Nazis win a stalemate victory: result of first post-war elections in democracies?

Thande

Donor
For this thread I'm going to borrow a scenario that Turtledove first proposed in "Ready for the Fatherland" and which I have toyed with expanding over the years. The point of this thread is NOT to critique whether that scenario is plausible, but to give your opinions on a question in relation to it.

Basically, in 1943 the Germans are in retreat in Eastern Europe and Hitler goes to visit Field Marshal Manstein on the front lines. Manstein is of the opinion that the Germans need to have the freedom to retreat in order to create a new flexible approach to defeat the Soviets, but Hitler is ideologically committed to never retreating. The two argue and, in a moment of emotional pique, Manstein draws his sidearm and shoots Hitler, Goebbels and the accompanying party.

Manstein then leads a military coup which wipes out most of the Nazi Party apparatus including Himmler. With more freedom to act, the Wehrmacht are able to beat the Soviets in several key battles and stabilise the front. After failing to make a breakthrough, and being convinced that the Western Allies are never going to deliver on their promise for a second front, Stalin accepts Manstein's generous peace offer (considering the Germans still hold some Soviet territory) of status quo ante bellum. With the Eastern Front therefore resolved, the Germans are able to repel the Allies' belated alt-D-Day landings from France and drive them out of mainland Italy, although Sicily remains British-occupied as a rump Kingdom of Italy. The war essentially just peters out into a stalemate peace. In the East, however, the Americans successfully defeat Japan (without nukes, IIRC) and occupy it. The result is a four-cornered cold war, with the players being the USA, USSR, Germany and Britain, all of which are armed with 'sunbombs' (nukes).

Now, I repeat that this is not about asking whether this is plausible or not. Just assume it is for the sake of the thread. My question is how you think the first post-war elections would have gone in the Western democracies in response to such a stalemate peace. For example:

The American presidential election in November 1944. By this point the Allies' landings in France have bloodily failed and they're on the retreat in Italy. On the other hand, the war against Japan is still going well. Does Dewey manage to defeat FDR or does FDR still win a fourth term?

The American presidential election of 1948, by the same token.

The first British postwar general election. Do the war-weary voters still embrace Labour's radical welfare state proposals like OTL, or out of fear of Manstein's Germany do they vote for the hawkish Conservatives/Nationals? For that matter, does Churchill still lead the latter, or does he resign due to failing to defeat the Germans?

Ditto in Canada, Australia, any country you happen to be familiar with its politics from the time.

Discuss.
 
For this thread I'm going to borrow a scenario that Turtledove first proposed in "Ready for the Fatherland" and which I have toyed with expanding over the years. The point of this thread is NOT to critique whether that scenario is plausible, but to give your opinions on a question in relation to it.

Basically, in 1943 the Germans are in retreat in Eastern Europe and Hitler goes to visit Field Marshal Manstein on the front lines. Manstein is of the opinion that the Germans need to have the freedom to retreat in order to create a new flexible approach to defeat the Soviets, but Hitler is ideologically committed to never retreating. The two argue and, in a moment of emotional pique, Manstein draws his sidearm and shoots Hitler, Goebbels and the accompanying party.

Manstein then leads a military coup which wipes out most of the Nazi Party apparatus including Himmler. With more freedom to act, the Wehrmacht are able to beat the Soviets in several key battles and stabilise the front. After failing to make a breakthrough, and being convinced that the Western Allies are never going to deliver on their promise for a second front, Stalin accepts Manstein's generous peace offer (considering the Germans still hold some Soviet territory) of status quo ante bellum. With the Eastern Front therefore resolved, the Germans are able to repel the Allies' belated alt-D-Day landings from France and drive them out of mainland Italy, although Sicily remains British-occupied as a rump Kingdom of Italy. The war essentially just peters out into a stalemate peace. In the East, however, the Americans successfully defeat Japan (without nukes, IIRC) and occupy it. The result is a four-cornered cold war, with the players being the USA, USSR, Germany and Britain, all of which are armed with 'sunbombs' (nukes).

Now, I repeat that this is not about asking whether this is plausible or not. Just assume it is for the sake of the thread. My question is how you think the first post-war elections would have gone in the Western democracies in response to such a stalemate peace. For example:

The American presidential election in November 1944. By this point the Allies' landings in France have bloodily failed and they're on the retreat in Italy. On the other hand, the war against Japan is still going well. Does Dewey manage to defeat FDR or does FDR still win a fourth term?

The American presidential election of 1948, by the same token.

The first British postwar general election. Do the war-weary voters still embrace Labour's radical welfare state proposals like OTL, or out of fear of Manstein's Germany do they vote for the hawkish Conservatives/Nationals? For that matter, does Churchill still lead the latter, or does he resign due to failing to defeat the Germans?

Ditto in Canada, Australia, any country you happen to be familiar with its politics from the time.

Discuss.

I am very bad with Politics, but given the Two headed scenario of Failure in Europe and Victory in Japan, I'd say FDR would win.

To put it in terms the average Redneck would know:
FDR lead us into the War with Japan and WE WON!
 
Hmm. I'm gonna have to say that FDR wins in '44. But I'm not an expert on this.

The second one's easier. In 1948, I think Truman would win quite comfortably, because of his hard stance against communism.
 
Beating FDR will be hard even with a Nazi stalemate in Europe, especially if the Pacific War is going according to plan. He probably wins, but by a closer margin than OTL.
 

maverick

Banned
Not being an expert on American politics, my opinion:

Yankeeland: (I'll go with the opposite of what everyone is saying, just for kicks)

Normandy is a bloody disaster, it depends on the size of the massacre, but let's say that 100,000+ Americans are dead or captured and that Roosevelt has not suffered a stroke out of the surprise. There's a chance that he might choose not to run, that he suffers a stroke or something else, but let's say that he runs.

