What single change would have given the best chance for the Axis to win World War 2?

Question

A common topic in alternate history fiction works is what would have happened if a major war had been won by the other side. These usually focus on the events after the war, and the change itself is not depicted realistically: it's either not discussed, or attributed to a superweapon or deus ex machina.

I know that WW2 was a very complex war, with a huge number of social and economic factors in it so that there was no single realistic "miracle" which would have guaranteed a certain different outcome. Therefore I list a number of disclaimers in order to make this question fit into the topic of this site.

• It doesn't have to guarantee an Axis victory, but it has to increase its probability significantly.

• A victory doesn't necessarily mean global domination (which neither power had any realistic chance of achieving). If Germany ends up in control over most of Eastern Europe (like the Soviets ended up doing in real life after the war), with a Soviet Union unwilling to fight, and with a peace treaty with the western Allies at least slightly favorable to Germany, it counts as a victory for Germany.

• The change has to be a single event, or a collection of tightly coupled and interdependent events. It has to happen either during the war, or not more than a few years before it. The war should, at least in the beginning, look very similar to what happened in real life: the alliances should be roughly the same, the events like the conquest of Poland, the occupation of France, an attack against the Soviet Union, and a naval war between the USA and Japan should occur (or at least begin), even if at different dates or different order. The major participants should be the same.

• The change should have a realistic justification (so no secret Nazi super laser), I would think in the following changes: events progressing slightly faster or slightly slower than in real life, a single large battle or series of interconnected battles won by the opposite side (if that had even a small chance of happening)

I'm thinking along the lines of Germany and its allies advancing faster against the Soviets and crushing them before they had any chance of putting up a good defense, or Hitler not antagonizing scientists so they could develop even better equipment or maybe even a nuclear bomb, or Japan winning the battle of Midway and keeping the USA from entering the European theater, or a different sequence of diplomatic events leading a peace on one front which in turn could lead to a victory on the other front, etc.

Answer 1

Idea

I agree with many other answerers that one major factor in the Reich losing the war was Hitler. So it's reasonable to affect a change that removes him from the picture. I like the proposal for him to have served in logistics with the consequence that he would have been a more competent war leader. However, his other issues are unlikely to change.

I want to work from the following idea: there was considerable unrest in Germany when Hitler assumed power. Economy was down and the terms of the Versailles treaty were generally considered unfair. Short of a diplomatic resolution of this tension (not really the spirit of the time), war was inevitable. Given the situation, any skilled demagogue could have come to power.

So we let Hitler do this: let him come to power, unite the people behind his figure and prepare Germany for war. Then, limit his power so far that he can not hinder the war effort, ruin most international relations, and make the Reich a bad guy. Do not remove him completely -- he is a rally point -- but limit his influence.

Proposal

Disclaimer: I am not a historian. Any serious attempt at producing a believable piece of alternate fiction based on small changes will have to be the result of extensive research.

Have the Blomberg–Fritsch Affair in 1938 turn out differently. It becomes known in the party that Hitler had the thing set up to get rid of rivals. As a consequence, power shifts within the leading elite. While Hitler remains chancellor/president for appearances sake, his role degrades to a representative figurehead -- the real decisions are made elsewhere.

Rationale on why this influences the war effort in ways positive for the Reich:

• Most of the preparation (arguably only possible with the somewhat crazy dedication of Hitler's) has already been finished. The armed forces are well-trained, well-equipped and ready.
• Military leadership remains effective and competent. Other answers discuss multiple ways in which that helps.
• International relations will be handled in a more rational way. Appeasement does not break completely, and the Reich does not attack everybody at once.
• The Holocaust (a pet project of Hitler's) does not happen. This saves resources and causes less internal and international dissent, in particular post-war.

Perspective

It seems likely that much of what constitutes the EU today, with the possible exclusion of Great Britain, would have fallen under the rule of the Reich (which it pretty much was in the real time line, at some point during the war).

Looking forward, a non-Hitler Reich may not have been as scary a prospect as as the Hitler Reich we've seen in our real history. It may have actually been stable after the war, at least for some years. The US may not have entered the European theater at all. The biggest conflict would probably have been between the Reich and Stalin's USSR in case it did not fall during the war. It is somewhat plausible that we'd have gotten a Cold War similar to what we actually got, but with different parties: the Reich, the USSR, and maybe the US.

Answer 2

Germany completes the Uranprojekt first

Germany, prior to the Nazi takeover, had the best physics research establishment in the world, bar none.

Imagine that the discoverers of fission, Hahn and Strassmann instead of ignoring Ida Noddak's suggestions for 4 years (as they do in our timeline), work with her and Lise Meitner to discover nuclear fission early in 1933 instead of 1938. The Heereswaffenamt, the Nazi equivalent of the American Skunk Works/DARPA , manages to catch the paper before it reaches publication stage, and Hitler immediately recognizes the potential of the weapon.

