Should an invasion of the US be very difficult to outright impossible in HOI4?

[permanently_afk]

n.b. "sense" is a weasel word, but unfortunately I can't think of a more stringent formulation at this point.

If one looks at the geographic position of the United States, the nation spans an entire continent, its only land borders leading to hostile desert or tundra unable to support troops prepping for invasion as well as two oceans thousands of km across that separate it from the old world, to large to send a naval invasion across. In order to pull an invasion off you'd need resources of another entire-continent world power (which AFAIK no nation fits baring a united Europe before WW1 when the US military was tiny) as well as a, IMHO, logistics nightmare bigger than what is possible in real life in Hoi4's time frame.

In short: Yes, it should be possible to defeat the USN and invade the states. There are two angles to consider:
The first is doylist (i.e. from the perspective of the game itself - the question is: Do the rules allow for an invasion?). The USA serve as a bonus boss for the eurasian majors. Therefore, they need to be difficult, but defeatable. Thats simply a need of the game. Most games which have undefeatable enemies are geared from the start to that point (e.g. FTL). The only question here how to balance it, making it a numbers game (and another optimisation problem).
The second is watsonian (i.e. from the perspective of the narrative - the question is: Would an invasion make sense?).
The answer here is, that contrary to what several people espouse, the USA wouldn't be able to out-produce, out-innovate and out-gun the rest of the world together. Especially if the rest of the world has already been in "war mode" for the last two years and the USA hasn't been. The reason for this is in part the severe case of victory disease the USA currently have (no major defeat since inception) - the General Staff of WW2 thought that the USSR would roll over, same mistake, other direction. Short scenario; the USN is sunk (or confined to port) by long-range bombers carrying Fritz-XIII (this implies the Axis sunk or own the Royal Navy) operating out of Greenland or the Carribean. Then the Axis has total rule of the sea and is able to use any old scow to ferry troops.
I don't understand why everybody seems confined to thinking that the only weapon against a navy is a bigger navy, when the US proved something else.

Edit: Since this is a computer game, doylist beats watsonian. So the answer is still yes.

 

[Krafty]

Also the Archive release was a political thing in and of itself. It both showcased Soviet incompetence, while bolstering Russian nationalism. Something Putin harps on at practically every interview during the era. Lambasting the soviets for their careless use of men, and their losing of territory after world war one, but complimenting the advancements and intelligence of the Russian people during the Soviet reign.

It is something to consider and you have to weigh each source accordingly. I think if you read all the information from the various sides, youll get a fairly decent picture somewhere in the middle of them all.

 

[Krafty]

n.b. "sense" is a weasel word, but unfortunately I can't think of a more stringent formulation at this point.

In short: Yes, it should be possible to defeat the USN and invade the states. There are two angles to consider:
The first is doylist (i.e. from the perspective of the game itself - the question is: Do the rules allow for an invasion?). The USA serve as a bonus boss for the eurasian majors. Therefore, they need to be difficult, but defeatable. Thats simply a need of the game. Most games which have undefeatable enemies are geared from the start to that point (e.g. FTL). The only question here how to balance it, making it a numbers game (and another optimisation problem).
The second is watsonian (i.e. from the perspective of the narrative - the question is: Would an invasion make sense?).
The answer here is, that contrary to what several people espouse, the USA wouldn't be able to out-produce, out-innovate and out-gun the rest of the world together. Especially if the rest of the world has already been in "war mode" for the last two years and the USA hasn't been. The reason for this is in part the severe case of victory disease the USA currently have (no major defeat since inception) - the General Staff of WW2 thought that the USSR would roll over, same mistake, other direction. Short scenario; the USN is sunk (or confined to port) by long-range bombers carrying Fritz-XIII (this implies the Axis sunk or own the Royal Navy) operating out of Greenland or the Carribean. Then the Axis has total rule of the sea and is able to use any old scow to ferry troops.
I don't understand why everybody seems confined to thinking that the only weapon against a navy is a bigger navy, when the US proved something else.

