[starman2003]

The Cold War was the result of ideological and geopolitical competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. There is no such similar conflict between Japan and Germany.

There was a book entitled IIRC Uneasy Allies about the German-Japanese alliance in WWII. Given nazi racial doctrines, and Japanese use of anti-white/anti-colonialism propaganda, they were far from being natural allies. They were more like natural enemies, united only by having the same, more immediate enemies. I recall reading that after Singapore fell in '42, Hitler, citing the "yellow peril," rejected a proposed propaganda statement by Goebbels announcing this as a great victory for the axis. After hearing of British reverses Hitler was heard saying in private that he'd dearly love to give the British 20 divisions to help drive the yellow invaders back. I have little doubt that, had the common threat which united Germany and Japan ended, they'd go to war, if not right away, than maybe in 1950 or so.
Btw, had the axis won, n-bomb development probably would've been delayed in part because the reich was behind and a conventional victory would've reduced or ended the need for development of such a weapon.

[Rei Murasame]

仲良し三国。

That's very strange, since everything I've seen suggests that he thought the opposite:

Pride in one's own race – and that does not imply contempt for other races – is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them.

I felt, that in the mind of Hitler there was much of spiritual matters, transcending material plans. When I met the Führer he said that since boyhood he had been attracted by Japan. He read carefully reports of Japan's victory over Russia when he was only 17 years old and was impressed by Japan's astonishing strength.

70 degrees East was the line along which their military zones of responsibility had been hashed out.

The negative comments that Germany and Japan would later make about each other in private briefings, were mostly after Spring 1943 during moments of frustration at dallying or inadequacies, where they perceived each other to be acting incompetently. In a scenario where they were winning however, it is unlikely that such comments would have emerged, and the relationship would have remained rosy.

[Dave]

His respect and admiration for the Japanese didn't change the fact that he was very sad about the loss of Singapore to a non-white race, even though he was at war with Britain (and blamed Britain for the war).

Either way, Hitler was not going to live long after the war so discussing his own personal feelings are not relevant. The question is who would've succeeded Hitler, and I suspect it would've been some sort of troika consisting of Goebbels, Speer, and the Wehrmacht. The SS and Himmler were trusted by no one, the ordinary party organs full of hacks, Goering a dilettante drug addict opposed by his own officers, and just about everyone in the Wehrmacht about the rank of Major was suspicious of National Socialism. Thus, as is usually the case with revolutionary regimes, the country would've become more "normal"--think of Khruschev's secret speech.

Japan on the other hand appeared to be going in the opposite direction. Japanese educational indoctrination had succeeded in producing a nation of lunatics where officers did not even command their own forces. Junior officers routinely disobeyed orders they considered insufficient radical and patriotic, and they could not be reprimanded since they were after all only showing their loyalty to the Emperor. SS men sometimes did this in Germany, but their officers had them shot. Japan also had ideas for a final war against Germany in the future, whereas Germany had no such plans.

At any rate, conflict seems somewhat unlikely because Japan and Germany would not share a common frontier, and if both succeeded in their plans they would possess economic autarky. Germany would be the greater of the two powers, since its techno-industrial capabilities were tremendously greater and controlling all of Europe was far more valuable than controlling the Pacific Basin--especially in those days. In this scenario the German population probably would've continued to be larger than the Japanese one as well, unlike what happened in real history. Germany assuredly would've developed atomic weapons and ICBMs before Japan as well. Germany already had ballistic missiles for instance, and despite the incoherence of the German bomb project I'm sure they would've cooked something up eventually.

[Tribbles]

Normally, I would set out to prove Dakoria is wrong - but nah, there are far too much evidence saying the opposite.

One thing that could have happened with an axis-dominated world is that it had looked a bit like the world of 1984.

The various factions had declared war on each other every now and then, perhaps shifting alliances if one started to loose. The point would be to maintain the warrior spirit, and test out new military gear.

But we must also remember that fascism have proven weak and spineless, and that it bends with the wind. Fascist victory could have meant a gradual shift towards market-liberalism, brought forward by the increasingly corrupt fascist leadership (people with no values what so ever) who would be under the influence of that other power-platform, that is the commercial sector. We see clearly, how fascism degenerated into nothing from start (1922) to finish (1945), and this degeneration would have continued in a post-war world - as it have indeed done, only outside the halls of power.

