WI: Joint German-Soviet ultimatum to Poland in 1939

Well, that's certainly a viable course, of action, if the Poles, British, and French remain as overconfident about their military chances as they were when they drafted those plans. In practice, however, it seems an excellent way for the Allies to doom themselves to defeat. The Anglo-French bombing in all likelihood would only be able to do limited damage to the Soviet oil supply and the Axis war machine. Fall of France would only get easier with the Soviets onboard, and the Red Army shall almost surely retaliate by invading the Middle East (theoretically India as well, although that's much harder to do, because of logistics). The Eastern European states and Turkey shall rush to deliver whatever the Axis powers may ask of them and join the coalition. So shall Spain and Vichy France. Alliance with the USSR shall be a very good reason for Germany to tone down or avoid the BoB, and focus on a Med strategy. Even taking the flaws of the Italian and early Soviet militaries into account, it seems inevitable a joint German-Soviet-Italian grand offensive action would kick the British out of the Med and the Middle East. The Axis would turn the Med into its lake, and everything from the Atlantic to the Indus would be its playground. 

It is way questionable Britain would keep its will to fight after such an impressive sequence of defeats. Even if it does, its only hope of survival is America joining the fight, and this is only really likely if Japan joins the Axis and does its Pearl Harbor thing, as usual. I'm skeptical FDR would otherwise be able to persuade the American people to pick a fight with the Axis in these circumstances, no matter what the Axis navies do to Allied shipping. Even if America joins the fight, however, the very best it can realistically do by conventional means is to defeat Japan in the Pacific and gnaw a little at the borders of the Axis sphere of control in northern Africa and the Middle East. The European core of the Axis would be utterly unassailable even for the Americans. For all their paranoia and megalomania, I doubt even Hitler or Stalin would act to backstab their allies, as long as Britain, and potentially America, stand undefeated as a common enemy. In these circumstances, the very best America could do to reap a phyrric 'victory' is to turn Europe and Russia into an irradiated/poisoned wasteland by devastating the Axis powers at large with WMDs (assuming in the meanwhile the Germans and the Soviets don't develop their own WMDs and delivery methods to retaliate, which seems entirely feasible, especially as it concerns Britain).  

Quite possibly, given the PoD. It all depends on how quickly the following event sequence gets fulfilled: the Allies and the Japanese fail to make an alliance deal, because of the China issue and Entente overconfidence; the Soviet-Japanese border war goes much like OTL (quite possibly somewhat better for the Japanese and closer to a draw, if the Red Army is engaged in Europe); the Japanese realize the German-Soviet-Italian Axis is going to win and make a deal with Moscow, almost surely involving some kind of a partition scheme for China; Japan prepares and enacts its 'Strike South' offensive and PH pre-emptive gambit, much like OTL. In my opinion, Japan won't make its decision before the Fall of France and then it shall need a few months of preparation, so the intervention of Japan and America may occur sometime between late '40 and early-mid '41.

On the other hand, Soviet belligerance in the Middle East may well motivate Mussolini to enter the war before France falls. If this be the case, I expect the combination of the Italian and early Soviet flaws and the Anglo-French being busy in the Middle East shall keep the Med theater in a substantial stalemate till France falls. Then it shall be Axis open season on the British, as the three Axis powers concentrate the bulk of their military power in the Southern theater. Even worse when the Japanese attack Southeast Asia and eventually join hands with the Euro-Axis to threaten India.

American intervention, once it occurs, shall need at least a year of preparation to start deploying its effects overseas, so it shall ensure Britain stays in the war until the very end, Japan is defeated in the Pacific, and the Axis fails to conquer India. On the other hand, it shall be too late to prevent the Axis from overrunning and entrenching in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. I'm even doubtful in these circumstances America would be able to threaten the Japanese Archipelago or Korea, even if everything south of Okinawa is within its grasp, and almost surely anything like Overlord, Torch, or their equivalent for the Middle East would be entirely impossible. In all likelihood, American power shall be enough to secure the British Isles, Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific for the Western bloc, then a strategic stalemate shall set in. 

The war most likely ends either because both sides acknowledge the stalemate and make peace well before WMDs become an option, or both sides develop WMDs (the German and Soviet weapon programs shall be much more effective than OTL in these circumstances, even if the Soviet espionage network in Britain and America likely gets wiped out early on) and the means (long-range bombers and missiles) to deliver them more or less at the same time, and MAD deterrence sets in after both sides lose a few cities to nuclear or chemical bombing. In these circumstances, Anglo-American ability to penetrate the air defenses of an intact Axis and bomb Eurasia shall be much less effective than OTL.

We may expect the event sequence in Scandinavia to be slightly different than OTL, with joint German-Soviet action, the USSR overrunning and annexing Finland, Germany occupying Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, and the Anglo-French making their landing attempt, to little avail. Hungary and Romania shall have even more reason than OTL to join the Axis, and Spain, Vichy France, and Turkey shall in all likelihood join them, even if the Turks shall have to make onerous concessions to the Soviets.

