Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

What if Britain goes neutral 1940

Discussion in 'What If - European Theater - Western Front & Atlan' started by mikegb, Aug 26, 2008.

  1. mikegb

    mikegb Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    6
    If Britains peace party had won and pulled out of the war in the summer of 1940 is an interesting question it seems improbable that Germany could have succesfully invaded successfully.

    What would the long term effects have been if Britain was out of the war the dutch , Belgian and french colonies would have come under the control of the pro fascist or Nazi puppet governments. Without the royal navy to block them they could have supplied Japan with the materials they needed for their China campaign and would probably meaning the Japanese would not have involved the US by attacking Pearl harbour in 1941 without the facing of the US sanctions imposed to punish their attck on china that cut off their supplies of key minerals such a petrol and rubber etc.

    Japan would have stayed neutral or given its hand would have been free attacked russia and continued the war of 1936 in Manchuria.

    Potentialy the Turks without the threat of British intervention might have turned to the axis wanting to regain lost territory. This would have given the Germans millions of fresh troops and made their supply lines to the Crimea easily protected sea routes allowing the German armies to be well supplied even at the maximum extent of their advance. The Russian forces used for the counter offensive in the winter of 1941 quite simply these troops would habe been tied down fighting Japan in Manchuria.

    The Germans could have accessed raw materials from the Belgian colonies for minerals the dutch colonies for rubber and oil and the persian gulf for oil. This could have made the war in the east a diffrent proposition for the Soviets and the idea that the US would go to war for the communists seems a little unlikely. Without the losses sustained from the western allies and with the entire airforce available for use in the east and without the lost production from bombing the picture would have been different.

    Thank goodness the peace party didn't win and Britain fought on because the potential alternantives are interesting but horrific.
     
  2. Herakles

    Herakles Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2008
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    6
    I don't think there was ever a question of neutrality re WW2. The scene had been set well before 1939. Britain had gone onto a war footing by about 1936.

    I do believe that Hitler was keen for Britain to stay out which is why he held off for so long.

    On the other hand, neutrality leading up to WW1 was seriously considered. The British public were deeply opposed to any involvement on mainland Europe. Perhaps if they had kept out, some sort of EU would have happened at the time.
     
  3. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    I think a lot depends on the specific peace terms the British manage to negotiate with Germany. If the British government simply signs an armistice which does not grant Germany any special terms or privileges, what in my opinion, would be most likely, then the effects you are claiming as probable would be highly questionable. neither Germany nor Japan would be be in quite an advantageous position as you seem to think.



    What leads you to believe this, particularly as a blanket statement? When the European Netherlands were overrun, and the Dutch Home government went into exile, the NEI government in Batavia became to all extents and purposes, autonomous. When the Japanese tried to negotiate for the purchase of oil in 1940-41, the Batavian government steadfastly refused, not because of pressure from London or Washington, but because the NEI ministers were adamantly opposed to selling any oil which might then be transferred to the Nazi regime in Europe.

    The Germans had absolutely no way of exerting effective political, economic or military pressure on the NEI. Ditto for French colony of Indochina. In fact, the Germans attempted to ship rubber and certain other raw materials from Indochina in the fall of 1940, only to find that it;s new ally, Japan, was greedily diverting the entire output to their own use. To assert that, absent the Royal Navy, Germany would be able to control exports from the former European colonies of Belgium, France, and Holland is without either logical or historical basis.



    It may come as a very big surprise to you, but prior to December, 1941, neither the Royal Navy nor the US Navy were "blocking" supplies to Japan. Japan's assets were frozen In July, 1941;they couldn't buy supplies. And before that, there had been a partial embargo on certain materials by the US, but not Britain (which needed all of it's imports for war production). It was Japan's involvement in the China war that caused her to fall short of being able to buy and import raw materials, not the Royal Navy, so your assertions regarding the absence of the Royal Navy are irrelevant.

    Furthermore, should the Royal Navy somehow be eliminated, neither Germany nor Japan would have a free run of the seas, as you seem to assume. The KM was so tiny in 1940 that it could never hope to face the USN on it's own, and Japan's only wish was to stay out of a war with the US for as long as possible. The result would be that the USN would step in to keep the KM bottled up in the Baltic and North Sea. That means Germany could not;

    1. Control any overseas colonies through the application of naval power.
    2. Guarantee supply routes for any military units deployed outside Europe.
    3. Attempt to import raw materials without risking the US assuming the
    former British blockade.
    4. Supply Japan with any significant amounts of raw materials (Japan and
    German were essentially in competition for the limited supplies of
    strategic materials).

    Finally, Germany had no say in the attack on Pearl Harbor and didn't even have pre-knowledge of it. The attack on Pearl Harbor was entirely the idea of the IJN and was motivated by the fact that the IJN needed time to seize certain points in the pacific in order to assure the free flow of supplies from the Souther Resources Area.


    Now you are postulating a counter factual occurrence in the summer of 1940, and claiming that it's effects would be retroactive to 1936? That's rather strange, but no stranger than claiming that the Japanese might want to consider continuing a war (Manchuria), which, to all intents and purposes, ended, in their favor, in 1933.

    In reality, the most likely reaction of the Japanese to a peace between Britain and Germany would be abandon the "Southern Movement" and concentrate on a successful conclusion to the war in China. THe Japanese leaders didn't agree on much, but they all agreed that a necessary pre-condition to a successful move south was that both the US and Britain be pre-occupied with the war in Europe; if Britain signs an armistice, that condition is no longer met.

    Would Japan attack the Soviets? Probably not, at least not very soon and probably not until China had been disposed of. The biggest reason would be that, in the summer of 1940, just six or seven months had passed since the Soviets had administered to the IJA the worst drubbing it has taken in modern times. The IJA leadership was painfully aware that it was very badly prepared to take on the Red Army, especially while the China war was still a festering wound.

    All in all, your theories are highly imaginative, but exaggerate the importance of Churchill and the Royal Navy, particularly in the Pacific. You completely ignore the fact that the Roosevelt administration was determined that fascism would not only be fought, but defeated. The USN had started building up to the WNT limits in 1938, and launched the "Two-Ocean Navy" Act in June, 1940, that was specifically designed to produce a navy which could defeat Japan and Germany at the same time with no help from Britain or France.
     
  4. mikegb

    mikegb Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    6
    >>I think a lot depends on the specific peace terms the British manage to negotiate with Germany. If the British government simply signs an armistice which does not grant Germany any special terms or privileges, what in my opinion, would be most likely, then the effects you are claiming as probable would be highly questionable. neither Germany nor Japan would be be in quite an advantageous position as you seem to think.<<

    The Germans wouldn't have needed any concessions the dropping of support for the governments in exile would undoubtably have the effect that the Nazi backed regimes would have taken control in most cases this occurred anyway. North africa, Syria, Algeria, Indo china etc etc.





    >>What leads you to believe this, particularly as a blanket statement? When the European Netherlands were overrun, and the Dutch Home government went into exile, the NEI government in Batavia became to all extents and purposes, autonomous. <<

    Without a base in the Uk the Exiled governments would have been incapable of effective operation . Batavia is interesting but would probably have either been anexed by Japan or would have reverted to dutch control.

    The Belgian puppet regime would undoubtably have taken control of its African colonies given time.

    >>When the Japanese tried to negotiate for the purchase of oil in 1940-41, the Batavian government steadfastly refused, not because of pressure from London or Washington, but because the NEI ministers were adamantly opposed to selling any oil which might then be transferred to the Nazi regime in Europe. <<

    Batavia would have fallen to pro german forces if they could have reached them it was the impossiblity of reaching the colonies that made it viable at least for a time if not the japanese would have seized eventually. The Germans would have gotten oil via Iran and Ira anyway if it had a sea route to the gulf.

