Ask Lemmy

Let's assume that the Axis winning the war means they keep all territory they've had at the height of their expansion in our timeline but don't expand much more, at least not immediately.

• The EU does not exist but as most of Europe is either occupied by Germany or allied with it, there might be a similar organization with a way stronger Germany at its center.
• If a NATO-like alliance forms, it excludes most of Europe, mainly consisting of the USA, Canada and UK, maybe Spain and Portugal
• The Soviet Union is way weaker than in our timeline with most of Eastern Europe being under German control. They still have control over Central Asia, probably more than in our timeline.
• The Allies still control Gibraltar and are able to intercept ships passing through the English Channel, making the west of France the only safe access to the Atlantic for the Axis.
• Wernher von Braun and other rocket scientists stay in Germany, giving the USA and Soviet Union a massive disadvantage in the development of ICBMs. The USA may have nuclear bombs but their only way to threaten Germany with them would be UK-based bombers which are way slower and easier to defend against. On the other hand, a failure of the Manhattan Project might be the whole reason why the Axis wins the war. Everyone will figure it out eventually but as we see from real life, it might take decades.
• No proper cold war as there are no two super powers exercising mutually assured destruction with ICBMs but probably ongoing tensions along the German-Soviet border. The USA probably stays out of it to avoid becoming a target for either side.
• Italian East Africa (Somalia) becomes the most important rocket launch site in the world, as it is the only Axis-controlled territory that is close to the equator and has open ocean to the east. Some smaller rockets may launch from Japan. French Guiana might be under Axis control but shipping rockets over the Atlantic is dangerous when they could get intercepted by foreign ships. Without competition, manned spaceflight develops a lot slower, maybe not at all.
• Without manned spaceflight and the threat of a nuclear war, there is less incentive to develop computers and the internet.

You may be interested in The Man in the High Castle it's both a novel by Phillip K. Dick and TV show on Amazon Prime that explores exactly that premise

The Man in the High Castle has a pretty good take on this.

We'd be speaking in German on lemmy, wondering what all those weird English memes are that sometimes pop up on the timeline

The fact that the Axis & Allied powers had nations as mascots for the masses to cheer/boo for has done nothing but dull our collective perception of reality: it's corps all the way down, and They won.

All of these answers are super interesting and well thought out. Many of them line up with I would think, except for one thing. Hitler was no spring chicken during the war. He was 56 years old when he died, under the total crushing stress of leading a nation at war, and being pumped full of a truly fascinating cocktail of drugs by his personal physician. Depending on factors (mostly the war, which you dont specify in your prompt how they won), I don't see him living much past 1945. And I don't see the Reich lasting as a stable state much past that.

I feel like people are overestimating the extent to which Hitler set his subordinates against each other, so that none could accumulate enough power to challenge him. He would kill or sacrifice allies when it became convenient or expedient (remember the night of long knives?) and he avoided appointing a successor. Many speculative fiction works put Albert Speer in this role, but I think its more likely that the Nazi state descends into infighting, and different people fight for the top spot before Hitler is cold.

The world loves eugenics, and it is considered "civilised" to kill disabled infants. Sterilisation programs of indigenous people and minorities are carried out across Europe, North America, and Asia.
A rule of power International order, where there are spheres of influence for the big players, Japan, Germany, USA, and maybe Russia and India.

A very racist USA that has annexed Canada and maybe more of Mexico, debates about reinstating slavery are a common part of political discourse.

UK is run by incompetent fascists, but the empire has collapsed so tensions build. I'm not sure who the "enemy" would be - maybe a violent revolution that leads to the end of the monarchy? Maybe German "Peacekeepers" on the streets to neutralise the communist subversive threat. Maybe invasion to reannex Ireland as Irish independence is blamed for things falling apart?

British intelligensia fled to Aus-NZ, causing demographic strife as the influx of new comers puts strains on the countries, but also an influx of ideas and they could evolve into a bastion of Liberalism, if not progressive ideas. Probably define selves as not Nazi, and will do a lot of soul searching (or just ignore) treatment of indigenous peoples.

