I've seen Alternative history questions in which one thing is changed, and people ask what would happen. However, I wonder, what if a lot was changed in favor of the Axis? These are the changes I would make in favor of the Axis.

-- Yugoslavia joins the Axis and the Government isn't overthrown (Historical they did, but they were overthrown).

Benefits: No occupation force by the Axis, and another ally against the Allies and Soviet Union.

--Norway joins the Axis. Norway joins after British mines accidentally destroy Norwegian trading ships or if the British invade Norway to cut of the supply of Iron Ore to Germany. If that doesn't push them to joining the Axis, then the invasion of the Finland by the Soviet Union would likely do the trick.

Benefits: Germany maintains its surface fleet, no occupation force in Norway, and another ally against the Allies and the Soviet Union.

--Sweden joins the Axis. With both Norway and Finland joining the Axis, the British invading Norway or destroying Norwegian ships, the invasion of the Finland by the Soviet Union, and its neighbors joining the Axis; I can see Sweden being pressured to join the Axis against the Soviet Union and the Allies.

Benefits: Another Ally against the Allies and Soviet Union. If Finland, Norway, and Sweden were to join the Axis, then they would have a better chance against the Soviet Union in the Continuation War. I'm not sure about the strength of the Air force and Navy of Finland, Norway, and Sweden (along with the German surface fleet) during WW2, but their combined strength might be enough to act as a coastal defense. They might be able to control the waters around Norway.

--The Battle of Britain never happened. The Germans instead decide to focus on the British trading ships through the use of their U-boats. They do not use their air force to bomb the United Kingdom, nor do they waste resources on building V-1 or V-2 rockets.

Benefits: The Germans maintain their Air force, and save resources instead of building V-1 or V-2 rockets.

--The Holocaust didn't happen. The Germans focus on defeating the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the USA instead of wasting resources on the Holocaust. Now, this isn't to say they Holocaust would never happen, but they decide that they would do some house cleaning after the war.

Benefits: The Axis forces wouldn't be needed to guard the concentration camps, which means more troops they can send against the Allies and the Soviet Union, and more supplies that could be sent to the front lines instead of the concentration camps.

--Roosevelt has no Good Neighbor Policy. Under the Roosevelt administration, his foreign policy for Latin America was to not invade them like Theodore Roosevelt or Wilson did, along with other stuff. However, what if Roosevelt instead decide to ignore Latin America, and focus his efforts on domestic affairs. The Great Depression affected millions of Americans, and I wouldn't be surprised if Roosevelt would focus most of his effects on the USA.

Benefits: Latin American countries might join with the Axis, help the Axis in other ways, or remain neutral instead of joining with the Allies. In other words, Brazil and Argentina might join the Axis, and other nations might follow suit as an Alliance against the aggressive USA. Depending on how strong the Latin America countries are, they might force the USA to spend troops to South America. At the very least, a South America against the USA could end up with them controlling the Panama canal and prevent the American Navy from easily going from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Also, it would mean that Brazil would not be helping the Allies in Italy during WW2. This would mean that the Allies would be stuck fighting in Italy longer.

--The Axis powers withdrawing from Tunisia after Operation Torch. If I was alive during WW2, I would believe the Axis still had a chance to win North Africa, up to the British and the Americans landed in Morocco while Montgomery was pushing in from the East. At that point, with the Germans and Italians being attacked on two fronts, I would order the Germans and Italians to first withdraw to Sicily and then main land Italy. It didn't make sense to not withdraw troops from Tunisia after Operation Torch.

Benefits: Experienced German and Italian troops that can be used to defend Italy and Sicily from Allies, and they might have saved their equipment they had in Tunisia. Germany might not have taken troops off the Eastern Front to deal with the invasion of Italy.

--The Battle of Stalingrad never happened. Although I've seen posts that ask what would happened if the Axis won Stalingrad, but such a victory would still exhaust the Axis. I would argue that it would be better from the Axis to have never attack Stalingrad to begin with. When the Soviets won Stalingrad, they defeated the German Sixth Army, and more or less knocked Germany's allies out of the war. The Axis forces in the South should've either held the line, instead of attacking into Stalingrad. Maybe build anti-infantry and anti-tank defensive along this front.

--Italy never switched sides during WW2.

