Multiple alternate history challenges (AHCs) related to WWII:

[raharris1973]

AHC 1. With a point of divergence *after* the start of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, have Finland made into a Communist People's Democratic puppet state of the Soviet Union after the war or a Union Republic of the Soviet Union.

AHC 2. Draw Sweden into WWII as a combatant.

AHC 3. A German invasion of Norway is initiated but the Germans never succeed in conquering the whole country, with Norway being a contested front (even if there may be periods of quiet or stalemate) for the duration of the war.

AHC 4. Have Korea get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Korean relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Korea gets invaded from two sides during the war.

AHC 5. Have Indochina or Indonesia get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Indochinese or Indonesian relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Indochina or Indonesia get invaded from two sides during the war.

 

[ATP]

AHC 1. With a point of divergence *after* the start of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, have Finland made into a Communist People's Democratic puppet state of the Soviet Union after the war or a Union Republic of the Soviet Union.

AHC 2. Draw Sweden into WWII as a combatant.

AHC 3. A German invasion of Norway is initiated but the Germans never succeed in conquering the whole country, with Norway being a contested front (even if there may be periods of quiet or stalemate) for the duration of the war.

AHC 4. Have Korea get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Korean relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Korea gets invaded from two sides during the war.

AHC 5. Have Indochina or Indonesia get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Indochinese or Indonesian relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Indochina or Indonesia get invaded from two sides during the war.

1.They would become another Estonia.And Sweden frightened of closer soviets would join NATO and have bigger military forces.Difference in our times - Finland would join NATO,too,and both countries would be strongly anti-russians now.

2.If in 1940 they helped Finland officially,and soviets would attack them 25.06.41 just like they attacked Finland.Result - Fall of Leningrad in 1941,and Murmańsk in 1942.
Less Lend Lease and more german dyvisions free to fight elsywhere - still,thanks to Hitler stupidity,german would fall.
But - If they take Baku in 1942/possible with more troops/ Turks would join Germany,too.

All in all -
A.Only Sweden joined - they made peace just like Finland in OTL,but in beginning of 1945,and german would still fight on Dniepr river line.Only Romania,Czech,Baltic states,Bulgary and Poland would fall to soviets.

B.Turks join and are overwhelmed by soviets - but Czech,most of Poland and Romania remain free.


3. Possible,if Norwegian actually fight.In OTL out of 6 brigades only one fought,reast simply dispersed without fight.
In that case - more troops is wasted there for no reason.German had less troops ,so soviets attack faster.More german territories for them.
It would be change - if most of germany was commie,they would never become E.U rulers,like in OTL.

4.Possible only if soviet attack earlier.Which mean - not possible.Unless...Pearl Harbour was fully succes,2 carriers lost and base destroyed.Then Winning at Midway sunking another 3.Japan earlier introduce good fighters replacment of A.6 and Ki43and efficient AT weapons.
Battle in Philippines ending in draw with american desant slaughtered by Yamato.
Results - in 1945 USA are still fighting on Luzon,Iwo Jima and Okinawa in Japan hands.Soviets had time to fully conqer Korea.

Game End - no Korean war,but USA fight for Vietnam seriously.South Vietnam as USA ally,Korea as another commie hellhole.

5.Dutch Indonesia taken by USA earlier - possible,if they really send more their forces to Pacyfic.they become USA vassal state,so nothing change much.

 

[Buba]

AHC 1. With a point of divergence *after* the start of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, have Finland made into a Communist People's Democratic puppet state of the Soviet Union after the war or a Union Republic of the Soviet Union.

I still cannot understand why this was not actually the case in OTL.
So, simply have the Soviets push on in 1944 and overrun the country ... ?

AHC 2. Draw Sweden into WWII as a combatant.

Top of mind - the Entente move 48h sooner than in OTL and invade Norway before the Germans, and spill over into Sweden with "internationalist assistance". Sweden retributes and inside a few months pinafore-topped and axe-weilding blond looters and rapists descend upon the UK singing "in the Navy":

AHC 3. A German invasion of Norway is initiated but the Germans never succeed in conquering the whole country, with Norway being a contested front (even if there may be periods of quiet or stalemate) for the duration of the war.

Another easy one. Simply do not evacuate Narvik and ares north. It cannot be taken by land - I've seen Norwegian posters on other boards bring up the incredibly named hamlet of Mo-i-rana in the vicinity of which Sweden is c.800m (yes, metres) from the Norwegian Sea, this narrow waistilne of Norway sporting goat track where two sheep have to suck in their stomachs to pass.

AHC 4. Have Korea get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward.

No Phillipines, an earlier Okinawa, and then Korea?

