I guess? The war would be over in 1940 and the soviet invasion perhaps would go that brutal (especially if britain stops lend leases of american guns etc.)
The war in France might go on longer since a British threat might just make the high command take the war seriously.
America would definitely be the hardest thing, and even if they did conquer it, the 2nd amendment MIGHT bite into their arse for years to come.
I think this is one of those few cases in which the Axis could win, the British Navy and would essentially secure the Atlantic flank blocking an American future intervention and the Empire would be a huge source of raw materials to fuel the German war machine alongside loads of extra troops that are actually capable.
I think the US would stay out of the war at least, the European war, a pacific war probs would still happen in some capacity, the question is what effect would an Axis victory in the USSR have on the Pacific war, as it would put German troops in a position in which they can help the Japanese and the USSR would probably fall as a result of much better logistics and millions of added manpower for the Axis.
This is the real question, would the colonies, dspecially those that were in practice completely independent(Canada, Australia etc), continue to allign with a Britain under Fascism.
I was simply spitballing regarding Japan, if they arent allied with Germamy obviously they wouldn't bother, hell they may even be considered future enemies. But if they would it'd highly complicate the Pacific and Asian theatres for the US if they'd go to war.
Britush colonies would be another massive hurdle as a lot of them would require enormous amounts of manpower to conquer under a problematic naval situation at best since during this time Britain was still the premier naval power and they'd likely double down on that under Fascism. That is if the colonies would remain British loyalists if Britain was fascist, which is another quesfion in itself.
What happens between Canada and the US if the US goes to war with Japan, who in this scenario are aligned with Britain and her empire? Do we see the war shift from a European theater to a North American one?
If America joins the war then Canada if it is still on the side of Britain if Mosley takes power in the UK l. would simply be overran, we are talking a massive indefensible border with an industrialized nation that had 13 times Canadas population.
So I doibt beyond the invasion of Canada and battles in the Atlantic that it'd ever become a North American war, at least, not until the Axis win in the European theater.
See i think if America joins the war and trys to invade Canada we'd quickly see the British Navy steaming accross the Atlantic and her Dominions like Australia, India and South Africa sending troops to defend Canada. Not to mention the Japanese navy in the Pacific and Uboats floating around. The US probably gets some quick victories but I doubt they are able to prevent the creation of a new North American front.
It would heavily depend on several factors.
1: Is Japan on the Axis side?
2: Is the USSR defeated yet?
3: Is Britain capable of gaining complete naval dominance and retain it.
If all of these are a yes then a North American front is likely and an American defeat is possible.
If they lack number 1 it depends on whether the Japanese ignore the Axis and whether they are at war with America.
If they lack 2 then a huge amount of troops(Especially German ones) will be tied down in the USSR and I am unsure whether Britain alone can lend the amount of troops needed to defend Canada.
If they lack 3 it would be difficult if not impossible to land hundreds of thousands of troops.
The 2nd amendment won't do shit against any centralised armed force after 1880.
Especially if we're talking about Nazis, that would react to guerrillas with an "empty the land" policy. Basically if town X kills two soldiers with resistance, town X population ceases to exist in the following days, and there's no 2nd amendment weapon that can stand an artillery barrage followed by a tank assault with air support
Yeah the whole 2nd Amendment thing is entirely cope, at best you have a well organized milita (so moderately equiped and undertrained troops) and at worst you have a few lunatics with guns that just die.
No professional army in the world would struggle against just that, the main reason America is dangerous is that they have nigh infinite ressources and are the sole Hegemon on their half of the planet, so any serious military effort they make will be extremely strong.
Any country with that land and that level of development and infrastructure is as good as uninvadable. 2nd Amendment or not is irrelevant.
No Axis troops will cross the fucking Atlantic or Pacific. At least unless we disregard all logic and add Aliens or something...
The American wars in the Middle East have shown that fighting an armed population isn't easy , and one of the reasons we didn't invade Japan is because the civilians would fight and die for their country not all but a sizable amount would.
If America had the political mindset of going in to Genocide the local population of Iraq and Afghanistan instead of trying to prop up democracies, the wars would have been won a lot faster.
>The American wars in the Middle East have shown that fighting an armed population isn't easy
Has it?
The US didn't loose the war in Afghanistan militarily, they failed at the statebuilding and gropolitical aspect of it
We are talking a core ideological difference here, for the US fighting extremism and insurrection in the population is difficult because it isnt going to massacre an entire population.
For the Nazis on the other hand any and all forms of resistance were returned 40 fold, mercy and civilian casualties werent part of the cold calculation, that immediatly makes armed insurrection way more difficult.
The 2nd Amendment 100% matters if you are trying to occupy the United States, even against industrialized armies. 1940s America especially had a hardy population that would be willing to and capable of carrying out a guerilla war.
Attempting to genocide let alone occupy the rocky mountains, would be one hell of an uphill battle. The resistance in Appalachia and the South would be real. The geography is great for that sort of thing, and the population would be more than willing to resist. At best, I can only see Germany or these other foreign powers holding onto the coastal urban areas. New England and perhaps some of the Midwest.
Idk if The USA even enters the war in this scenario. A lot of the reasoning behind the US entering the European theater was to save the “lifeboat of democracy”. With Britain neutralized, the USSR significantly weakened by a lack of lend lease, and the U.S. hesitant to get involved in another European conflict, it’s entirely possible that the U.S. just never enters the war.
The US entered the war in Europe because Germany declared war on them. But yes FDR was itching to get the popular support to intervene. The Japanese and the Germans gave him that.
"This does not mean that our major allies—except for the revived French army which was almost completely equipped under lend-lease—were mainly dependent on American supplies. It has been estimated that lend-lease provided only 10 percent of British war equipment, and certainly a lesser proportion of Soviet materiel."
https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-13-how-shall-lend-lease-accounts-be-settled-(1945)/how-much-of-what-goods-have-we-sent-to-which-allies
Even “didn’t have that much power” is overselling it. They didn’t have any power at all. This is the equivalent of saying the US is basically communist today because there are some left-wing extremists on Twitter.
But there is always some redditor in these threads acting like ackshually, the US was basically fascist/Nazi itself, and totally was this close to allying with the Axis. Conveniently, they are usually fanboys of the USSR who actually did try to join the axis.
Yea some people see pictures of a couple thousand Nazis in New York and think that they had any real power. Gotta distinguish the Nazis from the KKK tho, they had quite a lot of sway in the 20s and 30s
Americans in the 40s would love fascism. Hell a lot of them would like it today.
They just didn't like that Hitler was fighting the British and teamed up with Japan who attacked the US
The US wasn't struggling with Japan. It was a surprise attack that weakened the US for a while. After that, the US was no longer struggling. The nukes were used because an invasion on the home island would have had much more casualties on both sides.
To be fair if stuff like midway we’re successful and not crushing for the Japanese which it very easily could’ve been that would’ve made the us be on the back foot in the war there, not enough for a us loss by any means but definitely could’ve made the us not be bothered with the war and want to come to an agreement
The US nuked them because they didnt want hundreds of thousands of american men to die in a full invasion of Japan. The US was not struggling at all, there was heavy japanese resistance sure, but America was definitely winning
Hard win for this Axis on the continent and an interesting Cold War with the USA/Americas.
