Who Could Have Won WWII?

[Raellus]

Aspqrz, I can't tell if you're just trolling us here or if you really believe what you're asserting. If this is a troll, bravo- you suckered me right in. However, assuming that you are being sincere...

The Germans had no way of defeating the Commonwealth ... no, their U-Boat Campaign didn't ever manage it, either, and it is wishful thinking to believe it could have ... the Commonwealth could not easily have defeated the Germans, either, however, as I noted, on a historical basis, the UK has taken on powers as strong as she is/was and defeated them even if it took decades.

Perhaps, if the Axis Powers just sat still and left the UK alone to do it, sure. When did GB test its first nuclear weapons 1952. That's 13 years after the war [in Europe] started; 7 years after it ended. Could it have developed, tested, and deployed its own nuclear weapon/s under the constant pressure of a partial naval blockade and constant air and V-weapon attacks

You also conveniently ignore the fact that UK had lost almost all of its East Asian empire by 1942 and did not have the means to both get it back and hold off the Germans at the same time. Without the Americans, could the British have defeated the Axis in the ETO and recovered its East Asian real estate

As for your second point, past success does not guarantee future results. If so, every invasion of GB after the Norman Conquest would have succeeded.

I've read extensively on WWII, as I suspect you have too. I have never come across a single analysis of the war that even attempted to assert that the British Commonwealth could have won WWII on its own. Even noted British WWII historians like John Keegan, Max Hastings, and Antony Beevor concede that the UK could not have won the war without direct American intervention.

If your point is that the Commonwealth could have prevented its defeat without American help, then I concede the possibility. If you are arguing that the Commonwealth could have defeated the Axis Powers without American help...

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree.

[Legbreaker]

Perhaps, if the Axis Powers just sat still and left the UK alone to do it, sure. When did GB test its first nuclear weapons 1952. That's 13 years after the war [in Europe] started; 7 years after it ended. Could it have developed, tested, and deployed its own nuclear weapon/s under the constant pressure of a partial naval blockade and constant air and V-weapon attacks

Note where it was tested. Certainly wasn't in the UK!!!
Middle of Australia, Woomera to be exact.

You also conveniently ignore the fact that UK had lost almost all of its East Asian empire by 1942 and did not have the means to both get it back and hold off the Germans at the same time. Without the Americans, could the British have defeated the Axis in the ETO and recovered its East Asian real estate

India was still in the fight as was Australia and New Zealand, not to mention South Africa as well as a number of other countries of somewhat lesser strategic importance (although able to supply troops and materials). Although at the time there was a great deal of fear that the Japanese would continue southward and roll over Australia and New Zealand, there was in reality little need for them to do that, nor did they really have the available forces anyway. Australia is HUGE. They'd need hundreds of thousands of troops to take it in the 1940s (more today with our greater population), troops they simply didn't have as it turned out.

With the constant threat of German aerial attack it's likely much of the UKs industrial production would be shifted to safer colonies (such as South Africa) with finished products shipped in via convoys. Eygpt and the suez canal would likely have become even more important with Commonwealth efforts against the Axis forces concentrated there while the UK itself carried out only holding actions to prevent invasion. Instead of D-Day landings being in France, the main thrust (when it finally came, likely several years later) may have been up through the middle east in an attempt to link up with the Soviets.

All in all though it's really impossible to say what might have happened, but it is foolish to say the UK would definitely have been defeated without the US.

If you are arguing that the Commonwealth could have defeated the Axis Powers without American help...

It was possible. Even with the multiple fronts the Commonwealth were holding their own using substandard equipment (mainly god awful tanks with underpowered guns and dodgy tactics). It may have taken a few years but the Commonwealth may have been able to strangle Germany just enough to force a stalemate, and eventually, after another decade or two, maybe even take back some areas.

It would be a radically different world that which we live in today, one I imagine would somewhat resemble that shown in the George Orwell book, 1984 with war a constant background and the people generally living in poverty.

[aspqrz]

It was possible. Even with the multiple fronts the Commonwealth were holding their own using substandard equipment (mainly god awful tanks with underpowered guns and dodgy tactics). It may have taken a few years but the Commonwealth may have been able to strangle Germany just enough to force a stalemate, and eventually, after another decade or two, maybe even take back some areas.

