How could have the Axis powers won WWII ?

What events could have lead up to an Axis victory ?

Full scale war in Northern Ireland, Finnish army actively joining the attack on Leningrad and Sweden and Spain openly supporting Germany. And luck. Lots of it.

Not going against the huge chunk of lands that is the USSR, for one.

>that map
>uk still exists
>sweden occupied by germany
>independent brittany
>independent catalonia
>whatever that thing between greece and bulgaria is
kek

real talk: Hitler would've gone down as one of Germany's greatest leaders if he stopped expanding with the Munich agreements and called his restoration of Germany a success at that.

but if you want the war, Time was not on Germany's from day one, as Hitler knew that the second the war began in earnest, he would watch what little resources he had disappear. Meaning he had to make up for the lack of Germany's resources in war gains.

He could take Poland and France and the Balkans, but there is almost no way to see an outcome where Germany overcomes the Soviet Union. Germany would be better off forfeiting the ultimate goal of Lebensraum and leave it to the Soviets. If Stalin ever found it appropriate to strike first, Germany would be better off fighting a defensive war against the Soviets in Poland/East Prussia rather than an offensive war in the vast steppes of Russia.

Keep more of your treaties so that a limited war, a few victories, and negotiation is possible.

In a total war against multiple powers all of whom out build you, you're going to lose.

we have this thread about once every day
Can't you idiots think about something else to talk about?

And to answer the retard OP's question - Axis could have never won the war. They were outnumbered in manpower and industrial capacity and would always lose in an attrition war.

Capture Dunkirk in 1940

If that fails, don't attack the Soviet Union but engage the British in the Middle East (basically force Turkey to let the army march to Iraq and use their railway)

>Capture Dunkirk in 1940

And what would that do?

> but engage the British in the Middle East

From what logistical base?

>(basically force Turkey to let the army march to Iraq and use their railway)

And if they don't let you? How many years do you think it will take to bash your way across the Hellespont and through the Turkish mountains, all the while the British are ferrying them supplies and troops?

> Spanish republic
> Independent Catalonia (my sides lol)

What a failure of map...

If you capture dunkirk you have the majority of the British army. You can kill them all to severely weaken the British.
As for Turkey, the turks are not a great power the days of the Ottoman empire where Europe feared them are over. If they don't let you cross and use their logistics to fight the UK then you can fight the Turks much easier than the Russians. Hell to get some allies in eastern europe you can even give Constantinople back to the Greeks.

>If you capture dunkirk you have the majority of the British army.

No you don't. You have about 40% of the land forces that existed at the time as of the fall of France, and almost nothing of the air or naval assets. Furthermore, the British Commonwealth is churning out new forces all the time. You'll hurt them, but it won't be nearly enough to have any decisive benefit.

>As for Turkey, the turks are not a great power the days of the Ottoman empire where Europe feared them are over.

But they still have close to half a million men under arms or in the reserves, and you have only one narrow front to attack them on, which crosses a significant number of natural obstacles once you've gotten past Istanbul. It is unlikely you can defeat them quickly, especially if they're being propped up by a great power. And time is most definitely not on the side of the Germans.

>If they don't let you cross and use their logistics to fight the UK

They won't. No country is going to let a couple of million troops from an expansionist power into their country when they can't make them leave afterwards.

>Hell to get some allies in eastern europe you can even give Constantinople back to the Greeks.

Your ally attacked them already, remember? You probably blew your chance for an alliance there. Not to mention that if you want to do any adventuring in Turkey or Greece, you'd need to go through Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, which puts this adventure in 1941 at the very earliest.

All this wehraboo trash about some tactical changes is bullshit. Viewed from a realistic viewpoint germany constantly overperformed and a successfull operation (even a critical one) won´t change the outcome of the war. To actually have them win war the war given the same political situation at the start etc. you would need a ridicioulus ammount of luck on the german side (basically making no mistakes at all) and a lot of even bigger fuckups on the allied side.

