Good Axis, Evil Allies?

I realise this must've been done (a lot) before, but all the words I can think of searching for are way too common, so...

How does one reverse WWII so that the Axis quite clearly are the good guys and the Allies evil? They needn't be caricatures, America or Britain (to say nothing of the USSR) did already have their smaller problems IOTL (carpet-bombing et cetera), but the Nazis are still recognised as the Evil side in the war for their genocidal policies and war crimes. All that's required here is to reverse the trend; the Allies need only be that much worse than the Axis that they are viewed as such.

The easiest answer might be to never have the Nazis get very far in the USSR, thus not giving them room for their anti-Slavic genocide and reducing the impetus for a full-scale Holocaust. But I'm looking for something more creative, a war roughly analogous to ours.

Implementation of the Morgenthau Plan, perhaps? TBO? Different management in the US or the Soviet Union? Greater participation in the war by France and their Colonials?

Needless to say, Nazism would very likely need extensive modification. A Fascist-style German dictatorship?
 
Having the Axis win would help a lot.

Victory turned Stalin into a 'good guy'.
 
Last edited:
Can we change "minor" states, like Italy or France, around?

If so....

Warsaw falls in 1920; the Trade Union strike in Britain over intervention leads to the rise of an "unfascist" state, which uses war veterans to subdue the Irish. It's also not averse to breaking heads in India; Gandhi is arrested and is pushed down a flight of stairs by some Sikh loyalists.

While Germany gets off much more lightly in this TL, and Weimar stabilizes, unfascist Britain and their Japanese allies piss off the rest of the world. Britain, for instance, gladly sells China down the river, which infuriates an America under President Kennedy.

The spark ultimately comes when Poland rises up in 38, 39 against the Soviet leadership, and Germany intervenes. Although the Europeans are initially winning, the British are unhappy about the idea of a Europe dominated by the Rhine Axis.

Umm. That's all I have so far.

So, it's France, Germany against an autocratic Britain, Japan, and Bukharin's USSR.
 
Last edited:
Can we change "minor" states, like Italy or France, around?

If so....

Warsaw falls in 1920; the Trade Union strike in Britain over intervention leads to the rise of an "unfascist" state, which uses war veterans to subdue the Irish. It's also not averse to breaking heads in India; Gandhi is arrested and is pushed down a flight of stairs by some Sikh loyalists.

While Germany gets off much more lightly in this TL, and Weimar stabilizes, unfascist Britain and their Japanese allies piss off the rest of the world. Britain, for instance, gladly sells China down the river, which infuriates an America under President Kennedy.

The spark ultimately comes when Poland rises up in 38, 39 against the Soviet leadership, and Germany intervenes. Although the Europeans are initially winning, the British are unhappy about the idea of a Europe dominated by the Rhine Axis.

Umm. That's all I have so far.

So, it's France, Germany against an autocratic Britain, Japan, and Bukharin's USSR.

Oh, you meant switch sides?

But yes, that's OK as well.

Interesting set-up. I'd rather see America in the scenario as well, but this works. What's the USSR like under Bukharin?
 

NapoleonXIV

Banned
The Nazis resettle the Jews in Madagascar and elsewhere, with compensation.

The Americans and British treat the prewar orient as their hunting preserve, enslaving whole populations who view the 30's Japanese as benign liberators. (as many viewed themselves in OTL)

No change in how the Russians act as invaders. The Nazis were OTL viewed as liberators in Ukraine, at first, here that impression remains since they don't enslave the population or kill all the Jews.

Postwar Germany is the province of Morgenthau

In Japan 12 cities are a - bombed on the first day and 6 more on the next. The occupation is characterized by mass reprisals of the military and civilian atrocities.
 
The Nazis resettle the Jews in Madagascar and elsewhere, with compensation.

The Americans and British treat the prewar orient as their hunting preserve, enslaving whole populations who view the 30's Japanese as benign liberators. (as many viewed themselves in OTL)

No change in how the Russians act as invaders. The Nazis were OTL viewed as liberators in Ukraine, at first, here that impression remains since they don't enslave the population or kill all the Jews.

