Was Japan actions WW2 'logical'?

[PainRack]

Japan actions during WW2 was literally.... insane on so many levels, waging a major war against the US as well as other colonial powers, while stuck in a war in China that always took up no less than 1/2 of Japan army until the end and defending a hostile border against the Soviet Union.......

So, I'm sure many of us would agree that her actions were not rational.


But was her actions logical?


The sequence of events as I can trace it arises from Prime Minister Yamagata speech to the Diet in March 1890, where he advocated that Japan needed to project power overseas to defend her core interests, chiefly in korea, so as to carve out a buffer zone against Russian aggression. Russia power in the East was increasing, thanks to the Trans Siberian Railway and Japan was afraid of Russia invading Japan.

Sino Japanese war and Japanese Russian wars later, the immediate threat of invasion was gone but Japan had staked her security on a buffer zone in Korea..... At this point in time, economic pressures drove Japan interests in Manchuria, as a form of seeking land space, resources and markets for further expansion. WW1 further drove this expansion, as Japan sought to gather the resources needed for autarky needed for total war.

The consequences of her imperialism and drive to gather resources needed for total war, irregardless of her north or south expansion would eventually have driven Japan into aggressive actions which would had caused a similar defeat sooner or later.


The question is, was such an action logical? Surely at any point in time during the pivotal years of 1930, Japan could had given up the needs of autarky, or even accept status as a second place power, or be vulnerable to economic/trade disruption if the alternative was a disastrous war that would destroy her as a nation.


However, if we examine Yamagata speech and actions in 1890 and onwards, a continuous point in Japan national defence policy was the fear of being conquered or exploited, if not Russia then by other Imperialist powers. Given the nearby example of Qing China, as well as Perry opening up of Shogunate Japan, is it not logical to argue that if Japan failed to achieve the ability to defend herself, a descend into second class power would had threw her into the exact same state as China?

[Sinewmire]

How accurate is the conception that the Japanese military believed they could not be defeated, what with the whole "Divine Wind" belief?

If they genuinely believed themselves destined for victory, can we expect them to be completely rational?

I've no idea how accurate that idea is, of course, my studies comprise entirely of having read George Macdonald Frasier's war books, (Quartered Safe Out Here etc.) and Three Walked Out by Agnes Keith, neither of which are exactly academic studies.

[PainRack]

This is the first time I heard of Divine Wind spoken of in this manner...... but then, I don't read Japanese so.....

[Sidewinder]

Any act can seem "logical" if the person justifying the act, is a skilled orator; one need only read about the US Republican Party's insanity in N & P to understand. And the Japanese belief in their racial superiority made them downright delusional, blinding them to the flaws in their logic.

[spaceviking]

The Japanese did not think they could not be defeated. Despite their propaganda they were well aware of American industrial might. The Japanese simply thought they could conqueror significant territory before the Americans would be able to respond effectively; and planned to be so dug in that war would be too long and brutal for the Americans to bear.

[Zwinmar]

I read somewhere that severel actions were enacted against imperial orders, such as the army attacking china and the navy attacking pearl. Haven't had time to see if I was just contrived bs yet.

[Stark]

How accurate is the conception that the Japanese military believed they could not be defeated, what with the whole "Divine Wind" belief?

Have you ever read a book about a dictatorship? The belief in FINAL VICTORY is often core to the mindset engendered by that kind of control. The Nazis also believed that iron spirit and implacable will could never be defeated. Once you short circuit your brain to '... Because we will win' its very hard to make good decisions.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I read somewhere that severel actions were enacted against imperial orders, such as the army attacking china and the navy attacking pearl. Haven't had time to see if I was just contrived bs yet.

And I have read somewhere: "The closer to the emperor you get, the fuzzier the situation. Five million people fought for him and now he denies all responsibility. What kind of man does that?" I think a large part of it is postwar propaganda.

The belief in FINAL VICTORY is often core to the mindset engendered by that kind of control.

