No nazis. How Far Can US/German Rapprochement go Post 1934

Part of the disillusionment in the US over the outcome of the Great War was a idea the Germans were being treated unfairly. This was reflected in policy by very weak support of the Franco Belgian occupation of the Ruhr in 1923-24, and encouraging investment in Germany. That reversed after the ascent of the fascists to power 1933-34.

Through the remainder of the Depression and a post Rossevelt era. in the 1940s, can the US/German combination become a major factor in Europe and global politics/economics?
 
Obviously the rise of Hitler destroyed any sympathy for Germany, after Munich he was seen as little more than the revanchist war monger he truly was, up to then he rode the wave you assert. The "victors" peace at Versailles did little to redress any wrongs and nothing to prevent a future war, sadly the effort to curb its legacy coincided with the rise of virulent fascism. Should Hitler have been sidelined I think the trend was to build stronger bridges between Germany and the USA. We had similar interests, first, we both were trading nations who needed the death of the colonial system to open markets and set free resources trapped in underdeveloped colonies, second, we both had a stake in the re-birth of China as opposed to Japan's ambitions, third, we both would find communism the pernicious foe, so had Germany never had the Hitler dictatorship and driven itself to a war against the world I can see the post-war world being much more aligned with the USA and Germany versus the British Empire and the USSR, culturally, economically and ideologically. A rather different path indeed.
 

Deleted member 1487

Germany and the US were pretty friendly overall until the problems of repayment of loans came to a head. IOTL the biggest problem the US and Germany had after Hitler came to power was Schacht defaulting on US loans because of the perilous state of German finances. ITTL I don't see how the Germans could avoid default either, which leads to strained relations and schachtian clearing system that abuses German trader partners and they can get away with because those partners need German trade more than they can afford to tell them to stuff their clearing system. So German relations are going to be strained with everyone in the 1930s over economic issues. However unlike IOTL due to Nazi rearmament economics there is a chance for repproachment in 1936 when Roosevelt was starting a push for an international approach to the global economic crisis that Germany probably more than anyone due to her trade dependence would be receptive to ITTL, as they won't double down on rearmament and preparations for war. If Germany is a major supporter of that initiative then FDR and the Germans could have serious room for a future relationship. Germany too had a lot of economic interests in China, so the US and Germany would also have a lot in common in a joint policy against Japanese aggression in China, which could bring them closer together.

But what sort of party coaltion is in power in Berlin ITTL? A lot would depend on the government; and SPD lead coalition is going to have a lot more favor with FDR than a more conservative one.
 
Yep. I wondering how far this trend can go in a decade or two. I also wonder if it will hinder or assist the emergence of the US banks as a alternative to the London banking center.

There is also the question of the US forcing a formal revision of the Versailles treaty, or a defacto abrogation.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yep. I wondering how far this trend can go in a decade or two. I also wonder if it will hinder or assist the emergence of the US banks as a alternative to the London banking center.
The NYC banking system already was an alternative to the London system. It just wasn't the undisputed banking master yet, WW2 caused that when it did. ITTL the global position of the US as the largest economy and increasingly one with greater growth potential than European states would mean it takes that title eventually, especially as China rises. No WW2 would probably do more to keep London's position as a major finance center going, more than any US-German relationship, as the Germans and British still have a lot of trade and banking interests in common, which gets enhanced once the British empire starts falling apart.

There is also the question of the US forcing a formal revision of the Versailles treaty, or a defacto abrogation.
By 1932 it was in large part already a dead letter, it's just a question of Germany make that fact obvious, which they would probably not bother doing for a while without Fascists in power.
 
Tho I
The NYC banking system already was an alternative to the London system. It just wasn't the undisputed banking master yet, WW2 caused that when it did. ITTL the global position of the US as the largest economy and increasingly one with greater growth potential than European states would mean it takes that title eventually, especially as China rises. No WW2 would probably do more to keep London's position as a major finance center going, more than any US-German relationship, as the Germans and British still have a lot of trade and banking interests in common, which gets enhanced once the British empire starts falling apart....

