AH Challenge: World War II does fully begin until 1943

World War II, the greatest conflict which humanity has ever endured, was a culmination of immense political, historical and nationalist forces. The year 1941 marks the point where it transformed from what was then just an expansive war, in which Britain faced its greatest challenge in centuries, to a true global conflict.

There were plenty of points where it could have begun, or escalated earlier - The French or British could have taken a harder line against Germany, the Soviets could been more aggressive and launched a pre-emptive invasion of Germany, or America could have gotten into the war of its own initiative in either Europe or the Pacific. However, pushing the date later seems much more difficult. That's why this is a challenge.

Challenge: With a POD no earlier than 1937, ensure that no full-scale world war begins before 1943. Large conflicts that will eventually feed into this are still allowed - for instance, the Sino-Japanese war is pretty much a given, and it's unlikely that Europe can remain at complete peace for the whole time, but peace, or a "phony war" equivalent, must last until at least 1942, and the Soviets and Americans must both stay out of the war (at least officially) until 1943.

Also, how would this affect the course of the war.
Technology would be a big factor, as all the power would be investing heavily to prepare for a conflict they could likely see coming. The assault rifle would play a major role for infantry. Rocket technology would be more advanced. Well-developed long-range bombers would be present from almost the beginning of the war. Tank technology is ahead too.
Tactically, it seems likely that Japan will be in a better position with more time to consolidate in China. But then again, it might fight with a very different strategy - blitz through Burma perhaps - assault Siberia?
Even Italy matters here, believe it or not. Well, maybe.
 
This seems a bit easy. Here goes:

POD - Neville Chamberlain does not become prime minister in early 1937, and instead, Stanley Baldwin serves a fourth term as prime minister.

In 1938, during the German invasion of Czechoslovakia, Prime Minister Baldwin sends military aid to the Czechs, and though the Germans still control Czechoslovakia, they have lost a lot of men. A coup against Hitler, led by Erich Manstein, defeats Hitler and ends the Nazi reign over Germany - for now.

In 1942, as the world is at peace (Prime Minister Baldwin kept relations with Japan friendly, and kept them from attacking the Far East or even the United States), a Hitler who had not been seen since he'd been overthrown makes a Nazi comeback and re-takes Germany, and on June 22, 1943, invades Russia and France.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
There is no way Hitler would have been left alive in the event of a coup. He was too dangerous; everyone, especially the generals, knew that.

A military coup in response to a more-than-likely bungled invasion of Czechoslovakia is likely, though I dunno if Manstein would be the one to lead it. A Nazi resurgance could come about (led by Goebbels or Goering or Himmler or Heydrich or someone, provided they haven't all been shot as well), but they probably would not be able to wrest power completely away from whatever junta's in charge. They'd just be a really popular, really influential group within the Reich.
 
Last edited:

Markus

Banned
What about:

In 1942, as the world is at peace (Prime Minister Baldwin kept relations with Japan friendly, and kept them from attacking the Far East or even the United States), on June 22, 1943, Stalin invades Poland and the Balkans, resulting in the UK, France and Germany declearing war on the USSR.
 
Strategic differences

Any delay of WWII introduces the possibility that either or both sides might have the atomic bomb in the middle of the war, rather than the end.
 
Any delay of WWII introduces the possibility that either or both sides might have the atomic bomb in the middle of the war, rather than the end.

Would it have been used on civilian or military targets? Taking out a whole cities worth of factories and putting such a grave fear in the heart of the enemy is one thing, but if you have an active front, blowing a gigantic hole in it is pretty tempting.
 
Okay, here's my (lazy and generalised) attempt. The premise is that there's no Japan-Hitler alliance, no M-R, and no Pearl Harbour. All those have to be somehow postponed.

Here's one such 'how".

Munich crisis; USSR is more active in its interventionist intentions on behalf of the Czechs, but the W.Allies are determined to appease. USSR sends some kind of expeditionary forces, is humilated by yet another loss (like Spain), and sit tight afterwards for the next few years. Poland is upset, the Soviets are planning for a potential confrontation with Poland but don't want to fight the W.Allies so they don't excalate the situation. Perhaps, also, they're more busy in China's civil wars, Xinjiang, and moulding the Communist Chinese leadership to their liking in the meanwhile.

Meanwhile, Germany proceeds as per OTL with Poland, Balkans and France while Stalin is barricading himself given the poor (abysmally poor despite technical superiority) performance in the Czech crisis.

No German alliance with Japan. Japan also does better in Chasan and Khalkin Gol - not good enough to immediately threaten the Soviets, but good enough to make the generals really contemplate a land war. The Soviets keep up their Chinese involvement as a response, no time for Hitler, who is also busy defeating last bits of resistance in Europe.

The USA, in '43, realises that between an isolated Britan and a Fortress Europe, there really can be only one, and declares war on Germany. Suitable outrage by the Germans is found to get the public on board.

