More fronts in WWII

Let's get borderline but not quite ASB here, because there needs to be some reason to it. How could WWII affect even more geographical locations?

Latin America: cliche Argentina and some other South American nations join the Axis and threaten the other countries, U.S. goes Monroe Doctrine on them. (Shattered World)

Subsaharan Africa: Purified National Party takes power in South Africa and joins Axis and invades British/French/Belgian/Portuguese territories. (Berlin/Moscow Axis)

Iberia: Spain joins Axis, attacks Allied Portugal (Shattered World)

Scandinavia: Post-Central Powers Sweden (Admiral Essen situation) ends up in the Axis somehow, or at least involved in the Winter War, thus fighting the Soviets and so indirectly the Allies.

Near East: something involving Turkey/Iran/Afghanistan.

India: Axis agents successfully incite revolt against British rule

Australia: Japanese invasion attempted.
 
The easiest path to war in South America actually involves a Paraguayan accession to the Axis Powers pact, although Paraguay was hardly capable of offensive military action even before the Chaco War, which exhausted it completely. Perhaps a flare-up of the ABC conflict? One way to give an injection to the South American navies would be to eliminate the Panama Canal in your timeline. Another option would be to avert the naval limitations that emerged in the 1920s.

I guess the Afrikaaners are the best bet for an Axis surrogate in southern Africa, although an invasion outside their existing borders seems doubtful for any number of reasons, including cultural outlook. A better approach might be to diverge the timeline much earier: the Dutch keep the Cape Colony, never reconcile with the British, and throw in with the Germans straight away this time around after remaining neutral during the last war.

Portugal under Salazar is tricky. Ideologically, he belongs in the Axis camp, but he's got to know that he would lose his empire to the British if he tried to go that way. Maybe think about a breakdown in the Anglo-American relationship after the Great War. Start by averting the demise of the High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow, leading to a more difficult series of disarmament negotiations, and throw in lurid press speculation about the death of President Warren G. Harding right after a visit to Vancouver. If the British and Americans were mixing it up in the Atlantic, Portugal might try to declare neutrality for its colonial possessions, hoping to avoid confrontation with the British altogether. (Not probable after the same thing came to naught in Germany's African colonies during the Great War, but plausible nonetheless.)

Probably Sweden's path to standing at the center of a Scandanavian union lies in not only taking a more active hand in the Winter War, but, before that, becoming embroiled in the fight for independent Finland and then, as Poland emerges, serving as the arbiter over the fates of the Baltic states.

In the Near East, start with a Greek victory against the Turks. Greece can then go to war with the Italians later over Albania and the Dodeacanese, or with the Russians over the Caucasus.

If you're going for more war than ever before, try an outcome to the American Civil War that leads to Confederate secession.

You might cause more trouble in Central Asia by strengthening China, which could then cause more problems for Japan. Also, a stronger Netherlands would probably have beefed up its naval presence in the NEI.
 
A Japanese invasion of Darwin would have resulted in the destruction of their forces landed, but it would have taken a while and diverted energies from other parts of the Pacific. Might have been a good cost benefit for Japan. There are no land links to Darwin aside from limited roads, its a long flight from the nearest bases elsewhere in Australia, and a seaborne offensive has to thread through some rather narrow straits in the islands between New Guinea and Australia itself. As Japan was forced to station significant air and ground combat assets in the Dutch East Indies to defend it from bombing raids from Darwin later, it would probably not have diverted much in the way of additional forces for them.

It would have function much like the Aleutians campaign and for similar reasons... the Australian public would have demanded it and MacArthur would have had little choice but to 'do something'

A more ambitious attempt at the Australian east or southwest coast was out of the question due to shipping shortages but I think they could have pulled Darwin off, especially in the window of opportunity after the air strike on Darwin in 1942
 
Let's get borderline but not quite ASB here, because there needs to be some reason to it. How could WWII affect even more geographical locations?