South America probably more stable and more left wing without US meddling and the influx of Nazis. But my South American history is quite weak, so I know I'm not accounting for an awful lot. That, or the fascist US attempts to invade and has a Vietnam experience in Central America.

India as a fascist Hindustan, allied with Japan.

Imperial Japan controls much of Asia either directly or indirectly. The official story is that Japan is the liberator of Asia, having freed Asia from European imperialism, but life is hard for many people, especially ethnic minorities of China and Siberia who have few rights and are often sterilised while their culture is erased. Meanwhile wealth and value is extracted for the metropole.
Asia would certainly have some armed revolution movements, especially in western China and Northern Siberia. A much larger Mongolia, Tibet, unified Korea, Manchuko, and maybe some new nations in Southern China as indepent states, and maybe Turkistan.

Indochina would be wild. Not sure how it would end up, but the road would be very different.

Would Middle East be better off? Maybe. [Edit: Sykes Picot was 1st World War, stupid sleep addled brain] ~~The mess of Sykes-Picot wouldn't happen, and no installation of British/French puppets.~~ Turkey likes USSR's weakening, but now Germany is a worry.
German superstate may well invade to control oil in the 50s/60s though. Which would be very bad news for the Zionists, who are a group of Socialist Jews who run a smattering of self sufficient communities across the Middle East.
By a bizzare twist of fate the Kurds still end up without their own nation and as pawns in games between other powers.

Africa would be embroiled in the second scramble for Africa where Germany, Japan, and the USA fight via proxies if not directly for control over the former French and British colonies. Each side supporting partisans and independence movements against the other. Hindustan might join in too, but has to sort its (Edit: accursed autocorrect) home situation out first. Fascist Kingdom of Britain and Australia might do lots of espionage here against each other, seeing themselves as legitimate successor to the UK.

Like Russia today.

I think there is a show about this.

I imagine that we would be more scientifically advanced but more radical, less liberal.

However, everything eventually changes over time. The world has managed to steer towards fascist regimes after the win of USA in WW2. It is not impossible that Hitler would have made us more liberal today.

We’re about to find out

Depends on what changed. Axis victory would have hinged on three possible outcomes:

• The United States staying out of the conflict (no Pearl Harbour assault, no German u-boat attacks on American vessels, and Hitler & Mussolini not declaring war on the USA in response to the US declaration of war on Japan.)
• Operation Barbarossa not happening.
• British defeat or withdrawal from the war.

In a scenario where the Japanese never attacked Pearl Harbour and never dragged the USA into the conflict, Hitler may have been able to eventually conquer Britain, turn his efforts towards Operation Barbarossa and take control of the entire European continent, along with parts of Asia. The Holocaust would likely have still happened, as the Final Solution was put in place six months prior to the Battle of Stalingrad, which turned the tide of the war in our current timeline.

Lack of US involvement leads to a scenario where nuclear weapons would not have been invented until much later, as Germany had not actually been working on weapons of mass destruction, and the Manhattan Project would never have occurred. World War III would likely have been fought between the Nazis/Japanese and Soviets, while the US would have remained isolationist.

A scenario where Operation Barbarossa never happens (neither Hitler nor Stalin attack each other) may be different. Hitler consolidates his European gains, never attacks the Soviet Union and focuses his efforts purely on the United States and Africa, securing many wins without his armies being stretched so thin. In that scenario, Jews are likely exiled to penal colonies established in Africa or the Middle East, from lands conquered from the British. The Holocaust may happen further down the line, but some historians think it was the unique wartime conditions on the Eastern Front that led to the Final Solution being considered - Nazi Germany actually tried resettling Jews in other lands prior to WW2.

British withdrawal (Hitler negotiating peace with Churchill) or defeat (Nazi Germany winning the Battle for Britain) may have led to Operation Barbarossa happening sooner, and with the Soviet Union not so far along in their industralization efforts, they would have likely lost Stalingrad, Petrograd and possibly Moscow. It either would have been a long and bloody war of attrition or a swift Soviet loss.