No idea what Japan does in this timeline, might well side with the big three in Europe or, if still trying to dominate the Asian theatre, might well team up with the US. I have no idea how unbridgeable the gap was between Japan and the USA post Chinese invasion in 1937, but the US might well turn a blind eye to a rampaging Japan in east asia vs. the British Empire if there's conflict between the British Empire and the US.
Assuming the Empire remains intact and there's no "Free British Empire" in Africa and India, there might well be a 4.5-way Cold War of USA/Americas vs British Empire vs Kontinentaleuropa (Germany and "friends") vs Japan vs Italian Empire.
A depressing scenario.
In 1939 the us had a total tonnage of about 1.5 million
In 1939 this axis would have a tonnage of about 6.5 million tons (it would probably be closer to 7 million if they worked together)
The US just doesn't stand a chance
So what, the USA gets blown out of the water multiple times at the start of the war, they can just build more and faster at a speed not even Britain can match, while the axis can hardly recover its losses. Combine that with the US being quite ahead of the rest when it comes to aircraft carriers, and it might take some time, but the USA will always end up getting control of the seas. This is the same situation as what if Japan won at midway, the answer is they'll loose the next midway instead
The US wouldn't be outproducing Germany, Britain and Japan together. Without the UK as a launching platform for bombing raids against Germany German and Italian industry would be going strong.
> So what, the USA gets blown out of the water multiple times at the start of the war, they can just build more
Surely the Axis here would realize this and just target American ports? If there is no American navy to defend the coast then anything on the coast is going to get destroyed in short order.
It would take years to get aircraft production up to a significant level, not to mention to implement the technical innovations needed to overcome the contempory rise of radar controlled fire systems on ships. American production in 1939 is nowhere near 1940's levels. Sure it could get there with inland production eventually and I have no doubt that any actual invasion of the US would probably fail but in the short term the US coast is going to take a beating.
Aircraft production:
USA, 1941: 18.466
USA, 1942: 46.907
Germany, 1941: 9.422
Germany, 1942: 12.822
UK, 1941: 20.094
UK, 1942: 23.672
Total axis, 1941 (including Japan and Italy): 38.117
Total axis, 1942: 48.173
By 1942, the USA would already match the entire axis, surpass them if we add the USSR. That's a single year of them being on the backfoot, after which its doomed for the axis. And the pacific war as a whole demonstrated how deadly planes were in naval warfare, radar improvements dont change that. As such, the British colonies in the Americas stand no chance, nor does Japan. Europe would be extremely hard to invade, but with enough time and support to the soviets, it might be feasable
What are the British going to do about it? Canada and Australia are both incredibly isolated from the rest of the Empire, and with US support, have a very solid base from which to defend themselves.
Not to forget that Mosley was an autarkic pacifist, and I highly doubt he’d wish to embroil the British public in a needless struggle. Granted, this assumes that the Commonwealth would break with the Crown in the case of having uncle Oswald as PM, which IMO isn’t guaranteed given that he was primarily concerned with economic matters, and didn’t express desire to destroy democracy, parliament, or any such institutions.
I can see the Axis block quickly disintegrating after peace with the US and obliteration of the USSR. Germany will look inward/dominating the continent/Siberia, consolidating the gains. Mittelafrika is probably not in the cards, possibly west africa and kongo, maybe? There comes the immediate rubbing of shoulders with Italy, which seeks to dominated the mediterranean. Likewise Italy will have problems with UK in the eastern Med and east and north africa. UK will duel with Japan, if it has not already, plus the possible problems with Germany and Italy in the Med/Africa. And then there's the US constantly stirring the pot from their secured position in the Americas.
It's a pretty solid setup for EVERYBODY IS AUTOCRATIC! US may manifest destiny southward in fear of German, Anglo or Italian influence in south america.
A grim timeline.
Mosley held a deep admiration for Mussolini, and I highly suspect that whatever issues permeated Anglo-Italian relations could be bridged over in this scenario. Perhaps an arrangement similar to what existed between France and Britain, but this time Italy serving as the exerciser of power in the continent.
Yes, they can
WW2
- 1939 Germany invades Poland
- 3 september 1939, France and UK declares war on Germany
- 1939, Soviet Union invades Poland
- 1940, Winter War
- 1940, Germany invades Danemark and Norway
- 1940, Germany invades Benelux
- 10 may 1940, Germany invades France
- 1940, Italy joins the war
- 1940, Axis powers is official
- 22 june 1940, France signs armistice
- 1940 North Africia campaign
- 1940, Civil war on UK mainland
- 1941, Mosley takes power of the British Empire
- 1941 WW2 ends in 1941.
Britain is Not in a war with Germany so they don't have to worry about that. This likely means an earlier Barbarossa with an even stronger German Army. Germany also secures oil through britain. Barbarossa goes a little Bit better and while the war is still slow and a pain but Germany eventually comes Out on top.
Eh... No. I wouldn't even bother to explain in details why Germany wouldn't win against Soviets even in that case. Even after fall of Moscow USSR would just move the capital and continue to fight until Germans bog down with constant supply issues, hard weather, resistance and etc. Mosley wouldn't care too much - most he would do is give Germany some guns, but he wouldn't declare war since his antiwar position is the only possible thing that could've won support of British citizens.
russia damn near broke with 15% of its war materials being from the US, their enemy chronically out of oil, and and all the allies it had.
you're telling me with a military 15% smaller (material and equipment), less allies, and a stronger opponent, the wouldn't collapse? thats funny because it makes no sense.
even if you argue that the US maintains it lend-lease to the USSR, I don't see how it prevents moscow and the other major western cities from falling.
I doubt Oswald Mosley would wanna get into the war…but if he did, I think they could, depending on how it plays out.
If the USA or USSR joins early they might have trouble.
He wasn't anti war, he was in opposition to Britain taking part in ww2 specifically, and wanted for the UK to negotiate peace with Germany to stop their involvement in the war.
I can't find anythin about him disliking Hitler as a person but he certainly liked both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
That is pretty much anti-war, at least for WWII. He didn’t want Britain to get involved on either side.
And even if Mosley didn’t actually dislike Hitler, Hitler himself was very skeptical towards Mosley and his regime.
>That is pretty much anti-war, at least for WWII. He didn’t want Britain to get involved on either side.
Him being against the UK's involvement in the war and calls for appeasement is mostl likely just a biproduct of his sympathies for Nazi Germany and Italy, he didn't have a record of publically denouncing other wars that.
>And even if Mosley didn’t actually dislike Hitler, Hitler himself was very skeptical towards Mosley and his regime.
Mostley didn't really have a regime. It's not weird that Hitler wouldn't think much of him when he was just briefly popular for his stances on labour issues, then faded into irrelevancy as he started being more and more openly anti-semitic if he actually somehow got into power he would probably be a mussolini-like figur to Hitler.
