Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by AP246, May 30, 2018.
Yeah, that's very true!
I always imagined in a world where the Nazis got to dominate Europe much, the rest of the world would commit much more strongly to democracy and human rights. In the relatively short time Nazism existed, its horrors greatly weakened support for things like autocracy and racism and led to modern ideas of international law.
TTL, the Nazis razing much of Eastern Europe to the ground and terrorizing the rest of Europe would make the commitment to freedom and human rights seem ever more necessary.
Only to a point.
The Soviet Union being a totalitarian dictatorship and oppressing half of Europe didn't stop several NATO members from being dictatorships* or from toppling democratically elected governments and supporting some decidedly unsavoury dictatorships.
Honestly, I don't think the West would change all that much compared to OTL. They would support left-wing rebels and regimes instead of right-wing ones, just because they oppose the Axis. Or fill the dictators' pockets with gold, so that they would be the West's "sons of bitches" instead of Berlin's.
*Portugal under the Estado Novo; Greece under a military junta; Turkey wasn't exactly a pinnacle of democracy when it joined in 1952
I never said America and other anti-Nazi states would be angels. Hating the Nazis does not automatically make someone a good person.
I'm saying... I think America might've been a slightly better place if the Cold War generation was taught that the greatest threat to freedom was not "socialist collectivization" (whatever the hell that means), but the dangers of racial hatred and nationalist posturing.
Geopolitics is inherently an amoral business, but perhaps America's "friends" might be nations who at least pay more then lip-service to the ideals of freedom, and not just condemn "communism."
Also with Russia in shambles internally focused for decades after defeating Nazi Germany, Pax Americana is much more secure. Thus maybe America finds less justification to prop up dictatorships.
The end of the Cold War didn't make American foreign policy suddenly cleaner.
America's policies just shifted, especially after 9/11. After that, America had to play ball with other not-nice countries:
1. Morocco, whose government has treated the people of Western Saharan like squatters.
2. The Central Asians counties, whose presidents include a man who literally boiled his enemies alive.
3. Pakistan and its deeply unstable military leadership.
4. China, whose huge market had led to companies kissing the asses of the Communist Party leadership.
America is a slightly better place. You can't see it yet, but they've been bumped up a level into full democracy. This is repeated elsewhere in some places.
However, at the same time, Eastern Europe and parts of continental Europe are worse. This is due to a few things - firstly, just the damage and turmoil caused by Nazi occupation leaves demographic and economic issues that cut deeper than those in OTL. In addition, most Slavic countries have turned to pro-Slavic, inward looking militaristic nationalism to prevent something like the Nazi years of slaughter happening to them again.
As for the rest of the world, I believe it'll be a mixture. Some places where the turmoil in Europe caused a messy decolonisation will end up worse, but other regions will probably often be better due to the 'Global Spring' effect of the end of Nazism in the 60s, which was mentioned in my Korea article and I intend to go further in depth later on. Basically, the defeat of the epitome of tyranny and ruthlessness caused a period of a strong spread of the ideas of democracy and human rights, which, among other things, led to a successful Korean revolution in the early 60s which, in this timeline, created a brief democracy but was coup'd by the military, while in TWR the democracy lasts and matures much better to the modern day, putting Korea in a better place. From Korea, we can look at a big example, China, which, while not particularly democratic, has democratic institutions in place and in theory ''''free and fair'''' elections.
So basically, where the Nazis' massively destabilising effect had an impact, it's normally caused a regression towards political instability and authoritarianism, but where they didn't have a direct impact as much, democracy has in some places spread more.
You'll see when it's finished
I can see that.
Right-wing reaction is the result of perceived threats to "traditional values and identity." TTL, the Nazis have proven that threat true, brutalizing some nations beyond repair. It is natural that such horror can lead to such attitudes.
There is an OTL parallel: the late 1980s and early 1990s were a golden age of liberalization. The collapse of communism led to the rise of democracy in both former communist states and in former client regimes back by the US.
That's why people at the time confidently proclaimed "The End of History." OTL, history still has gone on.
TTL, I'm guessing there was also this period of optimism that lasted until some other crisis proved to others the world was still a scary place.[/QUOTE]
And another who was a f**king madman who changed the word for "bread" to the name of his mother.
Even the sanest Central Asian leader, Nursultan Nazarbayev, named his capital after himself.
These countries have done well to emulate their totalitarian predecessors.
Karimov's been dead for three years.
As stated on Wikipedia, "The government of Uzbekistan under Islam Karimov has been alleged to have boiled suspected terrorists."
Cruel and unusual punishments, even for terrorists. But Karimov is clearly far from the ranks of Niyazov, who clearly wanted to be Mao Zedong in the Cultural Revolution, with the Ruhnama being the Little Red Book of Turkmenistan.
