Wagner’s Germany: An Axis Victory TL

[Linense]

Well, a small extension of Spanish Guinea is probably no problem.

Giving Spain and Italy bits of Algeria is really too much since
1 ) It was seen as metropolitan France
2 ) I doubt Italy had the time (and enough success) to seriously penetrate in Algeria. I doubt even more that they took Constantine.
3 ) I'm even more sure Spain didn't manage to reach Oran or take West Saharan Algeria. Spaniards would have been lucky to take French Morocco (when their participation in the war was so quick).

The 2) and 3) apply to Mauritania and Northern Mali as well.

Having Spain annexing Andorre, occupying French Basque and a bit of Roussillon, and gaining Morocco and a bit of Guinea is already much.

If you ALSO give them Mauritania and Mali, it will be humiliating for France (since the Spaniards didn't take those lands, it would be unearned).
Even worse if Spain and Italy gain Algerian land.

On top of the humiliation, there would be the feeling that the French empire is carved. Especially as they will likely lose Tunisia Djibouti and Indochina too.

Plus French people likely still rabidly hate Germany. That might change if Wagner plays well but for now they hate Germany.
They probably hate even more Italy (the former ally, ie turncoat) and Spain (who attacked when France was down). Plus being defeated by SMALLER powers like Italy and (worse) Spain STINGS.

All of that put together might undermine Collaboration and Petain regime. Push French population to resist or oppose collaboration out of pride. Worse, push parts of French EMPIRE to defect to De Gaulle.

If the Spaniards want THAT BADLY Mauritania and Mali, it can wait for the final peace. And even then it might be better if Spain BUYS those colonies. And only if France gets enough British colonies in return.

While Algeria (even at final peace) should be a big no-no.
At the final peace, if Benny wanted Constantine that badly, just give him Syria and Lebanon (MUCH less important to France).

And it's likely Benny renounces his claims on Algeria. After all, if everything goes well, he gets Greece, (most of) Yugoslavia, Tunisia, Egypt, Palestine, Transjordania, Iraq (maybe in condominium with French and Germans). Possibly Sudan, British Somalia, Syria and Lebanon. So renouncing any part of Algeria will be feasible.

It's a nice great planning. I agree with you in most of your post, but I would add two changes:

• Algeria is considered a French metropolitan area susceptible of a subsequent Spanish/Italian annexation after the war, due to an earlier occupation of part of French Algeria during the European war -established by the French armistice because Franco and Mussolini alleged to protect many Spanish/Italian citizens in these areas (Oran region for Spain, Constantine region for Italy).
  
• If Italy immediately receives two French strategic colonies after the French armistice, at a minimum, Spain should receive a small extension of the Spanish Guinea and the promise of acquiring the French colonial territory forming the Greater Morocco -ie, Mauritania, the Malian regions of Gao, Kidal and Timbuktu and the Algerian regions of Bechar and Tindouf-, plus the possibility of annexing the Algerian province of Adrar, El Bayadh, Naama to establish a more defensible border in case of a Spanish annexation of the region of Oran.
  • This could be seen as a Spanish justified claim, for the eyes of the Nationalists and the Axis, as a form of French compensation for facilitating arms smuggling that benefited Republicans during the SCW, needlessly prolonging it.

With respect to the super expansion of Spanish Morocco, I was referring to a German promise to Francoist Spain to be fulfilled after the final peace, and the French already had sufficient compensation to the acquisition of the Belgian Congo and some British colonies.

But as the Spanish occupation and subsequent annexation of French metropolitan areas (Rousillon, French Basque Country and Oran region, without forgetting the possibility of reforming the border in the Pyrenees mountains including the Spanish annexation of Andorra) after WW2, I think the Oran region is a Spanish territorial claim legitimate due to the following fact: three quarters of the European population living there is of Spanish origin, and this data is primarily a Spanish economic immigration originated in the late nineteenth century, not due by Republican exiles. And I imagine that Mussolini wanted to imitate Franco, carrying a tasty piece of Algeria (all or part of the region of Constantine); after all, Mussolini was Wagner's greatest European ally.

And all this without forgetting the damage to the French colonial empire if Free France is conquered/beaten by the Axis but with great difficulty, causing the Axis members (minus Petain) want to show a great punishment to France.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

Well, if Wagner and Petain play right enough, either there will not be Free French colonies, or Vichy will retake them on its own.

 

[CrimsonKing]

So the war will continue! Wagner would be best to pummel the British to submission from the air

paratroopers + shunted german jet engines+ shunted german rockets + naval bombers+ anti ship rockets

Awesome update! This should help the Germans by making the Soviets think Germany will be occupied with the UK for a bit longer.

I rather prefer another TL's take on it, where Germany basically let the British come to them, and making the huge OTL German loses Britain's instead.

Wagner should probably commit his air assets into bludgeoning Malta into submission - the British wouldn't be able to replace losses down there quickly enough to contest the place for too long, compared to the OTL Battle of Britain. Either concurrently or after that, bring the Balkans and the Middle East to heel. Hopefully by then the British would have been forced to flush away most of their remaining fiscal resources in defense, and would have to throw in the towel.

Well that was a surprise...

...but on one hand, Britain agreeing to peace might be an instance of too much good luck for the Axis. OTOH, Wagner is too smart to make the same blunders as IOTL. One, he knows the Kriegsmarine is no match for the Royal Navy, and was always built as a commerce raider force anyway. Also, Britain is America's tripwire in the Atlantic, and a past update already mentioned the Nazis want to make damn sure the Americans stay out of the war no matter what, at least as far as sending troops are concerned. Even an attempted invasion would probably not be seen well on the American end.

So how to force the British back to the negotiating table? There's the OTL option: a bombing campaign. As Germany has heavy bombers it can be done, but I don't think Wagner would do it. He knows experienced pilots are hard to find and get, and he won't squander them over the British Isles, as he would later need them against the Soviets. So submarines it is...under cruiser rules of course. As someone mentioned in the past in this thread, even with cruiser rules enough U-boats and commerce raiders in the North Sea and the Atlantic would choke Britain. And if the British form up armed convoys, then cruiser rules go out the window. Finally, Germany can close the Mediterranean, what with Spain, Italy, and even France by its side. This means resources from the Empire have to take the long route around the Cape of Good Hope, lengthening journey times and increasing wear and tear on both merchant ships and merchant crews alike. And that doesn't mention the effects of France potentially opening new fronts in West and Central Africa, in addition to Axis control of the Middle East.