To have the axis win the war you would have to change the political landscape and the axis approach to change the outcome of the war realistically.

some major points:

- A stronger isolationism in the USA and a german/japanese approach to be friendly with the US. Leading to no/significantly smaller Lend and Lease and no US entry of the war. ( No Pearl Harbor etc. of course)

- After the Fall of France Germany would need to refrain from starting the meme battle of britain and instead make serious amends to make peace with britain. Maybe not occupying france and instead neutralizing them ( strict armaments limitations, reparations etc. essentialy another verdun). A capture/destruction of the British forces in france would be beneficial of course.

- If they attack the soviets: Actually follow up the plan of kicking in the door so the rotten house collapses. Arm the ukrainians with captured arms, treat the different nationalities AND the russians decent and offer them a viable alternative to the hated soviet system ( at least for the time beeing, ideologically the nazis would have untermenschd them sooner or later in my oppinion)


-

While I agree with your fundamental premises, you've got the rather large problem that Hitler broke several major treaties from 1936-1939. The great powers of his day were quite frankly sick of his crap, and didn't trust his agreements.

To get into a position where you can negotiate with your enemies, even temporarily beaten enemies, you'd need to alter things even further back so that someone would be willing to listen to a peace offer with a Nazi seal on it.

Couldn't the Nazis get by just by threatning Europe and the U.S. that if the Germans are about to lose, they will do everything in their power to make the Soviets get as much as europe as possible and spread communism as far as possible? I know in real life the Nazis hated the commies but if that was changed then the Nazis would have a very good threat to fuck up the west.

I mean, they could try, but for starters, that threat isn't very credible, what with how difficult it is to move troops that are engaged in enemy contact, and secondly, I mean, the Allies were already willing to do the deal with the devil and let the Soviets have a big chunk of Europe in exchange for their aid. Knocking out Germany was priority #1, and dealing with the aftermath could come later.

I just don't see the Allies backing down over a bluff like this. They'd likely just ignore it, or try to cut a deal with Stalin to recover portions under Soviet occupation.

Well what if it isn't a bluff, and Hitler a day later pulls all the troops out of the east, and sends them all to the west and make the western front a meat grinder, while there is nothing stopping the Soviets from just walking across and taking what they want? I doubt Stalin will be willing to give back the areas that he conquered. The deal with the Soviets is that they got to keep what land they occupied.

>Well what if it isn't a bluff, and Hitler a day later pulls all the troops out of the east,

Because millions of those troops are going to be in combat with soviet forces, and can't just pack up and leave without being shot in the back.

Furthermore, your infrastructure for movement wasn't great at the best of times and by late in the war where there is a western front to send them too, is being bombed all the time. Moving millions of troops at the drop of a hat like that isn't really within the capabilities of a 1944 Germany, and thus the threat is not likely to be executed.

> doubt Stalin will be willing to give back the areas that he conquered.

He did in Iran, Yugoslavia,Albania, and pieces of Austria. Why not further, especially if this is post Tehran conference


>The deal with the Soviets is that they got to keep what land they occupied.

No it wasn't. Hell, The Tehran conference was held in a Soviet occupied city where the Soviets agreed to withdraw from once the war was over.

Dude I'm talking about in the early war. Like at least before Normandy, or even right before the U.S. entered the war. Hell I doubt the UK and America would be fine with communist puppet states all the way to France.

IF there isn't even a front to bring them to, just outright letting the Soviets walk into the entire country unopposed, I don't think Hitler would live to see an order like that carried out.

I mean hell, his power over the military was pretty enormous, but it wasn't absolute. You kept having HIWIs crop up in the Eastern Front formations despite Hitler insisting that they not be let near anything.

If he wants to out and out surrender to the Soviets, especially before the war is completely and irretrievably lost, he'd probably be put into some sort of protective custody by the top brass.

>Couldn't the Nazis get by just by threatning Europe and the U.S. that if the Germans are about to lose, they will do everything in their power to make the Soviets get as much as europe as possible?

FDR would have been okay with this. The Western Allies could have taken Berlin, but instead FDR ceded it, and the better part of Eastern Europe, to Stalin.

>yugoslavia
please,like he had a choice :^)

Not allying with either the Japs or the Italians.

Have FDR overthrown by the Business Plot. Have America be preoccupied with another civil war.

