How do you imagine the world would look today if the Axis powers had won World War II?
-
Alternate history is one of my favorite topics, and I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
The Middle East would be a lot more peaceful I can tell you that.
-
Alternate history is one of my favorite topics, and I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
You may be interested in The Man in the High Castle it's both a novel by Phillip K. Dick and TV show on Amazon Prime that explores exactly that premise
-
Alternate history is one of my favorite topics, and I’m curious to hear your thoughts.
Like Russia today.
-
You are contradicting yourself.
Hitler left orders not to be awakened so he slept in on D-Day. Rommel had left his post. Think that wouldn't have changed things?
Stalin had dozens of warnings that Hitler planned to invade. What if he'd taken even one seriously?
What if Hitler had let the Army get the glory at Dunkirk and steamrolled the troops on the beach?
I can think of dozens of times the course of the War changed by the actions of one person.
I'm not contradicting myself. You are not reading the question asked.
-
Hard to say. I'm not a historian, so I can only speculate. I would assume that Hitler would eventually select a successor and there is no way of telling how good that person would be at keeping the Reich in order.
comparable to say Soviet communism’s collapse in the real world
As far as I understand it, the fall of the Soviet Union was preceded by at least a decade of economic struggle that was caused by a multitude of factors. Basically the only thing they had to export was oil and weapons and the only nations they could trade with were relatively poor. When their oil production cost kept rising, they just couldn't keep their exports high enough to import enough food and luxury goods to keep their population happy. This was a prime driver for unrest in regions that bordered the west, especially East Germany who of course got news of what life in West Germany was like. The Soviets were eventually forced to open the Berlin Wall and from there, there was nothing they could do to keep people from just leaving and fully collapsing the economy in the process. To this day, 35 years after the reunion, former East Germany is way behind the rest of the country even though on paper they have the same chances as everyone else, just because there has been a massive brain drain.
So overall, the collapse of the Soviet Union was less a failure of communism itself and more a failure to counteract their economic weaknesses as well as a result of their isolationism. The USA didn't win the Cold War because of the inherent superiority of capitalism but because the world drinks Coca Cola, wears jeans, watches Hollywood movies and works with IBM-compatible PCs. If the Soviet Union had pivoted their economy to those kinds of goods and had managed to export them to the west, they might have become what China is today.
So it all comes down to the question if alternate-history Germany manages to do that. With technology advancing slower overall and therefore becoming less of a factor in global markets, and at the same time keeping a lot of top scientists who in the real world left for the other superpowers, they could probably do it.
The way the economy in the soviet union was micromanaged in super centralised way was key to its collapse, especially the final 10-15 years. Soviet Union did have great innovation spurs in IT, rocketry, etc but it was impossible to diversify said innovations further, impossible to mass market it, impossible to mass export it. The centralised economic system lagged enormously and was incredibly inefficient, 1 town having 500000 jackets but no shoes, other town having 100000 chandeliers but no food etc. On top there was really really high levels of corruption. The economic model was essential in the demise of the Soviet Union, once they let go of some regulations a tiny bit, it all fell apart fast. China paid attention, they keep trying to waggle between statecontrolled and free market... They are well aware similar risks still exist in their state-owned companies to this day.
-
The way the economy in the soviet union was micromanaged in super centralised way was key to its collapse, especially the final 10-15 years. Soviet Union did have great innovation spurs in IT, rocketry, etc but it was impossible to diversify said innovations further, impossible to mass market it, impossible to mass export it. The centralised economic system lagged enormously and was incredibly inefficient, 1 town having 500000 jackets but no shoes, other town having 100000 chandeliers but no food etc. On top there was really really high levels of corruption. The economic model was essential in the demise of the Soviet Union, once they let go of some regulations a tiny bit, it all fell apart fast. China paid attention, they keep trying to waggle between statecontrolled and free market... They are well aware similar risks still exist in their state-owned companies to this day.
Thanks, that's exactly the point I wanted to get across. You found way better words than I ever could.
-
The Middle East would be a lot more peaceful I can tell you that.
Not necessarily. The divisions in middle east today have roots to end of WW1 and collapse of Ottoman empire and decline of British empire. There would still be a shit load of oil in middle east. There would still be limited amount of water... It could be very different, which countries ally, what kind of regimes etc, but not necessarily more peaceful region as a whole.
-
Not necessarily. The divisions in middle east today have roots to end of WW1 and collapse of Ottoman empire and decline of British empire. There would still be a shit load of oil in middle east. There would still be limited amount of water... It could be very different, which countries ally, what kind of regimes etc, but not necessarily more peaceful region as a whole.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]On top of that, Jews fleeing from Europe would still need a place to live and there is a decent chance that the British would still give up Palestine to form Israel. Maybe a few years later and with a few details changed but overall not much of a difference.
