More powers and fronts in world war 2

What it says on the tin. Brazil or Argentina joins the Axis. Soviets fight Japan in Siberia, Nazis make and invasion of Turkey, Nazis invade the Middle East, Japan has a successful pearl harbor (destroyed aircraft carriers and oil invasion of Hawaii) japan more successful in China, thailand joins the Axis, Spain joins the Axis, Portrugese are in the allies, more fighting in the middle east, greater Indian involvement, More successful Italy, More Latin American countries in the war. A Latin American front, and someone air strikes mainland USA.
 
they were in the Axis OTL.

Anyway most of these are ASB and so its not fit for this forum.

Mostly these will result in just more deaths, longer fighting and longer wikipedia articles.
Thailand was in the axis? Fun fact.Also I feel more powers in world war 2 is definitely not ASB. Franco considered joining the war in otl. Several middle eastern kings were friendly to the Axis. Britain and the USSR invaded Iran in otl. Hitler made war plans for a invasion of the middle east. Japan had skirmishes with the Soviets in otl, China's armies were primitive and divided, Yamamoto wanted to put more resources into Hawaii and pearl harbor, with Hawaii you could long distance raid the west coast.
 
You are not going to get a positive reception here if you claim that Japan could take Hawaii. It is commonly accepted as ASB. As for long distance raids on the west coast...
logistics
 
Thailand was in the axis? Fun fact.Also I feel more powers in world war 2 is definitely not ASB. Franco considered joining the war in otl. Several middle eastern kings were friendly to the Axis. Britain and the USSR invaded Iran in otl. Hitler made war plans for a invasion of the middle east. Japan had skirmishes with the Soviets in otl, China's armies were primitive and divided, Yamamoto wanted to put more resources into Hawaii and pearl harbor, with Hawaii you could long distance raid the west coast.
OTL Franco basically, gave Hitler a list of things that needed to happen before he felt Spain would be able to join the war, knowing that the list was basically impossible. Spain had just come out of a nasty 3 year civil war and was still fighting guerillas. Franco is only going to join if Britain is actively collapsing, and then only if they have no major allies who are intact, as Spain has a long exposed coast that is vulnerable to naval attack

Hitler made plans for the Middle East, but he made plans for a lot of things (Sea Lion, cough), doesn't mean that would happen. The rulers there may be Axis friendly, but they won't jump in as long as the balance of forces in the region favors the Allies, and the invasion of Iran showed it does. It is just too hard for the Axis to bring troops into the area and keep them supplied

Japan may have skirmished with the Soviets OTL, but they wanted the Soviets as a neutral party to broker peace with the US once they had beaten the US. Plus the Soviet Army in the far east was strong enough to beat theirs. China's Armies may have been primitive and divided, but the country is big and populated enough that it was a black hole for Japan anyways. As for Hawaii, this article is a pretty good explanation of how that would not fly
 
Thailand was in the axis? Fun fact.Also I feel more powers in world war 2 is definitely not ASB. Franco considered joining the war in otl. Several middle eastern kings were friendly to the Axis. Britain and the USSR invaded Iran in otl. Hitler made war plans for a invasion of the middle east. Japan had skirmishes with the Soviets in otl, China's armies were primitive and divided, Yamamoto wanted to put more resources into Hawaii and pearl harbor, with Hawaii you could long distance raid the west coast.

The choices can be made, even if they are the dumbest decision humans have ever made, like Latin American countries and Spain joining the Axis. You can't simple have a POD to make that happen, you need to explain a lot about a decision like that before its even remotely plausible. But some of them are just impossible to do without changing so much that only an ASB can make it happen.

Having Japan do good in China and invade the Soviet Union at the same time for example is just not humanly possible. Same goes for Nazis invading Turkey before or during barbarossa, or the Middle East(i guess they will use fishing boats to go across?). Sur Hitler had plans to invade, but he had plans to invade the UK as well but that isn't going to happen either without super soldiers and mutant tiger tanks.

Also, you can say more successfull Italy, but how, why, when?
 
Afghanistan had friendly policies to Germany throughout both the World Wars, maybe you could bring them into the conflict with promises of Indian and Soviet land?
 