It would be a radically different world that which we live in today, one I imagine would somewhat resemble that shown in the George Orwell book, 1984 with war a constant background and the people generally living in poverty.

My point exactly. And, to other posters, no, I am not trolling and the fact that Historians don't suggest that the Commonwealth could have won alone is unsurprising. Historians document what did happen, generally speaking, and shy away from explaining what could have happened except in the shortest of short terms, maybe medium term if they stretch it.

And, of course, many Historians, even respected ones, don't actually do a lot of (and, in some cases, any at all) original research ... they simply rehash what is available in secondary sources and seldom check to see whether those secondary sources are based on reliable primary sources.

This is one of the reasons why our understanding of the war in the East has so radically changed in the last quarter century ... decades of Soviet lies and misinformation is gradually being chipped away at by people like Glantz (good researcher, terrible writer btw). But even before that by people such as Barber and Harrison in books such as "The Soviet Home Front, 1941-5: a Social and Economic History of the USSR in World War II" and in others of their extensive writings on the Soviet economy.

Unfortunately, this material has yet to make its way into the wider historical context, especially in generalist histories and histories aimed at a non-specialist audience.

Similar material is increasingly available in specialist economic and historical circles that debunks many of the more ludicrous claims about such things as the U Boat campaign bringing the UK to its knees or that it could have defeated her single handedly.

As for the Japanese - well, as I noted elsewhere, the US and Japanese were on a path to conflict without the UK anywhere. If the Japs decided to steal all the resources they needed because of the US embargoes, they will, indeed, almost certainly go to war with the UK etc. Unfortunately, military reality, and their own unique and not entirely crazy (but always consistent within its own crazy logic) take on reality meant that, to take and secure the resources of Malaya, Borneo, the DEI and elsewhere they needed to take out the US forces in the PI. Which meant war with the US.

Now, if the US decides to ignore Europe and simply fight the Japs, the Japs are not a major problem for the Commonwealth for more than a year, maybe a year and a bit ... after all, as we all know, the US put 80% of its war effort into Europe and only 20% into the Pacific. If they had put 100% into the Pacific they would have swamped the Japs at least a year, and more likely 1.5-2 years, earlier ... though without the A-Bomb, of course.

And the A-Bomb. Tubealloys provided a lot of the theoretical and engineering underpinning for the US program on the, mistaken, understanding that the US would share the fruits of such ... so the UK didn't expend resources on it. If the US was not involved, then the program would have continued ... granted, much less quickly than the Manhattan Engineering District did, but I never suggested it would.

And, of course, I note you completely ignore the historical stick-to-it-ivity of the British Empire at war over the last several centuries and her ability to fund and pay off such wars within extremely short periods of time.

I just get annoyed at people trotting out 'facts' that are now known to not be such in specialist circles and pooh-poohing anyone who disagrees with those disproven assertions.

Not trolling at all.

Phil

[aspqrz]

With the constant threat of German aerial attack it's likely much of the UKs industrial production would be shifted to safer colonies (such as South Africa) with finished products shipped in via convoys.

Probably not. The UK had large underground factory complexes for all sorts of things and, indeed, much of their industry was actually completely beyond the range of German bombers and more was beyond the range of unescorted German bombers (aka 'sitting ducks').

And, as we know from German experiences with the Bombing Campaign, factory buildings are easy(ish) to destroy, but the machine tools in them ... not so much. It was common for 'destroyed' factories to be back in production in days or weeks with, at best, only temporary shelter above the workers heads (if any at all) ... the Russians found much the same with the factories they relocated east of the Urals, they were back in production as soon as the machines were on firm footings, even in winter, and way before anything more than temporary shelter was erected over them.

If the Germans and Russians could manage it, no reason why the Brits couldn't.

Phil

[Raellus]

And, of course, I note you completely ignore the historical stick-to-it-ivity of the British Empire at war over the last several centuries and her ability to fund and pay off such wars within extremely short periods of time.

No, I don't. I was simply pointing out the false logic of stating that GB would have won WWII alone because "it had done so before". First off, that is a non sequitur. Second, you overstate GB's record. The Seven Year's War nearly bankrupted the British government, leading to an arrogant tax policy which eventually led to the American Revolution and consequent loss of GB's 13 North American colonies. That's non an unqualified win, economically or militarily. GB's ultimate victory in the Napoleonic Wars (which, I might add, took more or less 30 years to complete) was at the head of a pan-European coalition. GB did not defeat Napoleon on its own, yet this part of your argument hinges upon that assertion.

