How Can The Nazis Possibly Control All Their World Post Victory?

At the height of Japanese power, they had vastly more resources than Italy. Italy was suffering from a well maintained blockade, Japan ruled half of Asia. Strength of Axis powers goes Finland*>Germany>Japan>Italy.


*Which one survived war with the Soviets intact, Finland or Germany? :p ;)

Ruled half of Asia? No no, I don't think so. They were bogged down in China and hugely overextended throughout the rest of the Pacific. And no, they were did not have more resources than Italy, Japan's fuel supplies were some of the lowest of any major participant in the war, Japanese military strength INHERENTLY grew weaker as her enemies grew stronger.

Also you fail to take into account the fact that the war was fought around the notion that the Allies would prioritize fighting the Axis in Europe before they fought them in Asia, so of course there was a brief period where Japan looked high and mighty in comparison to Germany and Italy who were engaged in a two-front fight for their survival. But this viewpoint does not take into account how many structural flaws were present in the Japanese military machine that would (not could, would) destroy it eventually in a fight against a larger power.

Also the Winter War =/= WWII, as it was right after the Great Purge that included visionaries in warfare like Tukhachevsky. Unless you refer to the Continuation War, which the Soviets won, they certainly could have gone to overrun Finland if they wanted to, but they decided against it.
 
As a general rule the Romans seemed to have protected the existing hierarchy in most of the areas, they controlled and kept the peasants under the thumb. The Brits seem to have as a general rule promoted minorities ahead of others eg The Zoastrians and Muslims over the Hindu majority in India.
BTW, unfortunately, I guarantee you, there would be countless collaborators here in Ireland helping the Nazis out if they ever became established!
 
Indeed. A Japan in an Axis victory world could have Siberia, China, India, Southeast Asia, Oceania, and parts of the Americas (if you really want to make it a wankfest). Also, and again this may just be my opinion, Japan would probably administer these areas better.

No a Japan in an Axis victory world would eventually implode. Trying to take on all of China is already an impossibility, adding India to the mix is basically all the problems with conquering China x1000 (lots of people to fight you, bad logistical situation, unhelpful geography, etc.). Oceania is a continent-sized landmass and given both the skill of the Australian military and the home field advantage they have the Japanese would lose. And since there is no real way to effectively defeat the US from their perspective, they're going to be dealing with Americans stationed in Oz as well.

The Vietnamese, Chinese, and really every other people that had to suffer Japanese occupation before and during WWII would like to have a word with you regarding the skill and effectiveness of Japanese rule in killing millions of their citizens through a combination of deliberate massacres, or just plain apathy, I really don't think the Japanese factored in with too much concern how it would affect the Vietnamese people when they shipped the entirety of Vietnam's rice crop out of the country and started a famine that killed millions.

I reject your premises and your opinion strikes me as bordering into apologism for the Japanese in WWII.
 
As a general rule the Romans seemed to have protected the existing hierarchy in most of the areas, they controlled and kept the peasants under the thumb. The Brits seem to have as a general rule promoted minorities ahead of others eg The Zoastrians and Muslims over the Hindu majority in India.
BTW, unfortunately, I guarantee you, there would be countless collaborators here in Ireland helping the Nazis out if they ever became established!

you are right - to many british in ireland... sad :rolleyes:
 
What sort of person exactly is a "British in Ireland" and why do you object to them?


Hi, i have no problem with brits in ireland... i just read the "a lot of scum in ireland that support nazis" and felt, this was over the top, so i wrote the thing about british people in irland (the "scum")

just read this

I certainly believe had they managed to come to Ireland, they would have had any amount of scum assisting them

and:
BTW, unfortunately, I guarantee you, there would be countless collaborators here in Ireland helping the Nazis out if they ever became established!

it was slickwilly... so, what do you say to him - you cannot overlook his comments about irish people... is it not insulting what he write?

So I think a brit insulted the irish people - so i asked about the brits in irland... (just to make clear how stupid this comment was)

because i doubt seriously, that irish people are more effected for nazism as others

what do you think about this?

at last, the brits had some true nazis, one was the father of a certain well known formular one guy, right? the irish had what? none?

so, maybe you ask the guy who wrote this (first page) and ask him what he want to say with it?
 
Last edited:
I reject your premises and your opinion strikes me as bordering into apologism for the Japanese in WWII.

What? Where did I say that the Japanese were sugar-plum faries who brought sunshine and happiness to the world? Of course the World War II era Japan committed horrible attrocities. The only thing I said is that they would manage their territories better than the Germans in post-Axis wins scenario. Disagree with me, that is fine, but don't start accussing me of apologism.
 
What? Where did I say that the Japanese were sugar-plum faries who brought sunshine and happiness to the world? Of course the World War II era Japan committed horrible attrocities. The only thing I said is that they would manage their territories better than the Germans in post-Axis wins scenario. Disagree with me, that is fine, but don't start accussing me of apologism.

