Nazi invasion scenarios in US article ( Life Magazine 1942)

[221B Baker Street]

@FieldMarshalGames:

The Germans and the Japanese, both separately and non-connected, had larger long term plans for World Domination.

Germany in fact had a special dept for studying this issue.

They look silly here, but if Germany controlled all of Europe and Russian Asia, do you not think they would have the strength to take on the USA?  The United States would at that time be completely alone.  The “Neutrals” of South America would at that time most likely become pro-German for reasons of self preservation alone.

I disagree.

The US would not be completely alone.  Considering the Nazi approach to what they percieved as “inferior” races (i.e. send them to concentration camps to die), which would have become well known before this (if for no other reason than leaked by the US/UK) do you think Latin America would have sided with Nazi Germany knowing they (being considered an “inferior” race) would then be destined for the concentration camps?  Or that they wouldn’t consider that nearby hordes of Americans would just storm south as the Axis would clearly be unable to provide sufficient support across vast oceans.  Don’t forget Canada, Australia, S. Africa, India, etc. major parts of the UK empire that probably would fight on, also out of self preservation if no other reason.

Additionally, its one thing to hold large areas of Eurasia.  Its quite another to get enough economic benefit from it to justify the manpower and resources spent holding it. In short, holding these large areas could well be a drain on the Axis war economy, not a support.

Also, the A-bomb was possibly a game changer.  A Doolittle type raid on Berlin, for example, would have been possible by the US at any point in 1946 and beyond.  Given the superior abilities of the B-29 bomber (by far the best bomber of the war) I question the abilities of the German airforce to prevent a night raid of this type.  And since Germany stopped development of the A-bomb in 1942 at about the same place as the US, this would surely happen before the Germans could do the same via the Amerika bomber or V-3 as they would need to duplicate the manhattan project.  I’d guess they would need three more years in a crash program to do so.

[Imperious Leader]

Latin America would have sided with Nazi Germany knowing they (being considered an “inferior” race)

Argentina and Chile were pro axis and had totalitarian governments. Also, Spain was the link to all of them and Hitler had no ill will against Spain. Germany already established glider clubs and many business relationships with them in the 1930’s

How could Spain support Hitler if he had this racial bias against Latin peoples?

BY the time Hitler might have won against UK and Russia, it would be at a point where they would have their own atomic weapons as well as Japan and I am not sure a B-29 was gonna take off any carrier with that payload.  In fact if they even bothered with USA it would be far in the future with a great consolidation of the recent gains.

[Gargantua]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG685BKIIqE

[FieldMarshalGames]

@Imperious:

Latin America would have sided with Nazi Germany knowing they (being considered an “inferior” race)

Argentina and Chile were pro axis and had totalitarian governments. Also, Spain was the link to all of them and Hitler had no ill will against Spain. Germany already established glider clubs and many business relationships with them in the 1930’s

How could Spain support Hitler if he had this racial bias against Latin peoples?

BY the time Hitler might have won against UK and Russia, it would be at a point where they would have their own atomic weapons as well as Japan and I am not sure a B-29 was gonna take off any carrier with that payload.  In fact if they even bothered with USA it would be far in the future with a great consolidation of the recent gains.

This is exactly what I was trying to say.  It seems SILLY from the perspective of 42-45…  But these were LONG TERM plans for dealing with the United States.

[FieldMarshalGames]

@Gargantua:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG685BKIIqE

Funny, but seriously…  There was a great amount of study put into the question of eventual Global dominance of Germany.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Haushofer

[221B Baker Street]

@Imperious:

Latin America would have sided with Nazi Germany knowing they (being considered an “inferior” race)

Argentina and Chile were pro axis and had totalitarian governments. Also, Spain was the link to all of them and Hitler had no ill will against Spain. Germany already established glider clubs and many business relationships with them in the 1930’s

How could Spain support Hitler if he had this racial bias against Latin peoples?

