Effect of a Nazi Victory on the US/Britain?

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by Touland, Aug 16, 2019.

  1. Touland Member

    Aug 4, 2019
    Assuming Germany wins WW2 and is dominating the entire continent by 1944/45 -what effect does this have on the US/Britain in the following decades? Because if the Germans win, the US/Britain:

    -dont abduct or steal 1600+ top German scientist,thousands of patents and aircraft,rockets etc they can reverse engineer . Thus US/British technological development is slower/different.
    -There is far less immigration to the US/Britain from Europe than compared to OTL,so most of the successful European immigrants that came OTL are not there to found new companies or technologies.
    -Eisenhower probably wont get president, even if he does he didnt get to see the Reichsautobahnen in occupied Germany, thus he either wont push the Federal Aid Higway Act of 1956 or in a greatly reduced form.
    -Forget the Bretton Woods System and the Dollar as the world reserve currency, or even the Petrodollar, with all of Europe dominated by the Reichsmark - and possibly the rump USSR and the Mid East as well.So economically the US is doing worse because:

    The world's need for dollars has allowed the United States government as well as Americans to borrow at lower costs, giving the United States an advantage in excess of $100 billion per year.

    So its safe to say that the US/Britain/World would be technologically less developed and less wealthy if the Germans had won the war?
  2. The Karavoka Man Well-Known Member

    Apr 3, 2013
    The US forms some kind of UN analogue, with itself as leader. Even in an Axis victory scenario they've still lost Africa, so decolonisation begins on schedule, mostly. Nothing changes there.

    Regarding technological development, I wouldn't say it will be meaningfully worse, while Von Braun and associates provided excellent help with rocketry, they aren't quite so key as people believe, even if development in some areas will be slower.
    Boneheaded_Bookkeeper likes this.
  3. Maeglin Lómion

    Oct 15, 2014
    Obvious elephant in the room... how has Germany won, and how are we defining winning? Has it destroyed the Soviets, and started enacting Generalplan Ost?
  4. Nathan Bernacki Well-Known Member

    Dec 18, 2016
    National Socialism (and fascism in general) becomes more widely accepted in US politics. Imagine someone like George Lincoln Rockwell becoming more widely accepted by the masses of people who in ths timeline, most likely never saw the horrors of the Holocaust.
  5. Maeglin Lómion

    Oct 15, 2014
    The Soviets won WWII in OTL. Remind me how that made Communism acceptable in US politics?
  6. Nathan Bernacki Well-Known Member

    Dec 18, 2016
    Remind me when the Communist Party of the USA held a rally at Madison Square Garden. Dozens of Americans supported fascism and Naitonal Socialism. There were even special camps set up to educate American children in National Socialist ideology such as Camp Siegfried in New York, Camp Hindenberg in Wisconsin, Camp Nordland in New Jersey and Deutschhorst Country Club in Pennsylvania. 40,00 people alone attended festivities at Camp Siegfried.
  7. Lafayette_ Well-Known Member

    Dec 9, 2016
    United States of America
    My go-to scenario is this: a ceasefire with Britain is signed in the summer of 1940, after the fall of France and the Low Countries. Nazi Germany somehow manages to beat the Soviets to the Urals by 1943, and after that, distances itself from foreign entanglements with Italy and Japan. They spend the rest of the 1940s in relative isolation, preoccupied with Generalplan Ost and, well... an unimpeded Holocaust.

    Japan gets obliterated by the US, and an uneasy Detente is formed between the western democracies and this huge behemoth occupying Continental Europe. The US becomes a sort of "policeman of the Free World", getting the Americas and Asia under its sphere of influence. Some of the doctrines and technologies developed IOTL will of course be missing, but not by much.

    And then, come the early 50s, Germany starts the space race by sending up to orbit the first human being and artificial satellite. Add a couple of crisis here and there (akin to the Suez IOTL) and you have a sort of Cold War scenario developing.

    Over time, given what we saw IOTL, I don't think there's a way a closed-off authoritarian regime can surpass the sheer economic power of the West. Without Europe, the US and Britain are bound to focus in South America and Asia, and eventually new markets are going to be developed.
  8. MKD Well-Known Member

    Oct 4, 2017
    Milton Keynes Central
    They don't have to win. A draw will do. Preventing Dunkirk and capturing/killing the vast majority of the BEF which forces Britain (without an army and with what looks like an invasion by the invincible Wehrmacht in the offing) to accept terms will do just as well. They don't have to invade just ensure we are out of the war and led by a quisling of some sort. The Nazi can then turn on Russia in their own time without the hindrance of Britain and her empire ( and by extension the economic and industrial might of the USA)

    Our biggest cards were not giving in, our navy and our relative early war economic strength. That gave us time to persuade the Yanks to come to the rescue and while we did that gave them the opportunity to sell us weapons and arms and build up their manufacturing base. Without the aircraft carrier/garrison/store house of the British Isles it is hard to see how the new world can ride to the rescue of the old, invade Europe, eject the oppressor and deliver freedom and democracy.