My bad, I've encountered people who were genuine apologists of the Japanese on this forum before and I figured you were round two. I just am a little apprehensive when hear about "good administrators" when all good administration would bring is slightly improved efforts to suck all of Japan's possessions dry.
 
My bad, I've encountered people who were genuine apologists of the Japanese on this forum before and I figured you were round two. I just am a little apprehensive when hear about "good administrators" when all good administration would bring is slightly improved efforts to suck all of Japan's possessions dry.

No worries, I was an admin at the Alt Hist wiki and I had my run-ins with people who did the same thing and it would cause me to overreact when I saw similar, yet innocent, edits by others.

But to get back on topic: despite the inherent horror of what I am suggesting, it is all relative when you are comparing it to another evil empire in an already evil alternate timeline. Yet there are a lot of empires who caused pain and suffering in the name of progress. How many millions died when China tried to industralize? Yet without it would they not be the nation they are today? Japan's administration of its puppets (since I believe there strategy was to create more of these than the Germans did) would be bad but would profit them more than if Germany did the same thing (which they probably would in the suggested ATL).

Granted that was Chinese doing these things to other Chinese, so maybe the comparison is a poor choice.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
In the short run: Through violence, violence and more violence.
In the long run: They can't. European Russia is fucking huge, Germany lack the manpower to occupy it efficently.
 
I've looked at this; sorry...

I've looked into this, into what the worst possible Nazis would be. There's no way they could've beaten the world in any way, because of vast, sky-filling US airplane production, and especially nuclear weapons.

There's also no way they could've even won in Europe the way they did things. Our Nazis ended up fighting most of the world, with only a handful of small and medium countries to fight or make tanks or planes; there's only one way that lame can end.

As conquerors go, they were pretty lame. It's astonishing they got as far as they did, really. Nappy, for example, had alot of popular support among his conquered helping him until astonishingly late; so did Cyrus the Great; the cities Genghis Khan didn't sack and burn supported him.

No, megaviolence doesn't help. Russians were hoping to betray Stalin for his violence, but Hitler treated Russians even worse, giving them no option. The most successful conquerors have worked by being at least short-term nice to lots of allies; that's how Spain won Mexico and Peru, and the UK took India.
 
Last edited:

Nietzsche

Banned
I have a question.

What's with all the assumptions that the Nazis didn't see the Dutch, English, Flems and Scandinavians as fellow Germanics? Everything else, including their actions towards those occupied, to the contrary.
 
I have a question.

What's with all the assumptions that the Nazis didn't see the Dutch, English, Flems and Scandinavians as fellow Germanics? Everything else, including their actions towards those occupied, to the contrary.

They were run as economic colonies and Nazi local chieftains had to be warned when visiting Dutch and Scandinavian dignitaries were in attendance so as not to abuse those countries. Himmler was a big Germanicist, but the other top men were pragmatic and ordinary German opinion, for instance, was indifferent or hostile in the English case. The theme was largely absent from propaganda.

Anyway, Imperial Russian regarded the Poles as fellow Slavs and a lot of good it did them.
 
I've looked into this, into what the worst possible Nazis would be. There's no way they could've beaten the world in any way, because of vast, sky-filling US airplane production, and especially nuclear weapons.

There's also no way they could've even won in Europe the way they did things. Our Nazis ended up fighting most of the world, with only a handful of small and medium countries to fight or make tanks or planes; there's only one way that lame can end.

As conquerors go, they were pretty lame. It's astonishing they got as far as they did, really. Nappy, for example, had alot of popular support among his conquered helping him until astonishingly late; so did Cyrus the Great; the cities Genghis Khan didn't sack and burn supported him.

No, megaviolence doesn't help. Russians were hoping to betray Stalin for his violence, but Hitler treated Russians even worse, giving them no option. The most successful conquerors have worked by being at least short-term nice to lots of allies; that's how Spain won Mexico and Peru, and the UK took India.

To nitpick-the areas Stalin's armies conquered in 1939-40 were major centers of anti-Soviet movements, in the areas which were Soviet territory in 1939 the Great Terror had already killed off most all of Stalin's opponents. The key exception to that was Ukraine where some of the ghosts of the Russian Civil War came back to life. Another was the Vlasovite movement which had some 1 million anti-Stalin Soviets, indicating that even when the Nazis were frankly intending to anticipate the Domination of Draka idea as not science fiction but science fact they could find a not small-sized number of collaborators.

I agree that anything like OTL Nazism has far more against it where winning the European war is concerned than for it.
 
Had the Nazis come to Ireland most if not all of the collaborators would have been native born middle class rubbish what we call in Hiberno-English - Sleeveens - the slyest C U Next Tuesdays alive! That was not meant in anyway as a slight against British people living in Ireland and I don't know how it could be intrepreted in that way!
 
Top