Develop the atomic bomb first, force allies into unconditional surrender. Proceed to backstab Italy for being retarded and trying to drain the Mediterranean.

EZ PZ

It's not impossible that a collaborationist government in Greece would have joined an attack on Turkey in summer 1941. Such an endeavor would have even been pretty popular among nationalist circles. Italy and Bulgaria would have participated, too, and even with natural obstacles the Turkish army was outdated and small. I can't see their several hundreds of thousands of little trained reservists being more valuable than those of Yugoslavia.

>It's not impossible that a collaborationist government in Greece would have joined an attack on Turkey in summer 1941.

After they're already at war with Italy? Yes, it is fucking impossible.

> I can't see their several hundreds of thousands of little trained reservists being more valuable than those of Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia was a hotbed of internal dissent that persisted even after it fell, where nothing comparable existed in Turkey. Furthermore, Yugoslavia was bordered on literally every side but the sea by axis who were diving in, to try to ward against this threat, their troops were scattered all over the damn place, and often overwhelmed in hours to days.

You don't have that in Turkey. You'll overrun the stuff in Europe pretty fast, sure ,but how are you going to cross the Dardanelles, especially since the British are likely to have a naval advantage, real bad for trying to get landing craft across. And even if you do, that means you will have to supply your force by sea, over contested waters, the entire time. You know how much trouble they had doing that for Rommel's 3 German divisions and 5 Italian ones for the North African campaign? Now you want to do the same for 60-100 divisions at least? Good luck, you're going to need it.

And then, even if you do somehow manage to pull this off, you'll not only be fighting the turks themselves, but a steady stream of Commonwealth and likely later American forces joining in, who can easily be railed up the Persian corridor (since the Allies will have conquered Iraq and Iran like they did historically) putting their lines of communication well out of your reach.

I agree, the point of divergence should have been much earlier. It would have needed a much more diplomatiuc and careful approach by the reich. Basically after Munich they would have to stop. This would drastically change the starting situation of a war though.

>After they're already at war with Italy? Yes, it is fucking impossible.

Why? It would be obviously after Greece is defeated. It would make sense for a new nationalist government to exploit the unique opportunity. There's nothing exceptional about switching sides.

Besides, the British can't use their naval superiority in the narrow straits that can be easily mined and protected by close airfields and artillery positions on land. The long transport route to N. Africa isn't comparable at all.

> It would make sense for a new nationalist government to exploit the unique opportunity. There's nothing exceptional about switching sides.

It's pretty exceptional that when you smash up a country and carve their lands up into no less than 4 different occupational zones that there exists a strong enough collaborationist government to make any meaningful offensive contribution to your war.

The puppet governments that historically existed couldn't even deal with the Greek resistance movements without help. What makes you think they can help fight Turkey?

>Besides, the British can't use their naval superiority in the narrow straits that can be easily mined and protected by close airfields and artillery positions on land.

Dunkirk would argue otherwise. And they don't need to go into the straits, they just need to get close enough to lob shit at anything trying to cross over them. And it's not like you have a plethora of landing craft in the Mediterranean to make your initial landing (hitting beaches opposed turns out to be really fucking hard). In fact, I'm not sure the Italians had any.

I guess the Romanians could also try it, but given they had to buy their 4 destroyers instead of internally producing them, I'm not sure they had the shipbuilding capabilities.

> Hitler would've gone down as one of Germany's greatest leaders if he stopped expanding with the Munich agreements
He actually wouldn't have because the German economy would folded like a cheap suit in 2 more years of peace and the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic would have looked like a golden age of prosperity in comparison

>Finnish army actively joining the attack on Leningrad

>what is the continuation war

Obviously Greece wouldn't be cut up if there was a plan to make them participate. However, the threat of possibly having to cede more land to Bulgaria and Italy could be used to make then giving some support the Nazis. Better comply than losing even more land, and then there's also the possibility to gain Constantinople which the Greeks always wanted. They might get more approval of the public that way. Turkey was their arch enemy after all. Btw Hitler also forced Slovakia and Romania to cede land to Hungary and they still participated in his campaigns because they thought having Hitler's approval would be useful.

