What if the Axis won the War?

Kurt, you’re preaching to thew choir here, we all know that things weren’t as black and white as your standard history class/text book/TV documentary leads us to believe. Hell, I go out to WW2 reenactments as a GERMAN solider, Stahlhelm, Adler eagle insignia, K98 and all. So yeah, I get it, the Germans weren’t all that bad, but I really don’t see the need, or reason, to be a fawning apologist for a regime that was a brutal totalitarian dictatorship and more importantly, went kaput sixty-some-odd years ago. Whats the point? What are you going to achieve by falling all over yourself to make excuses and present examples of the “redeeming qualities” of the Nazis? Kurt, you are wasting your, what I perceive to be, substantial talent for research, historical discussion, and adventure into historical hyperbole, on this. No matter the beginning of the topic you seem to lead things in this direction and in the end it goes too far the thread gets closed.

So please my friend, can we talk about something else?

Since this is a thread on “Axis” victory, perhaps a discussion on what a victory would have looked like and ment for the other Axis members, like Japan, or Finland, or my personal favorite, Hungary  :-)

Ah.  Next time I’ll use bananas.

That is an acceptable medium.

@empireman:

What if the axis won world war 2?

Since this is the actual question of this thread, I think I will give answering it a shot.

I have found quite a lot of history that does not match up with the official storyline we were taught in school.  You never read in school about Germans being used for slave labor after the war.  We are told that we had no idea Japan was coming towards Pearl Harbor even though a mountain of evidence suggests we had to have known.

That said, I think Hitler has been portrayed as too big of a bad guy and may not have done everything ascribed to him, or intended to do many of the things we have been told he would have had Germany won.  One such issue is World Domination.  Germany put no effort into building strategic bombers, something they would have needed to win if they were seeking global domination.

Certainly Germany had advanced technology, but much like Japan versus The United States, simply not enough manpower or resources to win if the Sleeping Giant decided it wanted to win instead.  For Germany to have won, so much had to have changed before the war itself.  Germany would have needed to take atomic research seriously and assume that not having it if an allied power did have it, would be unacceptable.  Germany would also have needed strategic bombers and the desire to level cities.  At no time did Hitler seem interested in crushing Britain prior to the war.  He was actually surprised they did not side with him.  Churchill is believed to have initially considered Hitler a decent person and his views reasonable.  Many in the United States were rooting for Hitler too.

So for me, part of answering this question is to assume that Germany and Japan and Italy had taken steps prior to the war, to win it and not just gain some territory to make their empires larger and stronger.

Had they won, which might only mean they held onto territory they did not have prior to the war and that the allies sued for peace, I think how life would have been different after the war would depend on what territories they were able to hold on to.  If Germany had conquered Moscow, Germany would have held on to the Ukraine, the breadbasket of the region and had plenty of food while Russia would have lost this.  Oil alone would certainly have helped the Axis.  So we have to assume the Axis were able to hold onto the Dutch East Indies, the Caucuses and perhaps even some of the Middle East.

Germany and Japan are considered to have been racist and bigoted nations, however, contrary to how we like to portray ourselves, the United States was plenty racist and bigoted even to the present.  Jews were not well liked anywhere in the world.  Blacks were considered inferior.  Asians were pretty much considered inferior too.  Unless you were White European, you were not going to be treated well and so I am not sure how much reaction anyone would have given to Germany or Japan removing or exterminating whole groups of peoples if those groups were considered of lesser value by Allied nations to begin with?

There may have been an “awakening” at some point.  We had the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, but not for twenty years after WWII ended, and even then the Blacks were not treated all that well.  Today we still imprison and subject them to state-sanctioned murder by police daily without doing anything about it.  So I just don’t see a huge uproar occurring in the 40’s or even 50’s to have changed how Japan or Germany treated people they conquered.  The Rape of Nanking only got press because we wanted to get into the war.  Otherwise I highly doubt most Americans were all that concerned about the treatment of Chinese.  Nobody did a whole lot to condemn Britain’s treatment of the peoples of India which had gone on unabated for 350 years.  And only 50 years prior the US had slaughtered the Native American’s.  So if  people want to argue that Hitler was somehow some crazed madman who wanted to kill or remove groups of peoples from his lands and that this was somehow unique and unheard of… It just isn’t accurate.  But it is hard to unite people to go to war and follow the flag without a really good villain.  And if you commit a lot of atrocities during the war yourself, it is always handy when you are the victor, to write the history in such a way as to make it seem like you were fighting evil.  When in fact, Hitler’s idea of war and conquest and race and religion was not much different than it had been viewed by humanity the two thousand years before.  And in many ways, you could argue the decades after WWII.

