American domestic policy in the event of a Nazi victory in Europe

[Cory]

Some things to lay out first:

A.) Hitler was never going to "conquer the world". That's just silly. A best-case-scenario for Germany in WWII involves Germany taking Russia up to the Astrakhan-to-Arkhangelsk line and at best Italian control over Egypt and the Near East. The idea was for Germany to become a pan-European superpower capable of competing with America in engaging in a final naval war with them "sometime in the 1980's" (as per Hitler's Second Book).

B.) It it borderline impossible for Germany to invade the UK directly. Much more likely some kind of peace treaty after the defeat of the USSR and fall of Iraq (assuming America doesn't enter the war in Europe).

C.) It is physically impossible for Germany to invade the USA in any way, shape, or form during the WWII time-frame.

D.) The Nazis will probably never develop the atomic bomb, but will however make strides in VX nerve gas warheads for ballistic missiles.

But as far as American politics is concerned certainly much more left-wing and the "Cold War" will be much more intense and almost certainly result in a Third World War ending in the nuclear destruction of Germany (the Nazis are much more radical then the Soviets). I can see the Civil Rights act or variant being passed much earlier and easier and the Dixiecrat wing of the Democratic Party falling out of favor earlier. Eisenhower is handwaved entirely and Taft is never considered as a serious potential candidate to begin with.

[Cory]

For one thing, I never used the word conquer. I said "wanted" and "dominate". Second of all, do you really thing Adolf Hitler would pass up the opportunity to take it, if it presented itself? The man always went beyond his stated desires at nearly every stage, so I don't think Hitler's own self stated limits hold much weight considering, it is you know HITLER we are discussing.

That gets into whole another realm of Hitler's attachment to reality. I merely stated he wanted the world, and once again nothing in his history indicates that his own material limits ever presented an obstacle in his mind. Otherwise he never would have attacked the Soviet Union and/or the US.

Hitler can want whatever he wants, that doesn't mean he's gonna get it. Germany simply can not dominate the globe in his life time and after the Soviets are defeated Hitler will have no problem standing down and developing his pan-European Empire (assuming he is at peace with Britain and the USA). Remember that Hitler wanted a pan-European superstate capable of competing with America. He wasn't silly enough to think he could defeat America within his lifetime.

A question of timing. It was very possible to defeat Britain in 1940. And like William Pitt the Younger noted regarding a Napoleon dominated a Europe, a pan European superpower would eventually come to possess the means by which to defeat the British if left unchecked.

Britain can be brought to make peace in 1940, or later if the USSR is defeated and the USA isn't in the European war. But invaded and conquered or puppetized? No way.

The idea is that the USA will be in a military alliance with the UK thus nixing the economic overpowerment argument. Keep in mind that in this scenario the US and Britain will be in an alliance technically only against Japan but after the UK makes peace with Germany this will rapidly evolve into a general alliance.

In a World War II timeframe yes, but a trans-European Empire with access to Caucasian and Middle Eastern oil, would possess the means not long afterwards and certainly before the 1980's to do so.

   

Even then I highly doubt this empire would have the logistical capability to directly invade and conquer the mainland USA. Also even if Germany does get nukes the USA will be way ahead of them both in quality and numbers. Germany will be at an atomic deficit similar to the way the USSR was in the 1950's.

The problem with your contention is that it is predicated on Hitler being 1) realistic and 2) credible when he says "this and no more" and Hitler was famous for being neither. On the other hand he was known for was megalomania and delusions about his own abilities and that of his Third Reich.

Hitler may have been insane but he was not stupid. I don't see why he would start another war when all of his war aims have been reached and he is free to develop his New Order in Europe. Especially seeing as by this time it will be clear that Japan is on the way out and he will have to face the USA/UK all by himself.

[Cory]

I think we have reach the point of splitting hairs on the general question. I said "unless stopped, he was going to get it", which is rather obvious naturally. An alliance to check Hitler would count as such, no?

That' absurd logic. That could be argued but how you just phrased it would be like saying anyone will have anything they want "unless stopped", with society being the factor stopping them.

It would be like saying "unless stopped" some random spree shooter is going to "kill everyone in the world". And then if someone pointed out how absurd that is because the police will overwhelm them relativity quickly and they couldn't travel that far and wide and you turn around and say "well that would count as something stopping them now wouldn't it"?

I guess it would depend on the demands of such a peace with Britain would be and if it included demilitarization, he could always turn his attention back to it after the USSR and overrun it.

Britain will never accept demilitarization, for reasons you just stated. Nor will she cede any colonies. A white peace is all the Germans can get.

As for 1940 a combination of an effective sea strangulation (assuming the absence of Lend-Lease and such), there is a scenario where Britain can be isolated enough to be defeated. Planes don't fly without oil and once the supplies were depleted they could be bombed into subsmission and then invaded.

A.) I would assume that even in a timeline where Germany wins WWII there would still be lend-lease, at least to the UK.

B.) The Kriegsmarine isn't as capable as you seem to be giving it credit for. The Royal Navy was much more powerful and had plenty of destroyers. Don't get me wrong the Germans can devastate British shipping but I don't think they can fully cut it off.

C.) Even if Germany gains air superiority over England how will the Germans launch and sustain this ground invasion? All they really had for transport were Rhine river barges and you better bet the entire British navy will steam into the channel if that's what it takes. Then the British will deploy mustard gas on the invading Germans when they hit the beaches.

D.) Even if Germany somehow successfully invades and occupies the UK I would say it could ultimately be a net-negative. We would have a situation where Germany needs to deploy even more troops in the West (France & UK) to occupy the UK and finish off resistance after a bloody battle. Ironically this would make Germany weaker relative to the USSR in 1941. Not to mention that Stalin will be expecting the invasion this time, as the UK is gone and he is clearly next on the hit list.

If Hitler has to delay Barbarossa until 1942 it's over for Germany. The Soviets will have completed their military reforms and will be ready & waiting for the German invasion.

Also, Hitler's insanity drove him to to many stupid decisions I would point out.

While this is true we must remember that he more or less did everything right up until about the Fall of 1941 after the Battle of Smolensk. If anything even bothering with the Battle of Britain was his biggest mistake up to that point. The UK could have been left alone as they had been neutralized. Absent bringing America into the war the British can't summon the raw manpower required to launch a serious landing in the West.

The biggest mistake ultimately was declaring war on the United States.