Benefits: This would mean that Mussolini wasn't killed, and the Italians could help defend Italy from the invasion of the Allied forces.

--Bulgaria joining with the Axis against the Soviet Union. Historically, Bulgaria was friendly to the Soviet Union, and it is unlikely for them to declare war on them and invade them. This is a Maybe.

Benefits: Another ally against the Soviet Union.

--German didn't sink Mexican ships. Mexico only joined the Allies in 1942 because their ships were sunk by the Germans.

Benefits: One less Nation against the Axis.

--Chiang Kai-Shek defeating Mao Zedong. Although a united China would be strong against the Japanese, Chiang Kai-Shek's conventional warfare might've lose against the Japanese unlike Mao Zedong's guerrilla warfare.

--The Japanese switching out its Ace Fighter pilots. Unlike the Japanese,the USA had a tendency to take its Ace Fighter pilots off the fight lines and sending them back home to train the new recruits. However, what if Japan did that?

Benefits: Their pilots would be better trained as they would be taught by people who had first hand experience fighting against the Allies.





However, there are things that are likely to still happen:

--The French Navy would be destroyed during WW2. Either the British would destroy it prevent it from falling into German hands or the French would scuttle their own ships.

--Italy would invade Greece. Mussolini wanted his Roman Empire, and I can't see him leaving Greece alone. I can't see the Greece joining the Axis, because the British can provide them support. At best, Greece could remain neutral, but Mussolini would likely invade them.

--Italy attacking the British in North Africa. Mussolini wanted his Roman Empire, and if he wanted to recreate it, he would need the lands that Rome formerly held.

--Japan attacking Pearl Harbor, and bringing the USA into WW2. I can't see Japan not attacking the USA. There are a ton of reasons why, and I really don't want to sit here and write it all down.

--Japan would not attack the Soviet Union. Japan was already at war with China, and their forces had last to the Soviet Union back in 1939. There is no way they wanted to go to war with the Soviet Union anytime soon.

--Italy getting kicked out of North Africa. They were unprepared for war.

--Hitler not ordering retreats. I would've had the German forces advance into the Soviet Union, and then slowly retreat back while counter attacking the Soviet Union when they overextend themselves. As the Axis retreat, they will shorten their supply lines, while also extending their Soviet's supply lines. However, as Hitler would not allow retreats, this would be unlikely to happen.

--Turkey remaining neutral. If they join the Allies, then the Axis would invade them. If they join the Axis, then they would be invaded by the British and the Soviet Union like Iran was. Being Neutral was their best option.

--Nationalist Spain remaining neutral. They recently got out of a Civil War, and Franco would rather consolidate his gains before he ever thinks about expanding outwards. Also, if Nationalist Spain joins the Axis, then I see Portugal joining the Allies, but they know that the Axis would invade them and the British would send troops to defend them.

--The USA getting Nukes. Once the USA gets Nukes, it is hard for me to see how the Axis powers could win. The only way to prevent a Nuclear strike from the Allies during WW2 would be to take out their bombers, but eventually a plane would get through.

--The USA's industry overpowering the Axis powers. The USA could pump out equipment like no tomorrow.


That's it. I decided to cram everything I can think of into one post that could have happen that would tilt WW2 in the Axis favor. Some are more realistic than others, but I feel they are more realistic than some that I've seen. So what impact with all of these together have on WW2?
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
Not enough difference. A few months shorter or longer war, with axis defeat. If the maximum possible u-boats are combined with greater condor bomb/scouting and raiding aircraft carriers with an all-weather torpedo bomber, then...a year longer. Battle of the Atlantic is undecided for a further year. Maybe Russia takes longer to bounce back too. You would have to knock the UK or USSR out by 1943.
 
To be fair, the Axis was already playing with a few cards marked, if I continue the metaphor. Hitler always insisted on cutting the cards, and the Allies obliged him the initiative to make the complex dance of diplomatic, economic, and military moves nessicery to start off the war on terms more or less of his choosing. The Allies also diden't come to the table with all their chips and were trying to play the game on last year's rulebook (At least the Frenchies were), while Hitler would sneaks cards out of his sleeve while Stalin and Britain were busy reading up on the current edition.

But enough card metaphors. Most of your national additions seem... problematic at best.