    >>The Germans had absolutely no way of exerting effective political, economic or military pressure on the NEI. <<

    Possibly if they couldn't they would probably have done a deal with the Japanese to anex the territory.



    >>Ditto for French colony of Indochina.<<

    Didn't have to was Vichy anyway?

    >>In fact, the Germans attempted to ship rubber and certain other raw materials from Indochina in the fall of 1940, only to find that it;s new ally, Japan, was greedily diverting the entire output to their own use.<<

    True enough but as previously stated the majority of the raw materials were situated in North Africa or Africa these were accessable to the Nazi's or their proxies. The Far east is more difficult to read given the distance but without an exiled government operating in the UK its unlikely that the colonies would have been able to sustain go it alone regimes for very long.

    >>To assert that, absent the Royal Navy, Germany would be able to control exports from the former European colonies of Belgium, France, and Holland is without either logical or historical basis.<<

    Given that there would be no impediment to the free use of their merchant marines and they had armies sitting in these countries with puppet governments controlling them I would contest both your rather blunt but inaccurate point.





    >>It may come as a very big surprise to you, but prior to December, 1941, neither the Royal Navy nor the US Navy were "blocking" supplies to Japan. Japan's assets were frozen In July, 1941;they couldn't buy supplies<<

    Both the US and the British refused to sell supplies of key materials such as rubber, various strategic metals etc. It was the tightening of these policies that drove the Japanese to gamble on Pearl harbour.

    >>And before that, there had been a partial embargo on certain materials by the US, but not Britain (which needed all of it's imports for war production). It was Japan's involvement in the China war that caused her to fall short of being able to buy and import raw materials, not the Royal Navy, so your assertions regarding the absence of the Royal Navy are irrelevant.<<

    I didn't assert the navy was affecting japan but the presence of the RN certainly restricted Germany and Italy from accessing critical materials available over seas. It dificult to see your point here?

    >>Furthermore, should the Royal Navy somehow be eliminated, neither Germany nor Japan would have a free run of the seas, as you seem to assume. The KM was so tiny in 1940 that it could never hope to face the USN on it's own, and Japan's only wish was to stay out of a war with the US for as long as possible. The result would be that the USN would step in to keep the KM bottled up in the Baltic and North Sea. That means Germany could not;<<

    I never suggested that the Germans would dominate the seas but with free navigation of its merchant marine and access to client states colonies raw materials the pressure on German industry would have been much reduced . The US Navy had no serious presence in the Gulf Mediteranean or Africa anyway which would have been the main areas supplies would have come from.

    The main point was that the US might not have become involved becasue without Pearl harbour or some serious provocation its doubtful if the US entry in the war would have happened.

    >>1. Control any overseas colonies through the application of naval power.<<

    Most French colonies were Vichy as were most Belgian colonies so this seems a little strange as a serious point. Batavia and other Pacific colonies would have been beyond the capability of Germany to control but the pupet regimes at home would probably have reeled them back in if there was no government in exile in the UK hardening their resolve.

    >>2. Guarantee supply routes for any military units deployed outside Europe.<<

    I was suggesting that the over seas colonies of client states like Vichy France and the Belgians would have controlled the colonies. I was talking about free trade between these colonies and Germany not control.


    >>3. Attempt to import raw materials without risking the US assuming the
    former British blockade.<<

    Opinion polls before pearl harbour were very much against war in the US the idea that the US would attempt to impede trade or declare hosilities without a very strong rational seems unlikely. The US fleet was much more powerful than the German/ITalian/French Fleet but wasnt deployed in the right place and its hard to see the idea of declaring a blockade or war to help Stalin?

    >>4. Supply Japan with any significant amounts of raw materials (Japan and
    German were essentially in competition for the limited supplies of
    strategic materials).<<

    If peace had been forced on GB in 1940 its likely that part of it would relate to trade even if it didn't its likely that the Germans would have either reestablished control with the demise of government in exile via proxies be they Belgian Rex or French Vichy or would have allowed the Japanese to anex these colonies.

    >>Finally, Germany had no say in the attack on Pearl Harbor and didn't even have pre-knowledge of it. The attack on Pearl Harbor was entirely the idea of the IJN and was motivated by the fact that the IJN needed time to seize certain points in the pacific in order to assure the free flow of supplies from the Souther Resources Area.<<

    I never said the japanese asked the germans for any input I simply said the japanese were driven to pearl harbour because they lacked the required resources for china. If they had the resources its unlikely they would have risked it.




    >>Now you are postulating a counter factual occurrence in the summer of 1940, and claiming that it's effects would be retroactive to 1936? <<

    No clearly I wasnt saying that an incident in 1940 would impact on one in 1936 .What I was saying was that the clashes which built up from 1936 to the army size conflicts of 1938-9 with the russians in which hundreds of thousands of russians fought even larger japanes forces meant that a war was highly possible between Japan and Russia in 1941.

    >>That's rather strange, but no stranger than claiming that the Japanese might want to consider continuing a war (Manchuria), which, to all intents and purposes, ended, in their favor, in 1933. <<

    There wasn't a war in 1933 in manchuria do you mean 1905, 1938 or 1945 against the russians.

    >>In reality, the most likely reaction of the Japanese to a peace between Britain and Germany would be abandon the "Southern Movement" and concentrate on a successful conclusion to the war in China. THe Japanese leaders didn't agree on much, but they all agreed that a necessary pre-condition to a successful move south was that both the US and Britain be pre-occupied with the war in Europe; if Britain signs an armistice, that condition is no longer met.<<

    The japanese were a lot less likely to launch a war against the US or the British if the British are free to focus on defending the east true. I wasnt argueing that they would indeed I was argueing that they were less likely too?




    >>Would Japan attack the Soviets? Probably not, at least not very soon and probably not until China had been disposed of. The biggest reason would be that, in the summer of 1940, just six or seven months had passed since the Soviets had administered to the IJA the worst drubbing it has taken in modern times. The IJA leadership was painfully aware that it was very badly prepared to take on the Red Army, especially while the China war was still a festering wound.<<

    Possibly true the japanes might not have gone in but without a war against the US and UK they might have seen the German invasion as a way of reversing the defeat and seizing even more territory in the east.
    Its admittedly a lot more argueable and we are talking about a counter factual situation here so it could have gone either way.

    >>All in all, your theories are highly imaginative, but exaggerate the importance of Churchill and the Royal Navy, particularly in the Pacific. <<

    I didn't emphasise the importance of the RN in the Pacific the US was stronger but it was neutral so for the purposes of the counter factual case irrelevent?

    >>You completely ignore the fact that the Roosevelt administration was determined that fascism would not only be fought, but defeated. <<

    Yes but he had only been re elected on the promise that the US would not go to war. US public opinion was heavily against war it was the japanese attack on pearl harbour and germany's declaration of war that made full participation possible in 1941.


    >>The USN had started building up to the WNT limits in 1938, and launched the "Two-Ocean Navy" Act in June, 1940, that was specifically designed to produce a navy which could defeat Japan and Germany at the same time with no help from Britain or France.[/quote]<<

    Dont doubt it but if US stays out it doesnt influence the case,
     
  5. mikegb

    mikegb Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    6
    >>I don't think there was ever a question of neutrality re WW2. The scene had been set well before 1939. Britain had gone onto a war footing by about 1936.

    I do believe that Hitler was keen for Britain to stay out which is why he held off for so long.