I’m not entirely sure of Hitlers feelings towards Spain.  Certainly, his feelings were better than towards the Jews or Russians…maybe it was a first things first philosophy?  Possibly, Hitler thought of them somewhat as he did the British, with some level of admiration.  I do not recall reading anything which might shed light on this, does anyone have any links that might be beneficial?

Still, coming out of the Spanish civil war, which was a proxy battle between the other European powers, Spain was in no mood to fight either for or against Germany.  It may be telling however, that Spain refused to allow the Germans transport across the country to take Gibraltar.

I’m also not sure of whether Chile or Argentina were really pro-axis or anti colonialism (given Germany was one of the few great powers without colonies).  I’m not too familiar with Latin America during the first half of the 20th century.  Maybe some in Latin America might side with Germany…though I personally don’t see why they would do so.

BY the time Hitler might have won against UK and Russia, it would be at a point where they would have their own atomic weapons as well as Japan and I am not sure a B-29 was gonna take off any carrier with that payload.  In fact if they even bothered with USA it would be far in the future with a great consolidation of the recent gains.

When would this be?  I was thinking along the lines of 1946-48 under an assumption of either or (or both) a peace treaty with Britain and victory over Russia.  Clearly no Axis powers would have developed atomic weapons by then.  If we are talking 1960 or later, then I could see the Axis having nuclear weapons by then, but I wouldn’t expect the US (and possibly UK/USSR) being unable to either win the war, or at least turn back the Axis in many arenas (N. Africa, Pacific, parts of Asia) well before this timeframe even with an Axis consolidation of large parts of Eurasia.

[Imperious Leader]

Perón and Pinnocet modeled their leadership on that of fascist leaders. Right down to the uniforms and entire look of the regime.

There is little difference in the leadership of Mussolini, Franco, Perón and Pinnocet. The people who supported them all felt this was the right type of leadership in the 1940’s

If Hitler fought in Spain for Franco, its not much of an extrapolation to assume Hitler would latter use his connection to form 5th column in South America.

Its like saying Hitler will help Israel fight her enemies, assuming his stance against the Jews.

If he lost men and resources helping Spain, he cant have any issues with South America.

[Zooey72]

Well, this is Hitler’s wet dream come true.  The reality of it IMO, is that if England and Russia fell Roosevelt would have called for peace.  At that point we are the ones fighting a 2 front war with Japan in the pacific and the germans in the atlantic.  Also I think the way they have the Germans going to brazil from Africa would have been dumb.  If we were to be invaded take england, than Iceland, greenland through Canada and than the US.  Logistics is a nightmare for either side crossing 2 oceans - but that would have been the best way to do it.  But it would have been abundently clear that we could not win the war if Britian and Russia fell.  The Germans would have had the best real estate in Russia and England.  But the Japs would have gotten India, Australia, New Zealand - blah blah blah.

We could have dragged the war out to the early 60s because we are protected by 2 huge oceans - but we would have been destined to lose.  At that point make a deal with Germany/Japan to buy time.  Fortify the crap out of our continent and make em pay dearly if they try to attack us.  I think Tojo/Hitler would have gone for that deal.  They would have owned most of the world and would have figured it was just a matter of time before they got us too (and prob. would have been right).

[Pvt.Ryan]

It’s just like what this forum was amde for. AXIS AND ALLIES! If your playing a vanilla game and UK and SU fall doe’s US win? Never unless they took over Japan. If any of you have played a game where the exact opposite happened speak up!

[The Dessert Fox]

Image if Sanger had been able to make his space bomber???

[221B Baker Street]

I’m not sure the fall of England and the USSR would mean certain, even if delayed, defeat of the USA.