AHC 5. Have Indochina or Indonesia get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Indochinese or Indonesian relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Indochina or Indonesia get invaded from two sides during the war.

Skip the liberation of Burma but go hop-skip-jump -> Andaman Islands, Phuket/Kra Istmuth, Penang and or north Sumatra, then Malaya and finally Java.
Or no Phillipines - or at least Luzon - but continue the push along New Guinea's northern coast into Mindanao and then into the Molukkas and Sunda Islands.

Indochina - here no Okinawa but FIC instead.

 

[stevep]

I still cannot understand why this was not actually the case in OTL.
So, simply have the Soviets push on in 1944 and overrun the country ... ?

As I understand it Stalin wanted to concentrate on gaining as much control in central Europe as possible and decided it would take too much time and too many troops to overrun the Finnish resistance when he wanted those forces in central Europe. This could fit in with some of the suggestions that the Soviets were running out of manpower towards the end of the conflict.

Top of mind - the Entente move 48h sooner than in OTL and invade Norway before the Germans, and spill over into Sweden with "internationalist assistance". Sweden retributes and inside a few months pinafore-topped and axe-weilding blond looters and rapists descend upon the UK singing "in the Navy":

Its a possibility but probably unlikely. On the 2nd point

I did read once, a long while ago, that there were suggestions for a joint Anglo-Swedish move to liberate Norway, shortly after the fall of France, but Britain simply didn't have the forces to commit at that time. Not sure how accurate that is or what the impact might have been.

Another easy one. Simply do not evacuate Narvik and ares north. It cannot be taken by land - I've seen Norwegian posters on other boards bring up the incredibly named hamlet of Mo-i-rana in the vicinity of which Sweden is c.800m (yes, metres) from the Norwegian Sea, this narrow waistilne of Norway sporting goat track where two sheep have to suck in their stomachs to pass.

Possibly a simplier one would have been that the allies are a bit luckier at intercepting the German forces at sea. German losses were pretty heavy anyway but could have been markedly worse with possibly no landing at Narvik at all idf HMS Renown had been able to fully intercept the German force heading there.

With the historical issue the problem is supply Narvik since everything would have to come in by sea within range of German air power and also subs, including mining. Which given the situation Britain was in after France fell I suspect would have been impractical.

No Phillipines, an earlier Okinawa, and then Korea?


Skip the liberation of Burma but go hop-skip-jump -> Andaman Islands, Phuket/Kra Istmuth, Penang and or north Sumatra, then Malaya and finally Java.
Or no Phillipines - or at least Luzon - but continue the push along New Guinea's northern coast into Mindanao and then into the Molukkas and Sunda Islands.

Indochina - here no Okinawa but FIC instead.

It would need a drastically different US leadership - both political and military. The desire was to head towards Japan rather than consume their empire from the south and cut off supplies.

A possible alternative - say the allies do a bit better in holding Malaya and reinforcing Sumatra and Java or at least part of the latter. This brings the destruction of the Japanese fleet forward somewhat as there's going to be Solomon's style clashes but probably at much larger levels and would allow an allied mission to clear the DEI [as they were then] long before the final invasion of Japan or it being forced to surrender. Britain and the Commonwealth would probably provide the bulk of the forces for this but the US might get involved if they were persuaded that DEI - Borneo - Philippines was the quickest route to liberating the latter. Which would also be a way to get direct aid to China [a big US priority] and also be a quicker step toward the Japanese mainland.

I can't really see a way to liberate FIC earlier as its something of a backwater for the main war in the FE/Pacific.

 

[Buba]

This could fit in with some of the suggestions that the Soviets were running out of manpower towards the end of the conflict.

The running out of men is true. "Bayonet strenght" of the infantry often was reduced to something along the lines of two squads per platoon and/or two platoons per company - with full allotment of heavy weapons, though.

 

[sillygoose]

AHC 1. With a point of divergence *after* the start of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, have Finland made into a Communist People's Democratic puppet state of the Soviet Union after the war or a Union Republic of the Soviet Union.

Kind of hard due to Stalin wanting to be lenient to encourage other Axis allied small states to defect.
The only sorts of things that would get them to piss Stalin off enough to puppet them would be enough to actually cause the Soviets to lose the war, like help assault Leningrad in 1941 and cause it to fall or actually sever the Murmansk RR.

AHC 2. Draw Sweden into WWII as a combatant.

Allies win at Narvik.

AHC 3. A German invasion of Norway is initiated but the Germans never succeed in conquering the whole country, with Norway being a contested front (even if there may be periods of quiet or stalemate) for the duration of the war.

Allies win Narvik and hold out in France.

