Alright guys, this is everything I knew of from chat, plus a few more things I could think of or did quick research for
SO - Basic premise is that the US joins the Axis
WHY - The US is pro-German before the war IOTL, due to ideological similarities (as terrifying as that sounds, but this IS the era of Americanisation and strong anti-Soviet feelings), as well as the fact that most Americans are recently descendants of American immigrants. We still probably need something a little bit heavier here, though.
IOTL, this sentiment is broken pretty quickly once Japan goes pro-German, and France and the UK go anti-German, but it's still a part of why it took the US so long to get involved in the war.
THEREFORE:
Whenever Poland is invaded, the UK needs to not get involved - and this means France needs to stay neutral, too, because Britain will come to France's aid.
I PROPOSE we achieve this by more appeasement, and once war breaks out, the UK and France don't want to oppose Russia or the US, nor get involved in another war - so they prepare for the worst, instead.
THIS LEAVES THE FOLLOWING:
The US and Germany are allied.
The USSR is their primary opponent
Japan will be either neutral, or join the war with Germany and the US.
IF Japan joins, then China will either be pro-Russian, or a side conflict. In either case, it probably sucks up US troops.
Italy and the Balkans are probably still aligned with Germany and co.
Since Italy invading Greece as OTL will drag Britain in, let's say they don't - perhaps Britain being neutral and not wanting to invoke the world's clear superpower is reason enough to keep Mussolini in line.
Since the USSR is on the defensive more ITTL, I *think* they'd stay out of Finland, leaving that country neutral.
IOTL, Britain-Canada originally was the clear forerunner to develop nukes, before the war started to take a toll on their ability. In our TL, this convinced them to turn over their research to the US, so that something would get developed, and thus the Manhattan project became a major forerunner.
BY CONTRAST, ITTL, the US and Japan are fairly cold allies, much like the US was with the Soviets IOTL. As a result, I don't think they'll share research, and Germany's program is far too scattered to help the US.
HOWEVER, Britain still has a pretty good reason for developing nukes - the war is still frighteningly close to them, after all, so self-defense - and, unlike OTL, it's not bogged down elsewhere in the war. As a result, either a version of the OTL Anglo-Canadian research programme, or possibly - though I think this is less likely - one including France (who, again, is neutral ITTL) is probably going to be the first to develop nukes.
OTHER NOTES:
-ON OTL ALLIES:
The Czech government-in-exile is in Paris, and decidedly not neutral...
Poland doesn't seem like it'd be on either Russia or Germany's side, unless the invasion is a lot different than OTL...
Denmark, Greece, Norway, the Netherlands, and Belgium - if Germany invades any of these, it'll probably drag in Britain and France...
Albania - invaded by Italy IOTL, 1939. Not sure if anybody would be jumping to save them.
Yugoslavia - might possibly end up Axis ITTL. I'll leave somebody more familiar to figure that one out.
Brazil - IOTL, pro-Axis before Allied, especially US, pressure forced them to join the Allies. With the major pressure from OTL being on the other side, Brazil is probably an Axis power.
Mexico - Allied IOTL after Germany attacked oil tankers shipping to the US. With the US being Axis ITTL, Mexico is probably neutral.
Korea - government in exile, in China. Was only de facto Allied IOTL, since no Allies recognised it. Probably remains a similar situation ITTL.
Mongolia - Somewhat anti-Japanese and Pro-Soviet IOTL. Will be *neutral if Japan is, or Soviet-aligned if Japan is not.
We can look at more nominal allied powers if they become relevant/you guys want to.
-ON OTL AXIS:
Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania will start as Axis-aligned, as OTL
Thailand joined originally as anti-French and anti-Burmese (Burma being a British puppet), so they're probably neutral ITTL
Finland is neutral, as stated above
Iraq was anti-British, so probably neutral ITTL, or - since it started of it's own intiative IOTL - it runs a failed anti-British rebellion unrelated to the larger war
Phillippines - US territory occupied and puppeted by Japan IOTL. Still a US territory ITTL, so operates as such.
