More fronts in WWII

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.

Maybe a low-butterfly "Sweden in the losing Central Powers and WWII happens as usual" timeline doesn't even need them to go Norsefire- they could simply be even more Russophobic in this timeline, and willing to band with their fellow Scandinavians and be co-belligerent with Germany against the Soviets. Or they don't even need Admiral Essen- as you pointed out, they just need to have been more activist during the Finnish Civil War, Winter War, etc.

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.

Yeah I don't quite get the earlier posts dismissing an unruly South Africa. Maybe it's too early to have Boer out-and-out racial extremists/baby Nazis, but given the British history in the region, I don't see why they would be considered as loyal as Canada or Australia. We might not talk about Ireland being particularly pro-Axis, but they were certainly more neutral than pro-Allies. It's conceivable that the Boers might do the same.

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.

That brings up a good point- just because certain countries declare for the Axis/Pact of Steel/etc., doesn't mean they necessarily have to go to war on behalf of them. The U.S. could certainly punish say Peron's Argentina or a fascist Peru/Paraguay through sanctions, but they're not going to invade them if there's bigger fish to fry. Not all Latin American involvement in WWII have to be the Platinean War.

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.

Why would they invade Russia? Do you mean Vichy French?
 
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.

Is this analysis of SA's white population from an ATL or OTL.

French hugenots as a separate ethnic group? An Afrikaner take over of Rhodesia?
 
Maybe a low-butterfly "Sweden in the losing Central Powers and WWII happens as usual" timeline doesn't even need them to go Norsefire- they could simply be even more Russophobic in this timeline, and willing to band with their fellow Scandinavians and be co-belligerent with Germany against the Soviets. Or they don't even need Admiral Essen- as you pointed out, they just need to have been more activist during the Finnish Civil War, Winter War, etc.

Then again, the butterflies or even direct knock-on effects from Sweden supporting the Finnish Whites in the Civil War, or offering official support in the Winter War, might also mean less fronts in WWII as well. I have often speculated that a believable Swedish guarantee to support Finland in case of a war against the USSR in 38-39 might have been enough to deter Stalin from attacking Finland in 39-40. There being no Winter War could be well spun into the German invasion of Norway failing, leading to an Allied Norway and a neutral Swedish-Finnish minibloc post-1940, preventing active warfare in WWII in the Nordic and Fennoscandian area from the Danish straits to Petsamo and the Karelian Isthmus.
 
Yeah I don't quite get the earlier posts dismissing an unruly South Africa. Maybe it's too early to have Boer out-and-out racial extremists/baby Nazis, but given the British history in the region, I don't see why they would be considered as loyal as Canada or Australia. We might not talk about Ireland being particularly pro-Axis, but they were certainly more neutral than pro-Allies. It's conceivable that the Boers might do the same.

Eh, the Free State was without question Pro-Allies within their neutrality, with interactions from low level to high and plenty of planning between them.
 
Top