Nazi invasion scenarios in US article ( Life Magazine 1942)

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).

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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?

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?

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.

If Germany and Japan were able to take over the world and were the last two standing I wonder if Germany would have eventually  begun a war against Japan for being ‘racially inferior’?

@kurt3892:

If Germany and Japan were able to take over the world and were the last two standing I wonder if Germany would have eventually  begun a war against Japan for being ‘racially inferior’?

That’s basically how the alternate-history novel “The Ultimate Solution” ends.  “Power is seized by Reinhard Heydrich and the most fanatical “Contraxists”, who are determined to destroy “the degenerate Yellow Race” even at the price of an all-out nuclear war in which Germany itself would be annihilated.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ultimate_Solution

Sorry for the lateness of my reply, I have been busy lately.  But I have enjoyed this conversation, and wish to continue with it further…@Imperious:

I am assuming that the conquest of Europe, Asia, Africa and South America and the inclusion of various new allies whom all want a piece of the new order would sustain them against any American issues. The totality of occupation of the middle east and all resource rich areas would trump anything US could compete with, but most importantly the combined manpower working for axis aims would totally overwhelm the US. IN 1945 id say the population would be close to 3.5 billion and 3.2 billion would be under axis control against 300K in United States.

I understand and agree the USA could never compete (at least long-term) with the rest of the world.  This is indisputable.

It would only be a matter of time before US was forced to sue for peace having lost all trading partners and exhausted manpower, while the Axis players had new groups of people enlisted in their efforts ( all the middle east nations would have been used a foreign armies employed to help exterminate jews and other peoples). What you say might happen would never come before USA was liquidated long before. The Nazis would have invented even greater means of efficiency at extermination on a scale unimaginable.  The expansion of labor camps and other means would have accelerated the program they had to really limit due to the war.

I agree the Germans would have implemented a mass extermination of all non desirable peoples.  The extermination of Jews took precedence before vital war needs during WWII.  Having acheived victory, can anyone doubt their program would not be accelerated?  But this proves, to an extent, why America and Canada would win.  It would not be 100M N. Americans vs. 3.2B people for the Axis.  It would be the 100 million N. Americans against only the Germans plus the “desirable” races.  That would be some of the Europeans (but not the Russians and other slavs), and some of the European settlers in Africa and Latin America.  Maybe this would include the Japanese as well. I don’t know the actual numbers, but I suspect you would agree this is a much different scenario as the billions of Asians, Africans, etc. would not be participating for the most part.

Also, as Kurt pointed out, the German-Japanese alliance would be likely to fail in the same manner that the German-Russia alliance failed with the start of Operation Barbarossa.

The capability of Yugoslavia did not even remotely resemble any threat to German control over this area, even with scarce resources employed in this task.

My links indicated there were entire areas within Yugoslavia where the Serbs, not the Germans had complete control.  True, the Germans could have moved into any single one of these if they wanted, but clearly they lacked the manpower to do so unless they absolutely had to.  Now a conquered Russia would have freed up troops, but also required a defense against similar activities over vast landscapes and a guard at the Siberian border.  This would consume a significant amount of resources…but  I agree the resource allocation would be only temporary so maybe this buys the USA only a few years of assistance.

The end of the war would have brought unimaginable pressure in the goal of this plan of extermination. Defeated enemies deprived of any government or ability to produce war material, would not just raise up against the new empires. Of course a few railways would get blown up and terrorist activities would occur, but the overall control would remain firmly in German and Japanese hands.

Why not?  Why wouldn’t Hitler be taken out in a coup (there were several attempts during the war) and the German territory broken up into multiple warring sections (either into geographical sections or a true civil war)?  Certainly there would be considerable differences within this new German alliance… This, I think, would have been a distinct possibility.

Anyway, these are my thoughts, I look forward to the opinions of others if they wish to share.