Latin America: cliche Argentina and some other South American nations join the Axis and threaten the other countries, U.S. goes Monroe Doctrine on them. (Shattered World)
Ha, ha.
Argentina knew perfectly well where all her biggest trading partners were (i.e. in the Allies), and knew who controlled the seas (RN and USN). Not going to happen.
Or rather, it will be a VERY short lived front if they try it.
Subsaharan Africa: Purified National Party takes power in South Africa and joins Axis and invades British/French/Belgian/Portuguese territories. (Berlin/Moscow Axis)
Ummm.... The Dominion of South Africa? Whose external affairs are still handled by the UK? Whose forces fought against the Axis in northern and eastern Africa? Whose military kit was almost all British?
That South Africa?
that rebellion would last slightly longer than Argentina, maybe. It might take a while to find enough transports to load 100,000 Indian troops on. Alternatively, of course, they could just find a whole bunch of obsolete rifles, and arm the Blacks.....

Iberia: Spain joins Axis, attacks Allied Portugal (Shattered World)
Spain could join the Axis. True. Especially if their leader was someone rather stupider than Franco. Their people would starve, and the Civil War might re-erupt (certainly ANY war would cause massive strain on the fragile Spanish economy and polity, as Franco knew well).
Scandinavia: Post-Central Powers Sweden (Admiral Essen situation) ends up in the Axis somehow, or at least involved in the Winter War, thus fighting the Soviets and so indirectly the Allies.
???
Sweden. On the side of the Nazis? Really?
I can see fighting against the Soviets, sure - but the Winter War was BEFORE Stalin was an 'Ally'. Sweden defending Finland from the USSR would likely have Western support, and they'd end up part of the Allies. Which would make WWII rather shorter.
Near East: something involving Turkey/Iran/Afghanistan.
Be put down as fast as the proNazi efforts in Iraq.
India: Axis agents successfully incite revolt against British rule
Ha, ha. You have any idea how many Indians VOLUNTEERED to fight? The Indian army was turning away recruits, iirc.
Australia: Japanese invasion attempted.
Great. Japan blows its wad and takes Darwin. True, Australia takes a good while getting it back, as the infrastructure sucks, and they'll have to build rail or roads into the area. But meanwhile the Japanese are losing men to hunger, and ships to submarine action, and being attritted massively. All those resources are also not usable for offenses (e.g. Port Moresby) or defense.

Might the Japanese try it? Sure. There'll be at least a million Japanese left living after the war, I'm sure, probably even a few in the Home Islands.
 
The main problem I see is the equipment for all of these "fronts", specially Latin America. When Brasil joined the allies, the US had to supply all the equipment needed to outfit the Brasilian force in Italy. I'm sure the allies would be more than able to rush equipment to other South American allies, if a "nazy" front poped up there, but I'm also sure that Germany would not be able to support it's allies. Which would mean such a front would not last long. Yes, it would be a further drain to US industry, but not a war changing one. In fact, I'm betting more South American allies might increase and/or simplify the supply of extra raw materials, not to mention manpower.

As for Iberia, I very much doubt Spain would join. Franco, while a sympathizer, knew Spain was on it's knees, because of the civil war, so he stalled Hitler during the entire war, making insane demands for him to help. But, if he did, that would be bad news for the allies: Portugal wouldn't last long enough to receive help, which would mean Iberia would fall to the Axis... which would give the axis a huge area from which to launch subs.
 
Ha, ha.
Argentina knew perfectly well where all her biggest trading partners were (i.e. in the Allies), and knew who controlled the seas (RN and USN). Not going to happen.
Or rather, it will be a VERY short lived front if they try it.
Agreed, none of the Latin American countries were ruled by leaders that insane. They knew perfectly well if they tried they would be the next invasion target for the USMC.