Its one thing to take a country, quite another to hold it.  The cost of taking a nation by force pales in comparison to the cost of occupying.  The Japanese pretty much was maxing out its army just to hold E. Asia.  They didn’t have the manpower to take and hold all of China, let alone India, Australia, etc. let alone invade the USA.  Had Germany defeated the USSR, they would have needed most of their army just to hold the vast area of Western USSR.  The axis wouldn’t have enough resources to hold these gains and conduct any offensive actions at the same time.

Even if offensive actions against the USA were possible, that doesn’t mean that they would prevail.  The industrial production of the USA was greater than the combined production of the Axis…simply put, the USA was still a giant.  And having some incredible technological advances beyond the capabilities of the Axis such as advanced radar, sonar, the proximity fuse, high octane airplane fuel, etc.

Even besides this, there was always the A-bomb option for the USA…how many nuked european cities would Hitler permit before suing for peace?  It is highly unlikely they could have developed their own before being forced to come to terms favorable to the USA.

[Zooey72]

No offense, but some of what you posted is just naive.  We aren’t talking about us turning Iraq into a democracy.  If we wanted a stable Iraq we could have it in a month after their military was defeated (with a quarter the number of troops).  If we adopted the inhuman tactics used by Hitler, Tojo, or even SH the population would have been beaten into compliance.  I am not suggesting we should have done that, but it has been done and it is an effective way to control a population.  The British empire did it for 100s of years, we did it to the indians, SH did it to his own people (like the Kurds).  The nature of the regimes in Germany/Japan assures you that they would have done whatever was nec. to subdue the population - paticularly the Japs who were more racists towards us than the Germans would have been (Bataan death march).

We could not have outproduced Germany by itself, much less adding Japan, had Russia and Britian fallen.  Even put aside the fact we would have no industrialized trading partner which would stifle our own economy, the rest of the industrialized world would have been producing against us.  We could not comepete with that.

You have a point with the A-bomb… but how exactly were we going to deliver it if Germany held England?  W/o the island hopping we did against japan, it would be impossible to drop one on them either.  A doolittle raid would not be possible.  The B-29s could barely pick up that bomb, and there was no way they could fit those on a AC.  And than there is the very strong poss. that the whole program would have been dropped once things got as bad as it did.  Would you spend $ on weapons develepment in A&A if both England and Russia fall?

But lets say we do develop the bomb, find some way to deliver it, and manage not to get invaded during all this.  We only had 3.  One had to be tested, no way around that.  If you drop one and it doesn’t explode you just gave your tech to the enemy.  Than we have 2.  There are no places on the mapthat would have changed the outcome of the war.  What it would have done was get teh germans to race to get a bomb of their own.  And unlike us they have a much better delivery system in the V2.

[221B Baker Street]

It isn’t so easy to beat a population into submission.  Using inhumane tactics often leaves the population with powerful grievances nothing left to lose, and therefore creates more resistance.  Granted, this can be possible as shown by Stalin’s work in Chechnya…where by shipping most of the population to Siberian gulags, this was temporarily achieved.  By the way, how is Chechnya working out today (about 70 years later) for Russia?  How did Afghanistan work out for Russia?  It is telling they left because it was simply too expensive for them to continue; which will eventually be what happens to the US in Afghanistan as well.

If an invader wishes to annex a large territory by force against a large population (and Chechnya is quite small) who are opposed, the armed forces can never leave.  That is my point…much of the German war machine would be forced in holding actions in Russia. Spending this kind of resources would not leave much for the Germans to use against the USA, though of course they would have sufficient oil and other resources they needed as somewhat of a tradeoff.

The USA could not outproduce Germany?  Before the war the USA industrial output exceeded that of the combined axis by quite a bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

Lets take 1942 as the base year.  The USA alone had industrial output of 1235 compared to an Axis combined of 902 (units of billion international dollars, 1990 price) which includes the help from their conquests.  Under the assumption of the fall of Russia, we could maybe add their full total of 274 and the Axis production would still be less…1176 < 1235.  I would also suggest that the Russian scorched earth policy would prevent this from ever happening.

