Even if they were able to militarily defeat the US Navy somehow, did Imperial Japan ever have enough actual manpower to occupy and pacify the whole West Coast of the United States on top of occupying China and Southeast Asia?
>>8224
No. Imperial Japan knew that their only strategy was to bleed the US so badly in initial engagements (a single decisive engagement, they hoped) that it would make peace.
>>8271
This. By 1942 they were already hopelessly overstretched.
>>8271
>such obsession with a single decisive engagement
Well, one can't blame them since that's how they won the Russo-Japanese War.
Did anyone else find it a little odd how in this show the Japanese have harmonized their racial policies with that of Nazi Germany, specifically with regard to anti-Semitism? Historically Imperial Japan in WW2 repeatedly denied German requests to adopt anti-Semitic policies, and either offered safe refuge to or permitted to transit through Japanese territory many thousands of Jewish refugees fleeing from the Nazis. Unlike much of Europe, Japan has no cultural, religious, or historical baggage to form an antisemitic attitude.
>>8224
>Nazi Reich in USA
Those retard weren't able to maintain their logistic ligne to supply their troops in Russia, 1800km away.
Please tell me how they could invade a country located 6900km away from Germany and with a fucking ocean between them.
>posting american literary trash
Please don't ever post this again
>>8224
No.
This timeline is completely ASB.
>>8224
Japan with the service rivalry getting that major of an operation done is impossible.
>>8696
By using the common pop-up book spook meme wherein the Nazis would have remained as inflammatory as Hitler until the end of time and wanted to actually take over the world.
Would the USA really continue fighting if the European continent was completely taken by the Axis?
Surely they'd just cut their losses and call for truce
>>8224
No. They had about 11 divisions available during the war, all of which were already committed elsewhere. And that doesn't even get into the logistics of it.
Essentially, Philip K. Dick had no actual interest in writing an actually accurate take on what would happen from a military standpoint in such a situation. The story is more of a metafiction about alternate history, in the guise of an alternate history, which is why I've always found it strange that it's generally considered an example of straight alt-history.
>>8224
The Man in the High Castle, well, it wouldn't have happened.
Hitler would have taken over most of Europe. I don't even think it would all be known as Germany or the Third Reich or all that. It'd probably just be a series of fascist puppet states. Japan would be too busy with China to want anything from the US.
And as >>9248 said, the US would've sought peace after the fall of Europe.
Would Hitler keep fighting?
No, that's fucking /retarded/.
There's so many guns in the US that he would have to deal with both our army and a bunch of patriotic, hyped up motherfuckers ready to resist.
A better "What if the Axis won" book is Fatherland, even if it doesn't focus on the end of the war.
>>8351
>Basing your naval strategy on fighting Russians
The Man in the High Castle was never intended to actually be a reasonable study of what would have happened if the axis had won the war. For god's sake, the book ends with the main characters finding out that their universe is an alternate history novel.
>>8532
Realpolitik, anon.
