Comments by "Regis" (@Timbo5000) on "What if the US stayed neutral in World War 2?" video.

That and Binkov misses one very important thing. If the Battle for the Atlantic never happens (which only happened to secure trade routes from the US to Britain, which doesn't happen in this timeline), the British would have the biggest navy on the planet ready to fight Japan and protect its commonwealth trade routes instead. And Germany wouldn't be so hardpressed to attack British assets in the Atlantic to begin with, because the trade between Canada and the UK would be the only one more or less worth interrupting. So in this timeline, the UK has a huge naval force available to fight Japan early on.
6
@Robert Wilkins True, but they have no real way to transport to Germany, so the Nazi's are still without. However, their synthetic oil plants which were in real life bombed might be less impacted by an RAF only bombing campaign, so Germany would at least have some more oil I'd say.
5
The British invented all kinds of cutting edge anti-sub technology and led the Battle of the Atlantic. It is the other way around. I actually remember reading somewhere that it was the British that took down two-thirds of u-boats.
3
GodBAINS Yt . 6.1M views Yes, if you put it that way I think calling the US production an underperformance is fair. Perhaps I should have said the US example of building a massive army from a hopelessly outdated one is not proof of a special performance of the US but rather of how quickly a war economy in any country can expand the military. I disagree with your assessment of the British army though. The British foreign policy always has been to focus on naval presence. They also kept up with advancements in the interbellum. The notion that the British military was small and outdated by the beginning of WW2 is wrong, they had an advanced and sizeable military but it focused on naval presence. Which is how they could succesfully blockade Germany. The US army was hopeless in the beginning of WW2, the UK military was in fact the most mechanised military in the world at that time and a force to be reckoned with. Its land based army size was by design, not a sign of neglect. In the US it absolutely was neglect. I do agree with the rest of your comment.
3
If it's a beneficial truce to the USSR and it allows the USSR to rebuild and maintain a massive army, it's a pretty good truce even if Germany attacks again. The USSR outproduced Germany by a lot, so they could afford it
3
@hackman669 In this case the British would not have a strategy of small army and big navy, but instead be one of the large armies of Europe. Probably would have curbstomped Germany very early on with France, intervening full on as early as Fall Gelb because then the Netherlands would be Britain's bufferstate between them and Germany. Not really beneficial to Germany unless Doggerland magically appears after the Battle of France.
3
Considering the Western attitude in the beginning of the war, I'm guessing they'd build up a ridiculous army in the west and then invade. Geopolitically, a Nazi Germany under control of the East is unacceptable from French and British perspective. There is no way they'd accept this unless they want to commit geopolitical suicide.
2
GodBAINS Yt . 6.1M views Nice. Also take into account that Britain was under constant pressure, being bombed as well (incl. factories). The US could in relative peace build up its war production. That was a major advantage that helped the US build up its military and support its allies. Also interesting is that contrary to popular thought, the US military at the start of WW2 was tiny (like, only slightly bigger than minor European countries like the Netherlands at about 300k men strong and very poorly equipped with mostly WW1 tech), which makes it very impressive how they managed to build a massive military and join the war in full a few years in. In war, production capacity is extremely important, probably more so than having a large standing army at the ready in peace time.
2
Interesting thought, probably no but I'd like to see that analysis
2
@brianlong2334 Britain succesfully disrupted German attempts at developing nukes and were themselves the farthest in that research field. In the hypothetical situation that a ground war would be unlikely to be winnable by the British, I'd say it's probable they'd even double down on nuke research and eventually develop them as a means to force Germany and Japan into submission.
2
They'd probably make a deal dividing Europe along the lines of East-West anyway, leading to a pretty similar situation as real life. But with some more territory for USSR, like f.e. Finland.
2
@CountScarlioni That and geopolitically, France and Britain could never allow Germany to expand like that. It'd be like the US during the Cold War staying neutral and allowing the USSR to spread communism freely and then acting surprised in the end that the USSR is the main global superpower. Makes zero geopolitical sense to allow this. So France and Britain would intervene in any case. If they weren't attacked, they'd probably have more time to build up their militaries and prepare a proper invasion of Germany. This scenario would definitely works against Germany rather than for htem.