To quote Wikipedia,
In his time, he was one of the world's most totalitarian, despotic and repressive dictators. He promoted a cult of personality around himself and imposed his personal eccentricities upon the country, such as renaming Turkmen months and days of the week to references of his autobiography the Ruhnama. He made it mandatory to read the Ruhnama in schools, universities and governmental organizations, new governmental employees were tested on the book at job interviews and an exam on its teachings was a part of the driving test in Turkmenistan. In 2005, he closed down all rural libraries and hospitals outside of the capital city Ashgabat, in a country where at that time more than half the population lived in rural areas, once stating that, "If people are ill, they can come to Ashgabat." Under his rule, Turkmenistan had the lowest life expectancy in Central Asia.
It is like Niyazov was cosplaying as a totalitarian.
I know. But his successors haven't been much better.
This idea just struck me, but there would be even more substantial changes to American social society as well. The Black Panther Party, which formed as an idea to "police the police" and "protect their own" from unjust brutality by white cops etc would have been far larger than in OTL. With a Nazi regime right across the ocean showing just how far racist attitudes could go I imagine that a lot of Black Americans would be far more unsettled than even OTL, seeing every reported case of police brutality and of segregationalist senator speeches not just as unfortunate but as baby-steps closer towards the genocidal regime in Europe, which also evolved from "just harmless words" to segregation to full-on genocide against "inferior races." With this in mind I imagine Malcolm X being viewed not so much as the radical vs MLK but as a Centrist between the militant and popular black panther party(could be one hell of a revolt event in the OTL if America gets too segregationist/reactionary such as Strom Thurmond being elected President) and MLK himself, who would likely pick up momentum much quicker and reference the atrocities happening right across the sea as evidence over just how far racism can carry a nation into utter monstrosity. While America might be more progressive than in OTL, I definitely see more tension in the social sphere.
Btw, what happens to the Jews that were given asylum in Sweden, Romania, etc? Would the victorious Reich demand they now hand them over? Would they comply? Because if the death toll for the Jews jumps from 6 million to 8 or 9 million, much closer to or even hitting half of all jews in the world now killed in ww2, I can certainly see Jews in the US begin to stock arms for self-protection and throw their weight with even more vicious dedication than OTL to the Civil Rights Movement.
Also, not to begin a debate about Gun Control OTL, but a successful Nazi Germany having genocided 100 million citizens while espousing strict gun control to make sure they couldn't fight back would very likely mean far more conservative gun control laws and sentiments in the US and around the world, with proposed reforms receiving far more pushback than OTL.
I have long contemplated the idea of a Nazi-wank victory TL (a la Presence of Mine Enemies or The Man in the High Castle) told in the form of a report to a World Jewish Congress meeting for the first time in 50 years in in New Delhi, India, covering the state of the different Jewish communities that survived the Holocaust in neutral countries or Axis members.
Where would Jews be able to flee to in a world dominated by the Axis?
And how populous would those communities be after decades of the world's most powerful nation hunting Jews?
The segregationists have far less ammo TTL: there isn't a mighty Soviet Union out there that can used to tar the Civil Rights Movement with a red brush. And it is unlikely that they can call the Civil Rights Movement a Nazi front.
The Civil Rights movement also has a lot more ammo: namely another nation that proves how horrible racial politics can be when taken to a horrific extreme.
MLK could say something like this:
"Nuremberg isn't just an invention of the Nazis and their wicked followers. Nuremberg exists just around the corner in America: in our drug stores, in our picture shows, in our schools, in our parks. Anywhere where signs exist banning others for their skin color or race, the pernicious specter of fascism hangs over all of us."
However, that doesn't mean racism in America will just up and vanish or achieving a civil rights bill will go smoothly.
On the other end of the spectrum, white supremacists might be emboldened by the existence of a large and mighty state built off of white supremacism. We could see incredibly violent terrorism by hyper-nationalist organizations who also want to rid America of "lesser races."
Whatever else changes in American society, it will definitely be very militarized. Fears of invasion will likely be even higher than the OTL Cold War.
Could we see...America becoming like OTL Israel: an army with a nation attached to it?
I think an important qualifier here is that Nazi Germany falls in 1960, not 1990. There's three decades there for the USA to settle down into a less militarised state - while a somewhat Cold War-like situation develops with China, it doesn't have the visceral scariness of Nazi Germany.
OTL, Nazi Germany lasted only 12 years, but it left behind a legacy that is still being felt today.
TTL, they end up lasting much longer, so the scars and legacy of Nazism will be a lot deeper and more profound.
Separate names with a comma.