What are some of the best Axis-victory TLs?

[David Flin]

The Writers forum is not some form of Gulag, many fine TLs are to be found there. The only differences are that TLs there aren't subject to the legitimate scrutiny of plausibility that TLs in Post-1900 are and Writers is restricted to board members, that's the sum total of the differences.

My understanding, and I'm open to correction, is that TLs in Post-1900 are centred on the historicity, while TLs in the Writers' Forum are centred on the story.

No-one criticises published works like Fatherland or Man In A High Castle for somewhat less than plausible back stories. They live or die on the quality of the story within the defined setting.

If one writes a TL in Post-1900 that assumes, for example, that the Brighton Bomb in 1984 kills Thatcher, and 30 years later, London is a dystopic police state with executions shown on pay-per-view, it would get torn apart for failing to show the workings and being essentially a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. If that same TL is posted in the Writers' Forum, the backstory is assumed as a given, and the criticism focuses on whether the story from that point makes sense, whether the characters seem plausible, whether the plot is logical, and so on.

And the trouble with Axis wins scenarios is that one has one of two options:
1. Write it in such a way that the fundamentals of WW2 are changed so drastically (to give Germany an outside chance) that it no longer resembles WW2 in any form. In which case, describing it as an Axis wins scenario is misleading, because it's referencing a framework that bears no similarity to that which the word Axis calls upon.

2. Take the fundamentals of WW2. The problem here is that in a war with Germany, Italy, and Japan on one side (kind of but not really) working together, and UK and Empire, USA, and USSR on the other side, there is no plausible way that the Axis can overcome the material, industrial, space, geographical, and manpower odds against them.

 

[Lalli]

To go back to the OPs question the best Nazi victory TLs are the ones that don't dwell on the how but focus on the consequences, so AANW is probably the best.

Yes, AANW is indeed one of best written and detailed Axis victory TLs. It tells plausible whay how nazis win the war and not go with something really ridicolous things with Wallies. The TL too tells very well how things are working in the THird Reich, all of these nazi horrors and Generalplan Ost. It too tells fate of nazi empire which is quiet different than on many other TLs and scenarios.

 

[omrk]

Lancashire Life: An account of The Great Patriotic War​

Is one of the best I think

 

[merlin]

And the trouble with Axis wins scenarios is that one has one of two options:
1. Write it in such a way that the fundamentals of WW2 are changed so drastically (to give Germany an outside chance) that it no longer resembles WW2 in any form. In which case, describing it as an Axis wins scenario is misleading, because it's referencing a framework that bears no similarity to that which the word Axis calls upon.

2. Take the fundamentals of WW2. The problem here is that in a war with Germany, Italy, and Japan on one side (kind of but not really) working together, and UK and Empire, USA, and USSR on the other side, there is no plausible way that the Axis can overcome the material, industrial, space, geographical, and manpower odds against them.

Agreed, with the 1st, there's a Weimar Germany which is more trusted, by the Anglo-French, while Western Europe is beset by Moscow inspired communist agitation, strikes etc. Anglo-French governments become increasingly right wing, re-armament happens not as OTL against Germany, but to be able to support east European countries against bullying Russia. Along with that, Germany is given the 'nod' to also rearm.
While with the 2nd, Germany needs to knock the UK out before going east - Churchill's plane going to Paris in spring1940 is shot down, with the political vacuum - Britain accepts German domination of the continent - no blockade, Germany gets oil.
Early June '41 Germany go East, Moscow falls, followed by Leningrad - in '42 the A-A line achieved.

 

[David Flin]

While with the 2nd, Germany needs to knock the UK out before going east - Churchill's plane going to Paris in spring1940 is shot down, with the political vacuum - Britain accepts German domination of the continent - no blockade, Germany gets oil.
Early June '41 Germany go East, Moscow falls, followed by Leningrad - in '42 the A-A line achieved.

