The Anglo/American - Nazi War

[Don Lardo]

What I was trying to do was inject another "What-if" into this uber-scenario.

I understand that and, as I've written, your attempts have been well meaning. Sadly, What Ifs on the level of those you've proposed in all good intention run contrary to the "tone" of the time line as set forth by it's creator.

CalBear has allowed himself only one miracle, the lack of Nazi nuclear weapons and even a program to produce them. Everything else has been hard headed reality. Allowing Italy or any of the other Nazi "allies" a consequence-free escape hatch of sorts is too much of a miracle.

I also believe we need to look at the damage an Italy which remains "loyal" to Germany until Germany's actual defeat or until hours before Germany's actual defeat will suffer because the desire to grant Italy an escape hatch is based in part on limiting damage to Italy.

The Allies did invade Sicily, did conduct a False Peak operation on the Italian peninsular, and have bombed Italy regularly but Italy is not suffering the devastation France is suffering around the invasion sites, the devastation France, Holland, Belgium, and Luxembourg will suffer as the Allies advance to Germany, and the devastation that Germany will suffer once the Allies finish their business there.

It seems perverse but, given the Allies' focus on Germany, a focus which drove the choice of landing site and subsequent advance into Germany, Italy runs the risk of greater damage by joining the Allies than it does by remaining "loyal" to Germany. An Italy which surrenders hours before or even slightly after Germany "only" faces Allied occupation and reconstruction while an Italy which surrenders too soon faces megadeaths at the hands of it's late master.

As I wrote earlier, if Mussolini and the rest of his government are truly heroic they'll choose a potential Allied noose with their names on it in order to prevent the certain deaths of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of their fellow Italians.

Happy Thanksgiving!

And a happy one to you also. I hope your holiday was as convivial as mine.

 

[Eurofed]

I'm not saying the Nazis won through pseudo-science in your TL, I'm saying thats what the people at the top would have perceived as causing their victory-look atit from the Nazis, or at least many of the most influential Nazis POV- you've just taken on the slavs, Yanks, jews, bolsheviks etc through Ayran martial prowess, good German science and technology, why would you try anything else?

True, but as I said, there was an OTL German nuclear project with the blessing of Nazi bigwigs, so I'm quite skeptical about the claim that ideological constraints would make a victorious Nazi empire incapable of building nukes. IOTL that project was beaten to the gun by the Americans because they poured more resources at project Manhattan, and the German scientists took some wrong turns and made some wrong assumptions that had nothing to do with ideology. As such, my most-likely scenario expectation is that sooner or later, a Nazi Europe that is left alone by the Allies for a decade and half would eventually build nukes and intercontinental vectors and establish MAD. I have no qualms with America and bombing them into submission in the mid-late '40s, before the Nazi nuclear project can eventually work its way through its mistakes and come to fulfillment.

In my own TL, America and fascist Europe develop nukes more or less simultaneously because teh neutral status of the USA constraints resources for Project Manhattan for some years, and contributions by TTL stronger Italy and data ransacked from Soviet archives steer Euro-Axis nuclear project away from OTL mistakes.

And whilst Rommel, Mannstein et al may have known the truth, how much water do you think the armies opinion will hold in post-war Germany, especially if it contradicts state ideology?

Since the army won the war, I expect their opinion to carry a lot of weight about everything. That's a part of CB's scenario, the ultimate triumph of the SS, I'm rather skeptical about. It might happen, but IMO it is more likely that the army reaps enough influence and prestige from victory to keep pulling its weight against Himmler and co.

Of course, this is more likely in my TL than in CB's TL, because of the different PoDs used to justify Nazi victory. Basically speaking, the sooner the causes manifest for an Axis victory, the more likely that the army, not the SS, get the upper hand in the inevitable power struggle.