Uranprojekt is thus started under absolute secrecy 5 years early, and funded to a level equivalent to the Reichsautobahn (highway) project. Hundreds of German scientists disappear from public view and are tasked to work on the Uranprojekt full time. They focus on simpler gun-type designs, starting uranium enrichment as early as 1935, with hundreds of kilograms of enriched uranium generated before the war's start. Germany reaches deployable nuclear weapons in 1938.

A corresponding logical focus on developing heavy, long-range bombers enables them to deploy the bomb at considerable range, in the Schwerer Bomber Messerschmitt Me 264.

The Amerika-Bomber project was an initiative of the German Reichsluftfahrtministerium to obtain a long-range strategic bomber for the Luftwaffe that would be capable of striking the contiguous United States from Germany, a distance of about 5,800 km (3,600 mi).

The allies crumble in a matter of months under the German Bomb.

Answer 3

Assassinate Hitler
In 1941, mid war, Hitler is assassinated with the hope that this would weaken the German top ranks, cause infighting, hurt morale, and bring a faster end to the war.

Instead Erich von Manstein is able to seize control quickly and stop the march against Russia. Using this as a way to open ceasefire talks, they are able to avoid having to fight on as many fronts, directing more forces against England and the allies.
The "martyrdom" of Hitler also doesn't hurt morale as hoped, but give the German soldiers something to rally behind.

This gives them time to dig in, which brings the allies to the negotiation table to work out an end to the war.

Score: draw (but not a loss, satisfying bullet point 2).

Edit: After a bit more reading, it's possible, even likely, that Germany would still have attacked Russia if Hitler was killed in 1941, but some historians believe that it would have been successful (as it very nearly was) if Hitler had listened to his generals and focused Moscow first, instead of trying for the oil fields first.

Continued: (disclamer, I got a lot of what follows here if you want to skip to the source)
tl;dr: Why might they attack Russia? They needed oil. Their choices were to attack the British in Egypt on the way to the middle east, or attack Russia. Russia was the stronger of the two, and was massing troops along the border. The theory was that Russia could attack in the summer of 42, so they decided to attack first, before Russia was ready. And Russia was not ready at all. Despite Having a bigger army, they had poor leadership (Stalin killed a lot of the best officers), poor communication, and poor training.
Germany had victory after victory in Russia, capturing or killing millions of Russian soldiers. They got within 20 miles of Moscow before winter. They just couldn't push that last little bit.
The reason is that Hitler wanted to take the oil fields first, depriving the Russians of the resources, while the generals want to take Moscow first in order to remove the Russian leadership, and they could only put their main power behind one. Half way through Hitler decided the generals plan was better, but it was to late, and they didn't make it before winter. Russia was able to bring in more troops and push them back, hurting them badly.
Without Hitler the generals would have put the main push against Moscow and probably would have been able to take it by September.

Edit 2
Since comments were moved to chat, there have been some good comments about Germany attacking Russia that improve the answer

Mints97
just my couple of cents here: taking Moscow may not have necessarily meant taking Russia. Napoleon took Moscow, but he was as far from conquering Russia as he was when he started his invasion...

Agreed, and that's specifically why Hitler didn't want to focus on Moscow. He wanted to avoid the mistake that Napoleon made, and go after the resources first. For some reason his military leaders thought that Moscow was important, and managed to convince him to switch. Maybe it would have been better to stick to his original plan, or maybe they had information I don't know about.
I remember reading that the communist Russian army under Stalin was not very good at taking initiative, since he killed all the independent thinking ones that might try to take over. It wasn't the same Russia that Napoleon invaded.
It's possible that with the government gone that the army would have just folded up. Or maybe not. Another what-if.

Answer 4

Seeking a "minimal credible change", I would say that in May/June 1940 the Luftwaffe ignores the rest of the Battle of France and focuses in attacking the British troops evacuating Dunkirk.

Not only the BEF is captured whole, the RAF also suffers a crippling defeat (fighting over foreign terrain, with little fuel after crossing the channel and without the advantage of radar) and loses most of its planes and pilots, and the Navy also suffers some damage in desperate attempts to break the siege.

After France surrenders (a little later than in original history, due to the respite they got), the UK has no army and the Luftwaffe can guarantee the safety of an invasion fleet against the damaged UK Navy. Realizing that when (not if) German units land on British soil the UK will have almost nothing left to negotiate with, recently elected PM Winston Churchill makes an epic speech asking MP to preserve the greatness of the British Empire by signing a peace treaty that gives Germany free reign in Europe and North Africa.

Answer 5

The only thing that would have let the Axis win the war is if they somehow kept the USA out of it. In an alternate reality, this is possible. No super lasers or miracles required.

First, you need someone other than Roosevelt as President. The US Congress was all about neutrality at the time. Many were isolationist. Roosevelt was opposed to this, although he did play along to get his New Deal programs through. But Roosevelt actively supported the British before the USA entered the war.

