What would be the worst-case WWII worldwide?

I am well aware that this may cause some harsh feelings to pop up. And quite frankly, this is pretty macabre. But bear with me.

- - - -

We all know that World War II was bad. Massive war crimes on all sides, millions of deaths caused by a cold-blooded system or simple war incompetense.

Although this question is rather macabre, I would like to ask: what would be the worst-case scenario in terms of damage caused, both to property and finacially, along with the amount of blood spelt?

Something that may be possible: the Eastern Front stalemates out for an extra year or two, causing the Soviets to start crumbling around 1944.

The US enters the the European War, but in both Europe and Asia, a combination of mediocre leadership and butterflies from the Eastern Front cause their advance to be delayed, but not stopped.

Eventually, the Soviets start making counteroffensives, but due to losses caused by the prolonged front, by the time they retake Kiev, basically everything between Odessa and Riga is burnt out ruins.

German losses are also higher, however, due to the prolonged Eastern Front. Weakened, the US launches D-Day about a year later, and reaches western Germany by the winter of '45.

Japan gets nuked as OTL, but doesn't surrender. So Coronet and co. are launched. Although the US manages to defeat Japan, they've suffered greatly, along with the Japanese.

Falling apart on both fronts, Germany gets nuked a few times. A coup replaces Hitler, and they surrender, when the Wallies are on the Elbe.
 

Deleted member 1487

Operation Vegetation, Japanese bio-weapons get out of control, large scale chemical weapons warfare, the Soviets break out their bio-weapons. All that would be horrible.
 

Deleted member 1487

FDR getting shot in 1933 would not be good at all.
I did a thread about that once its probably not going to change all that much given that his VP was onboard for much of the domestic agenda and very interested in standing up to the Japanese. After that all the likely 1940 candidates for president were for supporting Britain, so some version of LL was likely to happen, even if its not a big as IOTL, same with the naval war in the Atlantic. The US economic recovery would likely not be as good as IOTL as Garner was more conservative on some issues, especially labor unions, which would cause all sorts of problems in the 1936-40 term.
 
I did a thread about that once its probably not going to change all that much given that his VP was onboard for much of the domestic agenda and very interested in standing up to the Japanese. After that all the likely 1940 candidates for president were for supporting Britain, so some version of LL was likely to happen, even if its not a big as IOTL, same with the naval war in the Atlantic. The US economic recovery would likely not be as good as IOTL as Garner was more conservative on some issues, especially labor unions, which would cause all sorts of problems in the 1936-40 term.

Oh cool, I should go check that out.
 
germans:holocaust,ethnic cleansing, terrorising civilians in occupied territory, not sticking with geneva convention
japan: enslaving of 100s of thousands of women in occupied territories,to to be used as sexslaves. loads of warcrimes in china, unit731, not sticking with geneva convention, mistreatment of POWs etc etc
russia (allied, remember): Holodomor, purges, ethnic cleansing of east-prussia, general cruelty, not sticking with geneva convention, katyn massacre
britain: not sticking with geneva convention (systematically shooting down ambulance seaplanes that were marked with red cross), indiscriminate bombing of civilians
usa: not sticking with geneva convention in PTO, indiscriminate bombing of civilians
 
germans:holocaust,ethnic cleansing, terrorising civilians in occupied territory, not sticking with geneva convention
japan: enslaving of 100s of thousands of women in occupied territories,to to be used as sexslaves. loads of warcrimes in china, unit731, not sticking with geneva convention, mistreatment of POWs etc etc
russia (allied, remember): Holodomor, purges, ethnic cleansing of east-prussia, general cruelty, not sticking with geneva convention, katyn massacre
britain: not sticking with geneva convention (systematically shooting down ambulance seaplanes that were marked with red cross), indiscriminate bombing of civilians
usa: not sticking with geneva convention in PTO, indiscriminate bombing of civilians

indiscriminate bombing of civilians can be put under all the major powers. Every single one of them did so including Germany and Japan. They just didn't have the airpower to do so on as large a scale as the Allies.
 
If you can somehow get a South American nation to go Axis that's adding another continent at war.
 
What are you referring to here?

Best,

Some of these aren't related, but break various conventions.

Americans: Debatable, but the atomic bombings could be considered war crimes. Also internment of Japanese-Americans.

British: Starvation of subjects, due to need for food for soldiers.

Germans: Mass killing of civilians, the Holocaust, violation of international conventions.

