Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to keep WWII as two separate wars, the Pacific War (USA+China vs. Imperial Japan) and the European War (UK+France+USSR vs. Nazi Germany+Fascist Italy), with a POD no later than 1937, the start of the Pacific Theater. Bonus points if you can do it with a 1941 POD.
AHC: Keep World War II as two separate wars
- Thread starter Superman
- Start date
Maybe Japan doesn't form the Axis with Germany and Italy. When Japan attacks the U.S. at Pearl Harbor, Germany now doesn't declare war on the U.S.A.
My first thought is for Japan to invade only American and Dutch targets on Dec 7, ignoring the British that are supposedly too stretched to be a threat. The Subcontinent, the Japanese reason, would be open for the taking once Germany does all the hard work to defeat them.
Hitler, furious at the Japanese refusing to help against Britian or the USSR, in turn refuses to declare war on America. "Let the slant-eyes and nigger-kikes destroy each other, so we may spread the glorious Aryan Race to their cleansed lands" and all that jazz.
It'll be hard to stop Roosevelt from getting the Americans into Europe anyway, but not impossible.
Hitler, furious at the Japanese refusing to help against Britian or the USSR, in turn refuses to declare war on America. "Let the slant-eyes and nigger-kikes destroy each other, so we may spread the glorious Aryan Race to their cleansed lands" and all that jazz.
It'll be hard to stop Roosevelt from getting the Americans into Europe anyway, but not impossible.
The Panay incident, or something like it, escalates to war between the USA and Japan. Emboldened by the American stance against aggressive regimes, Britain and France draw the line at Munich, and the Nazis are contained before they become a concern to America.
World War 2 begins in 1938 with Hitler getting his invasion of Czechoslovakia. Halder loses his nerve and does not pull off the coup. Czechoslovakia falls, but not before Britain, France, and the USSR declare war on Germany. The Poles, trying to curry Hitler's favor and deciding they can pick up on some territory from the Soviets, jump in remain on Germany's side. And the failed invasion for now, so Germany tries Schlieffen Plan 2.0 in the Summer of 1939 only for things to bog at the Franco-Belgian border. Things get World War 1 esque in the west for 1940-42 in the strategic sense. On the tactical-operational level, various attempted offensives by both sides achieve some success before being stopped by counter-moves from the other side. But it is clear that Anglo-French strength is growing.
On the Eastern Front, the initial Soviet invasion of Poland goes poorly, but so does the Polish counter-invasion (as Germany can only lend a little support, being concentrated against the French, they are far worse equipped to invade the USSR in 1938-39 then even the Germans in 1941 and the Soviets still have a fully intact Stalin line to fall back on). But the start of the war does shot-cut the purges and kick-start the Soviet learning process. The Eastern Front likewise remains static as the Soviet steadily build up their forces and experience, although there are botched offensives from both sides in the interval (the Germans aren't strong enough to mount a major invasion while also fighting the Anglo-French and the Poles sure as hell won't pull it off by themselves). But it is likewise clear that Soviet strength is growing.
Hitler, more angry at the situation by the day, manages to dodge a renewed assassination plot by some generals realizing how screwed they are and imposes a brutal crackdown upon the German command that finally consolidates Nazi power over Germany once-and-for-all. Unfortunately, the war situation means he is still screwed.
Meanwhile, the continuing Japanese war in China prompts the US to slam down the OTL embargo only somewhat later then IOTL. In a slightly more rational moment then OTL, the Japanese decide on the principle of "one war at a time": they'll strike the US at Pearl Harbor, take the US territories in the Pacific, beat the US in decisive battle thereby forcing the US to sign a humiliating peace deal, and only then do they invade and seize the European colonial possessions. As I said, slightly more rational.
Steps 1 & 2 (strike at Pearl Harbor and take the US territories) go off without a hitch. Step 3... not so much. The Japanese score their "decisive victory" at Wake, sinking a pair of aircraft carriers only for the US refuses to sign peace anyways. Only as the US navy grows in power and the Japanese oil stocks run out in late-1942, do the Japanese realize they might have bit off more then they could chew.