The Allies are being routed in Italy, the War against Japan is going well but taking forever (Iwo Jima won't be enough to cover the Normandy disaster) and D-Day has been a failure. A weakened Roosevelt is defeated by Dewey in a rather close election nevertheless, as the "don't change horses in the middle of the race" vs the "remember our boys in Normandy" campaigns grow nasty.

I guess you could also have the "don't let the boys of Normandy die in vain", but the war in Europe might be completely over by October of 1944.

Old England:

Churchill has resigned in shame and Tony Eden is soundly defeated by Attlee, who promises to both reform the UK with radical Socialism or whatever the hell he stood for in 1945 and also to create a "Fortress Britain" to defend European Democracy from Fascism, while reminding everyone that the Tories "Lost the Continent" (ala Yankee accusations that the other party "Lost China" and "Lost Cuba")

Brazil:

That bastard Getulio Vargas got us into a useless war! Boot him!

Elections a year early, in December of 1944. For Simplicity's sake, let's say it's still Social Democratic Candidate/General Eurico Gaspar Dutra.
 

Thande

Donor
The second one's easier. In 1948, I think Truman would win quite comfortably, because of his hard stance against communism.

But would communism even be seen as the major threat to the USA if the Germans are still around?
 
But would communism even be seen as the major threat to the USA if the Germans are still around?

well i think American's would be quite pissed at the Russians. In two wars they signed ceasefires with the Germans that led to them being able to devote more forces to the western front, but the second time we weren't so lucky. The general consensus would be that they were the reason the war was lost.
 
Come on, let's have some more opinions.
I haven't seen the original HT, but could you supply some more information about this bit?

In the East, however, the Americans successfully defeat Japan (without nukes, IIRC) and occupy it.
I think the reaction in America, and possibly even more so in Britain, will be greatly affected by how costly TTL's defeat of Japan is. Added to the lost men in the reverses in the West and there could be real resentment. Then again, it could work for either of the parties...

Take the UK electorate:

1. "The Tories messed up in Norway, France and the Low Countries, Greece, Malaya, Singapore and Burma. The Suez and the Raj were both threatened. But the tide seemed to turn. We eventually won in North Africa, and almost knocked Italy out of the war. Now, we've lost thousands of men in Italy and France, and only have a puppet Sicily to show for it. True, Japan's been defeated, but at what cost? Anyway, the biggest, baddest wolf is still grinning across the channel." This will probably see Labour ease to power, but they'll need to devote a lot of talk, and resources, into the Fascist menace on the continent.

2. "Then again, the tide had turned, we were pushing them back. Until the reds sold us out. These Socialists have lost us the war against Germany. Now they want to win the peace?! :mad:" This one could see be quite nasty if people get angry enough.
 

Thande

Donor
I haven't seen the original HT, but could you supply some more information about this bit?

I don't have the story on me right now, I just remember that the Soviets got Hokkaido so I assume it was the product of invasion. I seem to remember them saying that nuclear weapons were first used in a US-Soviet confrontation over the division of Japan, but I think that was supposed to be a Berlin Airlift-style thing some years later, and after one was used both sides backed down. But I may be misremembering because it's been some years since I read it.
 
Meh, Turtledove has a habit inordinately wanking German (and sometimes Japanese) abilities. And has a nasty habit of denigrating and stereotyping Britain & Russia. In 1943 the Germans weren’t going to stalemate the Red Army no matter who was in charge, any change in German tactics would only produce a different approach to beating the Heer by the STAVKA.

Still Stalin wasn’t adverse to a advantageous deal, if the Germans offered the old Russo-German 1914 borders he may take it. Anything else? Nah the Germans would bleed out their manpower reserves trying (and failing) to stop the Red Army cold.

In Britain the coalition government would certainly split with recriminations all round Churchill would almost certainly resign in favour of Eden when the General Election is held. I still see Labour winning through.

America will be a tad more isolationist, the great part of the US public’s ire was aimed at Japan. So with them beaten and the Nazi’s ‘’overthrown’’ combined with FDR’s prestige might give the Democrats the edge.

Germany? A military dominated government for the foreseeable future and attempts to cling on to as much occupied land as possible in the face to ever hardening resistance.

The U.S.S.R aside from re-building would focus more efforts to Communize Asia, All of Korea and Northern Japan will be under their influence perhaps Iran too. The Maoists will likely win the Chinese Civil War as in OTL…
 
Last edited:
I can't address this because the political scenario required so that the US doesn't cover the Third Reich with nuclear fire and a USSR that loses to the AWESOMSAUCE Wermacht is so different that it's hard to speculate on.
 
I can't address this because the political scenario required so that the US doesn't cover the Third Reich with nuclear fire and a USSR that loses to the AWESOMSAUCE Wermacht is so different that it's hard to speculate on.

No, no, no buddy you forget one major point. That is everyone knows that the Germans were simply 30% better than all the Allied powers, which meant they could do 30% more with 30% less and get results 30% greater. Clearly 30 + 30+ 30 is pretty much 100%, which of course means that each German soldier was actually twice as efficient as each Allied soldier. When you have a 200% superiority over the enemy, trivial little things like quality (or lack thereof), airpower (or lack thereof), manpower (or lack thereof), political unity (or lack thereof), and resources (or lack thereof) become completely irrelevant. Why, with that kind of superiority a platoon of 60year-old Volksturmers armed with sharpened mangoes would merely need to walk up to Ivan, Tommy or G.I Joe and posture a bit in order to have an entire Allied army scrambling back onto their landing-crafts or the Motherland as fast as their fully fuelled, totally motorised, logisitics services could carry them.:D
 
Top