What timeline is that if I might ask?

And agreed, another awesome update Crimson! Will be interesting to see what the BoB looks like in this timeline.

I hope not; destroying war production of weapons only has an effect when those weapons are actively being used up. This only happens in attrition, which only happens in a high-intensity front like North Africa. In this case, the destruction of Britain's production capacity would be to have an effect on her ability to support the war in other theaters like North Africa. Destruction of production capacity by itself has virtually no effect without an invasion to take advantage of it, and terror bombing has been proven in numerous cases to be completely counterproductive.

I think Wagner would do best if he can direct more resources towards North Africa and use his allies to gain more control over the rest of Africa and open up more fronts, as Britain can't hope to fight fronts on all of her African colonies at the same time (The Belgian Congo alone has around 2000 km of borders with British colonies). Some of them are going to fall very quickly, and hopefully it would spread out the British forces so much that no one colony will have quite enough forces to defend against French/Spanish/Italian forces concentrated on one colony at a time.

Not at this point, there really wasn't any case studies or real life examples. Countries were still terrified of what they thought bombers could do to their cities. Careful you're not projecting today's knowledge back into that historical time period!

Or, Wagner could just be said to avoid the bad publicity that comes with bombing urban centers.

The aerial conflict in TTL will certainly be different from the historical one in many ways. With Gibraltar, Malta, and the Mediterranean in general being more prominent than in OTL, the Luftwaffe will be more engaged there. On the other hand, with Wever rather than Goring leading it and oil supply being less of an issue than in OTL, pilot training is better and losses can be more easily replaced. The net result is that I am planning on having the LW launch an offensive against Britain at some point, but with a more targeted approach rather than terror bombing.

Or Britain could effectively bring all of Sub-Saharan Africa under its influence. Portuguese and Belgian colonial soldiers will not fight for the Reich, and French colonial forces may be similarly disinclined (depending on what happens with Petain's regime) as well as very thin on the ground outside of French North Africa. The Italians are similarly in a very bad position in East Africa. Also, the native African populations have no love for their colonial rulers.

If the British put some effort in, all of French Sub-Saharan Africa could be lost to a native black, independent, pro-Allied, Free French republic-in-exile led by this man. Which would be very cool - and a surefire way to boost the popularity of Petain's regime and get it into the Axis. The Sahara could be the border of an Axis vs. British/Free Francafrique stalemate (because warring across the Sahara is simply not a logistical option, and even if you lock out the Royal Navy from the Mediterranean that will allow the Axis to hold North Africa and the Levant, but the British - with American assistance - will still control the rest of the African coast).

Yes, the British COULD concentrate everything on French and Italian Africa and win.

But they have to let enough troops at home. While defending Far East and India against a possible Japanese attack and possible rebellions. Soon they will HAVE to defend Near East, and they may have to defend Persia too.

Near East (with its oil) and Home take priority, and then India and Far East, and only then Africa.

Japan probably won't move south. The Axis are coordinated ITTL, so if the Japanese escalate it's probably north, into Eastern Siberia in conjunction with a German invasion of the Soviet Union*.

They can probably buy Indochina/get its independence as part of the Japanese SOI from Axis France, but that's only after the war, when the Allies have no choice but to accept Axis gains. Moving back to Britain, even if the Japanese don't move south, the possibility alone will probably tie down a lot of the British forces. As for the Near East...well, the Axis have better logistics, IIRC starting early 1941 Italy began to expand the port and rail facilities in Libya, and with Nazi Germany's byzantine bureaucracy butterflied by Wagner, well, I've heard it said with proper logistics and support Rommel would actually have stomped Montgomery flat.

Even if the British Royal Navy can retake Gibraltar, if they lose Malta (which they probably will) and the Germans can close Suez to Allied shipping**, they won't be able to supply their forces in the Middle East except through India, and even then it's a long supply line. They can probably keep the Axis from Persia and the Gulf states, but Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, the Trans-Jordan and Syria are probably lost causes.

*I'm not sure how much the Germans can or should take from Russia. Should they go all the way to the Urals, or should they stop at the Dnieper? Japan though will want Soviet Sakhalin and the Maritime Province, and possibly Khabarovsk as a puppet/buffer state at the least for a joint attack on the Soviet Union. Maybe more, if the Germans would want them to end their war in China on status quo ante bellum (for the most part - Japan will not give up either Manchukuo or Mengjiang).

**They should keep the Suez open to neutral shipping. Dewey might try to ship supplies to the Allies in the Middle East, but I doubt Congress would allow such a provocative act.

These comments neatly encapsulate the British dilemma. As a great naval power with a global colonial empire, Britain has many frontiers to secure, and making one in particular a priority invariably means the weakening of others. Naturally, Wagner will be looking to take full advantage of this vulnerability.

they should probably still end up cedeing serious amounts of gold from the french reserve as part of the later treaty to improve the value of german currency backing further.

It will be very interesting to see how Wagner gets Petain's French regime - (I don't think Petain has set up shop in Vichy ITTL, and if he moves the capital back to Paris quickly there won't be the tacked-on "Vichy" and they will just be known as the "French State") - on side, forestalling the rise of the Free French.

Easy, don't take any territory from France (that they really care about Franco wants Morocco but the French can be persuaded to let it go), let them run wild in Africa, concessions in the Middle East (a share in the Suez Canal and Iraqi oil), all in exchange for support in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

I don't think its that easy. Firstly, the Germans are hated ancestral enemy that have just astoundingly reversed the hard-won outcome of WW1. Blood-soaked bitterness there.

Also, this absolutely dominant German victory over France may make the Germans quite cocky and overambitious in their demands.

Now that Italy AND Spain have attacked France, they will want concessions. But if Wagner forces Petain to surrender too much - particularly bits of mainland France itself like Nice, Savoy, Corsica, Basque country, etc - that will totally discredit Petain's regime and pro-Axis collaboration will take a nosedive. Ditto for giving away huge chunks of the French Empire. How will Wagner balance these competing claims, including the desire of his own people to "punish" the French for Versailles? That will be quite an interesting tightrope.