It is at the sime time an unsolvable problem because fascism teaches that life is an endless struggle of survival; so what happens when the chosen ones prevail? The Turner Diaries actually end this way: a nuclear war annihilates all the "lesser" races and leaves white people alone on the earth, but there's absolutely no mention of what kind of society these white survivors form. There's no mention not so because it's not important, but because fascism is literally incapable of forming an endgame.

[Dominarch's Hope]

No, that *is* the endgame. The Non Whites are dead and can never again "threaten" the survival of the White Race.


The stupid part about that book, not horrifyingly evil but just plain stupid, is assuming that enough of civilization remains intact to rebuild and that the environment isnt fucked over. Especially since the kind of firepower required and thoroughness of use is outright insane. The only other way is for conventional capability to remain intact enough to go around and finishing the job. Either the massive and outrageous use of nuclear weapons has fucked over everybody or several nations are going to be fighting over the scraps.

Even going with the Insane levels of Evil, the Turner Diaries is pure stupidity. From in universe, it is likely nothing more than a White Supremacist' experiences during a nuclear war, with race being just another issue. There is no victory. Only horrendous disaster for everybody.

[Vendetta]

How accurate is the conception that the Japanese military believed they could not be defeated, what with the whole "Divine Wind" belief?

Have you ever read a book about a dictatorship? The belief in FINAL VICTORY is often core to the mindset engendered by that kind of control. The Nazis also believed that iron spirit and implacable will could never be defeated. Once you short circuit your brain to '... Because we will win' its very hard to make good decisions.

This is the concept that Popper called 'Historicism', and diagnosed as the downfall of both Marxist communism and Fascism. (briefly in The Poverty of Historicism, at great length in The Open Society and Its Enemies)

Essentially, the mindset includes a firm belief that a given future history is inevitable. In the case of marxism it was the eventual ascendency of the proletariat over the capitalists (which justified revolution, or even justified the current oppression because it would create the conditions for revolution), or the eventual rise of Germany in Hegel's German idealism (Hegel was basically a sell out who philosophised whatever his patron, the King of Prussia, wanted to hear, so he recycled Platonic fascism for German consumption).

[Zinegata]

Post-war studies of the economic numbers tend to show that the economic power of the Axis powers actually declined in spite of their new conquests - for the simple reason that economic power is much more than simply capturing the land in which the resource is produced. The Japanese in particular didn't even have enough merchant ships to support their economy, starting the war at something like 3.5 million tons in the hole.

In short, the faction that controlled Japan during the Second World War were chasing after an unattainable dream. They were really insane in the sense that they refused to look at the numbers and wedded themselves to a particular ideological idea (Conquer to become stronger!), to the point that they started assassinating people who disagreed.

You can be "logical" and try to create a best-case scenario plan to achieve your unattainable objectives, but that is different from being "sane" or "rational", because sanity is contingent on basing your decision on actual, solid facts instead of simply the deluded ramblings of ideology or imagination.

[Dominarch's Hope]

They never really had time to make real use of their conquest, and in Japan's case, were severely overheating and desperately needed to slow down on purely military spending. Nazi Germany suffered from a severe drop in trade and wasting away men and being uable to put them back into the economy. Not to mention they were unable to make full use of every single factory, manpower notwithstanding, due to hard shortages of rubber, tungsten and other materials.

Neither Japan nor Germany had time to make use of their conquests of the 1939-1942 period. They were too busy fighting and making war materials and bleeding by the millions. So the conclusion that conquest doesnt make you stronger is simplistic and a severe exaggeration at best.

I mean, lets just assume that Barbarossa doesnt happen, Britain and Germany had got a peace agreement post France but the Nazis still take over the rest of Balkans. That leaves the Germans with a chunk of North Africa basically in their control and nearly the entire current EU under their direction. How does that weaken them?

No, conquest can make you stronger, if you get to use it.

[Sidewinder]

No, conquest can make you stronger, if you get to use it.