Ummm.... The Dominion of South Africa? Whose external affairs are still handled by the UK? Whose forces fought against the Axis in northern and eastern Africa? Whose military kit was almost all British?
That South Africa?
that rebellion would last slightly longer than Argentina, maybe. It might take a while to find enough transports to load 100,000 Indian troops on. Alternatively, of course, they could just find a whole bunch of obsolete rifles, and arm the Blacks.....
True enough, the South Africans considered themselves a part of British culture not German.
Spain could join the Axis. True. Especially if their leader was someone rather stupider than Franco. Their people would starve, and the Civil War might re-erupt (certainly ANY war would cause massive strain on the fragile Spanish economy and polity, as Franco knew well).
You definitely would have to have someone dumber than Franco. Unlike the strutting buffoon in Italy he knew his interests were best served by staying out of it.

Sweden. On the side of the Nazis? Really?
I can see fighting against the Soviets, sure - but the Winter War was BEFORE Stalin was an 'Ally'. Sweden defending Finland from the USSR would likely have Western support, and they'd end up part of the Allies. Which would make WWII rather shorter.
I agree, Sweden would hit the top 10 list of the countries least likely to join the Axis IMO.

Be put down as fast as the proNazi efforts in Iraq.
Most likely but it probably has the best shot outside of Spain.
Ha, ha. You have any idea how many Indians VOLUNTEERED to fight? The Indian army was turning away recruits, iirc.
After reports came out of China on how the Japanese behaved the idea of India joining the Axis became ludicrous. They knew fully well what would happen if they fell under Japanese rule.

Great. Japan blows its wad and takes Darwin. True, Australia takes a good while getting it back, as the infrastructure sucks, and they'll have to build rail or roads into the area. But meanwhile the Japanese are losing men to hunger, and ships to submarine action, and being attritted massively. All those resources are also not usable for offenses (e.g. Port Moresby) or defense.

Might the Japanese try it? Sure. There'll be at least a million Japanese left living after the war, I'm sure, probably even a few in the Home Islands.

Not quite that bad, but bad enough.
 
The Swedish scenario would heavily depend on how they sway after their WWI defeat- the Social Democratic Party either getting defeated by some ahistorical fascist movement, or taking a darker turn (I read on a prior thread that Scandinavian SD parties, for all of their Nordic super-welfare state prowess, were pro-eugenics).

As far as Spain goes, well bear in mind Shattered World has WWII essentially in two parts (the Eurasian War against the Soviets, then WWII proper), so they end up joining in early 1943, which is the run-up to the actual WWII. Maybe that's how they had time to gird itself for war, not to mention the Allies (or at least, the Soviets) had already been beaten back once.

It looks like in that timeline, the Germans cajole the Turks into invading the Soviets for Baku, because for whatever reason the Eurasian War had the Allies sitting out (the POD is that the USSR is the first aggressor against Poland). The Germans also establish a protectorate over Iraq during the EW, and back an anti-Shah fascist civil war in Persia/Iran.

Shattered World also opens up LatAm thusly:

January 10th 1943

In Argentina general Justo dies, leaving president Castillo without his most influential supporter. Fascist elements in the Argentinian military, led by General Pedro P. Ramírez, begin to consolidate power, though the president is to remain in place as a figurehead. German money has been flowing into fascists in South America for some time now, much of it to Argentina where there are strong fascist leanings among the dominant conservatives in the country. The U.S. views this turn of events with some worry and begins to apply pro-Democratic pressure through its diplomatic offices in the country.

...

February 18th 1943

The fascist party in Peru, formed in 1938 as a reaction against a militant leftist movement, declares martial law and seizes power with the backing the military. The U.S. severs diplomatic ties and demands a return to a moderate government. Fascist elements around South and central America now have two examples to look towards, Argentina and Peru.

I mean, even if fascist Afrikaaner South Africa is unlikely, they were still "disloyal" enough to flirt with neutrality during WWII.
 
