Assumptions Necessary to Create a Plausible Axis Victory

[Fulton 44]

1, The USA with its massive resources and industrial potential has to stay out of the war. For this to happen, you pretty much have to build in an assumption that FDR is out of the picture and a very different Administration is calling the shots.
2. It helps a great deal if there is no Dunkirk evacuation.
3, Conflict with the USSR seems to be pretty much unavoidable and success depends on taking Moscow in 1941 - and probably also controlling the Black Sea to facilitate a follow on seizure of the Caucasus in 1942. It helps a great deal to get Turkey into the war on the Axis side and the most likely scenario would be a blundering offensive by the Soviets into northeastern Turkey in 1939 (like the Finland offensive) aimed at reconquering the territories lost to Turkey at the end of WWI.
4. Then it helps to get a head start on Barbarossa in 1941 by getting lucky with Spring weather and having no detour down into the Balkans (if there is no Dunkirk evacuation, this may be more plausible).
5. A key factor would be for the Nazis to become Notzis and abandon extreme racism by dialing down antisemitism and courting the minority nationalities of the USSR.
6.. Then if Japan attacks the USSR rather than the USA, it keeps the USA out of the war at least for a while and creates yet another burden for the USSR in addition to Finland and Turkey.
7. Of course, it would help to have the benefit of a mild winter in 41-42.
Even with all of this, the USSR is not really knocked out but it may be reduced enough so that the regime gets shaky or the remainder of the USSR is a much less formidable opponent.
Looking at this, it is hard to imagine what they were thinking when the started the war. The logistics are so overwhelming and the imbalance in industrial production so great that one wonders whether an insanity defense should have been attempted by the lawyers representing the Nuremberg defendants.

 

[Captain Homicide]

Looking at this, it is hard to imagine what they were thinking when the started the war.

Hitler and his inner circle were fanatics and true believers motivated by beliefs they deeply held for much of their lives. We know this from their public and private statements and writings (Mein Kampf, Goebbels and Himmler’s diaries etc). Similar beliefs motivated Imperial Japan which had a near zero chance of defeating the Allies after Pearl Harbor yet continued to fight and waste millions of lives. Ideologies of all kinds have started countless wars, mass killings and conflicts throughout all of human history. Ideology (and wishful thinking) can make otherwise intelligent people (up to entire populations) believe what only madmen and idiots could believe on their own. Of course citizens living in 21st century liberal democracies can’t fathom the type of worldview that would motivate the Nazi and Japanese leaderships and their followers to start a world war and turn Europe and Asia into a graveyard though irrational beliefs aren’t constrained to dictatorships.

Besides that as has been discussed in countless threads (especially recently) I think you’re including far too many assumptions that are either unnecessary or far too implausible. You can only include so many PODs and lucky breaks before it loses credibility and stretches suspension of disbelief too far. You can make a plausible/feasible TL where the Reich defeats the USSR and the prospect of spending an ocean of blood and treasure makes the WAllies decide to make a peace of sorts with a mere handful of PODs that don’t require sheer luck or completely different conditions like the weather changing or a different US President.

 

[Dorknought]

All enemies cooperate with Nazi plans.

 

[cloistered scholar]

Someone brought up in another thread the Japanese discovery the oil fields in Manchuria. That might keep the Japanese from pursuing war with the US.

 

[kham_coc]

Realistically 5 is the most plausible and strongest card to play, and given the severe strain the ussr was under in 1941-42 sufficient for victory.
However the only way you are getting there that isn't complete notzism is a pod going way back to the early nazi party where they had a bunch of whites of some note. So you need more of those. Ideally in terms of manpower too. So maybe one of the white generals leads his troops to Germany for asylum, and joins the nazi party or that Milleu.

Something that popped into my head is a prussian cossack host if something like that had been a thing since 1920, along with the freikorps - or later a bunch of Ukrainian nationalists, being a useful bunch both with the poles and the ussr.

Oh and as for one more helpful PoD, have Stalin start the war.

 

[Monk78]

All enemies cooperate with Nazi plans.

And all enemy leaders are quislings intentionally sabotage their own militaries

 

[Dorknought]

And all enemy leaders are quislings intentionally sabotage their own militaries

PoD
PoD
PoD
PoD
...smear liberally with Alien Space Bat semen and voilà,
Nazi's win.

 

[Ramontxo]

All enemies cooperate with Nazi plans.