Spain - Spain called itself a member of the Axis IOTL. We'd need to see if there's any way for this to be more than nominal ITTL
Other nations were puppets established by the main Axis during the war, so they're neutral (or part of now-Axis) ITTL.
France might be a special case, depending upon events - I'll have to look at this more closely.
Edit: Also, let's keep in mind our only goal from the PoD is to have the US be on the Axis, not to pick Axis/Soviet sides.
RS and I were talking about some scenarios for nukes, and this is what we've got:
We're focusing here on Britain being the first to develop nukes, and we're guessing that if Britain gets involved, it's probably because Italy invaded Greece or Spain seized Gibraltar. In all of these scenarios, we're giving Britain two bombs, as the US had IOTL.
As such, we've got three scenarios, with no idea of if any of them are plausible, but these are the targets:
Scenario 1: Britain has already developed the bomb by the time it enters the war, and the Axis is winning in Europe. In this case, we figure that the nuke is destined for Germany. Possible cities would be Dresden, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Vienna, Dusseldorf, or Munich.
Scenario 2A: Britain hadn't developed the nuke yet, so the war's gone on a bit longer, and now the Anglo-Soviet side is winning in Europe. The US didn't want to fight Britain, so it left the war when Britain entered. In this TL, we see Berlin, Germany and Rio de Janeiro, Brazil getting nuked - Berlin because it's going to deal the death blow to Germany, and because it would prevent the Soviets from reaching it first, while Rio would probably be more than sufficient to throw Brazil out of the war, and, with Germany's bombing closing the European theatre, this would quickly and easily force the war down to one theatre.
Scenario 2B: Same as 2A, except that Anglo-American relations have really gone south since the start of the war, so the US is in against Britain. Germany and Brazil are too insignificant a threat to warrant the bomb now, while instead, Canada is under threat (and Canada is where some of the bomb research would be conducted). As a result, the US probably gets nuked in NYC, Philly, Boston, or Chicago. If the US goes down with one nuke, then the next target is Japan, in Osaka, Tokyo, or Kyoto.
Personally, I think 2A is particularly interesting. The nuking of Berlin leads into a much darker Anglo-Soviet split then anything that might have happened, two countries are nuked, and poor Rio is thrown out of the war for doing very little comparatively, just because it was an easy target.
However, in any of these three scenarios, Japan is much stronger than IOTL, since it didn't have to fight the US at all, or Britain until near the end. After a bit of research, it looks like the Japanese nuclear project was only slightly behind the Manhattan project in start date, and was doing comparatively well, once you take out the leg up the US got IOTL from Britain. As a result, I wouldn't be surprised if we see Japan as the second country to develop nukes, and it would still be at war, probably in a stronger position than OTL. If Britain is involved we think that Hong Kong or Singapore, if they haven't already fallen, or Calcutta or Brisbane, if they have, could end up on the losing side of a blast.
Even more interesting are the implications if Britain doesn't get involved - suddenly, Japan is, as far as anyone knows, the only nation in the world with this superweapon, which probably ends up getting used somewhere in China or the Soviet Union. Britain still developed it first, ofc, but now a much stronger Japan was the first to use it, and German research capabilities and distrust of the Americans all but ensure no other Axis nations would have it.
Anyways, just some ramblings, and this assumes that these weapons ever reach a point of being used ITTL.
Alright, mind you, some of this is better-researched than other bits, but this is what I'm thinking so far, for rough things:
The war is initially going to be more successful for Germany, since it's focusing only on Russia, and it's possible Moscow will fall - in which case, Stalin goes the way of OTL Hitler, and the Soviets fall into civil war. Similarly, Japan isn't being distracted and worn down by British or American forces, so they're actually going to be pretty busy and a lot more successful in China. US... is more of a distraction, than anything else. They aren't a direct threat, and their side is winning at the moment, so it's more likely than not that the US has a much smaller, ineffective army than OTL, though I can see their navy being a big asset to Germany (they probably don't care about Japan enough to help in any meaningful way).
