Alternate History for Axis & Allies Game

Summary
Despite having registered years ago, I’m posted very little here. However, I thought that these forums would be an ideal place to turn for assistance in developing a plausible alternate history for a board game that I would like to run.

I basically need enough material to provide a plausible background to justify the existence of the following nations in September 1938:

- United Netherlands (combines the BENELUX countries), an Allied Power
- Kingdom of Sweden (inclusive of Finland and the Baltic States), as an Axis Power
- Kingdom of Greece (inclusive of E. Thrace, Constantinople, Smyrna, and Trebizond), as an Allied Power
- Kingdom of Portugal (inclusive of Brazil), as an Axis-Aligned Neutral that can transition to the Axis
- The Republic of Paraguay as an Axis-Aligned Neutral that can transition to the Axis

What would it mean if the Germans overrun the Dutch? Would Belgium become a quisling state?

Why?

I am developing a set of house rules for the classic Hasbro board game “Axis and Allies.” In connection with this effort, I am using a new map recently released by Historical Board Gaming.com. The map can be found here for reference.

Based on the particular experiences of my gaming group, we have agreed on the value of making changes to the map in order to accommodate what are called “playable minors.” These are nations not included in the original Axis & Allies rules for, say, the largest official edition, Global 1940, 2nd edition, which features the following powers: U.K., U.S., U.S.S.R., China, France, ANZAC, British Far East Command, Japan, Italy, and Germany.

The new house rules will create a third alliance, the Comintern, that has objectives and can wage war independently of the Western European Allies. In other words, the Russians can choose to aggress against nominal allies of the West in places like China.

The changes effectively allow for the following important changes in gameplay:

- The Dutch East Indies are more survivable because they can be better reinforced
- The Axis gain valuable allies in the north (Sweden) and south (Portugal) to help anchor their European flanks. An aggressive Sweden will help Germany support Italy in southern Europe and, at the same time, make more inroads against the Soviets, especially in this case, where the Germans are likely to have a harder go of it against the Western European Allies and Poland
- The Portuguese (along with the Spanish) can put pressure on the Allied position in the Western Mediterranean, freeing up Italian resources to be routed east toward the Levant
- Portugal’s empire brings Argentina into play, and therefore, South America
- The Bosporus are a non-issue in most games of A&A that I have played. A rotten Greece that stands astride them presents a huge temptation for the Soviets even as it provides additional options for the Allies in this important theatre of the war.
 
Some thoughts...

In general, I assume that the major POD for the United Netherlands is actually prior to 1839, given that the enmity between Dutch and Belgians was deep-seated by the time of the dissolution.

I'd like to send Sweden rightward. Comfortably sat out the First World War but couldn't avoid entanglements with the Bolshiveks over the fate of the Baltic states. Sweden probably had no great trouble repulsing the Reds, but I'd imagine that Stalin, fresh from his purges, is now looking with keen interest toward Swedish possessions, anticipating that the French will keep the Germans occupied while he swoops in for the kill.

My concept for Greek achievement of the Megali Idea is taken from Matt Bennighof's alternate history on the Avalanche Press website. Essentially, Alexander I doesn't die of sepsis, succeeds in obtaining the support of the French, British, and Italians, and breaks the back of organized Turkish resistance, scooping up Constantinople along the way. As a quid pro quo, the Greeks send troops to fight in Russia in support of the Whites, ending up with Crimea (with its massive population of Pontic Greeks). Afterward, the Greeks fight for years against the inevitable partisans. As Bennighof notes, such an empire would be beyond their means to support, and the Greeks would be utterly dependent upon the generosity of the French. It is also probable that the Soviets would be chomping at the bit to make "border adjustments" in Crimea and the Caucasus.

The Portuguese, for their part, survive the Brazilian constitutionalism movement of the 1820s. A long period of prosperity follows, but much of Brazil's wealth is diverted to the metropole. By 1938, the Portuguese have the world's thirst-largest colonial empire, but their coffers are virtually empty -- insufficient even for a naval race with the Argentinians. Paraguay bolts Axis, but after the Chaco War is unable to do much but spit in the direction of Buenos Aires.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
The United Benelux is a little 'eh *shakes hand*', given reasons stated above. However, how about this; The Netherlands enter the war after German Troops march across the River Meuse en-route to France, and declare War. Like Belgium, the Netherlands become a bloody slog for the Germans. Following Entente Victory, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg form a tight defense and economic pact that resembles OTL's BeNeLux. The Union is largely to defend the nations against future aggression, whilst retaining their independence. However, infighting due to the depression has rendered the Union ineffective by the time the War arrives, however it's able to put up a fight.
 
You're talking about a union that emerges following the Great War?

