US politics in a Nazis Win TL

[stevep]

Aug 24, 2024 4:55:36 GMT ewellholmes said:

Aug 24, 2024 2:47:06 GMT Max Sinister said:

OK, frankly, this thread is getting too far off-topic.

To take it specifically back to American politics, the U.S. war with Fascist Italy made Italian-Americans start to switch back to Republicans as there was significant skepticism about U.S. involvement in the War as a whole and specific resentment about being made to fight their ethnic homeland.





Source is Canarsie: The Jews and Italians of Brooklyn against Liberalism and Italian Americans and the New Deal Coalition by Stefano Luconi. 

  Interesting.  I wonder if this hostility towards the US would mean measures post-war against them as they would be seen as clearly anti-American and a potential 5th column?  Could you see a tendency for the more extreme to seek to move to Italy/Libya?

  It could probably mean no relaxation of pressure on the Italian criminal elements that occurred OTL to get them and the people they could influence on side?

[stevep]

Aug 24, 2024 2:47:06 GMT Max Sinister said:

OK, frankly, this thread is getting too far off-topic.

  In one way no because the nature of the war and the peace 'settlement' will have a big impact on feeling and politics in the US after the war.  However its definitely hogging the discussion and getting relatively pointless because the two sides are a considerable distance apart and look unlikely to agree on the key issues.  Probably best if you as the creator of the thread decide in terms of how it affects the post-war situation.

[Max Sinister]

Aug 24, 2024 13:08:48 GMT stevep said:

Aug 24, 2024 4:55:36 GMT ewellholmes said:

To take it specifically back to American politics, the U.S. war with Fascist Italy made Italian-Americans start to switch back to Republicans as there was significant skepticism about U.S. involvement in the War as a whole and specific resentment about being made to fight their ethnic homeland.





Source is Canarsie: The Jews and Italians of Brooklyn against Liberalism and Italian Americans and the New Deal Coalition by Stefano Luconi. 

  Interesting.  I wonder if this hostility towards the US would mean measures post-war against them as they would be seen as clearly anti-American and a potential 5th column?  Could you see a tendency for the more extreme to seek to move to Italy/Libya?

  It could probably mean no relaxation of pressure on the Italian criminal elements that occurred OTL to get them and the people they could influence on side?

I can imagine that the post-war US will be pretty paranoid. Just as they were about the Commies (who are still there!) during McCarthy.

Mussolini indeed encouraged Italo-Americans to return to the home country after the Great depression struck. Some actually did. Regarding the Nazis, I guess they will be split as they were that often: Some will say "encourage German-Americans to return to the Heimat, we need settlers for the East" (those who do will feature in propaganda), but others will say "No, they should stay there and help us to gain influence".

That's also an important question to answer: How will the two big US parties develop? It might be possible that polarization happens. If I wanted to write a mean polemic, I might write a TL in which the Democrats under Wallace and the Republicans under someone like McCarthy radicalize and are secretly influenced by the SU/"Reich" respectively.

But in practice, I hope that saner heads will succeed. Even if they will have a hard time.

[Max Sinister]

One thing is for sure: No matter how much fiction like TMITHC claims it, there wouldn't be many Americans truly supporting the US becoming a Nazi satellite. Their population was still higher than that of the Reich and whatnot. Especially if they're overly proud of anything American.

(That's what I dislike most about TMITHC - besides the obvious, the genocide of many millions: Pretty much everyone in the US seems to have surrendered in the face of what they must have perceived as Nazi awesomeness. WTH? That's the only way to explain how the world of TMITHC is possible.)

True: There were many antisemites, white racists, expansionists, ultraconservatives, anticommunists, and people with authoritarian streaks in the US. But real nazi satellites? I can't see the likes of MacArthur, Patton, even McCarthy doing that. The rightist equivalent of "useful idiots" - yes. But no more. That's an idea for the fringe's fringe, for fifth-grade people at best.

[Max Sinister]

Some other important points:

• If we are currently somewhat confused about what people would do next in such a TL, it's because the leaders ITTL will be somewhat confused as well. Just like many people IOTL (esp. those who were older than 50 then) were when the Soviet Union broke down. Hell, even the term "Soviet Union" became superfluous.
• In the legendary DoD, relationships between the blocks are so bad that Australians aren't able to go to the *USA anymore. That'd be worse than US-Soviet relations ITTL... I wonder whether this might happen here as well.
• The situation in the US (which is this topic after all) would remind a bit of Vietnam, being their worst defeat so far (even if many will claim "That was no defeat! It was a draw!"). OTOH, it would be very different in so far as the problem wouldn't be exactly that the other side would be seen as the moral side, on the contrary. But some people might find that the Nazis were very competent winning a war.

[stevep]

Sept 14, 2024 1:49:14 GMT Max Sinister said:

Some other important points:

• If we are currently somewhat confused about what people would do next in such a TL, it's because the leaders ITTL will be somewhat confused as well. Just like many people IOTL (esp. those who were older than 50 then) were when the Soviet Union broke down. Hell, even the term "Soviet Union" became superfluous.
• In the legendary DoD, relationships between the blocks are so bad that Australians aren't able to go to the *USA anymore. That'd be worse than US-Soviet relations ITTL... I wonder whether this might happen here as well.
• The situation in the US (which is this topic after all) would remind a bit of Vietnam, being their worst defeat so far (even if many will claim "That was no defeat! It was a draw!"). OTOH, it would be very different in so far as the problem wouldn't be exactly that the other side would be seen as the moral side, on the contrary. But some people might find that the Nazis were very competent winning a war.