The USSR comes in on the side of the Allies later on in an opportunistic move, but has to deal with Japan. Perhaps an American DoW against the Japanese is also part of the alliance deal.

Voila, a '43 WW2.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Err, IMO frankly a PoD that amazingly restores the Nazis back into power in 1943 to restart the continental aggression they were ousted in 1938-39 to prevent is sheer ASB. It is true we need to oust Hitler and optimally the Nazi regime as well before September 1939 in order to prevent our WWII and accomplish the scenario, but if we still want a WWII, we need to change the rogue aggressor great power, and IMO the only suitable candidate, with such a late PoD, is the USSR. Russia had the means to wage a comparable (trans)continental aggression after 1942-43 and a suitably power-mad dictator to unleash it.

It is true that Stalin was (slightly) less megalomanic and kinda more cautious than Hitler, but he was even more paranoid, he was just as equally a vicious expansionist, and he was prone to make mistakes about other powers' willingness to fight (see Barbarossa, and the Korean War). We just need an event chain where he mistakenly thinks that he get away with one too many aggressions than the Western powers are actually able to tolerate, or that the Western powers are going to attack him so he makes a pre-emptive attack.

Here's a scenario:

ITTL Chamberlain delays acceptance of German terms during the Munich Crisis 24 hours, so Hitler gives the order to attack Czechoslovakia and the generals coup him as they were fully ready to do.

After the new regime stabilizes, it leverages British goodwill generated by the coup and newfound German moderation to bargain a satisfactory agreement about Czechoslovakia and Poland. Post-Nazi Germany still gets Sudetenland (but gives a guarantee on rump Czechoslovakia, and sticks to it), Danzig, and the southern portion of West Prussia (where German presence was most abundant), recreating a land connection to East Prussia (but it gives an extraterritorial connection to the Polish enclave in northern West Prussia, as well as a guarantee for the new border).

All its main irredentist claims settled satisfactorily, Germany settles down to deal with the economic mess created by Nazi runaway military spending. It is forced to cut back military expenses significantly and shift to a consumer-oriented economy. Britain and France lalso cut down their own military expenses significantly as a response to the German cuts and the budding German-Western detente. Stalin sees this and interprets it as a sign of capitalist weakness, with his own rearmement program running at breakneck speed he assumes he can get away with the expansion program to the Tsarist borders that the USSR has been coveting for years.

So he starts with annexation of Latvia and Estonia, the Western powers are annoyed (for political reasons, they were less willing to appease Communism than Fascism) but still appeasement has become the general mindset so political inertia applies. Stalin is emboldened and he proceeds with the annexation of Lithuania, this alarms Germany, Britain, France, and Poland rather more, they start to shift back towards rearment, but these things take time, so they swallow the bitter pill and accept the fait accompli, but they draw a line in the sand and swear they shall react to next Soviet aggression in Europe. Tentative talks about a general European anti-Soviet alliance start.

Mussolini sees an opening for his own opportunistic aggressions and attacks Yugoslavia, and/or Hungary seizes the opportunity and attacks Romania to seize Transylvania, or quite possibly Hungary and Bulgaria join Italian attack to Yugoslavia. Most likely outcome is a war of attrition in Transylvania followed by a compromise peace that restores some minor chunks to Hungary, or a collapse of Yugoslavia with independence of Slovenia and Croatia as Italian satellites, Dalmatia to Italy, Vojvodina to Hungary, Macedonia to Bulgaria. However, the chaos in the Balkans delays the formation of the anti-Soviet alliance.

Emboldened Stalin deems he can get away with yet more aggressions, so he turns east for a while and makes a blitzkrieg on Japan, kicking it out of Manchuria and forcing it to withdraw from China. Defeated Japan retreats to sulk for a while, the USA are elated for the apparent end of Japanese expansionism but deeply worried for the onset of Soviet one in their chosen East Asian turf, some minds start to think of joining an anti-Soviet coalition but most of the American people remain isolationist. Still, the mood starts to change away from that.

Stalin spends some time settling the Chinese chaos in some semblance of shaky order under his chosen (restive) puppet, be him Mao or more likely Chiang.

Afterwards, he turns his gaze back to Eastern Europe, by then he's comvinced that the Red Army is invincible and with a combination of diplomatic bullying and military aggression he can get away with everything, the weakness of the IJA hid the lesser but still substantial defects of the Red Army, the end of the planned Soviet military expansion program is approaching and he thinks he can get away with the big prizes, Finland, Poland, and Romania, and restore the Tsarist Empire for Communism. Even conquest or vassallization of Turkey and Iran starts to seem plausible, which would fulfill the age-old Russian dream of unrestricted access to wam waters.

He's not really aware that the Western powers have spent the time building up their own military machine as well, and striking a tentative alliance between Berlin, Paris, and London. Mussolini is initially kept at arm's length as a troublemaker, but eventually and reluctantly brought back in the fold (to keep him under some control if nothing else).

