Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What if:--Nazi Germany vs. Imperial Japan


  • Please log in to reply
105 replies to this topic

#1 Fire_spit

Fire_spit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 09 September 2004 - 11:53 PM

I have a what if that has popped into my mind a few times. I have just found these WWII forums and thought this would be the perfect place to have some fun with some speculation...

What if Nazi German won the war in Europe, defeating and occupying Africa, Britain, and Russia.
and.
What if the Empire of Japan won the Pacific war and defeating and occupying the U.S., China, and Austrailia.

There might have been some years of getting along between Germany and Japan since they were allies during WWII. But in my opinion it would be inevitable that the two countries would be at war with each other. Nazi Germany was "the master race" and all subhumans should be destroyed as they obviously tried to do at the time. Japan also thought they were a superior race and all lower forms of life should be destroyed.
Each govornment basically wanted to rule most of if not all of the world. Sooner or later one of the two countries would decide to get rid of the other 'subhuman' race.

Which country do you think would have ended up the 'Ruler of the World'? Could the Empire of Japan survive the Nazi Blitzkreig? Could Nazi Germany withstand the bloodthirsty determination of the Japanese onslought?

I am curious to hear all your thoughts on this.
Wayne
If the enemy is in range...SO ARE YOU!!

#2 Martin Bull

Martin Bull

    Acting Wg. Cdr

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,793 posts
  • LocationLondon, England.

Posted 10 September 2004 - 05:55 AM

Definitely a 'way-out- what-if ; but given your parameters :

I'd reckon Germany for overall world domination. My opinion is that Germany ( despite its' excesses ) would be better at co-opting the resources of the various countries which it occupied ( eg France in WWII as an example ).

The Japanese would be less likely to gain full co-operation, especially in the case of the USA and Australia, principally due to cultural differences and mutual incomprehension.

But then, what do I know anyway ? ;) smile.gif
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

#3 Maverik

Maverik

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 08:25 AM

My first thought was to go with Japan, as they would be able to fund their war by supplying TVs, Cars, Walkmans and CD players to the US (oh wait that came later!).

No seriously I thought that Japan having a superiour Carrier fleet(combined US) would be of major significance but would this advantage in the pacific carry to the Atlantic and Med? I don't think so. With the vast expanse of these sides Europe and Euroaisa would 'blockading Germany' have any affect.

So I would think things would develop as they did between the Soviets and the Americans where they would develop Nucs and Chemical Weapons.

So in summary we would all loose beacause these guys would not have refrained from using the things!
A good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan executed tomorrow.
Patton

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
David Friedman

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

#4 TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 09:47 AM

I wanna know where they are gonna fight? Meet halfway in Russia or the Middle East? Or are the Japs gonna sail round and do D-Day..?


Plus I really dont see why they would fight, they would both have vast spheres of influence and prosperity anyway, fighting would just weaken their positions and ferment resistance.

A rather 'way outta left field...' What if! ;)
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

#5 Maverik

Maverik

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 11:10 AM

Yes Red Baron, but Think of the gaming possibilities Japanese V Germans!
A good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan executed tomorrow.
Patton

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
David Friedman

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

#6 Friedrich

Friedrich

    Expert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,547 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 02:28 PM

Being this a what-if I won't be nit-picking and mention than neither Germany nor Japan could have defeated any of the three Allies. But I'll use my imagination. smile.gif

I do not think there would have been much conflict between the two empires, because of their own vast areas of influence and because none had enough power to conquer and occupy the whole globe.

And in the case of a cold-warm war between Japan and Germany I think it's something like Great Britain and Germany. They nulify each other's power. Germany simply can't defeat the Japanese Imperial Navy, no way. And the Japanese Imperial Army can't defeat the Wehrmacht. Simply because each force is designed for something specific and their strategy and tactics simply do not allow them to fight each other, not to mention Geography!
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

#7 Maverik

Maverik

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 151 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 03:23 PM

That is what I was trying to say but you put it much better!
A good plan violently executed today is better than a perfect plan executed tomorrow.
Patton

The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
David Friedman

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

#8 Fire_spit

Fire_spit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 11 September 2004 - 12:13 AM

General.. I agree with you totally that Germany nor Japan really could have ever defeated any of the allies. But I still think, that even tho they would have huge areas of contol to themselves, the character of each respective govornment at the time just would not be able to leave well enough alone.Expansion, greed, and any threat that they would see to their power would have to be eliminated. I agree also that neither one probably could have really have the power and capablity to conquer the whole globe but I don't think that would have stopped them from trying.

