AHC: Axis Victory in the Second World War

From what I have read, the key to a potential Axis victory is to get GB to leave the war at all costs. If there are absolutely no enemies to the Nazis, then trade is opened up and Nazi Germany does not have to spend any effort or headache dealing with the WAllies and can devote 100% of their efforts to Barbarossa. I posted on another thread years ago, and the consensus was that Barbarossa has a very significant chance of succeeding if the UK leaves the war.

Barbarossa is the decisive front of the entire war. If Germany completely conquers Russia, Germany has won World War 2. Thus, the challenge I gave should basically read “AHC: Successful Barbarossa”.

As for Japan, the key is to make sure they DO NOT attack the United States. The only reason Pearl Harbor occurred was due to the oil embargo we had. However, if Great Britain has surrendered, (again an earlier thread I made reported this) then Japan likely can get enough oil and resources from the DEI as well as free trade with Britain and other nations. This means the Japanese military can continue their war in China indefinitely, which was basically all they wanted. If Japan has no worries about resources and does not strike south, there is a good chance they invade the Eastern half of the Soviet Union as well as Vladivostok.

With Japan, the real question is in this scenario where they can continue their war in China indefinitely, how long would it take to conquer all of the Chinese coastal regions? It seems as if the Japanese military was severely distracted from their Chinese war once they struck south after attacking Pearl Harbor, and that a military solely focused on conquering China (the fall of the Soviet Union is assumed in this timeline) may be able to conquer it, as long as it may take. Operation Ichi-go conquered quite a lot of southern China in the end of the war, I don’t know how much of China Japan could have realistically conquered given no worries about resources. The reality is that China at this point in time is not industrialized at all and is a very large nation with an extremely inferior military to Japan.

So, the way to achieve this seems to be:
-Get Great Britain to surrender early in the war by any means necessary
-Have Barbarossa succeed (most important)
-Japan does not attack Pearl Harbor due to being able to freely trade for oil and resources after GB’s surrender and focuses nearly all of their efforts on conquest of coastal China

Nazi Germany will have achieved their war goals by about 1943 in this timeline, whereas Japan will take longer, I speculate around 1947-1950, if it’s even possible to conquer all of coastal China and create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

(Also, a very important note I should make is that I don’t ever mean that GB and/or the USA gets conquered by the Axis-THAT is impossible and ASB. All that needs to happen for an Axis victory is basically:
-Germany conquers Russia
And
-Japan conquers China
GB and the USA can very begrudgingly leave them alone, their conquest is not necessary for Germany and Japan to achieve their historical war goals, which were the conquests of Russia and China, respectively)
 
From what I have read, the key to a potential Axis victory is to get GB to leave the war at all costs. If there are absolutely no enemies to the Nazis, then trade is opened up and Nazi Germany does not have to spend any effort or headache dealing with the WAllies and can devote 100% of their efforts to Barbarossa. I posted on another thread years ago, and the consensus was that Barbarossa has a very significant chance of succeeding if the UK leaves the war.

Barbarossa is the decisive front of the entire war. If Germany completely conquers Russia, Germany has won World War 2. Thus, the challenge I gave should basically read “AHC: Successful Barbarossa”.

As for Japan, the key is to make sure they DO NOT attack the United States. The only reason Pearl Harbor occurred was due to the oil embargo we had. However, if Great Britain has surrendered, (again an earlier thread I made reported this) then Japan likely can get enough oil and resources from the DEI as well as free trade with Britain and other nations. This means the Japanese military can continue their war in China indefinitely, which was basically all they wanted. If Japan has no worries about resources and does not strike south, there is a good chance they invade the Eastern half of the Soviet Union as well as Vladivostok.

With Japan, the real question is in this scenario where they can continue their war in China indefinitely, how long would it take to conquer all of the Chinese coastal regions? It seems as if the Japanese military was severely distracted from their Chinese war once they struck south after attacking Pearl Harbor, and that a military solely focused on conquering China (the fall of the Soviet Union is assumed in this timeline) may be able to conquer it, as long as it may take. Operation Ichi-go conquered quite a lot of southern China in the end of the war, I don’t know how much of China Japan could have realistically conquered given no worries about resources. The reality is that China at this point in time is not industrialized at all and is a very large nation with an extremely inferior military to Japan.

