WWII Alt-History

Wouldn't have been enough. And remember, the Germans started much closer to a war economy at the outset than any of their adversaries. The advantage wouldn't have been that much, especially since the usual bottleneck was in raw materials, not skilled labor.

>could germany win a war against russia between 1939 and 1945
yes

>could hitler win a war against stalin between 1939 and 1945
no

>Alt-History
>Axis victory
You didn't try hard to be original here.

Seriously, it's overdone, why not "Axis lose" diffrently , faster, or diffrent nations?

maybe. they should have issued viagra & roids to all their supersoldiers so they rape the fuck out of every french cunt on the continent and breed a germanic superstate /w italo & iberia as subjugate allies. britain'd be an ally and russia would do what the fuck it was intended to do which was placate the caucasus' & rape asia

>why not "Axis lose" diffrently , faster, or diffrent nations?
The Man With The Iron Heart was a great book.

If Italy doesn't enter in 1940, than Germany basically can't even pretend it's doing OK against Britain.

Not to mention that without an Axis presence in the med:

A) Britain can now ship all that stuff they get from Asia and Australia straight through Suez and Gibraltar instead of going all the way around Africa, eliminating a lot of the German success in the Battle of the Atlantic.
B) Without Italian presence, the British are free to load planes in all those islands like Cyprus and the few they have in the Dodecanese, and bomb Ploesti from the south side before the Germans set up radar defenses there.

And then finally from the Italian Perspective:

>Wow, France was taken out! But we better just keep building up our military, for the Soviet Campaign. Germany promised us spoils even if we stay out. Just be ready for the Soviet Campaign
>Huh, Britain is...not giving in. This isn't another few weeks.
>They're just relentlessly bombing Germany's shit and there's nothing Germany can do.
>Also they sunk the German and the French Navy, so it's us versus the British navy all by ourselves.
>Also, the Americans have gotten involved by proxy. This war is going to be a real long one.
>Oh, and now Hitler wants us for a war with the Soviet Union.
Nah, thanks, but no thanks big H. You have fun going alone.

Is that an alt his map? Germany never took Sweden.

They arguably did, for every one Tiger, the Germans built six Panzer IVs and four Panthers.

NO. Plenty of things could extend the war if it stayed conventional, but it that happened the first use of atomic weapons in history would be in Berlin instead of Hiroshima.

Didn't really need to, they were willing collaborators.

Spain could easily have flooded Gibraltar with their troops and therefore sealed off the Mediterranean from WAllies.

It wouldn't have sealed it off, it would have made it a lot harder for them to get in though.
Spain's army was... lacking. Sure, they could have forcibly taken Gibralter but how do they hold it? The British could have easily just turned the entire thing into an artillery range with their navy, Spain didn't have much in the way of modern anti ship weaponry or a modern air force. The British could commit a large force to destroying Spain's coastal regions and keeping the Mediterranean open.
It would make things a lot more difficult at first, but in 42' when the US joins in North Africa is going to be in Allied hands, whether they managed to hold on to what they had before or whether it comes at the hands of American and British forces retaking it, along with the first mainland naval invasions landing in Spain and not Italy

Spain even ignoring it's civil war destruction wouldn't join Axis anyway, not much to gain vs easy loss of any oversea territories.

Even more so for Portugal.

None of those countries were capable of building up their military without first going bankrupt.

1. They may not have needed to. The Soviet government could very well have collapsed in 1941 (if the staggering losses and the speed of the german advance was known to population it certainly would have) and the heavy industry in the west wouldn't have been relocated in time.

2. They didn't need to, Hitler never wanted to. Operation Sealion was scrapped. If Barbarossa had been a success the UK might as well have sued for peace. However, since Hitler declared war on the US they could expect support from them, which makes:
3. True.
4. True.
5. True.

Let's be honest, the US would find a reason to fight Germany sooner or later.

I don't know. Maybe? I'd say it depends on how the UK chose to handle to conflict.

Isn't it kinda widely acknowledged that Roosevelt wanted to intervene in Europe much earlier but couldn't because the public didn't want another war before Pearl Harbor?

I read a conspiracy theory a while ago that suggested they knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming (or at least a similar attack on another US base) but didn't do anything to stop it because it was the perfect excuse for entry into the war.

I haven't read much on the topic so it's likely bullshit but I wouldn't be surprised if they knew, most wars start with the other side having a good idea of when they will be attacked.

That conspiracy is likely bullshit. If and attack was coming then Roosevelt could just as well have prepared defences in secrets to minimize losses and maximize damage on the attackers. He'd still have his declaration of war.

Also, that wasn't the reason to intervene in Europe. Hitler declared war on the US, the US did not declare war because of Pearl Harbor.

This comes from a story that the radar operators on the island saw planes coming in and did not contact his superiors when they appeared.

I don't think they would've nuked Berlin, much as they purposely didn't nuke Tokyo. The idea was to give a strong radioactive warning fist. Probably they would've nuked a smaller or mid-size with at least some industry, 'safe' in a home zone, perhaps with ideological target purposes, but probably not too close to any border. Wuppertal, Dortmund, Düsseldorf, Hannover, Wolfsburg, Stuttgart, Munich, Nuremberg... something like that. Nuking a capital is a pretty dick move, no going back, which would have been apparent even in the 1940s.

Would the limeys really want to turn their outpost in to a pile of rubble just to get it 'back'? Keeping in mind that civilians would still be present in large numbers.

>Would an Axis victory be possible
No

No, if you're Hitler and you decide to betray the non-agression pact and open a second front against Russia because le germanic lebensraum wank.

Otherwise yes.

If Germany declares war on the US, it cant win end point. If they don't, and don't piss off the US with submarine warfare early on, the Soviets would collapse without help. The Germans could advance deep early on, retreat in winter and form a easier defensive perimeter, then attack again either in Spring and break the weaker Soviet defense, or ounter attack the Soviet offensive..

Why would the Soviets collapse if they had not collapsed during Barbarossa either?

Italy did build up its military before entering. But it built it up at the start of the 30's

Oops.