World War Two, with these Leaders

[the Apple Man]

I've been wondering, how would World War Two have developed if this had happened?

Hitler is Assassinated on September 2nd,1939 and Hermann Goering Becomes the new Furer of Germany.

Winston Churchill dies of a heart attack before he can become Prime Minister, and Lord Halifax becomes PM instead.

Franklin Roosevelt decides not to run for a third term, and John N. Garner is elected persident, beating republican candidate Wendel Wilkie.

Joeseph Stalin dies in the Revolution, and Leon Trotsky eventualy becomes ruler of the Soveit Union.

I Don't know to much about Japan or Italy.please make suggestions if you can.

[Kome]

for japan u could replace the emporor in some coup but that would proberly end up screwing japan. for china you could have the communist win the power struggle after the revolution instead of the kmt.

for italy i have no idea, maybe make the trains run on time in the 1st place to prevent facism.

[maverick]

If Trotsky is leader of the USSR in 1924, then WWII is most likely butterflied away...

Not only because of a lack of Soviet-German cooperation in the 1920s-1930s and of the pact against Poland, but also because Trotsky was all for world revolution and would probably start with his expansionist policies as soon as he could, probably taking advantage of the 1929 crash...

That of course, through a simple reasoning of cause and effect, brings massive changes in German and British leadership...

Would there still be Nazi Germany and PM Neville Chamberlain? The circumstances are fairly different if we replace Stalin with Trotsky...

But if we use, say, Bukharin, then butterflies are less evident...

[maverick]

For Italy...

-Pro-British governor of Lybia and marshall of the air force: Italo Balbo
-King Vittorio Emmanuel (Personal Rule?)
-General Rodolfo Graziani
-Count Galeazzo Ciano (Mussolini's son in law and Foreign Minister)
-General Pietro Badoglio
-General deBono

For Japan
-Admiral Yamamoto...of course, then Japan doesn't join the Axis...

Also, John Nance Garner is unlikely to be elected in 1940...no southerner has much chances before the 1960s...

[Fenrir_Angerboda]

I highly doubt Garner would be elected, if he was, then there might be an isolationist America.

I don't want to say Goerring was an incompetint idiot, but I don't think he would perpare Germany for a war as well as Himmler or Hitler would have. also have a feeling the attacks on Poland and Czechoslovakia might not go as well as they did in OTL

Don't know enought about Trotsky to make any predictions.

Halifax might have better luck trying to make peace with Goerring and England may not enter the War, or atleast, not untill later.

If Crown Prince Takamatsu (nobuhito) became emperor of Japan, we may see a Surrender as early as the Battle of Midway. He didn't think Japan would survive in a war with the USA, so he may not even want to invade the Phillipines.
don't know if he would wage war over korea, Manchuko, or China, but he probably would.

Don't know enough about Italy to make any predictions.

so we have an ill-prepared Germany and England, a possibly isolationist america, an extremly cautious Japan, and a wild card in Italy and the USSR.

[deejay27]

With Goering in charge of Germany it would have changed quite a few things. Goering wasn't competent but he was very charismatic, chances are the other Reich leader would have used him as a puppet. The benefits being of course a more harmless face on Germany could have made it more likely that countries would negotiate, something Hitler wasn't renown for. The army wouldn't have made as many overly ambitious attacks, and would have more than likely gone no further than the middle east. The Luftwaffe would have been run by a more competent man, hard to do worse, and been a more effective fighting force.

With Trotsky in charge of the Soviet Union the purges would have quieter and on a much smaller scale. The army would have been in better shape. Consequently Russia may not have industrialized as quickly. Stalin's lack of concern for human life helped speed up a lot of his projects. Trotsky wouldn't have been as interested in millitarization and would have focused on "Permanent Revolution", which in part involved a degree of democracy. This would have led to a stronger Soviet Union, but would have made things pretty chaotic politically, as opposing voices would be heard instead of being stuffed into gulags. The more solid millitary and government would make them a lot less likely millitary targets but a greater political threat.

Halifax in Britain would make it likely they would not enter the war unless Britain was threatened as they had their own problems to deal with and didn't want another war. He would have taken the first acceptable peace offer he could. If not it is unlikely Britain would have survived without Churchill holding everything together and stiffening British resolve.

Italy would have stayed out of the war. For all his faults Mussolini was a great organzer speaker. They wouldn't have had the same unity and would have been in poor shape to fight a war. They might have played the WW1 card and tried to annex territory when another country was on the ropes, likely with the same results.

Japan is a little tougher to determine. Though the Emeror had a lot of sway he was more of a spiritual political leader. If his son took over he would be a lot more likely to push for appeasement towards the US, and make it less likely they would bomb Pearl Harbor. I think that if a few of the millitary leaders, and Tojo either didn't rise to power or died that would have a lot more impact.

In the US, I don't know much about the other president but it is highly likely we wouldn't have entered the war. America was very isolationist and it was Roosevelt that felt we needed to take it more seriously. We may not have even done the lend/lease program or done more than taken defensive measures.