Postwar Germany is the province of Morgenthau

In Japan 12 cities are a - bombed on the first day and 6 more on the next. The occupation is characterized by mass reprisals of the military and civilian atrocities.

Madagascar doesn't sound too likely, but they could probably have found some place for them elsewhere.

Wouldn't it be ironic if they expelled them to Palestine?:D

A more imperialist Britain is probably a good ingredient in this posited scenario. An interventionist US also, perhaps, that extends the Monroe Doctrine to the Pacific? It could easily be viewed as oppressive by the Asians. Guerrilla war and reprisals could produce violence, not on a Nazi scale, of course, but still widely publicised.

The atomic scenario is a little far-fetched; what reason would they have to do hoard bombs, rather than use them? It might also be even worse if they just starve the Japanese to death by killing their railway structure and bombing their rice fields with chemical weapons (both of which were considered IOTL in the event of a failed MacArthur invasion).
 
Perhaps the French and British, to counter the nationalist tendencies that fascism generally irradiates, being massacring natives in India, South Africa, Algeria, Indochina, etc. The Japanese invasion of Indochina could be more liberation-esque, as could the battles in North Africa. Fighting in India could lead to a larger INA, and make the war that much more brutal in Asia...
 
Oh, you meant switch sides?

But yes, that's OK as well.

Interesting set-up. I'd rather see America in the scenario as well, but this works. What's the USSR like under Bukharin?

In this scenario, America is far more likely to join the Rhine Axis.

I wonder what Canada does then?

In any case, asking about Bukharin is interesting. Can you wait a couple of days? The final for one of my classes involves writing a brief paper on a Bukharin USSR.

But basically, a smaller industrial base, albeit more efficient; a more prosperous (and more populated ocuntryside); and a qualitatively better military, albeit somewhat smaller.

Remember too that in this scenario Germany also has a far smaller military than OTL 1941.
 
Last edited:
Sure, I'll wait. Since last year I've developed a new interest in Soviet history (it span from writing a nasty Trotskyite Sovietwank (that never got completed) in response to a challenge), but it's hard to find good sources here in Sweden. The ones that aren't biased don't really go into depth.
 
ok i know that the title is not intended literarly but personally i think that whole good and evil thing is a werry bad idea
yes the nazy/fashists killed ower 10 milion people in and around deathcamps, staljin killed ower 20 milion people in much the same way, olnly withouth the gas chamber procedure
the americans and english werent so nice ider, and the whole idea that they were fighting for a good cause, when they obviously didnt ewen belive or care about the deathcamps and were just saving their ass, is just silly

im not in any way condoning any kind of revisionist thinking, thats apsurd and dangerous and stupid
but the whole idea of good and evil, aplied to history and international relations is equally dangerous and just generaly unreal
wasnt hitler the good guy at one point or another for tens of milions of people?
how many wars did america get into in the last 70 years with the whole "good vs evil" pretext
or any other nation state around the world

but yes if germany had a more reasonable goverment, some kind of moderate nationalistic military/religious dictatorship instead of the nazy party, still fashist offcourse but not nearly as homicidal, and if france turned fashist itself, causing even worse treatment of colonised populations, which might start a trend imitated by britain, possibly causing them to take a more white suprematist stance, which, with a pod somevhere in the early 1900, could spill ower into america and get more right oriented, segregationists in power in washington

seeing as many western nations IOT were already practicing eugenics and ewen had laws that hitler basicaly just took to the extreem conclusion, and perhaps a rise of popularity of writings such as the protocols of zion or some american wersion of main campf, you could hipoteticaly see camps of one kind or another springing up in the west
staljinist soviets dont realy need much changing
olnly in such a political situation theres ewen a chance of a german-soviet aliance

fashist italy before the mussolini-hitler aliance was not much worse than any other european state in how it dealt with undesired ethnik groups on ocupied territory, especially in africa, the whole ethiopian campaing wouldnt ewen be widely known about if they werent on the loosing side

japan i dont know how to fix, maybe a more humane bushido code, but then its not bushido... maybe a lost russo-japanese war could make japan less militaristic... or not

basicaly its important who wins in the end, as historically the evil side alwais loses, no matter how many crimes the winers comit
 
Top