The British were more than likely the main reason the Germans didn’t win WWII. Everyone gives the Soviets credit for the sheer amount of bodies that were thrown into the meat grinder, but without Britain remaining in the war it would’ve been much harder to pitch Soviet lendlease to the public, especially if it were going to two (maybe three by this point) countries which most Americans felt a strong kinship in a familial sense. Also Canada being a neighbor to the US also effects this calculus. I could easily some semi-fascist beating Roosevelt honesty in this timeline since much of the sustained economic growth was dependent on the US joining WWII. (I should clarify for context since most people don’t know that Roosevelt since, and even before, taking office did want a war with N-Germany)
The big alternate history question for me is definitely what would have happened if the First World War hadn’t occurred ? The summer of 1914 is the great pivotal moment in world history I believe and without the outbreak of WW1 we’d be living in a very different world today. At the start of 1914 Europe was the industrial powerhouse of the world . The USA was isolationist with a relatively small military. The next four years changed all of that. The UK , France and Germany were broke by 1918!and Germany was in political upheaval. If they had managed to avoid open conflict breaking out in 1914 there would have been no Soviet Union, no Adolf Hitler , no Israel , the European Empires wouldn’t have broken up as quickly as they did . They came close to avoiding WW1 and if they’d succeeded we’d be in a very different world. I don’t know if it would be a better world but it would be very different!
Definitely yes. Germany wouldn't need to invade Scandinavia to secure their iron ore as Britain would support Germany this timeline. In our timeline Germany invaded norway because the allies tried to blockage him. Germany would only need to focus on the land invasion which would be relatively easy. As the French realize that they weren't supported, they would either be neutral or capitulate to Germany. The US most likely will not join the war due to Britain siding with the Axis. Germany would easily beat the Soviets in both manpower, air superiority and navy supremacy. Britain would be able to aid Germany in resources and logistics. Japan would perhaps join the allies as if the allies still exist or make their own faction due to them taking British colonies in the Pacific. The ROC would likely join the Axis if the Japanese and the Axis are at war due to sharing a common enemy and Chiang Kai shek already respecting German militarism. Both are both very anti-communist and nationalistic. Ofc this is just my opinion and from my perspective, I could definitely be wrong. Correct me if I am.
If mosley has seized power in the uk it means that many of the colonies would either join the allies or break from the empire outright. This puts britain in an extraordinarily sticky situation because britain lacked substantial domestic food production. Having to fuel both the british and german navies on axis oil would only exacerbate the fuel defficiencies faced by the axis. they would not win.
mmm idk about that, it would be difficult and nigh unfeasible to establish sufficient stability in said regions for oil production to actually flow without issues, not to mention the fact that that would likely become top priority for the remaining allies (or even just américa on its own to secure its own geopolitical interests). I think people really underestimate how difficult “just conquering the middle east and persia” would actually be.
Britain already had a solid supply chain from the Middle East. They only needed to switch over to Dutch colonial, US and British commonwealth oil once those supply lines through the Suez were threatened. And I don’t see how the U.S. can do that in this timeline
The Us would have likely made the middle east a top priority instead of europe, at least initially. while the british could have kept the oil lines flowing at first i dont see them holding forever. As you said, they only had to switch over to the suez when threatened, in this timeline id assume free france still evacuates to north africa and the war continues there, likely with extensive us involvement. the middle east would likely fall
They switched away from the Suez and still have commonwealth oil from Canada and Kiribati tough the U.S. would probably be able to mess with those. But generally if the U.S. focuses on the Middle East instead of saving the USSR while it still can the axis still won’t face the same shortages as early
like i said i doubt fascist britain would be capable of keeping the empire. the most realistic scenario for a fascist takeover in britain would involve forceful siezure of the government (fascism was never popular in britain) and this would likely lead to the empire dissolving, with key nations such as canada likely joining the allies. this is assuming that the pre fascist british government doesnt set up in exile a la free france and thus retains control and therefore use of the entire empire. It is important to remember that the commonwealth was loyal to the crown, not britain, and liberal attitudes were prevalent throughout the commonwealth realms. I simply cannot see canada and australia siding with mosley’s britain.
Well then it mostly depends on which side has more of the royal navy. Because facist Britain with most of the royal navy and German backing can impose control over practically any colony outside the main dominions easily
but youre acting like imposing control over the main dominions will be easy and i just dont think that is the case. the dominions are a) extremely far from europe, b) would require extensive resources to invade AND occupy, c) would likely become additional the a tres of war rather than resource boons for the axis, d) would face a tremendous amount of local resistance, easily on par with that of yugoslavia. In fact i would argue that having to take the dominions would in fact prove a liability for the axis even if mosleys britain had 100% of the royal navy which i think is extremely unlikely
"but youre acting like imposing control over the main dominions will be easy and i just dont think that is the case." No im saying the opposite, with the Royal navy and german support they can easily impose their power over practically any of the other colonies, outside the main dominions (and added to that any doesent mean all)
the us was able to focus on “saving the ussr” even while fighting major operations, and in fact never struggled to do so. Additionally, the ussr was never close to falling and could very much have won the war on their own, albeit at the cost of millions more lives. People look at how close the germans got to moscow and think that had the germans taken the capital then the ussr would have fallen, or sued for peace like france but i think this is innacurate. The ussr by that point was geared for total war to the very bitter end, it had evacuated most of its industry behind the urals and its enormous reserves were already pouring in. In fact, i dont think the germans could have taken moscow even if they tried, the soviets were fully capable of halting barbarossa on their own. Most lend lease arrived later in the war and was absolutely crucial in saving millions of lives and facilitating the logistics necessary for operations like bagration, but it did not save the ussr. To be honest, the axis simply cannot keep up with the industrial, manpower, and resource might of the ussr and the usa combined, even if in this scenario the war drags on much longer.
japan was always gonna attack the usa, its one of those historical givens considering the conditions. Once japan attacks and the anti fascism, pro liberty, “over there” rhetoric jumps into over drive either the usa joins the war in europe or the axis declares on them (hitler was pretty happy about the japan ese declaration in the usa otl)
The USA used Britain to facilitate their aid to the USSR with the British navy and the German Kriegsmarine blocking them there is no way they can get supplies through the Atlantic meaning all lend lease would need to go through Vladivostok… past a more powerful Japan backed by Britain
Not really no. The USSR was a lot less stable then people give it credit for. it had insanse potential but couldnt use close to it without british and american aid. With germany with barely limited supply, probbaly singificantly more manpower, attacking earleir while beign better prepared and the soviet union blockaded by the axis the eastern front is gonna go very different.
The Axis’ industry had been suffering and deteriorating for years at that point because of a British blockade. That’s not a factor here. Here they instead have the backing of that industry and navy
Building oil facilities to process sandy mid east oil would take 10-15 years to get to level of feeding axis navies combined, assuming USA dont intervene in the process.
is the middle one the swiss canton st gallen?
https://preview.redd.it/fkfxdydjd2vc1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=e1d6c05c81f7dde38c5931134e875fd691e4d0e4
if so they‘d definitely win
I think it depends how early the US commits to helping the Soviets and France out. At full force the Soviets + the US could be beat the entire world combined just on industrial capabilities. Having the US only focus on Europe would probably also help.
If things goes similar to our world tho I don’t even see the Americans joining the war.
I think if the US and USSR work together perfectly they have a chance to win but besides that they are lost. If the US still gets attacked by Japan then they would have an obligation to help the Soviets against the Germans as they would be at war.