    On the other hand, neutrality leading up to WW1 was seriously considered. The British public were deeply opposed to any involvement on mainland Europe. Perhaps if they had kept out, some sort of EU would have happened at the time.<<

    I would agree but counter factual extrapolation is enjoyable.:D
     
  6. Kruska

    Kruska Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    1,866
    Likes Received:
    190
    No chance of ever happening.

    Hitler was never interested in Colonies and the therefore required naval power. He was a racial lunatic and as such dreamt of extermination of all non valuable humans.

    Britain and its population would never have in majority supported the NAZI belief, just as the Germans never did, as such Hitler’s vision of an Arian Europe with Germany as the lead nation and England as a “little brother” – in charge for Colonial affairs – was doomed from the very beginning. Luckily England and the world had Churchill, who took up the fight rather then remain "neutral" on the Island.

    Regards
    Kruska
     
  7. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    impression based on the declining America First isolationist position you posted;

    "Opinion polls before pearl harbour were very much against war in the US the idea that the US would attempt to impede trade or declare hosilities without a very strong rational seems unlikely...."

    Looking at the Gallup polls from before Pearl Harbor, and these were polls taken from voting age Americans, male and female. They show that by 1941 the bulk of the American public were no longer strictly isolationist, but caught between stay out of the war completely in every way, only defend America, or get more involved.

    By this time Poland had been attacked and absorbed, the western European nations had been attacked and over run in spite of both stated neutrality and strong defenses. In Asia Japan had invaded and brutally subjecated many of the local peoples, and extended their occupation by aggression into Indo-China, even though the Japanese had been "handed their hats" by the Soviets in the Mongolian/Manchurian border clashes. Even an Imperial Prince had surrendered and been captured by the Soviets, much to the dismay of the Royal Family.

    These now discredited positions had been the mainstays of the America First proponents; staying neutral like Norway, Belgium and Denmark (didn't work), a strong defensive posture like France (didn't work), and simply responding to aggressive stances with appeasement (didn't work). So by mid to late 1941 the polls showed this:

    Gallup Poll #248, Question 3 (mid-Sept 1941), 55% of Americans believed that the country was already involved in the war. As shown in Question 5K and 5T of the same poll, a little over 1/2 of all Americans believed FDR was doing the right thing with his actions (that 55%), while about another 20% believed he hadn't gone far enough. A near complete reversal of the numbers from early 1941 when only about 17% favored going to war!

    Furthermore, in Question 6 of Poll #248, 60% of Americans approved of the decision to fire on German submarines. Finally, a great majority of Americans answered in Questions 11K and 11T that American democracy and German fascism could not co-exist. Now, while in that same poll the vast majority answered they did not want to declare or go to war unilateraly at the time, they approved of FDR's actions (you can also check out Gallup Poll #248, Question 13 to see that 2/3 of Americans support FDR's policies in general as well as his foreign policy specifically).

    In Gallup Poll #250, Question 3K (conducted October 7th, 1941), now 66% of Americans believed the US should continue to help the UK even if it risked war in Europe. In Question 3T of that poll, the same 66% ratio of Americans now stated that it was more important to defeat Germany than to stay out of the war.

    Additionally, according to Gallup Poll #254, Question 3 (conducted in late November 1941), 73.58% of Americans now believed the United States should "take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if this means risking a war with Japan."

    Pearl Harbor obviously wasn't the only reason America went to war with gusto. It was "the straw that broke the camel's back", it was end result of an ongoing built-up of straw after straw which America as a whole finally saw the Axis as a necessary evil which had to be addressed.

    FDR was a skillful politician and not "ignoring or exaggerating" the actions of the Axis powers. FDR was only exploiting the Axis own failings, aggressions, and mistakes to rally Americans out of their "not our problem" mentality.

    Not too surprisingly, the mid-west of America were the most "isolationist", while the coasts (east and west) were the least. Those not on the coasts had less personally at risk did they not?

    But at any rate, the Gallup polls had exposed a shrinking not growing isolationist movement from mid-1941 on, and after Hitler invaded the USSR, the membership began to shrink even further as the American Communist and Socialist parties saw their "workers paradise" under attack, and even the outspoken Senators Nye (North Dakota) and Wheeler (Montana) had begun to tone down their "stay out" speeches. Jennette Rankin (Montana) voted against declaring war, but then voted for every bill for defense spending afterwards. Just as she had done in WW1. While she was a pascifist, her speech condemning the declaration of war is telling in that it included the phrase; "I cannot vote to send men into a war which I myself am barred from participating in by my gender." (paraphrasing)

    I sometimes think that those opinions of the American Isolationist position get blown out of proportion as if we in the USA wished to just kept on whistling in the cemetary hoping "nothing would happen to us". This is false but an easy "dumb America" dig.
     
    Slipdigit likes this.
  8. Slipdigit

    Slipdigit Good Ol' Boy Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    Messages:
    17,449
    Likes Received:
    2,064
    Location:
    Alabama
    Who?

    Y'all please use the quote [​IMG] button, in the post your are referring to, then the [​IMG] button to open your reply. If the quote is long, pare it down as I did below.


    This is a very informative and appropriate post.

     
  9. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    Sorry, I haven't figured out how to do that "Quote" button yet (should do so huh?), and figured that by starting the post with the other username ("mikegb") it would be self-evident as to whom I was referring. Sorry.
     
  10. JCFalkenbergIII

    JCFalkenbergIII Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    10,480
    Likes Received:
    425
    WE forgive ya Clint LOL. I seemed to remember what you posted from some where else ;) LOL. Funny how some things are the same huh?
     
  11. PzJgr

    PzJgr Drill Instructor

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2000
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    885
    Location:
    Jefferson, OH
    If Britain went into neutrality, it would not last long. Italy would soon join in the fight and I believe still attack in North Africa. The Brits would get in the war again and Germany would have to bail out his buddy from the south......again.
     
  12. mikegb

    mikegb Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    6
    >>impression based on the declining America First isolationist position you posted;

    "Opinion polls before pearl harbour were very much against war in the US the idea that the US would attempt to impede trade or declare hosilities without a very strong rational seems unlikely...."

    Looking at the Gallup polls from before Pearl Harbor, and these were polls taken from voting age Americans, male and female. They show that by 1941 the bulk of the American public were no longer strictly isolationist, but caught between stay out of the war completely in every way, only defend America, or get more involved.

    By this time Poland had been attacked and absorbed, the western European nations had been attacked and over run in spite of both stated neutrality and strong defenses. In Asia Japan had invaded and brutally subjecated many of the local peoples, and extended their occupation by aggression into Indo-China, even though the Japanese had been "handed their hats" by the Soviets in the Mongolian/Manchurian border clashes. Even an Imperial Prince had surrendered and been captured by the Soviets, much to the dismay of the Royal Family.

    These now discredited positions had been the mainstays of the America First proponents; staying neutral like Norway, Belgium and Denmark (didn't work), a strong defensive posture like France (didn't work), and simply responding to aggressive stances with appeasement (didn't work). So by mid to late 1941 the polls showed this:

    Gallup Poll #248, Question 3 (mid-Sept 1941), 55% of Americans believed that the country was already involved in the war. As shown in Question 5K and 5T of the same poll, a little over 1/2 of all Americans believed FDR was doing the right thing with his actions (that 55%), while about another 20% believed he hadn't gone far enough. A near complete reversal of the numbers from early 1941 when only about 17% favored going to war!

    Furthermore, in Question 6 of Poll #248, 60% of Americans approved of the decision to fire on German submarines. Finally, a great majority of Americans answered in Questions 11K and 11T that American democracy and German fascism could not co-exist. Now, while in that same poll the vast majority answered they did not want to declare or go to war unilateraly at the time, they approved of FDR's actions (you can also check out Gallup Poll #248, Question 13 to see that 2/3 of Americans support FDR's policies in general as well as his foreign policy specifically).