As it concerns the other minors, let's say Portugal gets invaded by the Axis and annexed by Spain, while the British seize the Azores and the Canaries. ITTL Mussolini focuses his ambitions on Yugoslavia instead of Greece, so Yugoslavia is forced to side with the Allies and gets partitioned much like OTL, while Greece sees the writing on the wall and becomes an Axis minor. Nationalist China of course sides with the Allies, but its ability to survive a Soviet-Japanese strategic pincer is very doubtful. When the Americans clear out the Pacific, they may or may not be willing to make a large-scale invasion of mainland China (TTL's Asian equivalent of Overlord). If they do, they have a good chance of liberating southern and eastern China with the support of Chinese partisans, although the western and northern areas are likely beyond their reach.

You know, such-and-such pro-Axis scenario not being feasible or being disrupted because of Hitler's character flaws is such a tiresome cliché that as scenario creator I'm entirely willing to counter it with the opposite cliché and secondary PoD of Hitler dying at the right time, which for the purposes of this scenario means any time between the beginning of WWII and the potential start of Barbarossa. Anyone likely to succeed him in these circumstances (either Goering or a military junta) is simply going to be practical and cautious enough not to try to backstab their Soviet ally, at least as long as Britain and America stand undefeated as a common enemy, and to deem the gains sufficient Nazi Germany may reap this way. As it concerns the Japanese, they respected the non-aggression pact with USSR IOTL, and there seems to be no special reason for them to act differently ITTL. As for Stalin, his cliché caution makes it even less likely he would try to backstab his fascist allies of convenience as long as the democratic powers stand undefeated.

I agree this scenario potentially gives the 'good guys' a chance to reap a more satisfying result than OTL by setting all the 'evil guys' in the enemy coalition, and giving the democratic powers a theoretical opportunity to wipe out all modern forms of totalitarianism in one fell sweep. It certainly makes WWII even more of an ideologically-polarized, black-and-white struggle. In practice however, the sum of German, Soviet, Italian, and Japanese resources (not to mention the captive or opportunist rest of Axis Europe) and the concentration of its vast majority in the western Eurasian core makes it pretty much impossible for the Allies to reap a real victory by conventional means, especially in Europe or its strategic proximity, even with full mobilization of American resources. Theoretically speaking, the Allies realistically may only reap a phyrric full 'victory' by devastating Europe at large with WMDs (and this assuming the two sides don't acknowledge their strategic stalemate and makes peace before this becomes an option, or better circumstances make the Axis powers develop their WMD deterrents much quicker and better than OTL, and MAD sets in). And frankly large-scale nuking or poisoning of Eurasia seems a more dystopic scenario than letting the CommieNazis dominate the Eurasian core for a few decades and containing them by Cold War means before their totalitarian systems implode or reform.

As an aside, I concede the Nazis and the Japanese militarists (or for that matter, the Jihadists) historically have seemed more reckless in their aggression than the Communists, but that's it. I refute the notion any major brand of modern tyrannical, bloodthirsty totalitarianism was basically any more BSI than any other. The Stalinists and Maoists killed and victimized as many or more people as the Nazis and their allies, and to brutalize people out of loony racist biological pseudoscience and conspiracy theories makes no meaningful difference in my book from doing the same out of loony social pseudoscience theories that pretend humans can be treated as social insects. I scorn the 'identity politics' left-wing notion racism (or any other kind of -ism prejudice) is a 'special brand of evil' that makes any act motivated by it intrinsically worse as arbitrary and hypocrite. And by their own warped worldviews, both the Nazis and the Commies thought they were trying to build a better world by their definition.

This is not to say a AH scenario is not rather interesting in its own way, deeply satisfying, and much more utopian than OTL where both fascism and communism make themselves an overt, fighting enemy of democracy in WWII and blunder their way in bleeding each other to exhaustion allowing the democratic powers to destroy both in one fell sweep. It is, and in my own time I have written several TLs and scenarioes explictly based on this premise.

Well, building on precisely the same kind of PoD as this scenario I've already made two timelines on this very forum that have the kind of WWII ending you advocate. One leaves fascism destroyed and communism rather more weakened than OTL and headed to suffer a quicker, more drastic downfall. In the other both fascism and communism are destroyed because of the war, and although Western democracy suffers a final major challenge in the form of aggressive Russo-Chinese nationalism, it is bound to defeat it in a conventional WW3. In both cases the Western bloc ends up rather larger, stronger, more united, more prosperous, and technologically advanced than OTL, and as a result the world is a better place than our own. Admittedly in both cases circumstances are purposefully geared up so that the defeated Axis powers keep their pre-WWII borders and resources basically intact and suffer none of the OTL losses, Eurofederalism is a total success, and America gets even better than OTL, and the author is unapologetic about indulging a few of his sympathies, but they align quite well with the theme of the scenario. By the way, this reminds me sooner or later I should go back to the latter TL and write a proper ending to it beyond the WWIII cliffhanger.