Edit: Since this is a computer game, doylist beats watsonian. So the answer is still yes.

The issue is that its too easy.

Weather doesnt effect combat enough, port size doesnt really matter, VPs make too much supply for the enemy, convoys are too cheap and fast to build, subs dont sink enough, naval supremacy can be glitched, combat movement is too fast, movement is too fast, supply transports cant be sunk, supply takes too few convoys, tanks take up too few supply and dont attrite enough, etc etc

In this game, it should absolutely be possible, but it should be difficult and take skill and time to pull off. Sending 90 divisions to Bermuda, then invading Florida, and capitulating the US 6 months later is silly mode.


PS. Yes the US could outproduce the entire rest of the world, so long as the rest of the world was in Axis hands

You know it would have taken three years after German captured Baku, for them to see one refined drop of fuel? It would have taken sixteen years, SIXTEEN YEARS, to convert all the Russian rail the European standard so that Russian resources didnt have to go through four day reloading periods at junctions where the tracks switched gauges.

The Axis was looking at their own "Marshall Plan" had they actually won, and that would have caused an economic collapse, or not have been completed in a timely manner.

Whereas the US, after the war, rebuilt France, Germany and Japan with the Marshall Plan, on top of increasing its productivity at home.

Im not some pro America woohoo boy here, its simply the truth. A balanced game can never have real US production capacity, because at the time, it rivaled the entire rest of the world all on its own.

 

[permanently_afk]

The issue is that its too easy.

Weather doesnt effect combat enough, port size doesnt really matter, VPs make too much supply for the enemy, convoys are too cheap and fast to build, subs dont sink enough, naval supremacy can be glitched, combat movement is too fast, movement is too fast, supply transports cant be sunk, supply takes too few convoys, tanks take up too few supply and dont attrite enough, etc etc

In this game, it should absolutely be possible, but it should be difficult and take skill and time to pull off. Sending 90 divisions to Bermuda, then invading Florida, and capitulating the US 6 months later is silly mode.

The point being? All you mentioned plays into the numbers game, it does not even remotely contest the doylist assertion that an invasion of the USA has to be possible.

PS. Yes the US could outproduce the entire rest of the world, so long as the rest of the world was in Axis hands

Quit peddling arguments on which others have sent you home.

You know it would have taken three years after German captured Baku, for them to see one refined drop of fuel? It would have taken sixteen years, SIXTEEN YEARS, to convert all the Russian rail the European standard so that Russian resources didnt have to go through four day reloading periods at junctions where the tracks switched gauges.

The Axis was looking at their own "Marshall Plan" had they actually won, and that would have caused an economic collapse, or not have been completed in a timely manner.

Whereas the US, after the war, rebuilt France, Germany and Japan with the Marshall Plan, on top of increasing its productivity at home.

So basically, Axis always fail, US always win. No big leap to get to your next point:

Im not some pro America woohoo boy here, its simply the truth. A balanced game can never have real US production capacity, because at the time, it rivaled the entire rest of the world all on its own.

You are a "pro america whoohoo boy", to whit:

Couple points.

- Detroit alone outproduced the entire Axis alliance
- Dday across the Channel took 6,900 ships
- The US built 160 aircraft carriers including escort carriers that could carry 90 planes
- The US was going to finish 52 more carriers in 1946
- The US had 141 million people in 1946
- The US had built 295,000 Aircraft by 1946
- The US sunk 55% of Japan's entire civilian/transport shipping
- The Allies had over 440 Submarines
- The US could finish a Submarine every 17 hours
.

While those points can be made, others have demonstrated that they are resultant of a very selective perception of american capabilities.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

The answer here is, that contrary to what several people espouse, the USA wouldn't be able to out-produce, out-innovate and out-gun the rest of the world together.