Plus there are so many variables that could enter into the equation as mentioned.."Where the heck would they fight"? That in itsself would make a lot of difference in who might or might not win.
A land war would, in my opinion, be a Whermacht victory without question. But a naval war..that is tough.

Japan had a super powerfull navy at the start of the war but Germany, left alone to build ships with the quality and size that they were so famous for. ??That would be a tough choice??

Good point too Maverick. Both Germany and Japan were at different points in developing nuclear weapons and you are probably right. They probbly would not have hesitated in using them in big numbers against any of their enemies. In their minds it would just be a quicker way to get rid of more of the enemy at one time.
If the enemy is in range...SO ARE YOU!!

#9 FramerT

FramerT

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts

Posted 11 September 2004 - 01:34 AM

The battleship Yamato was pretty big. The Japs had more experience with carrier warfare. It might be interesting how Germany would have accomplished island-hopping battles like Iwo or Saipan. Japan's willingness to fight to the last,dug in deep caves vs. Tiger tanks. :( Or Jap planes diving into Hitler's beloved warships. :eek:
Posted Image

#10 Fire_spit

Fire_spit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 11 September 2004 - 03:15 AM

On the German side it could go two ways too.
If you have standard Whermacht troops, I don't see them having the tenacity and lasting power to beat the Japanese in island campaigns such as Iwo Jima. But if you put in hardcore SS troops, that might be a different story. Although the SS a lot of times got a little reckless and overzealous which ended up with quite high casualties because of that recklessness. Even tho...SS troops against dug in Japanese is a very interesting scenario. ...although.., :) noone could ever do it as good as the U.S. :)
If the enemy is in range...SO ARE YOU!!

#11 Stefan

Stefan

    Cavalry Rupert

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,368 posts

Posted 11 September 2004 - 09:16 AM

I pretty much agree with what has been said, though it depends on the terrain as well. However Fire_spit, I disagree about the Wehrmacht, if the Kriegsmarine provided the means to land troops and some of the top knotch Wehrmacht troops were used I see them doing at least as well as the USMC did. After all, they had the tenacity to hold off the Ruskies, German shock troops, GD or SS troops were some of the finest in the world and so would probably do fairly well.
There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending.
[sigpic][/sigpic]

#12 Fire_spit

Fire_spit

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 11 September 2004 - 12:26 PM

Very good point Stefan. I guess I just wasn't willing to give the Whermacht the credit they really deserve. They were a very formidable fighting force. The length of WWII proves how good they really were.
If the enemy is in range...SO ARE YOU!!

#13 De Vlaamse Leeuw

De Vlaamse Leeuw

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 31 October 2004 - 11:18 PM

I also think that Germany and Japan wouldn't attack each other, because they would conrol vast territories of land and a lot of people.

In this scenario we can also conclude that the only continent that needs to be capture is America, which Japan and Germany + their Alies - if they wanted to - could better do together.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

#14 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,821 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 04:36 PM

What,if after Pearl Harbour,Hitler declares war on Japan(symbolic;)) as a gesture of cooperation tot the "war of the white race against the yellow danger"? Such a gesture coming fom a racist as Hitler should not be illogical. Advantages: USA: strenghtening of the lobby of "Japan first"(or "Japan only ") in their fight against the Roosevelt administration with as policy-even before Pearl Harbour - "Germany first". UK: no more aid from the USA and strenghtening of the Chamberlainites and the imperialists with as motto:defence of the empire first. USSR: no Lend Lease(I know:it was not that important,but yet) and Stalin feeling betrayed by his allies an the Grand Alliance exploding. Any comments?

#15 jeremyhill

jeremyhill

    Dishonorably Discharged

  • Dishonorably Discharged
  • PipPip
  • 6 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 04:48 PM

This is weird how can germany declares war on japan world war 2 already happened >.<

#16 Kruska

Kruska

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,866 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 05:03 PM

....Such a gesture coming fom a racist as Hitler ?...