I know you said the Nazis beliefs changed over time, which I guess I can accept, but at the time of victory they were as crazy as ever, and like CalBear suggests, I think there would have been a massive purge of the army following the war. The SS were already gaining influence, and although this was in part due to how the war was going, I think it was also part of Hitler's innate distrust of his officers

Hitler's opinion of his officers may easily change if they deliver him a triumph, and there were several officers he trusted, like Manstein and Rommel. The growing influence of the SS mostly manifested when the war was already going to be lost. As I said, it might happen, but it's not an inevitable outcome. Much more likely to happen if say ASB somewhat save the butt of the Nazi in 1944, than if the Euro-Axis keeps riding a steady stream of victories in 1939-42.

 

[Eurofed]

I've already commented on your scenario, but I do feel the need to point out that what CalBear has written is in NO way, shape, or form a worst-case scenario for the Axis.

As I said, it is a quite well-written but typical case of "wicked, lucky, but dumb" Nazi victory. Never said it was a worst-case scenario for the Axis, since it isn't. My TL was instead meant to be a case of "wicked, lucky, and smart" fascist victory, and indeed a reasonable best-case scenario for the Axis. That's the main difference.

It is actually considerably closer to what would likely happen upon their taking all of Europe than you have written (not complaining as you repeatedly refer to yours as a best-case).

As I said, it also depends on which PoDs and butterflies you pick to justify their victory.

The only major tidbit I see as somewhat unlikely is that they don't even figure out that the Allies have nuclear weapons, let alone try to build them themselves.

Yea, for the reasons I gave in the other post.

Even there, though, when you cultivated an intelligence atmosphere in which analysts had to fear being killed or deployed to the Eastern Front to tell their superiors what they did not want to hear, you're not likely to hear that the enemy has a super-bomb.

That it depends on whether they adopt a "shoot the messenger" attitude towards intelligence in the enemy block. That may or may not happen.

Both the attack that kicked off the war and the total control of the defense by the Waffen-SS are not only plausible but entirely likely.

The attack is quite plausible, the SS triumph seems not really likely to me. As far as I know, there is little precedent in history of a successful totalitarian regime where the paramilitary branch of the ruling party managed to replace the regular army entirely. At worst they establish uneasy co-existence.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

It's offtopic, but this thread has already gone off track.

But I've been lurking for the last three months and I've seen the other Nazi victory scenarios.

It makes one truly wonder why someone would want to write a "Best-Case" Nazi scenario.

Nazi Germany was simply the most evil political system in the history of the world, bar none. Why someone would want to sugarcoat them goes beyond belief.

You can couch it in any language you want, but in the end, the Nazis were willing to do what it took to ensure the survival and dominance of some illusionary "Aryan Race". They were willing to murder anyone in any fashion deemed expedient, as long as it furthered their goals.

To deny that fact, or to sugarcoat it is at best naive optimism and idealism, and at worse it is Nazi apologism.

Calbear, sorry about the continued hijack, but it was this thread that prompted me to join. I got sick of people's Nazi victory AARs on the ParadoxForums where everything was roses and sunshine. But you have the moral fortitude to tell it how it is, to show the horror and the hell that awaited the world had Hitler and his genocidal lackeys won against the rest of the world.

 

[CalBear]

Folks,

If you are unhappy with Eurofed's T/L, his T/L is the place for the conversation.

Eurofed's view of a sucessful Reich is an interesting take on a possible alternate world. He has stated early on that it is not meant to be a response to this T/L but an independent effort. Please treat it as such.

I doubt he & I agree on much regarding the aftermath of a Reich victory, but he has put together what he believes would happen, and comments for yea or nay should go there, not here.

Just a point about the differing ways that one can look at this era - there are a number of ways to run the T/L, no single version is correct, or can it be since the events never happened. As long as one doesn't wander into Holocaust denial or any of the other 3rd rails for the Board, the differeing efforts should be viewed on the T/L's own merit.

The best answer to a T/L you don't like is to not read it.

Thanks.

Hope all U.S. members had a good Turkey Day.

 

[CalBear]

Welcome to the Board as a posting member!

I agree that the Nazi regime was a serious contender for evil personified, and that this extended well beyond Hitler.