The Dardanelles are 65 km long, out of range for naval artillery. Then there's also the Bosporus.

Hitler falls down the stairs after being inaugurated as the Chancellor. After that huge fall, he remains for the rest of his life in a coma. In Hitler's coma, he dreams of a universe where he and the Axis powers magically won WW2.

That's probably the only conceivable way.

Fighting the allies in the middle east without some decent naval capabilities AND no Air Support is doomed to fail. Way too much space vulnerable to naval invasion and Supply lines that can't be protected properly. Another Afrikakorps at best. Even if they manage to take Arabia,then what ? Not the really the most important colonies...

I mean i am a wehraboo (not a stormfag !) but without some form of peace/permanent ceasefire the axis is going to have a Bad time if the US should join.

*NO Air superiority

What makes you think they'd have no air support? It wouldn't be like North Africa because supplies could be transported more easily, at least into Turkey and Iraq (ferry over Bosporus and railroad into Turkey/Iraq). The point of the whole thing would be trying to beat the British forces on land (since you can't reach them in Britain)

and the oil in Iraq ofc

Goad USSR to attack first to garner sympathy from US and Europe in general.

Germany would have won if they didn't fight the Soviets.

There.

No, they would still lose.

The only difference is that America would get MVP for both Europe and Pacific rather than just the latter.

America won both fronts

It was a team effort, but you don't get MVP for being late. I'm not one of those vatniks that think the SU did literally everything, but they put in the most work when it came to Europe.

They fought the most battles, lost the most men, killed the most men, and took more land (though to be fair a lot of that land was their land to begin with). America played a huge role, but not the largest. You can argue that America was close behind since lend-lease did help the SU a lot, but at the end of the day, there were no American forces in the Eastern Front where most of the major fighting happened.

That map is disgusting.

That wouldn't be the "only" difference though. If the soviet union isn't setting up puppet states in eastern europe the US may well decide to break germany up into multiple independent states.

Possibly, but that's postwar talk.

To answer the question of what Nazi Germany could have done to win, it really is no difference. The Nazi state will inevitably be destroyed the moment one of the two soon-to-be-superpowers find a reason to enter the war.

Heck, maybe not even that is needed. States like Nazi Germany tend to collapse into civil war eventually.

people loved the soviet system. ukranian nationalists were a minority and also mosty fascist/collaborationist

>real talk: Hitler would've gone down as one of Germany's greatest leaders if he stopped expanding with the Munich agreements and called his restoration of Germany a success at that.

This was never an option, since the german economic recovery depended on siezing assets from planned conquests.

By staying out of Russia, as long as GB remained as an enemy in the european theatre. It would've also helped, if the OKW was the only strategic department of the military - Hitler was one of the main reasons why the Wehrmacht suffered catastrophic losses from 1941 on (i.e. the constant refusal to conduct a tactical retreat, misuse of new/existing technologies, etc.).

PS: the image is inaccurate.

The Germans could have won in Russia if Hitler had stayed out of it. Not by any great feat, but if they had

1) Started the war earlier, as planned

2) Planned for winter warfare

3) Managed to inflict such a crushing defeat on the soviets that the Politburo would depose of Stalin and sue for peace.

The latter part was actually a real possibility that even Stalin feared. After the initial invasion, he was catatonic and certain of his impending execution.

>What events could have lead up to an Axis victory ?

The Confederate States of America winning the American Civil War.

>The confederates were reclaimed 9 years later
All that would happen

I agree, that it should've been one massive push towards Moscow, but it's unrealistic to think, that the Wehrmacht would've been ready in 1941. The logistic difficulties ,the lack of enough suitable medium tanks and equipment for winter warfare made it impossible to win fast enough, before the russian winter would deny every further advance.

Interesting scenario, the CSA really had similar ideologies - and they hated the Yankees just like the Nazis

They stopped on purpose far before the city. If they didn't they might have taken it.

True, 1941 was to early... Even by Hitler's initial estimations.

It might shock you but the allies disliked Nazi Germany more than Commie Russia. It's almost like they supplied the Soviets and shit.