So, the way to achieve this seems to be:
-Get Great Britain to surrender early in the war by any means necessary
-Have Barbarossa succeed (most important)
-Japan does not attack Pearl Harbor due to being able to freely trade for oil and resources after GB’s surrender and focuses nearly all of their efforts on conquest of coastal China

Nazi Germany will have achieved their war goals by about 1943 in this timeline, whereas Japan will take longer, I speculate around 1947-1950, if it’s even possible to conquer all of coastal China and create the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

(Also, a very important note I should make is that I don’t ever mean that GB and/or the USA gets conquered by the Axis-THAT is impossible and ASB. All that needs to happen for an Axis victory is basically:
-Germany conquers Russia
And
-Japan conquers China
GB and the USA can very begrudgingly leave them alone, their conquest is not necessary for Germany and Japan to achieve their historical war goals, which were the conquests of Russia and China, respectively)
I think what you've described is reasonable as a means of defining a win and a possible pathway but getting Britain to stop fighting quickly enough to be able to launch Barbarossa takes some doing.
Britain being so unprepared it can't do anything militarily for three to five years might be a good start. We could try a pacifist Lansbury led Labour Government that somehow gets a big majority and cuts military spending in the hope that Hitler will see reason, so Britain can't suport France or its own empire.
Then Germany has to outperform OTL (not easy even without the BEF) and then somehow present a sustained threat of invasion for years while also effectively cutting off trade so that Britain is starved of food and resources. This and a more successful Battle of Britain are made easier by a gutted army, navy and airforce, but remain a big job.
While doing all this, they also need to be ready to launch a more successful Barbarossa in 1941 (any later and rearmament and reorganisation make the Soviet army more difficult to beat). Again, given that OTL Barbarossa was a remarkable success early on, it is hard to do much better, especially as OTL the limiting factor was logistics and supply capacity that can't readily be improved.
 
Britannica.com and other credible sources have Halifax declining Chamberlain's nomination as next prime minister, because he doubted his abilities as a war leader and his ability to lead from the Lords.
Labour had agreed to serve in a national government but had not named a leader.
So Halifax could perhaps be my interim PM in a scenario where Churchill is temporarily unavailable. Here he would serve from a sense of duty if there really was nobody else.
But really, with a national government, the smart move is to look at who in the new cabinet has the required speaking skills and military mindset - probably not Halifax - and they do the real leadership while Halifax marks time an a token leader.
But then, why not give Halifax only the job of forming the war cabinet and identifying the leadership team and identifying who will be acting leader now, withe the acting leader reverting to deputy if and when Churchill returns.
Short answer is that Halifax didn't want the job, wasn't a good choice and others were available.

Added a few edits to remove some confused wording
In rethinking what you have written, I have an open-ended question. If Churchill is sidelined for whatever cause, is it more likely a national government is formed as in the OTL; or that new elections are held no later than November 1940, when the mandate of the Government elected in 1935 expires?
I assume its possible that several alternatives may arise, depending on how this question is interpreted. A non-issue as far as my curiosity is concerned.
 
In rethinking what you have written, I have an open-ended question. If Churchill is sidelined for whatever cause, is it more likely a national government is formed as in the OTL; or that new elections are held no later than November 1940, when the mandate of the Government elected in 1935 expires?
I assume its possible that several alternatives may arise, depending on how this question is interpreted. A non-issue as far as my curiosity is concerned.
Personally I'd see a national government as highly desirable. The biggest benefit is it promotes unity and allows best people to take the jobs rather than best in this or that party. It also gets round the difficulties of holding an election in the middle of a major crisis - which was hard enough in 1945 when Britain had much more control over events.
Then again a Blitz election could be viewed as a very defiant stance.
 
