Assumptions Necessary to Create a Plausible Axis Victory

[mial42]

Personally I think only (1) is really a prerequisite rather than just helpful, and even (1) could be toned down to "US in the war but only halfheartedly/willing to negotiate." The Eastern Front was a close-run thing OTL, and an even luckier (I know...) or marginally more competent Germany or less lucky/competent USSR could turn the tide (or even just weaker WAllies, which will obviously result from no US entry, especially since a less belligerent US will be providing much less aid before joining in the first place). The British can't win by themselves and will run out of money to pay for needed imports without US assistance, although they won't really lose either. Not too likely a scenario, but far from impossible.

 

[Geon]

I've read a number of these WI the Axis wins World War II. And I hope I'm not derailing this thread by making this comment.

We look back at the events of World War II from now coming up 80 years in the future. We - now - have the advantage of hindsight. We know more about the background and why it was impossible for the Axis to win.

But consider. In the early spring of 1942, it wasn't so cut and dried to those who were living through these events. Consider what the situation looked like to the average American, British, or Russian citizen at that time.

• Europe - Germany had conquered almost all of Western, Central and Eastern Europe. It had divided the Balkans between it and Italy and controlled access to the North Sea via Norway and Denmark which it now controlled.
• The U.K.- Britain had survived the Battle of Britain and the first Blitz but she was still fighting for her life with the U-Boat menace off her shores. Churchill would later say he feared the U-Boat menace more than the Battle of Britain would spell the end for Britain. The U-Boats were close to starving Britain into submission.
• Russia - The German Army had penetrated deep into the Soviet Union and thanks to Stalin's purges the Soviet Army was just now beginning to stiffen its resistance to the Wehrmacht. The Germans had in late 1941 reached near the outskirts of Moscow and Stalin was seriously considering evacuating government functions to a point east of the Urals.
• The Pacific - The United States had lost most of its Pacific Fleet at the Pearl Harbor attack. Only by a small miracle were the carriers not there. The Japanese had successfully invaded the Philippines, Guam, and Wake Island. They had also sunk The Prince of Wales and Repulse. They had successfully destroyed - for the moment - British and American superiority at sea. They now ruled an empire that - even though a good part of it was water - was the largest on Earth.

The reason I am reviewing these facts is to ask us today to consider how this looked to our grandparents and great grandparents. We know the Axis didn't have a chance. From the perspective of the leadership, civilian, military, and political at the time however the view was far different.

 

[David Flin]

It's the old issue of the other side of the hill. One gets to see your own areas of weakness, all the hidden problems you hope they don't become aware of, but you don't get a clear picture of the other side, merely what you can piece together from information that may or may not be accurate.

If one is telling a story set in the time, that's the outlook one needs to cultivate. If one is dealing with a history (ours or an alternate), you need the facts.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

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.

The position of Prime Minister is not that of a dictator - he (or she) is a first among equals

Its incredibly unlikely that the house would allow Halifax to do such a thing and nor would he be silly enough to try it without an improbably tall 'if tree'

 

[Ramontxo]

Ok it seems that the general consensus is this quite implausible but it is still the single POD that could have make the Nazis win the war.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

A POD I have tried to get to work is to have the Russians invade Poland either at the same time or before Germany

This gives France and the UK pause with regards to declaring war - not sure if it helps or hinders Germany but potentially leaves Germany not having to fight the Western powers and by extension the USA.

I am not sure if this is realistic as the UK and France did toy with plans to support the Finns (which they did to some degree) and bomb the Russian fuel regions etc - so they might declare war on both?

Its a POD I have for my unwritten TL where the war between Germany and France / UK does not start until Summer 1940 - but it might work here where they do not go to war.

But basically to win WW2 the UK and France needs to be occupied or otherwise on side obviously the same with regards to Russia.

 

[thaddeus]

one (fairly) plausible POD would be properly working German torpedoes https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1599&context=etd that leads to a better performance by the KM during Norway invasion and a blunted Dunkirk evacuation (POD #2 or numbers #2 & #3)

against that backdrop, I wonder if the BoB air campaign even considered necessary? (beyond the Channel warfare) and Japan might be considered an interloper in Indochina, unwilling to fight the British for the prior year?

consider the Nazi regime might revert to trade with China and disentangle themselves from Japan? with more logical reason than simply not delaring war on the US later after Pearl?

 

[spkaca]

quite implausible but it is still the single POD that could have make the Nazis win the war

To elaborate on this point, some of the points in the 'if tree' stretch credibility to breaking point. First Halifax has to become PM (only semi-plausible). Then there has to be a negotiation in which the Nazis manage not to make themselves look insane (ditto) and reach a settlement that Halifax & his Cabinet would accept (very unlikely). Then Halifax has to get Parliament to accept whatever deal comes out of it (difficult). Then there has to be an election in which a pro-Nazi somehow gets elected (vanishingly unlikely) instead of Labour (who would be best placed to exploit the opportunity, and whose leaders were both capable and principled). To expand on the 'vanishingly unlikely': where on earth is this leader & party supposed to come from? Mosley was a joke, the Blackshirts were negligible, but somehow a pro-Nazi party is going to grow out of the ground in a matters of weeks or months?
Then to cap it all this putative pro-fascist government has to last long enough to actually ally with the Nazis and make this alliance stick.