Second, German U-Boats can't be attacking American shipping. This may not be an issue if the USA is truly neutral, and is staying out of the whole mess. It might be possible for the US to trade with both sides, although I can't see how the British Navy would allow any country to supply Germany. The British were dominant in the Atlantic and in the Mediterranean, so only blockade runners might make it through.

Third, Japan doesn't attack the US. With a more conservative, isolationist President in office, maybe Japan doesn't feel so threatened by the US, and therefore only makes non-threatening moves in Asia. If Japan only attacks the European colonies, then that's a European problem. The USA doesn't enter the war.

If the USA never enters the war, the British are defeated and the war ends. They gave it a really good fight, but Britain cannot do it alone. In the real time line, the USA helped keep Britain afloat before officially entering the war. In the alternate timeline, without that assistance, Britain is done by 1941. With all forces applied to the imminent defeat of Britain, Germany does not invade the Soviet Union in 1941.

After Britain leaves the war, the Germans turn on the Soviet Union, in much more favorable circumstances. By avoiding most of the Russian winter, the Soviets are easily rolled up and done by late 1942. Stalin is deposed. The war is over. Germany takes large chunks of territory and resources from the Soviets. The British, French, Dutch, etc., all have to pay reparations and lose parts of their Empire.

There is "peace" in Europe in 1943. In Asia, it's another story. Now that the allied forces have surrendered to Germany, Japan gets a free hand in Asia and the Pacific. Who is going to stop them? As long as they don't provoke the USA, Japan can do what it wants.

Answer 6

Excluding Jews from the Holocaust.

The Jews made up a significant proportion of the German workforce and elite prior to the rise of the Nazi Party. In Weimar Germany, a significant proportion of elite Germans were Jews, and many of them were important scientists. Many Jews fled Germany and settled in other countries, including Einstein, who was later instrumental in encouraging the Americans to develop the nuclear bomb in the Manhattan project.

In fact, had the Jews not been targeted for extermination, they could have played significant roles in the war, such as the German atomic bomb project, described in this answer.

While the exclusion of Jews would have halved the number of potential scapegoats for the war effort (6 out of 11 million civilians murdered by the Hitler regime were Jews), Hitler still had plenty of targets to choose from. Gypsies (Roma), Communists, Slavs, and other untermensch could be potentially targeted. The potential for singling out scapegoats for blame still remains in many parts of the population.

Answer 7

One of the turning points of WWII was the shift from strategic bombing of the RAF sector bases by the Luftwaffe to the bombing of cities, ordered by Hitler in reprisal for the bombing of German cities by the English.

Had Hitler been a little more rational, had he taken the high moral ground and declared "The Tommies may have bombed our cities, but we will not stoop to their murderous ways" (even though the Germans were secretly exterminating Jews, Gypsies and gays), and carried right on bombing the RAF bases, the RAF would have crumbled under the onslaught, giving the Luftwaffe free reign to go after secondary military targets such as the Royal Navy and army bases in preparation for Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of England.

With the Germans publicly refusing to stoop to the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians in pointless bombing raids on cities, in contrast to the English' attacks on population centres, there would have been diplomatic counter-pressure on the other non-involved nations of the world with regard to becoming involved in this European affair, and if Operation Sea Lion succeeded in the face of a crippled RAF and RN, the US may well have stayed out of the European war entirely.

As a second example of Hitler's improved rationality, he would have held off on his negative propaganda regarding Communism and the invasion of the Soviet Union until after the defeat of Great Britain, and then choosing the appropriate time to strike to avoid the harsh Russian winters. With a greater number of experienced troops and battle-proven equipment against the Soviet Union's inexperienced troops and unproven equipment, the Germans would have been better placed to press their assault all the way to Moscow.

Answer 8

So many small things, mostly having to do with the Russian campaign. The simple fact is, if Germany had managed to conquer Russia in 1941, the war is over. Suddenly they have nearly unlimited oil, food and other natural resources and only one front to face. For all we like to talk about how the USA's resources would have won out, it was Russia who sucked the life out of the German Army, not the US.

Now certainly they would not have been able to resist without the supplies the US gave them. But the fact is, they were THERE. Without a coherent Russian Army to supply - and to be willing to take absolutely appalling casualties and continue - our resources would not have done us much good.

So what would have done it? Well skipping the Balkan diversion that put off the invasion by something like 6 weeks would have helped. Germany was in no danger of Yugoslavia invading them.

Or Hitler NOT ordering the Panzers south to trap all those Russians in the Ukraine pocket in late summer. Without that, they're in Moscow in weeks before the Russian have time to consolidate their defenses or Winter has a chance to set in.

People forget that back then, Moscow was the HUB. Russian communications were horrendous and they all went through Moscow. You take Moscow, cut the lines and Stalin is much harder pressed to command his army because he can't even communicate with most of it. Not to mention the morale blow that would have been. And Stalin was making a show of actually staying in Moscow. Odds are they might have capture him.

