>>2083942
So based on this: WW2 ends in 1942 with no Sealion or Barbarossa, something like that? I can see that happening if Churchill isn't being a stick in the m-

>>2083944
>>2083950
If pre-Barbarossa: Why on earth is Hitler deposed and replaced with someone far more moderate at the peak of his success and why does everyone just go along with it?
If post-Barbarossa: How does anyone in the Allies go along with it if it's a direct reference to the real plot to kill Hitler?

I don't want to go full realismfag on you but these things require some real leaps in logic. I'd have an easier time buying the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact working and Hitler just being talked into being a bit more pragmatic in this timeline long enough for the invasion window to close and even that one's a big stretch. It's hard enough to believe that there wasn't a Winter War and that all other M-T landgrabs from the Soviet side were just peaceful occasions that everyone went along with. This scenario seems to assume a few too many instances of "oh everyone's just OK with this somehow".
Also just saying: Germany keeping its 1940 gains is still a win, just not a wildly exaggerated MItHC win.

I don't want to come off as being too negative. It might be workable and what follows might be interesting, but you shouldn't have your lore hinge on so many hoops being jumped through.

>>2083958
>PoD is that anon did a 1936 start where Japan and Germany don't do any of their big war focuses and had the game run for 25 years
C'mon, spice it up a little.