Son of Cathal

WW2 ends with Germany controlling Europe with the exception of Italy and half of Russia, Italy controls the Mediterranean and Africa and Japan controls the other half of Russia, Asia, the Americas and the Pacific. Turmoil and distrust break the axis and war erupts. Who would win assuming that the populations and industry of occupied nations fought and produced for the occupiers?

mlipo

Who has the nukes?

Nick

Germany. They'd be better equipped and trained than their former allies. They'd have more advanced technology as well: V1, tiger tank, jet fighters and heavy water.
First they'd use Blitzkrieg tactics to overrun Italy and knock them out of the war. Japan would be more of a challlenge due to the size of their navy and fanaticism of their troops who would resort to guerilla warfare and launch hit and run attacks on the Nazis in the captured territory (imagine Vietnam on a larger scale). The Nazis would respond with long range attacks on the Japanese mainland and chemical weapons to wipe out the last resistance.(less of a problem than if they used them against the white allies due to the Japs' supposed racial inferiority)

Pfaxt3ld

Germany. They had better technology, officers, and better trained troops. Japan had a superior Navy and that would be Germany's biggest problem. Italy would just be a push over and would fall within weeks.

Robin57

I agree with you HistoryBuff but I would also add that Germany had more areas to draw on manpower in europe. Japan may have had a superior navy, but Germany were good at submarine warfare. How were the Japanese with subs?

Son of Cathal

Germany had Europe but wouldn't Japan have more men because of the areas they control???

There are no nukes by the way mlipo

Robin57

Not necessarily, Japan may more men but the resistance would have been higher, I can not imagine the US or Australia giving in to their demands. Germany had a knack of control and getting people to fight for them even in the occupied territories?

Italian Commando

Italy would lose in the first week!? WT F**K people! For one thing, Italy vs. Germany already happened remember, does the Italian Campaign ring a f***ing bell!? The only reason why they took Rome & the campaign lasted twice as long as it should have was because of the RSI(that's Italian Social Republic). Italian Troops & Partisans w/allied assistance took the peninsula back. What would probably happen is Hitler would convince Mussolini to go to war against Japan, win, Hitler would turn on Mussolini(or not, they complete BFFs) & after a long & destructive war on both sides, Italy would come out on top

avon

Mind how you go, Italian Commando. Please take a look at the rules:

Historum - History Forums - Announcements in Forum : General History

Sam-Nary

Such a situation is impossible...

One, none of the Allied nations or Neutral nations conquered by the Axis Powers, either in the thirties or during the war, would ever truly switch sides to support one of their conquerors. While there was extensive collaboration in many states, much of this had to do with the threat posed by the Axis militaries occupying each country. And the collaboration didn't stop resistance groups from forming that were opposed to their conquerors. Having the Axis win WW2 and divide up the world is one thing. But the world created would still be weak for them to manage easily as they would need to keep military units around the world just to manage what they'd conquered. This would mean that Germany would still face various resitence groups in the west, dominated by French, British, and Dutch groups, as well as many partisan groups in the East, from various ethnic groups, including Poles, Serbs, Ukrainians, Russians, which during WW2 gave the Germans the most trouble. The Italians would be confronted by Arabic resistence to Italian rule while the Japanese would find themselves fighting the VC, American gangs and private militias, and Australians in the outback. This wouldn't leave any of the Axis Powers any room to fight each other.

Two, the Axis Powers fought two seperate wars. The Japanese never attacked the Soviet Union during WW2. In addition, the Japanese did not have the tanks to take on the Soviets in a face to face war. They might be able to dominate the coastal areas where their navy and airforce could overpower the Red Army, but further inland, the Red Army could afford to draw the Japanese into Siberia and then destroy them with little real threat to the Soviet Union. Japan's interests in 1941 were to actually end the war with China to their satisfaction, but the US was cutting off all supplies Japan needed to keep their war going and the Chinese continued to fight. Attacking the Soviet Union would only expand a conflict they were trying to end, and wouldn't give them any prospect of success. The Pearl Harbor attack, at least offered Japan the opportunity to secure Southeast Asia and cut China off from the outsideworld and end that war. It would expand Japan beyond what its strategic planners had scheduled for "global conquest" but it would offer them the potential to get out of the war with China on terms they wanted.

In Europe, while Italy did tag along with Germany after entering the war, the Italians still did not entirely do as Germany wanted. Mussolini's dreams of Empire took the Italians into Greece, at a time when Hitler wanted all focus to be on the Soviet Union. Now, while the resulting Balkan campaign proved to be beneficial to the Wehrmacht, as Russia's roads and countryside would not be suitable for the sort of war Hitler wanted to unleash, it was still a distraction and took focus away from the war Hitler wanted. Had Hitler had his way, the Italians would have sent most of their army to Libya to distract the British while he was free to invade the Soviet Union without having to risk losing large numbers of men fighting in Yugoslavia, Greece, Crete, and ultimately North Africa.

Three, the only country in the Axis to have the power to do remotely close to what you're suggesting was Germany. They were more technologically advanced, on land, at least, they were better lead and better trained, their land tactics were better. Much of Japan's rampage in 1941-1942 was set up by the fact that Europe was fighting for its life and the US had essentially been crippled for the short term by Pearl Harbor and years of isolationist policies. It is doubtfull that Japan could have faced off against a Royal Navy that wasn't forced to divide its attention between the Far East, the Mediterranean, the North Sea, and the Atlantic... especially with the French backing them up.

And nothing Italy did in WW2 went right. Mussolini entered the war in June 1940 as France looked like it was about to surrender to the Germans. The result of the glorious Italian invasion? The French beat them and the Italians had to be saved by the Germans. Mussolini then invaded Greece. The result? The Greeks defeated him and chased his armies back into Albania and he had to be saved by the Germans. In Africa, Mussolini tried to take Egypt, but failed and soon saw the British liberate Ethiopia and then push almost all the way to Tripoli. Again, Mussolini's army had to be saved by the Germans. Italy's performance on the Eastern Front wasn't any better. There is no way that Italy could have conquered Africa, and there is no chance that Hitler would have trusted Mussolini to govern it after an Axis victory.