Ok Reworded and no A Bomb refrences

[Mord]

I had a question last night that was in a thread that was locked up. Seeing that there were three paragraphs I'm not sure if my question was the reason or other stuff that was said before hand, or just the thread in general. So here goes.

If the Axis had won WWII do you think that eventually Japan and Germany would have come to blows? How did Japan fit into the scheme of things with the Third Reich. The JAPANESE were not exactly Hitler's wetdream version of the Aryan superman. So if they had won would the world have been big enough for both? I have read where the officers and other members of the Reich looked at Russians as subhuman yet they were closer in Race than the Japanese. Would The Reich feel the need to cleanse Japan later on?

I think this is a good question and it's something I have wondered about for a long time.

If this thread should get locked up please email me with any thoughts you may have.

If this question was the reason the other thread got locked up I apologize ahead of time.

Mord.

P.S I know...I know...I misspelled references

[This message has been edited by Mord (edited 12-05-2000).]

[Mace]

Personally I think these two particular regimes would have ended clashing in the long run, perhaps over race, perhaps over resources, or just because both were totalitarian and in the long run would have lusted for world domination! <shrug>

Fortunately, the Axis didn't win, they lost, and I'm rather glad that's the way it turned out!

Mace

[Guest AggroMann]

I would assume that if the Axis were to have won WWII than it would have had to take them quite sometime.

I don't know if it would have taken them so long that Hitler would have died by the end, but when he did die i question how beligerent the current German People would be after such a long war....especially towards their main ally Japan (who would have contributed greatly in kicking the US out of the war). Im sure that Germany would have had its hands too full with its vast new conquered territory to have tried to bother attacking its biggest ally (and i mean biggest as in the size of its army with the same thought about Japan). At least for some generations. But i agree with Mace that the two would eventually clash in the end. Probably with Germany as the attacker, seeing that the Japanese must have looked totally inferior than anything else on earth to them (even the American public viewed the Japanese as sort of primitive monkeys which was obviously not the case).

------------------

AGGRO-MANN

[This message has been edited by AggroMann (edited 12-05-2000).]

[saru3000]

It's a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".They both knew that the U.K. and the U.S. weren't going to tolerate their respective expansions(too nice a word,I know)and both feared the Soviet Union.

P.S. The Japanese also held themselves as racially superior.Neither side was above developing a blind spot and getting help where they could.Hypocrisy on a national level is nothing new.

[patboivin]

I think the question is more than a little fanciful, for example I read somewhere that Hitler had planned to send "improved" V2 rockets to New York by the 1980s, but it never happened of course.

IF they had won, and both regimes were left, I suspect they would have been friendly for a while, but like two beasts sleeping next to each other, one or the other would have ended up turning on the other.

Realize though that this is just impossible, Germany for example controlled way too much territory, no country could handle it all for a prolonged period of time, especially since the territory was conquered and not due to a friendly alliance.

I agree too that if the war had continued, after 1945 the German population would have been quite tired of it all. At some point rousing rhetoric just doesn't work anymore.

Again though I think this question is rather silly.

Did Chrysler exist during WWII? Did they build any vehicles we see in CM? Just wondering, since Daimler recently fired the American executives in charge of Chrysler, that's a takeover if I have ever seen one. Whatever happened to Lee Iacocca? (spelling?). But it looks like the outright purchase of Chrysler by Daimler (ooops sorry in the U.S. they officially announced it as a "merger") was too hard on Daimler, the total value of Daimler-Chrysler is now less than Daimler's value before the takeover!

[saru3000]

quote: Probably with Germany as the attacker, seeing that the Japanese must have looked totally inferior than anything else on earth to them (even the American public viewed the Japanese as sort of primitive monkeys which was obviously not the case).

The problem with that is that the first step in any war is to dehumanize the enemy.Both sides put out a ton of propaganda portraying the other as monsters.I'm sure that both, Germany and Japan, put out some propaganda that showed the other in a favorable light during the war.Although it wouldn't have taken long to switch gears if they were to face each other.