So next Stalinist aggression, be it in Finland, Romania, or both, has a different outcome, the chosen victims resist and cry for help to the West, which responds slinging declarations of war to Moscow like candies. WWII and the big anticommunist crusade have begun. Stalin answers by expanding the war to Poland, Romania if it had not been attacked already, and Iran, seizing large chunks of everything. Stalin may or may not expand the war to Turkey at this stage, it depends on how much overconfident he feels, but most likely not. However, it is most likely that Turkey enters the war at some point at the Allies' side, be because Stalin attacks it or because they feels they can't tolerate old enemy Russia sweeping the Balkans and the Middle East.

However, one card Stalin may easily play at this stage is stirring up trouble in the Middle East and India. Both Arabs and Indians at this point in history are in eager search of a patron that would help them throwing the Anglo-French off their backs, they would have rather more links and The Allies are hard-pressed to contain it, although they eventually ideological affinity with the OTL Axis powers, than the USSR, but expediency makes odd bedfellows, so the Comintern manages to unleash pro-Soviet Arab insurrections throughout the Middle East, healping the Soviet conquer most of it. Likewise, Stalin gives patronage and supplies to Subhal Chandra Bose, which wings to pro-Russian armed nationalism, and unleashes an insurrection throughout most of India.

The Allies are very hard-pressed to contain Stalinist onslaught throughout Europe and Middle East, but they barely manage it, at least for a while. The European Communists try to set up insurgencies to help the Soviet advance, but Communist parties were banned long ago in Germany, Italy and Central/Eastern Europe, and their limited underground networks are insufficient to the task beyond some sabotage. Likewise, the British are quick to ban the local Communist party and round the activists up. Only in France the Communist party kept a substantial presence, they attempt an uprising at the declaration of war, but they are quickly crushed and singled out as traitors by the populace. Britain and Farance revive the Anti-Comintern pact with Germany and Italy and make it an international declaration of outlawry for Communism. In Europe, only defeated revanchist Serbia decides to side with Russia on the basis of Slavic solidarity, but it is quickly crushed again, although widespread Communist insurgency spreads out in the area afterwards.

Rampant Soviet expansion gives revanchist Japan ideas. Its leaders fiercely debate whether to attack Russia, and seize revenge for its recent aggression and Manchuria back, or exploit Western distraction and relative weakness and seize South East Asia. Eventually they decide for the latter course, being mindful of the painful defeat they got from the Soviets, and go south. Moreover, the second Russian-Japanese War was a land war, it gave the IJA some hard punches a bad loss of prestige but kept the JIN potential and prestige intact, so this helps choosing the naval war option with southern expansion. They sign a non-aggression pact with the USSR, getting some minor territories back (each side plans to backstab the other later) and attack South East Asia. They also share patronage of Chandra Bose with the Russians and plan to invade insurgency-torn India afterwards.

The USA, which has been sliding closer to interventionism with each new Soviet aggression, sending more and more aid to European nations, takes objection at this and declares war to Japan. Alternatively, Japan makes same (faulty) reasoning about a preemptive neutralization of US naval potential in the Pacific and goes Pearl Harbor, which triggers the usual repsonse. American people and the Congress are by default rather more anti-Communist than anti-fascist during the late 30s and early 40s, and continuing rampant Soviet aggressions only strenghtened their mood (especially Soviet expansion in East Asia), so they find less trouble than OTL at gradually shifting out of isolationism by setting up generous Land-Lease programs and taking up an undeclared naval war with the Russians in the Atlantic. Eventually there is a naval incident too many and the Congress produces a declararion of war to the USSR. WWII goes into full swing, the British-French-German-Italian-American Allies vs. the Soviet-Japanese-Chinese-(Indian) Axis.
 
Last edited:
Eurofed, I'd been pondering something along those lines, but you really gave it life!

However, it seems like such a war would be rather lopsided. The allies have overwhelming naval superiority, strong armies and (in the case of Germany) good generals. Probably significant aerial superiority too. Also, Japan and Russia being anything close to allies seems very difficult.

The biggest threat, militarily, may be that the Allies would have far more advanced nuclear technology. I can't imagine the Russia-Japan Alliance (let's call them SovJap for short) getting a nuke less than 2 years later than the alternate Allies, who could probably produce one by '46, even with their nuclear programs really picking up later than in OTL. Not to mention that if one did get it, it would be disinclined to share with its ally.

Russia making China a puppet is also difficult. They would be naturally inclined to side with the Communists, but to help them take control would have been a major expedition in of itself. The KMT controlled much more land, but had fascist sympathies and some ties with the west. Expediency may have made the difference though. Chiang Kai Shek was not an ideological animal.

On the other hand, a Russian blitz into Europe would be a serious threat. A majority of Germany could probably be overrun with ease - keeping Berlin from Soviet hands would be nigh impossible. From there, the Allies would have to do significantly better than OTL to hold onto continental Europe. Capture of German research centers and scientists could also help close the nuclear gap.

