Western Europe in the 20th century during a Cold War with Nazi Germany

So presuming that the Nazis didn't come West in 1940 for some reason how would Europe develop in the sixty years after?

I'm figuring on Britain and France not intervening in the Polish Defence War but still regarding Nazi Germany as a threat to their collective security.
 
I am just guessing here, but what is that Nazi State going to do in regards to the Soviet Union? Alliance, war? Is there even a Soviet State in this TL?


I think it depends on the leadership in Britain and France. It sounds like in this timeline the French are just as gutless as in the OTL, but Britain must have kept Neville or another even worst.


If the British and French are this Gutless and do nothing to aid the Polish in 1939 unlike the OTL, Why would Hitler stop against the West?

Is the East even softer?
 
How about the German economy collapsing, the Nazi regime being toppled, and the Western allies having to provide massive humanitarian aid to the German populations.
That is if the USSR doesn't attack west in 42-43.
 

Susano

Banned
From Landsharks posts I dassume Nazi Germany has defeated the USSR. And I dont buy into "Germany falsl economically, Wets must send humanitarian aid" line. Sure, the Nazi Regime will stiffle German economy, but no worse than the USSR IOTL.
 
It still lasted a long time, I think is the point Susano was making.

It did eventually go tits up though and Germany doesn't have the natural resources of Russia.

Also for the most part the Soviet government didn't have to worry about the Russian people taking potshots at anyone wearing a uniform whenever they could get away with it.
 

Susano

Banned
It did eventually go tits up though and Germany doesn't have the natural resources of Russia.
OTOH, the USSR couldve gone on ecopnomically for some more decades, at least, if not Gorbachevs reforms had gotten out of hand... So I think Germany would have some decades of lifetime, and hence a Cold War of some decades, before its downfall.
 
If, for whatever reason, the west does not intervene in the Polish affair as Hitler had expected, it’s quite likely that he would have squared off against Russia as soon as he thought it could be done (likely 1940 or 1941). And without the distraction of a second front, a victory over Russia is quite likely since it was a touch and go affair OTL in ’41 and ‘ 42.

With access to raw materials, food and oil in the conquered eastern territories, Germany has achieved economic self-sufficiency. It could also trade with foreign nations as France and Britain would have no pretence to blockade Germany.

Unless Germany failed to realign its economy with its new resources, there is no reason why Germany’s economy should become a shambles. There is nothing inherently wrong with Communism or a planned economy. The Soviet Union just made the mistake of retaining a war economy for far too long. Had they demobilized like the West did and gone to a mixed economy (partially centrally planned, partially market driven), the Soviet Union would be alive and kicking. And historically, the Germans only went for guns instead of butter in 1943 so a consumer-based economy seems quite likely.
 
Well there is alot inherently wrong with communism.

Not so convinced on the planned economy. If the rules of a free market exist then obviously free market economies are superior, atleast for those at the top of the pile. Third world countries usually need a planned economy to get out of the Malthusian trap. Although thats less due to the planned economy than the political stability such an economy brings/requires. Stability tends to lead to capital accumulation (whether in state hands or in the hands of entrepreneurs) and that leads to growth. Obviously though, too much stability (usually state capital accumulation) leads to ossification and a lack of innovation which leads to inefficiency compared to innovators which is what happened in the USSR.

But the free market doesn't have to function properly. It didn't in the inter-war period and the 'planned economies' considerably out performed their capitalistic peers, atleast if you measure output rather than consumer satisfaction. Even then, if the planned economies political leaders didn't have a tendancy to feed on their populations the higher consumer satisfaction might have theirs. After all, its better for workers to have jobs and earn some money rather than be unemployed and destitute.

Would the global economy in this timeline be much the same as OTL? I can't be bothered to guess, but if it isn't then planned economies would perform better relative to their free market peers. It might actually be better, the West after all were quite happy to trade vast amounts with Germany up untill the war broke out. What happens with the Soviet Union would decide things.

