WW1: with Russia defeated there is no way Anglo French forces would break German defenses in 1918 or ever provided Germans don’t starve under naval blockade (as they did). This hunger part still amazes me that with huge Panonian valley, Romanian and Ukrainian territory they still managed to be…hungry.
With no USA in sight French would probably be first to ask for just armistice.
WW2: Britain would not be defeated until Royal Navy is outgunned somewhere around 1950 :). Matters still hang around Soviet Union, whether SU would defeat Germany or other way around is highly questionable. Bear in mind all the damage done by US Air Force that would not exist and 30 or so divisions manning Atlantic wall that would be freed up for East. After Stalingrad Manstein managed to cut SU offensive so far as Rostov with only handful of waffen SS divisions, with additional 30-50 or so on the defensive and closer to home, Red Army would never budge - nowhere.
Under Spper Germany actually produced more fighters in 1944 than SU. SU would however probably not been defeated and armistice would probably take place also in late 1940s, with only stubborn Britain fighting Germany in air and time would work against Britain. Without USA Britain would also never dare invade Europe. Hitler would also hopefully die of Parkinson’s in late 1940s simplifying the matter. Economically all 3 combatants were in tatters, with SU controlling biggest resources but unlikely to make full use of them.
so there is like economic and military part…thoughts ??
Okay,if the United States doesn’t exist, what takes it’s place in North America? Super Canada? The British now control a much larger landmass and while not nearly the economic juggernaut the US was during WWII, there is still a massive contribution to British production and perhaps this makes Britain an almost infallible superpower?
“What if’s” can be interesting, but you’re stretching any sort of plausibility here…
Without Japan as an ally almost from the outbreak of war in 1914, Britain’s navy would have been unable to cover all the seas and, especially, conduct its naval blockade of Germany and its allies. Japan took care of the Indian and Pacific oceans, releasing the RN for action against Germany closer to home. Japan also quarantined the German island possessions in the Pacific from useful involvement in the war against Britain, and post-war ended up with some of those possessions as critical strategic points for its later Pacific War in WWII.
No Japan in WWII leads to major changes without America’s involvement.
For a start, there would be four, including three battle hardened and very efficient, rather than no Australian divisions in North Africa which eventually would be available for the invasion of Italy. HMS Prince of Wales and Repulse would be available for RN operations in the Mediterranean / European theatres. Various Australian ships sunk by Japan would be available in the same theatres. Same for various British ships. Massive savings in the naval fleet train and army and air force shipping and related resources supplying logistics to British forces in India and eastwards against Japan. Significant army resources devoted to the protection of Malaya, Singapore, Burma and India would have been available to Britain, starting with British and Indian divisions (with some notably courageous and efficient Indian units which distinguished themselves from the outset at Kota Bharu in the actual fighting in Malaya) along with the highly efficient and aggressive Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and without the loss of late reinforcement divisions in the Malayan campaign and surrender of Singapore in early 1942 and then in Burma, as would resources freed from the need to defend India and marshal for the counter-attack back into Burma. Massive Soviet forces facing Japan in Manchuria could have been released for the Soviet western front, which could well have been the turning point against Germany. Huge drain on British resources supplying Chinese forces removed as it becomes irrelevant to Britain whether China stands or falls in its domestic war on Chinese soil against Japan. Britain retains huge tin and rubber resources in Malaya and Burma, which fund its war. The Dutch retain the NEI and its huge oil resources and other resources for Allied use, along with the Dutch navy and merchant fleet which instead of being used in the Pacific is available for the war against Germany. Add in US Lend Lease support to Britain plus Soviet resilience and grit and there’s a reasonable chance that Germany will be confined to Western Europe with no chance of breaking out or winning its war. America isn’t in war so Manhattan Project unlikely to commence with original intention of atomic weapons to defeat Germany and Britain unlikely to develop its own atomic weapons, while German atomic weapon development unlikely to progress to its own atomic weapons. So the war proceeds with conventional weapons and Germany’s unique but fairly unimportant in total strategic terms rocket weapons. German surrender is unlikely in those circumstances, but so is German victory beyond Western Europe and whatever it holds in the east to the extent that the USSR decides to press against that front. End result is likely to be a negotiated peace after Germany is strangled of resources, again, or just a version of Germany and its possessions against the rest of the world not all that different to the Soviets as they actually were with their possessions post-WWII.
The problem with all these ‘what if’s’ is that there are endless combinations and permutations which always lead to no clear conclusion, as indeed the real wars proceeded on endless combinations and permutations which often delivered unexpected results such as, for a major turning point in the Pacific War, the fortuitous finding of the Japanese fleet by American pilots in the Battle of Midway.
All valid points.
And I guess European countries at one point would get tired of German occupation, no matter how “peaceful” it is. One think remains, how come Germans so grossly mismanaged occupation territory to be hungry in ww1 and not get nearly enough as they could if organized properly in ww2 ? I mean if it was any other nation ok, but such gross negligence on part of Germans is difficult to understand.
Been reading Tooze’s “wages of destruction”, one tiny detail it says that "In May 1942 British cabinet concluded that
All valid points.
And I guess European countries at one point would get tired of German occupation, no matter how “peaceful” it is. One think remains, how come Germans so grossly mismanaged occupation territory to be hungry in ww1 and not get nearly enough as they could if organized properly in ww2 ? I mean if it was any other nation ok, but such gross negligence on part of Germans is difficult to understand…
Been reading Tooze’s “wages of destruction” again, one tiny detail it says that “In May 1942 British cabinet concluded that RAF has to destroy 58 German cities and depopulate 22 million citizens.” Is there any more info on this statement ??
Land means little if you lack the manpower and resources to use it.
German manpower was at the front or in the factories, horses were at the front -
Even during WW2 German agriculture was still heavily dependant on man and horse power having failed to mechanise (which started to happen in the UK in the late 1800’s). A larger percentage of German women were employed prior to WW2 than was employed in Britain in 1944 (at the highest point of women employment), they were mainly employed on the land though, farming - which kind of puts a common misconception that Germany took a long time to mobilise women as workers during WW2, to bed.
The British Empire could call on resources from huge areas not involved in the actual fighting, who’s manpower was not totally mobilised
True, but the Empire also strained British resources in attempting to defend far flung territories (e.g. India, Malaya, Singapore, Burma, Ceylon) when Britain was pretty much fully occupied 1939-43 in Europe, North Africa and surrounding oceans.
This was compounded by the need to hold the Suez Canal to supply those territories with military, naval and air forces and other war materiel, which was one of the reasons which committed Britain to land war in North Africa and naval war in the Mediterranean.
The loss of territories which previously had conferred vast resources (e.g. rubber and tin from Malaya, oil from Burma) and wealth on Britain had a correspondingly negative effect on Britain’s ability to prosecute its war elsewhere.
Meanwhile there was the problem of independence movements in India and the need to hold India against the Japanese thrust through Burma, which counterbalanced the massive contribution of Indian troops to British efforts in various theatres.
Against that there was the significant contributions Canada, Australia and New Zealand made from various forms of agricultural and manufacturing production free from direct attacks by Axis powers, along with significant training for aircrew under the Empire Air Training Scheme https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/raaf/eats who made a crucial contribution to the defence of Britain and raids on Occupied Europe.
I don’t know if anyone has done a considered analysis, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out that Britain’s empire was as much a hindrance as a help to the war involving the home islands in WWII.