In the end, even parades and uniforms would be forgotten - but the shift from authoritarian 1984-ism into globalized capitalism, would take time. This drift towards market-whoring, also makes the drift towards communism possible. National-bolshevism for example - it is basically just a different manifestation of the same trend.

To begin with, I didnt understand why fascism was looked down upon (Anti-fascist need to brush up their argumentation-skills) but now I start to get it.

Maybe we should just go for communism right away (proper communism that is, not National Bolshevism) and hope that better technology can make up for loss of efficiency due to central planning?

If so, want this guy to be in charge: (The superintendent from Halo ODST)

[Rei Murasame]

I suppose it's a little ironic that Daktoria has been a factor in shifting you from Fascism to Communism, considering that he is a Libertarian. I would of course urge you to reconsider.

[Preston Cole]

But we must also remember that fascism have proven weak and spineless, and that it bends with the wind. Fascist victory could have meant a gradual shift towards market-liberalism, brought forward by the increasingly corrupt fascist leadership (people with no values what so ever) who would be under the influence of that other power-platform, that is the commercial sector. We see clearly, how fascism degenerated into nothing from start (1922) to finish (1945), and this degeneration would have continued in a post-war world - as it have indeed done, only outside the halls of power.

In the end, even parades and uniforms would be forgotten - but the shift from authoritarian 1984-ism into globalized capitalism, would take time. This drift towards market-whoring, also makes the drift towards communism possible. National-bolshevism for example - it is basically just a different manifestation of the same trend.

Woah, woah. You're talking about one example there: Italy. Italian Fascism was indeed pretty weak, but you're forgetting that since 1938 to 1973 Franco's dictatorship didn't exactly "degenerate into nothing," even though it still kissed up to economic liberalism. Fascists inherently have ties to capitalists due to common anticommunism, and rightly so, but I would hardly say these dictatorships would degenerate into global liberalism.

And since you're apparently quick to kiss the ass of communism, what would communist dictatorships degenerate into? Stagnation and mediocrity, gradual economic liberalization with the Mafia popping around everywhere, and hunger, worst case scenario. The only communist regimes regimes that averted these natural occurrences were the ones that employed some degree of liberalism from the start and stuck with it: Hungary, Yugoslavia, etc. Of course, that consistently brings you back to class collaboration and fascism.

(people with no values what so ever)

What the fuck does that mean? Are you referring to the Italian government or fascists in general? Please clear this up, as it sounds incredibly stupid.

If so, want this guy to be in charge: (The superintendent from Halo ODST)

Cool, another Halo fan. (Recognize my name?)

[Far-Right Sage]

There was a book entitled IIRC Uneasy Allies about the German-Japanese alliance in WWII. Given nazi racial doctrines, and Japanese use of anti-white/anti-colonialism propaganda, they were far from being natural allies. They were more like natural enemies, united only by having the same, more immediate enemies. I recall reading that after Singapore fell in '42, Hitler, citing the "yellow peril," rejected a proposed propaganda statement by Goebbels announcing this as a great victory for the axis. After hearing of British reverses Hitler was heard saying in private that he'd dearly love to give the British 20 divisions to help drive the yellow invaders back. I have little doubt that, had the common threat which united Germany and Japan ended, they'd go to war, if not right away, than maybe in 1950 or so.
Btw, had the axis won, n-bomb development probably would've been delayed in part because the reich was behind and a conventional victory would've reduced or ended the need for development of such a weapon.

I've heard similar accounts of that incident many times, but that is Hitler's personal bias. Hitler certainly did many great things for the German people, but his own independent prejudices and whether or not he enjoys beef or veal, or urinates sitting down, are not policy statements or matters that reflect upon Fascism or National Socialism as an ideology, nor do they provide the authentic voice of German Fascist thought.

The fall of Singapore was indeed a great victory and Churchill labeled it the darkest day for the British Army - rather poignant, considering the dark days he saw himself when the Turks routed his troops at Gallipoli.

Japanese anti-colonialist speech was really just to create a certain public perception in Korea, Vietnam, and all over East Asia, that the Japanese as fellow Orientals were benevolent protectors and the natives should accept aid to fight off their former British, Dutch, French, etc. overlords. This PR campaign didn't work to well. There is no evidence to show that Japanese society or Japanese nationalists harbored an actual dislike of whites and the Japanese in Germany were considered "honorary Aryans", so much of this emnity is imagined.