If GB was so potent, why did it lose most of its empire after WWII GB was in bad shape after winning WWII (with American help). It did NOT fund and pay off its defense spending from WWII (having received billions of dollars in Cash and Carry and Lend Lease aid from the U.S.) in an extremely "short period of time". In fact, it received Marshall Plan monies from the U.S. after the war. Its economy took decades to recover. If it was strong enough to defeat the Axis on its own, why wasn't strong enough to hold on to its colonies Why did it struggle with years of post-war economic recession Perhaps this is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument on my part, but I think it's a valid question, considering how capable, militarily and financially, you argue that the Commonwealth was 1939-1952.

I just get annoyed at people trotting out 'facts' that are now known to not be such in specialist circles and pooh-poohing anyone who disagrees with those disproven assertions.

I guess I don't have access to the font of "specialist" knowledge that you apparently do. And I get annoyed at "special pleading" arguments. Somehow, mainstream historians have all gotten it wrong for a half-century and you and a few cutting edge historians in "specialist circles" (most of whom you neglect to name) have the [secret] knowledge that disproves years of careful scholarship What "facts" that I've trotted out have been "disproven" Perhaps I overstated the efficacy of the German U-Boat blockade, but what else Where do your "facts" come from Don't tell me they're classified or I'll know you're trolling.

[aspqrz]

I guess I don't have access to the font of "specialist" knowledge that you apparently do. And I get annoyed at "special pleading" arguments. Somehow, mainstream historians have all gotten it wrong for a half-century and you and a few cutting edge historians in "specialist circles" (most of whom you neglect to name) have the [secret] knowledge that disproves years of careful scholarship What "facts" that I've trotted out have been "disproven" Perhaps I overstated the efficacy of the German U-Boat blockade, but what else Where do your "facts" come from Don't tell me they're classified or I'll know you're trolling.

Of course you have access to the specialist knowledge - all you have to do is some research and your local library will be able to get the relevant books through interlibrary loans. Me I either buy the books (Amazon and Book Depository are great) or use Sydney University Library (where I did my degree, but I could use the Mitchell Library/State Library of NSW or even interlibrary loans from Warringah Shire Library, my local library).

I mentioned one book previously, by Harrison and Barber, but any of their books are worth reading.

Harrison's books ...

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/

... many of which he co-authored with John Barber (King's College, Cambridge, not London)

You can see a sample of his/their work at -

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/

... which has interesting tables from their other works, including those on the WW2 economies of the Great Powers, which is in and of itself especially interesting.

I have also mentioned Glantz's work which is more specifically on the Eastern Front but, unfortunately, not widely enough read because, as I indicated, he is a horrible writer. It is only in the last 5-10 years that more readable accounts of the Eastern Front and Soviet era misinformation and lies have become more mainstream in the hands of historians with greater communications skills than Glantz (one of my colleagues refers to Glantz's writing style as 'mere typing'). His works done with Jonathan House are the most readable ("When Titans Clashed" etc.)

For Bombing, Overy's 'The Bombing War' is showing more recent scholarship, and his 'Why the Allies Won' is getting somewhat dated, but basic still good (and readable).

Kershaw's 'Fateful Choices' is interesting, as it is about as close to a realistic assessment of 'alternate history' as a real specialist goes.

Blair's two volume work on the U-Boat War places a spotlight on the shortcomings of the German U-Boat campaign, supplement figures that can be found in Tarrant's "The U-Boat Offensive 1914-1945".

For overall logistics, look at Van Creveld's 'Supplying War', especially the last three chapters which are relevant to WW2 (East Front, Med, Western Europe).

To understand the political and economic realities faced by all major powers involved, and why the Allies (and Russians) had so much difficulty in matching initial German production, you couldn't go far wrong with Maiolo's 'Cry Havoc'

For the Strategic Bombing Campaign, reading the USAAF's 'Strategic Bombing Survey' with a critical eye, and looking at the actual figures presented which often belie some of the conclusions made then, and later, is always valuable.

I haven't found a single source that breaks down the various national contributions to Lend Lease and Reverse Lend Lease, or breakdowns of actual composition of Lend Lease shipments by specific type (most sources have only general categories and don't always even attempt to break it down by nation of origin), but if you dig around in a lot of the better Economic histories, you can find a lot (Harrison and Barber do deal with it in some places, for example).