Throw a Republican Spain with Soviet sympathies into the mix, and you also make Britain/France allying with Germany/Italy much more viable.

In the east, Japan would probably have just as tough a time as ever in the Pacific, or even worse without a Pearl Harbor headstart. However, they could make serious inroads into south Asia, even presenting a large threat to India, with Chinese assistance. US Armies fighting alongside Australian and Indian soldiers against East Asian armies in Calcutta? It could happen. The Middle east would become a theatre too. Russian armies would, without doubt, march into Iraq and Persia, then try to head to the Suez. Hmmm... Looks like Asia proper will see a lot more action here!

The difference between an Allied or SovJap victory, or at least an easy Allied Victory or a long, hard slog, probably rests in how the European theatre does.

Say, would you mind Eurofed if I were to take your proposal and flesh it out in a topic of its own, if I decide I have the inclination?
 
There is no way Hitler would have been left alive in the event of a coup. He was too dangerous; everyone, especially the generals, knew that.

A military coup in response to a more-than-likely bungled invasion of Czechoslovakia is likely, though I dunno if Manstein would be the one to lead it. A Nazi resurgance could come about (led by Goebbels or Goering or Himmler or Heydrich or someone, provided they haven't all been shot as well), but they probably would be able to wrest power completely away from whatever junta's in charge. They'd just be a really popular, really influential group within the Reich.

well, that was actually what Hans Oster of the ABWEHR was intending to do during the Munich Crisis- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Oster
 
There is no way Hitler would have been left alive in the event of a coup. He was too dangerous; everyone, especially the generals, knew that.

A military coup in response to a more-than-likely bungled invasion of Czechoslovakia is likely, though I dunno if Manstein would be the one to lead it. A Nazi resurgance could come about (led by Goebbels or Goering or Himmler or Heydrich or someone, provided they haven't all been shot as well), but they probably would be able to wrest power completely away from whatever junta's in charge. They'd just be a really popular, really influential group within the Reich.

Not necessarily. There are always ways to keep Hitler away until a certain point; we could have him escape secretly to a neutral country (specifically Switzerland), and stay there until he returns to Germany in 1942.

Half There, I give you more details: Like I said, this was a military coup, not a civilian coup. By 1938, the German people loved Hitler, except for the brightest of the military. I never said the German people would be happy during the Second Weimar Republic from 1938 to 1942. In fact, let's change the thing about the Czech War of 1938: The Germans only get their noses bloodied. Easy enough, the Nazis use their undeniably strong propaganda machine (I'm not nazi, but it is the truth that they had a strong way of brainwashing the German people) to cover this up.

Point being, the German people did not think of Hitler as what some have gone far enough to call the Anti-Christ; some of the radical Nazis thought he was the exact opposite. So, they would have welcomed another Nazi revolution, and with the German people being as large as they are, they probably would have succeeded.

(Again, I'm just speaking from my point of view as a student of history; I'm certainly not a Nazi, and the only reason I'm clarifying this is because I'm quite nervous about the subject)
 
Eurofed, I really like your take on this question. Like Half There I had thoughts along these lines as well.

The Allies no doubt will win. But what will the postwar look like? What powers emerge from the war? Is there a Cold War-style bifurcation? Perhaps the U.S. and Germany will have a Cold War. Another intriguing possibility might see the U.S. and Germany establish friendly postwar relations and apply pressure on Britain, France, and Italy, who are pushed into an alignment over mutual defense of their colonies. In this scenario, the U.S.-German sphere will win, probably earlier than the end of OTL's Cold War. This WWII will make a particularly interesting 1960s in both the mainstream and the counterculture.
 
Not necessarily. There are always ways to keep Hitler away until a certain point; we could have him escape secretly to a neutral country (specifically Switzerland), and stay there until he returns to Germany in 1942.

Half There, I give you more details: Like I said, this was a military coup, not a civilian coup. By 1938, the German people loved Hitler, except for the brightest of the military. I never said the German people would be happy during the Second Weimar Republic from 1938 to 1942. In fact, let's change the thing about the Czech War of 1938: The Germans only get their noses bloodied. Easy enough, the Nazis use their undeniably strong propaganda machine (I'm not nazi, but it is the truth that they had a strong way of brainwashing the German people) to cover this up.

Point being, the German people did not think of Hitler as what some have gone far enough to call the Anti-Christ; some of the radical Nazis thought he was the exact opposite. So, they would have welcomed another Nazi revolution, and with the German people being as large as they are, they probably would have succeeded.

(Again, I'm just speaking from my point of view as a student of history; I'm certainly not a Nazi, and the only reason I'm clarifying this is because I'm quite nervous about the subject)

I'm sure nobody is going to assume you're a nazi. We all understand what history is, after all.

Anyways, I admit to being somewhat ignorant of the extent of german military opposition to the Nazis, which is why I was so surprised earlier. I read up on it, and it makes a lot of sense.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Eurofed, I'd been pondering something along those lines, but you really gave it life!