AHC 4. Have Korea get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Korean relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Korea gets invaded from two sides during the war.

That is really tough to pull off, because losing Korea would cause Japan to surrender.

AHC 5. Have Indochina or Indonesia get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Indochinese or Indonesian relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Indochina or Indonesia get invaded from two sides during the war.

Have the Japanese fail to take Malaya and later British offensives liberate Indochina. Britain would give it back to France and we have OTL resistance movement build up, albeit slower without the OTL TL of surrender there where a bunch of Japanese defected to the Vietnamese insurgents with their arms and provided them training, leadership, and even fighters for their wars of independence. The two sided invasion could then come from the Chinese attacking from the North to help open Haiphong so they could get supplies.

 

[Buba]

Allies win at Narvik.

They did

 

[sillygoose]

They did

I mean decisively so the Germans don't have boots on the ground just waiting to take it back as soon as the Allies ran into trouble.

 

[bintananth]

I mean decisively so the Germans don't have boots on the ground just waiting to take it back as soon as the Allies ran into trouble.

OTL Norway was a strategic catastrophe for Germany. Any realistic, if slim, chance of invading the British Isles ended there.

Kriegsmarine losses (ships sunk):
1 heavy cruiser
2 light cruisers
10 destroyers
6 U-boats
2 torpedo boats
15 light naval units
21 transports/merchant ships

That's not including the ones which were damaged. Those cruisers and destroyers were a little more than 1/4 of all the warships in that size range Germany had during WWII.

 

[sillygoose]

OTL Norway was a strategic catastrophe for Germany.

You certainly have a creative interpretation of events.

Any realistic, if slim, chance of invading the British Isles ended there.

Kriegsmarine losses (ships sunk):
1 heavy cruiser
2 light cruisers
10 destroyers
6 U-boats
2 torpedo boats
15 light naval units
21 transports/merchant ships

That's not including the ones which were damaged. Those cruisers and destroyers were a little more than 1/4 of all the warships in that size range Germany had during WWII.

There was never a realistic chance of invading the British Isles by sea, losses in Norway or not. It was a strategic victory because it forestalled the Allies from cutting off Swedish steel, potentially bringing Sweden into the war, and hemming in the Uboats. The cost was well worth the results, as it gave them excellent naval and air basing options and turned the North Sea into an Axis dominated region.

Not only that it tied down vital Allied forces while France was falling. Plus let's not forget Allied losses, which were heavier than the Axis ones:

Norwegian campaign - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Total:
6,602
British:
On land:
1,869 killed, wounded & missing
At sea:
2,500 lost
1 aircraft carrier
2 cruisers
7 destroyers
1 submarine
112 aircraft
French and Polish:
533 killed, wounded & missing
2 destroyers
2 submarines
Norwegian:
1,700 total, of whom 860 were killed
107 naval ships sunk or captured
70 merchant ships & transports sunk (combined Norwegian/Allied total)


It would have been even worse had the German torpedoes actually worked:

Articles: Faulty Torpedoes - The German Crisis

Describes the torpedo crisis the U-boat force encountered during the Battle of the Atlantic. Faulty torpedoes resulted in at least twenty Allied warships escaping certain destruction during the Norwegian campaign.

www.uboataces.com

As expected, the Norwegian seas were filled with Allied ships. Almost immediately, the U-boats began attacking. Every day and every hour, U-boats were attacking warships or were being attacked themselves. Day in, day out, night after night, the U-boats fired their torpedoes one after another, relentlessly against their targets. Not one of them exploded. Their efforts remained completely fruitless. Worse yet, when the data was analyzed back at BdU, it was found that four attacks were launched on the battleship HMS Warsprite, fourteen on cruisers, ten on destroyers, and a further ten on transports – yet only one transport was sunk. Discounting marginal attacks, Donitz concluded that had the torpedoes not failed, the U-boats would have “probable sinkings” of one battleship, seven cruisers, seven destroyers, and five transports. In summary, about twenty enemy warships had escaped certain destruction because of torpedo failures.

That's not counting all the British vessels saved in 1939, including aircraft carriers and the flagship of the RN when Churchill and the admiralty were on board.

 

[History Learner]

AHC 1. With a point of divergence *after* the start of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, have Finland made into a Communist People's Democratic puppet state of the Soviet Union after the war or a Union Republic of the Soviet Union.

Almost happened in 1948.

AHC 2. Draw Sweden into WWII as a combatant.

Extend WWII in the ETO out for a few more weeks, the Swedes were preparing to do such.

AHC 3. A German invasion of Norway is initiated but the Germans never succeed in conquering the whole country, with Norway being a contested front (even if there may be periods of quiet or stalemate) for the duration of the war.