Something I find interesting is looking at the propaganda treatment China and Japan received.China was obviously portrayed as heroic,downtrodden,etc.Quite a bit of propaganda against Japan highlighted the racial difference between Caucasians and Japanese in an exaggerated and surreal way(as "inhuman monkies").How do you explain this to your racially simiular allies? "China we support you and find you worthy allies.Please ignore our revulsion at your physical differences."

This stoking of hatred along racial lines must have made it pretty tough on Asian-Americans of the time.

Enough of my blathering...BARTENDER-A round for the house!

------------------

I love the smell of bacon in the morning...it's the smell of breakfast.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mord:

If the Axis had won WWII do you think that eventually Japan and Germany would have come to blows?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We would need to split some hairs here. What do you mean, "won" WWII? You mean the US surrendered to the Axis, and was occupied by them?

That's a bit much for me to stomach even in a what-if, at least in a 1945-50 context.

Let's just take the US out of the picture for a minute and say the world is divided into German and Japanese spheres of influence.

Germany has Europe, Russia, the Caucasus, the Middle East, and the Atlantic. Japan has Manchuria/Siberia, China, India, Indonesia, and the Pacific. Both now have the ports/natural resources they coveted, in abundance.

The Germans would have the edge over the Japanese in most technological areas. Japan would have access to a little more manpower, and a better surface fleet.

Japan did NOT have a stated programme of racial superiority. In fact, many influential Japanese viewed themselves as the racial liberators of the Asian peoples from western colonialism. I believe that most felt themselves as the leading Asian power, which they in fact were, and there was a good deal of disdain for their Asian fellows who submitted to the western yoke.

There were no designated racial bad guys in the Japanese program. Even if the Japanese felt contempt for the passive Asians and admiration for the more predatory Europeans (Germany and England), they still saw their crusade as one of racial self-preservation against Euro-American domination.

The Japanese had at least a chance of consolidating their empire and motivating it to work toward a common pan-Asian goal. The Germans blew their opportunity right from the start- it was written into their ideology.

Both had nuclear programs, but Germany would have had additional access to Russia's research. Eventually they would have corrected the error in the critical mass formula they were using. They were probably ahead of Japan in practical development and experimentation, but Japan had some excellent theoretical scientists and had latched on to thermonuclear theory well before the war even started.

All dictatorships are paranoid, and the German and Japanese empires would probably have been on an inevitable collision course here and there along their vast borders. But a "German empire" of that magnitude would be so rife with internal contradictions that it would be forever struggling to maintain its internal peace, at least until it could populate it all with Germans. And Japan would still have a technological mountain to climb, though with vast resources at its disposal.

Now, if the US is beaten into a sullen armistice, but still afloat...

The US was much further along in nuke development than either Germany or Japan, and you would have to factor this into the equation... the upshot of all this is that the world might have reached the same nuclear standoff that it did anyway.

Japan would want to forge some kind of alliance with the isolated US...

[Tris]

Mark's theoretical view is interesting, and I tend to agree with it broadly. But now, Mord, let's look to the practical side of it.

Germany allied with Japan for one reason: the two shared one common enemy, Russia, with another worthy common protagonist just off stage in the wings, England and her redoubtable Commonwealth. Unfortunately for Germany, Japan was no match even for Russia in any manner, shape or form, was already hip deep in the mess spelled China, and then on top of that she went and declared war on the United States, with England, of course, thrown into that bargain. America's entrance into the war was all but guaranteed anyway, I believe, but this event coming as early as it did ensured that Germany would never be afforded the time necessary to right herself economically and really get geared for something approaching true global conflict. The only possible result of this Euro-Asian madness was cleary written for all sane men.

I think Germany and Japan, assuming Axis victory, or stalemate, versus the Allies, and in the absence of any true commonality of cultures or political philosophy, would have certainly wandered astray from each other in world affairs following hostilities. Whether this would have led to an outright clash down the road is difficult, no impossible, to predict with any certainty. I imagine both would have had their hands more than full with pressing issues at home to worry about it much.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 12-06-2000).]