Or just one. In summer 1940 Halifax does make a deal with Adolf thinking of the usual British strategy of wait and prepare for round two at the best possible moment. But the disastrous Tory appeasement policy (and Labour complacency with it) brings a wave of public discontent and elections are called and they bring extremist to power. Not a Mosley like Fascist, just one ready to work with the new order. The Dominions of course are quite dissatisfied with this and gravit to an USA orbit but the UK and the RN guarantee Germany acces to the Near East oil and the world markets are open to a Nazi Germany rich with plunder. When Barbarrosa comes there is no lend-lease and Germany dosent have the Mediterranean, Africa or Balkan distractions and The UK is an ally watching their backs.
WLSC once wrote that in Jutland Jellicoe was the only man who could lose the war in an afternoon. IMHO in 1940 that position was occupied by her Majesty's Government.

 

[Boon84]

You only have to keep the USA out of the war. The USSR could well collapse due to lack of materiel and food for its population and army. Britain without lend lease is going to be incapable of raising enough men or paying for materials to carry on the war.

 

[Garrison]

1, The USA with its massive resources and industrial potential has to stay out of the war. For this to happen, you pretty much have to build in an assumption that FDR is out of the picture and a very different Administration is calling the shots.
2. It helps a great deal if there is no Dunkirk evacuation.
3, Conflict with the USSR seems to be pretty much unavoidable and success depends on taking Moscow in 1941 - and probably also controlling the Black Sea to facilitate a follow on seizure of the Caucasus in 1942. It helps a great deal to get Turkey into the war on the Axis side and the most likely scenario would be a blundering offensive by the Soviets into northeastern Turkey in 1939 (like the Finland offensive) aimed at reconquering the territories lost to Turkey at the end of WWI.
4. Then it helps to get a head start on Barbarossa in 1941 by getting lucky with Spring weather and having no detour down into the Balkans (if there is no Dunkirk evacuation, this may be more plausible).
5. A key factor would be for the Nazis to become Notzis and abandon extreme racism by dialing down antisemitism and courting the minority nationalities of the USSR.
6.. Then if Japan attacks the USSR rather than the USA, it keeps the USA out of the war at least for a while and creates yet another burden for the USSR in addition to Finland and Turkey.
7. Of course, it would help to have the benefit of a mild winter in 41-42.
Even with all of this, the USSR is not really knocked out but it may be reduced enough so that the regime gets shaky or the remainder of the USSR is a much less formidable opponent.
Looking at this, it is hard to imagine what they were thinking when the started the war. The logistics are so overwhelming and the imbalance in industrial production so great that one wonders whether an insanity defense should have been attempted by the lawyers representing the Nuremberg defendants.

And some of these assumptions are flawed at best. 1 only works if you are willing to accept Roosevelt aided Britain out of some Anglophilic tendency and not because of US strategic interests. 2 ignores the fact that no one expected the evacuation to succeed in the way it did. 3 Turkey has little to offer strategically and taking Moscow is a major challenge give German logistics. 4 likewise requires you to believe Hitler's later claims about why Barbarossa started in June, which are dubious to say. And you can keep going. The reality is the limitations of German resources and industry means Nazi Germany massively overperformed in the first years of the war, helped by the poor performance of the Allies.

 

[Garrison]

Or just one. In summer 1940 Halifax does make a deal with Adolf thinking of the usual British strategy of wait and prepare for round two at the best possible moment. But the disastrous Tory appeasement policy (and Labour complacency with it)

And of course this would ignore the reality of the political situation in Britain in 1940. Labour was anything but complacent and parliament wanted a leader who would prosecute the war effectively, not one who would place the kind of terms Hitler was willing to offer before them to be rejected.

 

[Ramontxo]

And of course this would ignore the reality of the political situation in Britain in 1940. Labour was anything but complacent and parliament wanted a leader who would prosecute the war effectively, not one who would place the kind of terms Hitler was willing to offer before them to be rejected.

Yes but Labour had been very much complacent with the appeasement before the war.It is possible, but not certain, that in a new parliament (and imho opinion elections in such a situation are certain) a major figure would stand up and ride the public indignation towards a very dark future. Not certain or even probable but not implausible

 

[TheSwedishHistorian]

Personally I think you 2 or 3 changes of whatever sort in order for an axis victory, or 1 big. The odds were just bad.

Say for example that Yugoslavia stays an axis ally and its allied coup fails, so no yugoslavia war and instead yugoslavia support. Add to that no succesful dunkirk evacuation and the Axis pretty much dominates the continent for a long time and can pull off a decent invasion of Russia. Fortress Europe under the axis secured?