Soviets: Everything but the Holocaust for the Soviets.
 
Falling apart on both fronts, Germany gets nuked a few times. A coup replaces Hitler, and they surrender, when the Wallies are on the Elbe.
Not nuclear weapons - whilst they cause a fair amount of immediate damage and can create some fallout, with airburst detonation as the Allies used it's not a great amount with no real long lasting effects. Operation Vegetarian however was a plan to drop linseed cakes infected with anthrax spores onto the fields of Germany via bomber aircraft to infect the German's cattle and potentially spread it to the human population as well. The British tested it on a small island off the coast of Scotland during the war and remained infected for over 40 years until major decontamination procedures were used.

Edit: Bugger, somehow managed not to notice Wiking mentioning this in the first reply. That would be a sign that it's time for bed I think.:)
 
I did a thread about that once its probably not going to change all that much given that his VP was onboard for much of the domestic agenda and very interested in standing up to the Japanese. After that all the likely 1940 candidates for president were for supporting Britain, so some version of LL was likely to happen, even if its not a big as IOTL, same with the naval war in the Atlantic. The US economic recovery would likely not be as good as IOTL as Garner was more conservative on some issues, especially labor unions, which would cause all sorts of problems in the 1936-40 term.

I'm pretty sure John Nance Garner was dead set against most of the New Deal. He was an old school southern democrat (the nasty kind). Which part of the domestic agenda are you referring to?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Your US examples are not war crimes

Some of these aren't related, but break various conventions.

Quote - Americans: Debatable, but the atomic bombings could be considered war crimes. Also internment of Japanese-Americans.

Aerial bombardment of enemy cities was (and remains) legal, no matter what the explosive used. Also, internment of foreign nationals/enemy aliens in wartime on the basis of citizenship was (and is) also perfectly legal, and widespread. Internment of a given nation state's own citizens in wartime was not a war crime; it was certainly a violation of (US) civil rights, but not in any way a war crime.

Best,
 
Not nuclear weapons - whilst they cause a fair amount of immediate damage and can create some fallout, with airburst detonation as the Allies used it's not a great amount with no real long lasting effects. Operation Vegetarian however was a plan to drop linseed cakes infected with anthrax spores onto the fields of Germany via bomber aircraft to infect the German's cattle and potentially spread it to the human population as well. The British tested it on a small island off the coast of Scotland during the war and remained infected for over 40 years until major decontamination procedures were used.

Edit: Bugger, somehow managed not to notice Wiking mentioning this in the first reply. That would be a sign that it's time for bed I think.:)

Yes, I've heard of it. Didn't come to mind.

TL;DR for my scenario: imagine Decisive Darkness meets Anglo-American/Nazi War.
 
Quote - Americans: Debatable, but the atomic bombings could be considered war crimes. Also internment of Japanese-Americans.

Aerial bombardment of enemy cities was (and remains) legal, no matter what the explosive used. Also, internment of foreign nationals/enemy aliens in wartime on the basis of citizenship was (and is) also perfectly legal, and widespread. Internment of a given nation state's own citizens in wartime was not a war crime; it was certainly a violation of (US) civil rights, but not in any way a war crime.

Best,

Canicattì massacre - US troops murdered of Italian civilians
Biscari massacre - US troops murdered 73 Italian and German POWs
Operation Teardrop - part of which involved the torture of U-546 POWs
Dachau liberation reprisals
Hufft's take no prisoners order
Numerous occassions of murdering POWs by US troops in the Pacific
 
Anyone ever seen the Historical Notes in the wargame "Tomorrow the World!":confused:? Japan and Germany conquer the world:eek:, and now its time for the Final Showdown!:eek::rolleyes::p Very ASB.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm pretty sure John Nance Garner was dead set against most of the New Deal. He was an old school southern democrat (the nasty kind). Which part of the domestic agenda are you referring to?
Apparently not:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nance_Garner#Vice_Presidency
During Roosevelt's second term, Garner's previously warm relationship with the President quickly soured, as Garner disagreed sharply with him on a wide range of important issues. Garner supported federal intervention to break up the Flint Sit-Down Strike, supported a balanced federal budget, opposed the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 to "pack" the Supreme Court with additional judges, and opposed executive interference with the internal business of the Congress.[5]
He was on board for the 1st term stuff, but had hostile to labor, court packing, and was a deficit hawk.
 
Top