In long term I have always agreed with this. In short term an Axis Eurasia would have difficult time just integrating what they took into cohesive economy. Historically the places Nazis took tended to grow weaker as German war economy took them out of their pre-existing system and was subsequently unable to provide for them.

Short scenario; the USN is sunk (or confined to port) by long-range bombers carrying Fritz-XIII (this implies the Axis sunk or own the Royal Navy) operating out of Greenland or the Carribean.

I think guided bombs are something that only really works the first time around in this scenario. The controlling plane needs to be relatively undisturbed during the bomb's decent to control it. It reminds me of Isreali practise of shooting at Arab ATGM teams to throw their aim off, which was highly successful counter-tactic. Roma did great service to Germans by having no idea what was going on. In '44 US had it's own guided bomb.

But more importantly to get into Carribean or Greenland (the latter would be terrible location for large air base due to extreme weather) the Germans need to defeat USN first. Even if they are not at war, a German invasion convoy headed to Carribean is something that would get even isolationists on their feet.

I don't understand why everybody seems confined to thinking that the only weapon against a navy is a bigger navy, when the US proved something else.

US defeated Japan by building the biggest baddest fleet and then sailed across ocean defeating whatever the enemy could throw at it's face. Only after that could it actually hope to attack Japan directly. It also put considerable resources for just getting there, fleet logistics and underway replenishment to allow it's fleet to remain on station and operate with high tempo as well as various landing vessels to allow men, materiel and supplies be brought ashore.

 

[tazaaron]

Easy, downright impossible. No explanation needed

I agree with Krafty and he's right, haven't read every post up till now but see naval production mentioned alot and that's not the important number when it comes to protecting the US coast, it's aircraft numbers, you have even 20,000 AC nobody is making a naval invasion , don't matter how many ships you have

 

[Krafty]

The point being? All you mentioned plays into the numbers game, it does not even remotely contest the doylist assertion that an invasion of the USA has to be possible.

Quit peddling arguments on which others have sent you home.

So basically, Axis always fail, US always win. No big leap to get to your next point:

You are a "pro america whoohoo boy", to whit:

While those points can be made, others have demonstrated that they are resultant of a very selective perception of american capabilities.

Yes it has to be possible in the game.

It was absolutely impossible in real life.

There are two concurrent discussions going on here. Context. It matters.

And no, I am not. Depending on the conversation and context, I have been called a fanboy of every nation, when correcting peoples untrue assertions. Im open to your evidence to the contrary, I love to learn. Please lay it on me if you disagree with any of my assertions.

Perception, is not reality by the way. Those are just facts to add grease to the conversation. World war two is not the history of triumphant struggle, its the history of a mathematical inevitability. While human perception wants to believe that if you "just changed this" or "just changed that", if someone fought a little harder, had more espirit de corps, that history would be different. Unfortunately for the dreamers, this is not the case. World war two is a story of primarily, roads, and secondarily, of math.

Understanding what peoples capabilities are, and why people won or lost the way they did, is a mathematical, not an ideological, problem to solve. I have no bias.

If we were talking about aircraft, id be called a German fanboy, as I have been, when reminding people that the Ta152 was the best prop driven aircraft ever designed by human beings. Kurt Tank was as good in his field as Wernher was in his. It might not have topped every specific category until the present day, but as a combat aircraft, it was the best ever designed and flown.

 

[permanently_afk]

In long term I have always agreed with this. In short term an Axis Eurasia would have difficult time just integrating what they took into cohesive economy. Historically the places Nazis took tended to grow weaker as German war economy took them out of their pre-existing system and was subsequently unable to provide for them.

Overall, yeah. Thing is, even short-term there should be some slack there. Not to mention that they already have the stuff up and running. In conclusion, I would give the USA a (depending on political competence) strong mid-term advantage.

I think guided bombs are something that only really works the first time around in this scenario. The controlling plane needs to be relatively undisturbed during the bomb's decent to control it. It reminds me of Isreali practise of shooting at Arab ATGM teams to throw their aim off, which was highly successful counter-tactic. Roma did great service to Germans by having no idea what was going on. By '44 US had it's own guided bomb.