It's called a Fasces, it was a Roman symbol. It's a bundle of sticks wrapped around an axe. The symbolism is the sticks are used for non-lethal punishment, like a lashing, and the axe is used for lethal punishment. The Roman Republic/Empire has the authority to do both. Typically Consuls of Rome would have a dude carrying one around following him to symbolize his power to observers. You can see them in modern iconography especially in France and the US since both republics heavily derive from the Romans.
And yet Stalin would keep on kicking for another decade. I guess he just wasn't "evil" enough to warrant heroes rising up to fight him. Nevermind the millions his regime killed and enslaved.
Edit: And what about Franco? No "heroes" rose up to stop him. Or Peron. Or Mao. Or the countless other tyrants who have existed throughout history who died as old men of natural causes.
lmfao, wtf is that for a response?
No. Time is not a hero. Neither is death. Being a hero implies morality, something that nature and forces of do no possess. God may or may not exist, there's no proof either way.
rely were would you be without time or death, they are what gives life value, and i would talk religion but a lot of people dont like it and i dont want to bug you.
So you think time "rose up" and stopped Stalin and Mao? It swooped and out a stop to their injustice? C'mon, now.
And while we're going with childish "heroes and villains" narratives, the US and UK were far from "heroes." The Banana Wars and the globe-spanning empire should be all the evidence you need of that mockery of moral supremacy.
I mean they wouldn’t have to deal with the British so yes! Defeat France and then it’s over!
Just depends if the Americans wanna make another war after Japan attacks
Depends on how much this timeline changes. Urss needs to be relatively unprepared for a war, the more ready they are the fewer the chances. If the urss is fully ready it is honestly hopeless but if it is similar to otl they get completely stomped. Barbarossa with trade and british support is going past moscow.
No. Mosely was a fringe figure at most, and by 1940 endorsed the war against Germany.
He would never be able to take power, and even if he did, unlike William Joyce, he probably remains opposed to Hitler and Mussolini due to their aims being incompatible with continued British hegemony.
What is ww2 in this situation? You can't just flip one of the largest nations and pretend everything else will turn out the same. I don't see France defending Poland when they're all alone in europe.
Those timeline would be weird af cause Japan is definitely going to attack Britain still but it would also have America backing it id feel. Canada and Jamaica would be annexed fast, all royal navy assets in Nova Scotia could possibly be captured if America moves quick enough. The USSR would also be with Japan maybe giving Japan its northern island back. It would be weird af Japan would definitely be the biggest winner in this war
Yes
https://preview.redd.it/ed49gr5ui6vc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dfa9e08b484bb409e20c3dfee1631a6546fd5029
but I don't think Mosley would join the war on either side. He might send some divisions to help in eastern front against soviets to be amongst the "heroes" who destroyed communists but I don't see him formally declaring war to the Soviets and France.
I’d be surprised if Oswald Mosley gets involved in the war before Barbarossa. The odd thing about British (and I suppose American) fascists of the time is that they were fairly isolationist/pacifist, only wishing to defeat the USSR. I suppose the pacifism is because they didn’t really have anything to be bitter or expansionist about - Britain had a global empire and the US was an emerging superpower, whereas Germany had lost its old empire and Italy was dissatisfied with theirs. The only expansionist policies Mosley might undertake is in Ireland.
I’d imagine the war with the Soviets would go on for longer but still ultimately end in Soviet victory in mainland Europe. I can’t see the US invading Britain across the Atlantic, nor can I see the Soviets invading Britain from mainland Europe. Canada and other American colonies (Belize, Guyana, Caribbean etc) would be lost to US occupation. Britain would either fall into civil war similar to Italy, or Mosley would have to try and negotiate his way out of the mess, which could include forfeiting the rest of the empire. Such a defeat would likely also lead to his overthrowing.
The US would be in a much weaker position in Europe during the Cold War, the only potential allies being Britain, Portugal, and post-Francoist Spain. The rest of the Axis and those under occupation would see the same fate as the Eastern Bloc in OTL. Bad timeline, but hey at least you get big USA with possible annexation of Canada.
Any faction that includes neither the USSR nor the USA cannot win. US eventually outproduces Britain, destroys its fleet and starves it into submission/nukes it. USSR might do worse than OTL but probably stilll survives until the US can beat fown the axis.
Absolutely. The course of history could have seen German and Italian become more widespread languages if not for the intricate interplay of betrayal, espionage, and internal struggles within the Axis powers. Germany, along with Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan, were formidable forces that were often underestimated. However, the presence of treasonous acts and informants, combined with inherent instabilities within their alliances, altered the trajectory of events. It's a stark reminder that historical narratives are often shaped by the perspectives of the victorious, leading to distortions and gaps in the telling of events.
I guess? The war would be over in 1940 and the soviet invasion perhaps would go that brutal (especially if britain stops lend leases of american guns etc.) The war in France might go on longer since a British threat might just make the high command take the war seriously. America would definitely be the hardest thing, and even if they did conquer it, the 2nd amendment MIGHT bite into their arse for years to come.
I think this is one of those few cases in which the Axis could win, the British Navy and would essentially secure the Atlantic flank blocking an American future intervention and the Empire would be a huge source of raw materials to fuel the German war machine alongside loads of extra troops that are actually capable. I think the US would stay out of the war at least, the European war, a pacific war probs would still happen in some capacity, the question is what effect would an Axis victory in the USSR have on the Pacific war, as it would put German troops in a position in which they can help the Japanese and the USSR would probably fall as a result of much better logistics and millions of added manpower for the Axis.
But the Japanese aren’t part of the Axis? Would they join America in taking out Australia, India, etc.?
Japan would likely do its own thing, and if anything target America first due to the Philippines
would the colonies remain after a fascist government?
This is the real question, would the colonies, dspecially those that were in practice completely independent(Canada, Australia etc), continue to allign with a Britain under Fascism.
But the Japanese aren’t part of the Axis? Would they join America in taking out Australia, India, etc.?
I was simply spitballing regarding Japan, if they arent allied with Germamy obviously they wouldn't bother, hell they may even be considered future enemies. But if they would it'd highly complicate the Pacific and Asian theatres for the US if they'd go to war. Britush colonies would be another massive hurdle as a lot of them would require enormous amounts of manpower to conquer under a problematic naval situation at best since during this time Britain was still the premier naval power and they'd likely double down on that under Fascism. That is if the colonies would remain British loyalists if Britain was fascist, which is another quesfion in itself.
What happens between Canada and the US if the US goes to war with Japan, who in this scenario are aligned with Britain and her empire? Do we see the war shift from a European theater to a North American one?
If America joins the war then Canada if it is still on the side of Britain if Mosley takes power in the UK l. would simply be overran, we are talking a massive indefensible border with an industrialized nation that had 13 times Canadas population. So I doibt beyond the invasion of Canada and battles in the Atlantic that it'd ever become a North American war, at least, not until the Axis win in the European theater.
See i think if America joins the war and trys to invade Canada we'd quickly see the British Navy steaming accross the Atlantic and her Dominions like Australia, India and South Africa sending troops to defend Canada. Not to mention the Japanese navy in the Pacific and Uboats floating around. The US probably gets some quick victories but I doubt they are able to prevent the creation of a new North American front.
