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

[Meursault]

Handwave its implausibility. Say the war resolves with Germany having not invaded Russia before knocking out Britain in a drawn-out airpower war and Hitler resolving to sacrifice Japan by refusing to declare war on America, taking pains to avoid giving Roosevelt a cause for war.

Petain rules a United France as a German client state. Franco replaces Tojo in the Axis. Britain cedes the Mediterranean to Italy in exchange for Axis noninterference with the overseas Empire. The Soviets are invaded by the full might of the Axis in 1943, but are prepared for it: a bloody stalemate exists in 1944.

How does America develop domestically from here out?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hitler wanted the world and was going to get it unless stopped. He had even divided up the US map into administrative districts for once he had defeated them.

Domestic policy? The only course for the US is to focus its production on Naval and Air power so that it can knock out Japan quickly and then turn its attention to liberating Europe starting first with the ardous task of having to liberate England via Iceland and cutting it off from the Continent with sea power being a necessity obviously. The fear of global domination by Fascism would probably lead to severe clamp down on dissent and potential sources of disunity in the United States that Hitler could take advantage of.

Also if Hitler had defeated England, he would have set up a fascist client state there and divided up its Empire as he saw fit. No amount of horse trading of Malta (to Italy), Cyprus (Italy?) and Gibraltar (to Franco's Spain) would stop that. He would want would want India (massive supply of manpower), Egypt (Suez for access to Indian) and the Middle East (oil).

[Meursault]

My proposal is that Hitler broadly follows the course laid out in Mein Kampf and less of the ideas put forward in the Second Book. He, at least initially, wanted an anti-Soviet alliance with England.

Assume he also (perhaps uncharacteristically) takes the long view with the United States. Even in the Second Book he didn't propose a trans-Atlantic war until the 1970s.

My aim here is to see whether an anti-fascist Cold War would have the same degree of intensity behind it as our anti-Communist one did historically.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You really need to word these questions better to reflect your desired inquiry.

Are you primarily interested in economic policy or those relating to things like free speech and such?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Given Mr. Salt's second post, I'd have to think that this would solidify the country's left-wing for far longer than it was in real life. There might be a greater focus on things such as civil liberties and free speech. The irony would be that people entirely unaffiliated with our Nazi enemies like right-wingers such as Barry Goldwater would see some of the same slander that McCarthyists threw at the left. After all, during his presidential run, a number of liberal commentators compared his supporters to fascists. I can see an Adlai Stevenson presidency being a marker of the liberal consensus in the 1950's. The American right could see come interesting transformations, and with being portrayed as a party full of fascists, could become haven to some unseemly types. I'd have to wonder if one or both of the parties would attempt a "detente"-type foreign policy. It wouldn't necessarily have to come from the Republicans (who in this scenario might be positioned as the more dovish party), after all, it was the Nixon administration who made it vogue in the '70's. Maybe a Kennedy presidency beginning in the late '60's could see the rise of a "longview" type foreign policy that would lead to less open hostility between us and the Nazi regime.

As well, I'd have to assume that we'd remain allies with the Soviets, which opens up a whole world of possibilities. Could be a good timeline, though I doubt you're writing those things these days.

[Meursault]

Both, really. What does America look like in 1952? Is there still a sixties counterculture? Does it tilt to the Right?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Beyond parody.

[Meursault]

Watch this:

Explain, please? While implausible, the basic idea came straight out of the novel Fatherland. Is that parodic, too? Or is this another of your famously uninformative one-liners?

[Mopsus]

Hitler wanted the world 

Cite? As far as I've read, Hitler's territorial ambitions didn't extend beyond Iran and the Ural Mountains to the east and Mittelafrika to the south. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Hitler wanted the world  

Cite? As far as I've read, Hitler's territorial ambitions didn't extend beyond Iran and the Ural Mountains to the east and Mittelafrika to the south.  

For the immediate term yes, but a Third Reich extending that far would possess the means to make a play for global domination and it would be foolish to trust the expressed limits of ambition of someone who said over and over again, "This and no more" only to take another slice.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.   

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 meglamania and delusions about his own abilities and that of his Third Reich.

[Mechaman]

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.   

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 meglamania and delusions about his own abilities and that of his Third Reich.

Yes, Hitler was Blofeld if he somehow managed to become leader of a country through the democratic process.

[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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

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. 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.

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

[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.