But more importantly to get into Carribean or Greenland (the latter would be terrible location for large air base due to extreme weather) the Germans need to defeat USN first. Even if they are not at war, a German invasion convoy headed to Carribean is something that would get even isolationists on their feet.

I was rather thinking of a massed guided-missile strike (basically Fritz-X and V1 in one neat package - early stand-off missiles). Mind you, the problem with operating far from home is true in reverse, too. Meaning the USA will have a harder time operating in icelandic waters than operating close to home. And Greenland and the Carribean are the only likely staging places...if we discount going over the Alaskan Gap (muhahahaha).

US defeated Japan by building the biggest baddest fleet and then sailed across ocean defeating whatever the enemy could throw at it's face. Only after that could it actually hope to attack Japan directly. It also put considerable resources for just getting there, fleet logistics and underway replenishment to allow it's fleet to remain on station and operate with high tempo as well as various landing vessels to allow men, materiel and supplies be brought ashore.

So, national myth?

 

[Krafty]

You do know explosive power, even in PETN, made large rockets like the V, as combat weapons, completely useless in world war two right?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/50...-V2-bombs-landed-in-London-and-the-south-east

They plastered England and it essentially did nothing. It didnt reduce fighting manpower, it didnt hurt industry, it didnt hurt "unity", it didnt hurt anyone's war effort, but the Germans, who had to devote men, minds and material to a project that went no where, that was being undermined by the man in charge, because he hated Hitler.

 

[Krafty]

Also the US beat Japan in 6 months.

Midway was only 6 months after Pearl.

Its production never mattered. Japan couldnt replace its losses, and it essentially lost at Midway. America won that war in 6 months in the Pacific. Its not nearly the "struggle" that American history books make it out to be. It certainly didnt leverage its production to swarm the Japanese navy with hordes of numbers.

They beat them at Midway. In one battle. That was it. Other than a really lucky repair of a carrier, the US fleet at the time, really didnt have anything "new and flashy" or "tons of numbers" leveraged by production to throw into the battle. We broke their code, laid a trap, sunk their carriers, and waltzed to victory over the next few years. The time it took is a testament to how hard landings actually are. Of course in America, with war bonds and political careers hinging on the war, it continued to be protrayed as a "great struggle".

Which is exactly the time frame Yamamoto gave his superiors when trying to keep them from committing national suicide by attacking the US.

They were convinced however that America would see it as a colonial war, like the 1800s, and simply let its colonial holdings go, rather than engage in total war.

Many knew better, but were ignored, because Japan had literally no other choice but to get into a war with the allies. They hoped for a best case scenario, where the US surrendered its holdings.

It was complete hogwash and many knew that, but as said, they had no other choice than to believe the unbelievable. Their empire depended on it.

American history books like to talk about how it was the long undecided struggle, but reading MacArthurs memoirs, its clear that intelligensia of the American military machine, thought of them as "Laundrymen".

That would bite MacArthur in the butt in Korea, seeing him replaced by Matt Ridgeway, after underestimating the Inmun Gun.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

So, national myth?

Just pointing out that US did not defeat Japan by attritional fighting in the Solomons, but by overwhelming Central Pacific thrust in their face. And that beyond the fighting navy a sustained offensive needs legs to stand on and that those legs were, in fact, expensive.

I'm not American, if that's what you were suggesting (Finnish, in fact).

Also the US beat Japan in 6 months.

Midway was only 6 months after Pearl.

Japan wasn't exactly defeated in 6 months. It was fought to an eroding standstill from which it could not hope to recover.

 

[Krafty]

Just pointing out that US did not defeat Japan by attritional fighting in the Solomons, but by overwhelming Central Pacific thrust in their face. And that beyond the fighting navy a sustained offensive needs legs to stand on and that those legs were, in fact, expensive.