What Russia needed most of all was time. Time to get their recently moved factories running. Time to get the winter troops guarding the Japanese border to the West. Time to recover from the shock of the German attack. Time to stiffen the defenses of Moscow. Time for all the new commanders (who'd replaced the ones Stalin purged) to learn their jobs. The winter of 1941-1942 gave them that time.

Overall, having an actual military man in charge and not Hitler would have done the trick. It's often been said that Hitler was the best soldier the Allies had. So true. What is amazing is that even with the idiotic decisions the man made and even after years of being worn down, the Germans were able to last until 1945. Even as late as that year, anytime an allied army met a German army in anything resembling equal strength, the Germans would always do more damage than they took.

Answer 9

If Nazi Germany had simply declined to declare war on the US after the US declared war on Imperial Japan, the US would have been all-in on the Pacific Theater; the American industrial advantage provided less of a strategic advantage there than in Europe.

With a faster westward sweep across the Pacific, too little time would have elapsed by the time US forces reached the home islands of Japan for the Manhattan Project to have been successfully completed; Operation Downfall would have proceeded resulting in far greater American & Japanese casualties. The appetite of the US to turn its attention to Europe afterward would be questionable at best.

Without the Combined Bomber Offensive, the Nazis could have held up more effectively against the Soviets on the Eastern Front, possibly leading to a stalemate and a separate peace like that at the end of WWI. Fortress Europe could have been prepared more thoroughly in the west, and Operation Overlord, if it was attempted at all, would have been later and smaller with poor prospects.

Answer 10

The Allies not having cracked the Axis communication codes. Updating or replacing the codes the Axis used more often. Like the Enigma machine and the Japanese naval codes. It seems the Allies had the upper hand after they cracked the codes.

Example: The Battle of Midway. Japan takes heavy losses. "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare." Due to the Allies having cracked the Japanese naval codes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

Example: The success of Ultra. This has a long list of wins for the Allies. One is the Allies could avoid the u boats, avoiding heavy losses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra

Answer 11

Small change you need is Hitler in WWI serving in logistics, and realizing importance of logistics and supply for winning wars.

Then, not a single event, but more focus on logistics in each of decision points, more decisive follow-ups of existing events:

1. Understanding the importance of Gibraltar and Malta for Britain's logistics, Hitler succeeds persuading Spain to take over Gibraltar and Italy over Malta, to weaken British supply lines in Mediterranean. Operation Felix and Siege of Malta.

1A. During battle of Dunkirk, focus on total destruction of the British Expeditionary force (300k soldiers). No diverting of Luftwaffe to bombing France. Dunkirk evacuation fails. Britain's is weakened, spirit broken. Invasion is not possible (only air raids) but not necessary, and support from USA is weaker (considered a lost cause).

2. Following up more strongly during Battle of Britain to really won air supremacy (as @MontyWild correctly noted), realize the importance of radars and destroying them. Switching to bomb London instead of airfields gave RAF time to recover when it was almost broken.

3. After taking over Greece in the spring of 1941, landing up in French part of Lebanon, following up to occupy British Palestine, Egypt and oil fields in Persian Gulf. Double whammy for British: losing oil weakens them, and outcome of Battle of El Alamein in 1942 would be different, and would avoid distraction of attacking Russia.

4. In 1941 German paratroopers occupy Iceland, significantly improving effectiveness of their submarine warfare and complicating British supply lines from USA.

5. While Goering continues pummeling Britain from air, Rommel wins Battle of Alamein, and attacks British positions in Iran, taking more oil. No more fuel shortages for German tanks, enough left over to supply Japan.

6. Talking about logistics to Japan. During attack on Pearl Harbor, continue third (planned!) wave of attack of fuel reserves in Pearl Harbor, and on the way back occupies Midway, using it as unsinkable aircraft carrier. Basically winning Battle of Midway a year early. Japanese pilots and planes were superior at the beginning of Pacific war – just too many were lost during Battle of Midway.

7. Japan, now understanding the importance of logistics, growing out of strategy of “single decisive battle of battleships” and focusing more on submarine warfare like Germans did, sinking merchant ships bringing fuel reserves and supplies to Pearl Harbor. Possibly even invading Oahu (which has 10% population of Japanese descent). Pacific war is about Hawaii for 2 years. There is no Doolittle raid. Japan will lose that battle, but by that time (1944) Soviet Russia falls to Hitler, and Japan occupied Australia and India.

8. Hitler not declaring war on USA, which was completely irrational.

As a result, USA focuses on Pacific and Japan, and has harder time to get any traction. British fight valiantly but are starved to surrender in 1943. Japan has easier time to take over Southeast Asia and Australia.

