help.

At best, maybe we could alter the scenario a bit? How about a Fascist France, Germany, Japan, Italy (and maybe Spain) against the United States. The UK stays neutral because it is threatened by both sides (in this scenario, I still believe the UK would actually join with the Americans). Those four powers could probably force the United States to retreat to the continental mainland, but it is unlikely that the "Super Axis" would be able to successfully invade the nation. I bet they could trounce on the USSR, though. That many troops would just be too much, and without the UK holding them up in the Middle East (again, we are assuming UK neutrality), and Africa.

Creating a scenario where the UK teams up with anyone besides the US, or even stays neutral, seems extraordinarily unlikely, however. I don't think it is really even in the realm of possibilities if we are just accounting for something after WWI. US-UK relations had been rapidly improving since the UK turned down supporting the rebellious Confederate States of America in the American CIvil War during the 1860s.

 

[angelosnau]

That's the war of the continents that Hitler was talking about.I guess nukes would be the deciding factor. Intercontinental warfare is all about missiles and nukes,that's the stage we are at today. Most probably,I guess,is that the US invents the nukes and launches strategic strikes on Europe.

 

[Secret Master]

What does Britain gain from attacking the US?

If you can answer that question with reasonable historical evidence, then you might have a reason for Germany and Britain to ally. But the reason would have to outweigh any potential benefit to keeping Germany in her place.

 

[FOARP]

What does Britain gain from attacking the US?

If you can answer that question with reasonable historical evidence, then you might have a reason for Germany and Britain to ally. But the reason would have to outweigh any potential benefit to keeping Germany in her place.

To be honest, the US declaring war on the UK seems more likely (albeit still wildly unlikely):

1) Finally settling the whole thing about spellings.

2) Getting the British delegate to pose.

3) Getting back the timbers of the USS Chesapeake.

Other than Sauron becoming US president, it is impossible to think what possible reason the UK might have to go to war with the US, a country with which it had studiously avoided conflict for more than a century.

 

[steve213]

can we please stop this.

 

[Decolonization]

What does Britain gain from attacking the US?

If you can answer that question with reasonable historical evidence, then you might have a reason for Germany and Britain to ally. But the reason would have to outweigh any potential benefit to keeping Germany in her place.

The only thing I can think of would be to Annex Alaska and other parts of USA as part of the Canadian dominion...
But is it worth it or even possible? I don't think the cost/risk is balancing quite well here..

 

[Cuthuthulu]

i opened a thread in about a fight between the USN and the Royal Navy and who would win, but it was closed. Maybe this time we can ceep chemical attacks out of the thread and stick to the topic. I would like to expand that question to the scenario of a fight between UK, Germany, Italy and Japan on the one side and US on the other side. I know its maybe unlikely of this to happen, but its interesting to think about. The scenario sets in 1940, brits are destroyed at dunkirk and a right wing government comes to power in UK, they ally with Germany and Hitler convinces them that the US it the biggest danger for the empire and has to be destroyed. An Invasion of the US is planned. Do you think this 4 powers could make it into the US and win this fight?

Why would the UK and Germany do this?

 

[Hannibal_Ante_Portas]

Why would the UK and Germany do this?

It's the wrong question. The true question is "Why would U.S. and Germany do this?" US actually prepared for war with UK in the 30's as they thought that the British Empire (biggest military and economic force on the planet) was concerned by the upcoming challengers - maily U.S. and Germany, but not excluding Soviet Union. So, if a war erupts between U.S. and UK, it's probably instigated by U.S. as a pre-emptive strategy to break out from the ever-present clutches of the British Empire and dismantle it (which historically happened anyway although because of different reasons) and they probably try to pump up the war footing of Germany as much as possible to keep the Empire busy.

I know that most of you think that U.S. economic power will lead to victory, however if you peak into the past, you'll see that the most spread out contender is most likely to win. Why? Dunno, maybe because trade + politics? British Empire had the potential to screw all U.S. imports / exports around the globe and that's basically what economy is. It's in your eye. My bet is on the Brits. Hitler was no fool when he preferred to ally with the British against the U.S. than the other way around (although trading with U.S. greatly benefited both Soviet Union and Germany).

