Don't forget the extermination of the relatives of millions of Americans.
Domestic policy in a Cold War against Nazis
- Thread starter Strategos' Risk
- Start date
Don't forget the extermination of the relatives of millions of Americans.
I think you'd definitely see a more socialist leaning United States. Maybe like Canada with teeth. I doubt it would become a left-wing totalitarian state like the USSR, but since the OTL Cold War against a politically leftist nation led to more conservatism in the US, it doesn't seem at all unreasonable to expect that a cold war against a rightist nation would cause an upswing in the left wing.
Depends. After all, national socialism is much closer to communism than either would like to admit. The biggest thing is that the two are both very statist. I do doubt that you will see anything in this TL like the Red Scare. In fact, US propaganda will probably have the job of explaining why the Russians are a peaceful, democratic people, deserving of money and arms to fight our enemies... just like it did for so many other countries in OTL. But there will likely be a much stronger dislike of tolitarianism and Big Brother governments in general, which is why I think libertarianism will be more popular.
@Wendell: You could at least explain why it doesn't.
I think the question is whether or not a libertarian U.S. would be capable of waging a Cold War any better than FDR's (or for that matter, Eisenhower's) America. I'm not saying that they would turn socialist, though. On the other hand, I think the U.S. would turn socially leftist. After all, it was in the war against fascism that women gained roles in supporting the war effort and blacks were given a chance to serve in army units.
There are "War Libertarians," you know, and, besides, one could argue on libertarian grounds that the government should stay out of people's lives so that it can better work for their defense.
Well, you pretty much told Kursk his post was bollocks without saying why.What do you want me to explain?
I dispute his premise that the U.S. experienced a conservative backlash. Yes, the U.S. gradually became more conservative in the 1960's and 1970's than it had been in the 1940's, but I would argue that this was likely to occur anyway, and that the New Deal Era was an anomaly.
Essentially, I think that the U.S. is more conservative of a country than most of those in the industrialized world. This has almost always been the case in U.S. history, especially after the 1850's.
I read Kursk's post in such a way that I felt he was arguing that this conservatism was an unfounded overreaction, and unlikely to have happened. Whereas there may have been some overreaction IOTL, I would argue that the New Deal era itself was the anomaly rather than the norm.
Yes, AFAIK the New Deal was something of an anomaly. Without having studied US recent history in much detail, I do get the impression that FDR really had to fight to get the New Deal policies enacted, against opposition from his own party as well as the Republicans.
As to whether the US becomes more conservative or more liberal in response to a Nazi Cold War:
It seems likely that the US would want to disassociate itself from anything considered to be "Nazi-like". The issue here is how such things would be defined. There are some issues which would seem to be obvious points of conflict, for example the various US eugenics programmes. Before anyone says "How dare you! US? Eugenics? That was them!" etc, I'd like to point out that the US did have eugenic sterilisation programmes, in various states, for the greater part of the 20th century.
Anyway, my point is that eugenics in the US wasn't suddenly abandoned after OTL WWII, it went into more of a gradual decline: so why would it be suddenly abandoned in an anti-Nazi Cold War?
If we instead consider economics: with the New Deal in place, the US I think moved more towards a planned economy. It didn't become one in full, but it moved in that direction. Now, whether in a US-Nazi Cold War scenario, the US decides to move away from this, is rather unclear. When in the OTL Cold War against perhaps the ultimate statists, the Soviet Union, did the US give up on New Deal programmes because they were examples of planning, and therefore "commie" ideas? Not AFAIK. Many of the New Deal agencies are still around, aren't they? So, even if the Nazis came to be perceived as statists, I'm not sure that the US would automatically give up on economic controls, just because the Nazis do it.
I could keep arguing in this way for a while, but I won't.
Interesting discussion, got a semi related question i'd like to ask, Do you envision Britain as still independant from the Nazis in this scenario?