To use resources acquired via conquest, you must have peace in the conquered territories- partisans and guerillas can easily make the need to secure these territories, consume far more resources than what the conquests could provide. Thanks to policies so stupidly racist, they were counterproductive to the Japanese and German governments' goals, there was no chance the Axis could properly exploit their conquests- survival in the face of a genocidal regime, is a great motivation for starting a resistance.

Before anyone mentions Native Americans, note their numbers were too low, their resources too few to effectively challenge the colonists.

[CaptHawkeye]

This is the concept that Popper called 'Historicism', and diagnosed as the downfall of both Marxist communism and Fascism. (briefly in The Poverty of Historicism, at great length in The Open Society and Its Enemies)

Essentially, the mindset includes a firm belief that a given future history is inevitable. In the case of marxism it was the eventual ascendency of the proletariat over the capitalists (which justified revolution, or even justified the current oppression because it would create the conditions for revolution), or the eventual rise of Germany in Hegel's German idealism (Hegel was basically a sell out who philosophised whatever his patron, the King of Prussia, wanted to hear, so he recycled Platonic fascism for German consumption).

Much of this attitude extended from lessons learned about the colonial era in European history. Europe's history had been dominated by power struggles and prestige based upon the infamous land grab concept. World War 2 has not incorrectly been referred to as the last great colonial land grab in history. The strongest nations on Earth seemed to all have in common huge land area, thus the Axis powers concluded that correlation *was* causation. You can be a superpower one day too! All you have to do is grab that Lebensraum.

[PainRack]

Any act can seem "logical" if the person justifying the act, is a skilled orator; one need only read about the US Republican Party's insanity in N & P to understand. And the Japanese belief in their racial superiority made them downright delusional, blinding them to the flaws in their logic.

So, what flaws existed in their logic?

Their basic assumption was that Japan required an empire so as to defend itself, because
1. Buffer Space
2. Resources
3. Markets

The requirements for defence was autarky and total war.

If Japan doesn't have this, she will descend to being a second class power, otherwise known as China being brutally raped by every other country including Japan.


Autarky and total war was WAS true for that period of time. If anything, WW2 proved it because Japan failed to accomplish a war situation where it was a short war, any total war would crush Japan. She was unable to achieve a short war with China. Much less with Russia. And all of these major powers were threats to Japan interests.
The Great Depression and trade tariffs showed that barring the free trade comittments post WW2, autarky was a needed element for independence. Failure to achieve independence will once again= China, as shown repeatedly by her failed attempts to modernise.


It wasn't rational because any examination of the facts will show that Japan was doomed as an Empire. But was her actions still logical?

[Dominarch's Hope]

No, conquest can make you stronger, if you get to use it.

To use resources acquired via conquest, you must have peace in the conquered territories- partisans and guerillas can easily make the need to secure these territories, consume far more resources than what the conquests could provide. Thanks to policies so stupidly racist, they were counterproductive to the Japanese and German governments' goals, there was no chance the Axis could properly exploit their conquests- survival in the face of a genocidal regime, is a great motivation for starting a resistance.

Before anyone mentions Native Americans, note their numbers were too low, their resources too few to effectively challenge the colonists.

Partisans and guerillas alone can only be an annoyance for a certain ammount of time. Especially against an enemy that is simply out for an extermination. Otherwise, the partisans and such have only a limited time. In the case of a victorious Nazi Germany, 1955 at the latest before all major resistance of note is wiped out in the former Soviet Union. Cant fight without food, ammo, and people. The first would become difficult to come by and the second nigh impossible eventually.

Partisans and guerilla warfare against enemies not willing/able to commit genocide can very frequently be successful, however. But if the conquerors plan to kill everyone anyways, nothing a mere band of partisans, by themselves, can do will change the outcome

In the case of the Japanese, Manchukuo was already winding down in terms of partisans, but beyond that the major issue was weapons and ammunition to fight the Japanese with. So the Japanese might have had partisan activity well into the mid 60s unless they decided on doing what the Nazis had planned. Even then, still would have had partisan activity for a very long time.