    Without that option the Americans are going to have to come to a settlement with the Nazi. They are simply not going to be in a position to do anything about it for a considerable period of time.
  9. Marc reformed polymath... Donor

    Sep 19, 2012
    The left coast...
    Europe isn't Russia, the holocaust can't be hidden - tens of millions of Americans will be full aware of family and friends being shoved into ovens.
    Assuming the the United States will close its eyes assumes the worst of our parents.
    Dynasoar likes this.
  10. sendô Well-Known Member

    Sep 3, 2010
    You need to define the German win and the terms of armistice/peace with the western allies. Presumably Germany has defeated the USSR, or at least controls up to the Urals. What about the med and north Africa? Did UK/US invade and take Italy? Who controls the middle east and it's oil - presumably still Britain, but Germany would be able to threaten it, no? Are we to assume Japan is still defeated as OTL? If so then the USA is still going to be the hugely powerful economic and industrial behemoth that it was OTL 1945 - the likely difference here it's Germany rather than Russia will be it's long term rival.

    In this time line I don't see decolonisation happening. The USA will want as strong a British Empire as possible in order to continue to face down Germany.
  11. Stenz Don't judge the past by the standards of today... Monthly Donor

    May 18, 2016
    Leafy Southern Blighty

    The first second and third supposition do not add up to the fourth. You don’t get a quisling in power just by asking for it, you have to force it into being. The Nazis have no way of forcing anything on the British politically.

    Still doesn’t stop the ticking time bomb of the garbage Nazi economy. There is no “their own time” when it comes to Nazi aggression. They were on the clock and they knew it.

    The “aircraft carrier/garrison*/store house” will still be there.

    The Americans have all the time in the world - it’s the Nazis who don’t.
    Luminous likes this.
  12. jamesownz Well-Known Member

    Sep 3, 2015
    In this timeline of Germany controlling all of Europe pretty much how long is it until WW3 begins? due to their treatment of the people in occupied nations.

    What would trigger US/UK jumping in assuming Germany will not attack them?
  13. Luminous Headwing Consulting

    Apr 16, 2014
    The Piedmont of the Appalachians
    The supposition seems a bit off. If Germany "wins" (I'm going to go with the AANW scenario, which itself is, as per Calbear's own words, highly implausible), then they have a massive amount of territory that they are going to occupy under a near constant state of unrest. You'd require hundreds of thousands of troops in the east, being a net drain on the forces. Let's not talk about Hitler's vanity project in Force Z, an attempt to wrest control of the ocean from Britain et al. You're talking about massive expenditures that are a net zero for the Germans as they will not be able to defeat the other two sea powers (especially once Japan falls).

    Most importantly, Germany is cut off from the entirety of the world outside their sphere, which doesn't even include all of Europe. Combine with their economic system being so out of whack and derived from loot and conquest, the Germans will have to reform to have a chance to catch up. The US barely even flexed their economic muscle during the war, never converting entirely to a full war economy even when other nations were maxed out in their levels of production.

    So, while those German Scientists won't be working with the US, Germany will have far fewer resources to conduct their work as so much of their economy will be tied up in maintaining their empire. Yes, the Germans will have a head start and advantage in some fields, but they do not have universal advantage in every field just due to having German scientists. (Rocketry isn't the end-all be-all in science)

    Immigration from Europe would likely be lower in general, but you would certainly have emigration from Europe to elsewhere once it is apparent the Germans have won. Combine that with the German policy of exterminating 100's of millions of people, depriving them of any of the benefits they would incur for themn. It's a net negative for the entire world regardless.

    Though, consider: The Soviet Scientists, and whatever others from the conquered European states, would probably end up fleeing to the western nations anyway in the event of the collapse of the USSR.

    As for the interstate highway system, the first proposals for the interregional highway system date to 1938. Prior to your PoD. So that will still likely be in the works, especially as a military project considering that Germany would be far more of an upfront threat to the US than the Soviets were (at least until the 60s at least). My source previously used seems to have been taken down (cited in the 1944 US ISOT to 2Georges thread), but the proposed maps still float around. Here is the largest of the proposals circa 1941.


    And, as mentioned before, Europe is the one that is locked out of the World's economy. The Germans cannot take the Middle East, and all that oil there will be shut off to them. And foreign markets will still be more easily dominated by the Sterling Bloc or the US, either way.
  14. miketr Nuke Chucker

    Aug 30, 2005
    The German American Bund had zero mass appeal and no political power. They self limited to ethnic Germans and had little support among those. What the group had was some financial support from its members. That allowed the camps and the MSG rally. 40K out of 137 million and that 40K is counting kids.