 

[Garrison]

Ok it seems that the general consensus is this quite implausible but it is still the single POD that could have make the Nazis win the war.

I don't think that is the consensus. There are several solid reasons for this. Firstly that Halifax is vastly unlikely to become PM because of his association with appeasement. Secondly if he were made PM it would be on the expectation that he would prosecute the war more vigorously. Thirdly Hitler never had more than a vague, wholly unrealistic set of peace terms that would never have been acceptable.

 

[spkaca]

properly working German torpedoes https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1599&context=etd that leads to a better performance by the KM during Norway invasion and a blunted Dunkirk evacuation

Better torpedoes would be a tactical improvement, but they don't change the diplomacy or the strategy. a) A slightly better KM performance in Norway won't change much. The RN takes a couple more losses, the KM takes a bit less. The overall picture of overwhelming RN dominance remains. b) Better torpedoes will not make much difference re Dunkirk. The U-boats (and it has to be U-boats; the Luftwaffe don't have the capability) have got to be in or near the Straits; they won't enjoy the experience of having little or no room to manoeuvre.

 

[Post]

Ok it seems that the general consensus is this quite implausible but it is still the single POD that could have make the Nazis win the war.

What do you think the British/Halifax would accept for a peacetreaty, and what do you think Hitler would offer?

 

[Geon]

A POD I have tried to get to work is to have the Russians invade Poland either at the same time or before Germany

This gives France and the UK pause with regards to declaring war - not sure if it helps or hinders Germany but potentially leaves Germany not having to fight the Western powers and by extension the USA.

I am not sure if this is realistic as the UK and France did toy with plans to support the Finns (which they did to some degree) and bomb the Russian fuel regions etc - so they might declare war on both?

Its a POD I have for my unwritten TL where the war between Germany and France / UK does not start until Summer 1940 - but it might work here where they do not go to war.

But basically, to win WW2 the UK and France needs to be occupied or otherwise on side obviously the same with regards to Russia.

Many years ago, I came across a ATL which posited something similar.

Called "Shattered World" it posited the following.

1. In 1938 after a period of cooling relations between Russia and Germany a civil war breaks out in Romania. As in the Spanish civil war the Soviet Union supplies weapons and "volunteers to the Communist insurgents while Germany and Italy supply the "legitimate" fascist leaning government.
2. As the conflict escalates Hitler, fearful of losing access to Romanian oil fields starts sending regular German army troops to Romania to help the government forces. Stalin follows suit and both nations find themselves actively at war with one another.
3. As the war in Romania worsens Hitler convinces the Poles to allow German troops onto Polish soil to protect both German and Polish interests. He even arms the Poles with second-hand German equipment. Hitler hopes to start a second front in Poland with the Poles help. The Poles, more fearful of the Soviet bear then the German eagle agree to the help.
4. Seeing what is happening Stalin launches an offensive into both Poland and the Baltic states. Hitler arranges to have weapons smuggled to the resistance in those states. The fronts in Poland and Romania are fluid from 1938 through 1940. But Germany finally breaks through and captures Warsaw on the Polish front and the Russians withdraw their surviving forces from Romania. During this time the Germans and Russians make rather extensive use of chemical weapons.
5. In early 1941 with the Germans having begun to invade the Ukraine and on the verge of "liberating" the Baltic states Stalin agrees to a peace treaty with Germany ending what will become known as the Great Eurasian War.
6. The next 2 years are called the Interregnum where Germany and Russia try to recover their losses and rebuild their armies. The Poles realize too late they have made a deal with the devil as Hitler disarms the Polish Army and executes most of the Polish Army leadership.
7. In 1942 after negotiations with Franco's Spain, Hitler launches his invasion of Western Europe. Up to now the Western Allies have remained neutral but Hitler is now determined to wipe the curse of Versailles from the books. As in OTL Hitler succeeds in conquering the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg in a matter of days. And also, as in OTL in a matter of weeks defeats France. The Dunkirk evacuation still occurs.
8. Franco and Mussolini both combine forces for a "stab in the back" at France with Franco going one better and invading and conquering Portugal. For the moment Russia decides to stay neutral.
9. As in OTL Mussolini unsuccessfully invades the Balkans and again as in OTL Hitler must bail him out both there and in North Africa.
10. With the UK fighting for its life and German involved in both the Balkans and North Africa, Stalin decides now is the time to strike. He launches a pre-emptive attack into Poland believing Hitler doesn't have the forces to counter him. He is wrong. Germany counterattacks and pushes the Russians back out of Poland into the Ukraine. In the second battle of Warsaw General Zhukov is killed during a defensive action.
11. To cut things short here the war continues to escalate with the U.S. eventually being drawn in. By 1952 the war is still going on with Germany using chemical weapons now delivered by its V-weapons and the U.S. now making use of its growing nuclear arsenal on the continent and in the Pacific. Japan having joined Germany and Spain in the Quadrapartite Pact in 1942. To put it simply by 1952 Russia is using the last of its manpower reserves. Germany is starting to see the cracks in its Atlantic Wall and the Allies are preparing to move up from the Iberian Peninsula which they have taken from Franco into France. In short things are a bloody mess!