The reason cooperation worked so well is also attributed to the fact that Germany had no real colonies in East Asia to speak of for the Japanese to seize or dominate. Tsingtao, which was seized by the Japanese in WWI, was never mentioned again as the German state had little interest in reoccupying Chinese land. Thus Japan was allowed a free hand over the Dutch, British, and French colonies. Thailand fought a short but fierce war with the Vichy French just to solidify their own place in this colonial grab.

This level of cooperation on spheres of influence, colonial rights, and population exchange was much more indicative of German policy of the era, such as Hitler's statement to the ethnic German population in the Italian South Tyrol region, encouraging them to Italianize or join the fatherland.

[starman2003]

That's very strange, since everything I've seen suggests that he thought the opposite:

He had to say such things; there was a war still going on and they were allies.

70 degrees East was the line along which their military zones of responsibility had been hashed out.

There were exceptions, particularly in the deployment of submarines. U-boats were stationed in Singapore and Surabaya.

In a scenario where they were winning however, it is unlikely that such comments would have emerged, and the relationship would have remained rosy.

Sure while the war was still going on. Afterwards would've been another matter.

[Tribbles]

Code: Select allWoah, woah. You're talking about one example there: Italy. Italian Fascism was indeed pretty weak, but you're forgetting that since 1938 to 1973 Franco's dictatorship didn't exactly "degenerate into nothing," even though it still kissed up to economic liberalism. Fascists inherently have ties to capitalists due to common anticommunism, and rightly so, but I would hardly say these dictatorships would degenerate into global liberalism.

Quite so, and my head would stabilize perfectly with a right-wing group in the family.

Cool, another Halo fan. (Recognize my name?)

Ah, so that`s why your nick rings a bell. Halo is cool, but a bit too dark (visually speaking) - specially ODST. This is no problem online though.

It might be, that I am just extremely angry at the Russian far-right, and that this have a spill-over effect. Other than the Nash-bol, and the neo-nazis that teams up to attack foreigners on trains, you also have this guy:

From the Moscov news:

But as it is, the two-hour performance – featuring a gong and some monastic singing – is more than just a circus act. And the blogosphere is struggling to figure out if the stunt, dubbed Doctrine 77 for the length of the speech, is really part of a genuine presidential campaign, a vast conspiracy by Kremlin ideologist Vladislav Surkov, or just a PR gimmick to promote Beeline’s new mobile phone plan (yes, that too, but relax, this is election-year Russia).

http://themoscownews.com/potemkin_tales/20110915/189046126.html

Let me see if I can find him on youtube...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0otROwzB1oM (If Moscov-news is right, he will sooner or later start begin waving a cell-phone around.

Edit: checking what "Beeline" is:(I have not done enough reserch here, risky business when combined with edgy opinions, but...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beeline_%28telecommunications%29

Yes indeed, Beeline is a private company. It is not a man, or a government policy - something which would have deflated my argument.

Returning from this distraction:

......And in Norway, we have Breivik, who have spread 1500 pages of vagueness and double-standards across the globe, (A fan of the Russian far right by the way) and in the US we have the AFP who - according to rumors - have gone Tea-party.

And Franco? The national-syndicalists started out with a cool corporative program, and a bunch of stuff that never happened.

It is not that fascists as individuals are incapable of having a solid foundation of ideals, ethics and so on - but as a group.... Why are we so vague?

[Daktoria]

Either way, Hitler was not going to live long after the war so discussing his own personal feelings are not relevant. The question is who would've succeeded Hitler, and I suspect it would've been some sort of troika consisting of Goebbels, Speer, and the Wehrmacht. The SS and Himmler were trusted by no one, the ordinary party organs full of hacks, Goering a dilettante drug addict opposed by his own officers, and just about everyone in the Wehrmacht about the rank of Major was suspicious of National Socialism. Thus, as is usually the case with revolutionary regimes, the country would've become more "normal"--think of Khruschev's secret speech.

This is the argument I've made to Rei over and over. Just because current leadership is one way doesn't mean successors will be reliable.

Anyway, if national socialism didn't stick around (and probably reverts back into national liberalism), doesn't that rather defeat the purpose of calling it fascist?

Japan on the other hand appeared to be going in the opposite direction. Japanese educational indoctrination had succeeded in producing a nation of lunatics where officers did not even command their own forces. Junior officers routinely disobeyed orders they considered insufficient radical and patriotic, and they could not be reprimanded since they were after all only showing their loyalty to the Emperor. SS men sometimes did this in Germany, but their officers had them shot. Japan also had ideas for a final war against Germany in the future, whereas Germany had no such plans.