That's about what happened.
The thing is: if anybody of the leadership ranks of the western allies would've read mein Kampf, they would've realized that the final plot of the Nazi ideology was to destroy the Bolshevism, enslave the Slavic people and thereby create the "Lebensraum im Osten".

>been one massive push towards Moscow
the problem with this is as follows - in the real life, supply lines of the central push (well, not just that one) were beyond strained
how will you deal with a situation that is even worse?

You seriously think no western leader caught on to Nazis being anti-communism?
Also if you read Mein Kampf, you would've realized that Hitler had a serious beef with the United States and saw it as the great evil Jew nation to be taken down.

More time for armament and strategic planning. And by more time we're speaking about 2 more years in war economy - and that doesn't even include Operation Seelöwe.
The russians always had the means (economically and humane) but the germans had the superior strategic command (f.e. von Manstein, Rommel, Guderian) and a tremendous technological advantage. Just think about the possibilities with the Me 262 with sufficient numbers and the correct scope: that would've meant permanent (or at least until the enemy party counters the weapon) air superiority, the key to every modern military operation.

Maybe i wasn't specific enough about that, but i tried to say, that, even from the early beginnings, the Nazi-party aimed to destroy the communism. And I realized that Hitler was the one responsible for the bad blood with the US, I didn't say anything about that yet.

>I've never read a book, the post
German economy was broken. War was the only way it escaped hyperinflation.
Furthermore, German economy was far larger than the Soviet one, and Germany handily outproduced the Soviet Union pre- and during the war.
Also,
>Rommel
>superior strategic command

Germany did not have a tremendous technological advantage over the Soviets in weapons. Germany was worse in many critical techs vs. western allies.

>Just think about the possibilities with the Me 262 with sufficient numbers and the correct scope: that would've meant permanent (or at least until the enemy party counters the weapon) air superiority, the key to every modern military operation.
You now realize that the allies had a jet fighter that actually functioned around the same time as the Meme 262. The only reason Meme 262 was the "first" was because it was rushed.

To be fair, the US was also pretty much the main reason why germany had 40% of it's ground forces and 75% of it's airforce defending western and southern europe rather then fighting in eastern europe in 1943.

>What events could have lead up to an Axis victory ?

The trade unions in USA go commie and a revolution erupts there.
Not *too* far fetched either. This was before communist became a dirty word.

It's pretty fucking far fetched considering American unions hated communism more than anyone.

I can agree on the economic struggle, because building an army on tick isn't the smartest idea, it's a doom loop if you want to expand your military and economic power even further.
What I meant was an economic advantage in form of an efficient production of weaponry, not the economy as a whole.
I can't really tell why you think Rommel can't be considered as a strategic commander, but please explain yourself.
The T34 was superior to the german Panzer IV, but what else would have the russians to offer?
You think that the Gloster Meteor was superior to the Me 262, have you ever read a performance of those meatboxes (but yes, the Me 262 also struggled with the engine performance, but was reliable fighter overall - even if it was used as an attack aircraft)?

I meant superiority as seen in the next post my dude.

Nice revisionism my dude. Sure actual fascists were a minority but the people sure as hell didn´t like the system (a really stupid claim especially for the ukraine and baltic states). Its no /pol/ meme that the germans were greeted as liberators in the first weeks. As soon as they started murdering, raping and pillaging this changed ofc.

>WW1
>"Hey Hans?"
>"Yes Hans?"
>"This war isn't going so well."
>"I know"
>"I have a plan though. Want to hear it?"
>"Sure Hans, shoot."
>"Well, you know that dormant superpower, the United States?"
>"Yes. Very big. Very powerful."
>"I'm thinking we make allies of it's retarded southern neighbors and begin indiscriminately killing Americans."
>"Fantastic idea. But is that all?"
>"No, it gets better. You know that batshit ideology communism we've been sitting on?"
>"Yes. It really is batshit."
>"What if we propagate it, destabilize large chunks of Europe and collapse them?"
>"Fantastic idea. I can't possibly see how this could go wrong"

>WW2
>"Hey Hans?"
>"Yes Hans?"
>"Are you still mad about losing that war we started?"
>"I sure am."
>"I have a plan."
>"Go on, Hans. I love your plans."
>"Well, remember how last time we went to war simultaneously with both Western and Eastern Europe and it ended in a humiliating defeat?"
>"I sure do. It really was quite humiliating."
>"Well Hans, what if we do it again?"
>"Fantastic plan. I can't see how this could go wrong."

