Have World War II Last Longer

Usagi

Gone Fishin'
as the title suggests, make the second world war last longer, this could be just by a few months, or by many years.
 
Nazis do not spend us much effort in murdering Jewish and Romani people. (likely still brutal but more productive. ) Effort that went into V1 and V2 goes into ME262. Hitler dying (especially if it looks like in action) would help a lot.

Maybe Japan realises codes are broken. US loses badly at Midway.

OR just Nazis decide to try to beat Britain first and keep the pact with Stalin for longer
 

nbcman

Donor
In the Pacific, a worse Typhoon Cobra would slow the US advance down if more TF38 ships were damaged / sunk. And there is the ever popular delayed / no Manhattan Project which may require the US to invade Japan in November 1945 - and the assembling invasion fleets would have been impacted by Typhoon Louise that hit the Okinawa area in October 1945.
 
Failed Normandy so Germans can transfer more troops to East. Allies manage still land somewhre but much later. Soviets aren't totally stopped but they advance much slower. And on Pacific Japan doesn't surrend after the bombs and USA launches Operation Downfall.
 
Maybe Germany and Japan develope proto Jets in numbers that gives them an edge in the air ? Nazis experimented with Jets. Apperently Germany tried to send a submarine to Japan in 1945 in a secret mission to send plans for developing Jets- It sank in Norway. Wouldn't t Alsohave Made difference though, for Japan' s Industrial cappability t had been down already assume. Also the Axis Neef fiel supplies.
 
No Manhattan Project which then requires an invasion in Japan
FDR dies a few months earlier so instead of Truman saying yes, its Wallace who decides not to use the bomb
No 2 front war for Germany- They hold the peace with Stalin longer
No Churchill to rally the UK through the worst
No lend-lease to get weapons to Europe.
Edith Keeler doesn't die in a car accident in NY in 1930 leading her to rise to lead a powerful peace movement that delays the US entry into the war.
 
Reverse the code-breaking situation. Axis powers can read most Allied coded messages throughout the war, Allies have no luck breaking Axis codes. That probably makes enough things go better for the Axis to prolong the war, but still probably not enough for them to win.
 
None of this works. (^^^) When it comes to history I look at system of systems and think about the forces involved. Change an Axis outcome and the Allies respond. Change an allied outcome and the Axis responds. That is how WW II actually works.
 
a) Japan adopts their modified semi-auto Pedersen rifle in 1936, Germany clones the SVT-40 for themselves.

b) Closer tech exchange between Italy (P.108 & P.133 et al), Germany, and Japan, ideally with development of the Me 261 in quantity before the war.

c) Keep von Ohain's original jet research team together at Heinkel and coordinate with Jumo and BMW for R&D. Let him pursue the HeS 30, perhaps the HeS 10 and HeS 4p as well.

d) Stick to original plans and timetables for both syntheric fuel plants and overall wartime factory production.

e) Hit the British Home Chain earlier and avoid targetting the civilian populations

f) Eisenhammer is a go from day one of Barbarossa, even if it means one-way missions for some crews.

g) No Pearl Harbor under any circumstances!

h) Germany needs a long-range bomber whether by trade (P.133, G5N, etc.), development (Me 264, He 277, Fw 300) or 'acquisition' (MB 162, F222, Czech or Polish model, etc.)

h) Coordinate production for submarines and aircraft using modular assembly system from late 1930s and toss the Walther system out in favor of larger conventional submarines (Type XXIs in the water in late '43 or early '44, maybe another model makes production before war's end)

i) Germans and Japanese to coordinate all research via in-house government offices (no '3 dozen groups all working on an aircraft fuse')

j) Greater scepticism about crypto security by all 3 Axis powers from day 1

k) Keep Italy successful in Greece from the beginning to let Germany hit Russia in early May instead of late June
 
a) Japan adopts their modified semi-auto Pedersen rifle in 1936, Germany clones the SVT-40 for themselves.

b) Closer tech exchange between Italy (P.108 & P.133 et al), Germany, and Japan, ideally with development of the Me 261 in quantity before the war.

c) Keep von Ohain's original jet research team together at Heinkel and coordinate with Jumo and BMW for R&D. Let him pursue the HeS 30, perhaps the HeS 10 and HeS 4p as well.

d) Stick to original plans and timetables for both syntheric fuel plants and overall wartime factory production.

