What if there was a Fourth Axis Power?

The OP was talking specifically about the Soviet Union. Having the USSR as an Axis power would change the war significantly, but it's not possible. German and Soviet interests clashed. A war was going to have to be fought between the two.
 
Norway alone is insubstantial, but I wonder what if all of Scandinavia was in an alliance or pact. Say Sweden was in WWI because of Admiral Essen. Or otherwise anti-Soviet enough by WWII time to join the Axis. Finland would already be interested.
Sweden would have to start rearming sooner and /or on a larger scale to make an effective contribution to the Axis war effort. However, to be fair, that's also necessary for some of the countries that I have suggested and some of those suggested by others.
 
The OP was talking specifically about the Soviet Union.
Correct.
Having the USSR as an Axis power would change the war significantly, but it's not possible.
Correct & correct.
German and Soviet interests clashed. A war was going to have to be fought between the two.
Once again, correct & correct.

Which is why I and others have suggested alternative countries, which have varying degrees of plausibility of joining the Axis, and the differences they might make.
 
As Argentina in the Axis has been mentioned, this is a link to last year's thread on the subject.
Sooner or later they get stamped on. I think it would have been later, but there are compelling arguments in the thread for it being sooner.
 
Correct.

Correct & correct.

Once again, correct & correct.

Which is why I and others have suggested alternative countries, which have varying degrees of plausibility of joining the Axis, and the differences they might make.
There were already a bunch of countries in the Axis. For there to be a 4th power,it would have to be a reasonably large country. The only ones I can think of are Spain, Poland, Brazil and Argentina. Polish interests clash with Germany and Brazil and Argentina are too far away to count on help from the Axis. It has to be Spain, but they're recovering from a Civil War.
 
There were already a bunch of countries in the Axis. For there to be a 4th power, it would have to be a reasonably large country. The only ones I can think of are Spain, Poland, Brazil and Argentina. Polish interests clash with Germany and Brazil and Argentina are too far away to count on help from the Axis. It has to be Spain, but they're recovering from a Civil War.
All correct. The title of the thread is misleading. It should have been, "What if there was a fourth Major Axis power?" Which I think is what @estonian man meant.

My current favourite is to wank Romania.
 
Iran and Afghanistan were both very friendly towards Germany, an economic and strategic flirtation made easier by their "Aryan" position in the Nazi racial hierarchy of the world , but unfortunately for the Iranians the Allies kind of... noticed.
 

Basils

Banned
F
Problem is you are fundamentally changing Hitler’s motives for WW2. He felt like a war between the “Aryan race“ (Nazis) and the “Slavic hordes” (Soviets) was inevitable. The other fronts were only fought to maintain and support the war in the East. Any treaty with the Soviets was always going to be temporary.
Fromnwhat over read on this site is that Hitler actually downplayed his antisemitism and tuned up his anti Slavic rhetoric. I think he would have made peace with the soviets if he had access to resources. Especially if he could force Vichy France to bend more to German demands
 
Would WW2 even start if France was in it?
I doubt England would help Poland alone.
It's "What if Operation Catapult provoked Vichy France into declaring war on Great Britain?"

According to one of the British official histories it was "touch and go" for about a week afterwards. That's according to "Grand Strategy Volume 2" or "The Mediterranean & Middle East, Volume 1".
 

thaddeus

Donor
It's "What if Operation Catapult provoked Vichy France into declaring war on Great Britain?"

According to one of the British official histories it was "touch and go" for about a week afterwards. That's according to "Grand Strategy Volume 2" or "The Mediterranean & Middle East, Volume 1".

my speculation has been what if the RN sunk the fleeing BB Strasbourg in the Med, the loss of the ship and the loss of life could have raised the chances for war.

when the British attack Dakar and the Japanese invade Indochina nearly simultaneously in Sept. 1940, that could be a POD for Germany to pivot away from Japan and move closer to the Vichy regime.