>You think that the Gloster Meteor was superior to the Me 262, have you ever read a performance of those meatboxes (but yes, the Me 262 also struggled with the engine performance, but was reliable fighter overall - even if it was used as an attack aircraft)?

Also look at the scoope and goals the two planes were used to. The gloster was mainly used to counter V1 flying bombs and even had BIG problems doing that. The Me on the other hand actually succeded (somewhat) in what it was doing (despite beeing used strategically wrong as a bomber) and had to be used against pressing superiority.

*performance report
*a reliable fighter
*yeah it was used as fighter/bomber, but mostly as bomber

Sometimes I don't trust my cognitive abilities anymore.

Otherwise I agree with you, the effectiveness of both projects was impaired due to different circumstances. The thing is, that the Me 262 could've stopped the daylight bombing if used properly and if the war against the SU would've been stalled for two more years or more (maybe a bad idea after that period of time), the impact of the Me 262 would've been significant at least (to get back to the original topic of the thread).

Yes. I think Jet engine wise the germans were simply more advanced but the circumstances of the war prevented the effective usage of this. Yes GB also had a jet fighter but it was a more of a prototype used to gain experience on the field wile the german programm actually wielded results that were militarily usable. If we imagine a scenario where the germans stil have access to the soviet raw materials and oil and generally more ressources because of no war of attrition in the east the advantage would be bigger most likely.

I was thinking about the scenario where Unternehmen Barbarossa was suspended for the preperation of Unternehmen Seelöwe, the only reasonable solution in my opinion -- but your argument was one of the main reasons why the ruling classes weren't objecting the Unternehmen Barbarossa, thinking that the SU had an army consisting of cardboard characters armed with pitchforks, orchestrated by second rate generals (which was not the case obviously).

The soviets actually delievered their ressources very reliable. They were more worried about the soviets stabbing them in the back AND ideology of course. I don´t think seelöwe was feasible. British air force and navy was to strong to gain air superiority above the isles or knock their navy out.

Ok, full stop with your shitty understanding of WW2. Sea Lion will never work by WW2. Ever. The RN would shit on the Kreigsmarine in no time. Germany's only hope was to knock the Soviets out and sue for peace.

Chasing the russian bear over the Ural Mountains was a very good idea. Only problem was, that the Wehrmacht didn't have the resources to get that far. At least not by 1941.

>not declaring war on the US
>actually coordinating with his Japanese allies instead of fighting two separate wars

No it wasn´t. The SU could have been beaten if germany could have lured them to attack somehow.

Is there a reason why a lot of Axis victory maps portray Brittany as part of Germany?

Maybe if the Nazis managed to engineer some kind of wonderweapon (notably nuclear capabities ofcourse). Even though they face an immense brain-drain during the nazi-regime, the possibility of engineering a wonderweapon which would turn the tide was on of the main reasons why the Germans still continued fighting even though the prospects were getting worse every day.

Limit Japan's Kwantung army to only Manchuria and not get stuck into the mess of the Chinese theatre. Then help the Kuomintang purge the Chinese Communists and encourage the KMT to join the Axis Powers.

Encourage the RoC and IJA to see USSR and communism rather than each other as the biggest threat so that fuckups like the Soviet invasion of Sinkiang and Khalkhin Gol don't happen.

If this improbable alt history wankfest happens and the Soviets were as unprepared as in Barbarossa in 1941, then the USSR would be under a lot more pressure if a second front in Siberia and East Asia was opened.