In general there is a desire to lessen the extremism of the Party in any sort of extended view, mainly because it is difficult to face what Europe would have become if the Party had actually done what it clearly stated were its goals.

The Nazi's goals were utterly mad, but they were also doable if a government could stand the butcher's bill. Any regime that would kill upward of 10 million people (including the Six Million and the 3 million+ Soviet PoW) in under a decade clearly had the stomach to make the Party's plans a reality. Even IOTL it was the 1980s before Poland's population returned to pre-war levels thanks to the Nazi's treatment of the country (and to a much lesser extent the USSR's).

Happy to hear you are enjoying the T/L.

It's offtopic, but this thread has already gone off track.

But I've been lurking for the last three months and I've seen the other Nazi victory scenarios.

It makes one truly wonder why someone would want to write a "Best-Case" Nazi scenario.

Nazi Germany was simply the most evil political system in the history of the world, bar none. Why someone would want to sugarcoat them goes beyond belief.

You can couch it in any language you want, but in the end, the Nazis were willing to do what it took to ensure the survival and dominance of some illusionary "Aryan Race". They were willing to murder anyone in any fashion deemed expedient, as long as it furthered their goals.

To deny that fact, or to sugarcoat it is at best naive optimism and idealism, and at worse it is Nazi apologism.

Calbear, sorry about the continued hijack, but it was this thread that prompted me to join. I got sick of people's Nazi victory AARs on the ParadoxForums where everything was roses and sunshine. But you have the moral fortitude to tell it how it is, to show the horror and the hell that awaited the world had Hitler and his genocidal lackeys won against the rest of the world.

 

[Eurofed]

I doubt he & I agree on much regarding the aftermath of a Reich victory, but he has put together what he believes would happen, and comments for yea or nay should go there, not here.

Actually, I have not much to criticize about the outcome of your TL, it is very well done, apart from a few issues.

First and foremost, the total SS victory over the Wehrmacht, which I'm terribly skeptical about, IMO it is rather unwarranted Himmlerwank. The Wehrmacht would reap far too much prestige and influence from the victory for that to happen, there were several generals Hitler had a high opinion of, all the way to 1942-43, and he would have little reason to change opinion after the PoD. Moreover, there is little precedent for it from the history of totalitarian regimes, typically the paramilitary wing of the ruling party or secret police ends up being a parallel of the regular army at the best. I doubt a special exception for victorious Nazism is justified.

Second, the persistent inability of Nazi Europe to do anything successful about nuclear research for almost two decades. IMO it might theoretically happen but it kinda comes close to the edge of plausibility. In this regard, I would have found the nukes-supported Allied comeback more plausible if it had happened in 1948-51 instead of 1958. I'm going to buy it for the sake of a very good TL and justify it as a result of nuclear research butterflies turning all worst for the Nazi again and again. But for Heaven's sake, please nobody justify it to me as the result of Nazi leaders having the same attitude to nuclear physics as a Taliban towards a Penthouse magazine, because that would be a falsification of history.

I also remain more than a bit skeptical about the lack of a mid-late Cold War meaning that nobody is ever going to develop working satellite technology, although I can easily see how it may turn into a major stumbling block to space exploration in comparison to OTL.

Last but not least, it is my educated opinion that according to available evidence, Hitler's declining health in 1944-45 was most likely the expression of a neurological degenerative disease (Parkinson or tertiary syphilis) and he had little life or health left in him with '40s medicine. It does not seem the product of stress from a lost war or stimulant addiction. Although admittedly in lack of post-mortem examination, we shall never know it for sure.

As I said, it is my fond hope for mine TL and yours to stand as sister projects, depicting rather different but equally possible outcomes from the same basic scenario. One does not disprove or put the other into question. As for the relative likelihood of the many things you and me have written different, that would be a quite lengthy and complex discussion. I just point out that in the two TLs, EuroAxis victory occurs out of rather different circumstances, and that IMO may explain many outcome differences.

Just a point about the differing ways that one can look at this era - there are a number of ways to run the T/L, no single version is correct, or can it be since the events never happened.

So very true.