I'm not American, if that's what you were suggesting (Finnish, in fact).

And they overwelmed them with ships they already had built by December 41. In the six months between December 41 and June 4 42, the US didnt complete that many ships, production was still ramping up, people still being hired, slipways still being constructed, hulls being laid. While the US had its own shadow build up, it didnt really kick into high gear until after Pearl, and took about 13 months to hit its stride it would be in for the rest of the war.

We broke their code and beat them at Midway. There was no coming back for the IJN at that point. It was simply mitigating the defeat, and trying to get a conditional surrender.

 

[Krafty]

Japan wasn't exactly defeated in 6 months. It was fought to an eroding standstill from which it could not hope to recover.

Fair assessment. To me, thats the point where they were defeated, and everything after that was simply a matter of finishing the victory. There was no coming back after that, it was, as you said, fought to an eroding standstill where invasion of the Home Islands was a costly prospect, hoping to get a conditional surrender, which the atomic bombs rendered moot.

Its like that point when playing HOI when you realize youve won, and it gets boring and you restart. The turning point was midway. After that Japan had zero chance of victory, though not that it had any chance of victory anyways.

Theres a reason that many island garrisons were essentially 'penal battalions' in the IJA. They were expendable. They knew theyd fight to the last man because they wanted to restore their cultural honor, but ultimate the Navy and the Army commands in Japan, didnt care about what happened to those soldiers. They were just to cause strife to the Americans, so that hopefully, the Americans decided peace was preferable to conquering their vast empire.

This goes back to Clausewitz's "war is politics by other means". Japan entered a war for political reasons, which happened to be because of economic realities, and they continued under the belief that a political solution would be end result of the conflict. That esoteric qualities of the United States, its people, its government, would lend a positive outcome to what was a doomed endeavor.

By the time of the Inmun Gun and later the Viet Cong, doctrines in Asia had changed to properly take into account the American political situation and its esoteric qualities, leading to both of those wars ended because of American politics, not because of force equations.

This led to Reflexive Control becoming the answer to the west's "Game Theory". Reflexive control today, being the superior doctrine and the American military establishment, just in the past few years, recognizing this fact.

 

[permanently_afk]

Yes it has to be possible in the game.

It was absolutely impossible in real life.

On ah.com there is a thread about "things which would be ASB if they hadn't happened in OTL". So "impossible in real life" is a matter of perspective.

There are two concurrent discussions going on here. Context. It matters.

Thats why I split my answer into a watsonian and doylist part. The doylist part does not book contest. The watsonian part has been discussed on the fist four pages of this thread.

And no, I am not. Depending on the conversation and context, I have been called a fanboy of every nation, when correcting peoples untrue assertions. Im open to your evidence to the contrary, I love to learn. Please lay it on me if you disagree with any of my assertions.

And yet, I can only remember you as a US fanboy. As for want to learn and discussion in general, the first four pages of this thread are evidence enough that you should engage in some critical self-introspection first.

Perception, is not reality by the way.

Funnyly enough, perception is reality. Or at least close enough. To dig up the old argument, it doesn't matter if you are an actual human, a brain in a tank or a bunch of electrons running in a computer simulation. You percieve it as real, therefore it is. And even if it weren't, it would not matter since none of us can prove that it isn't real.

Those are just facts to add grease to the conversation. World war two is not the history of triumphant struggle, its the history of a mathematical inevitability. While human perception wants to believe that if you "just changed this" or "just changed that", if someone fought a little harder, had more espirit de corps, that history would be different. Unfortunately for the dreamers, this is not the case. World war two is a story of primarily, roads, and secondarily, of math.

Ah, yes...the mythical inevitability of history. If you think OTL WWII was decided from the start, you have a high likelyhood of being right. If you think all possible WWIIs were decided from the start, you are delusional.

Understanding what peoples capabilities are, and why people won or lost the way they did, is a mathematical, not an ideological, problem to solve. I have no bias.