1
Very unrealistic scenario, the US would at the very least trade with both sides and probably only with the allies. Cutting off the US trade seems like a step too far for the scenario
1
@strongbrew9116 Agreed, the major turning points were already set in motion. However, Germany at that point still had a chance to counter the situation.
1
@brianlong2334 Mate, the British had about 900.000 men in North Africa while the US had like 100k at the most. Your point about the US being responsible for North Africa is beyond ridiculous. Commonwealth forces were also 2/3rd of the forces in Italy. The US never cared much for the 'soft underbelly of Europe', as that was mostly Churchill's idea of drawing German forces away. Them not being there won't change much and I doubt having less equipment would have changed too much either for the British.
1
@strongbrew9116 For the sake of the argument I think it's better to use Commonwealth numbers against US numbers. Not just British. F.e. Commonwealth forces in D-Day were higher than US numbers. D-day and the following breakout of Normandy was planned and commanded by all British commanders. At its lowest point, commonwealth numbers in the western front were still about 40% of the total troops, etc. Commonwealth involvement in WW2 is almost always criminally underrated.
1
@brianlong2334 The fact that you're even trying to argue that North Africa could not have been won without the US is absurd and shows how incredibly biased you really are. Firstly, Operation Torch was not an American but an Anglo-American operation, so again very nice show of your bias that you imply the US did everything there. Secondly, your mention of Torch is funny because the Vichy French offered very little resistance and despite this the lacklustre American performance was the direct reason why an early invasion of France was delayed as Churchill wanted it to be. There was a big strategic fight over this between the British and Americans and the US performance on the Torch landings (despite being an overall success) were the deciding factor in the British winning this strategic fight and dragging the US along the 'soft underbelly of Europe' before launching D-day (by the way, even by 1943 in Italy, Commonwealth forces were still 2/3rd of the Allied presence in Europe). Thirdly, the American presence in Torch was not necessary at all. It was used as a propaganda tool to appease the French. Churchill even planned to have British soldiers wear American uniforms! Several RN ships did fly the US flag during this operation to mask their British affiliation. Normally this would have been a British landing that the UK could have managed with ease. For political and strategic reasons, the US was involved (whom by the way from the beginning didn't want to be involved in this 'soft underbelly of Europe' idea of Churchill and wanted to go straight for France). So the idea that the US was unmissable here is also simply wrong. I don't think you're aware of the real strategic and logistical background of these things. You just mention random numbers to pad what the Americans did, seemingly. While ignoring British accomplishments of course. Rather weak argument. You even unknowingly mention operations that directly argue against the Americans. Your only good point is the Shermans that the British used I suppose. But honestly, selling something to someone and then saying "without my help you wouldn't have succeeded" is a bad argument too. It was a regular business deal, no 'help'. And it's disputable that without Shermans North Africa would've ended differently. Montgomery had a ridiculous supply/equipment advantage in this theatre due to British logistical supremacy in the area. I don't think NA could have ended in any other way than a British victory unless serious strategic mistakes were made on British side and the Germans made perfect use of the available supplies. So very unrealistic to imply the British would have lost without US support.
1
@brianlong2334 Considering the British had 75% of the total warships, plus several warships from other allied nations, wouldn't really miss those US warships. Especially considering that the entire section of the Royal Navy that in real life protected countless US trade vessels to the UK would be available. And 500 landing craft, well I suppose the huge amounts of money the UK shipped over to the US to purchase military equipment would instead have to be spent building factories in Britain. Not a big deal, even if it is less efficient. No big deal to make landing craft, bit ridiculous to think any major nation wouldn't be able to if necessary.