Yeah. Nonsense. Churchill was chosen as PM precisely because he was viewed as someone who would conduct the war more effectively. If he gets removed from the board, someone else willing to fight on gets chosen.

Amazingly enough, Churchill wasn't the only game in town. If he gets taken out, the political landscape in Britain isn't suddenly empty. Granted the war will be fought differently - some might argue more effectively without his schemes and unorthodox ideas that weren't always wise.

That idea doesn't have any legs.

 

[Gudestein]

If you'd read those villifying trolling comments you'd see that most of them were genuine ones and ones that tried to raise real points and the like. Basically when it became clear that Boo's gonna Wehr that people basically gave up.

Its dead wrong to imply the TL ran out of critics

Actually it was due to implausibility on a grand scale IIRC.

That was the excuse/argument. That you felt you had to comply to the critics were certainly a component.
Its really a shame. Try imagine how to make something difficult work and then learn from all the troubles along the way, but without changing the direction. That is how I use the TL format and there really isnt any good argument to say that shouldnt be allowed.

 

[Garrison]

Its dead wrong to imply the TL ran out of critics

That was the excuse/argument. That you felt you had to comply to the critics were certainly a component.
Its really a shame. Try imagine how to make something difficult work and then learn from all the troubles along the way, but without changing the direction. That is how I use the TL format and there really isnt any good argument to say that shouldnt be allowed.

Again this seems to imply that a TL being moved to Writers is somehow a disaster or a punishment, which it clearly is not.

 

[Gudestein]

Again this seems to imply that a TL being moved to Writers is somehow a disaster or a punishment, which it clearly is not.

The misunderstanding is that a TL that taken together is implausible is made for the story, and hence belong in the writers forum. Its not.
Its real outcome is the difficulties along its path from which I (and others )can learn, and I have tried to make it a smoother ride in each iteration. I really dont see why this is not a genuine AH methodology. Its very much like science based development in real life.

 

[Capt Thunderbolt]

Take the fundamentals of WW2. The problem here is that in a war with Germany, Italy, and Japan on one side (kind of but not really) working together, and UK and Empire, USA, and USSR on the other side, there is no plausible way that the Axis can overcome the material, industrial, space, geographical, and manpower odds against them.

The only way I see the axis doing better (undefined!), is Japan by-passes the Philippines, DO NOT attack the US, and prey the US stays isolationist.

If left along in the sth China sea, Japan can kept going, take the solomens, Fiji and new Caledonia. Without US assistance Nthn Australia and PNG, would probably go too.

Without US production, Britain has great pure & applied science, but very limited capacity to convert them into reality.

The USSR has very finite logistics and lost it good bowl early, and again US production free massive resources to instead throw into front.

While Germany never expected France to fall so quick, neither did it expect Britain would be so determined.

The only other POD, is Germany has a true reset, accept Greece and Mediterranean needs focus. Delay Barbarossa till early '42, and plan to stay the winter, after "victory".

 

[CalBear]

Its dead wrong to imply the TL ran out of critics

That was the excuse/argument. That you felt you had to comply to the critics were certainly a component.
Its really a shame. Try imagine how to make something difficult work and then learn from all the troubles along the way, but without changing the direction. That is how I use the TL format and there really isnt any good argument to say that shouldnt be allowed.

Actually I can say with some confidence why the thread was moved. I was there when I moved it.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Amazingly enough, Churchill wasn't the only game in town. If he gets taken out, the political landscape in Britain isn't suddenly empty. Granted the war will be fought differently - some might argue more effectively without his schemes and unorthodox ideas that weren't always wise.

Who would get the nod if Churchill meets with an unfortunate end?

The usual suspect seems to Lord Halifax, but I've always thought that any 1940 ceasefire will lead to a second round in a few years.

 

[David Flin]

Who would get the nod if Churchill meets with an unfortunate end?