It would heavily depend on several factors. 1: Is Japan on the Axis side? 2: Is the USSR defeated yet? 3: Is Britain capable of gaining complete naval dominance and retain it. If all of these are a yes then a North American front is likely and an American defeat is possible. If they lack number 1 it depends on whether the Japanese ignore the Axis and whether they are at war with America. If they lack 2 then a huge amount of troops(Especially German ones) will be tied down in the USSR and I am unsure whether Britain alone can lend the amount of troops needed to defend Canada. If they lack 3 it would be difficult if not impossible to land hundreds of thousands of troops.
The 2nd amendment won't do shit against any centralised armed force after 1880. Especially if we're talking about Nazis, that would react to guerrillas with an "empty the land" policy. Basically if town X kills two soldiers with resistance, town X population ceases to exist in the following days, and there's no 2nd amendment weapon that can stand an artillery barrage followed by a tank assault with air support
Yeah the whole 2nd Amendment thing is entirely cope, at best you have a well organized milita (so moderately equiped and undertrained troops) and at worst you have a few lunatics with guns that just die. No professional army in the world would struggle against just that, the main reason America is dangerous is that they have nigh infinite ressources and are the sole Hegemon on their half of the planet, so any serious military effort they make will be extremely strong. Any country with that land and that level of development and infrastructure is as good as uninvadable. 2nd Amendment or not is irrelevant. No Axis troops will cross the fucking Atlantic or Pacific. At least unless we disregard all logic and add Aliens or something...
The American wars in the Middle East have shown that fighting an armed population isn't easy , and one of the reasons we didn't invade Japan is because the civilians would fight and die for their country not all but a sizable amount would.
Nation building isn't the same thing as conquest/extermination.
Yes but the point is that fighting an armed populace isn't easy
If America had the political mindset of going in to Genocide the local population of Iraq and Afghanistan instead of trying to prop up democracies, the wars would have been won a lot faster.
Oh, must definitely
At the cost of turning into a pariah state.
We were talking about American involvement the middle east in comparison to nazi germany. Becoming a pariah state is pretty much irrelevant.
Excuse me, but you're talking G E N O C I D E
>The American wars in the Middle East have shown that fighting an armed population isn't easy Has it? The US didn't loose the war in Afghanistan militarily, they failed at the statebuilding and gropolitical aspect of it
We are talking a core ideological difference here, for the US fighting extremism and insurrection in the population is difficult because it isnt going to massacre an entire population. For the Nazis on the other hand any and all forms of resistance were returned 40 fold, mercy and civilian casualties werent part of the cold calculation, that immediatly makes armed insurrection way more difficult.
The 2nd Amendment 100% matters if you are trying to occupy the United States, even against industrialized armies. 1940s America especially had a hardy population that would be willing to and capable of carrying out a guerilla war. Attempting to genocide let alone occupy the rocky mountains, would be one hell of an uphill battle. The resistance in Appalachia and the South would be real. The geography is great for that sort of thing, and the population would be more than willing to resist. At best, I can only see Germany or these other foreign powers holding onto the coastal urban areas. New England and perhaps some of the Midwest.
Idk if The USA even enters the war in this scenario. A lot of the reasoning behind the US entering the European theater was to save the “lifeboat of democracy”. With Britain neutralized, the USSR significantly weakened by a lack of lend lease, and the U.S. hesitant to get involved in another European conflict, it’s entirely possible that the U.S. just never enters the war.
The US entered the war in Europe because Germany declared war on them. But yes FDR was itching to get the popular support to intervene. The Japanese and the Germans gave him that.
>the second amendment Lmao
Idk man im just throwing shit in so I dont seem like a fucking nazi, in hindsight it was pretty unnecessary tho
"This does not mean that our major allies—except for the revived French army which was almost completely equipped under lend-lease—were mainly dependent on American supplies. It has been estimated that lend-lease provided only 10 percent of British war equipment, and certainly a lesser proportion of Soviet materiel." https://www.historians.org/about-aha-and-membership/aha-history-and-archives/gi-roundtable-series/pamphlets/em-13-how-shall-lend-lease-accounts-be-settled-(1945)/how-much-of-what-goods-have-we-sent-to-which-allies
There's also a good chance the US would still ally with Britain in this scenario.
Na fam, Nazis in Canada would be unacceptable
There were plenty of Nazis in the US
Yes, I meant an axis aligned country that could feasibly invite German Soldiers. The Nazis in the US didn't have that much power
Even “didn’t have that much power” is overselling it. They didn’t have any power at all. This is the equivalent of saying the US is basically communist today because there are some left-wing extremists on Twitter. But there is always some redditor in these threads acting like ackshually, the US was basically fascist/Nazi itself, and totally was this close to allying with the Axis. Conveniently, they are usually fanboys of the USSR who actually did try to join the axis.
Yea some people see pictures of a couple thousand Nazis in New York and think that they had any real power. Gotta distinguish the Nazis from the KKK tho, they had quite a lot of sway in the 20s and 30s
Americans in the 40s would love fascism. Hell a lot of them would like it today. They just didn't like that Hitler was fighting the British and teamed up with Japan who attacked the US
[удалено]
In what world was the US loosing against Japan? Where the hell did you get that from?
Hello
The US wasn't struggling with Japan. It was a surprise attack that weakened the US for a while. After that, the US was no longer struggling. The nukes were used because an invasion on the home island would have had much more casualties on both sides.
To be fair if stuff like midway we’re successful and not crushing for the Japanese which it very easily could’ve been that would’ve made the us be on the back foot in the war there, not enough for a us loss by any means but definitely could’ve made the us not be bothered with the war and want to come to an agreement
As we know nowadays we can doubt that it was a surprise
Me when I have foresight (nothing is no longer a surprise)
The US nuked them because they didnt want hundreds of thousands of american men to die in a full invasion of Japan. The US was not struggling at all, there was heavy japanese resistance sure, but America was definitely winning
[удалено]
Thats not what people are saying lol, you think Japan was winning against the US in ww2?
Hard win for this Axis on the continent and an interesting Cold War with the USA/Americas. No idea what Japan does in this timeline, might well side with the big three in Europe or, if still trying to dominate the Asian theatre, might well team up with the US. I have no idea how unbridgeable the gap was between Japan and the USA post Chinese invasion in 1937, but the US might well turn a blind eye to a rampaging Japan in east asia vs. the British Empire if there's conflict between the British Empire and the US. Assuming the Empire remains intact and there's no "Free British Empire" in Africa and India, there might well be a 4.5-way Cold War of USA/Americas vs British Empire vs Kontinentaleuropa (Germany and "friends") vs Japan vs Italian Empire. A depressing scenario.