I think Sweden's path to participation in the Second World War lies either in Finland's being overrun and brutally liquidated by the Soviets, or else in the Baltic chaos of the Russian Civil War era, when Sweden might have emerged as a guarantor of the newly-independent Baltic states, assuming some internal political adjustments.

As Hammerbolt pointed out, you have a problem with actually equipping a lot of the "new" nations being added to the fray. You might mediate that somewhat by positing that naval shipbuilding limitations were never successfully ratified, leading to an arms race that begins in the early 1920s and continues straight through the 1930s, as much as practicable. Preserving the High Seas Fleet gives you even more to work with.
 
Great. Japan blows its wad and takes Darwin. True, Australia takes a good while getting it back, as the infrastructure sucks, and they'll have to build rail or roads into the area. But meanwhile the Japanese are losing men to hunger, and ships to submarine action, and being attritted massively. All those resources are also not usable for offenses (e.g. Port Moresby) or defense.

Might the Japanese try it? Sure. There'll be at least a million Japanese left living after the war, I'm sure, probably even a few in the Home Islands.

actually probably a better result for them than all the troops that ended up isolated in the New Guinea and the Solomons most of whom died... this way they tie up equally large Allied forces and Timor and the rest of the Indies are much closer for supply purposes and much less exposed to Allied air and sea power (reducing air and naval losses in transit was well as loss of supplies and troops).

The Japanese didn't run out of troops in World War 2, they ran out of trained pilots and ships. Expending a couple of divisions, even a corps sized Japanese Army and a Japanese Air Army (think a small Allied tactical air force) to divert significant Allied attention is probably a pretty worth while trade.
 
I mean, if Sweden was part of the Central Powers because of Admiral Essen, and then on the losing side of the war, all bets are off.

The Berlin/Moscow Axis linked in the OP is crazier than even Shattered World:

German U-boats begin a covert campaign of submarine warfare in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. Spies infiltrate into the South African government and manipulate the anti-negro sentiments among many people to aggravate the already high levels of sympathy to the Nazi's. A South African coastguard boat (captained by an Anglo-South African, incidentally) intercepts a boat-load of German guns to supply a White Supremisist group based in Cape Town. They are about to escort the smugglers back into port, they are mysteriously torpedoed...

Similar infiltration of foreign governments on a large scale is occuring in the Peruvian, Paraguayan and Argentinian military governments, evidence of which causes many in the governments of nearby nations to develop pro-American and pro-ECPS leanings. The Shah of Iran forcibly rebutts ECPS advances and declares his intention of cooperation with the Axis.

The Germans and the Soviets are in need of another ally at this point, and Turkey seems to be the best candidate. Not only will it give the Axis easier access to the Middle East, which is in uproar in many places, it will also bar the ECPS from getting a foothold if war breaks out with them. Constant diplomatic wrangling slowly break down the stalling Turk's resolve.

Okay, lets recap. There's about four major fronts in this war, at the moment. The first, the Mediterranean front, deals with the fight between the ECPS and the Germans in the Mediterranean and Southern Europe. The second, the Middle Eastern front, deals with the fight between the German-backed Turks, and the ECPS states, especially the members of the former British Empire, such as India. The third front is the Asian front, and deals with the fight between the Communists and the ECPS, led by the Japanese. The final, just emerging front is the African front, with racialist South Africa threatening to sweep up into ECPS Africa and get them at their weakest. The ECPS is fighting valiantly and successfully, but they really are surrounded at all sides.

But the sides aren't set in stone yet. Their are still a few Nuetral states that could be monopolised apon, especially in Asia and South America. And the PAA could at any time enter the war, there are rumours that they are working on an Atomic superweapon that could decide this war....

For all the post-Sealion fates, having India declare itself an empire and ally with the Allies to continue the fight against the Nazis is a hilarious development. I suppose it's a very HOI type event, with the British military folding into the Indian one.
 