In the very short term. Clem Attlee was the Deputy Prime Minister, a role designed for almost precisely this purpose - to take over as caretaker while a proper succession can be determined. So, from the moment that it is confirmed that Churchill died in the air crash, Attlee moves from Deputy PM to Temporary PM, and would be expected to arrange for a Permanent PM to be decided upon.

Aside from Halifax, other potential candidates who come into consideration include Eden, who was also a Major in the Territorial Army. This would have been an interesting choice, given that he was one of the few politicians who could get on with de Gaulle. Lots of butterfly potential there. As Eden in due course became SoS for War, it's not as left field an idea as some.

Of course, if Attlee does a good job in the immediate aftermath of Churchill's death, there will be a strong tendency to "not rock the boat". He had good relations with the Trades Union, so the labour issues that arose between the declaration of war and the start of Barbarossa get butterflied away. If the course of the war in France follows the same route, I can quite see the Fall of France being put down to the doings of his predecessors, because that was all going on before he took over; while Dunkirk, a plan conceived and carried out with him as PM, is marked down to being his doing. Thus boosting his prestige significantly.

What you won't get, under any circumstances, is either Halifax as PM (he's already turned it down, he turned the King down, and the parliamentary mood wouldn't accept him anymore under pretty much any circumstances), or a British surrender without the situation changing significantly for the worse - which would mean German boots in Whitehall. As the Battle of France was going on, a motion was put before the House:

I beg to move, that this House welcomes the formation of a Government representing the united and inflexible resolve of the nation to prosecute the war with Germany to a victorious conclusion.

This was passed unanimously, with the only abstentions being the tellers (who by custom abstain on any vote).

The mood of the public was largely captured by the famous Lowes cartoon. Of course, there were dissenting voices, particularly when it came to the distributions of risk and reward, but in principle, the idea that somehow this gets transformed into an abject agreement for an armistice without a major change in fortunes is nonsense.

 

[David Flin]

Agreed, with the 1st, there's a Weimar Germany which is more trusted, by the Anglo-French, while Western Europe is beset by Moscow inspired communist agitation, strikes etc. Anglo-French governments become increasingly right wing, re-armament happens not as OTL against Germany, but to be able to support east European countries against bullying Russia. Along with that, Germany is given the 'nod' to also rearm.

This element is precisely what I mean by any war in which the Axis is victorious becomes so different from WW2 as to be unrecognisable, and it would be misleading to call it that. The Anglo-American Nazi War is a brilliant title for precisely this reason. It gives a sense that things are very different, and that while it may be set in the WW2 period, it cannot be considered as a variant of WW2, but as something very, very different.

If you have changes that include:
1. A Weimar Germany
2. Allowed to re-arm with British and French approval
3. Britain becoming right wing and helping Germany
4. France becoming right wing and helping Germany
5. Increased Communist-inspired agitation throughout the West
6. Britain and France working with Germany supporting east Europe against Russia

then you don't have anything that can be labelled "WW2" without causing confusion. Hell, you don't even have an Axis.

 

[Viking25]

If you have changes that include:
1. A Weimar Germany
2. Allowed to re-arm with British and French approval
3. Britain becoming right wing and helping Germany
4. France becoming right wing and helping Germany
5. Increased Communist-inspired agitation throughout the West
6. Britain and France working with Germany supporting east Europe against Russia

then you don't have anything that can be labelled "WW2" without causing confusion. Hell, you don't even have an Axis.

This just sounds like Germanys Democratic path in HOIV really which nobody evers picks lol. Funny that its literally the only way the Germans could have ever actually won lol

 

[Vabasion]

In the very short term. Clem Attlee was the Deputy Prime Minister, a role designed for almost precisely this purpose - to take over as caretaker while a proper succession can be determined. So, from the moment that it is confirmed that Churchill died in the air crash, Attlee moves from Deputy PM to Temporary PM, and would be expected to arrange for a Permanent PM to be decided upon.

