Hmmm, What If? Very Scary!

[Silverbackman]

Here is the most worst case scenario the world could of gotten into.

Most WWII Historians agree that if Japan did not attack the US at Pearl Harbor, and instead helped the Germans with the war against the Soviet Empire (attacking the through the East), we would be living in a very different world! The Japanese forces combined with German forces would have eventually overpowered the Soviet Empire and would to taken it over. My guess is that Japan and Germany would have divided Russia in two, East Russia for Japan and West Russia for Germany.

Now there would only the US and Britain left. Most agree Germany would easily destroy Britain after the war against Russia and take Britain over. Finally, although the US has atomic bombs most would still think the combined forces of Germany and Japan would have overpowered the US.

And if this happened, again we would be living in a very different world today. A world ruled by Germany and Japan. VERY SCARY THOUGHT! If Japan attacked Russia instead of the US, this would have happened!

Japan would have probably controlled most of Asia, all of Australia, and perhaps western North/South America. Germany would have proably controlled all of Europe, most of Africa (Italy was more like a puppet of Germany), and probably eastern North/South America.

How would you predict the world would have been if under this rule? How do you think long do you think it would have taken for Germany and Japan to fight for whatever (obviously there will always be a rival war in years to come over control of land)? There are a lot of negatives if the axis won, but can you think of any positives? Do you think the world would have modernized faster or slower if under Germany and Japan?

[Emoni]

Oddly enough, people instantly think eternal Nazi rule and hell on earth when they think of German or Japan winning World War II. Same goes for Japan. Honestly, you can't really assume anything just because the more read history the more you find that small flukes tend to swing fate for a loop when you least expect it. Another turn of events I believe was midway, when the American "accidently" just passed over an entire Japanese carrier fleet while most of its plane partols were gone leaving it unprotected. Even if they won, it wouldn't have remained the same for long, you could have actually ended up with Hilter dying an accidental death 3 days after victory from choking on a hotdog, and then 10 years later all the countries break away into peaceful nation states. You never know, which makes it soo interesting to think about.

Now getting back to the question. Neither country would have ever held control over that much land for that long. Neither (even now) country was developed enough technologically or politically to maintain perminant and total control over that large of lands. Things tend to swing to one extreme then back through time, maybe for as long as 50 or even 100 years things would have been horrible. It would have fallen apart or changed. Oppress people long enough and you suddenly find yourself off your throne, look at Chinese history and how long their dynasties tended to last and end. Things were great, but squeeze hard enough and slowly lose control after a few centuries and suddenly there is a revolution and new government... which then repeats the same or similar mistakes.

It's always interesting to play with "What if?" stories, although for some reason I never heard of this one even though it seems fairly logical to consider.

(Sorry for the horrid grammar errors, I'm dead tired and too lazy to recheck it ;P)

[Silverbackman]

Oddly enough, people instantly think eternal Nazi rule and hell on earth when they think of German or Japan winning World War II. Same goes for Japan. Honestly, you can't really assume anything just because the more read history the more you find that small flukes tend to swing fate for a loop when you least expect it. Another turn of events I believe was midway, when the American "accidently" just passed over an entire Japanese carrier fleet while most of its plane partols were gone leaving it unprotected. Even if they won, it wouldn't have remained the same for long, you could have actually ended up with Hilter dying an accidental death 3 days after victory from choking on a hotdog, and then 10 years later all the countries break away into peaceful nation states. You never know, which makes it soo interesting to think about.

Now getting back to the question. Neither country would have ever held control over that much land for that long. Neither (even now) country was developed enough technologically or politically to maintain perminant and total control over that large of lands. Things tend to swing to one extreme then back through time, maybe for as long as 50 or even 100 years things would have been horrible. It would have fallen apart or changed. Oppress people long enough and you suddenly find yourself off your throne, look at Chinese history and how long their dynasties tended to last and end. Things were great, but squeeze hard enough and slowly lose control after a few centuries and suddenly there is a revolution and new government... which then repeats the same or similar mistakes.

It's always interesting to play with "What if?" stories, although for some reason I never heard of this one even though it seems fairly logical to consider.

(Sorry for the horrid grammar errors, I'm dead tired and too lazy to recheck it ;P)

Yea of course the inhumane treatment of the Axis power of the German and Japanese would eventually come to end, but it would have lasted for at least 50 more years, maybe more or less.

However, it does not mean that the empires of Japan and Germany would have gone away. If they ruled with an iron fist, as well as keep the empire in line both powers might have been able to keep their empires for a very long time. Rome lasted for nearly 1,000 years, and then 1,000 years as the Byzantines (total 2,000 year empire!). So if "what if" empires of Japan and Germany ruled like how Rome did a modern sense, there is a large chance they could have held their empires as long as the Romans did.

Either way, we would be living and an extremely different world. We would probably be listening to the Nazi top 10 music, and here the Japanese National Anthem everyday :eek:. Live in Western United States, so it is possible that I would be in the "what if" Japanese Empire.

