How accurate was this show prediction of after effect of Axis winning the world war?

>They fucking drain the Mediterranean because fuck knows why.
That was actually a real plan proposed by various furturists in 1920s Europe.

you know the Marx quote about the capitalist selling the rope which he will be hung with?

Well schlomo will create media that will eventually redpill the normies and turn them into nazis

To irrigate the Sahara desert

HOLY FUCK CUNTS, I JUST CAME CAME TO AN IRREFUTABLE REALIZATION

DA JOOZ MADE THIS SHOW TO EVENTUALLY SHOW THE NAZI REGIME IN AMERICA CRUMBLE, SIMILAR TO HOW THE BRITISH CONTROL OVER THE AMERICAN COLONIES CRUMBLED, THEN IT WILL END WITH A NEW DEMOCRATIC, TOLERANT, AND PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN REGIME WHICH WILL SHOW MINORITIES BECOME KANGZ AND SHIT, AND THE SHOW WILL LEAVE OFF WITH THE IMPLICATION THAT THIS WAS THE EVIL WHITE MAN'S PAST (but redone in a fictional setting), AND THAT DA EBIL WHITEY OPPRESS AND SHIET.

Completely inaccurate.

>implying the incompetent Nazis could ever mount a trans-Atlantic invasion, when they couldn't even maintain proper supply lines to their eastern front and couldn't cross the Channel
>implying the Nips could ever have the manpower to attempt an occupation of the U.S. while also holding down Manchukuo and most of east Asia.

Sauce?

Well, to be honest the Soviet's lack of organizational collapse could not have been seriously predicted.

The biggest turning point could have been Midway. The Japanese had a massive advantage and only lost because the main attack force never actually made it to the battle. If the US had lost the 4 carriers it would be years before it could actually launch a Pacific offensive.

> If the US had lost the 4 carriers it would be years before it could actually launch a Pacific offensive.

How to tell someone has no idea what they are talking about! The U.S. didn't even have 4 carriers at Midway.

It also wouldn't have been "years" before they could launch an offensive.

combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

Considering the attack on Tarawa was in November 43, you're talking a loss of about 7-8 months, tops.
>The Japanese had a massive advantage and only lost because the main attack force never actually made it to the battle.

No, the main striking arm, the carriers, were there. What didn't make it to the battle were 2 CVL and 5 BB; it is extremely unlikely they would have made a difference, especially since they were slower than the American carriers.

That would ruin the series though

The whole premise is that the "good guys" lost.

Completely inaccurate, mounting a naval invasion of the US would require years, and the complete mobilization of all of continental europe's resources

But providing a semi realistic what-if scenario isn't really the point.
The point is cultural. Showing liberalism as a failed ideology as fascism became in our world, and showing americans as a defeated people like the japanese and germans were.

...

Man in the High Castle, a shitty show based on a decent book

I have to assume the number of ships is noncontroversial, and if it means I'm off by one, that's compensated by the fact that it makes the lack of reinforcement even more decisive.

The Japanese order of battle was a classic envelopment, designed to entice the American carriers into battle and for the battleship fleet to deliver the final blow.

>No, the main striking arm, the carriers, were there.

Carriers as the main arm was affirmed by the US Congress, but the IJN was in control of conservatives and still viewed battleships as the main strike force. This is also not controversial.

>it is extremely unlikely they would have made a difference,

Are you kidding? The IJN had only 3 freaking cruisers active in the whole battle, and inexplicably the light carriers were in reserve, when they should be in the front for scouting. The IJN was damned by its penchant for using it's lighter ships as glorified battleship escorts. If the BBs don't make it leave em behind.

Not very. Especially the whole premise of Nazi germany (and Japan for that matter) invading and taking over the US. That's just outright silly.
>providing masturbation fodder for neo nazis at a time when nascent nu fascist parties and general racism is at an all time high
You answer your own question.

>I have to assume the number of ships is noncontroversial, and if it means I'm off by one, that's compensated by the fact that it makes the lack of reinforcement even more decisive.

What lack of reinforcement? There were 3 carriers at Midway and none within range to help in an operational sense. That doesn't mean a lick of difference in regards to how many ships the U.S. has under construction.

