I find that extremely difficult to believe. Not the Battle of Britain part. The second part. It was only a matter of time before you would have been overrun..
As I said, we could have made peace. We could have abandoned Europe to their fate and retained our Empire. Who knows what might have happened after that?
But whatever, you were just trading with us. If you had stopped trading with us, we would have sought supplies elsewhere. You don't get to claim that you saved our lives just because you were trading with us.
Listen, the way I see it is, every Allied nation that fought against the Axis is simultaneously owed by their colleagues, but also indebted to them. We all contributed to a common cause. We needed each other. So one country claiming that they were the essential one, the necessary one... that's just crass. We were all in it together.
Why is it so hard to admit that without US involvement you would have lost?
But without British involvement you might have lost. Imagine this:
1. Britain makes peace with Hitler in 1940.
2. Hitler then makes peace with the USSR.
3. Hitler develops nuclear weapons (which the US haven't bothered to do, as there's peace in Europe).
4. Hitler nukes New York and Washington.
That could easily have happened - and you'd have lost.
And one reason it didn't happen is because Churchill refused to take step one, and so thousands of Americans in New York and Washington were not subsequently vaporized.
See the May 1940 War Cabinet CrisisWiki
article. It says:
At that meeting on 28 May 1940, British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill had saved Britain and perhaps Western Civilization from threat of Nazi domination.
That is not hyperbole. He set the course, and Britain followed. And Churchill set his course regardless of America, who didn't join in until late '41.