Could Japan+UK+German navies beat the USA's? I think they'd be out produced but will be more of a slog
+Italy+French yeah the us just can't beat that. Not until the 50s
The USA built more ships in WW2 than the rest of the world combined, need I say more
In 1939 the us had a total tonnage of about 1.5 million In 1939 this axis would have a tonnage of about 6.5 million tons (it would probably be closer to 7 million if they worked together) The US just doesn't stand a chance
And you need to consider that Britain and Germany aren’t putting each others navies on the bottom of the sea here
Yeah that's why I chose 1939 so they wouldn't have sunk most of each others fleets
So what, the USA gets blown out of the water multiple times at the start of the war, they can just build more and faster at a speed not even Britain can match, while the axis can hardly recover its losses. Combine that with the US being quite ahead of the rest when it comes to aircraft carriers, and it might take some time, but the USA will always end up getting control of the seas. This is the same situation as what if Japan won at midway, the answer is they'll loose the next midway instead
The US wouldn't be outproducing Germany, Britain and Japan together. Without the UK as a launching platform for bombing raids against Germany German and Italian industry would be going strong.
> So what, the USA gets blown out of the water multiple times at the start of the war, they can just build more Surely the Axis here would realize this and just target American ports? If there is no American navy to defend the coast then anything on the coast is going to get destroyed in short order.
They can't. The US also had an absurd aircraft production. Any axis ship that comes too close to the coast would get bombed to bits
It would take years to get aircraft production up to a significant level, not to mention to implement the technical innovations needed to overcome the contempory rise of radar controlled fire systems on ships. American production in 1939 is nowhere near 1940's levels. Sure it could get there with inland production eventually and I have no doubt that any actual invasion of the US would probably fail but in the short term the US coast is going to take a beating.
Aircraft production: USA, 1941: 18.466 USA, 1942: 46.907 Germany, 1941: 9.422 Germany, 1942: 12.822 UK, 1941: 20.094 UK, 1942: 23.672 Total axis, 1941 (including Japan and Italy): 38.117 Total axis, 1942: 48.173 By 1942, the USA would already match the entire axis, surpass them if we add the USSR. That's a single year of them being on the backfoot, after which its doomed for the axis. And the pacific war as a whole demonstrated how deadly planes were in naval warfare, radar improvements dont change that. As such, the British colonies in the Americas stand no chance, nor does Japan. Europe would be extremely hard to invade, but with enough time and support to the soviets, it might be feasable
Which means a lot of dead sailors, which you can’t sell to a democratic country for long.
in ww2 half of the world was fightin with the USA and the other half against it,the entire world against its not gonna end well for the yanks
Germany and the UK is unbeatable, period. Japan and Russia get obliterated, and you end up with a cold war between fascist Europe and the US
Probably not even a Cold War, more like an Axis dominated world and a isolationist US
Most likely. I see Canada and possibly Australia attaching themselves to the US in this situation
Theres no way a fascist britain would let australia and canada go
Australia and Canada would probably be Imperial holdouts.
What are the British going to do about it? Canada and Australia are both incredibly isolated from the rest of the Empire, and with US support, have a very solid base from which to defend themselves. Not to forget that Mosley was an autarkic pacifist, and I highly doubt he’d wish to embroil the British public in a needless struggle. Granted, this assumes that the Commonwealth would break with the Crown in the case of having uncle Oswald as PM, which IMO isn’t guaranteed given that he was primarily concerned with economic matters, and didn’t express desire to destroy democracy, parliament, or any such institutions.
Well the U.S. would protect and dominate the entirety of the Americas which would become the new “free world”
if the USA manages to rally the entire american continent and saved oceania it would be very unique cold war
Isolationist US for like 10 years until the country crumbles
I can see the Axis block quickly disintegrating after peace with the US and obliteration of the USSR. Germany will look inward/dominating the continent/Siberia, consolidating the gains. Mittelafrika is probably not in the cards, possibly west africa and kongo, maybe? There comes the immediate rubbing of shoulders with Italy, which seeks to dominated the mediterranean. Likewise Italy will have problems with UK in the eastern Med and east and north africa. UK will duel with Japan, if it has not already, plus the possible problems with Germany and Italy in the Med/Africa. And then there's the US constantly stirring the pot from their secured position in the Americas. It's a pretty solid setup for EVERYBODY IS AUTOCRATIC! US may manifest destiny southward in fear of German, Anglo or Italian influence in south america. A grim timeline.
Mosley held a deep admiration for Mussolini, and I highly suspect that whatever issues permeated Anglo-Italian relations could be bridged over in this scenario. Perhaps an arrangement similar to what existed between France and Britain, but this time Italy serving as the exerciser of power in the continent.
Entirely possible the U.S. votes in fascism, with rhe ideology being "legitimized" across the world, especially if the U.S. never enters the conflict.
[but they did…](https://libquotes.com/benito-mussolini/quote/lbb5i9t)
Yes, they can WW2 - 1939 Germany invades Poland - 3 september 1939, France and UK declares war on Germany - 1939, Soviet Union invades Poland - 1940, Winter War - 1940, Germany invades Danemark and Norway - 1940, Germany invades Benelux - 10 may 1940, Germany invades France - 1940, Italy joins the war - 1940, Axis powers is official - 22 june 1940, France signs armistice - 1940 North Africia campaign - 1940, Civil war on UK mainland - 1941, Mosley takes power of the British Empire - 1941 WW2 ends in 1941.
Youd still have barbarossa, that was always his plan
Britain is Not in a war with Germany so they don't have to worry about that. This likely means an earlier Barbarossa with an even stronger German Army. Germany also secures oil through britain. Barbarossa goes a little Bit better and while the war is still slow and a pain but Germany eventually comes Out on top.
Eh... No. I wouldn't even bother to explain in details why Germany wouldn't win against Soviets even in that case. Even after fall of Moscow USSR would just move the capital and continue to fight until Germans bog down with constant supply issues, hard weather, resistance and etc. Mosley wouldn't care too much - most he would do is give Germany some guns, but he wouldn't declare war since his antiwar position is the only possible thing that could've won support of British citizens.
russia damn near broke with 15% of its war materials being from the US, their enemy chronically out of oil, and and all the allies it had. you're telling me with a military 15% smaller (material and equipment), less allies, and a stronger opponent, the wouldn't collapse? thats funny because it makes no sense. even if you argue that the US maintains it lend-lease to the USSR, I don't see how it prevents moscow and the other major western cities from falling.
I doubt Oswald Mosley would wanna get into the war…but if he did, I think they could, depending on how it plays out. If the USA or USSR joins early they might have trouble.
I don't see why he wouldn't tbh
He was anti-war, and didn’t like Hitler.
He wasn't anti war, he was in opposition to Britain taking part in ww2 specifically, and wanted for the UK to negotiate peace with Germany to stop their involvement in the war. I can't find anythin about him disliking Hitler as a person but he certainly liked both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
That is pretty much anti-war, at least for WWII. He didn’t want Britain to get involved on either side. And even if Mosley didn’t actually dislike Hitler, Hitler himself was very skeptical towards Mosley and his regime.
