If the US and UK went to war in the 1930s & 1940s (instead of WW2 happening) who would have won?

  • Total US victory
    50% (3)21% (4)28% (7)Vote
  • Total UK victory
    33% (2)16% (3)20% (5)Vote
  • Incomplete US victory
    0% (0)21% (4)16% (4)Vote
  • Incomplete UK victory
    17% (1)16% (3)16% (4)Vote
  • Draw
    0% (0)26% (5)20% (5)Vote
And you are? I'm a GirlI'm a Guy

0|0
2|6

Most Helpful Girl

  • Don't link to the Daily Mail pleeease :/ , that paper is scum

    1|2
    0|0

Most Helpful Guy

  • I think it depends. There are two answers to two scenarios: one involves the UK winning the other the US. Here's how:

    In that time the US was a sleeping giant. Before WW2, it's military was a joke in comparison to what it had built up during and after the war. BUT it was a sleeping industrial giant. One of the main reasons the allies won was because the US alone at that time pretty much could compete with the entirety of the rest of the planet in terms of industry. They could outproduce anyone save for perhaps the USSR if it ran more efficiently. So who wins in a US vs UK at the time depends on certain circumstances.
    The major circumstance is whether the UK plays it's cards correct and takes the thing SUPER seriously. Like HYPER seriously. The UK, had a massive empire at the time. The largest ever. They could get resources from any part of the world along with manpower + allies. Mainly the French - who also had a colonial empire. The US had no allies. So in a war between the US and UK it's actually the US vs Great Brittain+Ireland, France, Belgium (allied with the UK at the time) most of Africa (since the UK, France and Belgium controlled the bulk of the continent), India, Indochina, Indonesia, Australia + New Zealand. And also territories in the Americas, namely Canada and several islands in the carribean + French South American holdings. The Imperial wictory would depend on these things:
    1) How quickly and efficiently the Empire could blocade the US coasts after defeating the US fleets (because they would at the time);
    2) How efficiently the Empire could pulverize coastal industrial centers and harbors;°
    3) How long the Canadians would hold out against the US ground invasion while the Empire sends in reinforcements from the rest of the Empire.
    I'm guessing in this scenario the war ends with US coastal cities in flames and Canada ruined by fighting. The peace is signed and pretty much no one gains anything because an Imperial invasion of the US is an suicide attempt.

    In the other scenario the UK doesn't take the US threat seriously and thus the US does exactly what it did in WWII, it outproduces the UK. Builds up it's forces, economy and power. And then meets the UK head on in the sea. It doesn't defeat the entirety of the RN but it severely damages it. Again, peace is signed and no one gains anything because the UK would still be bringing in reinforcements to Canada to not let it be overrun.

    0|1
    0|0

What Girls Said 1

  • The US. Because the UK wouldn't have won the war w/o help from the US.(and the soviet union)

    0|0
    0|0

What Guys Said 5

  • Thanks for your question. I found the article fascinating. Of course Generals with nothing else to do play war games all the time and are dreaming up scenarios that thankfully will never come to pass. It raises the question of what they are dreaming up right now. A plan to invade Liechtenstein to make it a 51st state?

    That said, Britain would have prevailed knowing how poorly prepared we were to deal with Pearl Harbor in '41. Atlantic aircraft carriers. . . I don't think we had any in the Atlantic. We had no air bases in Europe. At Normandy our air bases were provided to us in England !

    0|1
    0|0
  • First of all, you're an idiot for quoting a Daily Trash article.

    Second, why are you so bitter towards us? What have we done that's hurt you so much?

    Thirdly, it really doesn't matter who would've won, it matters that we're "best mates" and fighting on the same side.

    1|1
    0|0
  • The nazis. Because they would've taken advantage of the two weakened countries and defeated them

    0|2
    0|0
  • I doubt Britain should be surprised. You inky have to look at what the US did to the indigenous population.

    Britain should cut all ties with the US and forge a union with China and Russia.

    0|1
    0|0
  • It would depend on how the war developed but basically the US could not lose but it might not win either. The entire British empire could not muster an army sufficient to successfully invade the US. A blockade of the US would have no real effect as the USA was (with the notable exception of rubber) self-sufficient in war materials at the time. If the British finally lost control of the sea due to US production they would be toast.

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...