Now the addition of the $353 from the UK would potentially have the axis at a greater level than the US…1529 > 1235…except from this we should subtract Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, S. Africa, etc. as well as whatever scorched earth policy the UK enacted.

I wasn’t able to find numbers of the industrial ouput for the parts of the British empire without the UK, but it is significant.  See for example, Canada alone had a very substantial industrial production…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_World_War_II

Over the course of the war, 1.1 million Canadians served in the Army, Navy, and Air Force. Of these more than 45,000 lost their lives and another 54,000 were wounded.[5]The financial cost was $21,786,077,519.12, between the 1939 and 1950 fiscal years.[6] By the end of the War, Canada had the world’s fourth largest air force,[7] and third largest navy.[8] As well, the Canadian Merchant Navy completed over 25,000 voyages across the Atlantic.[9] Canadians also served in the militaries of various Allied countries.

Regarding the A-bomb.  Yes, we only had three in 1945.  How many thousand (or tens of thousands) did we have in 1955?  Had the war continued, no doubt more would continue to be built.  And regarding a delivery system, which would be easier to develop/reverse engineer, the A-bomb or the V-2?  We would have developed a suitable delivery system, I think, before the Axis could have duplicated the manhattan project.

[Wilson2]

@FieldMarshalGames:

@Imperious:

Latin America would have sided with Nazi Germany knowing they (being considered an “inferior” race)

Argentina and Chile were pro axis and had totalitarian governments. Also, Spain was the link to all of them and Hitler had no ill will against Spain. Germany already established glider clubs and many business relationships with them in the 1930’s

How could Spain support Hitler if he had this racial bias against Latin peoples?

BY the time Hitler might have won against UK and Russia, it would be at a point where they would have their own atomic weapons as well as Japan and I am not sure a B-29 was gonna take off any carrier with that payload.  In fact if they even bothered with USA it would be far in the future with a great consolidation of the recent gains.

This is exactly what I was trying to say.  It seems SILLY from the perspective of 42-45…  But these were LONG TERM plans for dealing with the United States.

There is a problem with long term plans. Germany would have become a huge socialistic nation ruling its people by force. That cannot be held for very long. The Soviet Union collapsed and they weren’t even at war. I believe that even if Germany and Japan had taken all but the US, they would have to fight so hard over it that they would give up and agree to peace. Then later the German and Japanese empires would collapse and break up.

[Imperious Leader]

I disagree entirely. German Reich and Japanese Empire installed very harsh control over subjugated peoples. Its not even close to Soviet Union 1980’s. People who got out of line would have been sorted out long before they were able to agitate any issues and once the world was under their control, various peoples would be eliminated while others would be entirely deprived of any education. Over time languages would be eliminated except for approved ones and most of these people would be treated like animals. Culture would be eliminated as well as most religions and eventually even that would be removed.

It would be not unlike Gattaca with a small underclass of people working as slaves on farms.

All opposition would be eliminated in time and satellite nations might receive some autonomy but these would be granted to peoples who fought for Germany in the war.

Everything else would be liquidated and national borders reset. IN about 50 years time, the people who lived in areas where the Reich was not well established would resemble something what the Romans faced north of the Hadrian wall in the 1st century.

Possibly in 100 years time the German people might themselves reexamine their recent History and attempt to rescind some of these horrible policies, but by that time most of the victims and peoples would have not been around anymore.

[221B Baker Street]

Zooey and IL, thank you for your input on this matter.

Your responses indicate that you both believe sufficient use of brutal tactics would be sufficient to eventually establish sufficient control over a conquered territory such that the net benefits exceed the costs.  Though I still disagree that this is always the case (and I disagree this would have been the case regarding the Soviet and Chinese territories during the 1940s and onward had the axis managed to extend the war  as per the assumptions under this thread); your thoughtful responses have made me think about this subject further.

To begin with, I decided to think about past events which bear similarities.