-
Not necessarily. The divisions in middle east today have roots to end of WW1 and collapse of Ottoman empire and decline of British empire. There would still be a shit load of oil in middle east. There would still be limited amount of water... It could be very different, which countries ally, what kind of regimes etc, but not necessarily more peaceful region as a whole.
In a world where the axis won, they would have taken a sizable portion of the middle east to secure oil for the war, so the region would look very different.
-
Hard to say. I'm not a historian, so I can only speculate. I would assume that Hitler would eventually select a successor and there is no way of telling how good that person would be at keeping the Reich in order.
comparable to say Soviet communism’s collapse in the real world
As far as I understand it, the fall of the Soviet Union was preceded by at least a decade of economic struggle that was caused by a multitude of factors. Basically the only thing they had to export was oil and weapons and the only nations they could trade with were relatively poor. When their oil production cost kept rising, they just couldn't keep their exports high enough to import enough food and luxury goods to keep their population happy. This was a prime driver for unrest in regions that bordered the west, especially East Germany who of course got news of what life in West Germany was like. The Soviets were eventually forced to open the Berlin Wall and from there, there was nothing they could do to keep people from just leaving and fully collapsing the economy in the process. To this day, 35 years after the reunion, former East Germany is way behind the rest of the country even though on paper they have the same chances as everyone else, just because there has been a massive brain drain.
So overall, the collapse of the Soviet Union was less a failure of communism itself and more a failure to counteract their economic weaknesses as well as a result of their isolationism. The USA didn't win the Cold War because of the inherent superiority of capitalism but because the world drinks Coca Cola, wears jeans, watches Hollywood movies and works with IBM-compatible PCs. If the Soviet Union had pivoted their economy to those kinds of goods and had managed to export them to the west, they might have become what China is today.
So it all comes down to the question if alternate-history Germany manages to do that. With technology advancing slower overall and therefore becoming less of a factor in global markets, and at the same time keeping a lot of top scientists who in the real world left for the other superpowers, they could probably do it.
Thanks for another great answer. I realise now that the comparison with Soviet wasn't very thoughtful of me. I just wanted to imagine something that would have broken up the Nazi German hegemony from the inside.
Another thought is that American products and culture probably are popular partly because they were winners in World War 2.
-
Thanks for another great answer. I realise now that the comparison with Soviet wasn't very thoughtful of me. I just wanted to imagine something that would have broken up the Nazi German hegemony from the inside.
Another thought is that American products and culture probably are popular partly because they were winners in World War 2.
Another thought is that American products and culture probably are popular partly because they were winners in World War 2.
Absolutely. American soldiers being stationed all over the world was fantastic PR. Being stationed long term, they brought along much of what they were used to in the USA. Those luxuries were traded with the locals and of course, if the locals wanted to be seen as fashionable, they just had to have those things.
-
Like Russia today.
Or the US today
-
I'm not contradicting myself. You are not reading the question asked.
it could not have happened and would not have happened, for essentially economic reasons.
The interesting alternative histories are ones that turn on a single fortuitous event.
You said it couldn't happen, then said that there are ways it could have happened.
Also, if you don't want to be part of the discussion, you are free to stay out. other people are participating and enjoying themselves.
-
it could not have happened and would not have happened, for essentially economic reasons.
The interesting alternative histories are ones that turn on a single fortuitous event.
You said it couldn't happen, then said that there are ways it could have happened.
Also, if you don't want to be part of the discussion, you are free to stay out. other people are participating and enjoying themselves.
Also, if you don’t want to be part of the discussion, you are free to stay out. other people are participating and enjoying themselves.
In future then I'll try to remember your handy advice and not say anything that might challenge anyone's views or otherwise spoil your enjoyment. Cheers.
-
Not necessarily. The divisions in middle east today have roots to end of WW1 and collapse of Ottoman empire and decline of British empire. There would still be a shit load of oil in middle east. There would still be limited amount of water... It could be very different, which countries ally, what kind of regimes etc, but not necessarily more peaceful region as a whole.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Literally every problem in the Middle East stems from the Zionist colony established by the Western imperialists and the subsequent Cold War between the US and Soviet Union.
Assuming the Sykes Picot division held and pro Western monarchies in Iraq, Egypt and Iran remained in power, what reason would there be for military coups to depose Western monarchs? Without Soviet support and the threat of Israel, what would be propelling Arab nationalism in the 1950s?
The axis powers had very little interest in the Middle East prior to 1939. Hitler wanted Lebensraum in Russia and Italy was interested in Africa. There's no reason to believe they would start wars in the region if the Gulf Monarchies were willing to sell them oil.