At any rate, conflict seems somewhat unlikely because Japan and Germany would not share a common frontier, and if both succeeded in their plans they would possess economic autarky. Germany would be the greater of the two powers, since its techno-industrial capabilities were tremendously greater and controlling all of Europe was far more valuable than controlling the Pacific Basin--especially in those days. In this scenario the German population probably would've continued to be larger than the Japanese one as well, unlike what happened in real history. Germany assuredly would've developed atomic weapons and ICBMs before Japan as well. Germany already had ballistic missiles for instance, and despite the incoherence of the German bomb project I'm sure they would've cooked something up eventually.

Well if this became true, it would seem Germany would take the role of American neocons whereas Japan would take the role of backwards Soviet totalitarianism.

Even if the Cold War took 50 or however many years to resolve, it seems that eventually, both sides couldn't coexist in prosperity.

[Far-Right Sage]

Woah, woah. You're talking about one example there: Italy. Italian Fascism was indeed pretty weak

I think it's a shame for the modern-day movement to reject its roots in Italian Fascism, despite examples of poor Italian military performance in WWII. The Fasces, or the fascio, afterall, has its roots in the Roman ages and the Italian philosophers and national revolutionaries from Gentile to Evola to D'Annunzio essentially laid the groundwork for providing a translation for the ideology to a political framework and physical action. It can be said Fascism largely has its intellectual roots in French and Italian thinking of the late 19th and early 20th century.

That being said, like many other historical misnomers, this image of a simply buffoonish Italy is largely not true. Mussolini did make several military mistakes, of course. The invasion of Greece was executed at a very inappropriate time with no warning to Italy's German allies and terrible strategic planning which ended in a rout that threw the Italians back to Albania. This is a well known humiliation. Fine. Hitler, Stalin, and Churchill of course made many strategic mistakes and often had to be stopped by their own generals from destructive interference.

There are several accounts I have read over the years of Italian units serving on the Eastern Front somewhere around the Don River who led a tremendous breakthrough along with their Romanian and German allies and defeated a great force of Red Army troops with superior numbers. There are also many accounts of the Italians fighting British/Commonwealth soldiers and Ethiopian irregulars house to house and laying the groundwork for a massive guerrilla war once Ethiopia fell back into Allied control. Many Ethiopian Patriots were afraid to leave their homes for fear of Italian snipers.

That's not to mention the Decima Flottiglia MAS, the frogmen units of the Regia Marina which fought with tremendous bravery particularly in their resistance to Royal Navy convoys around Gibraltar and employment of human torpedoes. Many ignored Badoglio's treasonous flip and fought for Il Duce and the Republic of Salo.

Italy's problem was not its soldiers, but its equipment, weaponry, finances, and simply a lack of industrialization which was admittedly a culmination of failures stemming from the fact that almost all of southern Italy was entirely intertwined with agrarianism, an agrarian lifestyle, and agrarian works projects.

[Preston Cole]

Never implied the Italians didn't perform well in the war. I was only referring to the fact that Italian Fascism didn't live up to the corporatist dream and made some pretty big concessions to the liberal establishment.

[Dave]

Italy had some elite units and some heroic stands, but their overall performance was pathetic even when you take into account the deficient qualities of their industry. And I'm not that impressed by the ability of Decima Flottiglia MAS to conduct brutal reprisals against civilians. The list of pathetic Italian failures is many.

The Greek campaign is a classic example. While the Greeks were in terrain which favored defense and their divisions had slightly more organic firepower man for man, they were totally outnumbered, had few aircraft, and no tanks at all. Not only did the Italian offensive fail, but the Greeks were able to push into Albania. The same terrain that favored Greek defense also favored Italian defense, and yet the Italians lost ground to an opponent inferior in numbers and equipment. The ultimate outcome as we know was German intervention, which succeeded in taking Greece in three weeks where the Italians had failed in six months. Hitler even praised the Greeks as valiant, heroic defenders.

Next up on our list of embarrassing Italian failures is the North Africa theater. Italy enjoyed an overwhelming advantage (something like 5:1, with greater disparities in materiel) over the British opponent, and advanced into Egypt. The advance was slow and petered out. The British, still outnumbered in roughly the same ratio, then launched Operation Compass and drove the Italians halfway across Libya and captured most of their army. Once again the Germans intervened, and a single German armored corps drove the British all the way to Alexandria--outnumbered and outgunned most of the way.