There's also the (understandable) German concern that if you leave the French Empire and military too strong - (which while it will help shore up Petain and may boost the popularity of pro-Axis collaboration in the short term) - the French may turn around one day and stab Germany in the back once they have recovered their strength, in alliance with their former British allies. The French are historical enemies after all, how can Wagner trust them? Conversely if Wagner weakens Petain's regime too much like Hitler did ITTL it will once again discredit pro-Axis collaborationism and fuel the rise of the Free French.

Keeping the victorious Axis from demanding too much is possible with the right influence. Perhaps Wagner could simply remember what the Treaty of Versailles did to Germany and now that the results of that are clear, vow never to create as vengeful an enemy as France did. If that happens, he could take Alsace-Lorraine (to satiate German demands for avenging Versailles) and give otherwise generous terms to France and Belgium, which would make the Belgian and French colonial troops much more likely to fight on the side of the Axis (it even has a good change of preventing the Free French from becoming so powerful in the first place).

The Belgian Congo is a stretch, but considering how many French African colonies had to be fought over before they sided with the Free French OTL, it's very possible that they could side with the Axis if given the right terms (France's terms ATL seem reasonable, but we haven't seen what sort of deal Belgium got, so we don't know which way they'll go). The overall lack of troops on the ground and resentful native populations is an issue though, and now that I think of it, it might prevent them from seriously attacking British colonies. However, it also affects the British colonies as well, so unless they ship in serious reinforcements, they won't be able to attack Axis-aligned colonies either, it'll just be a sort of quiet stalemate.

For Axis to win, all of their enemies must be neutralised, either by being isolated, crushed or reconcilled.
France and Benelux can be reconcilled, USSR can not, not without serious regime change.
France changed regime to one willing to reconcille Germany, whats left of USSR would have to do the same, voluntarily or once Germans march through Moscow.

Exactly!

I think Wagner should take a different approach then OTL. What if he negotiated (very friendly terms) with France, Belgium and the Netherlands and turned back all their land to them. So all German soldiers were out of those countries and they were all sovereign nations. It creates a buffer between GB and Germany that I would think GB could not fly over. This makes the war much more difficult for GB to continue because their only approach is very restricted. If Germany creates trading partnerships with France, Belgium and the Netherlands for the raw materials they need, it now puts GB in the role of quarantining all of Europe. That would risk France, Belgium and the Netherlands lining up with Germany against Great Britain. If those countries truly were united with Germany against GB in a “freedom of the sea’s” issue this becomes an almost impossible scenario for GB. Of course this assumes that Wagner can become almost Bismark-ion in his diplomacy. But in hind-sight it doesn't seem like such a stretch...

UK was perfectly happy with invading neutral countries.
Germany can't simply turn France and Benelux into neutral buffers.
Wallies WILL invade europe once they gather enough strength to do so.

That would be even better! World opinion would quickly turn against GB. They already invaded neutral Norway in this TL. To invade a second or third neutral country would establish them as the aggressor nation! Plus if GB is invading and attacking Belgium or France their soldiers are getting killed by non-Germans. Germany is then invited into those countries to help defend after initial casualties are taken by others! What a WIN-WIN situation for Germany.

Well, yes and no. UK won't invade unless either its certain France/Benelux immediately switch sides back to Wallies, OR that it has support of USA or USSR, preferably both.
Nobody gives a damn about being branded as aggressor, if they think they can win. It won't matter. They know that if they win, history will remember them as liberators, not aggressors.

But that was the crux of my point. If Germany is able to put France back on it's feet quickly, prevent them from losing their oversees possessions, basically status-quo minus Alsace-Lorraine, and promise them potential future GB possessions in Africa, what incentive does France have to kick off against Germany again? I don't see them having the stomach for another fight with the Germans for a least a decade.

As far as the US, if Germany "plays nice" with all of Europe (except GB) the American public is not going to want to prop up what they see as English colonialism. If the American public is seeing GB in a war with Germany with Germany not really fighting back, GB will not get help. Plus all the South and Central American nations will start to line up towards Germany if they see GB as the aggressor. GB already has an image problem in this region.

If Germany sits back for a while after making peace with Western Europe it will become very difficult for GB to have any kind of coalition because every nation will view it as GB just trying to protect or expand their Empire.

USSR would have to be scared shitless at this point. They are seeing all of Europe becoming one faction that does not look favorably towards Communistic regimes.

At least that's how I'd view it.

It's good to see Churchill still becomes the Prime Minister even when the different disasters take place here. That should make everything more interesting, because he will never surrender and will do everything possible to get the US in his side. Let's see if the will of the British people is strong enough to survive the finest hour here...

It's also benefitial for Germany that Petain still becomes the leader of the collaborationist regime (did it move its capital to Vichy?), because he's still seen as a respected and beloved war hero by the French.

It's possible that South and Central America would like to ally themselves with Germany, but the US still has all the influence and virtual complete control over them. Granted, Operation Condor hasn't happened yet and the dictators aren't propped by the US, but the countries of the region are very dependant of the US, especially if Europe is at war. Whoever the US decides to align with, Central and South America will follow it. Not that anything of this makes any difference, of course, since the only nation that sent troops to any front was Brazil, but perhaps CrimsonKing has some plan we're unawere of.

Plus, if the British TRY to invade France they'll likely fail. Even the French on their own might stop them, and then there are the Germans who'll come to reinforce them quickly.

Also terror bombing is a BAD idea.
1 ) Waste of planes and pilots. Better to keep them for Barbarossa or deploy them against industrial and military assets
2 ) It would push the US to give more help to UK
3 ) It would terrify the British people yes, but also harden them and kill ANY chance of peaceful settlement (short of a successful Sealion, which won't happen).

Also, about the terms to give to NL, Belgium and France
1 ) France can part with Morocco (to Spain) and Tunisia and Djibouti (to Italy), and Indochina (to Japan). In exchange gaining Belgian Congo.

(Don't touch Algeria though).

French people won't be happy but...

2 ) If the Germans reduce their occupation to Atlantic / Channel coast, let the prisoners go home and postpone reparations it will count MUCH more than Morocco and Tunisia and Indochina.

It will even look like a good deal after such a catastrophic defeat.

3 ) Alsace-Moselle, Nice, Savoy, Corsica and whatever territory Spain occupied can remain occupied and be settled by plebiscite after the war.