 

[David Flin]

Say for example that Yugoslavia stays an axis ally and its allied coup fails, so no yugoslavia war and instead yugoslavia support. Add to that no succesful dunkirk evacuation and the Axis pretty much dominates the continent for a long time and can pull off a decent invasion of Russia. Fortress Europe under the axis secured?

The Dunkirk evacuation made zero difference to the Europe situation. Sealion is still impossible, so Germany can't get at Britain. Britain didn't launch any major Europe assaults, so that doesn't change either. You can airlift every man and piece of equipment back to Britain, and it doesn't make a difference. You can have Germany scoop the whole lot up, lock, stock, and barrel, and it doesn't make any difference.

Yugoslavia aids Germany rather than is a drain. This begs the question: What difference does that make to the invasion of Russia? The German limitation was logistics. Having extra troops available makes not a speck of difference, because they can't support them. Germany needs logistics and infantry that can move at something faster than a walk. Having Yugoslav support makes not a jot of difference.

 

[TheSwedishHistorian]

The Dunkirk evacuation made zero difference to the Europe situation. Sealion is still impossible, so Germany can't get at Britain. Britain didn't launch any major Europe assaults, so that doesn't change either. You can airlift every man and piece of equipment back to Britain, and it doesn't make a difference. You can have Germany scoop the whole lot up, lock, stock, and barrel, and it doesn't make any difference.

I am kind of imagining a mainland Europe that locks itself down and prevents any invasion. The Allies have the seas, but the axis has Europe. The logistical situation is a good point though, a fullfledged invasion of Russia is a bit too much for Germany, although I am sure it would conquer St petersburg and some more land. Perhaps they should just not invade them?

 

[David Flin]

I am kind of imagining a mainland Europe that locks itself down and prevents any invasion. The Allies have the seas, but the axis has Europe. The logistical situation is a good point though, a fullfledged invasion of Russia is a bit too much for Germany. Perhaps they should just not invade them?

The trouble is, without invading Russia, Germany has to keep Russia sweet to get resources. Without conquests to loot, the economy is in trouble and paying for the resources it needs becomes a problem.

Locking down might be a way to go, but doing so is basically antithetical to the policy of the Nazis. And without the Nazis, the early war successes don't happen.

Therefore lockdown requires a major regime change, and that regime change is going to interest the predators around it.

 

[Post]

Yes but Labour had been very much complacent with the appeasement before the war.It is possible, but not certain, that in a new parliament (and imho opinion elections in such a situation are certain) a major figure would stand up and ride the public indignation towards a very dark future. Not certain or even probable but not implausible

It is quite a stretch that voters unhappy with appeasement turn to a figure who instead of appeasement wants even further appeasement or even an outright alliance with Nazi Germany (because that is what it looks like). It's like trying to counter the threat of the USSR in the cold war by inviting them into NATO.

 

[Dorknought]

You only have to keep the USA out of the war.

The first time the Nazi's defeated a Great Power, the USA triggered the 2 Ocean Navy Act which was then used to smash Japan and also gave the US an 18 month headstart that when warmed up, built a shitload of carriers followed by a shitload of landing craft.

 

[kham_coc]

The trouble is, without invading Russia, Germany has to keep Russia sweet to get resources. Without conquests to loot, the economy is in trouble and paying for the resources it needs becomes a problem.

Not really - The nazis ended the war with a sizeable gold reserve, and most importantly, there was several years worth of industrial production that got blown up on the eastern front, that could just have been sold to the USSR for anything it wanted, which if an invasion is off the table isn't much.
Oil? no, with no maneuver divisions consuming oceans of oil Ploesti suffices.
Food? well production would go up if logistical assets aren't seized to invade Russia.

 

[DougM]

The problem is, it is all but impossible yo “lock down” a continent and avoid an invasion. This goes double when your oppenent massivly out uilds you.
A continent is just to big to garrison then entire coast and the invaders get to concentrate its resources to a give point so will have local superiority on the day of invasion. If recon is any good then the invaders know where your troops are that can reinforce the defenders. So the invader avoids those area
So you are not stopping an invasion. So you have to somehow convince the US to not join in and to get GB to give up.
Frankly it is simpler to avoid the war with GB to start with. But then as hapoens with these types of posts you have to change so much that you dont get WW2.
For example. If it becomes obvious that Germany and the USSR are going yo go at each other France and GB may just sit back with a big bowl of popcorn.