The best answer to a T/L you don't like is to not read it.

Indeed.

 

[TyranicusMaximus]

In general there is a desire to lessen the extremism of the Party in any sort of extended view, mainly because it is difficult to face what Europe would have become if the Party had actually done what it clearly stated were its goals.

I don't necessarily disagree. But I do think if you can't face the reality of what happened, you probably shouldn't do a timeline on it. But I'm probably in the minority on that.

 

[lloyd007]

While Calbear's TL at times does stretch my suspension of disbelief it's less often than one would expect considering the sheer amount of distilled insanity that was the Nazi leadership and considering much of the old guard including the H-man himself is still alive the pseudoscience, the wunderwaffen, the disregard for 'Jewish' sciences (I personally thought Calbear did a good job in making the 'Nazis don't have nukes' angle quite plausible, after all if the allies had such a wonderful 'Jewish science' weapon like a nuke why haven't they ever used it?) and the rest...

Eurofed's TL is equally plausible... I don't read it as much because if I want downer TL's the ASB forum has plenty that are more enjoyable to me (taste not criticism)... but that's all I'll say about it since this isn't the thread...

As for the latest post it will be interesting to see what Italy does... My speculation is secret talks with the allies and trying to get its national forces encircled and captured in deliberately incompetent operations before 'losing' their mainland in some kind of Inchon type operation that 'takes them completely by surprise'... either that or going down with the rest of the New European ship of state...

 

[Workable Goblin]

Hope all U.S. members had a good Turkey Day.

Ham Day for me...delicious ham! Hope you're having a good time too, and I continue to really enjoy the TL.

 

[markbrow10]

were is Eurofed's TL everyone is talking about would be interested in reading it.

See Ya

Mark

 

[NCW]

I've just caught up with this timeline, and like everyone else, I'm really impressed

I have always wondered this did the nazis when they decided to restart hostilities actually have any war aims or goals or just want to attack America in general

The Reichs attack is a mystery to historians ITTL. We know that it was the result of a fit of rage when Gobbels eldest son was killed while part of a U-boat crew.

I wonder if Hitler's view of the British Empire had anything to do with it. By 1943, Hitler's achieved his ambitions of destroying Bolshevism and gaining Lebensraum. Britain is still standing, but then Hitler always admired the British Empire - he probably saw the British as Germany's natural allies against the Americans. In the Warm War perioed, he was probably waiting for Britain to come to its senses and realise this. Towards the end, he was probably thinking that Britain had fallen too far under the influence of the Americans. In that light, the St Patrick's Day Raid can be seen as an attempt to nudge Britain in that direction - a sort of carrot-and-stick approach, saying "look the Americans aren't invunrable. Together we can defeat them". It's not very logical from an an outside point of view, of course, but by this time the Nazis are living in their own fantasy world and making decisions based upon it. This would explain why the Luftwaffe had developped their long-range bomber fleet ready for an attack on the USA.

Just my 2c worth.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[grdja83]

Finally read trough all of it. Still loving it, but some things...

You savaged Waffen SS too much in False Peaks. I don't think even True Believer Nazis can be that stubborn and unlearning.
And success of IRBM capability destruction is a bit too good. They had to strike very deep into Germania against best hidden and protected targets. Otoh, nothing Nazis have can intercept B-52...

Still. We should be seeing more AShM attacks against Allied assets. And more tactical ballistic missile usage.

Germans will be screwed if they went back to super heavy tanks in response to Chamberlane. And Tiger III seams very likely on their part. Panther IV or (not OTL one of course) Leopard I would be better.

Enough time has passed since restart of hostilities for Reich to start building new toys in numbers. They are running entire continent, remember.

TL needs more German second generation jets, or it becomes ROFLstomp of OTL '44 Allied advance against fuelless and aircoverless Wermacht.

Hopefully with Galland now in charge he might start production of designs that were on tables and ready but rejected by Goering.

Also, with great Allied use of airpower SS should be rolling with heave tactical and divisional air defense, at least as integrated air defense as OTL Red Army. Because it is necessary if TL is to remain a challenge in any way.