Thankee. :D You may notice I have expanded the scenario with some notes on Commie activities in Middle East, India, and Europe. If Stalin picks the right allies he can stir up a lot of trouble among the Arabs and the Indians.

However, it seems like such a war would be rather lopsided. The allies have overwhelming naval superiority, strong armies and (in the case of Germany) good generals. Probably significant aerial superiority too.

It's no more lopsided than WWII after Pearl Harbor, if you think about it. Frankly, I could not think of any non-ASB reason why Mussolini would stay neutral or join Russia, he was even more anti-Communist than Hitler and joining an anti-communist crusade with all the stronger Euro powers for plunder and glory (and getting his Balkan sphere of influence sanctified) would be too much tempting for him. picking a fight with Britain, France, and Germany both would be sheer madness, there would be a pro-Allies regime change in Rome within weeks.

Also, Japan and Russia being anything close to allies seems very difficult.

It's the asian version of the M-R Pact, expanded to the quasi-full alliance like Germany and Russia almost did in late 1940. It seems indeed odd, especially after a recent Russian-Japanese war, but it's a pure alliance of convenience, each side plans to backstab the other later, but for now, they have identified partially-compatible directions of expansion. There were Japanese hopes of cooperation with Russia in 1944-45 OTL.

The biggest threat, militarily, may be that the Allies would have far more advanced nuclear technology.

Indeed, esp. since with the fall of the Nazis, I expect many of the OTL stumbles to German nuclear program would be reomoved, and crossing notes with Tube Alloys after the full alliance starts would take care of the rest. A combined German-British program has indeed much potential, but rather less resources than Manhattan, so it would be slower, and of course, the USA would later share and start ATL Manhattan, but it would start much later than OTL.

I can't imagine the Russia-Japan Alliance (let's call them SovJap for short) getting a nuke less than 2 years later than the alternate Allies, who could probably produce one by '46, even with their nuclear programs really picking up later than in OTL. Not to mention that if one did get it, it would be disinclined to share with its ally.

I think you are actually rather too generous with the speed of TTL Soviet nuke program. OTL it largely parasitically fed on espionage of the Western one, ITTL the controls on the anti-communist loyalty of Western scientists would be much more stringent and some of the ones that were spies OTL when Russia was a (nominal) ally might be reluctant to be traitors and flunkies to global bogeyman Stalin ITTL (some of the spies were awowed Commies, others did it by misguided pacifism, the former would still do it but maybe be rooted out with more stringent controls, the others likely would not do it).

ITTL, even if Stalin reaches the Atlantic, eventually US and UK shall level Russia with nukes and air power, there's no escaping it.

Russia making China a puppet is also difficult. They would be naturally inclined to side with the Communists, but to help them take control would have been a major expedition in of itself. The KMT controlled much more land, but had fascist sympathies and some ties with the west. Expediency may have made the difference though. Chiang Kai Shek was not an ideological animal.

Chiang could indeed do it out of expediency and the GMD had some old ties with Russia. It would be an alliance of convenience based on nationalist self-interest on Chiang's side. Same as with Sandra Bose.

On the other hand, a Russian blitz into Europe would be a serious threat. A majority of Germany could probably be overrun with ease - keeping Berlin from Soviet hands would be nigh impossible. From there, the Allies would have to do significantly better than OTL to hold onto continental Europe.

Honestly, I cannot tell how far Stalin could go within continental Europe at this stage.

Capture of German research centers and scientists could also help close the nuclear gap.

Perhaps, but Soviet advance would need to be very quick, and then I dunno how much German program would have got back on the right track. Anyway, IMO the Soviets actually closing the nuclear gap is ASB.

Throw a Republican Spain with Soviet sympathies into the mix, and you also make Britain/France allying with Germany/Italy much more viable.

This is a possibility, but at present I cannot think of a good PoD that would justify a Republican-Soviet victory in Spain. Expanded direct Soviet intervention, yes, is possible, but it would trigger expanded direct German-Italian counterintervention with Western benevolent blessing, which would balance the scales in favor of Franco. This would make London and Paris rather more eager to appease Hitler, which would keep him in power and throw the scenario out of track.

In the east, Japan would probably have just as tough a time as ever in the Pacific, or even worse without a Pearl Harbor headstart.

True, however, Alt-Pearl Harbor is a distinct possiblity, I've changed the scenario to mention it, I did not mention it previosuly just to look creative, but actually it makes sense.

However, they could make serious inroads into south Asia, even presenting a large threat to India, with Chinese assistance. US Armies fighting alongside Australian and Indian soldiers against East Asian armies in Calcutta? It could happen.

Indeed, not to mention the possibility of large-scale proSovJap Indian insurgency, if the SJ patronize Chandra Bose.


The Middle east would become a theatre too. Russian armies would, without doubt, march into Iraq and Persia, then try to head to the Suez.

