AHC: Make Nazis win WW2

Leningrad and Moscow fall in the course of 1941, which is entirely doable, and Hitler demurs on declaring war on the United States as he appeared set to do that fall; easily justified, given Japan didn't attack the USSR so there is no reason for the Germans to declare on the Americans. Alternatively, a more successful Fall Blau which collapses the Soviets in 1943 and then allows the Germans to fight the Anglo-Americans to a stalemate by 1945 or 1946.
 

Anchises

Banned
with a POD no earlier than October of 1939.

- West: Operation Dynamo fails/never happens. The halt order is never given or the BEF fails to retreat in time. Churchill isn't able to survive this politically. With the added pressure of the POWs the new Government signs a ceasefire with Germany.
- The blockade is lifted and Germany uses the plundered Gold to go on a shopping spree. Oil, trucks, machine parts etc.
- Germany betrays Japan and GB is focused on protecting its Asian colonies.
- Without the BoB the Luftwaffe is stronger. The troops sent to Africa IOTL instead are used to strengthen AG North.
- Leningrad falls and the Wehrmacht gets production priority after the massive losses of 41.
- At this point Germany is probably embargoed by the USA but Roosevelt isn't able to justify a Europe first strategy.
- Operation Blau party succeeds. Stalingrad is taken because the additional troops freed in the North are able to repel the offensives that threatened to cut of the whole Southern offensive. Stalingrad falls and the oil fields are threatened.
- In 43-44 the Soviet industry starts collapsing because of starvation and the neglect of producing trains, machine parts etc.
- When Japan is sufficiently pushed back (44 maybe?) and the USA and GB start thinking about Lend and Lease it is too late.
- The Red Army probably collapses against the German Summer Offensive of 1944 when Moscow and/or the oil fields are taken. The collapsing Soviet logistical system isn't able to distribute what little Lend and Lease starts coming in in late 43/ early 44.
- Widespread starvation, a collapse of industrial production and logistics make continued centralized resistance impossible.
- The SU collapses and the East is plagued by an apocalyptic famine. Some military formations continue resisting the Germans but most Soldiers are busy with finding food or fleeing eastwards.
- The Allies are unwilling to pay the blood price of cracking fortress Europe and the A-bomb isn't employed because the Nazis have all of continental Europe and the British POWs as hostages.
 
Germany has a chance of the USA remains neutral. This assumes France still falls, in which case they are about evenly matched against the UK and USSR.

Germany allied with the USA would win, though that would mean a different Axis.

So the best POD is to get rid of FDR, either have the assassination attempt succeed, which is in fact the POD of many alt histoires, or a coup. If you can get a USA that is fascist and actually allies with Berlin, even better, but just an isolationist USA is enough. You can also do a good deal with no appointment of Marshall and no overhaul of the US army just prior to the war, which you also get from no FDR. In that case even if the USA enters the war on the side of the Allies the army will be pretty useless. The bombing campaign and lend lease would have to be enough.

Even with a start after 1941, with Japan not attacking the USA and UK its very hard to get the USA into the war, and even a delay would give the Axis a chance. This means figuring out a way for Japan not to join the Axis, or to attack the USSR instead, which was unlikely but considered. Another way to do this is to get the USA at war with Japan without it leading to a war with Germany. Its not enough that Germany does not declare war in December 1941. You would need nationalist China to join the Axis, for Germany to send considerable aid to nationalist China (by way of the USSR in 1939-41), and Japan doesn't strike at the British and Dutch colonies, even better the Chinese try to grab Burma so the British are now giving Japan the raw materials it needs. Then somehow the USA gets into a war against Japan anyway and the USA leaves the UK and USSR on its own.

But I think the key is to render the USA either friendly to the Axis, neutral, or pro-Allied but completely ineffective. Germany handled France and the UK is not enough, while its hard to make major changes to the Germany/ USSR dynamic though you greatly improve the German chances against the USSR if you can get rid of lend lease.
 