Since we are in late '50es I expect that ATGMs will start appearing?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Just finished reading it (after a few pages I had to skip most comments that weren't CalBear's, sorry guys), and there's something that bugs me. 2 things, to be precise:

(1) Why didn't the Allies land in southern Europe in 1942? The Americans may dismiss Churchill's imperial and Mediterranean fixation, but Churchill can respond that the only alternatives are doing nothing or landing in France.

(2) Why didn't the Germans take Transcaucasia? The Baku oilfields were an important objective, in fact it could be argued that they lost at Stalingrad in OTL partly because of the forces sent towards the Caucasus. Political chaos in Central Asia is one thing, but Transcaucasia is right around the corner and has always been a target. And if they took it, the question becomes why they didn't follow up with an offensive into Iran or why the Allies didn't respond by trying to take at least Baku away from them. Either way, the region between Turkey and the Caspian would be militarily contested if Stalingrad is a German victory.

 

[RPW@Cy]

(2) Why didn't the Germans take Transcaucasia? The Baku oilfields were an important objective, in fact it could be argued that they lost at Stalingrad in OTL partly because of the forces sent towards the Caucasus. Political chaos in Central Asia is one thing, but Transcaucasia is right around the corner and has always been a target. And if they took it, the question becomes why they didn't follow up with an offensive into Iran or why the Allies didn't respond by trying to take at least Baku away from them. Either way, the region between Turkey and the Caspian would be militarily contested if Stalingrad is a German victory.

That was explained here -

"The only force on force between the Allies and Heer was along the Iran frontier with the former Soviet Union. In that engagement the British found out that their armor wasn't up to dealing with the Mk IV and was absolutely inferior to the Tiger. The result of that was the Centurion, and in the U.S. the M26, both of which had enough gun to handle the Tiger (a tank, BTW, which the Allies had determined was a really stupid idea because it was great at fighting other tanks, but THAT ISN'T WHAT TANKS ARE FOR, not in the Allied perspective), and deal with most bunkers in support of the infantry, which IS what tanks are supposed to do.

What also happened in the combat along the frontier was that the Heer formations were stopped cold by Allied air power. Between fighter-bombers and interdiction against the rear areas by medium bombers (many of them "gunships" like the solid nose B-25) the Heer was turned away. Lesson learned was that air power trumps tanks. That also fit into the Allied experience in the Pacific. Own the air, own the ground. The Allies were really, really, good at building aircraft so guess what they built?"

There's also a map further on showing the Transcaucasus as independent and neutral. My take on this is that the Germans did indeed take the Caucasus, but overextended themselves by attempting to invade the Middle-East and got cut to pieces by allied air power. I suspect Transcaucus was then set up as a nominally independent neutral around the end of the first phase of the war primarily to ensure Allied and German troops were not facing each other across a common border and so removing a potential flashpoint. I would have thought it inevitable that German consent to any such scenario would involve the vast majority of Transcaucasia's oil still going to the Reich, though.

 

[CalBear]

With the lack of any North African campaign to speak of The U.S. was able to resist Churchill's push to jump into Southern Europe (IOTL Sicily wasn't invaded until mid-summer of 1943) more successfully as the sideshow it was. If the Soviet collapse had been slower the Americans might have been convinced, but after Jupiter and Mars failed (spectacularly, it must be added) followed closely by Stalin's death (assassination?) there simply wasn't enough time to put together a serious attempt. It is just as well that the Allies didn't make the jump into Italy in late 1942 (say the time of OTL's Torch). Winter is a lousy time to fight in most of Italy, as was discovered by Clark & Co., and the Allied armies were in no shape to face significant Heer forces that would have no lack of supply (IOTL the Allies, especially the Americans had their hands full with the far less well supplied Axis units in North Africa).

The Reich gets pretty much all of the oil that comes out of Southern Europe. The area is "independent" as the Ukrainian SSR was independent in the days of the USSR (it is often forgotten that the Ukrainian SSR had its own UN seat back in the old days, being it was an independent state). As noted it provides a buffer between the Allies and the Reich, something that was quite handy during the Warm War.