If not its possible the RN or large parts of it were handed to Germany giving the Kriegsmarine a large surface navy in the Atlantic...
if not the US and UK could be allied, and if Britain isnt as badly damaged by the war (early peace?) it could still be a major world power.
If not its possible the RN or large parts of it were handed to Germany giving the Kriegsmarine a large surface navy in the Atlantic...
if not the US and UK could be allied, and if Britain isnt as badly damaged by the war (early peace?) it could still be a major world power.
There is no way Germany would allow UK independance. Just not gonna happen. Early peace would be a plausible idea for Germanic hegonomy over Europe, but as soon as it can Germany would be on top of the UK, ripping it apart, especially after the SU taken down. Not in a situation that is in any way similar to the operation name after a mammal that might possibly associate itself with the sea. Never. Atomics anyone?
Also consider all those little Hitler Youths being Hitler Adults.......if they wouldn't be amazing soldiers with all those years used in military exersices. Could the Boy Scouts take a darker turn?
To be honest I think that a neutral ( what happened to Japan, did they not bust the proverbial beehive, or did Hitler just not declare war on the U.S) America wouldn't have that much of a problem early on with the Reich. The Nazis didn't use communistic buzzwords to send up alarm flags (I agree that in action they were more-or-less commies by another name). It wouldn't be until Germany decided to maybe finish off, or rip a few more chunks off of that rump SU ( Where is SU at? Siberia? Somewhere else?) that we'll start to see how big a war machine the Reich has become.
Also consider all those little Hitler Youths being Hitler Adults.......if they wouldn't be amazing soldiers with all those years used in military exersices. Could the Boy Scouts take a darker turn?
To be honest I think that a neutral ( what happened to Japan, did they not bust the proverbial beehive, or did Hitler just not declare war on the U.S) America wouldn't have that much of a problem early on with the Reich. The Nazis didn't use communistic buzzwords to send up alarm flags (I agree that in action they were more-or-less commies by another name). It wouldn't be until Germany decided to maybe finish off, or rip a few more chunks off of that rump SU ( Where is SU at? Siberia? Somewhere else?) that we'll start to see how big a war machine the Reich has become.
Allow? The British Empire covered 1/4 of the earths surface and had the most powerful navy on the planet. Germany can fight the British Empire, but dictating terms isn't going to happen.
Yes, the German somewhere in the late 1950's/early 1960's might obtain atomic weapons, but the British would have had them long before. London might get whacked, but then Berlin and a half a dozen other German cities burn the next day. As well, if London gets burned, the rest of the Empire still exists and will come after the smoking ruins of Germany with a homicidal vengance.
There is a perception, clearly in error, that if the UK had fallen that the RN would have run up KM colours and that the mere act of Germans marching into Trafalgar Square would have triggered the total surrender of the Empire. Nothing could be further from the truth. The RN would have evacuated to Halifax, taking the government with it. The Empire would have been back in short order.
Point taken, but if Britain itself falls to long term Nazi occupation, how much of that globe spanning empire would still remain British? Revolts would probably be commonplace, the African colonies would be constantly pressured by highly likely German/Italian campaigns, Japan (if it didn't screw with the U.S.) would be able to pull a more hostile French Indochina maneuver with most of the Pacific area (Australia won't be able to be conquered as per size, but the other Islands are most likely doomed), India will face severe revolts if not full blown revolution, and Canada will be the new seat of power for the beseiged British Empire. And how possible is any hope of retaking the British Isles?
But while German is busy fighting and controlling the USSR and the rest of Europe... there just not building ships. The main issue is that the British aren't pushing that hard into jet fighters.The luftwaffe would focus a lot in ground warfare instead of naval while the British would have a lot of naval battles against Japan. KM would also have to restart plan Z, witch will take years. And UK could simply continue to build ships at an steady rate in order to mantain a large numerical superiority (against a fleet with far less war experience). Also, the British have a more advanced nuclear research program that Germany and are like to have nukes first - if Germany gets them, of course. So Germany might not want an independent British Empire, but how are they supposed to avoid it?