Even if that were true, you may pay attention to the fact that the people who recorded those capabilities will have had strong bias. Making your enemy seem greater to make your deeds more valorous, make your enemy seem easily defeated to increase your abilites. Both at the same time. Common in all armies. Made worse by Hollywood. Go look up "theatrical militarism" for a run-down on the concept.

You do know explosive power, even in PETN, made large rockets like the V, as combat weapons, completely useless in world war two right?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/50...-V2-bombs-landed-in-London-and-the-south-east

They plastered England and it essentially did nothing. It didnt reduce fighting manpower, it didnt hurt industry, it didnt hurt "unity", it didnt hurt anyone's war effort, but the Germans, who had to devote men, minds and material to a project that went no where, that was being undermined by the man in charge, because he hated Hitler.

And that has excatly WHAT impact on a missile strike against a fleet? The only thing it proves is that strategic rocket bombardment is just as useless as strategic bombing.

Just pointing out that US did not defeat Japan by attritional fighting in the Solomons, but by overwhelming Central Pacific thrust in their face. And that beyond the fighting navy a sustained offensive needs legs to stand on and that those legs were, in fact, expensive.

I'm not American, if that's what you were suggesting (Finnish, in fact).

Wasn't meant in an attacking way. Just categorising things (in this case, it goes partially into the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero's_journey drawer) - I recently picked up an interest in how stories evolve. The USA are nice subject for a variety of reasons (in brief: great, but severly flawed).

 

[Krafty]

Theres not much I can say if you believe perception is reality, instead of reality being reality.

Wernher's rockets couldnt hit Number 10 Downing, I seriously doubt they can hit a ship.

Now, part of that is because of slave labor, and part of that is because Wernher willfully sabotaged his own calculations. Im sure, he could have, built a rocket to hit ships. It just wasnt something he was either tasked with doing, or was willing to do.

I do find the assertion im a US fanboy pretty funny.

Ill have to tell all the people who call me a USSR fanboy that. Theyll get a kick out of it. As will the ones who say im a German, French, English, Chinese, and Japanese fanboy.

Ive found in my many years, the hardest thing for people to accept, is that history unfolded the way it did because it HAD too, not because of the actions or decisions of rational actors. Rational actors, by providence of BEING rational actors, make rational choices, based on variables outside of their control. The reason world war two occurred the way it did and had the results it had was because it was decided before any human being ever conceived of starting the war.

As said, its math. Not human decision making. Reality dictates the decisions people make. Especially when diffused over thousands of decision makers. Even if one irrational actor makes a choice, and creates a "What if" by virtue of there not being a rational actor, you still arrive at the same end results even if you had a rational actor, making decisions based on fact rather than belief.

The way the Axis wins world war two, is by not starting it.

Or by inventing reflexive control. But they were too stuck on Neumann, to read any Buhkarin.

For the record, im Israeli. Not American either. I have absolutely no bias towards America, or its performance in world war two.

If this was a discussion about social and political aspects of world war two with regards to America, im sure id be called "anti American". The internment of Japanese, the Zoot Suit Riots, the treatment of men and women of color and different national origins, their treatment of Jewish refugees, the political expediency of "war bonds" and the nationalization of industries that would make Lenin blush, etc. Not a fan.

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

The way the Axis wins world war two, is by not starting it.

"The only winning move is not to play"

 

[amalric de g.]

It was implicit that Hitler keep "life a cabaret" for Germans, and thats why it took him so long to mobilize labor and the economy in the first place. He realistically couldnt have done it any sooner. It was a political imperative to NOT have scrap drives, or rationing, or hire unskilled laborers to replace skilled laborers, or create competition among work forces, lower workers rights, bring in women and minorities, etc. Hitler COULDNT do those things. It would have been political suicide at a point where ACTUAL suicide was what political suicide meant.

You don´t have the slightest clue about the facts and throw your "thruth" around like it´s the holy grail.