Someone else mentioned that the Cold War would have been multifaceted and not just the US versus Soviet Union.  That would certainly have been more true had Germany and Japan and Italy won.  Past that, I doubt much else would have changed.  It would have just been different actors doing much of what was done anyway after WWII.  There would have been just as many “little wars” all over the world as each power tried to go after their little interests.  Plenty of puppet dictators everywhere.  No less bloodshed.  The United would still have sought an empire for itself and depending on the alliances elsewhere in the world, we might have done it with Germany’s help or Japan’s help or the UK, or we might have gone it alone.  It would depend on what we did during WWII.  I just can’t see us not winning if we were involved though.  We simply had too many resources, too much manpower and too much money to have been beaten by Germany or Japan.  But if either of them had gotten nukes, that alone would have changed the outcome.  I just can’t see us suing for peace.  Because we never needed to.  We were always going to win.

Kurt, the first source you cited is Wikipedia.  I like it and use it as one of many sources, academia on the other hand doesn’t like it so much.  So, back to your first article, the first thing I read was a disclaimer at the top.  Moreover, they are requesting citations.

“The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2011)”

Your second citation, the second sentence contradicts your assertion that IQ is declining over the years, in fact in increased from 1455 to 1850.  I am not sure what that premise is then used for in your attempt at a logically valid argument.

" It is found that two alternative genotypic IQ estimates based on an increase in IQ from 1455 to 1850 followed by a decrease from 1850 to the present"

Moreover the article is most often cited by more racially charged sites such as the following:

http://racehist.blogspot.ca/2009/04/natality-data-rates-of-interbreeding.html

Intelligence, Volume 32, Issue 2, March-April 2004, Pages 193-201
Richard Lynn, Marian Van Court

You cited a paper by Marian Van Court.  Her name appears on lists of alleged racists.

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?11,10118

I am not sure what your bottom line conclusion is Kurt.

Are you asserting there is a superior form of Homo Sapien (Whie/Aryan) and an inferior one (other)?  That interbreeding of good humans and bad versions of humans is reducing the average IQ of humans?

If the axis powers won the war and the Nazis remained in power in Germany then there would be precious few European “inferior” humans left to pollute the strain of the ‘good’ versions of humans.

@Epiphany:

So if  people want to argue that Hitler was somehow some crazed madman who wanted to kill or remove groups of peoples from his lands and that this was somehow unique and unheard of… It just isn’t accurate.

Do attrocities need to be unique? And besides, I would call extermination camps on that scale unique.

I don’t call them unique, the only thing Unique is the fact they didn’t use them as  forced labor first. does Modern society look badly at the Egyptians for doing the same thing to build their Pyramids? They worked there slaves to death, or does Modern Society still hold USA accountable for it History in the Slave trade? Black slaves were not always treated Humanely, Just look how they were treated crossing the Atlantic before they even got to US Soil. How About when Japan was trying to go Modern and their treatment of their thousand year old Samurai ways?
The Chinese used Slaves to Build their Great Wall, and Yet modern Society looks at it as a Ancient Triumph of Engineering. I bet the people who were forced to build it did not think it was such a Great thing, but more like a Death Camp.

I am not saying I agree with what was done, but it is done. The only reason people or modern Society looks so terribly at Nazism and their Pure race attitude, is because it is the most recent in history and there are people still alive who were there.

Now back on topic

The Axis would have only won the war if Russia had joined Japan and Germany with their Eurasian treaty.

Exactly, they weren’t a labor force, that was my point as to being unique.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Kurt, the first source you cited is Wikipedia.  I like it and use it as one of many sources, academia on the other hand doesn’t like it so much.  So, back to your first article, the first thing I read was a disclaimer at the top.  Moreover, they are requesting citations.

“The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2011)”

Your second citation, the second sentence contradicts your assertion that IQ is declining over the years, in fact in increased from 1455 to 1850.  I am not sure what that premise is then used for in your attempt at a logically valid argument.

" It is found that two alternative genotypic IQ estimates based on an increase in IQ from 1455 to 1850 followed by a decrease from 1850 to the present"

Moreover the article is most often cited by more racially charged sites such as the following:

http://racehist.blogspot.ca/2009/04/natality-data-rates-of-interbreeding.html

Intelligence, Volume 32, Issue 2, March-April 2004, Pages 193-201
Richard Lynn, Marian Van Court

You cited a paper by Marian Van Court.  Her name appears on lists of alleged racists.

http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?11,10118

I am not sure what your bottom line conclusion is Kurt.

