No-wank Axis Victory?

This was pretty much the conclusion I came to in Greece Holds, without Barbarossa and greatly improved funding the Nazi's might have been able to create a small dirty bomb in 1946/47.

What do you mean by a dirty bomb?

If you mean a radiological weapon that combines radioactive material and conventional explosive, any of the major beligerants could have created a dirty bomb in OTL 1930s. The reason they didn't was because they are militarily useless.
 
What do you mean by a dirty bomb?

If you mean a radiological weapon that combines radioactive material and conventional explosive, any of the major beligerants could have created a dirty bomb in OTL 1930s. The reason they didn't was because they are militarily useless.

No I meant a very weak nuclear bomb, one which could have killed more from radiation than the actual blast (around a 1kt yield). This is what the Germans were working on.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I think this would be the right time and place to shamelessly self-promote my "The Long Night Falls" TL. It should comply with the parameters laid by the OP, since it is a plausible best-case scenario for the Axis, where the interwar discovery of the Libyan and Manchurian oilfields triggers an event chain which keeps the USA neutral, reinforces the Axis powers, and leads them to achieve efficient cooperation up to a decisive victory against Britain and the USSR.

However, as much as Axis powers grow powerful during and after the war (a helluva lot), they never "dominate the world" since the Western bloc of the North American Union, South America, India, and Britain grows to be always at least as powerful as them. Rather the Western bloc and the neo-Axis bloc are locked into a perpetual Cold War competition all the way to space colonization.

Sssh! Don't tell Eurofed that!

Well, TLNF is certainly dystopian in the sense that there is a truckload of genocides along the way, probably as many as it was realistically feasible to accomplish without a social collapse. And there is not going to be any retribution for them in the foreseeable future.

It is not, however, dystopian in the sense of neo-Axis society getting trapped into North Korea-like static hellhole totalitarianism. It keeps evolving and reforming over time in a PRC-like way and eventually becomes rather more liveable in its 80-years post-WWII lifespan.
 
If the Germans won the battle of France without going after Norway or Holland they might have a better chance of a settlement with Britain. My reasoning on that:

Norway:
1) The Norway invasion resulted in most of the German surface fleet destroyed or damaged.
2) It caused the fall of Chamberlain
3) It gave Britain access to the surprisingly large Norwegian merchant marine
4) It gave Britain access to the Norwegian treasury (and they actually borrowed money from it when they ran low prior to Lend Lease)
5) The Germans lost 170 or 175 Junkers 52s in the invasion, some of them by landing on frozen lake beds they couldn't take off from.

Holland:

The Germans lost another 275 Ju-52s and much of their airborne capacity.

Put the German navy and airborne back on the table, and put Chamberlain in charge and I could see the Brits going for some kind of negotiated peace if France fell, especially if the Chamberlain government wasn't able to inspire the small boat part of the Dunkirk rescue. Chamberlain wasn't a dumb guy, but he seemed to infallibly make decisions that turned to crap.
 
Last edited:
The old classic of Churchill being killed in that 1931 car accident in New York might do it. Without Churchill, the British might have 'seen reason' in 1940 or 41. With the British out of the war, FDR is going to struggle to persuade the American people to declare war in Germany to save Russia and Communism.

I don't mean to do Whinnie down - I like him, in the way I like a lot of basically unlikable people like Bismarck, Cromwell, and Robespierre, and I object to the way he's sometimes outright demonised as a reaction to his traditional saintly depiction - but I've never been convinced that he somehow turned around British morale. The fact is, he was chosen by Chamberlain and other senior figures and accepted by the British people. Times make the leaders, and Churchill may have been the best rhetorician on the anti-appeasement right but he certainly wasn't the only person on it.
 
I don't mean to do Whinnie down - I like him, in the way I like a lot of basically unlikable people like Bismarck, Cromwell, and Robespierre, and I object to the way he's sometimes outright demonised as a reaction to his traditional saintly depiction - but I've never been convinced that he somehow turned around British morale. The fact is, he was chosen by Chamberlain and other senior figures and accepted by the British people. Times make the leaders, and Churchill may have been the best rhetorician on the anti-appeasement right but he certainly wasn't the only person on it.

I know what you mean, but if one person ever came close single-handedly changing the course of history Churchill must be a candidate. Books like Five Days In London: May 1940 and Fateful Choices make a strong case that without Churchill peace (not surrender) would have been a strong contender. Wikipedia also has an article about the crisis

Even Churchill wobbled at one point when he told Halifax, who had been discussing possible peace term with the Italian ambassador “I would be grateful to get out of our present difficulties on such terms, provided we retained the essentials and the elements of our vital strength, even at the cost of some territory.” (some historians think he was just playing for time, but at face value he's wobbling).
 
I know what you mean, but if one person ever came close single-handedly changing the course of history Churchill must be a candidate. Books like Five Days In London: May 1940 and Fateful Choices make a strong case that without Churchill peace (not surrender) would have been a strong contender. Wikipedia also has an article about the crisis

Even Churchill wobbled at one point when he told Halifax, who had been discussing possible peace term with the Italian ambassador “I would be grateful to get out of our present difficulties on such terms, provided we retained the essentials and the elements of our vital strength, even at the cost of some territory.” (some historians think he was just playing for time, but at face value he's wobbling).

Remember of course that a peace isn't the end of the world. FletcherofSaulton's 'Halifax' had Britain making a peace in 1940 which manages to keep France in the allied camp (albeit a severely weakened one) and strike in 1942 where Germany is completely occupied with Russia, ending the war in 1943.
 

Perkeo

Banned
Georg Elser's assassination attempts succeeds

On 8 November 1939, a bomb exploded at 21:20 in the Burgerbräukeller, unfortunately 13 minutes too late because Hitler left the place earlier than scheduled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Elser#The_assassination_attempt

WI that assassination attempt had succeeded, possibly killing other nazi leaders as well?

1) The new political leadership is likely to be more pragmatic, because more radical is hardly a possibility and because without the personality cult on Hitler, the regime is going to be much more vulnerable (see below).

2) The Wehrmacht is likely to gain more influence, since they have both the will and the means of filling any emerging power vacuum. They will use the opportunity to deprive the party and the SS of their influence as much as possible.

3) Both the military and political leadership will likely seek ending the war rather than conquering the world. There might still be a battle of France, possibly with the same outcome, but only Hitler himself could be reckless enough to order the attack on the Sowjet Union. There will be a negotiated peace at some point.

4) There will still be terrible massacres on Jews and other ethnic groups, but the Holocaust as we know it isn't going to happen. The regime isn't going to be stable enough to accomplish it for the time beeing.
 
Top