is it possible for the axis powers to get lucky enough not to win WW2 but survive it. with the US, USSR, UK, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan still around to have a cold war. if so how?
World war 2 ends in a stalemate
- Thread starter Mister Abbadon
- Start date
This is certainly possible, and indeed, the simple way to do this is to keep America out of the conflict. President Landon would probably suffice as a starting point.
The problem I foresee is that this is going to lead to something like four or six factions emerging:
Axis Germany
EACPS Japan
United States
Soviet Union.
It's also possible that India and France might turn into major players in the events to follow as well.
The problem is that the future contains NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and that a multipolar world means that instead of one all-important and critical relationship, there is now something like thirty or more.
Perhaps worse, the sanity of Axis Germany, the Soviet Union and EACPS Japan are all questionable. Indeed, these three nations seem like a probable flashpoint for a NUCLEAR WAR to emerge--and the worst of them all would be the German-Soviet relationship.
To put it shortly, both the Germans and the Soviets have vowed a "War of Annihilation" against the other. This might very well not be a cold war, and the consequences of a world where Germany and the Soviet Union have blown each other up will be grave.
While I think the West and Germany could exist in a cold war situation, throwing Japan AND the Soviet Union into the mix suggests that two of the players are going to get nuked.
cbrunish
Banned
NO!!!! If anything Japan would have fallen to the US due to the american people were seeing red against Japan. Also even if D-Day failed it would just give the US more time to build up its army and navy to use for another invasion of France. If anything the steel curtain would be further west (maybe all of Germany and Denmark).
I actually think that a nuclear exchange is really unlikely. Hitler and Stalin, as insane as they were and as desperate their countries were at certain times, they never used chemical or biological weapons. The Japanese also didn't use chemical weapons against the US because they also feared MAD.
No. Not if you mean WW II as IOTL.
Japan was absolutely doomed the minute it attacked the U.S.
Germany was doomed as soon as the initial Summer Blitz failed to knock the Soviets out. The initial Heer attack itself was almost certain to fail since it was insufficiently powerful, but it had the barest of chances (mostly due to Stalin's refusal to allow units to withdraw even when clearly outflanked), but when the Soviets were still in the war in November of 1941 Germany was dead. Declaring war on the U.S. just made it more spectacular.
Italy had no business in the war at all, not against the UK, much less the UK, USSR AND U.S. at the same time.
Japan was absolutely doomed the minute it attacked the U.S.
Germany was doomed as soon as the initial Summer Blitz failed to knock the Soviets out. The initial Heer attack itself was almost certain to fail since it was insufficiently powerful, but it had the barest of chances (mostly due to Stalin's refusal to allow units to withdraw even when clearly outflanked), but when the Soviets were still in the war in November of 1941 Germany was dead. Declaring war on the U.S. just made it more spectacular.
Italy had no business in the war at all, not against the UK, much less the UK, USSR AND U.S. at the same time.
The Soviets, IRC, did support some bioweapons in the Second World War. The Japanese didn't use chemical weapons against the United States--but did use such weapons against the Chinese. Furthermore, the Japanese would have faced all pain and no gain for this decision--the Allies would have logistical and aerial superiority in such a situation. Expanding the war to include chemical weapons wasn't MAD, nor did the concept of MAD exist in the 1940s.
It would have intensified the screwover of the Japanese.
As for a nuclear war between the Germans and the Soviets--the relationship between these nations would be worse than any other two nations in recent history. I see incidents leading to troop movements leading to tactical weapons leading to the big one.
It's possible, but would require for something which looks totally unlike any WWII as we know it. Namely, I think, Operation Barbarossa being cancelled, and Hitler deciding to sit comfortably on Festung Europa. How to get Japan in as a major contender without it attacking America, I have no fucking clue.
Okay, here's a PoD: Japan discovers Manchurian oil in the late 30s, prompting a re-organisation of priorities regarding its Manchurian frontier against the Soviets. This causes Stalin to look twice at his Far Eastern divisions, and the butterflies from this result in him purging different generals than OTL out of the military, with (coincidentally) many more servile lackeys and fewer competent bureaucrats and commanders disappearing.