[Mord]

Very good answers from all of you. though I don't think the question was silly at all. It was a what if question. Something to play with. Everybody approached it from many different angles and avenues and gave me much to chew on. I thank you all very much for your insights. If anybody else would like to chime in please do.

Mord

[Chupacabra]

Mark IV -

While I agree that Japan did not have a stated program of racial superiority, I don't think it's possible to ignore that an unofficial one affected their actions.

The "racial liberator" aspect of their expansionism was propaganda. Again, I'm not denying that there were Japanese who honestly believed in the concept. But in practice, their actions in China, Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, etc. ad nausea, puts paid to that idea as anything more than an excuse for expansionism. Initially, at least one nation - Indonesia - did look to the Japanese as liberators from their European colonists, and were treated no less brutally for that.

Expansionism was seen by the military and nationalist power base as both a necessity and a duty. A necessity, because without the conquered nations' resources, Japan could be smothered by the economic sanctions which the United States was applying. But it's worth noting that Japan had occupied Korea since 1910 and Manchuria since 1932, long before the application of the potentially crippling sactions over which the Japanese eventually attacked the US.

Which brings me to my second point - the Japanese military was an extremely racist organization, which believed that the Japanese people were superior both to the "lesser" Asian peoples and to Europeans. As such, it was seen as Japan's duty to establish itself as the world's foremost nation. I don't believe their behavior can be otherwise understood.

As for the rest of it - I'm not sure. Hitler was quite good at finding or creating loopholes in his own ideology when it was practical to do so. Japan had declared its opposition to Communism with the 1936 Anti-Comintern Pact, and as long as the Soviet Union existed, Hitler was only too happy to consider Japan an ally. Likewise, the Japanese military was thrilled when Hitler declared war on the US. Very few Japanese realized that the American economy was capable of not only sustaining but winning a war on two geographically distant fronts. Yamomoto knew, but unfortunately for Japan, wasn't listened to. So both Japan and Germany were happy to be allied as long as their respective enemies were intact, but after that, who can say?

Even assuming the highly improbable outcome of the US, Britain, and the USSR surrendering, both Germany and Japan would have been unable and unwilling to go to war for quite a while afterwards. They may have decided that it was in their mutual interest to let Germany and Japan retain their respective spheres of influence and let it go at that. Or they could have decided that it was high time they got back to that world domination stuff and gone to war with each other. It's impossible to say.

The classic sci-fi novel The Man on the High Castle by Philip K. Dick deals with precisely this question, if anyone's interested.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[mscano]

Totalitarianism by it's definition means there can only be one ruling power. I think they would have come to blows eventually.

[Maj. Bosco]

I'd like to hear Germanboy weigh with his thoughts about Japan. He is probably as close to an authority on Japan as we have on the board.

I'm going to follow Mark IV's lead in specifying what I think victory would have entailed for the Axis.

*****

Allied Nations

Britain

Conquered by Germany. I don't think that Britain would have given up the fight without an Axis army in the streets of London. The actions of the British throughout the war seem to support this, especially their actions during the blitz. The Germans couldn't really claim victory until they'd conquered Britain.

USSR/Russia

Most of western Russia would go to the Germans. Some of eastern Russia might get grabbed by the Japanese. Whatever not under direct Axis control would be to fragmented to be of any immediate concern.

USA

Without Britain as a base to invade Europe from, and without Russia to absorb the brunt of the fighting, the US is unwilling to involve themselves in Europe. The US is defeated at Midway, and without any real Navy left concedes the Pacific to Japan.

Free French, Polish, etc...

Without the major allied nations to rally around their actions are strictly guerilla.

*****

The Empires

The third Reich stretches from Britain to about half way through Russia. Though officially Spain and Italy would be independent they would be for all intents and purposes under the control of the third Reich. Northern Africa would be under Fascist rule as would the middle east.

The Japanese sphere of influence encompases the whole of the Pacific and Asia. Parts of eastern Russia are under Japanese control as well. Australia and New Zealand also fall the the Japanese.