    In Gallup Poll #250, Question 3K (conducted October 7th, 1941), now 66% of Americans believed the US should continue to help the UK even if it risked war in Europe. In Question 3T of that poll, the same 66% ratio of Americans now stated that it was more important to defeat Germany than to stay out of the war.

    Additionally, according to Gallup Poll #254, Question 3 (conducted in late November 1941), 73.58% of Americans now believed the United States should "take steps now to keep Japan from becoming more powerful, even if this means risking a war with Japan."

    Pearl Harbor obviously wasn't the only reason America went to war with gusto. It was "the straw that broke the camel's back", it was end result of an ongoing built-up of straw after straw which America as a whole finally saw the Axis as a necessary evil which had to be addressed.

    FDR was a skillful politician and not "ignoring or exaggerating" the actions of the Axis powers. FDR was only exploiting the Axis own failings, aggressions, and mistakes to rally Americans out of their "not our problem" mentality.

    Not too surprisingly, the mid-west of America were the most "isolationist", while the coasts (east and west) were the least. Those not on the coasts had less personally at risk did they not?

    But at any rate, the Gallup polls had exposed a shrinking not growing isolationist movement from mid-1941 on, and after Hitler invaded the USSR, the membership began to shrink even further as the American Communist and Socialist parties saw their "workers paradise" under attack, and even the outspoken Senators Nye (North Dakota) and Wheeler (Montana) had begun to tone down their "stay out" speeches. Jennette Rankin (Montana) voted against declaring war, but then voted for every bill for defense spending afterwards. Just as she had done in WW1. While she was a pascifist, her speech condemning the declaration of war is telling in that it included the phrase; "I cannot vote to send men into a war which I myself am barred from participating in by my gender." (paraphrasing)

    I sometimes think that those opinions of the American Isolationist position get blown out of proportion as if we in the USA wished to just kept on whistling in the cemetary hoping "nothing would happen to us". This is false but an easy "dumb America" dig. <<

    Interesting but with the UK Neutral and no place for the US to use as a base or a side to join its still doubtfull that the US would have declared war unilaterally out of the blue without provococation.

    This isnt an attack on the US or a denigration of US military power simply an interesting what if. Its based on speculation once it leaves the safe ground of actual events with the UK neutral it would have introduced a whole new set of influences to US public opinion so late 41 polling is less applicable to theoretical public opinion than early 41 opinion in a what if counter factualk scenario.

    There would have been no Ed Muro, No blitz footage, No heroic Britain and no possible food etc so its unlikely that the US would get involved at least in the short term.
     
  13. mikegb

    mikegb Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    6
    I ddin't know polling was available for this eriod have you got the URL.
     
  14. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    That data is off an old Newsweek, or Time magazine I had run across and saved to a file of my own. I believe those polls can be found at either the Library of Congress or the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) archive sites for purchase.

    But back to the Brits staying neutral after that time period, as unlikely it would seem. But even if so the US would still be legally able to trade with them, and Nazi Germany couldn't afford to allow that to continue. Plus America's final (before Lend-Lease) existing Neutrality Act of our own would have kept the Germans from buying our goods, not just because it was "Cash and Carry", but because it had to be hauled in their hulls and as aggressors wouldn't be allowed any credit, nor access to hulls other than their own for loading good they couldn't buy in American ports. The last three Neutrality Acts were designed to KEEP US OUT of another European war. Add in that German merchant shipping stunk, as did their allies the Italian.

    If Britain was a non-engaged neutral, we (America) could continue to trade with them. The lack of gold bullion might have become problematic by 1941 (as it did historically), but the mines in South Africa were still producing so perhaps not as much a problem if they weren't spending it on war goods as before. They could still put non-military goods, food, fuel and fiber "on the cuff" as a non-belligerent and past "goods purchaser" Most Favored Nation Status. Whereas the brand new Nazi Germany wouldn't have that benefit.

    So the food problem for the UK would be non-existent, even without lend-lease they could always feed themselves, you should know that with that "gb" on the end of your username. The problem for Britain in importing goods wasn't food, it was being "starved" of raw material for arms production. The rations might have been bland, but the Brits wouldn't have ever "starved to death". So food isn't the problem.

    As to fuel, the US was the global leader in EXPORTING petroleum clear into the fifties. At the time of WW2 the mid-east was almost unknown as a petroleum producer. By 1939 the US alone accounted for 60.4% of GLOBAL PETROLEUM PRODUCTION, and from Latin America another 15.3% was sold, so slightly more than three quarters of the world's know petroleum production fields were in the New World (Western Hemisphere).

    The USSR (1st Baku field) accounted for the largest single chunk of the remaining production, 10.6% (at that time).

    (Persia) Iraq & Iran combined accounted for 5.4%.
    NEI (Dutch East Indies) 2.7%.
    Romania 2.4%.
    The British Empire (excluding the mid-east) 2.0%.

    I would assume the remaining 1 or 2% would be made up from minor well heads scattered all over the place like Malaysia, Burma, and Borneo.

    The Arabian and North African fields had not yet really been found or developed. UK imports of petroleum early in the war were running around 11-12 million metric tons. About half of this could be satisfied from Empire sources alone, but would that much be needed if she were neutral? So as an importing nation (Germany) would be the one forced to either demand more from the UK than could be given to remain neutral, thus instigating the war again, or they would have to invade and try to "take" what none would sell them. Again instigatating the war.

    Whether or not Britain stayed out, the nuclear program would have still gone ahead since the ex-patriot Hungarian Jew Leo Szilard had left Britain, moved to the USA, and convinced his old teacher and fellow patent holder (Einstein) that the atomic bomb was possible, and the Nazis were working on it.

    Szilard had patented the "fission bomb" concept in Britain and given the patent to the Royal Navy secretly in 1936 (I think).

    And while no "London Blitz" appeal would exist, the Axis continued aggression up until 1941 itself had begun to sour the American public on the Axis partners in both theaters. As an example, we froze the Soviet accounts in America when Stalin signed on with Hitler and refused to sell to them, but we released the funds and pre-ordered shippments the afternoon after Hitler invaded the USSR.

    The same happened in the far east, we froze both the Chinese and Japanese assets while it seemed a "border conflict", but released them to the Chinese for arms purchasing when mainland China was bombed later.

    Perhaps if the British were "out of the war" (for one reason or the other), then the Consolidated B-36 wouldn't have been put on hold and the back-burner as it was historically. That big bugger could fly from the US, to Moscow and back, without refueling, although it was designed to only make Berlin originally. Carrying a MASSIVE bomload at an elevation the Luftwaffe would have been hard put to reach. Just having it in our arsenal would have given the Nazis pause.

    While that big lumbering bomber appears to be an "easy target", it was shown in later "war games" that slow S turns at its altitude would defeat even the jet fighters of the fifties. You could park a Superfortress under one of its wings! The interceptor wings couldn't operate at that altitude at that time. They would have been nearly invulnerable as bomb platforms, and they carried a LOT of bomb weight. Ironically, when it was operational one flew from Texas to Honalulu, undetected by American radar, dropped a dummy atomic bomb, and returned to Texas on the anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack. LeMay was pointing out that we really hadn't learned how to stay "alert" even with that experience in our past.

    So even with the UK "neutral", the atomic bomb would or might have been pursued after Einstein signed and forwarded Szilard's letter to FDR.

    Just my opinions here, but I don't see too many advantages for the Nazis if they do manage to gain a "neutral" Britain. They had used up all their internal gold reserves, had to invade their neighbors and rob their vaults to gain more, and couldn't buy the material they needed without the gold.