Of course, the Axis powers can flood those regions with settlers.
And encourage any local German/Spanish /Italian-speaker to take their nationality.

They should do it QUIETLY though. With Axis and Vichy censorship preventing French newspapers from talking about "those Italian settlers who are flooding...".

When the plebiscite comes, they can rig it (if necessary). But not in an obvious way (like the Stalin plebiscites with 99% "yes"). Better to have results between 55% and 75% (depending the area), it will look much more BELIEVABLE.

It lets France save face while giving Germany, Italy and Spain what they want.

4 ) Then you can start Collaboration with a sound basis and without undermining the French government credibility.

5 ) France is useful as an ally. Belgium and NL are more useful as neutrals and economical (subservient) partners.

6 ) Belgium will lose Congo yes, it will sting. It's better if they lose it to FRANCE. Belgians will resent the French more than the Germans. Which helps Germany to dominate the European bloc.

Plus France is better placed to get Congo. Plus France is still neutral and not yet at war with Britain, so the Brits won't have legitimate reason to invade Congo.

NL will lose Indonesia to Japan.

Belgians and Dutch will accept it though because :
=> Economical collaboration (but no reparations)
=> Maybe have the Low Countries sell their navies (at reasonable price). It will help in the Med.
=> Military neutrality
=> No occupation.
=> Prisoners back

The Belgians and Dutch will be happy to get their prisoners back and their LAND back. And also their neutrality.

They will become economic partners like Sweden but on steroids.

7 ) The British pro-peace circles will get ammo.
"Wagner is reasonable, he treated very well France and Low Countries. Plus he didn't occupy Low Countries".

Having Germans at Antwerp was unacceptable to Britain but it won't be the case if Wagner plays well.

Anyway, Wagner has French coast to conduct submarine and aerial war, and don't even NEED bases or ports in Low Countries.

8 ) If Britain starts to bomb Belgian and Dutch industries, it will harm Churchill domestically (British opinion won't like too much outright bombing neutrals), and MASSIVELY harm British image in the US and world.

Same thing if the British ever try to invade Europe through neutral Low Countries.

Such an invasion attempt would fail, thanks to Belgian and Dutch armies, plus Wehrmacht coming FAST.

9 ) It will also help with the US opinion to give back their freedom to Belgium and NL.

Basically Wagner can
=> Have France as a useful neutral, and soon ally. While still satisfying German, Italian and Spanish claims in France proper (but later, after peace and "plebiscite"), and giving some minor colonies to Italy and Spain
=> Give Indochina and Indonesia to Japan (in exchange for later help)
=> Have the Low Countries as useful neutrals
=> Reduce your occupation zone to merely French coast (which is just as secure but FAR less costly)
=> Undermine the Interventionists in the US and the warhawks in Britain by looking reasonable.

France and Low Countries won't be happy at the territorial losses but WILL be happy to escape the TOTAL defeat nearly unscathed (instead of being crushed or even destroyed as countries). France will also gain Congo (nice bonus).

Oh, and Wagner should not annex Luxemburg now. It will still be there at the time of final peace, there is no rush.

Wagner seems too...practical to place much importance on things like that. I mean, it's probably there, but the patronage of the Fuhrer and the Nazi elite like IOTL isn't there. Considering how the TL has gone, I can just imagine Ahnenerbe trying to impress Wagner only to get laughed out of the Chancellery.

There's enough time for philosophizing and building monuments after the war, when you can actually say you have something to think about or commemorate. Sieg Heil is still in use, while Heil Hitler has probably been replaced with Heil Wagner. Or, seeing as Wagner doesn't seem as...self-obsessed as Hitler was, it could just be Heil based on the previous update, with the office of the Fuhrer probably getting more importance as opposed to the man sitting on it. Or something like that...

It's a great update, and I can't wait to see the next advances of your brilliant AH.

Regarding the immediate development of the war, it would not surprise me greatly if Churchill decides to invade Portugal -although only really happen in the Azores and Madeira, where it could establish air and naval bases solid near the Strait of Gibraltar, being perfect to replace a fallen Gibraltar in the war routes of British ships; while British developing a plan to assault the Canary Islands (idea supported by the Spanish Republican exiles in London, probably even led by former prime minister during the SCW, the Canarian Dr. Juan Negrin)-, which could trigger a Spanish invasion of Portugal -in OTL, Franco planned the conquest of Portugal, setting 1945 as the year that the invasion would restore political unity to the Iberian peninsula would be militarly feasible for Spanish armed forces-, supported widely by Axis members and fanatical Portuguese Falangists, and a British invasion of Portuguese colonies (Portuguese Guinea and Cape Verde would fall into the hands of the British troops stationed in Gambia; Cabinda, Angola and Mozambique would fall into the British troops stationed in Rhodesia and Namibia; Goa would be integrated into the British rule of India; and Portuguese Timor would be integrated into the Australian rule; instead, I think Sao Tome and Principe would fall into the hands of the Spanish troops stationed in Spanish Guinea).

It's a nice great planning. I agree with you in most of your post, but I would add two changes:

• Algeria is considered a French metropolitan area susceptible of a subsequent Spanish/Italian annexation after the war, due to an earlier occupation of part of French Algeria during the European war -established by the French armistice because Franco and Mussolini alleged to protect many Spanish/Italian citizens in these areas (Oran region for Spain, Constantine region for Italy).
  
• If Italy immediately receives two French strategic colonies after the French armistice, at a minimum, Spain should receive a small extension of the Spanish Guinea and the promise of acquiring the French colonial territory forming the Greater Morocco -ie, Mauritania, the Malian regions of Gao, Kidal and Timbuktu and the Algerian regions of Bechar and Tindouf-, plus the possibility of annexing the Algerian province of Adrar, El Bayadh, Naama to establish a more defensible border in case of a Spanish annexation of the region of Oran.
  • This could be seen as a Spanish justified claim, for the eyes of the Nationalists and the Axis, as a form of French compensation for facilitating arms smuggling that benefited Republicans during the SCW, needlessly prolonging it.

PS: Although it is a nice touch that Wagner delays the payment of French reparations after the war, in order to join the new French State to Axis, I think it is necessary to establish that the French subsequently shall bear the total cost of the German occupation and establish guarantees for it -for example, Petain is forced to recognize German as guardians of French gold reserves-.