Hitler’s attack on Russia is postponed until 1943, and is from both Poland and Iran, taking Baku's oil reserves quickly. With good enough spy network, Stalin in his paranoia executes even more of his military leaders, and when Germany with small help of Japan simultaneously attack in spring of 1943, use blitzkrieg tactic in fullest and avoid battles over cities like Stalingrad (surrounding and starving cities instead), Russia crumbles in less than 2 years.

World is divided between Germany, Japan, and USA, which stands alone.

Answer 12

The Italians could have discovered oil in their Libyan colony before WWII. Those huge oil reserves weren't actually exploited until the 1950s, but if they were producing during WWII the axis would be relieved of some of their desperate need for oil.

Answer 13

The Weather.

This is all kind of 'supernatural' but in coincidence only:

Eastern Front: It's commonly understood that the cold, wet, harsh winter in Russia greatly hampered the German advance. Have an unusually warm winter in '41, '42, and '43, and it is possible if not probable that this would help to crush Russia's western troops. It was an absolute contributing factor to Germany's losses there.

German Bombings: Rain and snowstorms erupting during bombing raids prevents the allies for even being able to target industrial complexes. Rain distributes evenly to assist in putting out the fires that raged under allied bombing.

Atomic Bombs: The original target for both atomic bombs was meant to be over Kohura, but due to weather, they had to move first to Hiroshima, then to Nagasaki (twice lucky for Kohura). Imagine if weather thwarted all nearby Japanese targets, preventing the United States to use the bombs - US bombers had limited range over Japan's southern quarter, so bad weather over the general quarter would have delayed any bombing of this type for a long time.

Dust Bowl: More waves of drought from the dust bowl over the United States might have forced more civil works to be undertaken, as well as reluctance to support pre-war allied efforts (food), and entrance into the war.

Pearl Harbor: Weather patterns that prevent the Japanese carriers and bombers from approaching American territory might have kept the Japanese from "kicking the sleeping bear," long enough for the other factors to encourage Japan to refocus on East China and allow America to look inward.

Naval Warfare: Weather is always a factor on the outcome and procedure of naval warfare and amphibious invasion. A series of 'unfortunate' weather events could occur in favor of Axis victory.

All of these are very, very coincidental, but then was the succession of unusually cold and wet Russian winters a coincidence, or the fact that Kohura avoided the bomb twice by weather?

Also, can I be cheeky and say "Yellowstone Super-volcano Event"?

Answer 14

The Polish Cipher Bureau never cracks the German Enigma cipher code (or - the Polish fail to share the information on cracking the cypher with British and French intelligence before the outbreak of war and the information is lost with the fall of Poland).

The other powers such as the British and French had no success in cracking Enigma and without the intelligence provided by the British "Ultra" program (that continued the work of the Poles) at Bletchley Park the entire Allied war effort in Europe would have been seriously undermined. Eisenhower described the intelligence originating from Bletchley Park and the Enigma decryption as having been "of priceless value to me. It has simplified my task as a commander enormously" and as a "decisive contribution to the Allied war effort".

Answer 15

One decimal point . The Nazi nuclear project is set back many years because 1 scientist put the decimal in the wrong place when measuring the neutron cross section of carbon. The axis try to use very rare heavy water for early experiments where the allies use cheap graphite, and send commando raids to destroy every heavy water plant in Europe.

With the speed up that this gives the axis nuclear program then could have a Nuclear warhead in time for Dday or perhaps Stalingrad.

Answer 16

There are a number of good possibilities. Here's just one:

Hitler succeeds in convincing Japan to make the Soviet Union its primary focus. Especially if this happens early, ideally prior to and coordinated with operation barbarosa. If Japan focused on attacking the U.S.S.R. from the east while Germany attacked from the west, they could have squeezed the Soviets and defeated them. And another bonus would be Japan, by focusing on the U.S.S.R., would not have attacked the U.S.A., which was a fatal mistake no matter how you slice it. The U.S. would likely never get in the war, the U.S.S.R. would be eliminated, Britain would have stood alone and would have pretty much had to give up.

Answer 17

The key to the Allied victory in WWII is logistics and production. The United States, for example, produced something like 8 X the annual steel production of Imperial Japan at the start of the war, so the Japanese simply had no chance of winning in the Pacific once the United States was engaged. The British Empire was similarly capable of lopsided production compared to the Axis powers, and Churchill implicitly acknowledged this in his "We will fight on the beaches" speech:

Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and if, which I do not for a moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.

The British Empire, fighting alone, probably had enough manpower and industry to win WW II by 1948 (Consider that Canada, a tiny Dominion at the time, was capable of putting a million men under arms, and fielded the world's third largest navy by 1945, and Canada was only one part of the Empire).

So the only way for the Axis powers to win is not to provoke war with all the Great Powers, but rather nibble around the edges and then take them one at a time.