Because of these early successes, we see Italy invading Albania, and then Greece. The invasion of Greece finally drags Britain and France in, although by now, the war is a few years further in. Britain hasn't quite finished the nuke at this point in time, so we see Brazil seize Guyana and territories in the Caribbean, Spain (if it's involved) takes Gibraltar and become occupied with France, etc.
Anglo-American relations are probably a lot worse, so we see the US and Britain fighting around the Caribbean and US/Canadian border, and the Pacific if Britain can break through. A lot of northern US cities are going to get firebombed in a way that happened to OTL Japan, and some southern Canadian cities are probably going to get a similar treatment. Still, this war's going to be very unpopular in the US, and they'll probably find a way to bow out pretty quickly.
By this point, whatever civil war the Soviets had has probably ended, and the war in Europe is now clearly going to end in favor of the Anglo-Soviet faction. Brazil and Japan are still fighting, though. We'll say that by now, Britain has finally finished developing the bomb, and has two, much like the US IOTL - they probably have access to much of the same resources the OTL US did, since most of those came from Canada or the Belgian Congo.
Britain drops two bombs - one in Berlin, to pre-empt the Soviets, and one in Rio de Janeiro, so that they don't have to fight a land war in South America. Italy and other Axis powers, if they weren't already out of the war, might fight for a bit longer, but these events effectively end the war in these parts of the world.
Japan, however, has its own nuclear research program, which is far enough that this war - which, by now, must be longer than OTL - will see their development. Given that ITTL, Japan has had mostly victories, they make a gamble that Britain doesn't have any more bombs, and after a few months, they have one of their own ready, which they drop on either Calcutta or Brisbane (I can see arguments and implications for both). By this point, things are a lot different, and everyone has seen the initial aftermath of three nuclear weapons. I suspect this ends the war with a very unpopular peace in both sides, though I don't imagine we have a clear victor and I can't really think what the terms would be.
Some notes on other nuclear powers:
France is probably further ahead than OTL, and might even start testing before the end of the war, though I don't think they'll have an opportunity to actually use one.
The Soviets didn't even try to do research IOTL, and it's very possible that, depending upon what happens in the Czech regions and the Soviet Civil War, they might not even be capable of doing so afterwards. Their OTL spy, however, was a German-born man who immigrated to Britain and worked on Tube Alloys before he went to the US and joined the Manhattan Project - it's likely he stays in Britain ITTL.
The US doesn't have the technology and research gained from Britain, nor the resources purchased from the Belgium Congo, so the US is probably not nuclear ITTL.
Germany is neither economically nor structurally capable of finishing its project.
China, IOTL, traded resources for knowledge with the Soviets. If the communists win in China, this opens the door for a much later Soviet and Chinese nuclear power; if the Nationalists win, it probably butterflies both powers, at least for a while, since the Soviets no longer have the resources, and it's incredibly unlikely that Japan or Britain will want to arm China.
Also, thinking of peace treaties - this probably impacts the US more than you might think. Just some notes on territories and such:
US - Alaska to Canada; Hawai'i, PR, and Phillipines indie?
--Hawai'i might require an actual invasion to lose
--Samoa probably becomes British, Virgin Islands might return to Denmark
--Guam? Probably goes to a victor
--Other leased/contested areas return to their owners (most of these are minor contests with the UK, or leases in the Caribbean from Latin American nations - the Canal Zone is the most major exception)
--Uninhabited islands probably get split amongst Britain and France.. then again, all are Pacific
Again, I could be very mistaken on this, but this is what I'm thinking might happen so far. Pretty confident on all of the nukes stuff, much less so on the actual war events.