Thanks for the comments.

Just finished reading it (after a few pages I had to skip most comments that weren't CalBear's, sorry guys), and there's something that bugs me. 2 things, to be precise:

(1) Why didn't the Allies land in southern Europe in 1942? The Americans may dismiss Churchill's imperial and Mediterranean fixation, but Churchill can respond that the only alternatives are doing nothing or landing in France.

(2) Why didn't the Germans take Transcaucasia? The Baku oilfields were an important objective, in fact it could be argued that they lost at Stalingrad in OTL partly because of the forces sent towards the Caucasus. Political chaos in Central Asia is one thing, but Transcaucasia is right around the corner and has always been a target. And if they took it, the question becomes why they didn't follow up with an offensive into Iran or why the Allies didn't respond by trying to take at least Baku away from them. Either way, the region between Turkey and the Caspian would be militarily contested if Stalingrad is a German victory.

 

[wietze]

Last but not least, it is my educated opinion that according to available evidence, Hitler's declining health in 1944-45 was most likely the expression of a neurological degenerative disease (Parkinson or tertiary syphilis) and he had little life or health left in him with '40s medicine. It does not seem the product of stress from a lost war or stimulant addiction. Although admittedly in lack of post-mortem examination, we shall never know it for sure.

Indeed.

Thought it was rather unconcluded if hitlers parkinson was treated with methyl amphetamine or that all the parkinsonlike symptoms were caused my the daily use of meth over a long period. In either case indeed not much life expectancy left. Although it supplies us with a nice potential pod (Hitler dies from OD in '41 for example)

 

[CalBear]

Happy to hear you are enjoying the T/L. As to your specific questions/comments:

The Reich proved itself to be remarkably inflexible IOTL in matters of tactical thought. Brilliant as the Heer senior commanders were in many cases they were also frequently quite hidebound. In the case of the False Peak operations the SS command (not, it needs to be noted, led by serious professional military men, but by Party men selected mainly by Himmler for loyalty) were actually faced with a tactical nightmare. Move forward across all of Europe while being chopped up under ongoing air attack of both deploying troops and supply lines or keep to the long established plan and risk getting chopped up by air attacks. Sort of a Lady or the Tiger scenario.

The Reich's production is very deep into Europe. It is also well within range of RAF and USAF long range bombers. In the case of the USAF it has the range and assets to attack from almost any direction, including over the very poorly defended Russian Capes, against the Reich. Much of the early success of the Allied air campaign was thanks to this ability to fly LONG escorted missions that avoided the main Luftwaffe defensive belts across France and Germany proper. The Nazi's had hidden the IRBM facilities, they also used slave and forced labor to construct and maintain it. Some of the forced labor workers are sent back to France, Norway, even Russia when their more or less drafted service is over. All it took was a few of them talking without even knowing they were doing it, even in the areas fairly close to the facilities, to let Stalin's last gift to the Reich, the KGB/GRU agents, and members of the British intelligence agencies (the U.S. having virtually no useful Hummit assets) get the trail. Once you know something exists, it is only a matter of time before it is pinpointed.

The Reich is developing new weapons, including ATGM and better mobile AAA, but so are the Allies, and even with the assets of Europe to draw on the Reich can't begin to compete with the Allies, who have pretty much the entire planet, except Europe, as their resource base. The Allies have also started ahead in many areas, and that gap is not closing for the most part, even if it is not widening.

Finally read trough all of it. Still loving it, but some things...

You savaged Waffen SS too much in False Peaks. I don't think even True Believer Nazis can be that stubborn and unlearning.
And success of IRBM capability destruction is a bit too good. They had to strike very deep into Germania against best hidden and protected targets. Otoh, nothing Nazis have can intercept B-52...

Still. We should be seeing more AShM attacks against Allied assets. And more tactical ballistic missile usage.

Germans will be screwed if they went back to super heavy tanks in response to Chamberlane. And Tiger III seams very likely on their part. Panther IV or (not OTL one of course) Leopard I would be better.