    BTW, America had frozen their assets along with the USSR's when they invaded Poland. We never gave that particular gold back to them either (giggle, snicker), we distributed it to a Jewish refugee organization, along with the Houghton Mifflin royalties for Mein Kampf held in escrow by the US govenment.
     
    Za Rodinu and JCFalkenbergIII like this.
  15. Devilsadvocate

    Devilsadvocate Ace

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    346
    Who says the British would drop support for the European governments in exile? That's why I say a lot would depend on the terms of the armistice between Britain and Germany. Germany would not be in a position to dictate terms in the summer of 1940. This event never happened, so in order to make it happen, Germany has to sweeten the pot quite a bit for Britain. And even if Britain did agree to complete neutrality, that the Nazis, or the Nazi-dominated European governments would take control is NOT a foregone conclusion, nor even a likely one. German "control" did not happen to the majority of overseas European colonies. You mention North Africa as being examples; exactly which colonies in North Africa, or elsewhere, fell under German control? I can tell you Indochina never was under German control, nor was the Belgian Congo or France's western hemisphere colonies. Instead of some vague assertions that Germany controlled European overseas colonies give the dates and names of these colonies.



    Even with bases in Britain the exiled European governments mostly granted their overseas colonies autonomy. The exception was Vichy France and Vichy's overseas colonies were NOT administered for Germany's benefit. Yet the fact remains that Germany found it impossible to "control" the former colonies if the exiled European governments. The exceptions were those colonies where Germany could land and sustain significant ground forces; this included few colonies, and none with important reserves of raw materials. Again, if I'm wrong about this, list the names and dates of the colonies that Germany managed to control.



    Precisely the crux of my point; Germany had no way of exerting naval or military control over any of the former overseas colonies and was therefore in no position to "control" any of these colonies, even by dominating the Home governments. The reason for this was that the colonies that really counted were too far away and under other political influences.

    As for oil, no, Germany wouldn't have gotten oil from Iran (called Persia then) because Britain controlled that area under a League of Nations mandate and Germany has just signed an armistice with Britain. The US still opposes fascism and isn't going to let Germany have any oil from the western hemisphere. Britain needs the oil from Persia, and the NEI won't sell it's oil to any country which might resell it to Germany. In that time period, that leaves only Borneo, also controlled by the British and Dutch, and the Soviet Union. Germany is going to be just as thirsty for oil as before the armistice with Britain.



    What makes you think Japan would ever let Germany "annex" territory which Japan itself wants very badly to annex? Germany has no raw materials that Japan needs that badly and can't find much closer to home. German technology is essentially useless to Japan without a thorough revamping of Japanese industry, as was shown during the war. Germany isn't interested in overseas colonies anyway because she can't possibly defend them against any possible aggressor. The idea is a non-starter.



    Yes, Indochina was Vichy, but what good did that do Germany? Did Germany get any rubber or rice out of Indochina? Not a single ton. Martinique was Vichy too, how much sugar did Germany get from Martinique? Maybe fill the sugar bowel on Hitler's breakfast table? Or new Caledonia which was Vichy to start with in 1940-41? How much tungsten or chromium ore did Germany get from New Caledonia? Not enough to make any difference. Syria was a French mandate in 1940, what did Germany get from Syria in the way of useful raw materials? Nothing that I know of.



    Exactly what raw materials were situated in North Africa? No oil, that was all a post-war development. No rubber, no strategic minerals except possibly some fissionable ores in the Belgian Congo, which is not, BTW, in North Africa. But German scientists had already blown the race for the A-bomb by miscalculating the amount of fissionable material needed to go critical. There was nothing in North Africa that was of much use to Germany.



    Whether Germany would have free use of her merchant marine under such circumstances is very much an open question. Just by signing some sort of armistice with Britain, Germany does not solve it's problems with the US. The Roosevelt administration is unalterably opposed to the Nazi regime and isn't likely to be less so if Britain becomes neutral. Th fall of France in 1940 scared the Hell out of the US public, and Britain opting out of the war would be a double catastrophy. The Roosevelt administration basically had a blank check from Congress and the US public regarding military spending from then on. The public opinion polls after the summer of 1940 were in favor of fighting fascism in Europe if necessary.

    Given that the US would no longer have to support Britain's war effort, all of those resources would be available to counter the Germans and Japanese. It's very likely that Roosevelt would step in and keep Germany blockaded. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, you're kidding yourself if you think Roosevelt would not support anyone fighting Germany or Japan; he said as much many times prior to Pearl Harbor and proved it by immediately offering Stalin material aid when Germany attacked the Soviets. It's highly unlikely Roosevelt would allow Germany to have access to ocean trade, even if it meant war with Germany, or perhaps especially if it meant war with Germany.



    Who says the British would drop support for the European governments in exile? That's why I say a lot would depend on the terms of the armistice between Britain and Germany. Germany would not be in a position to dictate terms in the summer of 1940. This event never happened, so in order to make it happen, Germany has to sweeten the pot quite a bit for Britain. And even if Britain did agree to complete neutrality, that the Nazis, or the Nazi-dominated European governments would take control is NOT a foregone conclusion, nor even a likely one. German "control" did not happen to the majority of overseas European colonies. You mention North Africa as being examples; exactly which colonies in North Africa, or elsewhere, fell under German control? I can tell you Indochina never was under German control, nor was the Belgian Congo or France's western hemisphere colonies. Instead of some vague assertions that Germany controlled European overseas colonies give the dates and names of these colonies.



    Even with bases in Britain the exiled European governments mostly granted their overseas colonies autonomy. The exception was Vichy France and Vichy's overseas colonies were NOT administered for Germany's benefit. Yet the fact remains that Germany found it impossible to "control" the former colonies if the exiled European governments. The exceptions were those colonies where Germany could land and sustain significant ground forces; this included few colonies, and none with important reserves of raw materials. Again, if I'm wrong about this, list the names and dates of the colonies that Germany managed to control.



    Precisely the crux of my point; Germany had no way of exerting naval or military control over any of the former overseas colonies and was therefore in no position to "control" any of these colonies, even by dominating the Home governments. The reason for this was that the colonies that really counted were too far away and under other political influences.

    As for oil, no, Germany wouldn't have gotten oil from Iran (called Persia then) because Britain controlled that area under a League of Nations mandate and Germany has just signed an armistice with Britain. The US still opposes fascism and isn't going to let Germany have any oil from the western hemisphere. Britain needs the oil from Persia, and the NEI won't sell it's oil to any country which might resell it to Germany. In that time period, that leaves only Borneo, also controlled by the British and Dutch, and the Soviet Union. Germany is going to be just as thirsty for oil as before the armistice with Britain.



    What makes you think Japan would ever let Germany "annex" territory which Japan itself wants very badly to annex? Germany has no raw materials that Japan needs that badly and can't find much closer to home. German technology is essentially useless to Japan without a thorough revamping of Japanese industry, as was shown during the war. Germany isn't interested in overseas colonies anyway because she can't possibly defend them against any possible aggressor. The idea is a non-starter.



    Yes, Indochina was Vichy, but what good did that do Germany? Did Germany get any rubber or rice out of Indochina? Not a single ton. Martinique was Vichy too, how much sugar did Germany get from Martinique? Maybe fill the sugar bowel on Hitler's breakfast table? Or new Caledonia which was Vichy to start with in 1940-41? How much tungsten or chromium ore did Germany get from New Caledonia? Not enough to make any difference. Syria was a French mandate in 1940, what did Germany get from Syria in the way of useful raw materials? Nothing that I know of.



