Nazi victory, is the US more or less liberal?

The Nazis win a Fatherland style victory in Europe (ASB I know but roll with it), is the US more leftist/socially liberal ITTL or less? In other words does the existence of a big scary fascist superpower make the US move more left in response or give the US an excuse to stay right because the enemy will always make the US look good by comparison.
 
There wouldn't be much of a Second Red Scare going on so I'd say left-wards. It may be even pushed to OTL Scandinavian terms if butterflies persue.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'd like to think more liberal because there isn't the fear of communism and the left, rather racism and the right wing. The rhetoric of the left then stays front and center and the GOP gets bashed around about being weak on fascism.
 
The Nazis would use their soft power to push America toward fascism. Desegregation and the Civil Rights movement would be canceled. Politicians and other public figures in America would attack Jewish clout (media ownership for instance). German intelligence would try to ruin Jewish businesses. There would be a pushback against the Nazis and fascism but America would be much further to the right and within a few generations would adopt much of Nazi ideology, although they would try to hold on to democracy.
 
The Nazis would use their soft power to push America toward fascism. Desegregation and the Civil Rights movement would be canceled. Politicians and other public figures in America would attack Jewish clout (media ownership for instance). German intelligence would try to ruin Jewish businesses. There would be a pushback against the Nazis and fascism but America would be much further to the right and within a few generations would adopt much of Nazi ideology, although they would try to hold on to democracy.

What "soft power" would the Nazis have? Why would the US even the let the Nazis influence them? They'd see the Nazis as a rival or enemy, not as a partner.
 
I'd like to think more liberal because there isn't the fear of communism and the left, rather racism and the right wing. The rhetoric of the left then stays front and center and the GOP gets bashed around about being weak on fascism.

By GOP, I assume you mean Taftian isolationists?
 

Deleted member 1487

By GOP, I assume you mean Taftian isolationists?
Them especially, but really the entire party. FDR did that quite hard and I'm sure the Dems would love to use that club as long as it works with the public.
 

Deleted member 1487

What "soft power" would the Nazis have? Why would the US even the let the Nazis influence them? They'd see the Nazis as a rival or enemy, not as a partner.
Same as the US against the Nazis: trade. Europe was and is America's biggest trade partner, so a Nazi dominated Europe would mean that the huge market of Europe, along with US business property there, would be at the mercy of the Nazis. Europe was much more important to the US in terms of trade than the entire Communist block during the Cold War, including China. Conversely the US was a major trade partner of Europe, but not one that is unreplaceable. Still, both sides need each other, especially as the European empires break down after WW2. US-Europe trade is just too important to let break down without major economic consequences for both, though IIRC more than the US than Europe.
 
Same as the US against the Nazis: trade. Europe was and is America's biggest trade partner, so a Nazi dominated Europe would mean that the huge market of Europe, along with US business property there, would be at the mercy of the Nazis.

The Nazis already seized American property in Europe following the outbreak of war. They have no more leverage in that court and their crude view of economics was based around control, not trade. Throw onto that their ideological view that the United States is the source of the Judeo-Capitalist arm of the global Jewish conspiracy and it isn't just a case of the US being unwilling to accept Nazi soft power but also a case of the Nazis being unwilling to use soft power against the United States.

Europe was much more important to the US in terms of trade than the entire Communist block during the Cold War, including China.

Not in a world where all of Europe is ruled by a power hostile to the United States. Under such circurmstances, the Nazis basically replace the Communists... including how important their trade is.

Conversely the US was a major trade partner of Europe, but not one that is unreplaceable.

Under ITTL circurmstances, it pretty much is. The US (with or without the British) is the world's major sea power in the post-war world and that gives it unlimited access to global markets and a solid foot on Nazi Europe's neck. Nazi Europe, on the other hand, will only have whatever overland routes they can establish through Asia Minor and former Soviet territories as their only guaranteed trade routes, as they can't hope to compete with the US in the sea power game. And those Asian countries are more likely to be trading with the US then with Germany.

Not that the Nazis won't try to contest American sea power. They intend to eventually attack the United States, after all.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

The Nazis already seized American property in Europe following the outbreak of war. They have no more leverage in that court and their crude view of economics was based around control, not trade. Throw onto that their ideological view that the United States is the source of the Judeo-Capitalist arm of the global Jewish conspiracy and it isn't just a case of the US being unwilling to accept Nazi soft power but also a case of the Nazis being unwilling to use soft power against the United States.
American owned subsidiaries weren't really seized as much as profits not paid to the US. That would be a topic of potential negotiation. In the end if there just is a break then both sides lose out on trade.

Not in a world where all of Europe is ruled by a power hostile to the United States. Under such circurmstances, the Nazis basically replace the Communists... including how important their trade is.
European trade was FAR more important than communist trade ever was. But assuming a hostile regime (I forgot we are talking about an ASB Fatherland scenario) in Europe than the US suffers significantly from that lack of trade...though as during the Cold War there was room for trade. The USSR did trade with non-communist states, as well as Western Europe and the US IOTL. There is potential both sides could desire trade enough to make it happen.