Some examples where this type of actions may have succeeded:
   The settlement of the USA and Canada, maybe even parts of Latin America.
   Minor boundary changes in Europe (such as Alsace and Lorraine).
   Settlement of Australia and New Zealand.

Some examples where this type of action did not succeed:
   European colonies in Africa and India
   Vietnam for the USA and Afghanistan for the USSR
   American colonization in the Philippines

Which of these most resemble the Axis efforts?  Any other examples which may be more similar?

What specifics would have lent a measure of success (or failure) for the axis.  I would submit that the distinction that would have resulted in ultimate failure to assimilate the annexed areas into the Axis is the very large number of inhabitants present in conquered Europe and Asia.  As the Russians and Chinese (not the mention the rest of the conquered territories) greatly outnumbered the Germans and Japanese, I do not think assimilation or annihilation would have been possible.  Your thoughts?

[Imperious Leader]

Your responses indicate that you both believe sufficient use of brutal tactics would be sufficient to eventually establish sufficient control over a conquered territory such that the net benefits exceed the costs.  Though I still disagree that this is always the case (and I disagree this would have been the case regarding the Soviet and Chinese territories during the 1940s and onward had the axis managed to extend the war  as per the assumptions under this thread); your thoughtful responses have made me think about this subject further.

To begin with, I decided to think about past events which bear similarities.

Some examples where this type of actions may have succeeded:
    The settlement of the USA and Canada, maybe even parts of Latin America.
    Minor boundary changes in Europe (such as Alsace and Lorraine).
    Settlement of Australia and New Zealand.

Some examples where this type of action did not succeed:
    European colonies in Africa and India
    Vietnam for the USA and Afghanistan for the USSR
    American colonization in the Philippines

Which of these most resemble the Axis efforts?

None of your examples and not even remotely. All your examples are somewhat fixated on a world that has some checks and balances, where some nations can protect others out of the common decency of humanity. A global empire of Germany and Japan would remove any implement that even had the slightest qualm about killing entire populations.  The only example i can say is close would be when the Spanish gave small pox to the Mayans, or when Genghis Khan basically exterminated Asia Minor, except worse. Far worse.

Germany and Japan would have exterminated everything they didn’t like. The few people they managed to let live would be toiling on far away fields in untold labor camps. The globe would be exploited for a much fewer population of people with the balance to left to die. The worlds population would be dropped by 2/3 in 50 years time.

The people who were left would not complain about the past, the standard of living for the conquerors would be very good, since they now have all this land and resources and a vastly reduced population that would need to be fed. It would be another Roman Empire and some very remote areas in arctic mountains where people lived without language, culture and where mostly savages living day to day.

All History would be removed and published information all lost unless it supported the German or Japanese goals.

[221B Baker Street]

IL, while I fail to see any checks and balances in the colonization of Africa (it seems to me a mad rush to conquest by all industrialized nations without any decency) perhaps better examples exist during the actual war.  But first, I want to clarify the actual German intent for conquered areas.  The formal plan was Generalplan Ost:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

After the war, under the “Big Plan”, Generalplan Ost foresaw the deportation of 45 million non-Germanizable people from Eastern Europe, of whom 31 million were “racially undesirable”, 100% of Jews, Poles (85%), Belorussians (75%) and Ukrainians (65%), to West Siberia,[2] and about 14 millions were to remain, but were to be treated as slaves.[4] In their place, up to 8-10 million Germans would be settled in an extended “living space” (Lebensraum). Because the number of Germans appeared to be insufficient to populate the vast territories of Eastern Europe, the peoples judged to lie racially between the Germans and the Russians (Mittelschicht), namely, Latvians, Estonians, and even Czechs, were also supposed to be resettled there.