In 1943, the Soviets and Anglo-French launch crushing offensives against the Germans and Poles. Territorially, these offensives gain a lot but are not decisive (only up to the Rhine in the west and up to the Vistula in the east) but they break the back of the German-Polish armies. Likewise, the US drive across the Pacific starts to get under way when the rebuilt US carrier force, with even better ships, crews, pilots, and aircraft then 1942, annihilates it's Japanese counterpart in June in the Marianas.
So as 1944 comes around, the "New Entente" (USSR, Britain, and France) are preparing to deliver the deathblow to the "New Central Powers" (Germany and Poland) while the US is liberating the Pacific at a much more rapid rate.
But there are tensions in the alliance: the Anglo-French are concerned at the size and strength of the reformed Red Army along with the Stalin making talk about "redrawing some borders in the east". And while they are glad the US is dealing with the Japanese threat, they are conscious that the US navy is now the most powerful on the planet and the US is still exercising some complaints about "old-style European imperialism in Asia". And (largely) unknown to each other, the Western Entente (Britain+France), the Americans, and the Soviets are all fervently and simultaneously working on a new bomb which promises the power to annihilate entire cities.
Although I suddenly realized this still leaves out Italy, hmm...
On the Eastern Front, the initial Soviet invasion of Poland goes poorly, but so does the Polish counter-invasion (as Germany can only lend a little support, being concentrated against the French, they are far worse equipped to invade the USSR in 1938-39 then even the Germans in 1941 and the Soviets still have a fully intact Stalin line to fall back on). But the start of the war does shot-cut the purges and kick-start the Soviet learning process. The Eastern Front likewise remains static as the Soviet steadily build up their forces and experience, although there are botched offensives from both sides in the interval (the Germans aren't strong enough to mount a major invasion while also fighting the Anglo-French and the Poles sure as hell won't pull it off by themselves). But it is likewise clear that Soviet strength is growing.
Hitler, more angry at the situation by the day, manages to dodge a renewed assassination plot by some generals realizing how screwed they are and imposes a brutal crackdown upon the German command that finally consolidates Nazi power over Germany once-and-for-all. Unfortunately, the war situation means he is still screwed.
Meanwhile, the continuing Japanese war in China prompts the US to slam down the OTL embargo only somewhat later then IOTL. In a slightly more rational moment then OTL, the Japanese decide on the principle of "one war at a time": they'll strike the US at Pearl Harbor, take the US territories in the Pacific, beat the US in decisive battle thereby forcing the US to sign a humiliating peace deal, and only then do they invade and seize the European colonial possessions. As I said, slightly more rational.
Steps 1 & 2 (strike at Pearl Harbor and take the US territories) go off without a hitch. Step 3... not so much. The Japanese score their "decisive victory" at Wake, sinking a pair of aircraft carriers only for the US refuses to sign peace anyways. Only as the US navy grows in power and the Japanese oil stocks run out in late-1942, do the Japanese realize they might have bit off more then they could chew.
In 1943, the Soviets and Anglo-French launch crushing offensives against the Germans and Poles. Territorially, these offensives gain a lot but are not decisive (only up to the Rhine in the west and up to the Vistula in the east) but they break the back of the German-Polish armies. Likewise, the US drive across the Pacific starts to get under way when the rebuilt US carrier force, with even better ships, crews, pilots, and aircraft then 1942, annihilates it's Japanese counterpart in June in the Marianas.
So as 1944 comes around, the "New Entente" (USSR, Britain, and France) are preparing to deliver the deathblow to the "New Central Powers" (Germany and Poland) while the US is liberating the Pacific at a much more rapid rate.
But there are tensions in the alliance: the Anglo-French are concerned at the size and strength of the reformed Red Army along with the Stalin making talk about "redrawing some borders in the east". And while they are glad the US is dealing with the Japanese threat, they are conscious that the US navy is now the most powerful on the planet and the US is still exercising some complaints about "old-style European imperialism in Asia". And (largely) unknown to each other, the Western Entente (Britain+France), the Americans, and the Soviets are all fervently and simultaneously working on a new bomb which promises the power to annihilate entire cities.
Although I suddenly realized this still leaves out Italy, hmm...
Last edited:
Mussolini spends the war laughing his head off in a bathtub full of money he gains from selling weapons, munitions and raw materials to all sides.
Yeah, but the OP wants us to get Italy involved on Germany's side. I'm trying to figure out a way to do that but, as dumb as Mussolini could be, he wasn't that stupid (he only entered the war against France because he thought it was a sure-fire thing) and was quite careful to distance himself from Hitler during Munich.