(of course the British and Japanese were not working in concert, but they both could be viewed as against the German aim of keeping the French empire intact and under control of the Vichy regime)
 
Last edited:

thaddeus

Donor
The OP was talking specifically about the Soviet Union. Having the USSR as an Axis power would change the war significantly, but it's not possible. German and Soviet interests clashed. A war was going to have to be fought between the two.

IDK what scenario would change this dynamic, certainly it would not occur out of thin air in 1940 -41? there needs to be some change(s) during the interwar period.

historically the von Seeckt plan was for cooperation with the USSR and China to avoid the effects of any blockades, one can argue that is a better plan than their strange alliance with Japan.

IDK sort of an Allied blunder bombing Baku how the USSR could be leveraged into the Axis or at least remain a collaborator?
 
IDK what scenario would change this dynamic, certainly it would not occur out of thin air in 1940 -41? there needs to be some change(s) during the interwar period.

historically the von Seeckt plan was for cooperation with the USSR and China to avoid the effects of any blockades, one can argue that is a better plan than their strange alliance with Japan.

IDK sort of an Allied blunder bombing Baku how the USSR could be leveraged into the Axis or at least remain a collaborator?
I don't think it was that strange. Japan was a revisionist power. So was Germany. Their interests were broadly aligned.
 
There is one option: A fascist coup in America led by William Dudley Pelley and his Silver Legion, who were Nazi sympathizers.
 
That's kind of interesting. At a minimum, having Yugoslavia in the Axis butterfly's some of Mussolini's stupider invasions of Greece and Yugoslavia, and frees up Italian forces for north africa and elsewhere. And it means that Germany doesn't waste time, money and manpower bailing out Italy. Not sure whether it would make any other differences.
It frees up a large number of German & Italian troops later in the war who had to occupy Yugoslavia. By 1944 Tito was tying down a couple hundred thousand Axis troops.
 
With a different approach Poland could be a good fit. Anti-Russian, similar views on minorities. Could Hitler cut a deal to regain Danzig and compensate Poland with a eastwards revision of the border with the Soviet Union, and perhaps some chunks of Lithuanian territory? Poland was the the 4th largest army in Europe in 1939.
No. Hitler had plans for the Poles. He wanted their land, and to reduce the people to a slave population. Hitler despised the Polish People. He thought of Poles as only one step above the Jews.
 
There would be the Falklands, but I doubt Argentinian leadership would think that would outweigh the risks of war with the combined forces of the USA and the British Commonwealth/Empire.
Americans, British, and Brazilians. Just for the asking they get Chile into the coalition. Ether by a reversal of policy, or a coup Argentina would be the first country to leave the Axis. The Pact of Steel would rust very quickly. Argentina is just too vulnerable to economic, and military pressure.
 
Americans, British, and Brazilians. Just for the asking they get Chile into the coalition. Ether by a reversal of policy, or a coup Argentina would be the first country to leave the Axis. The Pact of Steel would rust very quickly. Argentina is just too vulnerable to economic, and military pressure.
Economic pressure. Doubtful. Argentina could feed itself and was self-sufficient in oil. It could reply to economic sanctions by nationalising the Argentine companies owned by the British.

Militarily pressure. Sooner or later the Americans & British react and when they do Argentina will be stamped on. It's only a matter of time. However, OTL Argentina was strong enough to fight a war against Brazil & Chile.

Please follow the link in Post 44 for a fuller explanation of the pros and cons.
 
I think instead of a 4th member what about another power bloc allying with them? Argentina wasn’t the only possible fascist or fascist leaning country in Latin America. So how about a Latin Alliance that joins with the axis containing Brazil, Argentina, Peru, and Venezuela?

They all had potential as fascist nations, the fascist movements just need to roll 6s like Hitler did early and bam, you cut off Allies from extra oil, rubber, food etc… you also get safe harbor for axis navies. Even if this pushes US into earlier rearmament they aren’t likely to get enough war support in Congress unless there is a Pearl Harbor like otl. They would also bypass US embargo and trade with Japan thus helping Japan and lessen the probability of Japan attacking the US and more likely to Go North.
 
Top