Amid nationalist Arabs cheering (at least for a while, until they taste the joys of Stalinism firsthand).

Hmmm... Looks like Asia proper will see a lot more action here!

Yep.

The difference between an Allied or SovJap victory, or at least an easy Allied Victory or a long, hard slog, probably rests in how the European theatre does.

Very true, at least until Allied nukes start raining in worst case scenario, with the Russians controlling continental Europe and the Middle East and duking it out with US-UK armies in North Africa and India.

Say, would you mind Eurofed if I were to take your proposal and flesh it out in a topic of its own, if I decide I have the inclination?

You have my cheerful blessing, only take note of the changes I made to the proposal.
 

Tellus

Banned
If the western allies fold on Poland utterly once more like they did at Munich, letting Germany press territorial demands at their leisure, general war would not break out in 39'. The Germans would have no impetus to share without the British guarantee of Poland and would not sign a pact with the Soviets; theyd make unreasonable demands from Poland (1913 borders maybe) and assuming the Poles refuse, annex the whole country after a short war.

If they managed to win so much theyd likely be willing to sit on it for a couple years at least to assimilate their gains. The Soviets would be angry but would need to wait a few years for their army to be up to the task of doing something about it. The threat of hostile soviets on their border would likely keep the Germans from pressing for more land as theyd want to avoid a two-front war. I could easily see this leading to exactly that, in 1943, with the Soviets opening the war.
 
Great Eurofed! Thanks. I think I will start up that TL soon.

When you think about it, scrambled-up WWII's are pretty interesting. You can align people almost however you want with a POD far enough back. Soviet-German Axis with an OTL Allies - Russia + Japan + Italy Allies, flowing from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is one of the most dangerous possibilities for the allies. Their land armies would be unstoppable, and their airforce would pose a huge problem. Britain should still be safe though.

A more fanciful (not that German-Soviet isn't fanciful, but still) idea is US-Japan Vs. Europe (including Russia). Probably the most navally intense one available. It's much harder to set up though.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Eurofed, I really like your take on this question.

Thankee. :D

Like Half There I had thoughts along these lines as well.

Great minds think alike. ;)

The Allies no doubt will win.

Yes, the outcome is written as much as OTL WWII was after Pearl Harbor, the main issue is how much time and effort such a victory shall take. And in turn this is mainly dependent on how deep Russia manages to penetrate in continental Europe and the Middle East, and secondarily how welll the Allies manage to keep control of India.

The Pacific theater shall essentially fare as OTL, even if subduing China may easily be a long and difficult mainland counterinsurgence war even for an Euro-American alliance. Similar considerations if the Allies mostly lose control of India to radical nationalists. Hopefully for all parties involved, Chinese and Indian nationalists on one side, and the Allies on the other, realize that a compromise peace is necessary to avoid a bloodbath, and a sensible compromise is stricken between Chindian needs for nationalist self-determination and Allied needs for global security in Asia (and neo-imperialist needs to Asian markets) after Russia and Japan are done, otherwise there is even the possibility that the Allies lose patience with conventional counterinsurgence and use nukes to subdue China. On one side, the space for compromise exists if the Allies realize the need to appease Asian nationalism and Asian nationalists are quick to kick out the leaders most compromised with Stalin and the Japanese. On the other side, WWII was the time for ideological furor, so there is good potential that in mainland Asia, mutual rigidity like OTL Indochina sets in, and then the Allies shall subdue and "pacify" Asia with a bloodbath, either conventional or nuclear.

In the Atlantic theater, the main issue is whether the Europeans manage to keep the vital Franco-German-Italian core safe from the initial Soviet onslaught in the first 1-2 years of war, and contain Stalin in Poland, Scandinavia, and the Balkans. Same reasoning in the Middle East subtheater, although it is less vital for the Allies. Stalin has good chances to seize control of most of it (esp. if he stirs up Arab nationalism), and losing control of the oilfields and the Suez Canal would be very painful (but not fatal) to the Allies. Probably the Allies can keep control of North Africa unless the Euro core itself is overrun. However the Soviets have good chances to bully Turkey into vassaldom if they overrun Greece and/or Iran-Iraq. Keeping control of India may be a bit more problematic for the Allies if the Soviets coordinate with the Japanese or Indian insurgents.

If the Allies may keep control of the vital areas (Euro core, and to a lesser degree, India and North Africa), the story of the Atlantic theater becomes a long and titanic attrition war where the Euro-American superior industrial and manpower potential gradually out-produces, and then first stalemates then whittles down huge but inferior Soviet resources from Eastern Europe and the Middle East to European Russia. Hmm, as a guess, maybe 2-3 years for the Allied tanks to knock down the gates of the Kremlin, another year to complete the mop-up action of the Soviet space ?