1
@brianlong2334 The Royal Navy is preoccupied with what exactly? In this timeline the largest naval battle in history, mainly fought by the RN, does not take place. Would you have the RN protect non-existent trade routes between the US and UK and Germany invest a fortune in subs that have no strategic value whatsoever because their entire raison d'être was to disrupt US trade that simply isn't there in this scenario? Again very disingenuous arguing. Your entire argument hinges on the ridiculous idea that while Britain gets none of the American goods they bought, they still spent all the resources they did in real life purchasing said goods and protecting the trade routes. Which was a massive endeavour. Truth is that the UK would be sitting on a huge treasury they would be doing something else with (f.e. building factories) and a huge part of the RN that IRL was engaged in the Atlantic, could be used elsewhere. You can't assume all the positives of the US-UK trade are gone, while assuming all the negatives of it still exist. UK gifts its entire treasury to the US for nothing? UK deploys huge part of RN in the Atlantic to protect... nothing? Germany produces tons of submarines to disrupt nonexistant US trade shipping? That purchasing and protecting American goods was the easiest and/or most efficient way the British thought they could spend their treasury on the war effort, does not mean that there were no alternatives to use those resources to aid the war effort. That US trade disappears does not mean the British sit on a massive pile of gold thinking "oh well, can't use this for the war effort now" or look at the RN aimlessly wandering the Atlantic thinking "damn, wish we could use this huge fleet elsewhere". The UK would use their funds and the available resources to replace what the US would have given them, to the best of their ability. At the worst, they'd get less equipment for the same money they spent IRL, but they would not get nothing . The idea that they can't even get 500 landing craft because IRL they chose to rely on the US is ridiculous. And lesser known facts are that f.e. the British had a million men in the Middle East to counter a possible German invasion through Turkey for oil. All these resources were used this way, because the US could be relied on in the Western front. If things were different, different choices would be made. Maybe they would instead choose to leave the Middle Eastern oil protected by a much smaller force and use those men in the Western front. Maybe the UK would withdraw from North Africa instead of leaving a lot of men there to keep order. Things like this you also have to keep in mind. In the hypothetical situation that Britain would choose to withdraw from the Middle East and risk German invasion, they could have about 70% of the total real life Allied presence (US+UK) with UK troops alone. Another thing is that the UK never even bothered to start conscription in f.e. India. Maybe they would have in this timeline, scraping the barrel like the USSR had to. IRL they didn't want to do this unless absolutely necessary because overusing the Empire would make its collapse likely. Maybe in this timeline they would go all out and weaken the Empire regardless because it was their only choice. Post WW2, the British Empire would then have collapsed even sooner. All these options you're ignoring. Just acting like the exact same choices would be made but without US equipment and men available. Ignoring that obviously different choices would have been made in this situation. So yes, I agree with you that if Britain magically bankrupts itself getting no trade in return, lets the brunt of the Royal Navy float aimlessly in the Atlantic protecting nothing and generally chooses to use NONE of the alternatives available to them if they miss out on an American alliance, they would lose the war. Problem is that that "if" is borderline insane. Just the fact that you say the UK needs US ships and supplies for D-day and in the same breath dare to say the RN could not be used because "their job" is to protect the very supplies you say aren't going to Britain to begin with is telling enough to know that you're incredibly biased.
1
@brianlong2334 So, 30% of their war needs from the US. Why according to you could not at least a third or two thirds of that number be compensated for with trade from elsewhere and/or an expanded industry in Britain? America wasn't the only nation on earth capable of trading, y'know.... Nor was it impossible for Britain to invest in factories of its own. What do you think Britain would do with its treasury if buying US goods was no option? Do tell. Nothing? I never spoke to you about rifles or artillery. Maybe check up on who you're speaking with before you write random accusations. And the German Navy doesn't have to spread its ships so thin? What a strange statement. If they even decide to build as many u-boats without massive transatlantic trade to begin with, they'd in this timeline have to intercept trade routes from many places instead of a massive trade route from the US. So they'd be spread more thin. Don't tell me you meant that they could loiter around Britain in this timeline, because there's a very good reason they couldn't do this in real life. Literally all you do is call me a "fanboy" (I'm not even British) and say "no" without any evidence or arguments. Like randomly saying it's unlikely Britain could win North Africa, without any argument or evidence supporting that. Worthless.