[Zinegata]

Partisand are moreover only a relatively minor issue. Again, the huge problem with Japan is that it was lacking in everything. Conquering oil-producing regions is not gonna be worth much if you don't have the transport ships to actually send the oil back to the Home Islands where it was needed.

The real issue is that the leadership of Japan and Germany did not understand how actual successful empires worked. They believed in a model that revolved around taking from others what they lacked, without realizing that the cost of conquest - in terms of resources spent on the military, and the consequent loss of other vital trade goods & services from other nations (e.g. the use of foreign merchant shipping to supply the Home Islands) - far outweighed the paltry gains from acquiring resources or "markets".

For instance, even if we assume that Japan's policies were not retardedly racist and there was much more active collaboration, none of the areas they conquered would really end up buying Japanese goods because the people in those "markets" won't have anything to trade. Singapore for instance owes its wealth due to trade between China, India, and South East Asia. Being conquered by the Japanese means that the trade link to India is severed and Singapore just becomes a big destitute island with no resources.

Similarly, if you're going to be paying for Malayan rubber workers anyway, why not simply just keep the peace and buy them off local businessmen?

"Conquer to become stronger" was simply a terrible, terrible idea to begin with.

[Dominarch's Hope]

That last sentence. Its...wrong in everyway.

How do you think Russia and the US got so powerful? Conquest was part of it. A big part.

No, what the Nazis didnt understand was that even if they could defeat the Soviet Union by itself, it couldnt, but even if it could, it failed to realize that all of its enemies would help each other out. So they ended up facing the 3 most powerful nations on Earth at once.

And thats stupid.

No, had the USSR say had another rebellion or revolution in the 20s or early 30s which stunted and fucked up their growth and the British filed for peace after the Fall of France, then whatever the price paid by Germany to get that Lebensbraum and Russian resources, as long as it was pure and total catastrophe, it would have been worth it.

Oil, rare minerals, massive propaganda victory, etc etc. Not to mention Uranium and having the entire continent to itself, guaranteeing that in 35 years at most that it exceeds the US in monetary and military power.

But Japan? Yeah, they would have had to have had to expand their merchant marine by shitloads. Doable. But still...

Unless you mean terrible as in evil. Which would be basically true.

[Zinegata]

That last sentence. Its...wrong in everyway.

How do you think Russia and the US got so powerful? Conquest was part of it. A big part.

Because the situation of the Russians and the United States is not comparable to Imperial Japan or Germany. Which you may have realized had you actually looked at the results of Imperial Japan's "conquests" rather than simply blathering motherhood generalizations.

Russia "conquered" a lot of stuff but not much of it was actually useful. Siberia for the most part was an undeveloped wasteland until much, much later. Until Siberian oil started flowing in huge quantities, Siberia was just a drain on resources.

The United States meanwhile expanded against essentially weak tribal peoples with no real problem from other Great Powers (in large part because they actually BOUGHT a good chunk of the land - see the Louisiana Purchase. Even the Mexican War ended with the US "buying" land albeit at a very discounted rate). Shooting up Native Americans or Mexicans didn't cause the Brits to stop trading with them; and it was trade with the British that was the cornerstone of the US economy for much of its early history.

Compare that to the Japanese conquests. Again: The Japanese gained resources, but in doing so they lost other stuff - resources spent on the military, and more importantly access to goods provided by the other Great Powers that they decided to attack.

Really, what kind of stupid regime attacks a nation that supplies it with 3.5 million tons of shipping to keep its economy going? And just so they can claim they now "own" Malaysia and its rubber plants instead of simply buying the rubber?

Conquest is a terrible, terrible idea because aside from the material costs of the military, there are diplomatic consequences. People do not like trading with warmongers, because the steel you sell today could end up being used to build a tank invading your country tomorrow. And without trade, a modern economy simply cannot function very well. Very few military campaigns of conquest ever pay for themselves unless you're looking at multi-generational perspectives; and it was certainly not the perspective of the Japanese leadership who were dealing with problems in the here and now.