As for Britain's stick-to-it-ivity, I haven't mentioned the books on the Napoleonic Wars, well, Knight's 'Britain Against Napoleon: The Organisation of Victory, 1793-1815' explains it in more detail than you'd probably care for, but any book about the invention of the National Debt/Creation of the Bank of England is also valuable (aka France lost because she couldn't organise herself efficiently to pay for the wars).

And that's just the stuff I can see from my Office, without going into my Lounge, which is lined, floor to ceiling on one long wall and a third of the other with bookshelves ... and without consulting the sheafs of notes I have taken over the years.



Phil

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Actually the British had done initial research in an atomic bomb in 1940 under the MAUD Committee and much of this research was given to the USA to help convince the US to develop atomic weapons. It was a joint British-American team that worked on the Manhattan Project.

The two nations had an agreement to collaborate on nuclear weapons after the war but the US was deliberately reluctant (justifiably given the circumstances) to share the information gained, mostly due to the discovery that one of the British researchers, Klaus Fuchs (a Jewish German who fled when the Nazis took power) was also a communist.
British scientists then built up their atomic weapons programme with little outside assistance to the point where they were able to test their first weapon in the 1950s.

If the British had continued their own programme instead of halting it to give their information and their researchers to the US, they likely would have had a bomb available to them around the same time as the Manhattan Project delivered its first weapon and possibly before.

For more information on how the US atomic bomb was just as much a British weapon and how the US froze out the British, refer to pages 24 to 30 of Between Heaven and Hell by Alan Rimmer
The specific pages can be read here courtesy of Google Books

https://books.google.com.au/booksid=T2sCBAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Legbreaker]

It's also worth noting the British had an aircraft more than capable to carrying an atomic bomb several years before the US - the Avro Lancaster.
With a payload of 22,000lbs, it was also capable of carrying nearly a ton more than the US B-29.

[Raellus]

ASPQRZ, you are clearly widely and well-read. I respect that. I too have a fairly respectable library of WWII scholarship. I have a degree in history and have taught it for nearly a decade now.

I've read some of the books and authors that you mentioned*. I will look into the ones that I have not. AFAIK, none of the works we have common experience with assert that the UK/Commonwealth didn't need U.S. assistance or speculate that they could defeated all of the Axis Powers without it. Apparently, we are drawing different conclusions from much the same information. Fair play there. I am just not seeing direct academic support- raw data, analysis, or synthesis- that supports your interpretations. I see a lot of picking and choosing of evidence to support your position. However, in my professional opinion, the preponderance of the evidence does not. In other words, I think that you are missing the forest for the trees.

But, at this point, I think that we are both beating a horse that is well and truly dead. I don't think either of us are prepared to change our respective points of view on the matter either. I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

That said, I'm interested in reading your response to my counterarguments to your allegations that GB had a track record of spanking larger continental powers (you implied that they did so on their own) and then quickly and easily paying off the financial burdens incurred during those wars. I cited two widely known examples refuting those assertions. I also mentioned GB's economic struggles during and after WWII- a historical reality despite substantial American material and financial aid, both during and after the war. Neither precedence nor the events of WWII support your argument that GB and the Commonwealth were ever in a position, militarily or financially, to defeat the Axis on their own.

I like speculative fiction and alternate histories as much as the next guy, but that's really all that this is.

*I am not sure why you keep citing Glantz. I've read several works by Glantz and, IIRC, if anything, he stresses the critical importance of Lend-Lease aid (from the USA and UK) in the Soviet Union both weathering the early storm and making possible its successes of 1943-'45.