If the Allies lose control of continental Europe, then it is questionable whether the US-UK alone can mass enough conventional resources to pull a successful Overlord. It is true that the Soviets would by then suffer a bad case of overstretch, having to defend the coasts of and provide occupation troops for all of Europe and the Middle East, and with usual Stalinist brutality, it is safe to assume that they would soon have a bad insurgency problem throughout Europe and the Middle East, even where they would have been welcomed as liberators, such as in the Middle East. They could make good use of the vast industrail potential of occupied Europe, however their manpower overstretch would not be lessened, in these conditions it is very doubtful that could draft any troops from occupied countries othere than some counterinsurgency militias drafted among local Communists. Small fry. In these conditions, the most likely outcome is that the Anglo-Americans manage to secure North Africa and maybe some peripheral areas of Europe, then raze European Russia to the ground with nukes when they get them.

But what will the postwar look like?

In the immediate post-war period, a gigantic effort by the Western powers to rehabilitate and reorganize ex-occupied countries and "democratize" conquered Russia, Japan, and their ex-vassals. Japan and Korea shall fare much like OTL, only with a longer Allied occupation. When the Allies discover evidence of Stalinist atrocities, Stalin and Communism shall become, if possible, even more reviled than Hitler and Nazism. The Soviet Empire is almost surely broken down much like OTL 1991 into a series of pro-Western client republics and Russia proper stays under military occupation for 5-10 years. A pro-Western regime is set into place, although a Putin-like right-wing authoritarian-nationalist resurgence is quite possible and even likely within the next generation (Russia is likely too big to accept the second-class power status that Germany and Japan did OTL). About the Middle East, India, China, and South East Asia, as I said above, mostly it depends whether the Allied governments and the moderate nationalists less compromised with Stalin can broker a decent compromise. If they do, such countries can acceed to independence with neo-Imperial Western economic penetration (see later for the possibility of a Cold War). If they don't, much the same result shall be reached after a decade of vicious insurgencies and counterinsurgencies down to mutual exhaustion that shall make OTL decolonization conflicts look like a firecracker.

One silver lining is that in this world, with a much stronger Europe, and no Communism, economic development of China, India, East Asia, Russia, and South East Asia, shall be significantly accelerated, even more so within Europe itself. One unfortunate fact is that ITTL, fascism, while gradually abandoned within Europe itself, may keep a strong attraction for Third World elites seeking for an ideology to motivate their nation building, and for a revanchist Russia. And later, so does Islamism within the Muslim world. And of course, more industrialization means more environmental troubles.

About Europe, Germany surely evolves back to democracy (quite likely a British-style constitutional monarchy) soon after the war, if it did not so before it. Italy, Spain, and Southern/Eastern Europe fascist-authoritarian countries shall follow suit later, the delay is dependent on whether Europe unifies or fragments into blocks, a federal democratic Europe would be an irresistible economic-political magnet and accelerate democratization of fascist-authoritarian countries, bloc division would prolong the lifespan of undemocratic regimes (say the range goes from half a decade to the dictator’s lifespan).

Culturally, Lenin/Stalin and Communism shall take the place of Hitler and Nazism as the face of absolute evil. It shall be a kinda more right-wing world in some ways. The same social forces that led America and Europe to create the Keynesian social democracy consensus shall be in place, even if one can expect Christian democracy to be kinda more influential about setting up the consensus than socialdemocracy proper. Likewise, the same social forces that created the youth culture, counterculture (even if it shall have a different surface ideology than the despised Marxist far left), feminism, and sexual liberalization shall be in place. However, ideas like racism (anti-Semitism going out of fashion rather quicker than prejudice against non-Europeans and prejudice against South and East Asians faster than the one for Muslims and Blacks), colonialism, and imperialism shall remain respectable for longer and go out of vogue only gradually due to decolonization fatigue. Europe shall remain as militarist (and possibly, non-secular) as the USA. Environmentalism shall still happen with rampant global industrialization, but it shall be much less of a far left-wing issue, or it may become the new core ideology of the far left. Multiculturalism, political correctness, hard-core pacifism, Western guilt complex shall never exist or remain fringe issues or dealt with Japanese-style denial. Eugenetics shall remain quite mainstream and respectable, and while this may spell abuses against disabled persons, it shall pave the way to accelerated biogenetic research. Human cloning, germ line genetic treatments for all common genetic diseases, budding “designer babies” genetic optimization of desirable qualities, and widespread industrial uses of manufactured microorganisms are not unreasonable to expect by the end of the century.

About the new geopolitical global order, the bread and butter of any true-blooded AHer (alongside wars, wars, wars), I see three main possibilities, depending on whether a) USA-Europe solidarity b) European integration can be maintained and developed or not.