To be clear (sorry I definitely wasn't) these are series of SEPARATE scenarios as examples of the idea of there being more fronts in ww2. So japan conquering .Hawaii Is out BUT I think more fronts in ww2 are possible. For instance as well as sending troops to support Vichy/Italian forces in north africa. Hitler Could have ordered a Asien Corps to vichy syria. Stupid? Yes. But so was Hitler. Japan could have tried avoiding war with America and instead focusing on Britain, France, China, and the Netherlands. America COULD attack japan in retaliation. But this could turn like OTL. into a bloody island hopping campaign which seeing as how japan didn't attack the US would be unpopular with the public leading to a possible negotiated peace.
 
Maybe Hitler decides to finish Britain off before attacking the USSR. No invasion obviously. They hardly had a navy. But perhaps more assaults in north Africa too try to take the Suez. Previously mentioned syrian campaign. Vichy troops attacking British west Africa. Trying to rabble rouse up the arabs.
 
Afghanistan had friendly policies to Germany throughout both the World Wars, maybe you could bring them into the conflict with promises of Indian and Soviet land?
Interesting but Afghanistan would be curbstomped. Perhaps this would cause a rebellion of Muslim central Asian turns or Muslim Indians?
 
think the overwhelming issue would be the imbalance of resources ... have the Axis discover all or nearly all of the oil under their feet pre-war? (in Manchuria, Austria, Hungary, and Netherlands) maybe the tungsten mine in Austria and chrome mine in Albania?

then have a quick coup in Spain, not a drawn out civil war (the Generals might think themselves set to restore Spanish empire?) which also has effect of depriving USSR of Spanish gold. and the Soviets REALLY needed that gold, any collaboration between Germany and USSR under this scenario would be more favorable to German side.
 
To be clear (sorry I definitely wasn't) these are series of SEPARATE scenarios as examples of the idea of there being more fronts in ww2. So japan conquering .Hawaii Is out BUT I think more fronts in ww2 are possible. For instance as well as sending troops to support Vichy/Italian forces in north africa. Hitler Could have ordered a Asien Corps to vichy syria. Stupid? Yes. But so was Hitler. Japan could have tried avoiding war with America and instead focusing on Britain, France, China, and the Netherlands. America COULD attack japan in retaliation. But this could turn like OTL. into a bloody island hopping campaign which seeing as how japan didn't attack the US would be unpopular with the public leading to a possible negotiated peace.
Hitler could not send an Asien Corps, or at least successfully, sending troops to North Africa is a short hop from Italy to the coast covered by the Italian Navy and land based air. Syria, much less aircover and farther from the Italian Navy, which was optimized for short range ops, bases, they could not protect such a force from the Royal Navy

US public opinion was quite willing to go to war with Japan according to polls from the time. Anyways once a US/Japan war starts and Japan takes a significant number of US POWs it will be a war to the finish, given the way the WWII Japanese treated POWs
It was pretty stupid for Hitler to send troops to north Africa in OTL.
Sending some forces to North Africa to keep the fighting away from Italy longer was a good decision, keep the Italians in the war longer. Sending OTLs amount of forces and attempting to actually conquer Egypt was stupid
Maybe Hitler decides to finish Britain off before attacking the USSR. No invasion obviously. They hardly had a navy. But perhaps more assaults in north Africa too try to take the Suez. Previously mentioned syrian campaign. Vichy troops attacking British west Africa. Trying to rabble rouse up the arabs.
Logistics, the Axis can't push enough supplies to the front to beat the UK in Egypt, can't really access Syria (further away than North Africa, RN in the way), Vichy lacks the stockpiles to really undertake offensive operations in West Africa (and are likely to go Free French if ordered)

Rabble rousing among the Arabs is fine, but logistics for anything much more than OTL are tough, distraction, nothing more


To really open up more fronts need a POD years before the war
 
think the overwhelming issue would be the imbalance of resources ... have the Axis discover all or nearly all of the oil under their feet pre-war? (in Manchuria, Austria, Hungary, and Netherlands) maybe the tungsten mine in Austria and chrome mine in Albania?

then have a quick coup in Spain, not a drawn out civil war (the Generals might think themselves set to restore Spanish empire?) which also has effect of depriving USSR of Spanish gold. and the Soviets REALLY needed that gold, any collaboration between Germany and USSR under this scenario would be more favorable to German side.
A quick coup would make fascist Spain participating in world war 2 during the bit where germany is crushing everything inevitable. But like Italy Spain would be extremely incompetent. More meat for the grinder in north Africa thou, which may lead to Germany investing more in that region.
 