[Mycernius]

Silverback man san, you mentioned that the in your alterante history that the US had the atomic bomb. I would just like to point out that the Nazi where very close to having their own atomic bomb in 1942. The research was being carried out in Norway, and was eventually destroyed by Norweigian troops, parachuted from Britain. The British tried to destory it themselves but they didn't have the local knowledge of the area and the weather. Try to imagime that senario. Hitler with an atomic bomb - three years before the Americans. If you like alternate histroy there are a good many books out there about this subject. Try Robert Cowley for studies, or Harry Turtledove for fictional alternate histories

[bossel]

I would just like to point out that the Nazi where very close to having their own atomic bomb in 1942.
I don't think Germany was ever "close" to making an atomic bomb. German scientists tried to construct a nuclear reactor, but that was it pretty much.

BTW, even if Germany would have won against the SU, it's rather questionable whether Hitler would have pursued the war against the UK. Most probably he would have sought a favourable peace agreement. Invading the US was even lower on Hitler's priority list than England.

Most of the continental European countries, with the exception of large parts of Eastern Europe as well as the Alsace & some other chunks in the West, probably would have been set free under Nazi-friendly governments. A prolongued occupation is highly unlikely.

[RinniGal]

i think communism is a great thing....
dictatorships...that's democracy without all the frills to me.
and splitting half and half the americas
yea right...that woulda resulted in another war

[TwistedMac]

Here is the most worst case scenario the world could of gotten into.
Hehe.. I'm sorry.. couldn't read the rest because it struck me how American this sentence is.

the "most worst".. well.. usually "worst" is already the extreme in itself... and "world could of gotten into"... this is something I have noticed Americans around the web using more and more (sorry to use your thread for this and I'm not trying to bash on you at all.) but have Americans completely accepted replacing "have" with "of" in sentences like that?

Because as far as I know, it's wrong and should be "world could have gotten into" but I've been seeing it a lot lately wherever I see Americans typing...

Really want an answer :/

[Silverbackman]

I don't think Germany was ever "close" to making an atomic bomb. German scientists tried to construct a nuclear reactor, but that was it pretty much.


Actually, German scientists knew how to make an atomic bomb before any other nation believe it or not, including the US. The Nazi’s equivalent to Einstein; Heisenberg already knew how to make the atomic bomb before Einstein figured it out, but did not reveal it to Hitler and the Nazis he was working for because he knew the destruction Hitler would have done with it. It is a good thing Heisenberg didn’t give the Nazis the Atomic Bomb, or it would have given Nazi Germany a lot more power.

After that the Nazis would have most likely given the bomb to the Japanese, who have a knack at improving Germen technology and they would have probably created an even more efficient atomic bomb in Japan (just like how Japan made all the war planes given by Germany better for fighting).

Hehe.. I'm sorry.. couldn't read the rest because it struck me how American this sentence is.

the "most worst".. well.. usually "worst" is already the extreme in itself... and "world could of gotten into"... this is something I have noticed Americans around the web using more and more (sorry to use your thread for this and I'm not trying to bash on you at all.) but have Americans completely accepted replacing "have" with "of" in sentences like that?

Because as far as I know, it's wrong and should be "world could have gotten into" but I've been seeing it a lot lately wherever I see Americans typing...

Really want an answer :/


I usally use "would have" if you look at most of my posts, forgot that time ;-).

[TwistedMac]

After that the Nazis would have most likely given the bomb to the Japanese

Oh I seriously doubt that.

Hitler wasn't exactly known for loving the japanese, nor for being true to his little pacts (read: alliance with Russia)

He wouldn't arm a possible future enemy.

I think if Hitler had won, Europe would have prospered... under a dictator and without freedom of speech and everything else we take for granted, true.

But still, Europe probably would've been a fantastic place to live for your avarage aryan.

[Brooker]

I think in all honesty if Germany/Japan had won the war, they either wouldn't have been able to hold onto their power for long OR we all would come to accept our new ruler and would go about our lives because we kind of wouldn't have any choice and it's what we would have grown up with and gotten used to. It might all begin to seem very normal (which is a pretty scary thought).

Remember, the perception of what's right or acceptable is often formed by whomever wins. Think of all the terrible things that have happened in history that now don't seem as terrible (or we just don't bother to think of them anymore) because we've grown up in a world that is a product of those events.

But I think that even if the events of WWII had unfolded differently, Germany/Japan were still destined to loose that war and the world is better off that they did.

[Ewok85]

I saw an excellent book on this topic in my favorite big bookstore about 3months back, its all "what if" stories written by historians who are experts on the individual areas, ie a WWII expert gives his ideas of what it had been like if the Americans hadn't nuked Japan but decided to go ahead with their invasion plans, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/042518613X/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/002-2415817-7141601?v=glance&s=books&st=*
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0425176428/002-2415817-7141601

(I'll check what it is exactly on Wednesday and maybe buy it :D)

Its a bit harsh to say it would have been worse, for all we know it could have been better, at the very least we know it would have been different.