PS2: By the way, I have some doubts about some customs that socially taken root in OTL Nazi Germany. For example, the Nazi salute is still Heil Hitler! or it was changed to Heil! or Heil Wagner! or Sieg Heil!?

And continue the Nazi plans to rebuild Germany and its cities by great monuments and avenues, as the projected called Germania by Albert Speer? After all, this was constantly encouraged by Hitler, who was a frustrated artist. And regarding this, we must bear in mind that the beginning of the Europea war has been delayed to 1941. Therefore, it exists the possibility that any of the projects megalomaniacs imagined by Speer could have built before the war.

And what is the social impact of the composer Richard Wagner and his music with this alt Nazi Germany led by a Nazi named Robert Heinrich Wagner? Adolf Hitler was an admirer of Wagner operas and saw an incarnation of his own vision of the German nation. There is still debate about how they might have influenced the views of Wagner in the Nazi thought. The Nazis used the thinking part of the composer who was useful for their propaganda and ignored or suppressed the rest. Although Hitler himself was an ardent follower of Richard Wagner, much of the Nazi hierarchy it was not and they were deeply resented the opportunity to attend these long epics because of their insistence.

There is evidence that Wagner's music was used in the Dachau concentration camp in 1933-1934 to "reeducate" political prisoners by exposure to "national music". However, there is no evidence to support the claim, sometimes sustained, that his music was used in Nazi death camps during World War II.

PS3: I have problems with my computer and have appeared while I editing this post. For this reason, I have been forced to reedit it.

Well, a small extension of Spanish Guinea is probably no problem.

Giving Spain and Italy bits of Algeria is really too much since
1 ) It was seen as metropolitan France
2 ) I doubt Italy had the time (and enough success) to seriously penetrate in Algeria. I doubt even more that they took Constantine.
3 ) I'm even more sure Spain didn't manage to reach Oran or take West Saharan Algeria. Spaniards would have been lucky to take French Morocco (when their participation in the war was so quick).

The 2) and 3) apply to Mauritania and Northern Mali as well.

Having Spain annexing Andorre, occupying French Basque and a bit of Roussillon, and gaining Morocco and a bit of Guinea is already much.

If you ALSO give them Mauritania and Mali, it will be humiliating for France (since the Spaniards didn't take those lands, it would be unearned).
Even worse if Spain and Italy gain Algerian land.

On top of the humiliation, there would be the feeling that the French empire is carved. Especially as they will likely lose Tunisia Djibouti and Indochina too.

Plus French people likely still rabidly hate Germany. That might change if Wagner plays well but for now they hate Germany.
They probably hate even more Italy (the former ally, ie turncoat) and Spain (who attacked when France was down). Plus being defeated by SMALLER powers like Italy and (worse) Spain STINGS.

All of that put together might undermine Collaboration and Petain regime. Push French population to resist or oppose collaboration out of pride. Worse, push parts of French EMPIRE to defect to De Gaulle.

If the Spaniards want THAT BADLY Mauritania and Mali, it can wait for the final peace. And even then it might be better if Spain BUYS those colonies. And only if France gets enough British colonies in return.

While Algeria (even at final peace) should be a big no-no.
At the final peace, if Benny wanted Constantine that badly, just give him Syria and Lebanon (MUCH less important to France).

And it's likely Benny renounces his claims on Algeria. After all, if everything goes well, he gets Greece, (most of) Yugoslavia, Tunisia, Egypt, Palestine, Transjordania, Iraq (maybe in condominium with French and Germans). Possibly Sudan, British Somalia, Syria and Lebanon. So renouncing any part of Algeria will be feasible.

With respect to the super expansion of Spanish Morocco, I was referring to a German promise to Francoist Spain to be fulfilled after the final peace, and the French already had sufficient compensation to the acquisition of the Belgian Congo and some British colonies.

But as the Spanish occupation and subsequent annexation of French metropolitan areas (Rousillon, French Basque Country and Oran region, without forgetting the possibility of reforming the border in the Pyrenees mountains including the Spanish annexation of Andorra) after WW2, I think the Oran region is a Spanish territorial claim legitimate due to the following fact: three quarters of the European population living there is of Spanish origin, and this data is primarily a Spanish economic immigration originated in the late nineteenth century, not due by Republican exiles. And I imagine that Mussolini wanted to imitate Franco, carrying a tasty piece of Algeria (all or part of the region of Constantine); after all, Mussolini was Wagner's greatest European ally.

And all this without forgetting the damage to the French colonial empire if Free France is conquered/beaten by the Axis but with great difficulty, causing the Axis members (minus Petain) want to show a great punishment to France.

Well, if Wagner and Petain play right enough, either there will not be Free French colonies, or Vichy will retake them on its own.

Regarding the Low Countries, I agree that leaving them as friendly neutrals would be the best course of action, all things considered. However, I am trying to take into account factors such as the inevitable degree of overconfidence the Germans are going to be feeling after their spectacular victory, and as a result I'm leaning towards having the Germans put in place client states there similar to the one in Czechia.

For relations with Central and South America, it is fair to say the US has the commanding position. However, Axis influence is present there, and has just been given a great boost by the Fall of France. This has noteworthy implications.

For the Franco-Spanish settlement, I have in mind an outcome (detailed in the next update) between what has been described by skarosianlifeform and Linense, which will hopefully be a reasonable compromise.

The points about Wagner's personality and the way it influences his leadership style are spot on. In general, because his mentality is as a follower of Hitler rather than the originator of the NSVP movement, he is less ego-driven and more willing to listen to and take advice (ironic, of course, because he's actually doing much better than Hitler). He's also not a drug addict. As for greetings, while originally I leaned towards having Heil Wagner replace Heil Hitler, the tendencies described make me think Wagner would keep Heil Hitler. So that would be the greeting used in more formal occasions, while Sieg Heil or simply Heil are used in the more informal ones.

Most of the building projects Hitler initiated in OTL were not begun here. Wagner would have seen them as a waste of resources better used for rearmament. I haven't thought much about the implications of his name being the same as the composer's to be hones, my inclination would be to say it would lead to something of an increase in the popularity of Richard Wagner's music.

Vichy is indeed the temporary capital of the Petain regime, but as Cregan said, it won't stay there long enough for the name "Vichy France" to come into widespread usage.

