In "Axis won the WWII" world...

America under German rules is ASB (even if that would spare future generations the whole "if it hadn't been for us you'd all speak German" business).


As for SeaLion, I dunno - it might work, I think, since war isn't only a match of guns but also a match of will. A POD where the "nevah surrendah" crowd is sidelined by the "isn't it terrible that our great nation could wage war over people we barely know" group might do it.
 
And collabarating in finding Jews? And offering no resistence to German landings in North Africa?

I'm not asking you to trust me on the Vichy matter, just read the documents.

But the newest map is much more plausible, save the Middle East and Africa
What do you propose for these areas, while remaining in the (quite unplausible) thread "if Axis won WW2" ?

America under German rules is ASB (even if that would spare future generations the whole "if it hadn't been for us you'd all speak German" business).
There is no german-ruled america in the map. care to explain?
 
Are you suggesting something like this?

Yes...except Hawaii should be colored as part of the USA.

Although if you want to have a larger Japanese Empire survive, you might consider this: Britain accepts German peace offer in 1940 and USA never enters the European War. Then, when Germany attacks USSR, Japan declares war on the USSR rather than attacking the USA and British at all. That way, you might plausibly arrive at a situation in which the USSR is actually defeated outright, or at is least forced to cede even more territory to a victorious German-Japanese alliance. Japan might then seize parts of eastern Siberia, including Vladivostok, and with no Soviet help to the Chinese Reds. Japan might be able to establish more puppet regimes in China. There is even the outside chance that (with Germany dominating France and the Netherlands) Indochina might be peacefully transferred from Vichy to Japan, and Japan might even eventually come to dominate the former Dutch East Indies without firing a shot. As long as the Japanese do not attack the Philippines, Guam, and any other US outpost in the western pacific, isolationist sentiment would make it difficult for FDR to obtain a declaration of war, and Britain (faced with a massive Nazi Empire at its doorstep) might also think twice before fighting Japan to keep the Dutch East Indies out of their hands. Again, this presumes the Japanese are very selective and do not take steps to attack any British holdings in the Pacific.
 
Sorry hawaii was a mistake.
Agree on indochina transfer from Vichy to japan, and on more puppet chinese regimes in china (expecially in the South-East there is the CP vs KMT vs warlords conflict to play with; USA could even back a filo-japanese anti-communist regime)
But attacking CCCP made no sense for Japan: Japan wanted (and needed) the resources in borneo and china, not those in the siberian far east.
Also, at least the Brunei (northern Borneo) UK possession must be occupied, otherwise there is no oil to wage war with.
Maybe a "peacekeeping" japanese force lands there while britsh troops are retreated to fight in the middle east and/or because of the
Unmentionable Mammalian Scare and then they stay there.

ReasonableAxisworld3.png
 
Last edited:
Sealion will never be successful.
I think conquering USA would been a kind of sea lion * 1000 as difficulty, because of the distance, and USA potential in manpower and capabilities. Even US soldiers were far from british trainment, it would lasted few years of preparations from british falling, till US invasion-time enough for US army to prepare its soldiers. In my oppinion, starting this opperation would been a huge mistake for axis. They'd better would try to obtain advantageous peace terms
 
The plan for the USSR east of the Arkhangelsk-Astrakhan line was not of much "client state" as, to put it bluntly, "kill everyone".

Actually, there was not any plan at all for lands east of the AA line.
The idea was that after reaching the AA line the CCCP would collapse or would be forced to accept humiliating peace term, and the CCCP west of the AA line would be in german hands (no decision were done whether to rule it directly, as a colony, or as a puppet state, at least one part was to be colonized), while the land east of that could be disregareded as "useless wasteland".
Of course, there were a few mistakes in these views
 
Actually, there was not any plan at all for lands east of the AA line.
The idea was that after reaching the AA line the CCCP would collapse or would be forced to accept humiliating peace term, and the CCCP west of the AA line would be in german hands (no decision were done whether to rule it directly, as a colony, or as a puppet state, at least one part was to be colonized), while the land east of that could be disregareded as "useless wasteland".
Of course, there were a few mistakes in these views

Ahem. I of course meant west. :eek: However, the idea of a puppet state is a denial of the facts on thr ground. No coherent government could have been assembled that could have maintained the pretence of geing native, except perhaps in the Baltic States, and maybemaybemaybe Georgia (Armenians were put in much the same category as Slavs and Turkic peoples); never mind commanding the loyalty of any significant minority of a population undergoing exterminatory warfare.
 