    Exactly what raw materials were situated in North Africa? No oil, that was all a post-war development. No rubber, no strategic minerals except possibly some fissionable ores in the Belgian Congo, which is not, BTW, in North Africa. But German scientists had already blown the race for the A-bomb by miscalculating the amount of fissionable material needed to go critical. There was nothing in North Africa that was of much use to Germany.



    Whether Germany would have free use of her merchant marine under such circumstances is very much an open question. Just by signing some sort of armistice with Britain, Germany does not solve it's problems with the US. The Roosevelt administration is unalterably opposed to the Nazi regime and isn't likely to be less so if Britain becomes neutral. Th fall of France in 1940 scared the Hell out of the US public, and Britain opting out of the war would be a double catastrophy. The Roosevelt administration basically had a blank check from Congress and the US public regarding military spending from then on. The public opinion polls after the summer of 1940 were in favor of fighting fascism in Europe if necessary.

    Given that the US would no longer have to support Britain's war effort, all of those resources would be available to counter the Germans and Japanese. It's very likely that Roosevelt would step in and keep Germany blockaded. As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, you're kidding yourself if you think Roosevelt would not support anyone fighting Germany or Japan; he said as much many times prior to Pearl Harbor and proved it by immediately offering Stalin material aid when Germany attacked the Soviets. It's highly unlikely Roosevelt would allow Germany to have access to ocean trade, even if it meant war with Germany.



    Not really. Both the US and Britain restricted exports to Japan in 1940 partially to offset a lack of creditable military pressure to force Japan to cease aggression in Asia and the Pacific, however, long before this economic sanction could begin to take effect, Japan had already to decided to "move south" and seize the former European colonies including Singapore, Malaya, the NEI, and the Philippines. The only real effect the US embargo had in June 1941, was to speed up the Japanese timetable.

    In any case, neither Britain nor the US would have sold any strategic materials to Japan regardless of what happened; those materials were considered crucial to preparation for war against Germany. The Embargo was not enforced by any navy, it was an economic embargo meaning that the method of carrying it out was to freeze Japanese assets in US and British banks so no transactions could take place. The Japanese were in the midst of negotiations with the NEI to increase the NEI's export of oil to Japan in the summer of 1941.

    Japan had purchased about 380,000 tons of oil from the NEI in 1939 and wanted an increase of 3,000,000 tons to about 3,800,000 tons (about half of the NEI's total production) in 1940, and further increases in 1941. The NEI government didn't say no but deferred to the private oil companies which claimed that most of the oil which would become available during the period was already purchased. The Japanese also foolishly made completely unacceptable political and economic demands which amounted to surrender of the NEI's sovereignty. In September, 1940, Japan signed the Tri-Partite Pact with Germany and Italy which ended any hope Japan might have had of obtaining oil peacefully. It was Japan's arrogant and stupid foreign policy which forced the Pacific war upon Japan, not lack of raw materials.



    What you wrote does seem to indicate that the Royal navy was "affecting" Japan in some unspecified way.

    You wrote; "Without the royal navy to block them they could have supplied Japan with the materials they needed for their China campaign....."

    To me that is English for; Japan was starved of raw materials because the Royal Navy was preventing Germany from supplying Japan with strategic raw materials. There's several things wrong with that line of reasoning. The Royal Navy was blockading Germany to keep Germany from getting strategic raw materials, but maintained no blockade against Japan as, until December, 1941, Britain was at peace with Japan. Germany didn't have the raw materials which Japan needed and even if they did, they weren't going to be shipping them half-way around the world to Japan when they also needed them. Even if Germany managed to establish peace with Britain in 1940, she would still face a struggle to obtain the raw materials she herself needed, never mind Japan's requirements. I was just trying to illustrate the absurdity of your reasoning, that was my point.



    Again, what makes you think Germany would have "free navigation" of the seas? With Roosevelt's hatred of the Nazi regime, and his conviction that it posed a deadly peril to the US, he would find some way of stopping it, even if it meant going to war with Germany which he considered inevitable anyway.

    As for a presence in the Med; no, the Germans wouldn't be getting the materials they needed through the Med because there weren't any in the North African colonies as you seem to think. If the Germans want things like oil, bauxite, rubber, alloying minerals, tin, tungsten, chromium, and other strategic raw materials, they're going to have to go a lot further than North Africa and the USN was quite capable of stopping overseas trade if it desired.



    That's highly speculative. You haven't shown how Japan's aggression would have been stopped, or even slowed, beyond some vague comments about how Germany could supply Japan. Not only would that be impossible because Germany didn't have the supplies Japan needed, but even if she did, Japan wanted to control the source of supplies and get them as cheaply (read steal them) as possible. That's not something Germany would be willing to tolerate. Japan wanted autarky in South Asia and the Pacific; that's not something Germany could, or intended to, supply.

    Japan, by 1940, had already decided to take the territories she wanted in the Pacific, peacefully or otherwise. Only by doing this could she gain autarky. But from a practical standpoint, seizing the former European colonies in the Pacific meant that she would have to fight the US, if only because the Philippines stood in the way of Japan controlling the sea routes to and from the Southern Resources Area. What Germany might, or might not do, is irrelevant in this equation. The only way Japan avoids a war with the US is withdraw from China and give up her dream of Empire in Asia and the Pacific; a few hundred thousand tons of supplies means nothing to Japan, it is control of the sources that matters.



    No idea what you mean when you say most Belgian colonies were Vichy? Vichy was the collaborationist government in unoccupied France, not Belgium. None of the Belgian colonies were "Vichy".

    And so what? How much did Germany get out of any of the Vichy French colonies? Take a look at the list of French, Belgian, and other European colonies in North Africa in 1940. Which ones were producing significant amounts of oil, strategic minerals, food, or any other useful raw materials at that time? The answer is none of them. Most could barely feed themselves. Some of them could grow large amounts of cotton which might be useful for lightweight military uniforms, but that's about it. All the other European colonies were well out of reach of Germany, either in the western hemisphere, sub-equatorial Africa or in Asia or the southwest Pacific. Controlling the puppet governments in Europe does Germany no good, because the colonies that really can produce useful raw materials are all under control by either the US or Japan, neither of which is going to pay much attention to Germany.



    I understand the foundation on which you base your assumptions. However, in 1940, the world was either at war, or waiting to go to war. Having done it's utmost to start the war, Germany cannot now expect simply to say, "Well, I've had enough for awhile, now I want a spell of peace so I can build up my economy and get more of the materials I've run out of." The US was thoroughly alarmed by the Axis in 1940 and is not likely to give the Nazis the respite they might welcome. The terms would be the same as Japan eventually faced; give up the territories you've seized and become more peaceable, or fight. In reality, Hitler had pretty much trashed the international order and other countries would realize that fascism cannot peaceably exist alongside the democracies. You have to keep in mind that, by June, 1940, the US had determined to mobilize it's industrial capacity to fight the Axis and that meant a "Two-Ocean" Navy, overwhelming strategic air force, and massive ground forces. You can't just turn something like that on and off with the flip of a switch; the US tax-payer is going to have to pay for it and will want to use it on someone, might as well be Germany.



    US opinion polls were actually sliding towards supporting a war, and by the middle of 1940, most Americans conceded it might be necessary to go to war against Germany, even though more people felt Japan should be defeated first. According to the Roosevelt administration, there already was a very strong reason to go to war with Germany, and the American public was becoming convinced. It's no coincidence that Congress voted in June, 1940 to fund the most massive military rearmament program the world had ever seen. Roosevelt was a masterful politician and he would have managed some way to prohibit German free trade without making it look like the US was contravening international law.