Defeating the Soviet Union is probably the first step. The USSR was an odious nation and outside of the normal international system (both by choice and the design of the Liberal and Imperial powers of the age), and by careful use of diplomacy to make the Russians even more isolated (the 1939 "Winter War" with Finland might have been played that way), along with encouraging the Japanese to try to pin the Russian forces in Siberia could have crippled Russia and knocked it out of the war. Germany and Japan dismember the USSR and feed on the resources, while carefully keeping clear of the British Empire and American interests.

After a pause of perhaps 5-10 years, it could become time to use aggressive diplomacy to sow dissent among the various member states of the British Empire. Imperial Forces become overstretched trying to police the various rebellions across the globe, and Churchill is long retired, leaving the British with something of a leadership vacuum. Germany and Japan support "revolutionary forces" and welcome defecting members of the Empire into the New Order and the Co Prosperity Sphere, gradually dismembering British power. Ironically, the Americans would probably be very happy to see this process, and if not encouraging it directly, they would make no diplomatic steps to stop it either.

America itself would be the hardest nut to crack, being a continental and oceanic power in its own right. Even with the resources of Asia and the British Empire now under Axis control, America has far more potential power because it's free market economy allows it to use resources most efficiently and develop new products and industry at unexpected times, complicating axis power. If you have any doubts, research the true story of the Axis economy during WW II. Most German aircraft were still using engines designed in 1933 at the end of the war, and obstruction by petty bureaucrats in the ship building industry long delayed the introduction of modular production of the Type XXI U Boats, to name a few. Tank production always lagged far behind the allies, and although Panther and Tiger tanks may have been far better than the opposition, they were essentially hand crafted, while Shermans and T-34's were churned out on assembly lines.

The best way to win against America again is through the indirect approach, gradually subverting South America into getting Fascist regimes (not to difficult, if you look at OTL) and gradually choking off overseas trade. America is never conquered directly, but simply declines into irrelevancy and accepts the domination of the New Order and Imperial Japan in their own spheres.

Answer 18

Churchill refuses to become Prime Minister in the meeting on 10 May 1940; instead Halifax succeeds Neville Chamberlain. Britain soon makes peace with Germany (no "We shall never surrender").

This is the Point of divergence in the book Dominion by C. J. Sansom.

Answer 19

Answers that suggest that Nazi Germany not attack the USSR are technically correct, insofar that Germany would not be beaten by the rump of the Allies after the Fall of France, but this ignores the fact that conquest of the USSR had always been a primary motive of Hitler - much moreso than any concerns in the West. While there were certain failings in the invasion of the USSR; such as the lack of preparation for winter, the division of resources in multiple theatres (such as Africa), Hitler's refusal to allow retreat at a couple of important junctures, etc., the single greatest failing of the Axis was not to exploit the great antipathy among subjugated nations of the USSR towards the Kremlin.

By instigating the Hunger Plan the Axis made an enemy of nations such as the Ukraine and Baltic states. The little that they gained in raw resources was vastly outweighed by the logistical cost wrought by partisan groups in a country with notoriously poor infrastructure: never mind the vast resource of people that could have been leveraged in a war against the USSR. In a theatre where swift victory was a requirement, the implementation of the Hunger Plan was probably the single greatest strategic blunder by the Axis in the war.

Answer 20

Not yet mentioned: If Edward VIII had taken Wallis Simpson as his mistress and not his wife, he would not have abdicated. As he was a supporter of Germany's policy, the British Government would not have been able to go to war and instead would have sought diplomatic solutions with the third reich.

Also IMHO if Hitler had been assassinated (e.g. Valkyrie) fresh leaders might have pushed into stabilizing the reich to pre war borders (as per the Munich agreements) which might have been acceptable to the Allies.

Answer 21

In late autumn 1941, German troops were at the gates of Moscow. And this is where they suffered their first serious defeat: the failure of the Moscow offensive was both a psychological blow and an end to any hopes of a successful blitzkrieg in the East.

This first Soviet victory was possible in large part due to troops (experienced, winter-equipped troops) moved to Moscow's defense from the Far East, to the astonishment of many German commanders who believed that the enemy is on the verge of collapse with no reserves left. And this was made possible in large part by the efforts of Richard Sorge, the famous Soviet spy in Tokyo who informed Moscow that the Japanese have no plans to attack the Soviet Union anytime soon, being preoccupied with plans in the Pacific instead. And this time, Stalin chose to believe Sorge (reportedly, he ridiculed Sorge earlier the same year, when Sorge provided intelligence about the imminent German attack, i.e., Barbarossa).

This leads me to believe that if either Germany managed to persuade Japan not to pursue any plans in the Pacific until the Soviet Union is defeated, or better yet, if they simply caught Sorge (or if Sorge was simply killed in an accident) before he had a chance to transmit this critical intelligence to Moscow, the Germans might have been able to capture the Soviet capital. And that may very well have led to the collapse of Stalin's regime and a completely different (likely, far more tragic) outcome for Europe and the world.