Aside from Halifax, other potential candidates who come into consideration include Eden, who was also a Major in the Territorial Army. This would have been an interesting choice, given that he was one of the few politicians who could get on with de Gaulle. Lots of butterfly potential there. As Eden in due course became SoS for War, it's not as left field an idea as some.

Of course, if Attlee does a good job in the immediate aftermath of Churchill's death, there will be a strong tendency to "not rock the boat". He had good relations with the Trades Union, so the labour issues that arose between the declaration of war and the start of Barbarossa get butterflied away. If the course of the war in France follows the same route, I can quite see the Fall of France being put down to the doings of his predecessors, because that was all going on before he took over; while Dunkirk, a plan conceived and carried out with him as PM, is marked down to being his doing. Thus boosting his prestige significantly.

What you won't get, under any circumstances, is either Halifax as PM (he's already turned it down, he turned the King down, and the parliamentary mood wouldn't accept him anymore under pretty much any circumstances), or a British surrender without the situation changing significantly for the worse - which would mean German boots in Whitehall. As the Battle of France was going on, a motion was put before the House:



This was passed unanimously, with the only abstentions being the tellers (who by custom abstain on any vote).

The mood of the public was largely captured by the famous Lowes cartoon. Of course, there were dissenting voices, particularly when it came to the distributions of risk and reward, but in principle, the idea that somehow this gets transformed into an abject agreement for an armistice without a major change in fortunes is nonsense.

All of that depended heavily on British belief that US can be brought into the war eventually. There was no one, including Churchill that believed Britain and its commonwealth can liberate Europe and defeat the Nazis on their own. If an isolationist who actually is one is in the White House the calculations may change.
It is also possible some may push for an Amiens style peace with Germany in return for more or less pre-war borders in Western Europe minus Alsace Lorraine, Belgium and recognition of German gains in the east while they rearm and wait for Germans to start another war. That option would probably result in a stronger Britain once it re enters and possibly longer lasting Empire post war.

I don’t understand peoples obsession with permanent peace or permanent war in WW2 context.

 

[David Flin]

All of that depended heavily on British belief that US can be brought into the war eventually. There was no one, including Churchill that believed Britain and its commonwealth can liberate Europe and defeat the Nazis on their own. If an isolationist who actually is one is in the White House the calculations may change.
It is also possible some may push for an Amiens style peace with Germany in return for more or less pre-war borders in Western Europe minus Alsace Lorraine, Belgium and recognition of German gains in the east while they rearm and wait for Germans to start another war. That option would probably result in a stronger Britain once it re enters and possibly longer lasting Empire post war.

I don’t understand peoples obsession with permanent peace or permanent war in WW2 context.

Taken from Punch shortly after the Fall of France.

If one reads the reports in Mass Observations (a collection of several thousand journals kept by people up and down the UK over the period), one comes away with the feeling that peace - even an Amiens style peace - simply wasn't on the radar.

One can turn to the newspaper columns, and the attitude was one of continuing.

In none of these is the USA even mentioned.

Did they know how victory would be achieved? Of course not. There's just the feeling that giving up wasn't an option. A feeling that somehow, things would sort themselves out.

In short, your views are not borne out by what people were saying at the time.

 

[David Flin]

That option would probably result in a stronger Britain once it re enters and possibly longer lasting Empire post war.

I'm afraid I don't understand people's obsession with the view that possible future outcomes would inform the general view of the public as to what to do at the time.

Nearly everyone in Britain had accepted that the Empire was changing and that independence for the constituent parts was a foregone conclusion, all that remained was the timescale. Apart from a few dinosaurs (like Churchill), the course of events was clear enough. Just the time scale.

 

[Resurgam]

The mood of the public was largely captured by the famous Lowes cartoon.

I’ll probably be like “oh, yeah, that one” but what cartoon is this?

 

[David Flin]

I’ll probably be like “oh, yeah, that one” but what cartoon is this?

 

[Resurgam]

View attachment 696792

…

…

…oh, yeah, that one.