1
Well, both Germany and Japan did consider it as such
1
75% of ships during D-day were British, even more commonwealth. There were 3 beaches for Commonwealth forces, 2 US. All commanders who planned and executed the land, sea and air aspect of D-day and the following breakout of Normandy were British. The plan was mainly based on British experience in Dieppe. Yes, I think it is probable that the Commonwealth could have achieved D-day by itself. The idea that the Commonwealth can't even muster mabe 10-20 thousand extra forces to commit to those 2 extra beaches is ridiculous. However, the following breakout of Normandy is very questionable, since they'd have half the forces. Germany would also have less forces stationed there, however, as they would prepare not for a US+UK invasion, but only for UK invasion and spend the rest of the forces on the Eastern Front. _𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜_
1
_𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜_ They left their colonies with a token defence force because the mainland had to be defended and US-UK trade routes were more important.
1
_𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜_ That's wrong. Without US trade making the Battle for the Atlantic necessary (which was about Germany trying to disrupt US trade routes to the UK and the Royal Navy protecting vessels and hunting subs), just about the entire Royal Navy would be available to fight Japan. Which at the time was bigger than the US Navy, plus more advanced. So Japan would lose anyway. They only won in the first place because they only had to face a token colonial force of a few European countries that were focusing on defending their mainland, plus the US who also only had a token colonial force present and wasn't yet deeply invested in defending its assets. If the full attention of either the Royal Navy or as in real life the US Navy was pointed at Japan they'd get curb stomped. And guess what, the Royal Navy is available in a scenario in which there is no Battle for the Atlantic.
1
_𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰜_ This makes no sense. The Royal Navy was mainly deployed in the Atlantic to secure US trade routes. That entire section of the fleet (which would be massive as the Battle for the Atlantic is to date the largest naval battle in human history) would become available to fight Japan, plus probably more because Germany would have no need at all to invest in a navy (main reason for them was to disrupt US trade, it would be a waste of money to build subs to do... nothing of any strategic importance). You can't just ignore this. Or pretend like the Royal Navy would quadruple their Mediterranean patrols for... reasons, instead of facing Japan. They would not just do nothing. Even in real life, the British reinforced their Pacific fleet in 1945 to aid in the planned invasion of Japan. And by comparing its size to the American presence there, you can see that even while patrolling the Mediterranean, North Sea and Atlantic (now in lower numbers because the Battle for the Atlantic was essentially won) the British could afford to send a massive fleet East. The main fleet of the US in the Pacific was the Fast Carrier Task Force under Nimitz with 17 carriers, 6 battleships, 13 cruisers, 58 destroyers and in total 1100 aircraft. The British Pacific Fleet which joined up with that US fleet to attack Japan late war had 10 carriers, 4 battleships, 11 cruisers, 35 destroyers, 14 frigates and a total of 750 aircraft. Not too bad considering this is just the Pacific section of the Royal Navy, while still being active in other regions around Europe as well. While the US wasn't. The truth is that the US mainly handeled the Pacific naval theatre while the Royal Navy basically did the rest (which would be mainly Europe and the Atlantic). I.e. a fair distribution of the two main naval theatres. If a massive part of what the Royal Navy had as its task would not have been necessary, obviously a huge fleet could have been sent to Japan instead to fight them. As seen from the real life fleet the British sent to Japan as they were finishing up the war in Europe, they could and would send spare ships to Japan if available. Absense of the Battle for the Atlantic would mean that even more than the real life British Pacific Fleet would be available to fight Japan. Easily rivalling the US main Pacific fleet. Not surprising, because the Royal Navy and US navy were both extremely capable. RN a lot more in the beginning, while the US navy was more capable by the end of the war. Possibly the Japanese would ironically have to face a bigger and more advanced fleet if they had to face a more committed RN early on in the war...
1
Bloody invasion of Japan to end WW2 anyway and then the Cold War would almost certainly go hot at some point into WW3.
1
That'd be a boring video, Entente would still win with relative ease
1
@ericlanglois9194 Hence why I said "some" more oil. Some might be significant, however, because having enough oil to launch even one more offensive or to prolong a highly important offensive could change the course of the war.
1