    T
    The US fleet could be deployed wherever it needed to be deployed in a matter of weeks. It wouldn't be the western Pacific because of the Japanese navy in those parts, but that's not where it has to be deployed to stop German merchant ships. In any case, Japan isn't going to tolerate competition form Germany for scarce raw materials in what it views as it's own back yard.

    And why not a war to help Stalin? Roosevelt already knew the US would eventually go to war against the Axis, so did the American public, the only question was Japan or Germany first? Historically, Roosevelt immediately offered significant aid to Stalin within days of the German attack on the Soviets. There is no logic which says the US won't go to war to help the Russians. Historically, Roosevelt certainly risked war with Germany to send aid to the Russians in June, 1941, there's no reason to think he wouldn't have done it a year earlier.



    Possibly, but that only binds Britain, not the US. Having been abandoned by two of the countries it has tried to help (France and Britain), neither will have much leverage with the US, and the US will look after it's own interests first. And those interests are the defeat and destruction, as soon as possible, of the Axis. None of the governments in Europe will have much authority with the former colonies which will pursue their own interests as they see them. Since Germany has no navy to speak of, only those colonies within reach of the German air and ground forces wil have anything to fear from Germany or it's puppets.



    Your assertion that Germany making peace with Britain might have prevented Pearl Harbor comes down to the same thing. The Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor because it did not have resources; Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because it did not want to pay for it's raw materials like normal countries do. It's conduct towards the NEI in 1940-41 is proof of this. Japan wanted to politically, economically, and militarily control the sources of it's supplies of strategic materials. Since this was not something that Germany could, or even wanted, to do for Japan, it's inaccurate to assert that Germany making peace with Britain could influence Japan to refrain from attacking Pearl Harbor.



    Sorry, but with your odd use of punctuation (or lack thereof), it's often difficult to figure out what you really mean. As near as I can determine, there was no war, recognized or otherwise in Manchuria in 1936. You may be referring to the mid-1939 Nomonhan war fought between the Soviets and the Japanese on the Manchurian border, but whatever you were talking about was far from clear. It was the Nomonhan war which convinced the Imperial Japanese Army that it was far from ready to face the Soviets in an all out war, and coincidentally, resolved the struggle between the "Go North" and "Go South" factions in the Japanese armed services. Ads a result of this border clash, in 1940 war was actually less likely between Japan and the Soviet Union than it had been at any time in the 1930's.




    No, while Roosevelt made a pledge that he would not get the US into the war, t5he major issue was his running, against custom, for a third term. American public opinion was not so strongly against the war that Roosevelt had no maneuver room. Besides, it was Roosevelt's determination to fight fascism and his ability to manipulate public attitude that I'm talking about. Roosevelt was no more likely to give up against the Axis because the Brits did, than he was likely to resign his office. By the Fall of 1941, better than half the US population believed war against the Axis was necessary and inevitable.



    That's my point, the US can't stay out unless Roosevelt suddenly says we don't need a big Navy, we can use the money to build more dams. It is more likely that Hitler becomes an Evangelical Christian and goes on a World Tour for Peace.
     
    Za Rodinu likes this.
  16. mikegb

    mikegb Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    6
    >>Who says the British would drop support for the European governments in exile? That's why I say a lot would depend on the terms of the armistice between Britain and Germany. Germany would not be in a position to dictate terms in the summer of 1940. This event never happened, so in order to make it happen, Germany has to sweeten the pot quite a bit for Britain. <<

    I cant imagine they would not have made it a key demand again this is counter factual but I would have thought that in this situation that exiled hostile governments would be allowed to operate in the UK.

    >>And even if Britain did agree to complete neutrality, that the Nazis, or the Nazi-dominated European governments would take control is NOT a foregone conclusion, nor even a likely one. German "control" did not happen to the majority of overseas European colonies. <<

    Ture but if you read the posts I said they were in reality mostly contained by Vichy proxies, Dutch or Belgian puppet regime agents.



    >>You mention North Africa as being examples; exactly which colonies in North Africa, or elsewhere, fell under German control? I can tell you Indochina never was under German control, nor was the Belgian Congo or France's western hemisphere colonies. Instead of some vague assertions that Germany controlled European overseas colonies give the dates and names of these colonies.<<

    I stated that they would be and were at the time till conquered or defected largely held by German proxies not by Germans I've restated this twice before ?

    >>Even with bases in Britain the exiled European governments mostly granted their overseas colonies autonomy. <<

    Actually few colonies went to the exiled governments side indeed the US kept contacts with Vichy since De Gaulle had limited success in bringing colonies over to the allies.

    >>The exception was Vichy France and Vichy's overseas colonies were NOT administered for Germany's benefit. <<

    Really the Vichy French economy wasnt essentially asset stipped for the benefit of Germany reducing the French to povery and the dutch to starvation by 1945. They also indirectly bled the over seas colonies of France for materials to be sent to Germany indeed A swift examination of the balance of trade between France Belgium and Holland shows exactly how much wealth materials labour and resources were redirected to the Reich.


    >>Yet the fact remains that Germany found it impossible to "control" the former colonies if the exiled European governments. <<

    So the conquest of Syria, Lebanon, North Africa by the UK and US etc wasnt neccessary. The French allowing the Japanese to invade Singapore via vietnam showed their deep commitment to the allied cause.

    >>The exceptions were those colonies where Germany could land and sustain significant ground forces; this included few colonies, and none with important reserves of raw materials. Again, if I'm wrong about this, list the names and dates of the colonies that Germany managed to control.<<

    Again difficult to defend what I never said ? I stated that the colonies would remain under control of Governments (Vichy, Belgian (Rex) and Holland (Flemish League etc) who were subject to German control.



    >>Precisely the crux of my point; Germany had no way of exerting naval or military control over any of the former overseas colonies and was therefore in no position to "control" any of these colonies, even by dominating the Home governments. <<

    Okay back on point, I never said they could control the colonies except those bordering the mediteranean maybe except via client governments. The fact that most of the over seas goverments were directly controlled by client government who were in turn under german control . This was usually via the subtle placements of tanks and Gestapo in the cities of these governments or by the threat of their entry into vichy.


    >>The reason for this was that the colonies that really counted were too far away and under other political influences.<<

    Not in North Africa, Africa or indeed Vietnam etc with the admitted exception of Batavia.

    >>As for oil, no, Germany wouldn't have gotten oil from Iran (called Persia then) because Britain controlled that area under a League of Nations mandate and Germany has just signed an armistice with Britain. <<

    Depends on the treaty agreement but Iraq was very pro Axis so oil would have been available.

    >>The US still opposes fascism and isn't going to let Germany have any oil from the western hemisphere. Britain needs the oil from Persia, and the NEI won't sell it's oil to any country which might resell it to Germany. In that time period, that leaves only Borneo, also controlled by the British and Dutch, and the Soviet Union. Germany is going to be just as thirsty for oil as before the armistice with Britain.<<

    Again Iraq even assuming the UK enforces a complete oil embargo thats assuming no oil from the Saudi's, Gulf states etc.





    >>What makes you think Japan would ever let Germany "annex" territory which Japan itself wants very badly to annex? Germany has no raw materials that Japan needs that badly and can't find much closer to home.<<

    I obviously wrote that in an unclear manner I meant the Japanese would take the colony (in this very theoretical what if scenario)

    >> German technology is essentially useless to Japan without a thorough revamping of Japanese industry, as was shown during the war.<<

    Hm not sure I mentioned this but the Japanes did use a fair bit of technology from the Germans at the end with prototype jet fighters, some aero engines and the Baka Bomb engine etc. But the Japanese did lack the industry to use a lot of the German technology especially armour. Though I never understood why the panzerfaust didn't get transferred as a concept given its utility and ease of construction.