[Mycernius]

BTW, even if Germany would have won against the SU, it's rather questionable whether Hitler would have pursued the war against the UK. Most probably he would have sought a favourable peace agreement. Invading the US was even lower on Hitler's priority list than England.

Most of the continental European countries, with the exception of large parts of Eastern Europe as well as the Alsace & some other chunks in the West, probably would have been set free under Nazi-friendly governments. A prolongued occupation is highly unlikely.
You are right about Hitler wanting peace with the UK. The war between Britain and Germany was sometging Hitler didn't want. He saw Britain as one of the Aryan countries and didn't think that we would go to war over the invasion of Poland. Up to 1942 Hitler still wanted peace with the UK. He would let them keep their empire (which he admired) and the Royal family.
In some ways he was actually hasty with Poland. Remember, several days after German invaded west Poland the Sovits invaded east Poland. If he had waited and let the Soviets invade first he could have then gone into west Poland saying he was stopping the advance of communism into Europe. The western powers would have probably sided with him and we would have had Hitler as an ally and probably defeated Soviet Russia in WW2. How about that as an alternative

[bossel]

Actually, German scientists knew how to make an atomic bomb before any other nation believe it or not, including the US. The Nazi’s equivalent to Einstein; Heisenberg already knew how to make the atomic bomb before Einstein figured it out, but did not reveal it to Hitler and the Nazis he was working for because he knew the destruction Hitler would have done with it.
Sorry, but I think you got that wrong. If I remember correctly an article I read some years ago in the German version of Scientific American, Heisenberg was on the wrong track all along.
It's more of an urban myth that Heisenberg didn't want the Nazis to have the Bomb. He probably even tried to persuade Bohr into developing a German a-bomb (which would have been a failure, anyway, if they followed Heisenberg's line of research), but was unsuccessful.

[bossel]

There is just a new book out in Germany called "Hitlers Bombe" by Rainer Karlsch. He claims that some scientists (not Heisenberg et al., but some obscure SS guys) actually developed a nuclear bomb & tested it in March 1945. The evidence seems quite crappy, though, & if I understood the review on TV correctly, it wouldn't have been a real nuclear bomb, anyway. Sounded more like they were describing a dirty bomb.

[Mycernius]

There is just a new book out in Germany called "Hitlers Bombe" by Rainer Karlsch. He claims that some scientists (not Heisenberg et al., but some obscure SS guys) actually developed a nuclear bomb & tested it in March 1945. The evidence seems quite crappy, though, & if I understood the review on TV correctly, it wouldn't have been a real nuclear bomb, anyway. Sounded more like they were describing a dirty bomb.
Nuclear bomb, dirty bomb, still would have been a defining point in the war if they had used it.

[bossel]

Nuclear bomb, dirty bomb, still would have been a defining point in the war if they had used it.
Hmm, I don't think so. At least not, if the destruction zone is as described by the historian. He spoke of some 500 square meters (which means a radius of just 12.5 meter). Large conventional bombs can have bigger destruction zones, I think.

Here is a BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4348497.stm) about the book.

Quote:
""The eyewitnesses he puts forward are either unreliable or they are not reporting first-hand information; allegedly key documents can be interpreted in various ways," said the influential news weekly Der Spiegel.

"Karlsch displays a catastrophic lack of understanding of physics," wrote physicist Michael Schaaf, author of a previous book about Nazi atomic experiments, in the Berliner Zeitung newspaper.

"Karlsch has done us a service in showing that German research into uranium went further than we'd thought up till now. But there was not a German atom bomb," he added."


Another question would have been whether Germany would have used a nuclear weapon at all. Mind you, they never used C-weapons on the battlefield, although they had quite a number of those.

[caramelili]

if your question resides in the speculation that the world would of evolved faster or slower if the second wolrld war had turned out different than it did, then i simply have to tell you that the world would of probably stayed the same. Ok ok american views of what the world should be is completely different than what the rest of the world thinks(most of it being because of their uncanny obsession towards blind neutrality). One thing i can tell you is that education would of been more emphasized and the world would of been ruled by dictators and supremacists all over it. which sounds pretty scary. over all, the same thing that goes on today would of been going on too. There is no telling of when German rule would of been overthrown, when the countries would of been divided, when culture shock would of happened. to me it looks like the world would be turned at a 180 degree angle. However hatred would of still existed and probably to a worse degree than it exists now. i'm happy and unhappy with the way the world is, i dont think i'd be happy if hitler had won WWII though

[Mycernius]

[QUOTE=bossel]Hmm, I don't think so. At least not, if the destruction zone is as described by the historian. He spoke of some 500 square meters (which means a radius of just 12.5 meter). Large conventional bombs can have bigger destruction zones, I think.
QUOTE]
I wasn't really thinking of destructive power, more of the radioactivity left over. How do you defend a population against that? Remember at the time they didn't know to much about radioactivity and its effects. There's a great picture of various scientists standing where they had tested the first Atom bomb several hours after it went off, with no protection.