Answer 22

Allies were receptive to the idea of peace

There is a fair bit of evidence that Hitler was open to peaceful resolutions, but the allies were either not interested or did not trust Hitler's promises. A story where the alies "lose" could certainly go in two different directions:

• Conflict with the allies ends sooner, allowing Germany to focus on Russia sooner (possibly even with the assistance of the Allies)
• Hitler goes back on his promises and does even more dastardly deeds in the name of world domination when everyone's guard is down

British government considers negotating peace in 1940

The argument revolves around the confusing and inconclusive records of deliberations in Churchill's cabinet in May and June 1940 over whether Britain should discuss peace terms with Germany, records over which historians have argued for the 30 years that they have been available.

There is no disagreement that the cabinet debated whether Britain should sound out Hitler on what kind of peace terms he might offer. Nor is there any doubt that Churchill made comments that do not entirely support his image as the stalwart hero, pursuing the goal of ''victory at all costs'' and refusing even to contemplate negotiations with Berlin. He is recorded as declaring, for example, that ''if we could get out of this jam by giving up Malta and Gibraltar and some African colonies,'' he would ''jump at it,'' although he didn't see any such prospect. He also declared that he was prepared to accept ''peace on terms of the restoration of German colonies and the overlordship of Central Europe,'' which presumably included continued occupation of Czechoslovakia and western Poland, although, again, he said that such an offer was ''most unlikely.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/11/25/arts/rethinking-negotiation-with-hitler.html?pagewanted=all

Rudolf Hess offers peace deal with Britain in 1941

The Nazis attempted to broker a peace offering with Britain - if they were allowed a free path to attack the USSR, a new book has revealed.

Rudolf Hess's flight to Britain during World War Two to sign a peace deal ordered by Adolf Hitler has long been recorded as a bizarre one man mission to try and reconcile warring West Europe and the Nazis.

But the high-ranking Nazi was actually carrying out orders from the Fuhrer when he flew to Messerschmitt to Scotland in May 1941.

But despite the offer, Churchill's morals were not swayed by the offer.

He refused to allow the Third Reich a clear path to attack the Eastern Front - because he did not trust Hitler's promises and it would have jeopardised his efforts to involve the U.S in the raging war, Mr Padfield says.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2433733/How-Nazis-offered-peace-treaty-World-War-II-meant-selling-Russians.html#ixzz3tMBkzFMI

Answer 23

We don't know. And a war hinges on many factors, not just one. But there are definitely three that are on my mind; perhaps a single one would suffice, but since only one of them is a "large scale" change, the other two could very easily have happened as well. So, from biggest to smallest (in "difficulty to attain"):

---

Military: Greece.

Italy's blunder in Greece (or basically, wherever they set foot in WWII, but let's focus on Greece...) meant that Germany had to divert forces, mostly from Africa, where the campaign (which originated in another, earlier blunder by Italy) was at a crucial stage, with the Commonwealth forces on the brink of defeat.

Of course we don't know what would have happened if Italy had stayed out of Greece, or managed a decisive victory (possibly with planned German help), but I (and Ian Kershaw in "Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed the World, 1940–1941") consider it possible that the Africa Corps could have taken Egypt from the Commonwealth.

What would that have meant?

• The Suez channel. Taking that away would have been a huge strategic blow for Britain, basically demolishing their presence in the eastern Mediterranean. Any shipping from Britain to the asian theater and back -- military as well as commercial -- would have had to go the long way around.

• Yugoslavia. Without Greece humiliating Italian forces right next door, Yugoslavia might well have joined the Axis for good.

• Crete. The whole point of this operation was to better support the Africa campaign. With Egypt and the Suez taken, Germany could have taken, besieged, or even ignored Crete without taking those losses that blunted both the German paratrooper force and air transport capabilities for the rest of the war.

• Italian Navy. With the command of the (eastern, at least) Mediterranean, I doubt the Battle of Taranto would have taken place quite that way, leaving the Italian Navy intact as a strategic force.

• Italy remains in the Axis.

• Theater Denial. No bombing of the Ploiești oil fields, for one. And but with Egypt and the Suez channel lost, it is even conceivable that pressure could have been applied to Gibraltar, completely securing the Mediterranean for the Axis and denying the Allies access to the southern coasts of Europe (no invasion of Sicily 1943).

• No delay to Operation Barbarossa.

Which brings us to the next point:

---

Nature: Weather.

The spring muds of 1941 were quite late. Let's have weather be a bit more favourable, and with the distraction of Greece and Yugoslavia not happening, or being resolved much earlier, the Axis forces might have had those few more weeks in their favour so the attack would not freeze solid at the gates of Moscow later that year. With Moscow taken away, the railroad backbone of Russia being broken, and mostly open fields all the way to the Volga river...

Now let's look at the last, easiest to attain, but probably the most important of them all:

---

Intelligence: Not having your ciphers broken.