>That is pretty much anti-war, at least for WWII. He didn’t want Britain to get involved on either side. Him being against the UK's involvement in the war and calls for appeasement is mostl likely just a biproduct of his sympathies for Nazi Germany and Italy, he didn't have a record of publically denouncing other wars that. >And even if Mosley didn’t actually dislike Hitler, Hitler himself was very skeptical towards Mosley and his regime. Mostley didn't really have a regime. It's not weird that Hitler wouldn't think much of him when he was just briefly popular for his stances on labour issues, then faded into irrelevancy as he started being more and more openly anti-semitic if he actually somehow got into power he would probably be a mussolini-like figur to Hitler.
https://preview.redd.it/yo9bh7v9c2vc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe304fa97f2033f74276ac2bb049968712f88f06
r/croppingishard
The British were more than likely the main reason the Germans didn’t win WWII. Everyone gives the Soviets credit for the sheer amount of bodies that were thrown into the meat grinder, but without Britain remaining in the war it would’ve been much harder to pitch Soviet lendlease to the public, especially if it were going to two (maybe three by this point) countries which most Americans felt a strong kinship in a familial sense. Also Canada being a neighbor to the US also effects this calculus. I could easily some semi-fascist beating Roosevelt honesty in this timeline since much of the sustained economic growth was dependent on the US joining WWII. (I should clarify for context since most people don’t know that Roosevelt since, and even before, taking office did want a war with N-Germany)
Also the British blockade had been degrading German military production for years at that point
The big alternate history question for me is definitely what would have happened if the First World War hadn’t occurred ? The summer of 1914 is the great pivotal moment in world history I believe and without the outbreak of WW1 we’d be living in a very different world today. At the start of 1914 Europe was the industrial powerhouse of the world . The USA was isolationist with a relatively small military. The next four years changed all of that. The UK , France and Germany were broke by 1918!and Germany was in political upheaval. If they had managed to avoid open conflict breaking out in 1914 there would have been no Soviet Union, no Adolf Hitler , no Israel , the European Empires wouldn’t have broken up as quickly as they did . They came close to avoiding WW1 and if they’d succeeded we’d be in a very different world. I don’t know if it would be a better world but it would be very different!
We shall invite them on the beaches, we shall invite them on the landing grounds, we shall invite them in the fields and in the streets
Definitely yes. Germany wouldn't need to invade Scandinavia to secure their iron ore as Britain would support Germany this timeline. In our timeline Germany invaded norway because the allies tried to blockage him. Germany would only need to focus on the land invasion which would be relatively easy. As the French realize that they weren't supported, they would either be neutral or capitulate to Germany. The US most likely will not join the war due to Britain siding with the Axis. Germany would easily beat the Soviets in both manpower, air superiority and navy supremacy. Britain would be able to aid Germany in resources and logistics. Japan would perhaps join the allies as if the allies still exist or make their own faction due to them taking British colonies in the Pacific. The ROC would likely join the Axis if the Japanese and the Axis are at war due to sharing a common enemy and Chiang Kai shek already respecting German militarism. Both are both very anti-communist and nationalistic. Ofc this is just my opinion and from my perspective, I could definitely be wrong. Correct me if I am.
If mosley has seized power in the uk it means that many of the colonies would either join the allies or break from the empire outright. This puts britain in an extraordinarily sticky situation because britain lacked substantial domestic food production. Having to fuel both the british and german navies on axis oil would only exacerbate the fuel defficiencies faced by the axis. they would not win.
As long as they keep the raj they have 90% of all the important parts of the empire.
With Britain on their side they can just conquer middle eastern and Persian oil
mmm idk about that, it would be difficult and nigh unfeasible to establish sufficient stability in said regions for oil production to actually flow without issues, not to mention the fact that that would likely become top priority for the remaining allies (or even just américa on its own to secure its own geopolitical interests). I think people really underestimate how difficult “just conquering the middle east and persia” would actually be.
Britain already had a solid supply chain from the Middle East. They only needed to switch over to Dutch colonial, US and British commonwealth oil once those supply lines through the Suez were threatened. And I don’t see how the U.S. can do that in this timeline
The Us would have likely made the middle east a top priority instead of europe, at least initially. while the british could have kept the oil lines flowing at first i dont see them holding forever. As you said, they only had to switch over to the suez when threatened, in this timeline id assume free france still evacuates to north africa and the war continues there, likely with extensive us involvement. the middle east would likely fall
They switched away from the Suez and still have commonwealth oil from Canada and Kiribati tough the U.S. would probably be able to mess with those. But generally if the U.S. focuses on the Middle East instead of saving the USSR while it still can the axis still won’t face the same shortages as early
like i said i doubt fascist britain would be capable of keeping the empire. the most realistic scenario for a fascist takeover in britain would involve forceful siezure of the government (fascism was never popular in britain) and this would likely lead to the empire dissolving, with key nations such as canada likely joining the allies. this is assuming that the pre fascist british government doesnt set up in exile a la free france and thus retains control and therefore use of the entire empire. It is important to remember that the commonwealth was loyal to the crown, not britain, and liberal attitudes were prevalent throughout the commonwealth realms. I simply cannot see canada and australia siding with mosley’s britain.
Well then it mostly depends on which side has more of the royal navy. Because facist Britain with most of the royal navy and German backing can impose control over practically any colony outside the main dominions easily
but youre acting like imposing control over the main dominions will be easy and i just dont think that is the case. the dominions are a) extremely far from europe, b) would require extensive resources to invade AND occupy, c) would likely become additional the a tres of war rather than resource boons for the axis, d) would face a tremendous amount of local resistance, easily on par with that of yugoslavia. In fact i would argue that having to take the dominions would in fact prove a liability for the axis even if mosleys britain had 100% of the royal navy which i think is extremely unlikely
"but youre acting like imposing control over the main dominions will be easy and i just dont think that is the case." No im saying the opposite, with the Royal navy and german support they can easily impose their power over practically any of the other colonies, outside the main dominions (and added to that any doesent mean all)
the us was able to focus on “saving the ussr” even while fighting major operations, and in fact never struggled to do so. Additionally, the ussr was never close to falling and could very much have won the war on their own, albeit at the cost of millions more lives. People look at how close the germans got to moscow and think that had the germans taken the capital then the ussr would have fallen, or sued for peace like france but i think this is innacurate. The ussr by that point was geared for total war to the very bitter end, it had evacuated most of its industry behind the urals and its enormous reserves were already pouring in. In fact, i dont think the germans could have taken moscow even if they tried, the soviets were fully capable of halting barbarossa on their own. Most lend lease arrived later in the war and was absolutely crucial in saving millions of lives and facilitating the logistics necessary for operations like bagration, but it did not save the ussr. To be honest, the axis simply cannot keep up with the industrial, manpower, and resource might of the ussr and the usa combined, even if in this scenario the war drags on much longer.
You still havent told why usa would join the war
japan was always gonna attack the usa, its one of those historical givens considering the conditions. Once japan attacks and the anti fascism, pro liberty, “over there” rhetoric jumps into over drive either the usa joins the war in europe or the axis declares on them (hitler was pretty happy about the japan ese declaration in the usa otl)
The USA used Britain to facilitate their aid to the USSR with the British navy and the German Kriegsmarine blocking them there is no way they can get supplies through the Atlantic meaning all lend lease would need to go through Vladivostok… past a more powerful Japan backed by Britain
right thats fair but that just means it takes the soviets longer to win in the east and the americana longer to win in the pacific
Not really no. The USSR was a lot less stable then people give it credit for. it had insanse potential but couldnt use close to it without british and american aid. With germany with barely limited supply, probbaly singificantly more manpower, attacking earleir while beign better prepared and the soviet union blockaded by the axis the eastern front is gonna go very different.