[Dominarch's Hope]

You merely stated that conquest for resources in itself is a bad idea. Nice changing the goalpost to "The situation was different".

[Dr. Trainwreck]

No, that *is* the endgame. The Non Whites are dead and can never again "threaten" the survival of the White Race.


The stupid part about that book, not horrifyingly evil but just plain stupid, is assuming that enough of civilization remains intact to rebuild and that the environment isnt fucked over. Especially since the kind of firepower required and thoroughness of use is outright insane. The only other way is for conventional capability to remain intact enough to go around and finishing the job. Either the massive and outrageous use of nuclear weapons has fucked over everybody or several nations are going to be fighting over the scraps.

Even going with the Insane levels of Evil, the Turner Diaries is pure stupidity. From in universe, it is likely nothing more than a White Supremacist' experiences during a nuclear war, with race being just another issue. There is no victory. Only horrendous disaster for everybody.

Fascism has a lot of objectives. After the blacks are exterminated, it's not over. Leftists and homosexuals all over the world, democracies, and other things in which whites partake. So no, just killing the other races is not the endgame because fascism teaches that struggle and war are a part of life, and life itself. Which means that a fascist can never find peace, because he can't simply stop struggling against others -doing so is death. Which taken to its logical conclusion means that fascism will always die or win with no middle ground; which is unsound, but which fascist "intellectuals" have never considered in their incoherent ramblings.

[Zinegata]

You merely stated that conquest for resources in itself is a bad idea. Nice changing the goalpost to "The situation was different".

Where did I change goalposts? I said you example was stupid and that military conquests that actually pay off were still the rarity. Missed this second part?

Conquest is a terrible, terrible idea because aside from the material costs of the military, there are diplomatic consequences. People do not like trading with warmongers, because the steel you sell today could end up being used to build a tank invading your country tomorrow. And without trade, a modern economy simply cannot function very well. Very few military campaigns of conquest ever pay for themselves unless you're looking at multi-generational perspectives; and it was certainly not the perspective of the Japanese leadership who were dealing with problems in the here and now.

So why don't you actually name a few conquests that actually paid off?

Your Russia example was stupid, as Siberia was nothing but a money sink for generations to the point they were thrilled to sell Alaska to the US for money. Nobody really wanted Siberia, it weakened the Russian regime; so again why are you holding this up as some kind of vindication that "conquests makes you stronger"?

Your US example was stupid; how can you call the Louisiana Purchase a "conquest"?

Again: "Conquer to become stronger" is a stupid, stupid idea. Before we even get into the morality of it.

[Simon_Jester]

Any act can seem "logical" if the person justifying the act, is a skilled orator; one need only read about the US Republican Party's insanity in N & P to understand. And the Japanese belief in their racial superiority made them downright delusional, blinding them to the flaws in their logic.

So, what flaws existed in their logic?

Their basic assumption was that Japan required an empire so as to defend itself, because
1. Buffer Space
2. Resources
3. Markets

The requirements for defence was autarky and total war. If Japan doesn't have this [they reason], she will descend to being a second class power, otherwise known as China being brutally raped by every other country including Japan.

Autarky and total war was WAS true for that period of time. If anything, WW2 proved it because Japan failed to accomplish a war situation where it was a short war, any total war would crush Japan...

Er... I don't see it. By 1890 Japan was already industrializing to the point where they were a very unappealing target to imperialists. Imperialists don't want to fight a peer competitor as part of their predations. Japan was not in danger from that.

What made Japan vulnerable was pursuing a policy of imperialism into the 1930s, in an era when the rest of the world was starting to turn against such things*. And ignoring warnings to stop, which were issued for the sake of overall world peace. If they had been content to remain in their own territories, no one was planning any attack against them.