I’ve always felt that our timeline is the best the axis could have done, and if you replay the events 9/10 times, it ends with ww2 ending before it barely began, or a MUCH shorter conflict.
 
For Germany to conquer all of Russia and Japan to conquer all of China you probably need the allies (including soviets and Chinese ) to be big on lead tea and/or evil 'merica to supply the Axis with Lend-Lease,

Now to impove there chances of the Axis, for one Nazy Germany could treat there allies more like allies and less as vassals,i mean the could help they could help the Italians,Hungarians,Romanian with engines for there tanks and airplanes,they could deliver the weapons they have promise .... but for that you probably need a Nazy Germany that are less of a prick or one that is not so confident in victory.And think that would help will be to some how increase the industrial output of the axis
 
Last edited:
Personally I'd see a national government as highly desirable. The biggest benefit is it promotes unity and allows best people to take the jobs rather than best in this or that party. It also gets round the difficulties of holding an election in the middle of a major crisis - which was hard enough in 1945 when Britain had much more control over events.
Then again a Blitz election could be viewed as a very defiant stance.
While I agree fully with the analysis, I am not sure who besides Churchill could pull it off. Many thanks.
 
While I agree fully with the analysis, I am not sure who besides Churchill could pull it off. Many thanks.
I agree that Churchill was definitely a clear and good choice at the time, but if he hadn't been around someone else would have stepped up. It wouldn't be easy to combine oratory skills with his other qualities in a single person, but you could have an orator as the front man and one or more people providing the determination and leadership, and some of the often-overlooked candidates could have done a good enough job.
Bear in mind too that others might have kept from micromanaging military decisions, which could well be a benefit.
 
While I agree fully with the analysis, I am not sure who besides Churchill could pull it off. Many thanks.
Eden maybe. He had a less storied history than Churchill, and if Churchill has been around to this point he has been somewhat overshadowed. But he was the clear second choice to Churchill when it came to the anti-appeasement crowd. Which could be attractive to a Parliament blaming its leaders for getting them into this mess. He also had not built up as much ambivalence over the course of his career as Churchill had.
 

thaddeus

Donor
(Also, a very important note I should make is that I don’t ever mean that GB and/or the USA gets conquered by the Axis-THAT is impossible and ASB. All that needs to happen for an Axis victory is basically:
-Germany conquers Russia
And
-Japan conquers China
GB and the USA can very begrudgingly leave them alone, their conquest is not necessary for Germany and Japan to achieve their historical war goals, which were the conquests of Russia and China, respectively)

just a quick glance at population by country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1939 offers a view of Japan's problem(s). had Germany been able to enlist Italy fully (i.e. there is no N. Africa front) against the USSR, there would have been a good chance to at least eliminate the Soviets as a military power and force terms on them.

Japan has no allies able to help them against China, AND they have to at least consider the fact they will be in a conflict with the Soviets too at some point? even driven east of the Urals, a rump Soviet state would be a lethal threat to Japan.
 

Beatriz

Gone Fishin'
just a quick glance at population by country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1939 offers a view of Japan's problem(s). had Germany been able to enlist Italy fully (i.e. there is no N. Africa front) against the USSR, there would have been a good chance to at least eliminate the Soviets as a military power and force terms on them.

Japan has no allies able to help them against China, AND they have to at least consider the fact they will be in a conflict with the Soviets too at some point? even driven east of the Urals, a rump Soviet state would be a lethal threat to Japan.
Japan is outnumbered 5 to 1 by Chinese (or ethnically Han people who consider themselves Chinese) and there's no real stopping line like the Urals temporarily was for the Nazis
 

Beatriz

Gone Fishin'
Would Japan avoiding an invasion of China/Manchuria entirely and concentrating on SE Asia (~100 million at that point in time) only add more problems?
 
which the Axis powers are victorious over the Allies
Hitler revives the name of the Triple Alliance, leading that monicker being used for their side. The Western Powers and USSR meanwhile become the alliance on which the Axis of the world turns.

There is no other possibility.
 
Top