From Wikipedia: "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production."
Nazis were more-or-less commies exactly how?
I think you need to at least distinguish between "Soviet Communism" as a phenomenon in reality, a totalitarian nightmare, and "Communism" as a theoretical proposition. By the standards of one Karl Marx, Stalin's Soviet Union was not truly a communist society.
Now, if you say Nazi Germany was operated somewhat similarly to Stalin's SU, then your comment might have some currency. But there were important differences even to that, you know. Or is this just a Statist/Non-Statist thing?
By the way, in terms of the general discussion: the way domestic policy in the US develops would also be affected by the way domestic policy in Germany develops. After Hitler dies, would the Reich go on along the beaten path? Or would there be liberalisation or "de-Hitlerization" along the lines of what happened in the SU?
Last edited:
The iron rod that held the Empire together wasn't the immediate environs of Westminster, it was that small collection of warships that could counter any other navy on the planet called the Royal Navy. The RN would have moved, lock, stock and 18 inch barrels to Halifax and continued the war from there. Freed from having to secure supply across the Atlantic, the RN would actually grow in capability.
Doubt that. Look at it this way: When the British grabbed Washington in 1814, the US didn't immediately collapse.
As I stated above, the RN would be much better off without having to put so much effort into defending the UK. They'd actually have better forces for tackling the Axis forces globally.
That is actually far from a foregone conclusion. In fact, you might well see that the Empire remains much more cohesive as a result of the UK being conquered. The reason is that without a definitive "Mother England" at the helm, each of the member countries would have a much greater say in what was happening.
Quite good, actually. With the rapid maturing of aircraft carrier technology and a big fleet, the RN would be able to make the Germans have to squander literally boatloads of resources to keep the UK secure. Unlike the UK in our timeline, the Nazis would be doing that with an occupied UK resistive to that occupation.
TRUECRISTIAN
Banned
JEUS IS LOVE
I don't see what George Bush has done wrong, he's destroying a bunch of people who shouldn't be in the 1st place. I say the Iraqis are just here to take up space on this planet. They're not doing anything to benifit us. George Bush is doing a great job where he is. I hope he sends a nuke to Iraq and just wipe that country out of the map. The only thing the Iraqis know how to do is terrorize countries, they're all terrorists.Ok, I'm going to say it, I think George Bush is good. He's one of the greatest president ever.. Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! he attack Iraq and many Iraqis died.. so what? I hope he bombs Iraq again, I seriously don't give a crap if the Iraqis die, I hope bush kills them all, bomb the hell out of Iraq. serioulsy I think the Iraqis are nothing but terrorist and George Bush is doing the world a favour by bombing them and killing them. they just like to bomb the hell out of each other, so the Americans attacking Iraq doesn't really make that much of a difference, they're just speeding up the process. So I solute George Bush I say,
I don't see what George Bush has done wrong, he's destroying a bunch of people who shouldn't be in the 1st place. I say the Iraqis are just here to take up space on this planet. They're not doing anything to benifit us. George Bush is doing a great job where he is. I hope he sends a nuke to Iraq and just wipe that country out of the map. The only thing the Iraqis know how to do is terrorize countries, they're all terrorists.Ok, I'm going to say it, I think George Bush is good. He's one of the greatest president ever.. Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! he attack Iraq and many Iraqis died.. so what? I hope he bombs Iraq again, I seriously don't give a crap if the Iraqis die, I hope bush kills them all, bomb the hell out of Iraq. serioulsy I think the Iraqis are nothing but terrorist and George Bush is doing the world a favour by bombing them and killing them. they just like to bomb the hell out of each other, so the Americans attacking Iraq doesn't really make that much of a difference, they're just speeding up the process. So I solute George Bush I say,
...a thread about the US in a cold war with the Nazi's isn't exactly the place for proclaiming your support for George W. Bush, y'know...
We have Chat for stuff like that.
...not that you'll be debating much there, because Ian tends to have very little patience with people who say they're hoping to see a country nuked...