*****

Japan v. Germany Scenarios

Both countries would, by the end of their respective conquests, be depleted in both morale and in soldiers. In addition the difficulty of maintaining their hold on the nations in their empire cannot be overstressed. In the situation as I have outlined it above I would give both governments shelf-lives of maybe 5 years. Maybe. In particular Japan would be hard pressed to deal with Mao for any length of time. I would imagine Australia and New Zealand would provide more than their fair share of problems as well. Doubtless there are other hotspots I'm overlooking, but I'm not as familiar with Asian history as I'd like to be. I'm fairly sure that most of the people on this board are familiar to some degree or another with Europe and European history so I won't bother listing the many, many places that would give them trouble. The following scenarios assume that the governments survive their expansion.

1. Conflict over the middle east.

Both empires would have a massive need for natural resources. Besides the material cost of industrializing and rebuilding conquered land each would have to maintain full wartime standing armies constantly. Totalitarian states require the military and the police to be overwhelmingly powerful. The middle east is extremely oil rich and it is concievable that Japan would make a grab for it.

2. Conflict in Russia

The basically racist foundations of both societies would call for war in a generation or two. Those who lived through WWII would be hesitant to wage another war of any significant size for many years. Their children and grandchildren would not have the memory of the war though. They would only know that they won. In the situation I outlined above the easiest way for them to strike at each other would be through Russia. Assuming Hitler was still the Fuhrer he would avoid commiting too much to his Navy. He put much more faith in his tanks and planes than he did in his battleships.

3. Conflict for the Americas

Both nations, seeing a need for more expansion to settle their people and fill their coffers, turn their eyes to the Americas. Both South and North America are rich in natural resources, and after America's showing (or lack thereof) in the war it would be assumed to be an easy conquest. Competition over who would control what parts of the Americas could start a conflict. Another possibility is that one side or the other allies with America in an attempt to strengthen it's position as a prelude to an attack on the other.

*****

Well. I'm done writing. Interesting thread.

[Mord]

Excellent reply Maj. Bosco! I loved it! That was some great speculative history. I was sorry to finish it to tell you the truth. Thanks alot for a very spirited entry and opinion.

And once again I thank everyone else who gave their opinions. I am having a good time reading these. What If History can be very interesting indeed.

Mord.

[Mord]

Pat said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Did Chrysler exist during WWII? Did they build any vehicles we see in CM? Just wondering, since Daimler recently fired the American executives in charge of Chrysler, that's a takeover if I have ever seen one. Whatever happened to Lee Iacocca? (spelling?). But it looks like the outright purchase of Chrysler by Daimler (ooops sorry in the U.S. they officially announced it as a "merger") was too hard on Daimler, the total value of Daimler-Chrysler is now less than Daimler's value before the takeover!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I finally got why you said that. LOL! I was under the impression that you could discuss non CM topics as long as they pertained to WWII. Can we or are we not supposed too? Well anyway thanks for the non Chrysler parts.

Mord

[This message has been edited by Mord (edited 12-06-2000).]

[Maj. Bosco]

Thanks Mord. Great topic.

Here's another thought to kick around.

How would America interact economically with the victorious Axis? Even during WWII we never truly severed trade with Germany. IIRC Ford Motor Co. actually had factories in Dresden right up to the declaration of war. Seeing as "The business of America is business" would we put aside our differences with the Germans and/or Japanese and resume a relatively "normal" existence? The world in that case would be divided into three spheres of influence. Canada, Latin America, the West Indies etc... falling into the U.S. sphere of domination, and the rest of the world being divided up as I outlined in my earlier post. Before I cough up my thoughts on my question I'd like to get a ruling from one of the mods if I can include any speculation about nuclear weaponry? Aparently this thread was already locked up once for it. Thank you.

[patboivin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mord:

I finally got why you said that. LOL! I was under the impression that you could discuss non CM topics as long as they pertained to WWII. Can we or are we not supposed too? Well anyway thanks for the non Chrysler parts.

Mord

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I had to ask just to see if was still a link there... but no one answered so I guess Chrysler is a new company (post WWII), and so the humourous parallel doesn't hold. Too bad, irony makes life more interesting to watch.