And thanks for all the great replies!

 

[Soulbound]

The aerial conflict in TTL will certainly be different from the historical one in many ways. With Gibraltar, Malta, and the Mediterranean in general being more prominent than in OTL, the Luftwaffe will be more engaged there. On the other hand, with Wever rather than Goring leading it and oil supply being less of an issue than in OTL, pilot training is better and losses can be more easily replaced. The net result is that I am planning on having the LW launch an offensive against Britain at some point, but with a more targeted approach rather than terror bombing.







These comments neatly encapsulate the British dilemma. As a great naval power with a global colonial empire, Britain has many frontiers to secure, and making one in particular a priority invariably means the weakening of others. Naturally, Wagner will be looking to take full advantage of this vulnerability.





































Regarding the Low Countries, I agree that leaving them as friendly neutrals would be the best course of action, all things considered. However, I am trying to take into account factors such as the inevitable degree of overconfidence the Germans are going to be feeling after their spectacular victory, and as a result I'm leaning towards having the Germans put in place client states there similar to the one in Czechia.

For relations with Central and South America, it is fair to say the US has the commanding position. However, Axis influence is present there, and has just been given a great boost by the Fall of France. This has noteworthy implications.

For the Franco-Spanish settlement, I have in mind an outcome (detailed in the next update) between what has been described by skarosianlifeform and Linense, which will hopefully be a reasonable compromise.

The points about Wagner's personality and the way it influences his leadership style are spot on. In general, because his mentality is as a follower of Hitler rather than the originator of the NSVP movement, he is less ego-driven and more willing to listen to and take advice (ironic, of course, because he's actually doing much better than Hitler). He's also not a drug addict. As for greetings, while originally I leaned towards having Heil Wagner replace Heil Hitler, the tendencies described make me think Wagner would keep Heil Hitler. So that would be the greeting used in more formal occasions, while Sieg Heil or simply Heil are used in the more informal ones.

Most of the building projects Hitler initiated in OTL were not begun here. Wagner would have seen them as a waste of resources better used for rearmament. I haven't thought much about the implications of his name being the same as the composer's to be hones, my inclination would be to say it would lead to something of an increase in the popularity of Richard Wagner's music.

Vichy is indeed the temporary capital of the Petain regime, but as Cregan said, it won't stay there long enough for the name "Vichy France" to come into widespread usage.

And thanks for all the great replies!

when i said paratroopers what i meant is even under enemy air superiority it is very EASY to get paratroopers behind enemy lines even with heavy losses it will be worth it for the simple lack of troops in britian as well as the vast number of troops Germany and axis itself has to send

its a grind but a grind much into Wagner's advantage

oh also fan map of a possible after war

take note of there being three diffrent shades of red in use
and also united baltic nation

 

[Cregan]

Dismembering Belgium and giving the Flemish-speaking regions and the Belgian Congo to the puppet fascist Dutch regime, which also keeps the Dutch East Indies, would be a good move to boost its popularity (that's if the British don't just seize the Congo and East Indies in response) and gain the huge reservoir of Congolese and Indonesian natural resources for the Axis in the long-term; the Walloon regions would also go to Petain, boosting his regime's popularity and enticing France further into Axis collaborationist.

 

[Soulbound]

Dismembering Belgium and giving the Flemish-speaking regions and the Belgian Congo to the puppet fascist Dutch regime, which also keeps the Dutch East Indies, would be a good move to boost its popularity (that's if the British don't just seize the Congo and East Indies in response) and gain the huge reservoir of Congolese and Indonesian natural resources for the Axis in the long-term; the Walloon regions would also go to Petain, boosting his regime's popularity and enticing France further into Axis collaborationist.

part of why i have in my fan map a united dutch nation.......puppet nationolistic netherlands through coup hehehehehehe

 

[skarosianlifeform]

when i said paratroopers what i meant is even under enemy air superiority it is very EASY to get paratroopers behind enemy lines even with heavy losses it will be worth it for the simple lack of troops in britian as well as the vast number of troops Germany and axis itself has to send

its a grind but a grind much into Wagner's advantage

oh also fan map of a possible after war

take note of there being three diffrent shades of red in use
and also united baltic nation

Well you just carved French empire. Which is strange since France will be a German ally.

Also, why is central and western Canada, and northeastern Siberia, US ?

How did Axis / France manage to reach North America ?
And since they did, why did the French take the whole Husdson Bay (including English-speaking parts) but not the WHOLE Quebec ?

While Quebec and Nova Scotia formed tveir own state and took Groenland ?

How did the Benelux state manage to keep (part of) Indonesia (from Japan) and acquire Madagascar ?

Persia is in no shape to conquer and hold Central Asia from Russia. Even with crumbling USSR, no way the Red Army (or any Russian faction) let them do that, and Persia is too weak.
Even if they beat Russia, after the war, Central Asia locals might have something to say.

Did Persia just annex AFGHANISTAN ? If so many great powers failed to hold this land, Persia (NOT a great power, and already busy conquering Soviet land somehow) will fail too.

How did Germany and Italy manage to conquer whole India ? And hold it against Indian nationalists ?

Plus the Germans and Italians likely arrived in India through Persia and West India. So why did they not have WESTERN India (which they could reach through their Persian and Turk friends). But they took Eastern India.

Is Western India still British ?

How did China CONQUER Mongolia and part of Siberia (and Xinjiang and Tibet) after / at the same time as surviving the Japanese invasion ?
Especially as, as soon as the Japanese war ceases it's back to KMT-CCP (and warlords maybe) fighting.

Japan clearly went south. Then how did they expand in Siberia all the way up to Arctic Ocean ?
Grabbing North Sakhalin, Outer Manchuria and maybe Kamtchatka when the Soviets crumbled, why not, but this is really much.

Italy getting all of Algeria is really much (and France screw again). Benny also took Oran right under Franco's nose...

And if Wagner took Algeria from France (not a light decision), took French Equatorial Africa for Germany and did not give anything in return to France, why not go all the way and give Spain her claims (Oran, Western Algerian Sahara, Mauritania, Northern Mali as well) ?

Why did Italy NOT get Egypt ?

How did Turkey manage to fight the British all the way to Egypt (when Italians apparently couldn't), plus Palestine and entire Iraq...