Under ITTL circurmstances, it pretty much is. The US (with or without the British) is the world's major sea power in the post-war world and that gives it unlimited access to global markets and a solid foot on Nazi Europe's neck. Nazi Europe, on the other hand, will only have whatever overland routes they can establish through Asia Minor and former Soviet territories as their only guaranteed trade routes, as they can't hope to compete with the US in the sea power game. And those Asian countries are more likely to be trading with the US then with Germany.

Not that the Nazis won't try to contest American sea power. They intend to eventually attack the United States, after all.
The problem with the Fatherland scenario is that Britain is under the Nazi thumb, so the US isn't really capable of projecting major naval power on the Nazi side of the Atlantic and the Nazi regime would make sure to build up a major fleet to challenge the US. The US too had to worry about the Pacific and would need a two ocean navy. US access to global markets then is limited to the Americas assuming an ongoing 1984 style war of the continents, but AFAIK the Fatherland scenario had the war over and the US and Nazis at peace, though hostile. There is still plenty of room for trade there and the US wouldn't be interfering militarily with German/European merchant shipping if the two sides were at peace, as happened during the OTL Cold War. The US cannot power project to the Mediterranean even if there is an ongoing war in the scenario, so shipping would be viable on the European dominated areas like the Eastern part of the Atlantic, North Sea, Mediterranean, Black Sea, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatherland_(novel)#Alternative_World_War_II_history
Throughout the novel, Harris gradually explains the fictional historical developments that allowed Germany to prevail in World War II. Although not specifically stated, the earliest point of divergence is that Reinhard Heydrich survived the assassination attempt by Czech fighters in May 1942 – which in reality killed him – and became head of the SS. The Nazi offensives on the Eastern Front ultimately pushed back the Soviet forces, with the Case Blue operation succeeding in capturing the Caucasus and cutting the Red Army off from its petroleum reserves by 1943. The Nazis also uncovered the secret that the Enigma machine code had been broken by Polish mathematicians. A massive U-Boat campaign against Britain thereafter succeeded in starving the British into surrender by 1944, while the D-Day invasion by the Allies never occurred.

King George VI and Winston Churchill flee into exile in Canada. Edward VIII regained the British throne soon afterwards, with Wallis Simpson as his queen. Although the Germans pushed the Soviets east of the Ural Mountains, the conflict there continues.

The US defeated Japan in 1945 using nuclear weapons. Germany tested its first atomic bomb in 1946 and fired a non-nuclear "V-3" missile above New York City to demonstrate an ability to attack the continental United States with long-range missiles. Thus, the US and Germany are the two superpower opponents in the Cold War of this world.

This suggests that there is peace, though no normalized relations. So the US wouldn't be involved in stopping German merchant shipping, but there is not trade between the US and Europe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Nazis win a Fatherland style victory in Europe (ASB I know but roll with it), is the US more leftist/socially liberal ITTL or less? In other words does the existence of a big scary fascist superpower make the US move more left in response or give the US an excuse to stay right because the enemy will always make the US look good by comparison.

If you know it's ASB, then why not POST IT IN ASB?
 
If you know it's ASB, then why not POST IT IN ASB?
Well It's not strictly ASB like, say, Sealion succeeding. But, I said "ASB" so the thread wouldn't get side tracked with "well how did the Nazis win, was Hitler in charge, when did the war end" etc. Fatherland is a pretty well known scenario that provides a nice "setting" for this question to be asked in.
 
If you know it's ASB, then why not POST IT IN ASB?

Because he's asking for realistic outcomes from that scenario.

The excellent Agent Lavender is based on a nutter's conspiracy theory being true, the non-ASB threads have plenty of implausible starting points. "American socio-political reactions to the continued threat of Fascism" isn't quite Elizabethan England being ISOT'd to 1975.

Chill.
 
European trade was FAR more important than communist trade ever was.

IOTL, when Western Europe was friendly and industrialized. Not ITTL when it is being ruined by Nazi economic policies and run by a hostile regime.

But assuming a hostile regime (I forgot we are talking about an ASB Fatherland scenario) in Europe than the US suffers significantly from that lack of trade...

Europe suffers even more, seeing as how it is trapped with land routes.

The USSR did trade with non-communist states, as well as Western Europe and the US IOTL.

Yes. But, as you nicely

The problem with the Fatherland scenario is that Britain is under the Nazi thumb, so the US isn't really capable of projecting major naval power on the Nazi side of the Atlantic

Even in a ASB scenario, US naval ships since the 1920s were built with considerably longer ranges in mind then many European naval powers. The US also built up a massive network of fleet support vessels. They could easily project power into the Eastern Atlantic and enhance this with bases out of North Atlantic Islands like Ireland and Greenland.

and the Nazi regime would make sure to build up a major fleet to challenge the US.

They would try. They would probably succeed about as well as the Soviets did... which wasn't very much. Their starting from scratch with mostly just the resources of Europe. The US not only has a massive head start, but would have their connections around the entire world with global reach.