I see that the Volkswagen bug was recently re-introduced, Chrysler has a PT cruiser, who knows what car manufacturers will offer next. Put me down for an 8-wheeled SUV.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Bosco, its a very interesting question you pose. A very complex one though.

Just so you know guys, the main reason locked uo the last thread was that it became a question as to weather the bomb *should* have been dropped on Japan. Some of the replies were bordering on what I felt could be sensitive to people whom had lost loved ones in those incidents, and I felt this wasnt necessary so thus I decided to lock it up...

[patboivin]

I think you did the right thing by locking that other thread up.

[Hun Hunter]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patboivin:

Yes, I had to ask just to see if was still a link there... but no one answered so I guess Chrysler is a new company (post WWII), and so the humourous parallel doesn't hold. Too bad, irony makes life more interesting to watch.

I see that the Volkswagen bug was recently re-introduced, Chrysler has a PT cruiser, who knows what car manufacturers will offer next. Put me down for an 8-wheeled SUV.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Chrysler was around and you no doubt have seen some of their work in CM, namely the Shermans and Pershings

------------------

"The Germans found out who the 'master race' was when they met us" - Henry Havlet 45th Infantry Division "Thunderbirds"

[Mark IV]

Chup:

"(While) Japan did not have a stated program of racial superiority, I don't think it's possible to ignore that an unofficial one affected their actions."

And I wouldn't ignore it, either (I am enslaved by one, as regular readers may recall). But it would allow them much more latitude in their dealings with client states.

Both Germany and Japan had interesting questions about their successions pending. What did a militarily successful Germany do after Hitler (or, about Hitler, et al)? It is unlikely that the fanatics would have prevailed for long, any more than they have after any other revolutionary authoritarian regimes (the successors always behave like reactionaries). As the desperation of battle for western domination faded, what would replace it?

FWIW, I lived in Germany for a while, and they just don't strike me as inherently fanatical- far from it. Once the chip was off their shoulder I think the requirements of empire building (as opposed to conquering) would have propelled many moderate Germans to positions of authority. They really just want to make money and winter in Spain.

The Japanese had more immediate problems of authority in a post-war situation. I don't pretend to be an authority on the somewhat bizarre workings of their various factions, but the Army vs. Navy, conservative vs. "modern", paranoid vs. curious, and many other contradictions had no formal outlet for resolution. The Emperor, even then, seems to have been more of a figurehead, and at the mercy or disposal of the leading faction at any point. His influence over the minds of the people was much greater than his influence over policy, and he was more the tool of the ruling faction than a true leader.

In Japan the future would be determined by the dominant party/faction, and they can be either magnanimous or horrible in victory... they have demonstrated both in this century.

They unquestionably feel superior to their neighbors, and while this is a generalization I think it one of the safest. They were not, however, bent on their extermination or enslavement. There really were some strange militarist mystics amongst their ranks. I don't think it is possible for me to second-guess this oddest and most contradictory of peoples.

I can see a sort of Pax Fascista for a decade or two while these two Empires dealt with the complexities of vast new dominions and internal power struggles, as the dividing line between them would have been generally clear and satisfactory. Obviously the rule of law had gone clear out the window in matters of state power in both lands, which makes prediction a lot harder.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra:

Which brings me to my second point - the Japanese military was an extremely racist organization, which believed that the Japanese people were superior both to the "lesser" Asian peoples and to Europeans. As such, it was seen as Japan's duty to establish itself as the world's foremost nation. I don't believe their behavior can be otherwise understood.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting stuff Chup but as for your view that Japan declaring war on America can only be explained by their racial superiority view and it being their duty to establish themselves as the foremost nation, I suggest a more obvious reason for them declaring war on the U.S. It was virtually forced on them by the U.S. sanctions (which I'm not saying was wrong BTW in response to Japan's invasion of China) since the alternative to declaring war was simply to roll over and pull out of China while completely losing face to a European based culture.

I would suggest the above alternative was always going to be too hard to swallow no matter which powerful nation was in such a similar position. Could you imagine the U.S. comprehensively pulling out all its forces in Grenada soon after the invasion if they were boycotted by the rest of the world? I suggest that the loss of face and prestige would be unbearable to the American public in such a situation so I would contend that in Japan's situation, the same nationalistic factors virtually ensured a declaration of war against the U.S., it was simply a question of when, not if.

