Could they have defeated the Axis without Britain's help?
>>18660220Who?
>>18660220yeah but it would mean that the US probably wouldn't play an active role in europe.they could only land in france because they had a base in britain. they could only land in italy because they had a base in north africa, which they would not have had if britain wasn't involved because the nazis would have uncontested control of north africa. unless they literally just sent troops to the eastern front to fight alongside russia, it would mostly just be germany vs russia in europe
>>18660230>they could only land in france because they had a base in britainNo, they mounted bigger operations in the Pacific. They could bring 1,000 aircraft from the sea, too.
>>18660230>nazis would have uncontested control of north africa.No matter, the US invaded NA from the US in that timeline.
>>18660230>they could only land in italy because they had a base in north africaThey could, but that was a bong fiasco and they wouldn't.
>>18660237it's much easier to conduct a naval invasion of tiny islands than huge continental landmass. plus, they always had nearby islands from which to launch such operations. what would that base be in this case? the azores? another underestimated fact about the island hopping campaign is that they deliberately targeted weakly defended islands knowing that the enemy would not be able to resupply them because their navy was not up to snuff and they were, well, islands. that doesn't apply when you're trying to invade an entire continent. sure, maybe if they had a lot of time they could have built a large enough navy to do something like that. they'd have had to violate the sovereignty of some country or another, portugal or maybe iceland. but the war would be over by then realistically, even if there was no italian or western front the soviets would be in berlin by 1946 at the latest. it's not absolutely impossible, but the resources and preparation required mean that they probably wouldn't bother in the first place and even if they did they wouldn't have enough time. however, i could absolutely see germany getting nuked in this timeline. probably via an airbase in the soviet union hosting american planes.
>>18660244The Pacific is huge. A quick hop from the US to France is not. The only question would be air operations. Suppressing land air would be a massive obstacle. It wouldn't happen in any event. The bongs and frogs both declared war on Germany, the fools, so the table was set. If they hadn't, we might have had the only war that made sense, with the nazis and Sovs killing each other spectacularly. Sad, but maybe both of these menaces would die young.
>>18660220yes the US could have done it alone, but they should have sided with the Nazis
>>18660337Why? It was objectively in America's interests to destroy Europe and make itself the sole economy remaining. America was the only rational member of the Western allies since the alliance existed solely to benefit the United States
>>18660220The Axis? Frenchfrogs and Amerikeks lost to the Vietnamese.Without the wise guidance of English statesmanship, none of these degenerate republics have what it takes
>>18660220Stalin would have pushed to Brest and created paradise on earth
>>18660337>they should have sided with the NazisThis is what I don't get. The only way the War could have ended on better terms for the USA would have been if the Soviets had somehow nuked themselves. The USA got to set the terms and shape the post-war world. Wtf could it possibly have gained byt siding with the Nazis? How in the ever loving shit would a united militarized Europe possibly help the USA?
>>18660405>>18660431conservatards don't really think, they just say retarded shit they think they'd like the idea of but since they don't think can't understand why it would never be like they feel it would.
>>18660220The British Empire got its ass kicked by the Third Reich.
>>18660230Wtf all of this is bullshitThey were able to launch amphibious invasions at Guadacanal and Midway thousands of kilometers from the nearest port.Yeah Maybe they couldnt land in France but they could definetly land in places like Norway where wehrmacht logistical capability would also be limited, which would give them a good base of operations, ports and airfields.Also why the fuck would Axis controlled N.Africa deny the Americans? You really cant rationalize that, you just said they cant and we're supposed to not question it. IRL timeline the Americans landed in Vishy France territory and captured it before the Axis could react, and the Battle of Tunis was so extremely one-sided it's one of the greatest Axis defeat of ww2 on parallel with Stalingrad.
>>18660220Yes but there would have been substantially heavier casualties on the American side. The USSR would once again be supplied by lend lease and used as cannon fodder.
>>18660220If the British never got involved, I don't think we would call it the Second World War, although I think that's basically impossible, since even if the British were staunchly devoted to being neutral, they would have to actively be helping the Japanese to prevent Japan from just invading their colonies in the east. I don't think the British would just lay down and take it. That would be a separate war, the Anglo-Japanese War, but I still feel that would somewhat rope them into being in the larger World War. The German invasion of Europe would probably be smoother, since the British aren't blockading them and they might even be able to get oil from Venezuela as well as the fact that their factories aren't being destroyed, though, maybe the Germans might have worse radar technology, since their strides were usually done in response to the British advances in radar. I also think an interesting side effect is that the invention of a computer might be slightly delayed by a few more years, since the British won't be using Alan Turing as much. They could probably have more flexibility about their goals when invading the Soviet Union. I still think they would invade in 1941 and might be able to go much further. They might even capture Moscow, though I don't think that would be the instant end of the war. It might just be a longer drag-down beat-down.The problem is that once Japan angers America and the Germans declare war on the Americans, they're basically running on borrowed time. They can't fortify the whole of Africa, so the Americans could probably negotiate with and pick a more suitable place in Africa to land. They could then slowly roll up the Axis forces on that side of the Mediterranean and then eventually invade Europe but make slower progress. There's a good chance the war might even go up until 1946.
>>18660998The Americans had no reason to invade Africa, other than to bail out the incompetent bongs, who'd just got humiliated by a few thirsty Germans at Tobruk and were about to get drowned in the Suez by same. No bongs, no Africa for the US. No need.
I'm curious how you think the United States even gets involved in WW2 if Britain isn't involved. Even before the US had war declared on it by Germany, they were involved by supporting the British war effort. Without that connection to the conflict the US would just sit it out, probably.
>>18660675>They were able to launch amphibious invasions at Guadacanal and Midway thousands of kilometers from the nearest port.Which are tiny islands that have small garrisons and no way to reinforce them. You might notice that France has a very huge coastline, and is not a tiny island, and every part of that coastline that you can land on can also be reinforced from the rest of the continent.
>>18661470I literally said, in the post that you quoted (maybe you cant read?) that they wouldnt target France, but something more isolated like Norway, and then proceed from there as a jump-off point to the continent. Norway would be just as much a logistical problem for Germany as it would for US.Retard.>>18661465They literally said they preferd to fight in North Africa first because it would give them combat experience, and Italy was viewed as the key to victory at that time.Read history you fucking moron.
>>18661529You read history first, moron. The US had no intention of invading French North Africa first (as a response to a Jap attack!). NOBODY talked about such foolishness. Why would they? It's strategically pointless. The bongs got raped in June, and the US had to quickly plan an invasion for November.
>>18661470Midway wasn't invaded, despite what that moron claims. Guadalcanal was resupplied by the Japs, contrary to your claim. But the large operations in Philippines, Okinawa were taken at range, and far bigger than Normandy. France is candy, only air ops would be at issue.
>>18660220Britain really gained nothing from the war, unlike the Americans and Soviets. Not sure why they sacrificed their young men for a Russo-American cause
>>18660230>which they would not have had if britain wasn't involved because the nazis would have uncontested control of north africaVichy French North Africa would still have been a weak spot the United States could have exploited.Operation Torch is underrated.
>>18660327>A quick hop from the US to France is not.Is 4750 miles which yes is huge
>>18661747No, it's less than 3,000 miles from NY to Normandy. Like I say, compared to the Pacific, a brief hop.They did 3,500 to French Morrocco, as we know.