WHILE fighting Stalin at north and managing to grab entire Caucasus (despite, well, Caucasus mountains. And Red Army of course).

Even supposing the Turks managed this (with support of anti-British and anti-Soviet rebels) how did they manage to hold control on so many Arabs, Kurds, Georgians, ARMENIANS...

And what was the POINT for Turkey ? Turks are likely a minority in their own empire. They know Ottoman Empire was a failure because too many ethnic groups and territory to defend. And it's totally out of character for the Turk leadership. The leaders are TURKISH nationalists not ottomanists.

MAYBE they would create CLIENT states in Syria and Lebanon and Caucasus, and annex Iraqi Kurdistan. Only if they can do it with no risk. And even that is a stretch.

BTW, Turkish Syria and Lebanon = France screw again.

Why are Ireland and Scotland united ? BTW how did the Eire take Ulster (let alone Scotland) ?

Oh and Finland gaining Eastern Karelia and Murmansk, why not. Finland gaining the Russian coast of Baltic (including Saint Petersburg) and its huge Russian population is a bit much.

Not to mention Romania gaining entire Ukraine and Poland gaining entire Byelorussia.

I'm not sure Romanians, Poles and Finns would actually WANT to outright annex so much foreign land (good luck for integrating it).

WTF happened to Hungary ?

And you also made Denmark and Norway outright parts of Germany while giving Norwegian lands to Finland and Sweden.

 

[Mackus]

God, I think this map just gave me cancer.

Sorry, but its just very poorly done.
- Italy gets Algeria but not Egypt.
- Why Germany gets Illyria? Italy wanted this.
- Poland for some reason gets large swaths of Germany?!
- Bulgaria annexes entire Serbia, but not Aegean coast.
- Hungary annexed for no reason.
- Finland takes so much territory, that barring ethic cleansing that would make OTL holocaust look unimpressive, would get Russians constitute more than 50% of its population (today St.Peresburg alone has like 90% of what population Finland has!).
- Romania also takes too much. OTL they took only as far as Odessa, and reluctantly (Antonescu wanted buffer territory).
- Wanked Turkey, but for some reason it gives up Edirne to Italy?
- Unidentifiable blob in Western China. KMT remnant? Xibei San Ma warlords? Greater Mongolia? Greater Tibet? Super-Nepal?!
- Of all colonies, France keeps Indochina, which Japan really wanted to have.
- Poor Maine given to French.
- Germany and Spain have colonies in Korea?! Italy gets Port Arthur?!

 

[Linense]

Well you just carved French empire. Which is strange since France will be a German ally.

Also, why is central and western Canada, and northeastern Siberia, US ?

How did the Benelux state manage to keep (part of) Indonesia (from Japan) and acquire Madagascar ?

Persia is in no shape to conquer and hold Central Asia.

How did China CONQUER Mongolia and part of Siberia (and Xinjiang and Tibet) after / at the same time as surviving the Japanese invasion ?
Especially as, as soon as the Japanese war ceases it's back to KMT-CCP (and warlords maybe) fighting.

Japan clearly went south. Then how dod they expand in Siberia all the way up to Arctic Ocean ?
Grabbing North Sakhalin, Outer Manchuria and maybe Kamtchatka when the Soviets crumbled, why not, but this is really much.

Italy getting all of Algeria is really much (and France screw again). Benny also took Oran right under Franco's nose...

And if Wagner took Algeria from France (not a light decision), took French Equatorial Africa for Germany and did not give anything in return to France, why not go all the way and give Spain her claims (Oran, Western Algerian Sahara, Mauritania, Northern Mali as well) ?

Why did Italy NOT get Egypt ?

How did Turkey manage to fight the British all the way to Egypt (when Italians apparently couldn't), plus Palestine and entire Iraq...

WHILE fighting Stalin at north and managing to grab entire Caucasus (despite, well, Caucasus mountains. And Red Army of course).

Even supposing the Turks managed this (with support of anti-British and anti-Soviet rebels) how did they manage to hold control on so many Arabs, Kurds, Georgians, ARMENIANS...

And what was the POINT for Turkey ? Turks are likely a minority in their own empire. They know Ottoman Empire was a failure because too many ethnic groups and territory to defend. And it's totally out of character for the Turk leadership. The leaders are TURKISH nationalists not ottomanists.

MAYBE they would create CLIENT states in Syria and Lebanon and Caucasus, and annex Iraqi Kurdistan. Only if they can do it with no risk. And even that is a stretch.

BTW, Turkish Syria and Lebanon = France screw again.

Why are Ireland and Scotland united ? BTW how did the Eire take Ulster (let alone Scotland) ?

Finally who is the "grey state" in East Africa ?

Oh and Finland gaining Eastern Karelia and Murmansk, why not. Finland gaining the Russian coast of Baltic (including Saint Petersburg) and its huge Russian population is a bit much.

Not to mention Romania gaining entire Ukraine and Poland gaining entire Byelorussia.

I'm not sure Romanians, Poles and Finns would actually WANT to outright annex so much foreign land (good luck for integrating it).

And you also made Denmark and Norway outright parts of Germany while giving Norwegian lands to Finland and Sweden.

God, I think this map just gave me cancer.

Sorry, but its just very poorly done.
- Italy gets Algeria but not Egypt.
- Why Germany gets Illyria? Italy wanted this.
- Poland for some reason gets large swaths of Germany?!
- Bulgaria annexes entire Serbia, but not Aegean coast.
- Hungary annexed for no reason.
- Finland takes so much territory, that barring ethic cleansing that would make OTL holocaust look unimpressive, would get Russians constitute more than 50% of its population (today St.Peresburg alone has like 90% of what population Finland has!).
- Romania also takes too much. OTL they took only as far as Odessa, and reluctantly (Antonescu wanted buffer territory).
- Wanked Turkey, but for some reason it gives up Edirne to Italy?
- Unidentifiable blob in Western China. KMT remnant? Xibei San Ma warlords? Greater Mongolia? Greater Tibet? Super-Nepal?!
- Of all colonies, France keeps Indochina, which Japan really wanted to have.
- Poor Maine given to French.
- Germany and Spain have colonies in Korea?! Italy gets Port Arthur?!