If anyone else (as well as Chup of course) has any views on this I would certainly be interested to hear them.

Regards

Jim R.

[Major Tom]

I could not see Germany or Japan behaving any different than how the United States and Russia did at the end of WWII. Neither had a stake in continuing a devestating war.

In comparison of populations, I could not say that the Axis powers would have been any more or less racist than the Allied powers.

Germany has its history with Jews, America has its history with Amerindians, Africans, etc. Japan has its history with Chinese, Russia had its history with Poles, Ukranians, Finns, etc.

We just were better in covering up, or excusing our holocausts than the Germans or Japanese. Lucky for us we won, or else Germans and Japanese would be chatting on the website on the horrors and violence of a world after an Allied victory.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Major Tom:

I could not see Germany or Japan behaving any different than how the United States and Russia did at the end of WWII... Neither had a stake in continuing a devestating war...In comparison of populations, I could not say that the Axis powers would have been any more or less racist than the Allied powers... We just were better in covering up, or excusing our holocausts than the Germans or Japanese.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try to beat the padlock here, with a few quick clarifications:

There was no need to drag obvious flame-bait into what might have been a legitimate discussion (the what-if Germany-Japan victorious debate has about 5% to do with atrocities- it was about the subsequent geo-politics).

US and Russia differed more than a little, in the post-war administration of territories. It would be facile to ignore the direction of refugee flow, among other things. If what you mean is that we failed to blow one another up, ok yeah. "Neither had {sufficient} stake in continuing a devestating war" is about as far as the analogy goes.

I don't know how you can say German administration would have been "any less racist" when it was literally a racist program to begin with. You can point to many examples of American racism, then and today, but you do not find racist dogma legalized and enforced in the Constitution. Nazism was meaningless without racism.

I would like to be able to discuss this without the pejoratives normally associated with the word "racism", but whether I do or not, you cannot divorce any definition of "Nazism" from racism. Any Nazi would have been offended by such a manipulation.

As for the rest, you have dragged this discussion right back to where it was locked up the first time.

It really would be interesting to explore the plausible outcomes of an Axis victory, and it's a shame you couldn't let it go at that. The motivations of Germany and Japan were really very different, as were their national outlooks, and that would have been interesting to explore.

[Chupacabra]

Kanonier Reichmann -

You did sorta ignore one of my earlier paragraphs

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Expansionism was seen by the military and nationalist power base as both a necessity and a duty. A necessity, because without the conquered nations' resources, Japan could be smothered by the economic sanctions which the United States was applying. But it's worth noting that Japan had occupied Korea since 1910 and Manchuria since 1932,long before the application of the potentially crippling sanctions over which the Japanese eventually attacked the US.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>(emphasis added)

For me, the bottom line is that the more research I do on these subjects (and I've done quite a bit, although more from the German side than the Japanese), it becomes increasingly difficult to attempt to pigeonhole any of the combattants as having been one way or the other. Every time I feel like I've pinned down one side to the point where I completely understand their thought processes and motivations, something comes up to throw a spanner in the works.

And of course, it's always dangerous to assume that nations are homogenous, monolithic groups in which everyone thinks alike. There were many Japanese, Germans, Italians, Romanians, etc., who were perfectly horrified by the war.

It's not well known, but a Japanese man, Sempo Sugihara, is recognized by Israel as one of the Righteous Among the Nations for his efforts to save Lithuanian Jews in 1940-41.( http://www.yadvashem.org/righteous/index_righteous.html ) This certainly doesn't fit in with the common misconception of Japanese people during the war.

All that said, I do think it's useful to outline, admittedly in broad strokes, the general trends that led to war.

Edited to fix the link.

------------------

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[This message has been edited by Chupacabra (edited 12-09-2000).]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Yeh, sorry Chup, you did sort of discuss that aspect didn't you, but do you agree that Japan declaring war on the U.S. was pretty much inevitable whilst the sanctions remained in place?

Regards

Jim R.