e) Hit the British Home Chain earlier and avoid targetting the civilian populations

f) Eisenhammer is a go from day one of Barbarossa, even if it means one-way missions for some crews.

g) No Pearl Harbor under any circumstances!

h) Germany needs a long-range bomber whether by trade (P.133, G5N, etc.), development (Me 264, He 277, Fw 300) or 'acquisition' (MB 162, F222, Czech or Polish model, etc.)

h) Coordinate production for submarines and aircraft using modular assembly system from late 1930s and toss the Walther system out in favor of larger conventional submarines (Type XXIs in the water in late '43 or early '44, maybe another model makes production before war's end)

i) Germans and Japanese to coordinate all research via in-house government offices (no '3 dozen groups all working on an aircraft fuse')

j) Greater scepticism about crypto security by all 3 Axis powers from day 1

k) Keep Italy successful in Greece from the beginning to let Germany hit Russia in early May instead of late June

You have to "magically remove" all the existing totalitarian politicians, revamp the political systems and turn those three states into democracies. IOW...

Skippy-4.png
 
You have to kill all the existing totalitarian politicians, revamp the political systems and turn those three states into democracies. IOW...

Skippy-4.png

These were each meant to be ways to extend the war. And i disagree that you on a need to mutate their systems to such an extreme to adopt said suggestions.

And respectfully, I like the picture.
 
These were each meant to be ways to extend the war. And i disagree that you on a need to mutate their systems to such an extreme to adopt said suggestions.

And respectfully, I like the picture.

It's only my opinion. Not gospel ever, and I always tell someone YMMV from mine and SHOULD.
 
The allies never break Axis codes.
Germany and Italy goes on the defensive after the battle of France.
After the RN attack on the French Fleet Hitler offers the French a better deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir
No German occupation and no looting of French factories. Germany settles for a trade deal.
The French are told to look after the channel Island.
UK is no fighting on it own against an enemy that is not attacking them. No battle of Britain or submarine blockade of UK..
Mean while Germany reform the economy and works on better tank aircraft etc.
No invasion of Soviet union.
Germany decide to allow to Soviets to strike first. This gives the Soviets the long supply lines.
Could be several years before Stalin get the Courage to invade.
Germany cuts all ties with Japan.
Very improbable.
It would make the war last a lot longer.
 
None of this works. (^^^) When it comes to history I look at system of systems and think about the forces involved. Change an Axis outcome and the Allies respond. Change an allied outcome and the Axis responds. That is how WW II actually works.

If we're talking about an Axis victory, sure. If we're talking about a slower Allied victory, not so much. Yes, the Allies could respond, and their advantages in manpower and resources will eventually become telling. There essentially isn't a non-ASB victory for the Axis in anything resembling OTL WWII. However, there's no reason that the Allies' response wouldn't have to be something resulting in a delay, even if only by a few months relative to OTL.

I'm skeptical of positing any POD before at the earliest ~1942, since up until the (Siege of Moscow/Stalingrad/El Alamein/Take your pick, but nothing earlier than Winter '41) the Axis' successes were already improbable enough that any further luck pushes credulity. From there, the 'best' outcome might be Hitler breaking through into the Caucasus and securing their oil, but I'm sure that the Soviets--or even British striking up from Persia--would destroy Baku and other processing facilities rather than allowing them to fall into Axis hands, and this and the logistics problems make a more successful 1942 offensive look like a red herring for the Challenge. Later on, Germany's sources of manpower and especially oil are going to become much more noticeable, making PODs like 'fewer wunderwaffen" things that will probably not have great impact. That being said, in '43 and to a lesser extent '44 Germany can probably do better with retreating to a sustainable defensive line. Even in '44 the Rhine defenses proved a great challenge for the WAllies, whilst in Eastern Europe the Dnieper-Daguva line could probably slow down the Soviets much more than it did OTL; without draftees from most of the Ukraine and Belarus the Red Army war machine, whilst probably still enough to win the war, is not going to be able to snowball into anything like Bagration OTL. So basically, at least in Europe, the Germans have to switch to a hold-the line defense at all costs, and even then they'll still probably lose. Given the personalities of Hitler and others, this is unlikely, but not impossible for me to see happening with an early, relatively minor POD like Hitler not developing a major drug problem like OTL.
 
Top