AHC: An Axis state outside of Europe or East Asia

Pretty simple, a sovereign independent state (can be a former colony but not one granted independence by an existing Axis state) that allies itself with the Axis powers during WWII. Can be fascist or not (eg Finland). East Asia includes Southeast Asia. What are the drivers of its decisions? How do the Allies respond? What is the effect on the war and what happens after the war?

Some interesting possibilities:
- Argentina
- Iraq
- Independent Palestine

Bonus for very creative suggestions.
 
Islamic Republic of Algeria

POD: Hitler's capitulation terms cause a major split the French government and a power struggle ensues. This results in Vichy France being unable to control any thing more than the European, Metropolitan France. In the OTL, the French government that surrendered went on to become the Vichy regime and they retain control of the colonies, at least immediately after the surrender. In my ATL, the breakoff government officials merge with the Free French authorities and the colonies, and Algeria, are under their control after the surrender.

Since Algeria is right across the Mediterranean from european France, Hitler flies in Algerian independence activists to discuss kicking the Free French government out of Algeria. He offers to send large amounts of aid to a rebellion, but no direct use of German ground troops. In late 1940 the Algerians rebel. Right on que, the Germans come to their aid. The Luftwaffe airlifts in a large amounts of weapons while bombing French positions. The armed Algerians manage to fully beat the rump Free French Army by late 1941. The Islamic Republic of Algeria is then declared. The local Pierd Noirs are repatriated to Vichy France. Internationally, it is recognized by the axis powers and their puppet states, so it aligns with the Axis, but mainly Germany. Algeria allows German troops to pass through as part of the North Africa campaign.

But the tide would turn shorlty after Algeria's independence. With Allies across the border in Libya, the Algerian leaders, who never formally declared war look for a way to stave off an invasion of Algeria. To the objections of France and Britain, the Algerians negotiate with the Americans. The two agree that Algeria would aid Germany no more, militarily or diplomatically, in exchange for no invasion. For the US, this deal is pragmatic as they do not have to waste troops invading Algeria when they have D-day and the invasion of Sicily to plan for.

For the time being, Algeria is spared. When the war is over, De Gaulle and subsequent leaders make lofty speeches about the illegal independence and that France will retake what was rightfully hers. Obviously France is in no shape to invade anybody after the war. So about 1948 France earnestly starts to prepare to invade Algeria. However Truman intervenes, and forces France to back down, going as far to recognize Algeria. The US had a post war goal of aiding decolonization. There's also the fact that a Western power invading another country opens the door to Communist support against the invasion. This backing down utterly humiliates France and makes US-France relations frayed going forward. Certainly how involved France would be in NATO from the get-go.

As the character of this state, given that it gained its independence due to German support, it could be acertained that this state is definitely not a communist one. Given that Germany's government was fanatically anticommunist, I would say that Hitler would help an anticommunist one come to power after independence. This anticommunist government would ipso facto be right wing and would develop close ties to Islamists. Hence the "Islamic Republic".

Going forward, Algeria would exist in a netherregion of the Cold War. Because of Israel and French dislike of their independence, they would be opposed to the West. But they are also inherently opposed to the USSR. Their only real allies would be their Muslim neighbours.
 
Outside of Latin America, Europe, and East Asia, your only independent countries are:

- South Africa (British Commonwealth)
- Liberia (US sphere of influence)
- Afghanistan
- Nepal and Bhutan (British puppet states)
- Persia
- Tibet
- Mongolia (Soviet ally)
- Australia and New Zealand (British Commonwealth)
- Turkey
- Arab states (French/British sphere of Influence)
 
How much can we sour British-Afrikaaner relations during the interwar years to get South Africa to go full on Axis?
Well you could have a neutral South Africa with small pod's from OTL. If they start off neutral and the war begins to turn for the Axis, resulting in a late South African entry on the side of the Axis.
 

thaddeus

Donor
How much can we sour British-Afrikaaner relations during the interwar years to get South Africa to go full on Axis?

Well you could have a neutral South Africa with small pod's from OTL. If they start off neutral and the war begins to turn for the Axis, resulting in a late South African entry on the side of the Axis.

my speculation has been for a Dutch State along the lines of the Vichy regime, if they were to collaborate with Germany that might be an even more appealing Axis for South Africa?
 
Well you could have a neutral South Africa with small pod's from OTL. If they start off neutral and the war begins to turn for the Axis, resulting in a late South African entry on the side of the Axis.
How did South African white supremacists feel about the Axis in real life? Because in the US, white supremacists were ironically the most anti-Axis:

E7v-IHIVEAAzlIz


The parts of the country with state-enforced segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were also more hawkish in regards to fighting the Axis. Maybe it was because they cared more when white people were victims of aggression.
 
Iraq and Persia with the right PODs. If Germany/Italy gave more resources to support them and their own leadership was more decisive, they would've been a huge thorn in the side of the Allies and better remembered than the short revolts they were OTL.
How did South African white supremacists feel about the Axis in real life? Because in the US, white supremacists were ironically the most anti-Axis:

E7v-IHIVEAAzlIz


The parts of the country with state-enforced segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were also more hawkish in regards to fighting the Axis. Maybe it was because they cared more when white people were victims of aggression.
It's not fair to call the South the only "white supremacists" or even home to the biggest white supremacists in the country given most states had anti-miscegenation laws, including those that banned whites from marrying Asians and defacto segregation was the norm practically everywhere (as blacks were essentially unable to rent or purchase property outside of certain areas). For instance, most sundown towns were not in the South, and the Oregon state constitution banned blacks from the state until 1926 (although it was not legally enforceable after the 14th amendment was passed).
 
