What if Britain and the US just traded with both sides in WW2 while never actually joining a side? Who would win in this timeline or would it just end in a stalemate in all fronts?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
If all of the anglosphere stayed out all of continental europe except maybe Italy and eastern russia, would speak german.
Also, Japan would be Germany's enemy because they would end up supporting China. Japan would also be more dangerous if americans didn't stop selling them oil.
They would create their own worst enemy similar to how the US today built China by buying all of their stuff, making them wealthier.
But in this case they would build 2 continent-sized hegemons on two major oceans which they themselves border.
Overall a fricking moronic move.
Couldn’t the US force both to decolonize and give independence to the places they conquered? Remember the US and the British Empire would be the only superpowers who didn’t enter the war in this timeline and Germany/Japan would be in ruins or in a lot of debt. They would probably listen and give up their empires in exchange for prewar borders, continued trade with the US and British Empire, and loans for reconstruction.
>Couldn’t the US force both to decolonize and give independence to the places they conquered?
If they declared war in 194X after the USSR, China, France, etc. are conquered? Maybe but it would be 10 times more difficult and probably end in nuclear war.
I didn’t mean actual war between them but like how the US and USSR forced Europeans to decolonize.
>Couldn’t the US force both to decolonize and give independence to the places they conquered?
Not without going to war with them which kind of defeats the purpose of the original policy of trading with them rather than fighting them. This assumes that the idea of the original policy to trade is to avoid war.
Japan especially would resist US demands like they did in our timeline, in this scenario they would have the raw materials of China making them even more confident. Similar case with Germany now that they have all of continental Europe and European Russia at their disposal.
Would they not be friendlier to the US and Britain since they didn’t attack them and actively traded with them during the war? I think I would see them at least decolonizing in exchange for puppet governments in the countries they controlled
why USA go to cold war with USSR?
its all the same
Because of capitalism vs communism? Japan and Germany were both capitalist
wasted
it have nothing with that
Why did the US and USSR have a Cold War?
because Atlanteans wanted to destroy Hyperboreans
That just makes the Cold War cooler
>Japan and Germany were both capitalist
Their governments were very interventionst.
bro you are delusional and I hope you come from the USA, no other reason for you to suck american wiener that much
In this universe, the british and the americans wouldn't stand a chance against the Axis who would have conquered the entirety of China and the USSR by 1943 MAX
Bro you’re the one massively jacking off the axis, there is no guarantee that Japan would beat China and the Germans would beat the USSR. China would still be hell for Japan since they would still get weapons from the Anglos. Thats on top of dealing with rebellion after rebellion and communists guerillas. Germany would still overstretch itself trying to conquer all of the USSR and would probably fail and retreat.
cope
Not a cope, please provide a source suggesting Japan and Germany would win with American trade
Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
>N-NOOOO IF DR SHEKELBERGSTEIN DIDN'T WRITE A BOOK ABOUT IT IT'S FAKE
So no source? You made the claim anon, back it up with evidence
I didn't make any "claims", I told you the truth. Just adding the manpower and equipment kept in the western front to stop an allied invasion could be enough for the axis to win.
>Just adding the manpower and equipment kept in the western front to stop an allied invasion could be enough for the axis to win.
It is likely that Germany would have still kept a large occupying force in western front and would only be able to send a small amount of troops to the eastern front. This would only make a small difference. Fully mobilized the USSR would still outnumber the axis and Germany with more troops would still be overstretched.
Please provide a source suggesting Germany would keep large occupying forces.
Anon the Germans already had a 100-300 thousand occupying force in France in our timeline. We can say that if the US and Britain stayed neutral that French partisans would put up a bigger fight and would likely require a million strong occupying force so the French don’t get any ideas.
>French partisans would put up a bigger fight
it would be the opposite, without a "free france" many more people would have sided with the vichy government, judging resistance as completely pointless. Partisan numbers only started skyrocketing once the allies had already arrived back in France. Also, without having to fight the allies, there would be no reason to annex the Free Zone because its army wouldn't have anyone to desert to.
Not only would the german garrison in France be smaller, there would be more French troops on the soviet front
>implying Vichy France wouldn’t back stab Germany while they focus all of their strength on the USSR and reclaim France’s honor
They wouldn't. Not while Pétain was in charge, anyway, and a coup against him would've been extremely unpopular.
The occupation of France might even have ended if the allies weren't involved.
Are you moronic? You say this when Vichy didn't do that in our timeline when britian was still in the war and the US supporting any anti-nazi nation?
>Remember the US and the British Empire would be the only superpowers
Cought ya, ya little inbred.
The bongs are and were no close to being a true super power.
How would Britain and the US trade with the USSR? The USSR navy wouldn't be able to compete with the combined Kriegsmarine, Regia Marina and IJN. Would US and British merchant ships be allowed passage bringing arms and supplies? This is a ridiculous scenario.
Even if they did without incident, the USSR doesn't have much to trade and would have difficulty securing loans with most predicting their downfall. Germany would gain an overwhelming victory and set about creating a Eurasian Empire. Japan would gain its victory later after a long gruelling land campaign in China, probably using chemical weapons and wiping out sections of the civilian population like the Germans to deal with guerrillas.
They would connect with Germany and a cold war would begin. Germany and its European "allies" would probably be in a position now to easily claim the rest of the old world through conventional warfare. The nuclear deterrent might not deter them from trying due to the feasibility of this campaign and the victory disease from previous successes. Japan might also be aware of the balance of power tipped in favor of Germany and envisage war with them in the distant future, they might find allies of opportunity with the west who were selling them oil throughout. There would probably be a ww3 in the 1950s which revolves around gaining airfields from which to deliver atom bombs and later hydrogen bombs.
The USSR could trade from India and Vladivostok. India was very close to the USSR and Japan even allowed American ships passage to the USSR in Vladivostok
India would still be part of the British Empire in this timeline, probably to this day.
I think that in the event of a stalemate in WW2 (which would have effectively been a victory for fascism) all the European colonial empires would have survived. Even the US wouldn't push for decolonization if it meant leaving masses amount of territory open to occupation by the fascist powers, and the colonies themselves were in many cases lukewarm about the idea of independence and would not have wanted to risk an even worse colonizer either.
The other reason is that an effective victory for fascism in WW2 would have led to its ideas being given more credence. Even if the UK and the US remained enemies of the fascist powers, everyone likes a winner. Anyone trying to push ideas about racial equality would have run up against ordinary people saying 'shit like this is why we lost to Germany'.
The really interesting result is that the French colonies would have become independent from France proper while still maintaining a French governing elite.
The French Resistance was basically meaningless. Their guerrilla activities were an inconvenience for the Germans but the only real damage they did was supplying intelligence to the Allies and disrupting German forces during and after D-Day. The Yugoslav partisans achieved more in actual military terms.
Germany wins its war, the USSR sorely needed western logistics aid and couldn't win alone.
Japan legitimately might not, they had massive supply problems the whole war (which the attacks on the allies were a last-ditch effort to resolve), a large population disparity working against them, and really struggled to hold much of the territory they had nominally taken.
Wasn't the attack on the allies an attempt to force them to lift their sanctions ?
If the allies are trading with Japan, they would have the ressources they need to continue the war in China and could've focused their army and airforce on them.
>Japan legitimately might not, they had massive supply problems the whole war
That was because of lack of trade, wich in OPs scenario is not an issue. Japan was actually very friendly with the U. S. and the UK before it's expansionism.