[Olefin]

without the Lend Lease the Brits and Soviets lose the war - thats pretty much a fact -

however there is losing a war where you end up totally occupied and under enemy domination - and losing a war where you lose territory and resources and population but still stay independent

If you read what Hitler's goals were he never had the occupation of the entire UK and British Empire as one of those goals or the occupation of all of the Soviet Union

what he wanted was basically the European areas of the Soviet Union and the old German colonies in Africa

if that is what the UK and the Soviet Union would be trying to prevent then yes they could "win" a war against Germany and Italy and Japan without direct US participation as a combatant - however if what you mean by winning is that they defeat the Axis and they surrender that isnt possible - at best they fight them to a draw

and short of actually going to war itself there is no way the US ever would have switched its industrial production enough to give the Allies what they needed to win and actually beat the Axis to a surrender

however they would have given them enough to take the Axis to the negotiation table eventually for an armistice (probably like the one in Korea where the borders are armed camps full of mines and machine gun nests)

in that way the UK and Russians could have "won" the war without us - winning meaning frustrating Hitler's aims and surviving

[aspqrz]

ASPQRZ, you are clearly widely and well-read. I respect that. I too have a fairly respectable library of WWII scholarship. I have a degree in history and have taught it for nearly a decade now.

Double Major, Ancient/Medieval/Modern. 37 years teaching it. FWIW.

I've read some of the books and authors that you mentioned*. I will look into the ones that I have not. AFAIK, none of the works we have common experience with assert that the UK/Commonwealth didn't need U.S. assistance or speculate that they could defeated all of the Axis Powers without it.

Of course they don't. For the obvious reason, as I noted, that they are historians writing history, not alternate history. Indeed, when historians write alternate history it is (in my experience) almost universally awful.

However, they also deal in facts ... and, as I could point out (and as you undoubtedly understand), interpretation of facts changes over time, especially as new research brings new facts to light, or shines a different light on things that 'everyone knows' ... responsibility for WW1, for example. When I started Uni, pretty much entirely Germany's fault with a tinge of automaticity (train timetables) ... these days Everyone's fault, with a rising tide of 'blame the idiot pollies who didn't grasp the seriousness of a potential war' ... which is, of course, grossly simplifying things to give a generalised trend.

The facts have, by and large, not changed ... and relatively few new facts have come to light, but reinterpretation of existing facts has brought forward several generations of revisionism.

ISTR some historian (forget who) making the lucid observation that the definitive histories of WW1/WW2 wouldn't (indeed, couldn't) be written for at least a couple of centuries ... and we can see the process occurring as I type this, almost.

Apparently, we are drawing different conclusions from much the same information. Fair play there. I am just not seeing direct academic support- raw data, analysis, or synthesis- that supports your interpretations. I see a lot of picking and choosing of evidence to support your position. However, in my professional opinion, the preponderance of the evidence does not. In other words, I think that you are missing the forest for the trees.

And in my professional opinion you are ignoring clear evidence as well, evidence which makes it clear that Germany, as a continental power, did not have the wherewithal to take on a naval power given that she had a clear inferiority in overall economic capacity ... in exactly the same way that Napoleonic France was unable to overcome Britain.

And, of course, you seem to be ignoring, or not grasping, that I have repeatedly pointed out it would not have been an easy Commonwealth victory ... but a slow, grinding, attritional one (at least until the Atomic Bombs start dropping from the Lancaster follow-ons in the early to mid-50's), and that the world resulting would be a very different one to the one that actually occurred.

I also feel that you are cherry picking your objections ... indeed, creating them where they simply cannot stand, as in the matter of Japan in the Far East, ignoring the reality that if they attacked the Commonwealth and her allies they had to attack the US. I am not aware of any mainstream historian who supports that line of thought ... unless they're conspiracy theorists.

But, at this point, I think that we are both beating a horse that is well and truly dead. I don't think either of us are prepared to change our respective points of view on the matter either. I am fine with agreeing to disagree.

Indeed, as I said to someone earlier on ... or should have if I didn't ... YMMV.

That said, I'm interested in reading your response to my counterarguments to your allegations that GB had a track record of spanking larger continental powers (you implied that they did so on their own) and then quickly and easily paying off the financial burdens incurred during those wars. I cited two widely known examples refuting those assertions. I also mentioned GB's economic struggles during and after WWII- a historical reality despite substantial American material and financial aid, both during and after the war. Neither precedence nor the events of WWII support your argument that GB and the Commonwealth were ever in a position, militarily or financially, to defeat the Axis on their own.

And I provided a source that shows your argument to be wrong, or at the very least not entirely supportable ...

And your reading of the 7 Years War and its outcome is ... unusual ... as pretty much every historian I have read on the subject makes the point that it led to British pre-eminence and France being reduced to a second rate power (or, really, finally recognised as such) ...

