Importance of British stand underplayed post-war

I think, like the U.S.S.R., Great Britain's the importance of the British stand when they were alone is so underplayed and not given enough credit by post-war Western writers.

If Great Britain gave up after the Fall of France, or if they have had enough of the Blitz during the Battle of Britain, and sued for peace with Hitler, what would have happened?

After Japan attacked the U.S in Pearl harbor and Hitler declared war with the Americans, how would the U.S. fight the war in Europe? Hitler would have unleashed the full might of the German Army against Russia, wouldn't he?

Italy would have moved into Egypt, possibly Palestine. Rommel would have been in the Eastern Front. Would Japan have moved into India?

Did anybody really thank Britain for standing tough?

 

Debatable, but probably not given enough credit IMO.

If Great Britain gave up after the Fall of France, or if they have had enough of the Blitz during the Battle of Britain, and sued for peace with Hitler, what would have happened?[/quote]

The Soviet Union & China would almost certainly be doomed, and it would likely lead to Greater (Fascist) Europe and the Japanese Empire vs. America

Rather tricky question there, it's not nearly as likely that Japan would attack the US in 1941, as they would have access to Dutch oil, and it was the oil embargo that precipitated the attack on the US.
However, if China was not suppoerted and the US position looked weak, it may have still occured.

They wouldn't, the US war effort in Europe is DOA. In 1941 the US has only about 4.5 million tons of ocean-going* shipping, while the UK & Allies have about 21 million tons. In addition, the UK (& allies) control at least 85% of the Allied passenger liners, which were critical for deployment of US troops overseas. (US troops participating in "Torch" were mainly sent on the British (Cunard) Queens & CP ships. Without the British & Dutch & Canadian & Allied ships, the USA is barely able to protect it's possesions & the Caribbean, more or less "Fortress America"

*Plus about ~3.5 million tons of smaller coastal & river shipping, usable in the Caribbean & Gulf of Mexico but unsuitable for cross-Atlantic lift.

 

Yep!
Germany would be able to attack Russia 2 months earlier, (ie, no diversion in Greece or Yugoslavia),
They could add about 35 -40 extra divisions against USSR (only perhaps 15 -20 divisons instead of 55+ to garrison France, Norway, Low countries + Med)
They would have perhaps 50% - 75% more Luftwaffe available
No tanks & supplies delivered by the Commonwealth in 1941 - 1942
The Russian VVS would have no Avgas to improve fighter performance vs the LW. (Avgas was made in huge quantities and sent by rail to southern USSR from the major British refinery at Abadan, Persia)

All together it's hard to see how the USSR could have held out, they would likely have lost Moscow, St. Petersburg & probably Stalingrad in the fall of 1941.

Italy would take Greece, the Balkans, and expand it's African Empire

Depends on the exact agreement between the UK & the Axis. India was not in the Japanese goals for their Empire. Perhaps the UK would give up (part of?) Malaysia in exchange for keeping Singapore, India & Burma.

 

Hitler's timetable for Barbarossa is not subject to change regardless of England's intentions. Weather is what delayed Barbarossa, not GB.

England was the base for strategic bombing and Overloard.

 

After Japan attacked the U.S in Pearl harbor and Hitler declared war with the Americans, how would the U.S. fight the war in Europe?

Why, in this scenario, would Hitler declare war on the US? His issue with us was the support we were giving to Britain.

Italy would have moved into Egypt, possibly Palestine.
Would Japan have moved into India?

Are we hypothesizing a complete collapse of British power or will? If all they did was make peace with Hitler, they might be in a better position to defend Egypt or their Empire. Hitler might insist on some concessions to his Italian ally, but again it's a question of how desperately the British want peace - if Hitler had a chance to get Britain out of the war and fight Russia unimpeded, he would be foolish to let it go over Italy.

 

No yep :nope
Even if Hitler had attacked 2 moths earlier (what he could not do,because of the weather),there is no proof that he could have won .
The deliveries by the Commonwealth in 1941-1942 were neglectable .
The loss of Moscow and StPetersburg would not compel the SU to give up(the chances for the Germans to advance to Stalingrad in 1941 were nihil)
Italy was defeated by Greece ,and they were rescued by German intervention .
How would Italy expand its African empire ? By waging war ?Well,you know their performances in the winter of 1940-1941

 

Going a bit off topic here.

Go to the 'What if' section for your What if needs .

 

Hi All, I am very proud of our resistance during the war, after 1940 we rebuilt are forces and carried on fighting by any means possible, with lend lease from the US and assistance from the commonwealth we resisted axis aggression

 

Pegasus, thanks for pointing out the part that many seem to forget "lend lease from the US and assistance from the commonwealth...."

Britain had the will to resist, and the Commonwealth countries supplied their people and resources to assist them in maintaining resistance, hopefully until such time as the might of the US industrial and human resources would also be employed by the will of the American people.

The Commonwealth countries lost men/women and resources to attacks by the Germans while in or on the way to Britain. As countries, however, they did not face the devastating attacks by the Germans which were faced by the British right up until the rocket sites were destroyed.

What is remarkable, is that the British did maintain their indomitable will to resist regardless of privation and losses.

 

I wonder how many other nations would carry on even when it meant that they would end up with loand that took 50 years to repay? (29th Dec 2006)

 

True, Jaeger. My comment was only directed at the "Alone" part. While I don't know the dates for certain, Canadian troops arrived in Britain Dec 18, 1939 and were also at Dunkerque in May 1940. As to funds lent:

"Billion Dollar Gift, the Canadian government's first comprehensive attempt to help finance Britain's war effort during WORLD WAR II. Canada's war production, and its wartime prosperity, was dependent upon British orders, but Britain lacked gold and dollar reserves. Consequently, Canada gave its ally "munitions of war" worth $1 billion, in an act of unprecedented generosity. The grant, which was announced in January 1942 and accompanied by an interest-free loan of $700 million and other assistance, was expected to last approximately 15 months. Instead, it was depleted before the year ended.

​

Emphasis on the gift's monetary value, rather than on the goods produced and provided, distorted its image in the public's eyes. The gift was thus politically unpopular, especially in Québec, where it was depicted as tribute to "perfidious Albion." Nonetheless, it dramatically illustrated the importance of Canada's material contribution to the Allied cause. It was succeeded in May 1943 by MUTUAL AID. "
Billion Dollar Gift - The Canadian Encyclopedia

As noted they paid back the loan in 2006. BBC NEWS | UK | UK settles WWII debts to allies

My admiration for how Britain fought and rallied aid and the engagement of other countries to fight Nazi Germany is without bounds, despite my disputing the "Alone" reference that is so often made, as though until the US came along no one else participated as well.