Nazi invasion scenarios in US article ( Life Magazine 1942)

[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.

[Gargantua]

That’s the only part of these documents that’s not believable.

They don’t have the resources to finish the Russians, and still haven’t rolled over the U.K.  But somehow they are going to sail across the atlantic and PASTE the American east coast?

[Imperious Leader]

Well i think you  made a wrong assumption. The kaiser during the great war made plans to invade USA and these are official documents and also assumed that UK was not conquered. I can get you a link but google it. These plans were fairly extensive. I have seen the maps prepared and they are not like these Life magazine maps

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/09/kateconnolly

[FieldMarshalGames]

@Imperious:

Well i think you  made a wrong assumption. The kaiser during the great war made plans to invade USA and these are official documents and also assumed that UK was not conquered. I can get you a link but google it. These plans were fairly extensive. I have seen the maps prepared and they are not like these Life magazine maps

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/09/kateconnolly

Operational Plan Three

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

[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?