*Anticolonialism wasn't a powerful force yet, but people were a lot more allergic to "and then we massacred the primitives to secure economic power over them" than they had been 50 years ago.

Partisans and guerillas alone can only be an annoyance for a certain ammount of time. Especially against an enemy that is simply out for an extermination. Otherwise, the partisans and such have only a limited time. In the case of a victorious Nazi Germany, 1955 at the latest before all major resistance of note is wiped out in the former Soviet Union. Cant fight without food, ammo, and people. The first would become difficult to come by and the second nigh impossible eventually.

Partisans and guerilla warfare against enemies not willing/able to commit genocide can very frequently be successful, however. But if the conquerors plan to kill everyone anyways, nothing a mere band of partisans, by themselves, can do will change the outcome

In the case of the Japanese, Manchukuo was already winding down in terms of partisans, but beyond that the major issue was weapons and ammunition to fight the Japanese with. So the Japanese might have had partisan activity well into the mid 60s unless they decided on doing what the Nazis had planned. Even then, still would have had partisan activity for a very long time.

For practical purposes, then, their conquests wouldn't do any Axis nation a damn bit of good. Because they'd need colonies to be profitable now, not some time next decade. Since their outside enemies wouldn't stop fighting as long as the colonies were in chains, the Axis would have to balance the cost of a decade long war against the profits from the colonies. It's just not worth it, even if you tally up the balance sheet in 1965 or 1975 instead of 1945.

You merely stated that conquest for resources in itself is a bad idea. Nice changing the goalpost to "The situation was different".

No, his point is that "conquer to become stronger" is a cartoonishly stupid version of imperialism, and that the 1930s fascists (in which I include Japan) were cartoonishly stupid to believe in it. And he's right: that's not how imperialism works.

Wealth (since 1700 or so, anyway) comes from development, not from plunder. War provides plunder, but not development. For an empire to become stronger through war, it must do one of two things.

One, it can be expanding into a vacuum. If there is no organized opposition, it can just build on the 'conquered' territory, practically ignoring any enemies on that territory, and create development there. The US did this against the Native Americans, building railroads, mines, and farms on conquered land while spending virtually nothing to push away the natives. The military expense of conquest was utterly tiny, so it was possible to profit from gaining the land.

Two, it can have a very long time to consolidate its gains, in the total absence of opposition. It took the Romans a long time to consolidate each burst of conquest- Italy, Greece, Hispania, Gaul. The Romans spent decades fighting war after war to subdue each of these territories. They might have become net positives to the Roman balance sheet eventually, but I suspect it didn't happen within the life expectancy of any of the generals who won the wars. If they did, it was only because back in Roman times, plunder (carting gold home to Rome) was the way to profit from conquest. Whereas today, that will not work.

[PeZook]

The other problem is that modern industry resources that in themselves need pretty developed infrastructure to acquire. Gold and food and iron to battlefield loot to melt down and reforge into armor and weapons was easy to plunder. Furs and honey and timber were all easy to gather without much infrastructure at all ; But how do you plunder oil, or coal, or rubber or rare earths or technology?

You can steal machine tools from factories and cart them off home, yes, but all those natural resources you can make into valuable things are...stubborn, and demand construction of industrial enterprises of their own if you want to exploit them, all the while you are spending men and industrial output on keeping the natives from constantly blowing them up - and the transport system which carts them off.

So it takes decades of grinding through a quagmire, while your enemies fuel weapons and money and training to guerillas who hate you as if you're Satan himself. This is why all modern states do imperialism via proxy: there might still be war and violence, but you are at least spending your money and someone else's blood. And child soldiers are cheaper than tanks, but very effective in places where life is cheap and their enemies have little advantage...

You might also conceivably avoid pissing off the world and your army is home, training and ready to crush the nuts of your real enemies instead of being slowly consumed by guerillas.

It is, in fact, a key economic property of industry that it efficiently turns raw resources into goods with tremendous added value...buying access to resources is generally easier than spending all the added value you want to keep on stealing them.