Where even the Germans could see their population was insufficient for such a vast area, necessitating keeping at least some of the native populations present.  Now how many German soldiers would be necessary to keep the 14 million within the boundaries under control and also hold a defensible border against incursions (both direct and infiltration for guerrilla warfare) from the Ural or Caucasians?  Considering the vast size of Russia, that would be a very considerable number of German soldiers and considering the Nazi experience during the war in Yugoslavia, I doubt the Nazis would have found E. Europe worth the effort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Partisans

The occupying forces instituted such severe burdens on the local populace that the Partisans came not only to enjoy widespread support but for many were the only option for survival. In certain instances, Axis forces and local collaborators would hang or shoot indiscriminately, including women, children and the elderly, up to 100 local inhabitants for every one German soldier killed. Furthermore, the country experienced a breakdown of law and order, with collaborationist militias roaming the countryside terrorizing the population. The government of the puppet Independent State of Croatia found itself unable to control its territory in the early stages of the occupation, resulting in a severe crackdown by the Ustaše militias and the German army.

Note that in Yugoslavia, harsh oppression resulted in more resistance because once the population has nothing left to lose, they have no choice but to fight back.  Also note that the Germans were unable to control all of Yugoslavia…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugoslav_Front

The Partisans fought an increasingly successful guerrilla campaign against the Axis occupiers and their local collaborators, the Serbian Government of National Salvation, the Ustaše-controlled Independent State of Croatia, and the Chetniks (which they also considered collaborators). They enjoyed gradually increased levels of success and support of the general populace, and succeeded in controlling large chunks of Yugoslav territory. People’s committees were organized to act as civilian governments in areas of the country liberated by the Partisans. In places, even limited arms industries were set up.

which means they would likewise have trouble controlling all of Russia.  Now I realize that most German forces were fighting in Russia at that time, but this still points out the difficulties, and immense cost, of eliminating resistance by brutal force.

With these difficulties, how much effort would Germany have been able to use to continue the battle against the USA?

[Imperious Leader]

All the examples of partisans are possible because Germany was fighting a world war and against some a war of extermination.  Once the war was over, we are talking 14 million soldiers ( and another 10 million Japanese) being used to systematically employ into police duty and wage extermination.  The resources diverted would have a huge devastating effect compared to the allocated personal they had DURING the war.

Once they won, the army would have become focused against suppression and duties relating to liquidation of entire populations of people. The army would have turned into the SS and politically trained soldiers who would be used to locate and target all undesirable peoples.

Yugoslavia partisans were viable because the army was used on the eastern front. The extermination camps were the only measure of liquidation possible given the resources they had during this world war. Also, since the war was still going on people had hope that to fight might make a new result, in Russia partisans felt that the war was not lost.

But all these things are only possible if the world war is still being fought.

while I fail to see any checks and balances in the colonization of Africa

England and France as well as most of the colonial players did not exterminate peoples of Africa on any mass level, no concentration camps were made and no people were killed en masse. Colonial neglect might have cost the poverty level to cost a few lives.

Italy did ruthlessly suppress Abyssinia, but didn’t exterminate the people as part of some plan.

After the war Hitler would have given rewards for German woman who had children and promoted a re-population of formerly conquered territories as they become available.

[221B Baker Street]

IL,

The whole point to Germany taking over Eastern Europe (and likewise Japans conquests) is to be able to compete with the industrial output of the USA, which as shown previously was significantly greater than that of Germany.

However, the commitment of millions of soldiers to control these areas means these soldiers are not available to assist with the German war effort against the attacks from the USA (whether by strategic bombing or operation overlord).  Now once Germany was successful in liquidating these populations as you say (which as you say and as shown by example in Yugoslavia would take decades), then these forces would be available, but…

without the production of the people in these conquered areas, German does not have this extra income.  Therefore Germany still doesn’t have enough industrial production to compete.  It is a catch 22 for Germany, the production comes from the people and the Nazis wouldn’t have that.

Slave labor camps?  This halfway solution, I think, provides the worst of both worlds as it still requires large numbers of military forces but with a declining production in comparison.