    The CPUSA was much larger in 20s and 30s compared to the Bund, had some mass appeal and organized labor connections. It was suppressed by the FBI and later flamed out as organized labour went a different direction. Numbers topped out in low 100Ks.

    The 2nd KKK was by accounts an order of magnitude larger than the Bund and CPUSA put together at their heights and managed to get some office holders but the group crashed and burned in late 20s.

    In historic terms Nazis and Neo Nazis have had little real impact or power in USA. Again the KKK is something else all together.

    So could a nativist, ethnic supremacist group gain wide appeal in the USA? Without a doubt yes. The Bund or later American Nazi party were never going to be such a group. The KKK not being run by criminals would be a start. Maybe a stronger KKK or something like it could use the fault lines in democrat party that produced the Dixiecrat split in 1948 and create a party of national mass appeal rather than regional appeal.

    Rath, Master Xion, Eyrtxd and 5 others like this.
  15. Landmass Wave Well-Known Member

    Feb 1, 2017
    Landmass between New Orleans and Mobile
    A victorious Reich would create a large number of European refugees. Poles would settle in Chicago and Pittsburgh, Italians in New York, German Catholics in Wisconsin, French in Louisiana. The increased immigration and higher birthrate would mean a more Catholic US. They would bring their distaste for the Nazis - especially once Hitler discovered Bishop Roncalli's wartime activities and ramped up persecution of Catholics. The war refugees would be similar to OTL anti-Castro Cubans, and politicians from states with a large immigrant population would be more than happy to beef up their anti-Nazi credentials.

    I'm not convinced the Brown Scare would be as intense as the Red Scare. The Reich didn't need to cross the ocean for lebensraum, and thus was less of an existential threat to the United States. That said, the more of a Cold War the better, because a Cold War means Dixiecrats can be portrayed as Reich sympathizers due to their similar ideology.
    FleetMac and Luminous like this.
  16. Luminous Headwing Consulting

    Apr 16, 2014
    The Piedmont of the Appalachians
    I agree with the first part, but I will disagree with the second. The Germans don't need lebenraum in the US, but they are far more nakedly expansionist than the Soviets would be, having literally conquered an entire continent (vs the Soviets, who only was able to claim eastern-central Europe as puppets, and having been the country invaded by the Germans and taking the brunt of the damage). The German plan itself was to challenge Britain and the US for supremacy the world over, as the Reich would not and could not afford to let itself be isolated - it needs some kind of external market, and can't afford to let the Allies build up with the strength of the rest of the world.

    After the Japanese are removed from the picture, and with Italy an ally or subordinate and France a vassal, the German plan was to build a Navy massive enough to take out Britain. Who is the only other challenger if Germany is successful? And after the Germans have broken so many deals, who would believe them anymore when they said "this time we're truly done".

    The only thing that might not be as intense is that there would be no real sympathetic parties outside of the fringe, especially when the horror stories start rolling in. So there'd be more united in opposition rather than internal debate about whether they're really coming for us.
    FleetMac likes this.
  17. JSchafer Well-Known Member

    Aug 16, 2019
    Any peace signed by America or Britain would be broken when suitable. Any peace Hitler can get is worth nothing more than the ones Napoleon got. If Britain peaces out before Soviet war they’d be back in when one started or a year after the start. They will not just lay down and take it. However:

    Holocaust is still an unknown. It took western allied soldiers liberating death camps themselves to believe Soviet reports. That never happens. Germans are still aggressive invaders but if they can keep the lid on things and surround themselves with pliable satellites like Vichy who can send a positive message out I don’t think things get worse than Cold War did OTL and may even be avoided depending on who succeeds.

    If Nazis hold the oil fields of Caucasus and manage to secure a transition of power into hands of a capable successor then they could well exist to these days.

    Someone also mentioned decolonization. Sure there’s a great push for it but if faced by Nazis just a few dozen miles away from British coast the brits and Americans will fight to preserve the empire and strength. And if Marshall plan funds pour into Britain alone rather than Europe as a whole I see no reason why holding onto the empire would be an impossibility.
  18. Noscoper Well-Known Member

    Jan 8, 2015
    Majority of the colonies are a cash sink, strategical unimportant, and this without going into the increasing cost in blood which will sap British abilities and morale.
  19. joelee77 Well-Known Member

    Oct 20, 2014
    Janrey, Eyrtxd, Cregan and 4 others like this.
  20. JSchafer Well-Known Member

    Aug 16, 2019
    The moment Britain lost India it became irrelevant. While some colonies may be a sink it comes from the policies that benefited colonial development rather than simple resource extraction locals be damned.