1. Strains relations with Bulgaria, Italy, and Hungary (Who's claims are being ignored), involves accepting the more or less permanent accommodation of a state that is openly "sub-human" (Slavic) in its nature and identity, and leaves a doubtful ally with an intact military in the rear. There's no way in Hades the government in Belgrade is going to be sending its army anywhere on Hitler's orders since its going to be having its hands full protecting against domestic pressure, guerrillas, and has hostile states streched along her borders.

2. Norway probably starves, as its fishing industry is wrecked by Royal Navy and Air Force raids on its haulers and ports. Germans are forced to send resources north anyways, and worse are now still involved in the surface naval theature, draining resources, skilled technicians, refining capacity, facilities ect. that otherwise would be re-directed to more immediately useful areas.

3. ... probably one of the more possible options, though not as a member of the Axis but a co-belligerent of Finland. Sweden is shielded from the immediate Allied threat, is more tightly tied to Germany economically, and closer to the threat of the SU, so if for some reason they got dragged partially into the Winter War (Perhaps the Red Fleet messing around in the Baltic?) on Finland's side I can see them deploying alongside their "little brother" if its spun to the populous right and Stalin gets particularly ornery in pressing issues in the Arctic and Baltic during their talks with Germany. It dosen't swing the war much, but certainly makes the Seige of Leningrad more bloody and very marginally increases the casualties on the Arctic convoys.

4. Then the British adjust and deploy more anti-submarine measures earlier and probably marginally tool some of the RAF vessels otherwise built for air superiority to torpedo-bomber type craft via a differing build schedule/mobilization priorities. Germany runs through their submarine crews faster than their air force and the British get to use their stable of Naval experience and capable officers better. German forces will also much more quickly be butting heads with the Americans, who's hemisphere's goods are on those ships, which dosen't bode well for slowing down the later's historical "all measures short of war" trend.

5. The Not-zi solution: firstly, the government made use of quite a bit of confiscated wealth, and all that forced labor managed to allow them to red-line their economic limits for several years (Not directly in military production in most cases, true... but it freed up other folks to take the jobs). Furthermore, it removed elements from society that would be more or less guranteed to provide intel to the allies, support/membership to resistance movements, subtly sabotage the war effort, undermine national unity (Remember, they believed Germany only surrendered in the LAST war because of Jews, Commies, ect.) unless very closely policed, which could be done far more efficently if they were... err... "concentrated".

6. If Brazil or Argentina join the Axis, the USN sails down and bombards the living daylights of them and establishes a blockade while rallying local rivals (and no doubt domestic resistors) to their cause. Both nations have fairly large areas ideal for gurellia warfare and are dependent on raw resource exportation for their bullion, and will quickly run out of supplies. Obviously, the militaries in both counteries know this and woulden't dare back any regieme who tries to throw them under the bus while the sleeping giant's shadow looms over them... especially since Germany can't actually offer anything in the form of concrete counter-aid.

7. I'll leave this one to those who are far more versed on the specifics of the defensive/late stage campaign in North Africa, since I know this deserves a nuanced reasoning.

8. Germany needs to keep the pressure on the Soviets and cut the transportation hubs of its rail network and the Volga in order to safely divert its offensive power into the Caucauses so they can pry loose the oil production, shut down the flow of supplies from the Persian corridor that was helping them build up new divisions, and neutralize the threat to his rear the armies in the area created that would pin down their southern front, preventing them from shuffling forces along the line to gain the local superiority which would be required to conduct any new offensive/counter any Soviet counter-offensive. The Stalingrad region held a major city for a reason; geographically and logistically, it was one of the lynchpins that held up Russia as an integrated economic unit.

9. The Italians by this point are a burned out joke. All you get is a slightly longer and far more bloody campaign as the Allies fight their way up the penninsula.

10 and 11. Mean more or less nothing. The former might actually BENEFT the allies by draining the Axis presence from the Turkish border, potentially tipping them to a more pro-Allied stance through a combination of reduced threat, greater Allied pressure (Both in practice and in diplomatic focus as they see the oppritunity) and the Soviets being willing to sell out some of Bulgaria's land (Western Thrace, for example, with its substantial Turkish minority).