In this hypothetical reality, I'd imagine the Middle East would largely be run by monarchies, with deep ties to Germany and Italy.
-
In a world where the axis won, they would have taken a sizable portion of the middle east to secure oil for the war, so the region would look very different.
Germany was not interested in the Middle East. They wanted Lebensraum in Eastern Europe and Russia. The Gulf Monarchies would have sold them oil in the same way they have been doing to the US as hegemon. There may have been joint ventures like Saudi Aramco but there wouldn't have been CIA coups and regime changes because there would be no Soviet threat.
-
On top of that, Jews fleeing from Europe would still need a place to live and there is a decent chance that the British would still give up Palestine to form Israel. Maybe a few years later and with a few details changed but overall not much of a difference.
The British handed over Palestine to the UN. There would be no UN if Germany won. The UK might have just handed over Palestine to a local friendly Arab monarchy like Jordan
-
Literally every problem in the Middle East stems from the Zionist colony established by the Western imperialists and the subsequent Cold War between the US and Soviet Union.
Assuming the Sykes Picot division held and pro Western monarchies in Iraq, Egypt and Iran remained in power, what reason would there be for military coups to depose Western monarchs? Without Soviet support and the threat of Israel, what would be propelling Arab nationalism in the 1950s?
The axis powers had very little interest in the Middle East prior to 1939. Hitler wanted Lebensraum in Russia and Italy was interested in Africa. There's no reason to believe they would start wars in the region if the Gulf Monarchies were willing to sell them oil.
In this hypothetical reality, I'd imagine the Middle East would largely be run by monarchies, with deep ties to Germany and Italy.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Literally every problem in the Middle East stems from the Zionist colony established by the imperialists
The Middle East has had problems for thousands of years before the state of Israel got established. Its strategic location between Africa and Asia caused Palestine to be conquered by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, European crusaders, Arabs again, Ottomans and the British Empire. Three major religions see Jerusalem as a sacred place and have fought wars over it.
Zionism is definitely a major reason for the problems we have in our timeline but assuming there would be no problems at all seems overly simplistic.
Also, the Axis winning the war does not guarantee that Israel won't get established. There would still be hundreds of thousands of Jews who flee from Europe and need somewhere to live. The Axis, being the cause of the problem, wouldn't be interested in solving it and the rest of the world has basically the same options as in our timeline.
The axis powers had no interest in the Middle East prior to 1939 and there’s no reason to believe they would start wars in the region if The Gulf Monarchies were willing to sell them oil.
I could very well see them trying to stay mostly neutral and selling oil to everyone. Profit is more important than ideology, especially if food and water are scarce. But even in real life, that hasn't kept superpowers from finding excuses to attack oil-rich nations.
-
Literally every problem in the Middle East stems from the Zionist colony established by the imperialists
The Middle East has had problems for thousands of years before the state of Israel got established. Its strategic location between Africa and Asia caused Palestine to be conquered by the Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, European crusaders, Arabs again, Ottomans and the British Empire. Three major religions see Jerusalem as a sacred place and have fought wars over it.
Zionism is definitely a major reason for the problems we have in our timeline but assuming there would be no problems at all seems overly simplistic.
Also, the Axis winning the war does not guarantee that Israel won't get established. There would still be hundreds of thousands of Jews who flee from Europe and need somewhere to live. The Axis, being the cause of the problem, wouldn't be interested in solving it and the rest of the world has basically the same options as in our timeline.
The axis powers had no interest in the Middle East prior to 1939 and there’s no reason to believe they would start wars in the region if The Gulf Monarchies were willing to sell them oil.
I could very well see them trying to stay mostly neutral and selling oil to everyone. Profit is more important than ideology, especially if food and water are scarce. But even in real life, that hasn't kept superpowers from finding excuses to attack oil-rich nations.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It's easy to think that the Middle East is chaotic because of what's going on now but the region was at peace for over 500 years under Ottoman Rule.
Western Imperialism and Israel are the reason the region is a mess.
-
Germany was not interested in the Middle East. They wanted Lebensraum in Eastern Europe and Russia. The Gulf Monarchies would have sold them oil in the same way they have been doing to the US as hegemon. There may have been joint ventures like Saudi Aramco but there wouldn't have been CIA coups and regime changes because there would be no Soviet threat.
Germany was actively trying to get some level of control over middle east oil during the war. Their failure to secure reliable and plentiful oil is a big reason they lost. The campaigns in north Africa were largely about control of Egypt and the Suez canal. Part of the invasion to Soviet lands was also opening a route to the middle east.