Yes. Stalin was a strategic novice. He appears to have been tactically ignorant as well; as he did not understand, what his few good generals remaining alive and not gulagged kept trying to tell him, about logistics prewar or during the war. He rather favored generals and political cronies for their "loyalty" and not their competence. Roosevelt, by contrast, to take another strategic novice, tended to promote military officers and surround himself with advisors, when the crunch came, who were not necessarily toadies and yes men, such as Molotov and Kulik turned out to be. Killing Stalin, in my opinion (YMMV), would have shaved at least a year, possibly two, off WW II. I will even go so far as to say, that if Trotsky had been in charge, instead of Stalin, the CCCP might have fared much better during the 1930s, economically, politically, and socially. Trotsky seems to have been more "adaptive" and in touch with reality.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Stalin was a strategic novice. He appears to have been tactically incompetent as well as he did not understand, what his few good generals remaining alive and not gulagged kept trying to tell him, about logistics prewar or during the war. He rathered favored generals and political cronies for their "loyalty" and not their competence. Roosevelt, by contrast, to take another strategic novice, tended to promote military officers and surround himself with advisors, when the crunch came, who were not necessarily toadies and yes men, such as Molotov and Kulik turned out to be. Killing Stalin would have, in my opinion (YMMV), would have shaved at least a year, possibly two, off WW II. I will even go so far as to say, that if Trotsky had been in charge, instead of Stalin, the CCCP might have fared much better during the 1930s, economically, politically, and socially. Trotsky seems to have been more "adaptive" and in touch with reality.

Taking out Voroshilev alone probably saves 6 months but might put sn iron curtain at the Rhine instead of the Elbe...
 

NoMommsen

Donor
8.) Have Stalin die at any point of the war
That actually helps the allies win faster.
Yes. Stalin was a strategic novice. He appears to have been tactically ignorant as well; as he did not understand, what his few good generals remaining alive and not gulagged kept trying to tell him, about logistics prewar or during the war. He rather favored generals and political cronies for their "loyalty" and not their competence. Roosevelt, by contrast, to take another strategic novice, tended to promote military officers and surround himself with advisors, when the crunch came, who were not necessarily toadies and yes men, such as Molotov and Kulik turned out to be. Killing Stalin, in my opinion (YMMV), would have shaved at least a year, possibly two, off WW II. I will even go so far as to say, that if Trotsky had been in charge, instead of Stalin, the CCCP might have fared much better during the 1930s, economically, politically, and socially. Trotsky seems to have been more "adaptive" and in touch with reality.
Might be true, if you put Stalins death at some point (well ?) before hostilities of an alternate WW 2 start and as you said preferable at a point when Trotsky might still be around/"available".

But during during running hostilities ? ... as the statement you quote says ?

With Molotov as well as Berija around you could be rather sure, that there would be some hefty internal fight for power - regardless what happends about external enemies.

Don't really see a bonus for the SU in that case ...
 
Might be true, if you put Stalins death at some point (well ?) before hostilities of an alternate WW 2 start and as you said preferable at a point when Trotsky might still be around/"available".

Any point in the timeline when Stalin dies is an improvement. Period.

But during during running hostilities ? ... as the statement you quote says ?

Considering the blatant mistakes Stalin makes right to the end of the war, especially during Bagration (not going after the Ploesti oil fields, for example.).

With Molotov as well as Berija around you could be rather sure, that there would be some hefty internal fight for power - regardless what happends about external enemies.

Kruschev. In the middle of a war, Molotov and Beria can count their lives by seconds once Stalin is removed. Postwar, it becomes possible for Molotov to toady his way out. Beria is dead no matter what after Stalin dies.

Don't really see a bonus for the SU in that case ...

See above.
 
Last edited:
- The Allies are unwilling to pay the blood price of cracking fortress Europe and the A-bomb isn't employed because the Nazis have all of continental Europe and the British POWs as hostages.

Roosevelt? You should study the man or his successor, Truman.
 
Hitler suffers from a heart attack and dies. His successor decides it is not a wise choice to attack the Soviet Union. Also, there is no Berlin Pact with Japan, which reduces the risk that Germany will end up in a war with the USA.
 
Yes. Stalin was a strategic novice. He appears to have been tactically ignorant as well; as he did not understand, what his few good generals remaining alive and not gulagged kept trying to tell him, about logistics prewar or during the war.

During the first battle of Kiev, when Kirponos pointed out that that the Southwestern Front had to withdraw urgently to avoid encirclement, Stalin replied angrily that he should "stop finding excuses for retreat and start finding means for resistance!" The ensuing disaster could have been avoided if he hadn't insisted on being so stubborn.
 
- West: Operation Dynamo fails/never happens. The halt order is never given or the BEF fails to retreat in time. Churchill isn't able to survive this politically. With the added pressure of the POWs the new Government signs a ceasefire with Germany.