Iraq and Persia with the right PODs. If Germany/Italy gave more resources to support them and their own leadership was more decisive, they would've been a huge thorn in the side of the Allies and better remembered than the short revolts they were OTL.

It's not fair to call the South the only "white supremacists" or even home to the biggest white supremacists in the country given most states had anti-miscegenation laws, including those that banned whites from marrying Asians and defacto segregation was the norm practically everywhere (as blacks were essentially unable to rent or purchase property outside of certain areas). For instance, most sundown towns were not in the South, and the Oregon state constitution banned blacks from the state until 1926 (although it was not legally enforceable after the 14th amendment was passed).
When I talked about anti-miscegenation laws, I was also talking about the West. The Northern US, of course, other than Indiana, no longer had anti-miscegenation laws after 1887. The pattern is nowhere near perfect, of course, but US states without anti-miscegenation laws were ironically on average less enthusiastic about fighting the Nazis before Pearl Harbor than US states with anti-miscegenation laws.
 
How did South African white supremacists feel about the Axis in real life? Because in the US, white supremacists were ironically the most anti-Axis:

E7v-IHIVEAAzlIz


The parts of the country with state-enforced segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were also more hawkish in regards to fighting the Axis. Maybe it was because they cared more when white people were victims of aggression.
From what I know the South Africans who potentially would support the Axis would likely be pro neutrality.

Interesting to point out, in the grand (I do not support it) new order the southern third of Africa would have been given to an Afrikaner based racial state, so that exists in some form.
 
WW2, General Smuts was very pro Britain, but there were Afrikaaner political movements who had a neutral, antiBritish or proGerman stance.
I don't know enough to say if one of or a combination of these could have credibly taken power in the late 1930s, or if they were mainly an annoying nuisance.
 
Ummm... Iraq DID briefly ally with the Axis.

Iran was technically a co-belligerant with the Axis on account of being invaded by the Allies.

French Syria was sort-of technically an independent state (though by no means de facto), and it too was invaded by the British.

Possibilities for others may include a Bolivian-Chilean rematch that starts as a separate war but ends up engulfed in the general conflict, maybe enlarged to include the OTL Peru-Ecuador War as well.

Another out-of-the-box possibility would be Yemen (who had a sort-of alliance with Italy in 1936 OTL) in a TL where they end up with different leadership and where Britain does significantly worse early on.

Afghanistan is another possibility, as it had ties to the Axis OTL, and there were rumors that former king Amanulah Khan was soliciting German support to regain his throne. Maybe in the narrow window between the Fall of France and Barbarossa, the Soviets agree (hard to imagine, but lets roll with it) to let the Germans funnel weapons and whatnot, and another civil war in Afghanistan breaks out. Or the Germans do it via Turkey and Iran instead. Either way, the British perceive it as a threat, and launch a preemtive invasion.

Another option, again in a Britain-screw TL, would be Egypt revolting against their masters. On a similar note, in an old TL of mine, I had a Sudanese revolt partially succeed, led by the Mahdi's posthumous son.
 
What would it take for one of Ataturk's successors to consider joining the Axis, or for the Soviet Union to try and compel Turkey into territorial concessions?
 
Pretty simple, a sovereign independent state (can be a former colony but not one granted independence by an existing Axis state) that allies itself with the Axis powers during WWII. Can be fascist or not (eg Finland). East Asia includes Southeast Asia. What are the drivers of its decisions? How do the Allies respond? What is the effect on the war and what happens after the war?

Some interesting possibilities:
- Argentina
- Iraq
- Independent Palestine

Bonus for very creative suggestions.
Arguably Iraq was briefly part of the Axis during the revolt. They received a little air support from Germans and Italians operating out of Syria.
 
How did South African white supremacists feel about the Axis in real life? Because in the US, white supremacists were ironically the most anti-Axis:

E7v-IHIVEAAzlIz


The parts of the country with state-enforced segregation and anti-miscegenation laws were also more hawkish in regards to fighting the Axis. Maybe it was because they cared more when white people were victims of aggression.

Blithering nonsense. Dixiecrats were pro-intervention because they were strongly Democratic and were the most ethnically 'Anglo-Saxon' parts of America. Unlike the Great Plains or the Midwest, they had no major sections of the populace that were German/Italian and thus a bit hesitant to gleefully go to war with the mother country.
 
Blithering nonsense. Dixiecrats were pro-intervention because they were strongly Democratic and were the most ethnically 'Anglo-Saxon' parts of America. Unlike the Great Plains or the Midwest, they had no major sections of the populace that were German/Italian and thus a bit hesitant to gleefully go to war with the mother country.
Non-intervention does not mean going to war against Britain. But Yeah, their Anglo ancestry does make it reasonable for them to support going to war to help the mother country. In contrast to the Midwest with a lot of its Germans. Or the Northeast with a lot of its Italians.
 
Let's say Egypt fell to the Axis, so therefore it joins the Axis Powers. This probably causes a lot of butterflies in the North Africa campaign.
 

thaddeus

Donor
during the brief period of Nazi-Soviet collaboration Stalin focused on the Turkish Straits as an issue, which Germany avoided and stalled. perhaps if the Soviets had tried to seize the eastern area Kars that would force Turkey into the Axis?

Turkey seems the one country that would make a significant difference, although a neutral South Africa or a chaotic situation in India, either one would be important.
 
Top