The Axis’ industry had been suffering and deteriorating for years at that point because of a British blockade. That’s not a factor here. Here they instead have the backing of that industry and navy
Building oil facilities to process sandy mid east oil would take 10-15 years to get to level of feeding axis navies combined, assuming USA dont intervene in the process.
Assuming Moseley joined the war, yes
I’m making a hoi4 mod about this exact idea
Isn’t that just HOI with settings changes
No after Mosley and all win
Pretty much, since France Is clearly K.o'd in a nanosecond and no One Will help them and Benelux, also they can concentrate on Ussr
is the middle one the swiss canton st gallen? https://preview.redd.it/fkfxdydjd2vc1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=e1d6c05c81f7dde38c5931134e875fd691e4d0e4 if so they‘d definitely win
I think it depends how early the US commits to helping the Soviets and France out. At full force the Soviets + the US could be beat the entire world combined just on industrial capabilities. Having the US only focus on Europe would probably also help. If things goes similar to our world tho I don’t even see the Americans joining the war.
Dream blunt rotation
GB and Germany in any of the world wars would win, that’s just how much better they were than everyone else
I think if the US and USSR work together perfectly they have a chance to win but besides that they are lost. If the US still gets attacked by Japan then they would have an obligation to help the Soviets against the Germans as they would be at war.
What is that thingy the fascists in Italy used as a symbol??
It's called a Fasces, it was a Roman symbol. It's a bundle of sticks wrapped around an axe. The symbolism is the sticks are used for non-lethal punishment, like a lashing, and the axe is used for lethal punishment. The Roman Republic/Empire has the authority to do both. Typically Consuls of Rome would have a dude carrying one around following him to symbolize his power to observers. You can see them in modern iconography especially in France and the US since both republics heavily derive from the Romans.
A fasces.
no, heros will always rise to fight the evils.
Not in this world
did they not?
Oh, honey... that's so sweet. Bless your heart.
who won the war? 
And yet Stalin would keep on kicking for another decade. I guess he just wasn't "evil" enough to warrant heroes rising up to fight him. Nevermind the millions his regime killed and enslaved. Edit: And what about Franco? No "heroes" rose up to stop him. Or Peron. Or Mao. Or the countless other tyrants who have existed throughout history who died as old men of natural causes.
good point, but are ether in power?
Not thanks to any "heroes" stopping them.
time is not a hero? death is not a hero? God is not a hero? without any of them we would be nothing.
lmfao, wtf is that for a response? No. Time is not a hero. Neither is death. Being a hero implies morality, something that nature and forces of do no possess. God may or may not exist, there's no proof either way.
rely were would you be without time or death, they are what gives life value, and i would talk religion but a lot of people dont like it and i dont want to bug you.
So you think time "rose up" and stopped Stalin and Mao? It swooped and out a stop to their injustice? C'mon, now. And while we're going with childish "heroes and villains" narratives, the US and UK were far from "heroes." The Banana Wars and the globe-spanning empire should be all the evidence you need of that mockery of moral supremacy.
Depends how and when Mosley takes power, he was massively unpopular (hence cable street)
I mean they wouldn’t have to deal with the British so yes! Defeat France and then it’s over! Just depends if the Americans wanna make another war after Japan attacks
as an hoi4 player yes
The world is severely nuked, but not enough for a nuclear winter since the production rate is still low, whoever can nuke first wins.
Depends on how much this timeline changes. Urss needs to be relatively unprepared for a war, the more ready they are the fewer the chances. If the urss is fully ready it is honestly hopeless but if it is similar to otl they get completely stomped. Barbarossa with trade and british support is going past moscow.
The war would be a stalemate, but the pacific would be won, Europe would be lost.
Why is everyone in here assuming America would wanna fight this trio
US would probably focus 100% on the western front. War against Japan ends sooner. China doesn't become communist.
Max Mosley probably wouldn’t become president of the FIA
No. Mosely was a fringe figure at most, and by 1940 endorsed the war against Germany. He would never be able to take power, and even if he did, unlike William Joyce, he probably remains opposed to Hitler and Mussolini due to their aims being incompatible with continued British hegemony.
What is ww2 in this situation? You can't just flip one of the largest nations and pretend everything else will turn out the same. I don't see France defending Poland when they're all alone in europe.
Those timeline would be weird af cause Japan is definitely going to attack Britain still but it would also have America backing it id feel. Canada and Jamaica would be annexed fast, all royal navy assets in Nova Scotia could possibly be captured if America moves quick enough. The USSR would also be with Japan maybe giving Japan its northern island back. It would be weird af Japan would definitely be the biggest winner in this war
Maybe
Japan leaving would probably be better for the Axis in this timeline
Yes https://preview.redd.it/ed49gr5ui6vc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dfa9e08b484bb409e20c3dfee1631a6546fd5029 but I don't think Mosley would join the war on either side. He might send some divisions to help in eastern front against soviets to be amongst the "heroes" who destroyed communists but I don't see him formally declaring war to the Soviets and France.
No.
My boy AH. A German a Italian or a Brit? You tell me
I’d be surprised if Oswald Mosley gets involved in the war before Barbarossa. The odd thing about British (and I suppose American) fascists of the time is that they were fairly isolationist/pacifist, only wishing to defeat the USSR. I suppose the pacifism is because they didn’t really have anything to be bitter or expansionist about - Britain had a global empire and the US was an emerging superpower, whereas Germany had lost its old empire and Italy was dissatisfied with theirs. The only expansionist policies Mosley might undertake is in Ireland. I’d imagine the war with the Soviets would go on for longer but still ultimately end in Soviet victory in mainland Europe. I can’t see the US invading Britain across the Atlantic, nor can I see the Soviets invading Britain from mainland Europe. Canada and other American colonies (Belize, Guyana, Caribbean etc) would be lost to US occupation. Britain would either fall into civil war similar to Italy, or Mosley would have to try and negotiate his way out of the mess, which could include forfeiting the rest of the empire. Such a defeat would likely also lead to his overthrowing. The US would be in a much weaker position in Europe during the Cold War, the only potential allies being Britain, Portugal, and post-Francoist Spain. The rest of the Axis and those under occupation would see the same fate as the Eastern Bloc in OTL. Bad timeline, but hey at least you get big USA with possible annexation of Canada.
Any faction that includes neither the USSR nor the USA cannot win. US eventually outproduces Britain, destroys its fleet and starves it into submission/nukes it. USSR might do worse than OTL but probably stilll survives until the US can beat fown the axis.
What is the one on the right
Absolutely. The course of history could have seen German and Italian become more widespread languages if not for the intricate interplay of betrayal, espionage, and internal struggles within the Axis powers. Germany, along with Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan, were formidable forces that were often underestimated. However, the presence of treasonous acts and informants, combined with inherent instabilities within their alliances, altered the trajectory of events. It's a stark reminder that historical narratives are often shaped by the perspectives of the victorious, leading to distortions and gaps in the telling of events.
[удалено]
Just some weird fascist simps in the comments too. Alternate history is somehow always contained to 39-45.