The whole 'don't issue the halt order' POD assumes the order was some sort of whim on Hitler's part. Firstly the 'halt order' was initiated by front line Generals. After two weeks of continuous operations the Panzer formations were utterly disorganized. Some units were at 50% strength (mainly due to breakdowns), they had outrun their logistics and their infantry support. They needed to stop and regroup to tackle their primary objective, the final defeat of the French. Secondly at no point did the Germans stop attacking the Dunkirk pocket, only the panzer formations were affected by the halt order, infantry, artillery and the Luftwaffe continued pressing their attacks.

The notion that the halt order 'let' the British escape is something put about by German Generals post war to polish their egos, in the same way that some of them insisted Sealion could have been successful if not for Hitler's 'crazy' orders.

The President isn't a dictator though. He has to mind public opinion.

Which can probably be summed up as 'end the war as soon as possible with the fewest American casualties'. Do you honestly think the US public would have objected to nuking Berlin if it saved the lives of potentially tens of thousands of US soldiers?
 
The President isn't a dictator though. He has to mind public opinion.

Hmm. Presidents (especially Roosevelt) tended to shape public opinion by pursuing rational policies. There are limits, but within those limits and with prudence, and good advice, the presidents can be more successful than even the most powerful dictator.

Examples:

-Jackson, whose extremely controversial policies, were based on an understanding of popular will.
-Polk, whose extremely controversial policies, were based on a clever manipulation of public opinion.
-Lincoln, whose policies, were based on the twin pillars used by Polk and Jackson.
-Teddy Roosevelt, ditto.
-Wilson, who used the new science of advertising to bend public will, until he became ill and lesser wills fumbled away his efforts.
-Franklin Roosevelt, who used his predecessors' methods and employed public opinion metrics measurement in a new way.
-Truman, who was kind of like Polk.
-Eisenhower, who was kind of like Wilson.
-and Reagan, who added naked Hollyweird mass entertainment manipulation to the above.

Just off the head and YMMV.
 

Redcoat

Banned
Killing Stalin, in my opinion (YMMV), would have shaved at least a year, possibly two, off WW II.
Imo I gotta say that there'll be conflict over who takes the reigns. Even if not, there'll be some emergency government which won't work as effectively at first. Nazis could take advantage of that and start a big push.
 
The sort of German regime that would win the Second World War would not find itself fighting such a war in the first place.
 
Imo I gotta say that there'll be conflict over who takes the reigns. Even if not, there'll be some emergency government which won't work as effectively at first. Nazis could take advantage of that and start a big push.

As I wrote: "your mileage may vary" meaning there is gray area enough for reasonable people to vary their estimates. The Germany of the era was not too efficiently governed, itself, and they were not too good at logistics either. It takes as little as 6% combat efficiency going in one direction to yield the kind of results seen on the eastern front. Remove the two tyros at the top in play from either end of the contest and replace them with rational actors and first:

--no war.

and second;

--if one of the RTL actors remains, a rational actor on the other side can get inside two things the irrational actor does to beat him. The first exploit is the irrational actor's lack of military common sense that allows a STAVKA or OKW unhindered by a maniac to lay traps that the irrational actor will step into. Fortitude/Overlord comes to mind as a classic example.
--decision time cycles. The irrational actor when confronted by surprise or shock will have the beheaded chicken type of response. Paralysis or no central directing agency at the top and frantic pointless activity at the contact points. Overlord is the example, or if one prefers a positive reaction to a catastrophe as terrible as BARBAROSA, how about Pearl Harbor? Rational actors and organizations make better decisions much faster and implement those decisions as actions than their irrational enemies. I could cite the PRVN and government vs. the Americans in the 1960s, with the Americans (McNamara, Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, and the whole Pentagon circus, too.), playing the roles of the irrational actors.

And as I wrote: enough gray area exists; so that YMMV about such estimates. One can play with the numbers and come out with different outcomes if the combat efficiencies are reasonably close; say about 2%. But with Stalin? The Russians take a 10% penalty right out the gate.
 
Get the Russians to keep the SVT-40 going instead of the Mosin-Nagant.

Get the Germans to hammer the Russian power plants a la Eisenhammer.

Get the British to lose or not fund Home Chain.

Get the Italians to stay home.

Get the Japanese to stay east of Midway for a while longer *or* invade the USSR in late 1941 and cut off Siberian imports (not enough to win but probably draws out the war a while).

Get the Americans to truly stay neutral - elect a more isolationist president and avoid Pearl Harbor.

Get the Chinese to surrender in 1940 or 1941.

Get the Spanish *and* Turkish governments (gotta have both) to join the Axis in mid-1941.
 
Top