For example, British defence spending as a percentage of government revenue averaged ~70% or so (min. 62%, max. 89%) during the entirety of the 18th Century, while France managed only a max. of 41% ... reflecting, of course, the capital intensive nature of naval warfare ... and, yes, the Brits eventually lost the American colonies. So what

They won the 7 Years War. They defeated Napoleon. They gained effective control of more territory than they lost in both conflicts. And they paid down the debt incurred in fighting those wars effectively ... as, as I indicated, any study of the National Debt plainly shows. They emerged as the pre-eminent world and european power and retained that status right through to WW1 (though, yes, WW1 showed that things had been changing ...). Aka, they 'won' despite the short term costs ... hell, despite even the medium term costs!

As far as a non-US WW2 goes, could the Commonwealth have won Obviously, based on economics, the answer is yes. As I have repeatedly pointed out, and which you still don't seem to have fully understood, such a victory would have been neither fast nor cheap. Would it have caused economic stresses that could have had similar consequences to the American Revolution ... hell yes. Would that change the fact that the Commonwealth could/would have defeated Germany (aka 'won the war') ... IMO, no.

This is obviously where our main point of difference is.

Phil

[aspqrz]

without the Lend Lease the Brits and Soviets lose the war - thats pretty much a fact

An interesting assertion not borne out by the facts on the ground.

Phil

[Olefin]

the facts on the ground are that without US participation in the war the UK and the Soviets in the end could have outlasted the Germans and Italians and Japanese but only if their populations were ready to basically face a very very very long war - and while that was possible in the Soviet Union it was not in the UK

dictatorships can harness people in ways that democracy's cannot - look at what happened to Churchill when he said we are done in Europe now we have to finish the job in Asia as an example

if it had become clear that Hitler was ready to leave the UK alone and sue for a seperate peace with the UK and you had the right political climate then its just Hitler versus the Soviets - and Germany's industrial base with no bombing to slow it down, especially of its oil production and the Soviets would not have been able to win - survive yes, win no

especially imagine how much difference it would have made in 1942 after Tobruk without the US ready and willing to pour in planes and tanks to save their position in Africa - something Roosevelt could not have done if he wasnt commander in chief of a nation at war

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You make a big assumption.
The British public would not have automatically said no to a prolonged war in Europe like they did for the war in Asia. The war in Europe had an immediacy for the British public that the war in Asia did not, the war in Europe was on their doorstep and it's highly unlikely that any population under those circumstances would have "just given up" the fight because it was going to last a few years longer than they liked.

[Raellus]

OK, Aspqrz, now you're getting nasty. I am well aware of historiography. You don't have to explain to me how historical interpretations change. You may have more teaching experience than I do (kudos to you sir) but you needn't talk down to me.

Since we're now cataloguing what our opposite is choosing to ignore, or "not grasping", let's list a few major points that you are ignoring or not grasping.

• GB did not win the 7 Years War alone.
  
• GB was on the winning side in the 7 Years War but lost her most prosperous N. American colonies in the balance, in large part do to mismanagement prompted by the massive debt taken on during said conflict. I'm referring now to the American Revolution. I understand that serious Anglophiles would probably like to pretend that it didn't happen, but it did.
  
• GB did not win the Napoleonic Wars on her own either.
  
• Oh, and she did not win WWI OR WWII alone either. You see a pattern here. So do I: Britain doesn't have a track record of defeated Continental Powers on its own or easily or cheaply.
  
• GB's economy was strained to the breaking point during WWII (6 years). She received millions of dollars (billions, adjusted) in material and monetary aid from the U.S. during and immediately after the war. GB's economy was depressed after WWII ended, for quite some time. This does not speak of economic strength or staying power. See my next point.
  
• GB lost most of its overseas empire in the three decades following WWII. As far as I understand it, this was, in large part, due to its military weakness and inability to sustain its imperial holdings financially.

Three of these four points, here repeated for the third time, put paid to your central argument that the British Commonwealth, on its own, could have won the war against the Axis Powers without American assistance, even in a long, drawn out conflict. I'm not ignoring or failing to grasp that bolded point. I just disagree with it, and I have made arguments against it.

Also, why did Japan have to attack U.S. possessions in the Asia and Pacific (i.e. the Philippines) in order to complete its conquest of French, Dutch, and British possessions in the region You treat this as an inevitability but I don't see it as such. Would you care to explain your reasoning