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.

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 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.

>>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,

>>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.

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

__________________

The world is grey - not black and white

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.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Who?

Y'all please use the quote button, in the post your are referring to, then the 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.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

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.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

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?

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

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.

__________________

American by birth, TEXAN by the grace of GOD!

>>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.

I ddin't know polling was available for this eriod have you got the URL.

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.

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.