The rest plays out more or less like OTL until the MR Pact, and the Soviet invasion of Finland, by a thoroughly organised and modernised Red Army, is successful and a Finnish satellite state is declared. Hitler sees this, and, having both a flash of insight and a minor stroke to correct his lunacy, decides against invading Russia, opting instead, after he conquers France, to build the most militarised border on the planet for the eastern edge of Festung Europa. Japan, with its oil, decides against striking at the Western powers and simply grinds China down to nothing, installing a handful of satellite states out of what was once China. The Soviet Union manages to nab most of Western China up to Mao's enclave.
Hitler's war against Britain does not go well, with increasing American aid for the British making an invasion of England ever more unlikely, especially after the British manage to rout Italy from Africa. After a couple years of both sides effectively staring each other down, with America not directly involved, leads to a peace being declared (perhaps in this scenario Churchill is somehow removed from power? The trouble with making everyone come of out WWII intact was that all the leaders were stubborn bastards fully aware that they were involved in an existential war of extermination). Britain, weakened and bankrupt, becomes closer to America.
In the late '40s and '50s, the world ignites in brushfire wars across a line from Morocco to Burma. Former French possessions have nowhere left to go, and Britain, if it will somehow hold its own domains, cannot hold them as colonial possessions for much longer (perhaps a neat-o Imperial Federation could come of this?) The Middle East, India, North Africa, Latin America - these are the flashpoints, as the world is begrudgingly divvied up into the spheres of the new Great Powers, (4 or 5) behemoths, a monument to implausibly balanced geo-politics.
That's the best I've got. I'll admit, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but *shrug*.
EDIT: One interesting thing to note is that, in this TL, the progression of the Cold War seems somewhat clear: it is the Germans and the Japanese who would both be weighed down by massive financial albatrosses that are their puppet states, and so likely they would be the first to collapse. How this would affect the Soviets, who would on one hand have a much greater cultural exchange with America (perhaps casing some kind of mini-Glsnost after Stalin's death?) but on the other be in a permanent siege mentality by having massive Imperial powers on either side, is another good question.
Okay, here's a PoD: Japan discovers Manchurian oil in the late 30s, prompting a re-organisation of priorities regarding its Manchurian frontier against the Soviets. This causes Stalin to look twice at his Far Eastern divisions, and the butterflies from this result in him purging different generals than OTL out of the military, with (coincidentally) many more servile lackeys and fewer competent bureaucrats and commanders disappearing.
The rest plays out more or less like OTL until the MR Pact, and the Soviet invasion of Finland, by a thoroughly organised and modernised Red Army, is successful and a Finnish satellite state is declared. Hitler sees this, and, having both a flash of insight and a minor stroke to correct his lunacy, decides against invading Russia, opting instead, after he conquers France, to build the most militarised border on the planet for the eastern edge of Festung Europa. Japan, with its oil, decides against striking at the Western powers and simply grinds China down to nothing, installing a handful of satellite states out of what was once China. The Soviet Union manages to nab most of Western China up to Mao's enclave.
Hitler's war against Britain does not go well, with increasing American aid for the British making an invasion of England ever more unlikely, especially after the British manage to rout Italy from Africa. After a couple years of both sides effectively staring each other down, with America not directly involved, leads to a peace being declared (perhaps in this scenario Churchill is somehow removed from power? The trouble with making everyone come of out WWII intact was that all the leaders were stubborn bastards fully aware that they were involved in an existential war of extermination). Britain, weakened and bankrupt, becomes closer to America.
In the late '40s and '50s, the world ignites in brushfire wars across a line from Morocco to Burma. Former French possessions have nowhere left to go, and Britain, if it will somehow hold its own domains, cannot hold them as colonial possessions for much longer (perhaps a neat-o Imperial Federation could come of this?) The Middle East, India, North Africa, Latin America - these are the flashpoints, as the world is begrudgingly divvied up into the spheres of the new Great Powers, (4 or 5) behemoths, a monument to implausibly balanced geo-politics.
That's the best I've got. I'll admit, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but *shrug*.
EDIT: One interesting thing to note is that, in this TL, the progression of the Cold War seems somewhat clear: it is the Germans and the Japanese who would both be weighed down by massive financial albatrosses that are their puppet states, and so likely they would be the first to collapse. How this would affect the Soviets, who would on one hand have a much greater cultural exchange with America (perhaps casing some kind of mini-Glsnost after Stalin's death?) but on the other be in a permanent siege mentality by having massive Imperial powers on either side, is another good question.