Ahem. I of course meant west. However, the idea of a puppet state is a denial of the facts on the ground. No coherent government could have been assembled that could have maintained the pretence of geing native, except perhaps in the Baltic States, and maybemaybemaybe Georgia (Armenians were put in much the same category as Slavs and Turkic peoples); never mind commanding the loyalty of any significant minority of a population undergoing exterminatory warfare.

If it is west, now I understand your comment.
I agree that the European Russia area was to be broken in smaller areas to deny the idea of an unite nation, but this does not automatically translate in a "total annhilation" policy.
Mind you, there were supporters of such a policy (Himmler and such), but there were also powers pointing in the opposite direction (Frank, Speer, even Heydrich).
The OstMinister bickered daily with the Reichsfuhrer on the matter, and Hitler played on that rivalry to control both.
The problem is that national-Socialist regime was a polycracy, binding togetheter several diverging views ranging from racial extremists to technocrats, and Hitler randomly jumped from one view from the other without any continuity, and without a coherent plan.
Even the (in)famous GeneralPlan Ost was quite vague on the matter, and it was not clear wether in settled areas there were two populations to co-exist because of workforce need (as in certain polish zones) or not. Nor there was certainty that the GeneralPlan Ost was effectively to be carried out, since it would hurt the interests of several high-ranking Nazi exponents.
Thus the actual gestion of those territories in case of victory is an open question mark.
I adopted the puppet-state solution since I think it is the one more likely to provide the POD which is the basis of the thread (if axis won WII)
 
Furthermore, if you don't have a native population then nobody is going to get any work done. There simply won't be enough German colonists to go round. Goebbels realised by 1943 OTL that you needed to treat the Russian farmers well enough if you were going to get any agricultural production out of them.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Mailinutile, when and how would France get back its northern half from Germany, in your proposed map?

I'd say it could be included in the peace treaty with england.
Without the war the occupation of the france atlantic coast is of no use, and its "liberation" could somewhat save the face of the UK for signing the peace
slight corrections on the border, of course.
 
I'd say it could be included in the peace treaty with england.
Without the war the occupation of the france atlantic coast is of no use, and its "liberation" could somewhat save the face of the UK for signing the peace
slight corrections on the border, of course.

I'm not completely sure liberating northern France would do much to sweeten the deal for the UK. And well, the French coast would still be useful since the US would still be independent and potentially hostile.

I'd propose you this alternate version: both France and the UK get imposed partial occupation during the war and in its immediate aftermath. Supposing WW2 ends in 1945, then around 1950 Germany would probably feel the financial need to organize its newfound Empire (particularly since it'd be burdened with the task of settling the Ost territories - think of OTL's cost of the German reunification for example).

As Hitler grows older, more pragmatic men (a la Albert Speer) take charge and realize re-establishing profitable trade with the conquered nations of Western Europe is in Germany's best interest, be that politically or economically. Fascist Italy would probably push for it as well, as it cannot function on a war economy for too long, and it might also want to form a bloc of power that would help it counterbalance German's prominence. To this end, Western countries are granted much greater autonomy and German technicians help reactivate their economy - making sure it is of course, tightly linked to the Reich's. In a move comparable to OTL's Marshal Plan, Germany helps re-create markets that would profit its economy, and it does it using part of the occupation fees paid by these nations.

As military presence becomes less necessary, German occupation zones dwindle until it mostly represents key military bases (particularly for the Kriegsmarine anf Luftwaffe, which need them to assert Germany's new Global Power status). Little by little, the German occupation is replaced by some form of association with Germany and with the notable exception of Alsace-Lorraine (and Perhaps Northern Ireland if Eire has been an ally), Western Europe reverts, at least temporarily, to its 1939 borders.
 
Northern France may have been under German military occupation, but IIRC it remained under French civil administration? What you would be ending is the former, whilst the latter never ended.

Thus, I don't see the point in militarily occupying Northern France without a British, or at a stretch an American, threat. Germans would remain the primary users of the strategic ports, and retain significant airbases, even some military bases. It would be helped if Hitler can be persuaded in victory to admit France to the Axis. East Germany had significant Soviet troops quartered there in OTL but was not deemed to have lost its independence of action within the Warsaw Pact. I think you could do the same thing with France.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top