If the Sixth hadn't fallen in the East, and Hitler didn't reprimand German defensive capacity as "cowardly defeatism" then they would have easily won.
German tanks weren't built for assault as counter intuitive as that sounds allow me to present my evidence.
The more "elite" aspects of German tanks were built too heavy and too slow, they also took too long to build and weren't cost effective for what they were being used for.
German light mechanized units should've stormed Western Russia periodically retreating for the winter and allowing the Russians to throw their best in counter attack against heavily entrenched German armored divisions.
This way Germany could have over a few years knocked out Russian capacity to fight. Russia would be eventually forced to move base of operation to the wastes beyond the Ural mountains and Germany would gain massive resource(s).
There's a lecture on youtube about how the Reds beat the Krauts, try to imagine the obverse of the salient points. (It's a three part college lecture, cant miss it)
The Western powers would have made peace, probably, The U.S. would have had peace.
though Japan is the wild card...

While they were allowed to produce some German technology under license, the Japanese didn't really see Germany as a close ally. It was a bit closer to how the USSR cooperated with the western Allies with lend lease.

>Yes GB also had a jet fighter but it was a more of a prototype used to gain experience on the field wile the german programm actually wielded results that were militarily usable
All sides fielded operational jet fighters. The only difference was the German jet had engine life of 20 hours.

Not him, but I don't think the Soviets had any jets by the timeframe of WW2

>Germany gears up for a 2 year war to beat the USSR instead of trying to win in a summer
>Italians build a fucking railroad in Libya before the war so they don't have to rely exclusively on trucks for supply
>Japan chooses not to attack Pearl Harbor and focus exclusively on the Dutch/British until the US decides to join the war by choice

If Japan doesn't go to China then they wouldn't even be on a war path with the Allies. There's not one without the other.

Actually in this case, there would be less chance of conflict with the western allies in this fantasy scenario so they would focus only on the Soviets. See nanshin-ron favoured by the Japanese Navy (expanding towards the Pacific islands and US) versus hokushin-ron favoured by the Japanese Army (expanding towards the USSR).

Not saying that Japan wouldn't go to war with the Western Allies at all, but without going after the European powers in the East Indies and US in the Philippines it would be less likely for Japan to immediately fight all the Allies at the same time.

This is an unsubstantiated meme.

Never read Wages of Destruction, huh?

The Soviets knew, that they were also incapable of attacking Germany, just think of the war between Finland and the SU. The calculations of Hitler where accurate to a certain extent, because the Soviets where weakened from a militatian point of view, Stalin had some of his finest men from strategic commans executed. And that is one of the key factors that you would have needed to succeed in an offensive operation.
My conclusion is: Germany actually had a lot of time to fight it's open enemies. The right way to engage GB was airbourne, all they needed was more time and a strategic focus ob the island, no bullshitting with super-heavy tanks and V rockets.

There wasn't enough cooperation between Japan and Germany, this would've been in both their interests for the war effort in the end.

Would Stalin have been willing to make a peace deal with germany in 41 when they were in the outskirts of moscow?

How much would germany have been able to demmand?

>VMRO state
>not united with mother Bulgaria

No and nothing. While the average Soviet soldier was mostly in the dark, Stalin had a pretty good idea of what would happen to captured political officers. He would rather fight to the death.

To be fair I think he meant that if Germany didn't attack Russia but did everything else they might've stood a chance.

If Germany didn't attack the USSR in 41 and waited until they attacked him, would the US still sign the lend lease?

>STopped expanding with the munich agreements

Would indicate stopping before even the full annexation of Czechoslovakia.

Obviously speculative, but given U.S. coldness towards Germany which predates the war, and wanting to help Britain at the very least, as well as likely common enemies of Germany, my gut guess would be yes, but probably not until the war started/started going badly for the USSR.

>He could take Poland and France and the Balkans, but there is almost no way to see an outcome where Germany overcomes the Soviet Union. Germany would be better off forfeiting the ultimate goal of Lebensraum and leave it to the Soviets
Imagine 1941 without Barbarossa. Wages of destruction, I liked it, but I think Hitler was wrong on the capablities of the US and Britain. An unharmed German army could withstand any assault into mainland Europe if the soviets didn't intervene.

Yes, buit the previous user seemed to be talking about keeping to the munich pact, which is way before invading the USSR.

If we posit a 1941 divergence from history, you've still got problems. North Africa and Italy are likely to fall, and if nothing else, sooner or later, you're going to get atomic bombings throughout Germany, which will probably end your regime when they chuck out 3 a month in late 45.