Today we're used to think that the German-Soviet war was the busiest bussiness because of horrendous casualties. These casualties were due mostly to general context (weather, lack of supplies, famine / exhaustion / despair / revenge) than to weapons.
Think what a U.S. - British Empire war would have brought... that specific war everybody feared to lose, including Hitler.

 

[Duke Von Hannover]

Britain and Germany would result in a continental victory unless USSR sided with USA at which point Japan, Italy and France are required to balance it out.

 

[Hannibal_Ante_Portas]

Britain and Germany would result in a continental victory unless USSR sided with USA at which point Japan, Italy and France are required to balance it out.

Almost nobody wanted that British Empire stay unchecked (and practically that's the reason of its demise). Soviet Union was afraid of British meddling in Europe and wanted none of it. U.S. wanted free and unrestricted access to the waves and feared that the British could play a game of denial some time in the future. Italy, France, Spain and Portugal also were colonial empires and competed directly with the British Empire - the most successful of them. A blow to the Brits meant more cake for the others. Most minors were either undecided / neutral or wanted to break up from the British Empire (India) or at least negociate an exit strategy.

Germany was perhaps the only major force who wanted to keep the British on top - mainly because of political stability reasons - they were afraid of who would occupy the blank spot if the British are toppled from 1st position. The funny thing is that the proponents who would have benefited most from the British hegemony (Germany and Japan - which intentions basically were to ally with Britain against both Soviet Union and U.S. threats) ended up as enemies.

 

[Acaios]

as i said in the other thread, US tech was far behind Germany and UK. I want to remind you that while Wernher von Braun was sending his rockets to accomplish the first sub orbital flight, us scientists was writing their outstanding report about how much nuclear energy was weak and useless in any civilian or military application. Without UK support, scientists like Fermi and Einstein could simply not reach USA and you can bet Oppenheimer could not develop A bomb alone.
Without Tizard mission, US couldn't have basically anything. No self sealing tanks, no radars, no welding techniques, no liberty cargos, no Shermans, no 17 lb, no 20mm Hispano cannons and so on.
German and english aviation, together, with far superior technology (p-36 vs spitfires and bf-109E? lol) and based in UK Canada could wipe out US air forces in no time and then focus on destroying US IC (basically the same US did on Germany).
On land, us army did not have tanks. US decided to completely scrap tanks at the end of ww1 arguing they were useless. They had no tanks, no anti tank weapons, no mobile infantry and the whole logistic still based on horses.
With no supply and logistical problems thanks to the UK navy, wehrmacht could easily invade US even without the support of english troops if not as garrisons in conquered territories.

 

[Denkt]

I think you underestimate US technology quite a bit.

 

[Tekoa]

Too bad we will never know. HOI IV will never come out!

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Without Tizard mission, US couldn't have basically anything. No self sealing tanks, no radars, no welding techniques, no liberty cargos, no Shermans, no 17 lb, no 20mm Hispano cannons and so on.

US had radar project(s) independent of British with, by the time of Tizard mission, a competent air warning and limited capability sea search radar (CXAM) in production as well as fire-control radars in development (based on triodes before Tizard mission, switched to magnetrons afterwards). I mean yeah, the British magnetron was very useful contribution, particularly for long term development of fire control radars (at least ship based) and miniaturized radar, but 'no radars' is clearly false statment.

As I alluded to in the previous thread, British were leaps and bounds behing Americans in application of welding for naval contruction. All USN DDs post WW1 were welded (ie. Farragut onwards). The first British DD class designed to be fully welded? Daring class. Full welding allowed for stronger, lighter hulls and could be cheaper too. It also reduced water resistance and hence increased endurance and speed.

And what does 17 pounder have to do with Americans?

Not as familiar with the others so I take no stance.