Extremely hard to do once the Germans are moving into France, Norway even late in the war was beyond the effective range of aircover from the British isles.

AHC 4. Have Korea get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Korean relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Korea gets invaded from two sides during the war.

The 8-15 Incident is successful in Japan, preventing the war and extending out the fighting. It's likely the Soviets would clear out the Northern half in early 1946 or so, perhaps meeting the Americans who have landed in the South after the failed invasion of Japan.

AHC 5. Have Indochina or Indonesia get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Indochinese or Indonesian relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Indochina or Indonesia get invaded from two sides during the war.

See above, the Commonwealth was working towards this OTL when the war suddenly ended.

 

[ATP]

Almost happened in 1948.



Extend WWII in the ETO out for a few more weeks, the Swedes were preparing to do such.



Extremely hard to do once the Germans are moving into France, Norway even late in the war was beyond the effective range of aircover from the British isles.



The 8-15 Incident is successful in Japan, preventing the war and extending out the fighting. It's likely the Soviets would clear out the Northern half in early 1946 or so, perhaps meeting the Americans who have landed in the South after the failed invasion of Japan.



See above, the Commonwealth was working towards this OTL when the war suddenly ended.

1.True.But you could achieve the same if soviets send there smarter generals in 1944.With their numerical advantage,they must win,but they failed to do so.
2.Or made Finland fall in 1940 and soviets attack them next.
3.Norway had enough airfields to keep planes there.And there was no good roads for Wermacht to win on land.So,allies could be there - but,so what? in the end,only possible difference would be English forces from Norway welcomed to Finland in 1944.
Finland later in NATO - it would change nothing.
4.That.Or allies beaten worst in 1942,so they would not get much till soviets attack in 1945.Theorically - if Japan destroyed Pearl Harbour ammo and oil depots,sunking 2 american carriers in process,later sunk british fleet on Indian Ocean,win Midway battle....they would still lost,but allies would be at best on Philipphines in 1945.
5.Reverse of lucky Japan in 1942 - never sunk american fleet in Pearl,so Japan get only part of Indonesia.Allies get rest later.
British could defend Singapoore,too,if they fought better and send fighters which was send to soviets in OTL/400/.
Not loosing Singapoore mean not loosing Birma,and they could retake Indochina then.
2.

 

[raharris1973]

@sillygoose

AHC 2. Draw Sweden into WWII as a combatant.

Allies win at Narvik.

Could you spell out precisely why and how you think an Allied win at Narvik would bring Sweden into the war as a combatant?

AHC 3. A German invasion of Norway is initiated but the Germans never succeed in conquering the whole country, with Norway being a contested front (even if there may be periods of quiet or stalemate) for the duration of the war.

Allies win Narvik and hold out in France.

Could you spell out how and why and for how long a no fall of France scenario, plus an Allied win at Narvik, would make Norway a stalemated front? How would you see things developing on that front, and all fronts, like Western Europe, in the months and couple years after the no fall of France June 1940?

 

[raharris1973]

And here is another WWII alternate history scenario and question for everyone:

Yugoslavia does not have 1941 coup, stays in Axis.. is it occupied by Soviets or Wallies @ VE Day?

What if Yugoslavia did not have its spring 1941 coup and this allows the country to "keep its head down" that year, remain a formal Axis member and trading partner of Germany that doesn't have to do much of anything in terms of a major contribution or DoWs (like Bulgaria in OTL)?

I think the lack of a Yugoslav campaign, the consequent occupation and partisan movement are simply not going to change the outcome of the war, and Nazi Germany and its allies, indeed all Europe, will end up split between areas conquered or liberated by the Soviets and areas conquered/liberated by the Anglo-Americans.

Which side will occupy/have the greatest influence/control over postwar Yugoslavia?

A) Soviets

B) Anglo-Americans

 

[ATP]

And here is another WWII alternate history scenario and question for everyone:

Yugoslavia does not have 1941 coup, stays in Axis.. is it occupied by Soviets or Wallies @ VE Day?

What if Yugoslavia did not have its spring 1941 coup and this allows the country to "keep its head down" that year, remain a formal Axis member and trading partner of Germany that doesn't have to do much of anything in terms of a major contribution or DoWs (like Bulgaria in OTL)?

I think the lack of a Yugoslav campaign, the consequent occupation and partisan movement are simply not going to change the outcome of the war, and Nazi Germany and its allies, indeed all Europe, will end up split between areas conquered or liberated by the Soviets and areas conquered/liberated by the Anglo-Americans.

Which side will occupy/have the greatest influence/control over postwar Yugoslavia?