The other flaw with the system is that it too often comes down to USSR vs USA performance. The USSR spent far too many resources trying to compete with a USA who had going on twice the resources. Expenditure on spaceships and enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world a dozen times over were wasteful expenditures. Would Nazi-Germany follow the same path and try to keep parity in these fields? It seems reasonable to guess that they would.
 
1.But the free market doesn't have to function properly. It didn't in the inter-war period and

2/ the 'planned economies' considerably out performed their capitalistic peers, atleast if you measure output rather than consumer satisfaction.

1. Arguably this is due to state intervention in the form of gold hoarding and fixed currencies, which meant the financial system was no longer self-righting, and then excacerbated by trade wars.


2. Do you have one single piece of evidence for this?
 
The right to property is a key fundamental. The communist manifesto as a book describes many ends which I would consider most evil.

1. Arguably this is due to state intervention in the form of gold hoarding and fixed currencies, which meant the financial system was no longer self-righting, and then excacerbated by trade wars.


2. Do you have one single piece of evidence for this?

1. Obviously. But the market doesn't have to be self-righting. Its perfectly possible to construct a timeline with a late 20th century where trade wars, high tarifs, poor application (or no application) of the gold standard and so on and so forth continue. Under such a system the laws of the market capitalism break down and so do market economies.

2. Annual Indices of Manufactuning Production 1913-1938, taking each nations 1913 output as 100 in Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. All subsequent figures also come from those books, although I can probably dig up other books that cite much the same figures.

By 1938 the UK was producing only 118% of its 1913 output. From 1920 untill 1935 its actual production was actually lower.
For the Soviet Union, while manufacturing fell to something like 12% of 1913 rates in 1920 it was back up to 1913 rates by 1926 and by 1938 growth was at 857% of the 1913 figure. Global output by 1938 had almost doubled, at approximately 180% of the 1913 figure.

The German economy performed in a similar way to the UK, a post-war lull, recovering in the late 20s only to crash with the depression, yet from 35-38 its growth rates far exceeded those of the UK and France.

Now you might argue such growth rates hide the fact the UK and France were producing so much more than Germany or the USSR. But this wasn't true. The USSR as a share of world manufacturing from 1929 to 1938 forse from just 5% in 1929 to 11.5% by 1932, 14.1% by 1937 and 17.6% in 1938. The UK meanwhile had hovered at around 9.5%
Germany moved from 11.1% in 1929 through to 13.2% in 1938.

The USSR's agricultural production obviously declined considerably, but its industrial expansion more than made up for it. From 1928 to 1937 Russia's income rose from 24.4 to 96.3 billion rubles. Coal output rose from 35.4 to 128 million tons, steel production from 4 to 17.7 million tons and so and so forth. In total industrial output the Soviet union was probably close to if not surpassing Britain, an astonishing rate of growth given the devestation in 1920.

Now the USA didn't suffer the same problems as the Europeans, but her own economy was badly hit by the depressions in the 1920, the great depression of 1929-30 and the rarely mentioned 1938 depression.

In terms of raw output, the planned economies out performed their free market rivals from 1919-1938. They didn't in the post-WW2 era because the global economy was less prone to collapses and the vast stock of dollars and their related institutions provided something of a keel.
 
Hey, guys, while we're discussing the merits of the planned economy keep in mind Nazi Germany was not nearly as controlled as the USSR was. Nazi Germnay did not nationalize everything, and actively intervened on the side of business (by banning trade unions, for example). They were more 'heavy interventionist' than 'centrally planned', I'd say.

During the wartime most everything was planned for but so it was in every other country, including the US.
 
1. Obviously. But the market doesn't have to be self-righting. Its perfectly possible to construct a timeline with a late 20th century where trade wars, high tarifs, poor application (or no application) of the gold standard and so on and so forth continue. Under such a system the laws of the market capitalism break down and so do market economies.

My point is that it was self-righting until government's interfered. Which is to suggest that the market itself is self-righting.


