Plausibility Check/WI: USA Annexes Western Europe (Post WW2)

Could be ASB, but I always wondered if their existed a popular movement in Allied Occupied Western Europe to petition the US or UK for commonwealth/protectorate/statehood status.

With WW2 being the second genocidal conflict the US had to step in and stop, many survivors completely lost faith in continental diplomacy.

This coupled with the spectre of potential domestic and external communist takeover, petition could also help stave off the red menace.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Not with all the ASBs combined could you get that outcome. Not unless your PoD is somewhere in 1770s. The only foreseeable way is that Nazis actually manage to depopulate the entire continent of Europe (which is also ASB in its own right). Simply impossible.
 
WW3 leaves Europe a radioactive mess whilst leaving the US relatively untouched (so pre-ICBM era). Surviving populations become utterly dependent on the US for order and food, becoming de-facto territories. Strong movement in the US towards a new imperialism to "save" the world from the excess of autocracy leads to long-term plan for Americanization of said areas and eventual integration.

Though a large portion (majority even) of the population won't be entirely happy at such intergration, the level of economic dependence and the time to ensure local elites have their future tied to the US means that it becomes a workable arrangement - though long-term dissent (whether democratic or violent) is highly likely once things recover somewhat. How tenable the arrangement is likely depends on how overstretched the U.S is in other "projects" of maintaining its influence in a world without a superpower USSR.

Most likely scenario is that it all collapses and the European states go independent once more.
 
WW3 leaves Europe a radioactive mess whilst leaving the US relatively untouched (so pre-ICBM era). Surviving populations become utterly dependent on the US for order and food, becoming de-facto territories. Strong movement in the US towards a new imperialism to "save" the world from the excess of autocracy leads to long-term plan for Americanization of said areas and eventual integration.

Though a large portion (majority even) of the population won't be entirely happy at such intergration, the level of economic dependence and the time to ensure local elites have their future tied to the US means that it becomes a workable arrangement - though long-term dissent (whether democratic or violent) is highly likely once things recover somewhat. How tenable the arrangement is likely depends on how overstretched the U.S is in other "projects" of maintaining its influence in a world without a superpower USSR.

Most likely scenario is that it all collapses and the European states go independent once more.

The funny thing is even without the ASB nuclear war, post ww2 western Europe was akin to a bombed-out, dilapitated waste land.
Subsequent food storages and dire need for reconstruction funds created a huge dependency on American goods,credit, and service resulting a Amero-Centric Cultural hegemony. Why, in this case, is it so ASB to consider a push for annexation or at least protectorate status among the surviving populace of Western Europe?
 
... or at least protectorate status among the surviving populace of Western Europe?

To some extent you have described the genesis of NATO. But seriously, the idea of the USA (which barely 4 years previously was isolationist) actually annexing or establishing a formal protectorate over France, Britain, and the rest of western Europe would require a far different USA than OTL. Unless you present a PoD that creates an expansionist and imperialist USA that actually wants to annex major European powers and has the will to do it, the scenario is ASB.

Interesting. This is very much what Nazi propaganda claimed the US would do as part of its Rooseveltian-Jewish-Capitalist plan for global dominance.
 
With WW2 being the second genocidal conflict the US had to step in and stop, many survivors completely lost faith in continental diplomacy.

Oh, by the way, what was the first genocidal conflict? I don't exactly think the Kaiser was running death factories in Poland, was he? WW1 was a devastating, violent, murderous, war, but genocide was not what the US entered to stop.
 
To some extent you have described the genesis of NATO. But seriously, the idea of the USA (which barely 4 years previously was isolationist) actually annexing or establishing a formal protectorate over France, Britain, and the rest of western Europe would require a far different USA than OTL. Unless you present a PoD that creates an expansionist and imperialist USA that actually wants to annex major European powers and has the will to do it, the scenario is ASB.

Interesting. This is very much what Nazi propaganda claimed the US would do as part of its Rooseveltian-Jewish-Capitalist plan for global dominance.

Double Post FTW?

And exactly, on the one hand you have NATO, which basically created defacto military protectorate status for liberated western Europe.

Then you have the Marshal Plan, Breton Woods, IMF, blah blah blah, which cemented economic hegemony through credit loans and what not

And these were both invited and widely supported by the economically distraught European populace!

So my question, if you read the OP, was if there too existed a political will to seek commonwealth/statehood/political protectorate status with the US or UK.

There could be many reasons why it would have existed, especially in late 40s europe, as I listed above, but I'm in the dark as to IF it existed.
 
I'm fairly certain there was no such movement...people felt a certain sense of gratitude and vague respect for the USA as an ally but that's as far as it got. They did not prioritize the USA over their own states, nor had reason to.
And Washington was willing to engage in the Marshal Plan etc. without demanding such levels of political subordination from Western Europe anyway, so the question didn't arise.
 
Imo you would have to butterfly away the development of nuclear weapons.
With the league of nations as a historical failure as it was, a new united nations body would be seen insufficient to prevent a new world war and the idea dismissed entirely. And since the threat of soviets grabbing whatever they like in europe if no strong conventional counterbalancing military is present seemed very real, the proposed outcome would become more likely.

IOTL i think the nuclear edge the USA had in post-ww2 europe made stalin think twice before making any real open confrontational move. Butterfly that away and you have to come up with something as replacement, voila ;)
 
There was a movement in Italy for United States membership, but it wasn't really what you would call a popular one. ;)
 
Any serious effort at annexation would simply play into the hands of the Communists who argued that this is what NATO and the Marshall Plan were designed to produce.
 
Top