A) Soviets

B) Anglo-Americans

Germans do not take Moscow in 1941 becouse they attacked too late - but,in OTL,they still have time for that if they do not waste time for Leningrad which they do not take,too.
So,you are right,nothing change on East.But,german units who fought in Yugoslawia would go East.Soviets would come few months later as a result,which would end in Yugoslawia and Hungary in allied hands,at least partially.
Aside from that - nothing change til 1990.
Afrer that -stronger Hungary and Yugoslawia - or rather Croatia ,Slovenia and Montenegro,Serbia and Macedonia would be in soviet hands.

 

[raharris1973]

Your last sentence completely does not follow from all your other sentences.

 

[ATP]

Your last sentence completely does not follow from all your other sentences.

There would be no Yugoslavia,if allies take Croatia,Slovenia and Montenegro,and soviets rest.Only independent countries.

 

[sillygoose]

@sillygoose
Could you spell out precisely why and how you think an Allied win at Narvik would bring Sweden into the war as a combatant?

That was always the British intention. Form supply lines via Narvik, put political pressure on them, move troops into the country if needed, and start squeezing Germany from the north.

Could you spell out how and why and for how long a no fall of France scenario, plus an Allied win at Narvik, would make Norway a stalemated front? How would you see things developing on that front, and all fronts, like Western Europe, in the months and couple years after the no fall of France June 1940?

The Allies wouldn't withdraw as they did after France fell apart.

 

[WolfBear]

AHC 1. With a point of divergence *after* the start of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, have Finland made into a Communist People's Democratic puppet state of the Soviet Union after the war or a Union Republic of the Soviet Union.

AHC 2. Draw Sweden into WWII as a combatant.

AHC 3. A German invasion of Norway is initiated but the Germans never succeed in conquering the whole country, with Norway being a contested front (even if there may be periods of quiet or stalemate) for the duration of the war.

AHC 4. Have Korea get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Korean relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Korea gets invaded from two sides during the war.

AHC 5. Have Indochina or Indonesia get liberated during WWII, not at the end or after the war, with 9 months or more of the war on Japan left over afterward. How would Indochinese or Indonesian relations with their liberators proceed and how will they be leveraged, if at all, in fighting against Japan? Bonus points if you meet this challenge- Indochina or Indonesia get invaded from two sides during the war.

1. Have the Soviet Union do better in its war against Finland. Something like total Finnish capitulation.

2. Have Sweden invade Finland and demand the Aland Islands. Then have Nazi Germany broker a settlement that gives the Aland Islands to Sweden in exchange for a Swedish alliance with Nazi Germany. Finland will get territorial compensation for this at the Soviet Union's expense in the event of an Axis victory in Operation Barbarossa, similar to Romania being compensated for the loss of Northern Transylvania in an Axis-arbitrated settlement with expansion into Transnistria and Odessa during Operation Barbarossa.

3. Have France not fall in 1940 and have Narvik subsequently permanently hold out.

4. Have the development of nukes be delayed by a year. That way, the USSR can liberate Korea while the Japanese fight on for an additional year in the home islands.

5. As with #4, delaying the development of nukes would really help here. Though I wonder who exactly would liberate Indochina: The Indochinese themselves, the Chinese, the Soviets, France, Britain, and/or the US?

 

[raharris1973]

There would be no Yugoslavia,if allies take Croatia,Slovenia and Montenegro,and soviets rest.Only independent countries.

This is kind of an interesting situation. You are sure the Western Allies would invade Montenegro and Croatia, because it is close to Italy via the Adriatic? But it is politically complicated, because the Yugoslav monarchy is not strong there, but collaboration compromised Croatian nationalists, and Communist partisans. But you are also sure the Soviets would take Serbia and Macedonia? I mean it is far away from the water, so less convenient for the Western Allies. But the Yugoslav government in exile and Chetniks will want the west to come in. And, might the Soviet find marching southwest into Macedonia especially, but also into Serbia, sort of a diversionary direction, not headed towards Germany? On the other hand, if the Soviets are already in Bulgaria, Macedonia and Serbia are just a couple small steps further.

If the Soviets do occupy Serbia and Macedonia as you suggest, do they call it Yugoslavia, and does Tito move to meet them in their zone and take over as chief executive? Or do they call it Serbia and maybe they pick an ethnic Serbian communist to put in charge?

You think the Western Allies would do so well in western Yugoslavia they would advance into all of Austria and all of Hungary first before the Soviets get there, blocking off the Soviet advance through Romania? Or the Western Allies partially occupy Hungary, maybe everything west of the Danube, with the Soviet having everything east and north?