>he Japanese order of battle was a classic envelopment, designed to entice the American carriers into battle and for the battleship fleet to deliver the final blow.

And a damn fool plan it was, since again, NONE of those battleships can actually catch the carriers.

>Carriers as the main arm was affirmed by the US Congress, but the IJN was in control of conservatives and still viewed battleships as the main strike force.

How many battleships went to Pearl Harbor, or to the Phillipines, or to the Indian Ocean raid, or to any naval offensive in the Pacific you care to name? And how many actually engaged enemies? The carriers were the primary striking arm.

>Are you kidding? The IJN had only 3 freaking cruisers active in the whole battle, and inexplicably the light carriers were in reserve, when they should be in the front for scouting.

And another 4 cruisers means you can match the Americans. The 2 CVL in a recon role might be useful, but then again, it might not, they're hardly a guarantee of success.

But in any event, it literally doesn't matter. If the U.S. gets utterly crushed at Midway (unlikely, no matter how good the plan is), with all carriers lost and no Japanese carriers lost, they'll still have a 2:1 advantage by middle of 1944.

it's impossible

>they'll still have a 2:1 advantage by middle of 1944.

Which is still years later and depends on the US going all in on the Pacific.

Not really no, to achieve 2:1 advantage the US only needs to continue building ships that were planned to be built since before the war started.
The Pacific was a side attraction to the US, the lion's share of materiel went to Europe.

>this is your mind on /pol/
not even once

Yeah because they needed all those carriers in Europe right?

this is total bullshit OP, you can't see a heil from that far away, there's no way the crowd could have done such a feat of synchronization

Not realistic at all. Even in timeline where the Soviet Union collapses and the western allies give up on liberating Europe Germany did to have the population to occupy an entire continent, much less planet, that hated them. The population of the U.S in 1945 was 140 Million people. To occupy the United States the Germans had an active army of maybe 14 million at it's peak. And they can't put them all in the U.S. They have to split them among every country on the planet a population of more than 2 billion). At that rate of density you would have to subjugate a heavy armed America with 142 men.

Did they drain the mediterranean in the show like in the books?

Another facet of the alternative timeline is that the nazis gain political power in america. It's still silly though because the ideology is antithesis to american rugged individualism.

they talk about it

>The biggest turning point could have been Midway.
give this lecture from the us naval war college a watch
youtube.com/watch?v=Y9rkKtK1b44

he talks about why Midway wasn't a turning point because even if it had been a disaster for the US Navy the japs still had no hope of winning in the pacific due to just how many ships the us had in production compared to japan.

As I understood it the Essex class wouldn't have been ready for a while, so it gives Japan free reign to attack Australia, and maybe even Pearl Harbor and India if they really try.

Besides, after a major defeat would the US really wait until it had invincible superiority, or would it launch another attack piecemeal as soon as it was ready, setting up the possibility to be defeated? Public opinion would need to be sated. The victories in the pacific distracted the public from the fact that the US was half-assing the theater. There would be enormous pressure to fight another battle as soon as possible.

just watch the video before formulating an opinion on it

>As I understood it the Essex class wouldn't have been ready for a while

The first one, the namesake Essex, would be commissioned in December of 1942.

>so it gives Japan free reign to attack Australia, and maybe even Pearl Harbor and India if they really try.

All of those places had significant amounts of land based airpower to defend themselves. Useless to project force in the Pacific, but also almost invulnerable to Japanese attack in turn.

>Besides, after a major defeat would the US really wait until it had invincible superiority, or would it launch another attack piecemeal as soon as it was ready, setting up the possibility to be defeated?

Almost certainly the former. Just look at what happened in the wake of other "Massive" U.S. defeats like Kasserine.

>There would be enormous pressure to fight another battle as soon as possible.

And you're basing this on what exactly?

As other people said, completely unrealistic. There's no way you can invade the continental US and then hold it.

Not. They had no desire / ability to invade NA. Neither did Japan.

I could see SA colonies or allied states, but the "le world domination" stuff is ridiculous. Poland alone would have turned into Vietnam for them.

>of after effect of Axis winning the world war?
That's the key sticking point, it would be extremely hard to contrive a scenario where they could.