Enough time has passed since restart of hostilities for Reich to start building new toys in numbers. They are running entire continent, remember.

TL needs more German second generation jets, or it becomes ROFLstomp of OTL '44 Allied advance against fuelless and aircoverless Wermacht.

Hopefully with Galland now in charge he might start production of designs that were on tables and ready but rejected by Goering.

Also, with great Allied use of airpower SS should be rolling with heave tactical and divisional air defense, at least as integrated air defense as OTL Red Army. Because it is necessary if TL is to remain a challenge in any way.

Since we are in late '50es I expect that ATGMs will start appearing?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

In OTL the Germans were ahead of the Allies in infrared technology. Is that (still) the case in TTL?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zielger%C3%A4t_1229

With the lack of any North African campaign to speak of The U.S. was able to resist Churchill's push to jump into Southern Europe (IOTL Sicily wasn't invaded until mid-summer of 1943)

Yeah, but that's because Rommel gave them a hard time conquering Tunisia. Looked at from another perspective, the Allies in OTL landed in Sicily 2 months after they had pushed the Axis out of North Africa.

more successfully as the sideshow it was. If the Soviet collapse had been slower the Americans might have been convinced, but after Jupiter and Mars failed (spectacularly, it must be added) followed closely by Stalin's death (assassination?) there simply wasn't enough time to put together a serious attempt.

The Allies would theoretically be ready to pull it off a few months after Germany declares war on the US, a whole year before the Soviets sue for peace. Securing French North Africa would cause a delay, but even in the worse case scenario an invasion force would be almost entirely assembled in Tunis, Algiers and other ports as the Germans cross the Don.

I expect the decision to not invade southern Europe in TTL to be just as criticized, if not more, than the decision to invade it in OTL.

The Reich gets pretty much all of the oil that comes out of Southern Europe. The area is "independent" as the Ukrainian SSR was independent in the days of the USSR (it is often forgotten that the Ukrainian SSR had its own UN seat back in the old days, being it was an independent state). As noted it provides a buffer between the Allies and the Reich, something that was quite handy during the Warm War.

OK, but the southern Caspian was one of the big 3 oil-producing regions of Eurasia, alongside the Persian Gulf and Dutch East Indies. It was important enough that the Allies almost decided to bomb Baku during the Phoney War and it was a big part of the reason why Stalingrad was crucial. Even if the Germans accept an Azeri buffer state being set up they'll still demand its oil production, in which case there's no reason why the Allies would accept that buffer.

The only thing you can do is have Reza Shah bow his head and avoid an Anglo-Soviet invasion in 1941.

Thanks for the comments.

You're welcome, I'm just sorry that my criticism goes so far back that I'm basically asking you to retcon the TL.

 

[Hero of Canton]

WTH?

You're quibbling over percentages....We're going to have our collective noses rubbed in it so thoroughly and so accurately that anyone here who even toys with the idea of Nazi "reform" - how you doing, Eurofed? - will be directed to this thread in order that the scales fall from their eyes....Park your romance and wishful thinking at the door, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Whatever the ride will be, I shall happily be traveling it without you p*ss*ng in my ear about my thoughts and opinions of CalBear's excellent yarn. I find your unprovoked criticism both condescending and unpleasant. Therefore you have the dubious honor of being my very first entry in "Ignore" list.

Hero of Canton

 

[Dan Reilly The Great]

The only major problem I find in the scenario is that there is too much of a gap between WW2 proper and the new war. It seems too long of a time for the geopolitical situation to remain so static without any active war.

I'm gonna disagree with you on that, the geopolitical situation here has been set by the temperment of the reich, which has remained unchanged for the duration. Much as the geopolitical situation stayed the same from the end of WWII until stalin's death because kruzchev ran the USSR differently and as such resulted in a different response by the west. Here we have a similar situation, regardless of just how involved Hitler is in running the reich, the way he indoctrinated the upper echelons of the reich ensure that there is little difference between his leadership and that of his successors.