The solutions
Besides the Hitler [,Mussolini and other Axis] do not declare war on America pod, would an earlier Pacific War over USS Panay or Japanese actions in China count? Or how about a France fights on or better Soviet performance as potential pods, provided the Japanese do not invade colonies of the Allies.
Besides the Hitler [,Mussolini and other Axis] do not declare war on America pod, would an earlier Pacific War over USS Panay or Japanese actions in China count? Or how about a France fights on or better Soviet performance as potential pods, provided the Japanese do not invade colonies of the Allies.
Italy doesn't necessarily need to be involved, though it would be good.
@ ObssesedNuker
What would cause the USSR to declare war on Germany because of the invasion of Czechoslovakia? They didn't IOTL even after the invasion of Poland when the UK and France did (though admittedly the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact might've had something to do with that).
@ ObssesedNuker
What would cause the USSR to declare war on Germany because of the invasion of Czechoslovakia? They didn't IOTL even after the invasion of Poland when the UK and France did (though admittedly the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact might've had something to do with that).
If they'd the guts to defend Czechoslovakia and fight Poland and Germany at least in 1938 without western help, perhaps? Very unlikely to most users
.They voiced support for Czechoslovakia during the crisis and pledged actions along those lines if the Anglo-French did. That does not guarantee it, but the possibilities are good. Their exclusion from the conference and the fact that the Anglo-French gave in convinced them that the Western Allies didn't have the stomach to stand up to Hitler and/or was planning to sell the USSR out to the Germans. This, in turn, was partly responsible for their decision to abandon the "united front against fascism" policy and turn towards making a pact with Germany.
Really, the hardest part of that thing isn't the USSR jumping in. It's Poland siding with Germany: it could happen, but you would have to have the Poles get a somewhat more belligerent streak then IOTL and really aggravate the Soviets and the Anglo-French with the annexation of that slice of Czechoslovakia they took IOTL.
I did not know that. Interesting.
Would a more belligerent-seeming Stalin be enough to force the Polish to look towards the Germans as allies? Maybe they fear a repeat of the 1920s invasion.
A possibility, although I would observe that the Soviet-Polish War technically started with a Polish invasion of the USSR.
Can't exactly blame them, though, or at least not entirely. Lenin wanted to invade Poland to help the communists in Germany. Still, you are correct.
Only major change I'd make is the Poles attempt to remain nuetral. Later along the way they get trampled in the big guys bar fight.
I agree with the idea that Italy is more likely to remain nuetral in this TL.
thaddeus
Donor
possible(?) USSR and Japan reach an "Honor Among Thieves" pact instead of the OTL Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and agree to divide China or at least recognize each others spheres of influence there.
Germany still aligns with KMT government (which was always more profitable arrangement for them) and Thailand (route to supply China)
in Europe, Germany and USSR agree to divide Romania along the Siret River (WWI battlelines) with Hungary and Bulgaria taking part.
maybe Poland observes weak Allied response? and begins to at least "accommodate" Germany (IMO would be viewed as the slightly lesser of two evils) couple with saner German plan to keep Polish army facing Soviets?
without Italians to support my question would be if Germany might pay price for Spain to join Axis? (Franco doesn't have to survive)
Saphroneth
Banned
Or Poland basically decides that, as the USSR is going to lend help to attack Germany, the only possible way the USSR can get the soldiers there is THROUGH Poland... so they decide the USSR is going to attack Germany and strike first. (As per the 1920s war between the two countries.)
thaddeus
Donor
with a neutral Poland would Soviets (in '39 - '45) EVER attack Germany? OR with a formally neutral Poland being armed by Germany?
so guess ANY initiative would rest with Poland? possible they try a reach into the Baltic states? (IMO Germany & Poland vs. USSR they just sit and glare at one another)
My timeline (which I really should update soon) may be headed this way, where the war in the west is ended with a treaty, and Barbarossa may or may not end before the Pacific War begins, but at any rate, the colonial powers aren't simultaneously at war with Germany and Japan.
Saphroneth
Banned
Well, my point is that the Poles may align with Germany vs. the USSR (OTL they aligned with Germany to get that little slice of Czechoslovakia after all...) and it's not beyond realm of possibility.