Are you asserting there is a superior form of Homo Sapien (Whie/Aryan) and an inferior one (other)?  That interbreeding of good humans and bad versions of humans is reducing the average IQ of humans?

If the axis powers won the war and the Nazis remained in power in Germany then there would be precious few European “inferior” humans left to pollute the strain of the ‘good’ versions of humans.

First, I am not asserting that any race is superior to or inferior to any other race. The reason the genetic basis for intelligence is decreasing is because less intelligent whites are having more children than their more intelligent white counterparts, less intelligent blacks are having more children than their more intelligent black counterparts, and so forth. You’ll recall that the article I’d mentioned earlier had stated that college graduates are having significantly fewer children than those who didn’t graduate from college. That’s just one of several indications that intelligent people are having too few children; thereby causing a decline in the gene pool. Conversely, less intelligent people are having too many children, which in addition to causing genetic decline is also causing population growth, environmental damage, and the taking of land areas from wild animals’ use so they could be used for humans instead.

As for the alleged racism of Marian Van Court . . . I’ll admit I’m not very familiar with her work. There is a controversial area within psychometrics–an area which may explain why some have sought to apply that label to her. Different races have different average scores for intelligence tests. There are two possible explanations for this.

You mentioned a quote which states that since 1850, fertility patterns have been dysgenic. That quote is accurate; though the exact date at which fertility patterns became dysgenic is not known with certainty. But during the 20th century, IQ scores increased, even though smarter people were having fewer children than their less intelligent counterparts. This increase in scores did not represent an increase in intelligence–witness the underlying fertility patterns–but it did represent an increase in test taking ability. We should not necessarily assume that the artificial increase in test scores known as the Flynn Effect has affected all races at exactly the same speed. If, for example, a particular race was a generation or two behind in experiencing the Flynn Effect, then that race would appear to have a lower genetic basis for intelligence. That appearance would be misleading: its intelligence-related genes would be the same as any other race. This is why the American Psychology Associated noted that while within group differences in IQ scores are due almost entirely to genetic factors, we cannot necessarily assume the same is true of between group differences in IQ scores.

Another possible explanation for between-group differences in IQ scores is that these differences are due partially or fully to genetic differences between groups. Some psychometricians have advocated this explanation, and have generally been labeled racists as a result. To me, this question is one which should not be resolved by a labeling effort initiated by the PC thought police; but instead should be settled by a rigorous examination of the evidence. I have not rigorously studied or analyzed this subject. I certainly don’t have the right to condemn the research of psychometricians without even having looked at their research methods! On the other hand, the fact I haven’t analyzed those methods makes me loath to blindly accept their conclusions.

To me, the question of whether genetics may be contributing to group differences in intelligence is much less important than the direction of within-group genetic movement. If, for example, group X had an average IQ of 90, and gained +3 IQ points per generation; while group Y had an average IQ of 110, but lost 3 IQ points per generation, then in the long run group X (the one with the lower average IQ) will rise above current human limits, while group Y will gradually descend to simian levels of intellect. Unfortunately, all the world’s races are experiencing dysgenic fertility patterns, which means that we’re all in sinking ships. Whites, blacks, Asians, Latinos, Asian Indians–everyone is experiencing these same dysgenic fertility patterns! The genetic basis for intelligence of each race is declining.

I once saw a propaganda poster, created by the Nazi government, which lamented the fact that law-abiding intelligent people were having fewer children than their less intelligent law-abiding counterparts, who in turn were having fewer children than unintelligent criminals. While the Nazis have a (well-earned) reputation for racism, that poster was not about race. It was about within-group dysgenic fertility patterns. Had they won the war, it’s nearly certain they would have stepped up their efforts to correct those patterns.

Kurt you need to STOP SIDETRACKING THREADS INTO “GODEL BOOK REPORTS” ON RACIAL/EUGENICS/HOLOCAUST/POLITICAL MATTERS.

I know that others may also start down that road, but you are always in that mix as a common denominator.

Every time it’s the same thing. Please Stop.

Thread closed

Darn it ILL,

Thank you for your Passion in your beliefs Kurt. But this thread is Titled
"What if the Axis won the War

A simple This is what I believe and this is why is ample, It is Fine to disagree with some one’s statements also in continuation of a thread discussion.  But plz could you Summerize your answers a little. I understand the want to explain yourself and/or to prove or disprove someones statements. But the Lengthy “Book Reports” as Ill has put it, although informative, are sometimes are a little over bearing.

I am actually enjoying this thread discussion and am a little sad It has been locked.
I also don’t think when the author made this thread, they were looking for are Humans going to be dumber or a racial discussion either. I believe they meant politically and Geographically.