    >>Germany isn't interested in overseas colonies anyway because she can't possibly defend them against any possible aggressor. The idea is a non-starter.<<

    I was talking about access to raw materials for industry not Germany creating an over seas empire i wasnt argueing that that would happen





    >>Yes, Indochina was Vichy, but what good did that do Germany? Did Germany get any rubber or rice out of Indochina? Not a single ton. <<

    Not directly but any materials that did get back to france were quickly taken from france. The scenario suggetsts that the Germans could get freighters across the international lanes to the colonies . It was the RN's bases and ships that brought German international trade to a halt with the exception of a few stragglers (one of which formed the basis of an okay John Wayne film).

    >>Martinique was Vichy too, how much sugar did Germany get from Martinique? Maybe fill the sugar bowel on Hitler's breakfast table? Or new Caledonia which was Vichy to start with in 1940-41? How much tungsten or chromium ore did Germany get from New Caledonia? Not enough to make any difference.<<

    Not with their ports blocked by the RN in this (hypothetical) scenario the Royal Navy and the US would have been neutral . In fact quite a bit of material got back via neutral Spain and Portugal.

    >> Syria was a French mandate in 1940, what did Germany get from Syria in the way of useful raw materials? Nothing that I know of.<<

    No because the RN controlled that end of the mediteranean.





    >>Exactly what raw materials were situated in North Africa? No oil, that was all a post-war development. <<

    Probably true.

    >>No rubber, no strategic minerals except possibly some fissionable ores in the Belgian Congo, which is not,<<

    Iron ore, Diamonds, Gold, rubber,just about every mineral you can think of the list for the congo goes on a long way its the reasons the belgians killed a lot of the population extracting them and the civil war after they left went on for 30 years over who controlled it.

    >> BTW, in North Africa. But German scientists had already blown the race for the A-bomb by miscalculating the amount of fissionable material needed to go critical. There was nothing in North Africa that was of much use to Germany.<<

    True they had successfully shot themselves in the foot becasue their racial bigotry had purged a lot of their best scientists.





    >>Whether Germany would have free use of her merchant marine under such circumstances is very much an open question. Just by signing some sort of armistice with Britain, Germany does not solve it's problems with the US. The Roosevelt administration is unalterably opposed to the Nazi regime and isn't likely to be less so if Britain becomes neutral. Th fall of France in 1940 scared the Hell out of the US public, and Britain opting out of the war would be a double catastrophy. The Roosevelt administration basically had a blank check from Congress and the US public regarding military spending from then on. The public opinion polls after the summer of 1940 were in favor of fighting fascism in Europe if necessary. <<

    Even if the US had blocked access to the west indies and parts of the Pacific they could not have blockaded Europe accross the Atlantic even if the dubious proposition that the US would have unilaterally declared war without a provocation.

    >>Given that the US would no longer have to support Britain's war effort, all of those resources would be available to counter the Germans and Japanese. It's very likely that Roosevelt would step in and keep Germany blockaded. <<

    How would the US have blockaded Europe accross the atlantic if the UK was neutral even in the probably unlikely that the us would declare war.


    >>As far as the Soviet Union is concerned, you're kidding yourself if you think Roosevelt would not support anyone fighting Germany or Japan; he said as much many times prior to Pearl Harbor and proved it by immediately offering Stalin material aid when Germany attacked the Soviets. It's highly unlikely Roosevelt would allow Germany to have access to ocean trade, even if it meant war with Germany, or perhaps especially if it meant war with Germany.<<

    I would say the probability of Congress and the Senate would have supported sending their electorates sons off to fight for the Bolsheviks is not that high even if they did the US lacked bases world wide in 1940.
     
  17. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    9,713
    Likes Received:
    1,501
    This time I have lost complete the thread of continuation. I cannot figure out who said what, or who was responding to what?

    And in some instances it appears double posts follow each other inside of a single post! Come one guys, whazzup?
     
  18. mikegb

    mikegb Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    6
    >>I understand the foundation on which you base your assumptions. However, in 1940, the world was either at war, or waiting to go to war. Having done it's utmost to start the war, Germany cannot now expect simply to say, "Well, I've had enough for awhile, now I want a spell of peace so I can build up my economy and get more of the materials I've run out of." The US was thoroughly alarmed by the Axis in 1940 and is not likely to give the Nazis the respite they might welcome. The terms would be the same as Japan eventually faced; give up the territories you've seized and become more peaceable, or fight. In reality, Hitler had pretty much trashed the international order and other countries would realize that fascism cannot peaceably exist alongside the democracies. You have to keep in mind that, by June, 1940, the US had determined to mobilize it's industrial capacity to fight the Axis and that meant a "Two-Ocean" Navy, overwhelming strategic air force, and massive ground forces. You can't just turn something like that on and off with the flip of a switch; the US tax-payer is going to have to pay for it and will want to use it on someone, might as well be Germany.<<

    Difficult to say but the precident of ww1 suggests the US was a difficult country to get to go to war. The idea that the Us would go to war because it had a large army i simaginative but the US had a large Army and Navy in the cold war but didn't decide to fight because otherwise it would have wasted the money. US preparations are more a case of SI VI PACEM PARABELLUM (if you want peace prepare for war) than a certain road to war.
     
  19. mikegb

    mikegb Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    6
    >>Sorry, but with your odd use of punctuation (or lack thereof), it's often difficult to figure out what you really mean. As near as I can determine, there was no war, recognized or otherwise in Manchuria in 1936. You may be referring to the mid-1939 Nomonhan war fought between the Soviets and the Japanese on the Manchurian border, but whatever you were talking about was far from clear. It was the Nomonhan war which convinced the Imperial Japanese Army that it was far from ready to face the Soviets in an all out war, and coincidentally, resolved the struggle between the "Go North" and "Go South" factions in the Japanese armed services. Ads a result of this border clash, in 1940 war was actually less likely between Japan and the Soviet Union than it had been at any time in the 1930's.<<

    My bad im speed typing,talking to my wife and watching the news to relax after work so punctuation, structure and spelling are the first casualty . Yes I was talking about the Border wars of the late 30's the Russians had excellent spies in Japan and thought the Japanese likely to attack them . Indeed it worked to the Russians favour because some very good divisions were in Siberia and safe from the initial blitzkreig.
     
  20. mikegb

    mikegb Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    6
    Yes but he had only been re elected on the promise that the US would not go to war. US public opinion was heavily against war it was the japanese attack on pearl harbour and germany's declaration of war that made full participation possible in 1941.
    >>No, while Roosevelt made a pledge that he would not get the US into the war, t5he major issue was his running, against custom, for a third term. American public opinion was not so strongly against the war that Roosevelt had no maneuver room. Besides, it was Roosevelt's determination to fight fascism and his ability to manipulate public attitude that I'm talking about. Roosevelt was no more likely to give up against the Axis because the Brits did, than he was likely to resign his office. By the Fall of 1941, better than half the US population believed war against the Axis was necessary and inevitable.<<

    Having done polling I'd like to look at the actual poll and the question pool and the selection method for instance a 1940 phone poll is often misleading because those with a phone are self selecting A and B class etc.

    Assuming the polls were correct they relate to a diffrent scenario and arent neccessarily applicable.




    Quote:
    Dont doubt it but if US stays out it doesnt influence the case,
    >>That's my point, the US can't stay out unless Roosevelt suddenly says we don't need a big Navy, we can use the money to build more dams. It is more likely that Hitler becomes an Evangelical Christian and goes on a World Tour for Peace.<<

    Large navy does not read accross to war the US had a big army and did not fight in cold war its a lot less clear than you seem to think its possible but less likely.
     

Share This Page