If one instead looks to my most developed AH work, "Roma Aeterna" and "A Different 1860s", in the former the modern Rome superstate becomes rather more prosperous, advanced, and united than OTL First World; its law-abiding, loyal citizens enjoy more or less the same civil and political rights and rule of law as in our Western democracies; its institutional system basically resembles a pagan version of America more than anything else, and its value system avoided the identitarian perversion of postmodern liberalism and monotheistic exclusivism in favor of meritocratic, inclusive, difference-blind universalism. Its most questionable feature may concern its lack of a notion of human rights, so they feel proper to brutalize criminals and rebels, but as a rule its society has been so successful such unfortunate deviants are fairly limited in number. Its civilization has coped with environmental problems better than our own and mankind is on the verge of transitioning into an interplanetary transhumanist civilization. By pretty much all accounts that matter in my value system, it is a more desirable place to live in than OTL.

As it concerns the latter TL, by the beginning of the 20th century a stronger America is less racist and more progressive than OTL, and a stronger Germany and a stronger Italy with their proto-EU shared sphere of influence have evolved into stable, mature, level-headed democracies. Russia and Japan are in better shape, slightly less authoritarian and more reasonable than OTL, and circumstances seem geared to make them avoid their worst 20th century blunders and disasters. Sure fascism already took shape with its usual features in the Franco-Iberian-Brazilian area, but it is bound to meet its epic destruction in the coming Great War together with a British Empire falling victim to its worst impulses. Overall TTL version of the Great War is bound to be more widespread in scope, engulfing almost the entire world, but be shorter and less destructive in duration and consequences since the victor powers are stronger and strategic circumstances are less favorable to trench warfare. It is doubtful communism may get a good chance to rise in the conflict's wake, and even if it does, its reach, influence, and damage is likely to be more limited than OTL. Since the TL concerns the golden age of European imperalism, and there is no good reason for Western civilization to turn any less rapacious given the circumstances, colonialism unfolds the usual way. Since almost all the Western powers are stronger than OTL, certain non-European polities such as the Muslim world and China end up suffering more humiliation and colonial subjugation, as well as lasting territorial losses cemented by ethnic substitution. On the other hand, resurgence of India is just behind the corner with the coming fiery downfall of the British Empire, and circumstances are good for it to turn out as well as or slightly better than OTL. Not much really changes for Africa, except its 'heart of darkness' is in Gallic West Africa rather than Belgian Congo, and decolonization may or may not turn out less screwed up. China admittedly faces a climb to dig itself out of the post-Qing disaster that looks as difficult as OTL in its own way, although circumstances may differ (e.g. no Japanese invasion, an expanded Boxer War already worked as its analogue in a more limited way, nationalism likely takes the place of communism). TTL version of racism ends up developing in a slightly more inclusive way, more based on cultural rather than ethnic factors. Overall, the world seems headed to turn out no worse, and quite possibly somewhat better, than OTL.

So it seems unfair to say I prefer to write dystopic stories by my definition. Certainly the vast majority of my preferred scenarioes involve successful conquering empires, but that is simply my defining feature as an AH author and fan, I would not be in the genre without it. Admittedly as an author and fan of fiction I am quite blase about inserting generous doses of strife and suffering in a scenario, provided it seems appropriate to the circumstances or it makes for a more appealing narration, although I often prefer stories that provide or at least are open to an optimistic long-term outcome and fulfil my own ideals. My threshold of discomfort for fictional violence and brutality is typically set very high, it takes something like utter devastation of large swaths of the world, collapse of civilization, or lasting negation of progress to anger, depress, or turn off me, a few millions dead or screwed up fictional people are not going to shake my indifference provided it makes for a cool story. After all, in real history it has happened far too many times to be counted, for all kinds of natural and man-made reasons. The way many people can find the Star Wars Empire cool or appealing even if it blows up inhabited planets, or enjoy a large-scale disaster movie, I can find a good 'victorious evil empire' story appealing to create or read/watch, regardless of its humanitarian consequences. The fact such fiction may directly or indirectly reflect some notorious historical evil makes no difference whatsoever for me. To expect too much empathy, sensitivity, or bleeding-heart humanitarianism from me is simply pointless and futile, since it really does not fit my personality or my values. Especially in such a victimless and harmless field as fiction.

By the way, if I can just afford a little aside political tangent and rant, besides the libertarian me regarding it as the second coming of Communism with minorities in the place of the worker class, this character issue of mine is a reason I'm so strongly hostile to the whole political correctness movement on a deeply personal level: it demands an attitude I'm really unable and unwilling to provide on pain of harassment and ostracism, so it registers as quite intolerable and tyrannical. The SJW nutjobs can pry my Universe-given freedom to be true to my selfish, insensitive asshole nature from my dead, cold hands.

Okay please calm down, both of you.

Well we do not need to fight out the real ALT World War II on this forum.