Not a Nazi victory scenario to be sure but as close to it as one can get short of the classic AANW TL.

 

[Vabasion]

Fall Blau was a close run thing. Replace Halder or prevent him from coming to power and you may get a better Barbarossa pushing south from the start rather than towards Moscow. As long as you can threaten Soviet oil supply you may be able to win the war.

 

[thaddeus]

Better torpedoes would be a tactical improvement, but they don't change the diplomacy or the strategy. a) A slightly better KM performance in Norway won't change much. The RN takes a couple more losses, the KM takes a bit less. The overall picture of overwhelming RN dominance remains. b) Better torpedoes will not make much difference re Dunkirk. The U-boats (and it has to be U-boats; the Luftwaffe don't have the capability) have got to be in or near the Straits; they won't enjoy the experience of having little or no room to manoeuvre.

the destroyers had several duds during Battle of Narvik, which turned into a disaster, and u-boats had the Allied troopships sent there in sights but were so disgusted by prior firings they refrained from firing. (those are NOT small tactical things, despite your analysis)

that doesn't even count the dozen-odd capital ships hit by duds.

my point was the KM torpedoes were not functoning properly in the period before the RN developed its effective ASW tactics. (and a subtext is that the KM was consumed scrambling to solve the issue, taking months away from research into more advanced torpedoes)

 

[Ramontxo]

What do you think the British/Halifax would accept for a peacetreaty, and what do you think Hitler would offer?

In my (very much) humble opinion Halifax would have fight on, probably not as inspiring as the old Cognac drinking, Havana cigars smoking OTL Premier. But he would have fight on. That said there is a possibility of a "wait and prepare" strategy and a "Amiens" peace. What would came of it is a different cuestion and a chance for a very, very horrible outcome

 

[kham_coc]

In my (very much) humble opinion Halifax would have fight on, probably not as inspiring as the old Cognac drinking, Havana cigars smoking OTL Premier. But he would have fight on. That said there is a possibility of a "wait and prepare" strategy and a "Amiens" peace. What would came of it is a different cuestion and a chance for a very, very horrible outcome

Well I mean given that a pre-condition for victory was the eastern front, it's not an implausible strategic option to go for a white peace and await the inevitable clash between the USSR and the Third reich.

 

[Fulton 44]

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.

I agree. Then possibly Italian discovery of oil fields in Libya.
Another thing I should have included was German development of long range heavy bombers - almost essential in the campaign against the USSR.

 

[Fulton 44]

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.

My thinking on Dunkirk is this. If there is no evacuation, then there is a least a possibility that in early 1941, the UK decide against sending troops to Greece and this (in combination with better Spring weather) enables Barbarossa to start 6 - 8 weeks earlier. The loss of the additional men in Europe if there is no evacuation may 1. make the British more careful with conserving manpower and 2. more gun shy in terms of putting men on the continent.

 

[Garrison]

Well I mean given that a pre-condition for victory was the eastern front, it's not an implausible strategic option to go for a white peace and await the inevitable clash between the USSR and the Third reich.

Well there are basically five options if Britain does that:
1. The Nazis win-Terrible
2, The USSR wins-Probably only slightly less terrible.
3. The Nazis don't move east but instead just focus on building up for round two with Britain - Bad, how bad depends on what happens with the USA. If Britain makes peace it basically plays into the hands of the Isolationists.
4. The Nazi's attack the USSR but also settle for some sort of peace, meaning you could be right back to option 3
5. Long drawn out stalemate. About the Best Britain can hope for but it probably means Europe in ruins as the Nazi's become ever more desperate to keep their war machine running.

5 is as close as you get to a good outcome for Britain, so I really can't see any 'white peace' making strategic sense, let alone being something Halifax could persuade parliament to support.

 

[Alanith]

I agree. Then possibly Italian discovery of oil fields in Libya.
Another thing I should have included was German development of long range heavy bombers - almost essential in the campaign against the USSR.

Oil in Libya isn’t oil back in Germany. Not yet. Gotta get it there without it being interdicted, which was a historic problem. Also gotta Pry it from the Italians too.