Tho I am not seeing its rise to predominance as inevitable. My take is there were some core economic weaknesses in the US that had badly slowed things as far back as the early 1920s. Absent WWII I'm wondering if the US would have remained economically stagnated for another decade. Britain & its empire were at least for a couple decade in better shape than most.

...
By 1932 it was in large part already a dead letter, it's just a question of Germany make that fact obvious, which they would probably not bother doing for a while without Fascists in power.

It was a weighty dead letter, still with economic repercussions, and a powerful psychological effect. Been better of course for the US & Germany had the initiative been taken sooner, but its not clear if the Coolidge administration would have taken the slightest interest in this. Hoover might have? Forcing a recognition of the reality of the Versailles treaty in 1928, or 32, or earlier would have gone a ways to undercutting nazi popularity.
 

Deleted member 1487

Tho I am not seeing its rise to predominance as inevitable. My take is there were some core economic weaknesses in the US that had badly slowed things as far back as the early 1920s. Absent WWII I'm wondering if the US would have remained economically stagnated for another decade. Britain & its empire were at least for a couple decade in better shape than most.
Were they any worse off than anyone else? At least the US banking system had absorbed the wealth of Europe and went from net debtee to net debtor nation as a result of WW1 and the problems of the 1920s was a result of the distortions of the Great War boost industry far above what the US internal or the international markets could absorb. The US had recovered by the late 1930s before WW2, it was just that WW2 turned the US economy into overdrive, as it completely absorbed all US productive capacity and removed pretty all international competition, so the US could invest in everyone else's economies post-war. Without that the US economy would not become dominant, but the world itself would remain a lot more balanced and economically productive; that would lead to a larger global pie, though the US share would be relatively smaller without WW2. Of course Imperialism was holding the global economy back, so the slower end to that would probably hinder the US and Germany, as well as the Imperial powers, who had distorted economies from having captive markets in the 3rd world and didn't need to compete (that pretty much slayed the British manufacturing industry after the colonial system fell apart). The US wouldn't have stagnated IMHO because the global economy was recovering and if Germany was a partner for international trade agreements and keeping war from happening in Asia, then as the international economy recovered and new markets opened and developed the US economy would grow. The question is whether the Democratic political consensus remained; if the GOP came in and cut government spending then there could be problems if that happened before the economy recovered well enough to function on it's own without abnormal government stimulus. 1937 showed the problem of cutting stimulus too early before the market could bear it.

It was a weighty dead letter, still with economic repercussions, and a powerful psychological effect. Been better of course for the US & Germany had the initiative been taken sooner, but its not clear if the Coolidge administration would have taken the slightest interest in this. Hoover might have? Forcing a recognition of the reality of the Versailles treaty in 1928, or 32, or earlier would have gone a ways to undercutting nazi popularity.
What economic effect other than a lack of German military spending? Reparations payments had been suspended and would not be paid later on even if the French wanted it. The Brits could care less about enforcing it as they wanted a recovered Germany that wasn't at risk of going communist and could restore the balance of power in Europe against France and the USSR. German-British was ramping up and the Brits depended on the German market to absorb their excess production. So within Europe the Brits didn't want to risk Germany falling back into recession or worse by reimposing reparations payments. The Lausanne Conference and Hoover Moratorium had taken effect in 1932 before Hitler got into power IOTL. Really the best way to keep the Nazis out is the Prussians in charge not to freak out about the communists so much that they thought Hitler was the better option. Even keeping Brünig around for a month longer than IOTL would vindicate a lot of what he did when the reparations and loan moratoriums happen. Preventing the Nazis is actually quite easy with a myriad of different PODs, the easiest of which is Hitler dying of natural causes or a simple accident. Really even just having the arch-conservatives not agree to Hitler's terms and give the SPD the opportunity to form a government would have worked even.
 
Top