Hello LJAd,

Hitler wasn't exactly a racist - I never heard or read about him speaking ill of Arabs, Indians or red-Indians or their relatives in South America.
Hitler was just a crazy fu...r with a fu...d up racial idiology- thats about it.

As for declaring war against Japan - well, he could have been crazy enough to do that - but IMO it wouldn't have changed anything. Could he have send his U-boots to attack the IJN? were would have been a benefit for the allies to reverse their strategy?

Regards
Kruska
Imagine there is a WAR!!! - and your TV doesn't work

#17 SPGunner

SPGunner

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 239 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 05:08 PM

I thought Japan and Germany already had a treaty by that time. Germany needed Japan's help w/ Russia.

#18 Kruska

Kruska

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,866 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 05:16 PM

Hello SPGunner,

Well it is after all an "What if" thread, and Japan didn't really "help" Hitler in regards to Russia, so ......

Regards
Kruska
Imagine there is a WAR!!! - and your TV doesn't work

#19 JagdtigerI

JagdtigerI

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,352 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 06:10 PM

If Germany declared war on Japan it would have really mixed things up.

By means of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" Russia and Britain would now be allied with Japan against Germany and the United States, but Britain would also now be allied with Germany and the United States against Japan. And I supposed Russia would be against the United States :panic:

But it wouldn't really make much sense for Germany to ally with the U.S., a country providing supplies to their enemy Britain. And against a county they had already signed a pact with.

Also I don't see much Germany would be able to do against Japan half a world away, without a strong navy.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

#20 Devilsadvocate

Devilsadvocate

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,194 posts

Posted 17 July 2009 - 06:19 PM

I thought Japan and Germany already had a treaty by that time. Germany needed Japan's help w/ Russia.


Japan did have a treaty with Germany and Italy called the Tripartite Pact, but it was a defensive treaty, and only came into play if a party not already involved in the European war attacked any of the signatories. Japan also had a non-aggression treaty with the Soviets even though Japan was a member of the Axis (which was created by the Tripartite Pact) and the Axis was at war with the Soviet Union.

Hitler could have declared war on Japan, but he couldn't make it a real war; Germany could hardly even communicate with Japan, let alone make war on them in late 1941-42. The only thing that would change is that Hitler would become a laughingstock in Europe and the US, and be even more distrusted by the nations of the world. Nothing would change in how he was perceived in the US, nor would the US stop aiding Britain and the Soviet Union, or making war on Germany.

It's absurd to think that Hitler could gain anything by declaring war on Japan.

#21 LJAd

LJAd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,821 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 04:33 AM

I forgot to add something important(but evident,implicitly) :Hitler declares war on Japan ,but not on the USA! and Hitler not being a racist:one should remember that "race" was the fundament of his policy("arian" you know)

#22 JagdtigerI

JagdtigerI

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,352 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 05:05 AM

I forgot to add something important(but evident,implicitly) :Hitler declares war on Japan ,but not on the USA!


I think that was pretty much assumed ;)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

"If you want peace work for justice" -Pope Paul VI

Jon

#23 macker33

macker33

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 02:13 PM

I thought Japan and Germany already had a treaty by that time. Germany needed Japan's help w/ Russia.

Dont forget hitler had a treaty of sorts with russia too before he attacked them.

Good question though,maybe the usa would have refused germanys advances.

Also about hitler arian ideals that may have led him to war with japan,the arians origionaly swept down into india and then swept west,i doubt hitler ever thought too much about india but maybe he would have swept to his indian brothers defence against japan.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#24 macker33

macker33

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 465 posts

Posted 18 July 2009 - 02:22 PM

Germany would have destroyed japan,not even close.

Half ways between stalingrad and burma is Tajikistan and about ten other stans,
Not tank country and not jungle either.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#25 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,430 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 18 July 2009 - 02:49 PM

Germany would have destroyed japan,not even close.

Half ways between stalingrad and burma is Tajikistan and about ten other stans,
Not tank country and not jungle either.

that seems to be a bit of an exaggeration. For one thing Japan is an island a lot further from Germany than even Britain was and they have a stronger navy.

Indeed if on say 1 Dec 1941 Japan had declared war on Germany the results for Germany would be a lot worse than Germany declaring war on Japan anytime between 1940 and 1945.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users