The US too had to worry about the Pacific and would need a two ocean navy.

Which gives them not only a much larger fleet then anything the Germans can hope to field, but unfettered and easy access to American-friendly Asia.

US access to global markets then is limited to the Americas assuming an ongoing 1984 style war of the continents,

The US, through it's dominance of the oceans, would have much more significant connections to Africa and Asia then the Germans.

The US cannot power project to the Mediterranean even if there is an ongoing war in the scenario,

Africa, and hence the Suez Canal are likely to be American dominated, so yes there is plenty of room for American power projection into the Med.

This suggests that there is peace, though no normalized relations. So the US wouldn't be involved in stopping German merchant shipping, but there is not trade between the US and Europe.

The mere threat of such would be a major hindrance to the Germans willingness to deal, on top of Nazi economic policies being geared toward autarky and the massive net drain the Eastern territories would be on their economies.

Not that I'm saying the Nazis wouldn't trade outside of their Eiropean block, mind you, but they wouldn't be doing any more then the Soviets did and they would be even less inclined to use it as any kind of leverage against the US or anyone else. They just weren't big on soft power nor were they actually that good at it when they did try to use it.
 
Last edited:
Would it be possible that bloody failure against the Germans discredits liberal interventionists like FDR, and America makes a more isolationist shift to the right?
 
Segregationism would face more of a backlash and may be overturned earlier, being too close to Nazi racial laws for comfort.
 

BooNZ

Banned
Even in a ASB scenario, US naval ships since the 1920s were built with considerably longer ranges in mind then many European naval powers. The US also built up a massive network of fleet support vessels. They could easily project power into the Eastern Atlantic and enhance this with bases out of North Atlantic Islands like Ireland and Greenland.

In this ASB scenario, Britain surrenders in 1944 due to a massive UBoat campaign, meaning UBoats were able to outmuscle the both the US and Royal Navies while under allied air coverage. Prima facie, with UBoat and air bases in Britain and Spain (at the very least), the US navy would be projecting its power via the Indian Ocean, since ITTL the UBoats are clearly a potent weapon.

They would try. They would probably succeed about as well as the Soviets did... which wasn't very much. Their starting from scratch with mostly just the resources of Europe. The US not only has a massive head start, but would have their connections around the entire world with global reach.

In this ASB scenario, the German naval technology must have advanced further than OTL, where it was already significantly ahead of later Soviet 'naval traditions'. Further, the Soviets struggled to have access to warm water ports, where in this scenario the Fatherland has access to Western Europe, plus whatever colonial assets the EC / Fatherland have retained/ acquired?

The US, through it's dominance of the oceans, would have much more significant connections to Africa and Asia then the Germans.

Africa, and hence the Suez Canal are likely to be American dominated, so yes there is plenty of room for American power projection into the Med.

With potent sea denial capacities in the Atlantic and control the Western access to the Mediterranean, the EC/ Fatherland has a far easier time accessing North Africa, including the Suez Canal, than the US, which likely has to cross two oceans. I think the Mediterranean would be a fascist lake.

Not that I'm saying the Nazis wouldn't trade outside of their Eiropean block, mind you, but they wouldn't be doing any more then the Soviets did and they would be even less inclined to use it as any kind of leverage against the US or anyone else. They just weren't big on soft power nor were they actually that good at it when they did try to use it.

My understanding was Germany exerted a significant amount of control through the Balkans via their trade and economic policies prior to WW2.
 
In this ASB scenario, Britain surrenders in 1944 due to a massive UBoat campaign, meaning UBoats were able to outmuscle the both the US and Royal Navies while under allied air coverage.

If your freely admitting this is ASB to the point that Germany was able to wage a literally magical U-Boat campaign (because there is no way in hell Germany could starve the British with the US in the war) then we need to get a mod to boot this over to the ASB forum.

My understanding was Germany exerted a significant amount of control through the Balkans via their trade and economic policies prior to WW2.

Nope. The Balkans were largely looking to the Anglo-French. It was when Germany knocked out the French and the USSR annexed Bessarabia and the Baltics with nary a peep from the British that they realigned themselves with the Germans.
 

BooNZ

Banned
If your freely admitting this is ASB to the point that Germany was able to wage a literally magical U-Boat campaign (because there is no way in hell Germany could starve the British with the US in the war) then we need to get a mod to boot this over to the ASB forum.

I was merely paraphrasing your statement - I concur the POD for British surrender is not exactly robust - would have been impossible after lend lease. That said, 'the Fatherland' was the scenario cited by the OP.

Nope. The Balkans were largely looking to the Anglo-French. It was when Germany knocked out the French and the USSR annexed Bessarabia and the Baltics with nary a peep from the British that they realigned themselves with the Germans.

The Germans were using trade to undermine the French sponsored 'Little entente' featuring Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia - and became the dominant trading partner of all Balkan states before the war. It was the overt aggression by the Soviets and then Italy that effectively eliminated this soft power projection.
 
Top