First: All workers unions were forbidden Mai.2.1933, they were replaced by the Deutsche Arbeitsfront. The wages of the workers were frozen etc..

Second: in germany worked more % of women than in the US or UK prewar and during the war.

Third: The myth about the backward german farms, from 1933 until 1939, the NS Regime doubled the electrical and motorized farming machines, up to 3 Million pieces. Theoretical every german farm had one machine.

Fourth: Mobilizing labor, if every german is either in the Army or working (Army 1939 4,5 million, not counting the Navy and Airforce) where will you get more people for the work? I´m talking about 1939.

Thats the true reason:
"Obviously, Hitler had a pathological fear of losing popularity" Thats the only reason why it took him so long to mobilize the economy and even more worse the lunatic really thought in July 1941 that he had won the war allready "Hitler announced a dismantling and conversion program on the 14th of July 1941, on the grounds that 'in the final battle, no opponent could be formed again'."

 

[Krafty]

"The only winning move is not to play"

 

[Krafty]

You don´t have the slightest clue about the facts and throw your "thruth" around like it´s the holy grail.

First: All workers unions were forbidden Mai.2.1933, they were replaced by the Deutsche Arbeitsfront. The wages of the workers were frozen etc..

Second: in germany worked more % of women than in the US or UK prewar and during the war.

Third: The myth about the backward german farms, from 1933 until 1939, the NS Regime doubled the electrical and motorized farming machines, up to 3 Million pieces. Theoretical every german farm had one machine.

Fourth: Mobilizing labor, if every german is either in the Army or working (Army 1939 4,5 million, not counting the Navy and Airforce) where will you get more people for the work? I´m talking about 1939.

Thats the true reason:
"Obviously, Hitler had a pathological fear of losing popularity" Thats the only reason why it took him so long to mobilize the economy and even more worse the lunatic really thought in July 1941 that he had won the war allready "Hitler announced a dismantling and conversion program on the 14th of July 1941, on the grounds that 'in the final battle, no opponent could be formed again'."

Yeah you just reinforced everything I said.

The Arbeitsfront and frozen wages stifled competition which kept laborers in their respective "classes". It gave all of them the same set of workers rights, were were better than those in the UK or US, they made it possible for women to get a disposable income so they could go to the shops, live life, be independent, or add to the income of a home.

German farming was improved. Quality of life was raised.

Are you not seeing that we agree?

Or are you not seeing that it was politically critical for Hitler to do this instead of mobilizing industry for war production?

Tractors instead of tanks. The German people had to see quality of life improve. If they did what the USSR, or USA did, which was the COMPLETE OPPOSITE, German workers wouldnt have gone for it.

The US, UK, Russia, all LOWERED wages, LOWERED workers rights, stopped providing money to states, to social welfare, to unemployment payments, they had scrap drives, they had bare store shelves, they had race riots, labor riots, strikes, terrible conditions, all the while demanding more and more of the population. They could do this because they were under attack, they werent the aggressor.

People generally as a rule, want money spent on their own people and not on foreign campaigns for glory. Thats older than Rome.

For Hitler to keep power in Germany, he had to put "Germans first". If he started letting poor schleps from the countryside come take your job in the factory because he's willing to work for half of what you are, Hitler would have been booted out of power faster than the Hindenburg went up in flames.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

Of course the rest of the world will eventually start outproducing America, if the Axis doesn't face crippling internal problems.

But when is "eventually"? Even if the USA stays out of full war footing years longer than in OTL, she can still ramp up production faster than a post-conquest Axis. By the time Axis Eurasia matches us in production, we'll have spent years building ships and planes, fortifying the coasts, and developing the atom bomb and better ways of delivering it. We'll have unilaterally assured destruction before the invasion force is ready.

Invasion should be impossible outside of really weird fringe cases like the USA foregoing any build-up while the UK joins the Axis, or the Axis somehow developing nukes before us.