Last edited:
Some form of MAD did exist, but you're right that its not like the nuclear exchange one. I would say that the general lack of chemical weapons in the Europe was more or less a begginning concept of MAD, as both sides feared that the other side would retaliate. That was certainly the main reason Germany didn't use nerve gas, because they believed the Allies had it as well.
And in the case of Japan, Japan did use chemical weapons against China because they didn't fear retaliation, and vice versa against the US. So while not exactly MAD, its definately close to it.
If Nazi Germany had the control to not use nerve gas OTL because of the fear of retaliation, then I would say nuclear exchange is just as unlikely.
And yet I'm not at all sure that such thinking was necessarily true. Churchill was prepared to use chemical weapons in the event of a German invasion of Britain, and I had thought that Hitler held back from gas weapons owing to his own experience of being gassed, not out of any real interest in keeping the war clean.
But what I was thinking of is that MAD fundamentally doesn't work well when there is more than one discrete party. Even with just three parties, the nations that sit out the nuclear war can be said to win it. This situation would lead to a multipolar world, and possibly, as many as six (though maybe more like four) nuclear alliances in play, the situation is going to become very critical--because of one very serious difference.
The world no longer works on the basis on keeping things cool for you and someone else, but on the basis of keeping out of the firestorm but letting the others burn. Stalin and Hitler completely hate each other, but now add in other nations that would instead of promoting peace, seek the destruction of both nations.
This is a LOT worse than the cold war, and it may very well go hot.
I agree that the "Stalemate" Theory is very logical for the outcome of WW2. The only real problem was to keep the USA out of the conflict most of the time, or until very late in the war, when the war in Europe would have been almost or already over.
All depends on Germany, while both Italy and Japan are only secondary in this reasoning. Germany had to do two things to make it possible to survive: 1. Effectively put the UK out of the war. (By continuing the submarine blockade and combatting Fighter Command was the best way military, or try an more diplomatic solution.) 2. Defeat the USSR, before it becoame too strong and experienced. (More cleverly wage war against an unprepared foe, who only was lucky to survive, because of Hitler's stupidity as a military commander.)
After the war in Europe had been concluded in German Favour, the war in the Pacific could be fought with all strength, even though the Japanese would have been facing a much more numerical US foe. Germany could also add its bulk of the naval forces against the USA, by massacering the US Merchant Fleets in the Atlantic, threatening its East Coastline (possibly only in words) and binding large USN forces in the Atlantic, to ease things for the Japanese in the Pacific. Although in the end, the USA might likely win from Japan, against the continental power Germany, it was much less likely, since it had no operational base to start from in Europe.
All depends on Germany, while both Italy and Japan are only secondary in this reasoning. Germany had to do two things to make it possible to survive: 1. Effectively put the UK out of the war. (By continuing the submarine blockade and combatting Fighter Command was the best way military, or try an more diplomatic solution.) 2. Defeat the USSR, before it becoame too strong and experienced. (More cleverly wage war against an unprepared foe, who only was lucky to survive, because of Hitler's stupidity as a military commander.)
After the war in Europe had been concluded in German Favour, the war in the Pacific could be fought with all strength, even though the Japanese would have been facing a much more numerical US foe. Germany could also add its bulk of the naval forces against the USA, by massacering the US Merchant Fleets in the Atlantic, threatening its East Coastline (possibly only in words) and binding large USN forces in the Atlantic, to ease things for the Japanese in the Pacific. Although in the end, the USA might likely win from Japan, against the continental power Germany, it was much less likely, since it had no operational base to start from in Europe.
The Kreigsmarine, unless we are talking about the vaporware of Plan Z, was a joke as far as force projection. The U-boat force was a threat to shipping in 1942, before the U.S. had the massive expansion of forces especially in destroyers and long range patrol bombers, but after that it was no threat to the Eastern Seaboard.
It needs to be noted that virtually all the surface combatants the USN used to crush the IJN were ordered following the 1940 Naval Act. The U.S., even if it wasn't in the war, would have been going nuts if the RN was out of the war and American shores were directly faced by the Reich.
Defeat the Reich on land without the UK to stage out of would have been tough. Crushing the Reich at sea, not so difficult.
It needs to be noted that virtually all the surface combatants the USN used to crush the IJN were ordered following the 1940 Naval Act. The U.S., even if it wasn't in the war, would have been going nuts if the RN was out of the war and American shores were directly faced by the Reich.