The allies later invaded Italy, and the Italians apparently couldn't even be bothered to defend their own country so it was once again on the Germans. When the Italians switched sides, they were so incompetent that the Germans managed to sink most of their navy and disarm most of their soldiers before the Italians were able to do anything.

It's true that the Italian Expeditionary Force in Russia acquitted itself well, but overall the Italian war record was pathetic. Postwar recordings of Italian POWs revealed that many of them admitted to simply laying down their arms and fleeing their positions. Sorry, but Italy's performance in the war was an absolute disgrace and I can't think of a single belligerent which performed worse. Hitler notably stated that a single German division was worth twenty-five Italian divisions. Hyperbole perhaps, but not far off the mark.

Let's not forget the Regia Marina either, which retreated to safe ports in northern Italy after the attack on Taranto despite outnumbering the RN in the Mediterranean theater and having more modern capital ships.

It's not like this was some particular defect of the fascist regime either, Italy acquitted itself quite poorly in the First World War as well. They enjoyed numerical superiority over the poorly equipped Austro-Hungarians, a power wracked with ethnic strife and simultaneously engaged in Russia where it did nothing but lose except when the Germans intervened. The Austro-Hungarians couldn't even handle Serbia, but they had no problem repulsing just about everything the Italians could throw at them. Later on, after Caporetto, the hard-pressed British and French had to transfer eight divisions from the life-or-death struggle on the Western Front to prevent Italian collapse.

If we go further back in history, we can look at distinguished Italian military campaigns like their failure to defeat...Ethiopia. But big bad Mussolini finally got revenge for that by using poison gas against primitive tribesmen poorly equipped with weapons from the 18th and 19th centuries.

I suspect the extended clan nature of Italian society in those days, especially in the Mezziogiorno, might be why. An awful lot of Italians simply didn't feel very Italian or understand why they should die for the government in Rome. It's an understandable instinct.

[starman2003]

Italy's problem was not its soldiers,

I'm afraid that was indeed a very serious problem. Often, morale was terrible and soldiers surrendered in droves without a fight. Some units like the Ariete fought well, but basically they weren't much good.

but its equipment, weaponry, finances, and simply a lack of industrialization

There was certainly no lack of industrialization. But add corruption to the list....

[Tribbles]

I'm afraid that was indeed a very serious problem. Often, morale was terrible and soldiers surrendered in droves without a fight. Some units like the Ariete fought well, but basically they weren't much good.

Mussolini deserved bad soldiers for attacking Metaxas. A betrayal against fascism. He should have taken a more technocratic approach, and respect the advice of his generals, foreign minister and military experts, who said war was a bad idea.

To finish with Mussolini and the past, lets go to the present and mock the Russians some more:....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democratic_Party_of_Russia

Tata! The liberal democratic party of Russia! Our very name is a lie! Trust us!

Are there no lights in the end of the tunnel?......

[starman2003]

Mussolini deserved bad soldiers for attacking Metaxas. A betrayal against fascism. He should have taken a more technocratic approach, and respect the advice of his generals, foreign minister and military experts, who said war was a bad idea.

To finish with Mussolini and the past, lets go to the present..

Wrong thread for that. I wonder if the resources squandered in Greece would've made a difference in North Africa.

[Section Leader]

The perception of Italy in the war is somewhat skewed since they were primarily fighting the British Army, one of the most advanced and certainly the most experienced army of the war, Italy was capable of taking on their neighbours but not of defeating a far larger, fully modernised and much more skilled force. They knew they couldn't win against the British in the Med and North Africa, which is why so many Italian soldiers simply gave up. Nevertheless, many Italian units did fight with great bravery and courage.

[Fasces]

No they were not, they took on their equals and lesser in Greece and Ethiopia, respectively, and similarly failed. Let's not romanticize failure.

[Section Leader]

No they were not, they took on their equals and lesser in Greece and Ethiopia, respectively, and similarly failed. Let's not romanticize failure.

The words "pot", "kettle" and "black" come to mind, you romanticised the failure of Argentina in the Falklands not long ago, claiming Argentina's pathetic 1950s-era armed forces "outclassed" the British.

[Fasces]

It indisputably did, according to the vast majority of academics, in that Argentina's capability to project power to the Falklands far outclassed the British capability - not that in a total war scenario, the Argentine force was stronger, larger, or more capable than the British force, much as in the case of the occupation of Goa.

Nonetheless, that your nationalism blinds you to reality has already been demonstrably proven.