To be clear (sorry I definitely wasn't) these are series of SEPARATE scenarios as examples of the idea of there being more fronts in ww2. So japan conquering .Hawaii Is out BUT I think more fronts in ww2 are possible. For instance as well as sending troops to support Vichy/Italian forces in north africa. Hitler Could have ordered a Asien Corps to vichy syria. Stupid? Yes. But so was Hitler. Japan could have tried avoiding war with America and instead focusing on Britain, France, China, and the Netherlands. America COULD attack japan in retaliation. But this could turn like OTL. into a bloody island hopping campaign which seeing as how japan didn't attack the US would be unpopular with the public leading to a possible negotiated peace.

Alright, so how do you see all of this happening?

Are you suggesting Hitler would send the Africa Korps to Syria instead of Libya? Or split it up? Or send the Afrika Korps to Libya AND send another corps to Syria? In my opinion any of these actions will make success in Africa for the axis only smaller as it will drain more resources than OTL and create more problems than solve concerning movement on the ground, air support and logistical positioning.

Same goes for Japan, not attacking the US but attacking the Dutch East indies and the UK alone. The reason they attacked the US as well is because of the Philippines. Knowing fully well a declaration of war by the US is likely if they attack the Dutch and UK, the Philippines is very much in their way. If they don't take out the Philippines then thats a perfect base of operations for the US to attack all over the pacific. They would also be neglecting the use of their superior navy. It would make the pacific war only shorter.
 
A quick coup would make fascist Spain participating in world war 2 during the bit where germany is crushing everything inevitable. But like Italy Spain would be extremely incompetent. More meat for the grinder in north Africa thou, which may lead to Germany investing more in that region.
Not sure it is inevitable, even with a quick coup Spain is still a lot weaker and more exposed than Italy is, they have a lot more to lose. It certainly is much more likely and a reasonable possibility, but Spain being neutral as a trading window to the world market is very useful for Germany as well, could go either way
 
Hitler could not send an Asien Corps, or at least successfully, sending troops to North Africa is a short hop from Italy to the coast covered by the Italian Navy and land based air. Syria, much less aircover and farther from the Italian Navy, which was optimized for short range ops, bases, they could not protect such a force from the Royal Navy

US public opinion was quite willing to go to war with Japan according to polls from the time. Anyways once a US/Japan war starts and Japan takes a significant number of US POWs it will be a war to the finish, given the way the WWII Japanese treated POWs
Sending some forces to North Africa to keep the fighting away from Italy longer was a good decision, keep the Italians in the war longer. Sending OTLs amount of forces and attempting to actually conquer Egypt was stupid
Logistics, the Axis can't push enough supplies to the front to beat the UK in Egypt, can't really access Syria (further away than North Africa, RN in the way), Vichy lacks the stockpiles to really undertake offensive operations in West Africa (and are likely to go Free French if ordered)

Rabble rousing among the Arabs is fine, but logistics for anything much more than OTL are tough, distraction, nothing more


To really open up more fronts need a POD years before the war
Turkey could become fascist and allow axis passage. Which would obviously lead to Britain and the Soviets declaring war. Also germany did own Crete which is close to Syria. It would be a disaster but disasters happen in war and let's remember Hitler did divert troops from the Caucasus mountains to Stalingrad.
 
Turkey could become fascist and allow axis passage. Which would obviously lead to Britain and the Soviets declaring war. Also germany did own Crete which is close to Syria. It would be a disaster but disasters happen in war and let's remember Hitler did divert troops from the Caucasus mountains to Stalingrad.

yeah Crete is not so close to Syria is you might think.
 
Top