Case 1, American and European elites can organize an efficient and mutually satisfactory partition of global markets. USA and Europe maintain wartime partnership, France, Benelux, and Germany do likewise and set up federal Europe as WWII common struggle buried old Franco-German antagonism, soon joined by Italy, Scandinavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Potugal. The UK clings to its fading Empire as much as it can, remains a good partner of both superpowers, but most likely does not commit to European integration directly, although it may claim a special associated status. A world eerily resembling a retro 1990s-2000s (with the decolonization conflicts taking the place of the Western-Islamist conflict) ensues for a generation, until the rise of China and India and a resurgent Russia force a multipolar shift. If any of the new powers embrace antagonistic ideologies like “fascism”, nativism, or aggressive nationalism, a new Cold War is sure to follow, possibly bipolar (e.g. US/Europe vs. China/Russia, with India as a swinger, or Russia/India, with China as a fence-sitter), maybe multipolar.

Case 2, American-European rivalry develops, over the division of global markets, even if the conflict may be masked in terms of an ideological colonial/anti-colonial struggle (with a lot of hypocrisy on the part of nominally anti-colonial America, as they shall prop their own neo-imperialist sphere of influence in East and South East Asia), but Franco-German solidarity and European integration occur as above. A bipolar US-Europe Cold War occurs as above, with the UK joining Europe most likely, the USA capitalizing on the strength of its South American and Asian clients for a generation, until the rise or resurgence of Russia, China, and India muddles the picture as above, as they pick sides, play each side against the other, or try to become rival centers of power. Note that if a USA/Europe Cold War develops, Canada and Australia shall be exposed to terrible geopolitical tensions, them abandoning the Commonwealth and joining the US camp is quite plausible.

I do regard both these cases as rather plausible, maybe 1 a bit more likely than 2.

Case 3, neither a or b occur, this is the scenario you described below, the US makes an alliance with some European powers against the others. This is possible but not that much likely IMO, the Western bloc is rather unlikely to fragment completely in light of all the global challenges that face it after *WWII.

Is there a Cold War-style bifurcation? Perhaps the U.S. and Germany will have a Cold War. Another intriguing possibility might see the U.S. and Germany establish friendly postwar relations and apply pressure on Britain, France, and Italy, who are pushed into an alignment over mutual defense of their colonies. In this scenario, the U.S.-German sphere will win, probably earlier than the end of OTL's Cold War. This WWII will make a particularly interesting 1960s in both the mainstream and the counterculture.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
When you think about it, scrambled-up WWII's are pretty interesting.

Yes, the last best chance to test geopoltical orders rearranged by a TL in the trial of fire and gameplay industrialized total global war in all its terrible beauty before spoilsport nukes show up and reduce everything to the inferior cloak and dagger Cold War stuff.

You can align people almost however you want with a POD far enough back.

Very true.

Soviet-German Axis with an OTL Allies - Russia + Japan + Italy Allies, flowing from the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is one of the most dangerous possibilities for the allies.

Ahh, the Grand Alliance that Almost Was and the fulfillment of the old 1920s secret partnership. This is just as tantalizing a possibility for a titanic Alt-WWII as putting Stalin in the shoes of Hitler. It requires putting sane leaders in the places of Hitler and Stalin within late 1940, or alternatively a PoD going back to the Belle Epoque and makes Bismarck or Willy II doe the wise thing and pick mighty Russia instead of wimpy Austria-Hungary (I've seen a really good recent TL with this PoD). It is wonderful to gameplay a different WWI, not so great to write a detailed WWII TL, since the two blocs are too strong on their chosen ground. Basically it devolves to "Russo-German jaggernaut conquers continental Europe, Middle East, and North Africa within the year, the Anglo-Americans fight an interminable attrition war in India, Africa, and Manchuria and make a nailbiting race to fortify Britain against the Axis Sealion buildp in time to make the nukes, while the Axis strives to create an huge Armada and pull a Sealion before the nukes strike".

Drop Italy from the Allies however, against a Franco-German or Russo-German bloc Italy is surely doomed and picking the other side would be suicidal folly, the enemy would eat them almost as quickly as 1939 Poland.

Their land armies would be unstoppable, and their airforce would pose a huge problem. Britain should still be safe though.

In the long term, the Anglo-American industrial potential is still superior, but not so radically that the combination of Russia, Germany, and occupied Europe has not a decent chance of building enough concentrated aeronaval potential to win local supremacy in the Engliish Channel and North Sea and make Sealion as realistic as Overlord was. Britain cannot rest on laurels, until nukes arrive it is in serious danger.

A more fanciful (not that German-Soviet isn't fanciful, but still) idea is US-Japan Vs. Europe (including Russia). Probably the most navally intense one available. It's much harder to set up though.

If you may change it to US-UK-Japan vs. Europe and Russia, this is feasible with a stable empire that unifies continental Europe before nationalism. Most recent likely PoD, a successful Napoleon that conquers Spain and Russia, recreates the Carolingian Empire, and turns Russia into a long-term vassal (very difficult).

A more feasible version is UK-Russia vs. Europe, with US fighting a parallel war vs. China-Japan. Either Germany wins WWI and unifies Europe without France turning revanchist (very difficult) but UK and Russia do, or a successful Napoleon unifies continental Europe and contains Britain and Russia without conquering them (more feasible).
 
Top