Iraq & Syria, the Levant, actually were a theater for about 15 minutes so possibly that is the most plausible? the Baathist Party is always accused of being similar to Nazi Party (not sure how true other than maybe some trappings?)

probably this is only possible if Germans not mauled at Crete? my understanding that was proposed as prelude/alternative to invasion of Greece, if that came off successfully maybe they attempt more in Iraq.
 
Have the Italian navy actually do its job, and thus enable supplies to reach Rommel in the right numbers, and he can prevail at an alt El Alamein and sweep on Cairo. Britain was already seriously worried that Egypt would rise up to welcome the Germans, and if they did that the Suez Canal would fall, and the Middle East be opened up. Britain intervened in Iraq against a pro-Axis government and in Syria aiding the Free French against the Vichy regime. Turkey was basically sitting, waiting to see what happened. As indeed was Spain. Have Rommel sweep into Palestine, perhaps with allied Egyptian units, and you could see Turkey and Spain accede to the Axis, Syria rise for them, Iraq re-enter turmoil, Persia probably see serious troubles, India see more Nationalist outbreaks, Spain attack Gibraltar, and a joint Axis force enter Baku from the South, probably eradicating Stalingrad and altering the balance of warfare inside the USSR. Heck, certain leading Nazis might even get their way and get Hitler to agree to Vichy France acceding to the Axis.
 
Without proper air cover and getting rid of Malta, the italians will never acomplish this.

You know this is an alternate history board? You know that the aircraft the Italians faced were launched from carriers? Which are ships? Which can be taken out by combined naval operations?

This may seem harsh or dismissive but no more so than your one line "everyone knows" type post in reply to my ideas.
 

Ryan

Donor
Have the Italian navy actually do its job, and thus enable supplies to reach Rommel in the right numbers, and he can prevail at an alt El Alamein and sweep on Cairo. Britain was already seriously worried that Egypt would rise up to welcome the Germans, and if they did that the Suez Canal would fall, and the Middle East be opened up. Britain intervened in Iraq against a pro-Axis government and in Syria aiding the Free French against the Vichy regime. Turkey was basically sitting, waiting to see what happened. As indeed was Spain. Have Rommel sweep into Palestine, perhaps with allied Egyptian units, and you could see Turkey and Spain accede to the Axis, Syria rise for them, Iraq re-enter turmoil, Persia probably see serious troubles, India see more Nationalist outbreaks, Spain attack Gibraltar, and a joint Axis force enter Baku from the South, probably eradicating Stalingrad and altering the balance of warfare inside the USSR. Heck, certain leading Nazis might even get their way and get Hitler to agree to Vichy France acceding to the Axis.

IIRC Axis ports were at full capacity otl so ensuring more ships reach Africa just means more ships waiting around waiting to be unloaded. besides, the major logistical problem was getting supplies from the ports to the front as there were no railways so everything had to be trucked the +1000km from Tripoli to Egypt (i.e. further than the distance between the Nazi/Soviet border and Moscow) at a time when Germany didn't have trucks to spare.
 
IIRC Axis ports were at full capacity otl so ensuring more ships reach Africa just means more ships waiting around waiting to be unloaded. besides, the major logistical problem was getting supplies from the ports to the front as there were no railways so everything had to be trucked the +1000km from Tripoli to Egypt (i.e. further than the distance between the Nazi/Soviet border and Moscow) at a time when Germany didn't have trucks to spare.

If I remember, Rommel was particularly upset about the loss of tankers

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=206112
shows some

After the Germans took Tobruk, there wasn't a need to ship everything from Tripoli
 
How about Norway stands up its army in time for the German Invasion and issues unambiguous orders to its commanders and coastal forts and the assaulting German forces never manage to get a toehold suffering heavy losses to its airborne and seaborne units as well as even heavier losses to the KM

This turns Norway into another front (mostly Air) with tacit support from 'neutral' Sweden (who is even more stuck in the middle than OTL)
 
Most of those colonies were far more fragmented than First World history books say. No need for Axis agents in most of those colonies as oppressed locals would be quite happy to rebel against European or American rulers.