EDIT: Okay, yeah, I just wrote all that and it's basically the exact same thing Simon already said. Now I feel I wasted all that time trying to sound relevant

[Dominarch's Hope]

Louisiana purchase still had dozens of Native tribes, some of which were fairly powerful and not all to friendly.


No, the goalpost were changed.

From conquest to get stronger is a bad idea, to its a bad idea because people will wardec you and generally not like you.


Oh and British Imperialism is so good that even though none of their major territories were invaded, they still lost the empire after WWII due to going broke.


Russia only lost what it did due to actual revolution and being invaded. The USSR might be comparable, but it still didnt lose, proportionally, even half of what the British lost.


The point of conquest for resources, is that the locals dont get to tell you "No" anymore. Sure it takes time, but its usually worth it.


So what if Siberia was a drain, it paid off in the end.


Louisiana Purchase? Still had to contest the natives for it to some degree.


Wait! Whats this?


The Mexican-American War. Where the other third(roughly) of the nation was conquered and taken by force.

Did that territory pay off? Damn straight it did. It payed for itself ten times over or more by 1900.


But what you dont get is that, nations tend to last for centuries, especially powerful ones. If it takes 50 years for a conquest to start paying for itself, its still worth it as long as the nation still has it.

Oh and talking about Siberia, then mentioning Alaska? Nice. But that doesnt work, because the Russians had to get there by sea in the first place, on one of the roughest seas in the world, and once they got there, found a land exceptionally difficult to explore, much less settle on.


Where as Siberia wasnt half as far, and it was mostly flat tundra compared to Alaska. Even better, without conquering Siberia and that particular area in general, they would never have reached the Pacific.


Is Vladivostok worthless? Does a port on Pacific yield nothing? Thats what the Trans-Siberian railroad was built for. To make it worthwhile.


Seriously. Bringing up Russia and America as an arguement to why conquest doesnt work is just flat out denial. Both nations became what they were thanks to conquest. If it takes time to develop, so what? As long as you got the time, youre good. Thats what Japan and Nazi Germany never had. Time. They were too busy bleeding their economies of millions and there treasuries in billions to ever make use of their conquest.

We could assume that for whatever reason, the USA stays out of both wars, and the USSR is in worse condition or just plain unlucky, then Japan and Nazi Germany get their land.



For the Nazis, by 1943, they would have slowed down recruitment of men into the Werhmacht and are now constructing rail to Baku and the Caucuses. Or just repairing the damage. Thats oilfields the British can barely hope to touch. The Ukraine is now entirely in Nazi hands, so thats the food situation taken care of. About the main thing they will still face shortages of is rubber and a few other things.

Japan? Its main goal now would be to start construction of further merhcant marine vessels as soon as possible, something that they are capable of but waited too late to do so. Not that it would have mattered against the USN.

1950-Both of them are making damn good progress in making use of their new conquests and drawing resources from them. Britain has long since reached a peace agreement with the Nazis while continuing naval expansion to delay the now inevitable. The Nazis by now have the entirety of Scandinavia under there control, they may or may not have taken Switzerland, Italy is a puppet as is Spain in everything but words.

Thats the vague theoretic.


But thats what you are missing. Nations last. Unless destroyed by an outside force themselves.


It took 30+ years for the conquest of the Mexican war to be fully utilized, but they were damned worth it. Siberia and the Pacific ports? It took until the 20th century for the first to be worth it and not even that long for the Pacific ports to prove there worth.


Decades. Thats a decent long time.


Thats all Nazis and Japan never had. Time. Thats what every conquering nation needed to make use of their newly taken territories. Time. Even the French territories might have paid for themselves if they had been able to openly keep them.


Modern Nation States? That is an entirely different arguement. Modern nation states arent allowed to exterminate or otherwise brutally slaughter natives by the tens of million. Modern Nation State politics involve MODERN GODDAMN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Are you fucking serious? Not even remotely comparable.