And do not forget that Spain would get Gibraltar, Haiti and Dominican Republic but not get the Roussillon and the French Basque Country, while it lost Spanish Guinea to Portugal -which achieves a great colonial empire in East Africa (possible compensation for Portuguese Guinea, Angola and Cabinda)-. And Italy gets the colonial rule over Ceylon and Bengal -it's a huge Italian-wank-.

And since when the Nazis will allow the independence of a Polish state, which detracts from former German territories of 1914? Besides, in all German postwar plans (planned during WW1 and WW2), Crimea would be a territory of German colonization, not a new Romanian territory.

 

[skarosianlifeform]

In fact this map looks like, for some reasons, the US accepted to deploy its whole industrial might behind the Axis, explaining in part how Japan, China, Persia and Turkey conquered so much Soviet territory (plus all Near East for Turkey), and how Germany (with her Finn, Pole and Romanian vassals / sidekicks) managed to carve European Russia while conquering British South Africa, Namibia and Rhodesia.

It would also vaguely explain Ireland taking Ulster and Scotland with US support.

And US conquests in Canada and Siberia.

While KMT China had enough of Commies, made peace with Japan and went north. Maybe the US pushed Chiang north anfd helped him.

US Axis (and then everyone ganging up on Brits and Soviets) makes slightly more sense... on a purely industrial and military plan.

Of course it still doesn't make politically sense at all for US, Germany, Finland, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Persia and China to act like this.
For example the US would not turn on UK or help (for almost free) Axis powers to carve empires from Soviet and British corpses.

 

[Count Valerian]

Question: in an earlier update (the one about weapons and stuff), it was mentioned that Germany favors assault guns over proper heavy tanks, so we probably won't be seeing Tigers. However, about medium tanks, will we eventually see Panthers? I mean yeah, it had problems too, but those could be ironed out much easier here with Nazi incompetence butterflied out.

 

[Jotun]

One of the bigger effects of a leadership that is not batshit insane but merely evil could be a streamlined R&D process and standardized production leading to a family of armored vehicles based on one common chassis. And no interleaved road wheels for tanks

 

[Count Valerian]

One of the bigger effects of a leadership that is not batshit insane but merely evil could be a streamlined R&D process and standardized production leading to a family of armored vehicles based on one common chassis. And no interleaved road wheels for tanks

Wasn't the Panther originally supposed to be the Panzer V?

 

[cortz#9]

The Panther was directly inspired by the T-34, if Barbarossa is cancelled or postponed then it shouldn't come into being when it did or not at all but if German military intelligence (which is superior here than OTL's Abwher) learns of the the T-34 and can inspire someone of note to persuade the higher ups to also build a medium tank with sloped armour then they'll probably end up with something closer to the VK3002m

which was basically a lighter version of the Panther ( it was Hitler that insisted an extra 20 tons of armour be added).

The Germans had become quite fond of interleaved wheel designs and most armoured vehicles designed between 1940 and the end of the war had interleaved wheel suspensions with a few exceptions, particularly those designed by Porsche.

With a postponed or cancelled Barbarossa we might see this tank (VK36.01H) instead of the Tiger or Panther.

 

[Jotun]

Every single time I see interleaved road wheels I ask myself who couldmserioy think it was a good idea...

 

[Prince Daemon Targaryen]

The Panther was directly inspired by the T-34, if Barbarossa is cancelled or postponed then it shouldn't come into being when it did or not at all but if German military intelligence (which is superior here than OTL's Abwher) learns of the the T-34 and can inspire someone of note to persuade the higher ups to also build a medium tank with sloped armour then they'll probably end up with something closer to the VK3002m

which was basically a lighter version of the Panther ( it was Hitler that insisted an extra 20 tons of armour be added).

The Germans had become quite fond of interleaved wheel designs and most armoured vehicles designed between 1940 and the end of the war had interleaved wheel suspensions with a few exceptions, particularly those designed by Porsche.

With a postponed or cancelled Barbarossa we might see this tank (VK36.01H) instead of the Tiger or Panther.

A standardized tank design would be a massive improvement, though in my opinion the Germans should try a Panther-like standard tank to replace the Panzer IV and a lighter version of the Tiger II that could serve as a breakthrough vehicle or as a tank destroyer (point at an enemy assault and shoot).

 

[AJE]

The interleaved road wheels were designed to improve cross-country performance and ride smoothness. They allowed the weight to be transmitted through the tracks at 8 rather than 4 points, and also allowed that many suspension members to be used (which is why the French used them for their AMX-50 tank). Since the Germans didn't use stabilizers on their tanks, the ride smoothness had to be exceptional to allow firing on the move- look at this video of a Panther crossing some obstacles and note the lack of movement of the hull, even at high speeds:

 

[cortz#9]

A VK30.02m with out interleaved wheels suspension would be a pretty good medium tank for the Germans to design around 1941-42 but how they come to this design without encountering the T-34 in combat first is tricky. I again would suggest that Wagner's more efficient military intelligence branch steal the plans to the T-34 and this inspires the VK30.02m but you still need another butterfly for getting rid of the interleaved wheels and for the Germans to be impressed with the T-34 design. Maybe the Soviets could invade Finland a year later and the Finns capture a T-34 and let the Germans inspect it?

As for the interleaved wheels, maybe the Germans first copy the T-34's Christie suspension but don't care for it and then design a suspension like the one in my drawing.

 

[Tonrich]

A VK30.02m with out interleaved wheels suspension would be a pretty good medium tank for the Germans to design around 1941-42 but how they come to this design without encountering the T-34 in combat first is tricky. I again would suggest that Wagner's more efficient military intelligence branch steal the plans to the T-34 and this inspires the VK30.02m but you still need another butterfly for getting rid of the interleaved wheels and for the Germans to be impressed with the T-34 design. Maybe the Soviets could invade Finland a year later and the Finns capture a T-34 and let the Germans inspect it?

As for the interleaved wheels, maybe the Germans first copy the T-34's Christie suspension but don't care for it and then design a suspension like the one in my drawing.

Why don't you like the interleaved wheels? Is there a performance difference?

 

[NoMommsen]

Why don't you like the interleaved wheels? Is there a performance difference?

Not at all ... quite the difference. ... or yes : The interleaved wheels gave a hell of performance for heavy tanks.
... but ...
they are nighmarish on maintenence, especially in-field.