A bunch of WW2 PODs V2

The US builds up its military faster. ( Lets say Paul V McNutt was Secretary of War) In August 1942, US troops arrive at El Alamien.
 

Cook

Banned
Not going to happen. Franco was never even close to siding with Germany and knew full well that his country would get crushed.
That is not correct. Franco moved Spain from a Neutral power to Non-Belligerent supporter of the Axis upon the fall of Paris and occupied Tangier at the same time. From then on until late 1943 he allowed German U-boats to refuel and rearm in Spanish ports. He also sent volunteers to fight in Russia and signed the Anti-Comintern Pact in 1941. If there’d been any indication in late 1940 of greater British weakening he would probably have taken Spain into the war to pick up whatever crumbs were available and to curry favour with the new master of Europe.
Spain would never join Axis with conditions Hitler would accept. He valued Vichy neutrality more than Spanish belligerence.
Neutral Vichy fought a war with the British Empire for two and a half years.
Japanese bombers manage to take out the oil tanks and submarine base at Pearl Harbour.
Nimitz is on record as saying that had the Japanese bombed the fuel tank farm during the attack on Pearl Harbour it probably would have added two years to the Pacific War. It is incredible that the Japanese, who were so conscious of the importance of oil that they were prepared to go to war with Britain and the United States so that they could seize control of the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies, all so that they could continue a war in China, should then omit the fuel tank farm from the target list of the first raids on Pearl Harbour. And to prove that this wasn’t a once off accidental omission by a single individual, they did the same thing three months later when they attacked Darwin; bombing everything in the town and harbour except the fuel tanks which were the largest things in the entire town.
 
A coup was pretty much certain in Yugoslavia after it went with Germany. The only question really was how succesful it could be.

Okay, let's say that the coup fails then

Doesn't effect things at all. None of the troops used in Africa were from Europe, and while it does weaken Allied manpower it certainly doesn't cripple them long or short term.

The loss of 300,000 troops WOULD make a difference. My guess is that minor operations like the Battle of Gabon or Operation Ironclad would be postponed/cancelled

Afghan Army massacred in a couple weeks, country surrender and is placed under occupation for the remainder of the war.

Yeah, about my guess too, but it's another drain

Why? There's no reason for them to resist occupation. If they did it would just be a curbstomp with everyone wondering what the hell they were thinking afterwards.

I'm not denying it would be terrible judgement on the part of Iceland, but we're talking about WW2 here, it wouldn't be the only or biggest lack of judgement

Not going to happen. Franco was never even close to siding with Germany and knew full well that his country would get crushed.

Well, he DID side with Germany, he signed the anti-Comintern pact, as well as sending volunteers to the Eastern front. Some of these other PODs could add up to enough change to give Franco a change of heart

Not going to happen. Uruguay would never be that stupid. It would negotiate, demand some minor payments for the damage, and sweep the incident under the rug.

You're probably right, but let's say that Britain does have to pay compensation. It's not going to make a massive difference in anything, but i'm chucking it into the mix anyway.

Not much of a change, though the Axis gets a propoganda victory.

Out of all the neutral countries Hitler invaded for the sake of getting a strategic position (Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark, Belgium and The Netherlands), Norway did the best by far. My point is that Norway could be another drain on the allies, as well as adding another country to the Axis. I doubt it would be decisive, but it would be a help, no doubt.

With Gandhi and other leaders around this really isn't going to happen, certainly not during WW2.

Maybe remove Gandhi from the equation somehow, i don't know

Tank breaks the first bridge it crosses and falls into a river; discovered years later by schoolchildren and thought to be an alien device.

That could be a funny little appendix to my TL ^_^

Not going to happen. Looking up does not equal going all in with, especially when Greece was not even close to ready to challenge Britain.

Well, removing the Italian attack on Greece could happen. If we go with the other POD of Italy not attacking France but instead takes Malta and more of Africa, it might somewhat satisfy Mussolini's need for vainglorious conquest. Granted not entirely, but more than not doing it would.