12. Mao and the Commies ran north and did everything in their power to avoid fighting the Japanese in order to maintain their limited manpower, avoid getting unpopular for having to impose the war-measures needed on the populace to keep the armed forces running, and make the Nationalists bleed while being free to issue propaganda agrandizing their own actions (since there would be no widely known counter-examples or preceding reputation to counter them openly in the eyes of many patients. "A cup is most useful when it is empty", as Confucius said) Chaing, using defense in depth, can easily smother the Japanese in the pillow that is China: IOTL the Japanese barely had the manpower to control the main settlements and rails near the coast. In a conventional war of fronts, they'd overstrech themselves at somepoint and get nailed by a Nationalist counter-attack as their lines get thinner and thinner.
 
First off, the odds were already stacked in the Axis favor. Germany was a war machine and could win against almost anything. Germany and the Axis powers made a few key mistakes that led to their downfall. One of the first things was definitely when Germany back stabbed Russia way too early. If they had attacked Russia a few years later, they would have had success. Even so, Germany could have stilled defeated Russia. But Hitler's decision, against his military commanders and officers will, to invade Russia in the winter was devastating. The whole German Eastern front collapsed and allowed for Russia to push back.

Also Italy was totally incompetent, as always, not helping the Axis too much.

So all of the added buffs to the Axis would have made the war VERY easy for Germany and the Axis, as they would have probably won the war without added buffs from above.
 
First off, the odds were already stacked in the Axis favor. Germany was a war machine and could win against almost anything. Germany and the Axis powers made a few key mistakes that led to their downfall. One of the first things was definitely when Germany back stabbed Russia way too early. If they had attacked Russia a few years later, they would have had success. Even so, Germany could have stilled defeated Russia. But Hitler's decision, against his military commanders and officers will, to invade Russia in the winter was devastating. The whole German Eastern front collapsed and allowed for Russia to push back.

Also Italy was totally incompetent, as always, not helping the Axis too much.

So all of the added buffs to the Axis would have made the war VERY easy for Germany and the Axis, as they would have probably won the war without added buffs from above.

The Soviets would probably have been better prepared had the Germans attacked several years later. At the very least, there would be better fortifications along the border with Germany. The German economy would also be worn down due to years of blockade and warfare.

What exactly do you mean by attacking in winter? June 22 is about as far from winter as possible. Germany can't attack much earlier due to the spring rasputitsa. However, even a few weeks might help the Germans significantly.
 
First off, the odds were already stacked in the Axis favor. Germany was a war machine and could win against almost anything. Germany and the Axis powers made a few key mistakes that led to their downfall. One of the first things was definitely when Germany back stabbed Russia way too early. If they had attacked Russia a few years later, they would have had success. Even so, Germany could have stilled defeated Russia. But Hitler's decision, against his military commanders and officers will, to invade Russia in the winter was devastating. The whole German Eastern front collapsed and allowed for Russia to push back.

Also Italy was totally incompetent, as always, not helping the Axis too much.

So all of the added buffs to the Axis would have made the war VERY easy for Germany and the Axis, as they would have probably won the war without added buffs from above.

They didn't attack in winter and Germany was on borrowed time. Germany didn't lose because of a few chance mistakes, it lost because it took on three quarters of the industrialized world and severely underestimated their opponents.
 
Last edited:
They didn't attack in winter and Germany was on borrowed time. Germany didn't lose because of a few chance mistakes, it lost because it took on three quarters of the industrialized world and severely underestimated their opponents.

My bad, Germany did not attack in the winter, but they never planned for Operation Barbarossa to last so long. When Hitler executed the plan, he never expected it to take so long, and even when winter came, he foolishly continued the invasion. If he would have dug in and not continued the invasion until spring, the USSR would have been over. Hitler was an idiot, and yes, I think they made a few key mistakes that screwed them over, other wise they would have won, although it would take a while. The circumstances were overwhelmingly in their favor, even when facing a lot of big nations.
 
How do the Soviets invading Finland get the Norwegians to support the Germans? Especially considering the Germans were supporting the Soviets and I believed they tried to stop the French and British frimmshipping supplies to Finland through Norway. On a side note, Mao did NOT fight the Japanese. They fled into the backcountry and snaked down the populace, only really coming out after the Japanese were defeated to grab what they could from the departing Japanese and the weakened Chinese groups that actually fought the Japanese.
 
I still wonder whether an Axis airstrike from East Turkey or northern Syria/Irak on the Baku oil would make a difference.
 
Top