2. Annual Indices of Manufactuning Production 1913-1938, taking each nations 1913 output as 100 in Paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. All subsequent figures also come from those books, although I can probably dig up other books that cite much the same figures.

By 1938 the UK was producing only 118% of its 1913 output. From 1920 untill 1935 its actual production was actually lower.
For the Soviet Union, while manufacturing fell to something like 12% of 1913 rates in 1920 it was back up to 1913 rates by 1926 and by 1938 growth was at 857% of the 1913 figure. Global output by 1938 had almost doubled, at approximately 180% of the 1913 figure.

The German economy performed in a similar way to the UK, a post-war lull, recovering in the late 20s only to crash with the depression, yet from 35-38 its growth rates far exceeded those of the UK and France.

Now you might argue such growth rates hide the fact the UK and France were producing so much more than Germany or the USSR. But this wasn't true. The USSR as a share of world manufacturing from 1929 to 1938 forse from just 5% in 1929 to 11.5% by 1932, 14.1% by 1937 and 17.6% in 1938. The UK meanwhile had hovered at around 9.5%
Germany moved from 11.1% in 1929 through to 13.2% in 1938.

The USSR's agricultural production obviously declined considerably, but its industrial expansion more than made up for it. From 1928 to 1937 Russia's income rose from 24.4 to 96.3 billion rubles. Coal output rose from 35.4 to 128 million tons, steel production from 4 to 17.7 million tons and so and so forth. In total industrial output the Soviet union was probably close to if not surpassing Britain, an astonishing rate of growth given the devestation in 1920.

Now the USA didn't suffer the same problems as the Europeans, but her own economy was badly hit by the depressions in the 1920, the great depression of 1929-30 and the rarely mentioned 1938 depression.

In terms of raw output, the planned economies out performed their free market rivals from 1919-1938. They didn't in the post-WW2 era because the global economy was less prone to collapses and the vast stock of dollars and their related institutions provided something of a keel.

This is going to have to wait until tomorrow until I can give it the attention it actually deserves. The USSR is still a red herring - its per capita GDP was low so it had a lot of room for growth.

Comparing more mature economies like Britain and Germany is more relevant and the figures you cite are selective (all figures are of course). From 1928-1939, the full Depression and recovery period, Britain grew 20% and Germany 16%, the high rates in the Nazi period are misleading because of the scale of the trough, taking a slightly longer view the British performance is better. The Italian performanc is also pretty poor.

Hobelhouse is right of course. We are talking about a sliding scale of government intervention.
 
My point is that it was self-righting until government's interfered. Which is to suggest that the market itself is self-righting.

This is going to have to wait until tomorrow until I can give it the attention it actually deserves. The USSR is still a red herring - its per capita GDP was low so it had a lot of room for growth.

Comparing more mature economies like Britain and Germany is more relevant and the figures you cite are selective (all figures are of course). From 1928-1939, the full Depression and recovery period, Britain grew 20% and Germany 16%, the high rates in the Nazi period are misleading because of the scale of the trough, taking a slightly longer view the British performance is better. The Italian performanc is also pretty poor.

Hobelhouse is right of course. We are talking about a sliding scale of government intervention.

The absolute free market is self-righting but nasty. What you get is the 19th century: endless, vicious boom-bust cycles and massive wealth inequality.

Up until the '70s, N Korea was economically stronger than S Korea. Of course, we know where that goes, but, in the short term at least, planned economies can be very strong indeed.
 
My point is that it was self-righting until government's interfered. Which is to suggest that the market itself is self-righting.

Yes your right. I am not explaining myself properly. What I mean to say is that governments could continue to pursue policies which serve to make the situation worse. The market may be self-righting, but it functions best with limited interference, low to no tarifs and so on. The post war economy could have been more unstable than it was. The free market is self-righting, but if it requires a drastic self-correction every eight years it possibly isn't the best economic system compared to one with more stability.

Obviously there are sliding scales, but I think it would be fair to argue the planned economies atleast performed as well as the free market economies, which would indicate they were not innately flawed.
 
Top