For example, Swedish volunteers fought in Finland during both the 1919 Civil War and Winter War. Most of the Swedish volunteers were anti-bolshevik. The Finnish Civil War was between Finnish-speaking peasant communists and large land-owners of Swedish descent. The only thing needed to involve more Swedish, Norwegian and Danish troops is more common weapons. just repaint insignia when planes are "loaned" to the Finnish Air Force. If the Norwegian and Swedish Navies only patrolled their home waters, they could make life miserable for the Russian Navy. During WW2, large numbers of Scandinavians joined the German forces and most got sent to the Eastern Front to kill Russian communists.
Other threads have speculated about a Scandinavian Defense Union that could band together to repell Russian west-ward expansion. A Scandinavian Defense Union could also send enough troops to Norway to foul German invasion plans, starving German of desperately-needed metal ores.

South Africa had three or more white tribes and dozens of black tribes. White tribes included: French Huguenots, Dutch-speaking Boers, Englishmen and a few Portuguese. Huguenots eventually assimilated into the Boer majority. Boers were still bitter about atrocities committed by the British Army when they conquered Rhodesia.
OTL Large numbers of Englishmen volunteered to fight in WW1 and WW2 while Boers quietly stayed home. After the British ranks were decimated during WW2, Boers quietly took over South Africa and Rhodesia. Many Boers shared fascist leanings (e.g. Eugene Terreblanch). Boers would cheerfully have bought more guns from Mauser and Krupp and messed with WALLY shipping around the cape./
Boers shared more common values with Germans in Tangaika and Namibia, than they ever did with Brits.

India had hundreds of different tribes who chaffed under the British Raj and would cheerfully have exiled Brits if they had the weapons and leadership.

Much of South America was dominated by American or European companies (e.g. United Fruit Company USA) who supported a tiny local, white elite. Peasants would cheerfully have revolted against American rule given the chance. Even a few friendly ports in Latin America - that allowed U-boats to refuel - could have vastly increased WALLY shipping losses.

A variety of Europeans meddled in the Middle East before WW2. For example, in the early stages of WW2, British soldiers expelled Italian troops from Iraq.
If Italy had ever controlled Somalia and Ethiopia, they could have blockaded WALLY shipping through he Suez Canal.

Iran had always been a chess board square during the Great Game. GG pitted Russia against Britain in a race to control Southern Asia.

Another option would have most Free French troops sent to Lebanon where they could control Syria and Palestine and threaten the Causcasus Mountains. Hopefully French troops would be smart enough not to try to invade Russia via the Caucasus Mountains.

But a Japanese invasion of Eastern Siberia would be amusing. Did the Japanese know about oil and natural gas reserves in Siberia? How many million Chinese soldiers could the Japanese recruit to serve as fodder for Russian guns?
 
The Finnish Civil War was between Finnish-speaking peasant communists and large land-owners of Swedish descent.

Actually, the combatants on both sides were overwhelmingly Finnish-speaking. And both sides were, for a large part, made of people who could be called "peasants" in English, though in Finnish terms the Whites would have more often been independent farmers from smallholders to sons of rich landowners, and the Reds more often agricultural labourers and tenant farmers. Finland was predominately a rural country at the time. On the Red side, also factory workers from the towns, predominately in the south, were heavily represented. It is not a surprise that the war divided the nation into a Red, more populous south and a White, geographically larger north: the Social Democrats had more support in the more urban, more developed southern Finland and the Agrarians and conservatives in the mainly rural northern part of the country. Swedish-speakers were generally on average more affluent at the time than Finnish-speakers, and on balance probably were likelier to support the Whites. But like pointed out above, they made just a small part of the combatants and a part of the Swedish-speaking population supported the Reds due to leftist views as well.
 
Top