Plausible. What I really want to do here is to put Belgian money at the disposal of the Dutch.
 
I'd suggest you could make the Kingdom of Sweden something like "the League of the Northern Baltic", a Nordic/Baltic confederation where Sweden is merely the leading power, instead a strictly Stockholm-led monarchy. On one hand, making Finland and the Baltic states out-an-out join Sweden voluntarily post-WWI would be very hard to justify realistically, on the second hand if Sweden invaded and annexed those nations by force, it would have a hell of a time keeping its possessions under control even in peace time, having to keep large occupation forces in Finland and the Baltics just to avoid nationalist and/or pro-Soviet Communist uprisings. Also, the alternate possibility, keeping them part of Sweden since sometime in the 19th century would create too much butterflies for the scenario to be really plausible.
 
Last edited:
It's kind of funny. Plausibility was all that I was going for here, but the more I look into the history of Belgium under Dutch rule, the more I become convinced that I'd have to go well backward of 1830 to ensure long-term unity.

I am comfortable with the idea of a sort of "little entente" between the BeNeLux countries, but I have to imagine that most of their shared expense would be focused on fortifying the German border rather than a more aggressive naval building programme.

I'm envisioning something along the lines of what is sketched out by Dr. Mike Bennighof of Avalanche Press. In 1938, the Dutch government mulled a plan for three battlecruisers and two new light cruisers to address the threat of a Japanese invasion of the NEI. There were corresponding plans to expand naval support facilities at Soerabaya. Unfortunately for the Dutch, Hitler invaded before they could launch the new ships.

The Dutch nearly built as many as six heavy cruisers in the 1920s. Bennighof regards their construction as "well within Dutch financial and industrial capability to build." By moving up battlecruiser production, I think it is possible to create a starting setup that give the Dutch at least an added battlecruiser piece in the NEI, plus the shipyard on Java.

Greece is easy. Their point-of-divergence isn't until 1920. A lot goes right for the Greeks, but, as Bennighof observes, both the Romanians and Yugoslavs (Serbs) "fulfilled equally ridiculous claims."

Without casting aspersion on the modern patriotism of Baltic peoples, is it really that the Finns would chafe as badly under a Swedish monarch as they did under the Tsars?

I am totally willing to concede that the Swedes would probably be faced with serious upheaval beginning with the Russian Revolution, but I figure they would have stood off the Red Army with some help from German Freikorps.

I'm concerned that to do the union thing with Sweden would be off-putting to the players.
 
Without casting aspersion on the modern patriotism of Baltic peoples, is it really that the Finns would chafe as badly under a Swedish monarch as they did under the Tsars?
If you are saying post-WW1 then most likely yes. Finland had just won their independence and the concept of "greater Finland" led many Finns to attempt to expand her influence. Had the Swedes tried to occupy Finland then that most likely would have caused major riffs between France, Britain, and possibly also Norway since Sweden is attacking a "White" power.
 
Perhaps we're looking for a POV before 1900. I was thinking of the Greek situation when I posted in this particular sub-forum.

If you make/keep Finland and/or the Baltics as a part of Sweden before WWI, you most certainly will butterfly the Russian revolutions and the USSR as we know it - and that will mean butterflying Nazi Germany as we know it as, as well. IMHO you can have a Greater Sweden with Finland and the Baltics in 1939, with a POD or several in the 19th century, but you can't have the exactly same OTL Axis and Allies in that case, due to the various changes that ATL Sweden would have caused.

On the other hand, IMO it would be sort of simple to tweak WWI in a way that Finland after 1918 becomes an independent but pro-Swedish near-satellite ruled by a Swedish-born monarch. And even then, the Finns would ready to oppose Stockholm's line in some things, sometimes vehemently so.

That is, I think, the closest we can plausibly come to Finland actually being a part of Sweden without a pre-WWI POD. And that is why I suggested a Nordic/Baltic confederation instead of a totally unified Kingdom of Sweden. The Finns were too independent-minded at that point to accept an actual annexation into Sweden, and the Swedish were smart enough to realize that trying to annex Finland would be more trouble than it would be worth. Sweden wants Finland as a friendly buffer between Stockholm and Russia, not as a recalcitrant, rebellious province it needs to keep down by military force.
 
Drakon, I struggle to balance what I think is the correctness of your position with my need to create a viable minor Axis power -- that is, to throw together countries in the same region to generate a large enough base of income so that they won't be steamrolled.

What about giving Sweden Norway and Denmark?

What kind of butterfly effect would a united (but largely moribund) Sweden-Finland have on the Russian Revolution? If the Russians never held Finland, why would it have seriously altered the outcome of the Revolution (assuming, of course, that Sweden didn't jump at Petrograd).

Tell me more about the satellite option.
 
Top