Soviet spies in Germany still get a massive amount of information.

That's as may be, but if the Allies don't break German codes, that's going to set them back a fair bit

Italians get torn apart by Franco-British forces.

Well, Malta had two battalions at this point and nothing else. No air or sea support, no anti-air and no chance of being supplied or re-enforced. The Italians WOULD take Malta.

As for the rest, they'd probably do better than OTL, bearing in mind that France has less than a month left in the war at this point so it's only British forces that the Italians have to worry about.

When it comes to the merchant fleet, IOTL, fully half the of it was seized by the allies within a week of Italian entry into the war, simply because they hadn't been warned. If they had, far more of it would be kept intact.

None of those states would be stupid enough to think that they could win against America, much less throw in with the Axis.

The outbreak of war in South America was months before America joined the war. The most likely scenario is that these states join the Axis, Peru is defeated, then America joins the war, the South American Axis realise they've made a mistake and get steamrollered once the American war machine gets rolling. I'd imagine that all of the South American Axis are defeated by 1943 at the latest, with Argentina being the only one that doesn't fold like a house of cards because it had the longest time to prepare and was the most powerful of the lot.

Despite the fact that the South American Axis would be massacred, it would draw America's attention away from Europe for a while and Asia too, seeing as South America is more convenient, also because the SAA could threaten the Panama Canal. Seeing as America was caught unaware, forces from South America might be able to attack the Panama Canal, maybe even hold it for a short time. The only way this could be a major problem to the allies is if South America forces manage to destroy or cripple the canal, but that may or may not happen.
 
How much does it affect the war if Hitler decides he can't be bothered dealing with Vichy France and so orders the entire lot conquered?
 

Cook

Banned
How much does it affect the war if Hitler decides he can't be bothered dealing with Vichy France and so orders the entire lot conquered?
It would be considerable; the required garrison would be considerably larger, and the civilian population would be more rebellious under occupation than they were under their own collaborationist government. The French overseas empire would undoubtedly continue fighting against the Germans under those circumstances, instead of being a minor Axis partner fighting the allies as occurred.
 

Rubicon

Banned
Doesn't effect things at all. None of the troops used in Africa were from Europe, and while it does weaken Allied manpower it certainly doesn't cripple them long or short term.

Commander 2nd Corps, BEF - Lieutenant general A.F. Brooke
Commander 1st infantry division, BEF - Major General [SIZE=-1]R.R.L.G. Alexander
Commander 3rd infantry division, BEF - Major General B.L Montgomery
Commander 13th infantry brigade, 5th infantry division, BEF - Brigadier general M.C. Dempsey

Of course losing those four gentlemen will have absolutely no bearing on the war in general and particularly the warfare in North Africa because the British were quite adapt at finding generals who could beat the Germans, particularly that fellow Rommel.

There are of course others, such as Brian Horrocks in command of a battalion in the 3rd infantry division.

I think you are greatly underestimating the impact a surrender of the BEF would have had.
[/SIZE]
 
Commander 2nd Corps, BEF - Lieutenant general A.F. Brooke
Commander 1st infantry division, BEF - Major General [SIZE=-1]R.R.L.G. Alexander
Commander 3rd infantry division, BEF - Major General B.L Montgomery
Commander 13th infantry brigade, 5th infantry division, BEF - Brigadier general M.C. Dempsey

Of course losing those four gentlemen will have absolutely no bearing on the war in general and particularly the warfare in North Africa because the British were quite adapt at finding generals who could beat the Germans, particularly that fellow Rommel.

There are of course others, such as Brian Horrocks in command of a battalion in the 3rd infantry division.

I think you are greatly underestimating the impact a surrender of the BEF would have had.
[/SIZE]

Agreed.

It wouldn't have caused an Axis victory all by itself, but it would have set the Allies back a fair bit. I think the capture of Gabon and Madagascar from the Vichy French wouldn't have happened, as neither of these operations were strictly necessary.

With this we might see the war go on for a few months longer, perhaps with Rommel getting a bit further into Egypt
 
Top