Defeat the Reich on land without the UK to stage out of would have been tough. Crushing the Reich at sea, not so difficult.
Stalemate between the Soviets and the Germans is unlikely, but possible. Keeping the US out of the war helps that happen. The two nations need to attrit themselves to the point where both their interests are served by a ceasefire. Superficially, it would look like a German victory, but the Soviet Union would still own the majority of European Russia.
Technically the German Army was very close to defeat the USSR in late 1941, as it sieged Moscow, trapping the Soviet Leadership in the city and with the Red Army at its weakest, lacking leadership and equipment, since Stalin had been participating in a war against Germany at its earliest in late 1942. His own stupidity of killing most of his officercorps in the 30's had not done well either. The Red Army was an easy prey in 1941, if the German Leadership had been more clever (especially with Hitler out of the way of commanding the military affairs).
Tactically the war in the East had to be fought on German terms, namely in the open field, where the Blitz tactic was the most valuable and not in the cities, such at Leningrad and Stalingrad. This was a mistake, made by Hitler only, as he was responsible for this order, ignoring his military advisors.
Tactically the war in the East had to be fought on German terms, namely in the open field, where the Blitz tactic was the most valuable and not in the cities, such at Leningrad and Stalingrad. This was a mistake, made by Hitler only, as he was responsible for this order, ignoring his military advisors.
I agree you would have to butterfly away most of WWII as we know it. Now, suppose Hitler sticks to some of the principles he put in Mein Kampf, like:
"France has the right to exist," but must not be allowed to be militarily strong.
"Britain and Italy must remain allies of Germany."
And the statement:
"Jews ... must be eliminated." might be satisfied by curtailing private business conduct, not by executing people.
It might take the death of Hitler and others, but the German military-industrial complex could have been put to much better use. Germany's war efforts would not grow into a world war. This is how a rational leader would have proceeded.
The "draw" emerges when Germany, the US and USSR all get the Bomb. You would then get a MAD three-way standoff.
"France has the right to exist," but must not be allowed to be militarily strong.
"Britain and Italy must remain allies of Germany."
And the statement:
"Jews ... must be eliminated." might be satisfied by curtailing private business conduct, not by executing people.
It might take the death of Hitler and others, but the German military-industrial complex could have been put to much better use. Germany's war efforts would not grow into a world war. This is how a rational leader would have proceeded.
The "draw" emerges when Germany, the US and USSR all get the Bomb. You would then get a MAD three-way standoff.
Typo
Banned
Barbarossa gone about as well as it could have gone. The Germans came almost as close to disaster that winter as the Soviets did.
BlairWitch749
Banned
This is technically possible with the latest possible pod being right after El Alamein. If Rommel was given a complete free hand to retreat as he desired to the Wadi Akrit/Dorsal mountain line and combine his forces with 5th Panzer army he could have used all the useless mines be buried in Libya and built the equivilent of the Mannerhiem line in Tunisia and held the allies off for many more months than OTL. The Kursk Offensive would need to be cancelled and Guderian and Rommel's idea of an east wall with strong panzer reserves would have to be adopted... its a long shot but if applied correctly it would take maximum advantage of German prowess in mobile battle and spare their panzers impalement on Russian pak fronts.
They could certainly force enough of a blood bath that the allies don't want to play anymore. Britain basically ran out of infantry replacements by winter 1944 and Stalin was reaching the end of his human bank account by early 1945... a more clever and flexible defense could have pushed them to the peace table assuming Hitler would make overtures or listen to them
They could certainly force enough of a blood bath that the allies don't want to play anymore. Britain basically ran out of infantry replacements by winter 1944 and Stalin was reaching the end of his human bank account by early 1945... a more clever and flexible defense could have pushed them to the peace table assuming Hitler would make overtures or listen to them
Given how bloody the 'Great Patriotic War' was, I can't see any stalemate between the Nazis and the Reds. The Reich's goal was extermination, and there is no moderation for that. The Western Front could become deadlocked, but you'd have to remove that Austrian from power before the Anglosphere would talk to the Reich. As for the Pacific, you'd have to give some concessions to Japan before they would negotiate.
If the Nazi war machine can be exhausted to the point that it simply cannot support further engagement, even Hitler would hae to see sense. I mean, it's not like Hitler will force every single German person to grab whatever they can and charge the Red Army if it comes to that.