Willi Korn not "inventing" the reflector would very likely have been sufficient to protect the Enigma. There are some other issues, but the reflector alone would probably have been enough.

Not being all German precision on the contents of messages would also have helped, as it would have avoided known-plaintext attacks.

And whoever the man was who repeated a 4000-character Lorenz cipher transmission without changing the key settings in August 1941, that the German war effort could have done without as well.

Either one would have been dead easy, and would have taken away the biggest advantage the Allies ever had in the war: They could read Germany's cipher, basically at will.

Answer 24

Similar to @MartinSchröder's answer.

What if Churchill was not British Prime Minister?

He was struck by a car in 1931 by Edward F. Cantasano.

If it had been a fatal accident, a very different Britain would have faced Germany.

Answer 25

The Germans never attack the Russians and are allied with them throughout the war. (Yeah I know this answer apparently isn't allowed, but why not?). Hitler's biggest mistake was opening up the second front. In a more peaceful alternative, Eastern Europe is divided between Germany and Russia. Russia expands through Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Greenland towards the US & Canada. Germany progresses through the UK towards the US. Japan only enters the war after the fall of the UK, pressuring the US on two fronts after Europe is secured.

Also, Mexico decides to join the Axis and invades the Southern states ;).

Answer 26

Death of Alan Turing

The Allies' ability to decrypt Axis communications played a major part in the ultimate Axis defeat.

Defeat at Dunkirk

The evacuation of Dunkirk allowed the British army to retreat and regroup. If the fleet of small ships had been destroyed by Axis gunships, England would have been a sitting duck.

Pearl Harbour never happened

The Americans joined the war following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. Without the huge industrial might of America, the Allies would likely not have won the war.

Answer 27

Speed wins battles, but sieges win wars.

Blitzkrieg as a war manoeuvre was never going to create an empire. If the Nazis had realised this they would have followed their lightning conquests with extended occupation and stabilisation of the invaded territories. The stretching of the Eastern front to the USSR was ill-advised too. Hitler should have first consolidated his rule of Eastern Europe for maybe five years before advancing to Moscow.

The one pivotal decision that sealed Germany's fate though was bombing England. This leads to the replacement of Chamberlain with Churchill, whose intention from the start was to defeat the Nazis and bait the USA into joining the war.

So if Hitler had only expanded to Eastern Europe and ignored Russia maybe Deutsch would be Europe's first language.

Answer 28

German Communists rather than the Nazis win power in Weimar Germany in 1920, and join the Soviet Union as equal partners, eventually coming to dominate the Communist Union. The combined Ruso-German behemoth spends the next 2 decades industrializing Russia and developing superb weapons and infrastructure. The western powers, demoralized after the extraordinarily steep recession, can only put up a token resistance in Europe, where strong Rsso-German intervention in Italy, Spain and France leads to communist regimes in those countries as well. In the late '30s, the Communist Behemoth sends millions of men and materiel into China, turning it Red.

In 1941, the Communist Block launches a massive aerial and amphibious invasion of Britain, coinciding with a major strike across the army and transportation industry that paralyzes the country. London is taken in the first day. The country collapses in weeks.

Only America remains, separated by an ocean and its massive industrial infrastructure...

Answer 29

The Japanese deliver their declaration of war to the USA prior to Pearl Harbor.

In our timeline, administrative errors meant that the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor prior to declaring war.

Had Japan declared war, and then immediately destroyed Pearl Harbor, there would have been a devastating effect on the morale of the American citizenry and their politicians.

As it was, the negative impact on morale from the destruction at Pearl harbor was more than offset by the anger felt at the attack.

A demoralised USA may have continued to avoid being involved in WW2 in Europe.

This would be especially true if Germany had not declared war on the USA.

Note that the USA in our timeline does not join the war - it has war declared upon it.

Answer 30

A lot of interesting answers here but many of them require two or more major changes, not just one. For example, a Nazi atomic weapon would have also required a delivery system, an "Amerika bomber", so that's two major changes. Also, developing an A-bomb would have required keeping the best scientific minds resident in Europe, an impossibility once Hitler started his anti-Semitic campaign.

A single change that was very doable using existing technology would have been to starve Great Britain out of the war by concentrating all available resources (u boats, aircraft, and ships) on the Battle of the Atlantic. Eliminating Great Britain would have made it impossible for the Allies to carry out the strategic bombing campaign or stage the invasion. No need to invade or occupy England, simply starve them to the point where they withdraw from the conflict. Donitz possibly had just enough resources to accomplish this but Hitler kept sending U-boats to the Med on other missions instead of concentrating his forces on blockading GB.

On the flip side, the war might have been shortened considerably if the Allies had concentrated all their bombing efforts on petroleum resources instead of frittering away many aircraft and crews on ball bearing factory raids and other distractions. German armament production remained steady (and even rose) during the entire war no matter how much they were bombed but once they ran out of oil the war was over.