  The question is because the Germans are still the great threat to the US would that prompt the Americans to copy them or reject them when it comes to things like social policy and political rights?  If your setting up another power as the great enemy its difficult to persuade your people that you should emulate them.  Otherwise why be opposed to them at all?

[Max Sinister]

Sept 14, 2024 8:39:06 GMT stevep said:

Sept 14, 2024 1:49:14 GMT Max Sinister said:

Some other important points:

• If we are currently somewhat confused about what people would do next in such a TL, it's because the leaders ITTL will be somewhat confused as well. Just like many people IOTL (esp. those who were older than 50 then) were when the Soviet Union broke down. Hell, even the term "Soviet Union" became superfluous.
• In the legendary DoD, relationships between the blocks are so bad that Australians aren't able to go to the *USA anymore. That'd be worse than US-Soviet relations ITTL... I wonder whether this might happen here as well.
• The situation in the US (which is this topic after all) would remind a bit of Vietnam, being their worst defeat so far (even if many will claim "That was no defeat! It was a draw!"). OTOH, it would be very different in so far as the problem wouldn't be exactly that the other side would be seen as the moral side, on the contrary. But some people might find that the Nazis were very competent winning a war.

  The question is because the Germans are still the great threat to the US would that prompt the Americans to copy them or reject them when it comes to things like social policy and political rights?  If your setting up another power as the great enemy its difficult to persuade your people that you should emulate them.  Otherwise why be opposed to them at all?

OK, I have to specify: Copy their tech and organisation, not the ideology. There may be some people who think that they also should do the latter, though. And ally with the Nazis against the Soviets, who are still around after all.

As said, this Cold War will feel a bit like a Mexican standoff.

[stevep]

Sept 14, 2024 13:58:11 GMT Max Sinister said:

Sept 14, 2024 8:39:06 GMT stevep said:

  The question is because the Germans are still the great threat to the US would that prompt the Americans to copy them or reject them when it comes to things like social policy and political rights?  If your setting up another power as the great enemy its difficult to persuade your people that you should emulate them.  Otherwise why be opposed to them at all?

OK, I have to specify: Copy their tech and organisation, not the ideology. There may be some people who think that they also should do the latter, though. And ally with the Nazis against the Soviets, who are still around after all.

As said, this Cold War will feel a bit like a Mexican standoff.

  Definitely be interested in their technology, although in the longer run unless they totally screw things up the US will be in a much better position that the Nazis.  Some aspects of organisation possibly, on the tactical level say but they would be stupid to do something like adopt the ideas of a centralized system, let alone one strong 'leader' who can overrun any objections, although that is likely to be proposed by some.

[ewellholmes]

American Popular Opinion and the War Against Germany: The Issue of Negotiated Peace, 1942 by Richard W. Steele,The Journal of American History , Dec., 1978, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Dec., 1978), pp. 704-723:

The coming of war to America changed but did not destroy the peace issue. Many of those who had stubbornly resisted involvement now hoped to terminate it as quickly as possible, and apparently only a lack of organization significantly differentiated sentiment for a negotiated peace from the isolationism of 1941. Moreover, as the President quickly learned, the leadership for an effective negotiated peace movement seemed likely to emerge from the die-hard remnants of the America First Committee, particularly in the person of the isolationist national hero, Charles A. Lindbergh.​
​
America First officially disbanded in February, and many of its officials announced their support for the war effort. Nevertheless, the activities of some members, including Lindbergh, remained the subject of government interest and concern. In mid-February Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover informed the President that former members of the Committee had "gone underground" and were "biding their time," awaiting the opportunity to emerge again as a "political force." Hoover cited as evidence a mid-December meeting at which the renowned flyer had allegedly held forth on the yellow and Bolshevik menaces, on the foolishness of the current war in Europe, and on what might be done to reverse American policy. ​
​
According to Hoover's informant, Lindbergh declared that "when the American people, by reason of the lists of the missing and the statements of war losses, realize that they have been betrayed by the British and the Administration," the Committee should be ready to "advocate a negotiated peace." Hoover also noted that he had obtained information from other sources to the effect that the America Firsters had a "secret mailing list of 8,476,000"; that lately a "great many individuals among foreign speaking groups have been circularized"; and that the leaders of the underground organization planned to hold a "series of house parties . .. to keep alive contacts."34​

Further:

Nevertheless, the President could not rest easy, for the fate of the extremists notwithstanding, he had reason to ponder the possibility that his more respectable political enemies might use the peace issue to unsettle and embarrass the administration. In April OFF warned that in the fall congressional campaigns "subversion will probably be intermingled with politics" as both administration opponents and Nazi propagandists seek to "promote defeatism or play upon the war weariness of the people." Fleshing out this prediction was a report informing the President that three leading isolationist Republicans, Congressman Joe Martin, former Congressman Bruce Barton, and publisher Roy Howard, had "just held a secret meeting in far off Tucson," leading to speculation that they were planning an "isolationist attack" against administration war policies. A more explicit warning came to Roosevelt from a friend, New Dealer Gardiner Jackson, who told him in the fall of 1942 that the business interests behind the presidential candidacy of Thomas E. Dewey were working hard for a negotiated peace and had taken a recent conciliatory speech by Hitler as the "opening gun of the drive to call the war off. . . ." The problem raised by these reports (if true) was, as OFF warned, that even if the agitation of the peace issue could not force the administration into negotiations, it could do "much damage" by strengthening "the hand of those in Congress whose main goal is the harassment and obstruction of the President."37

[stevep]

Sept 22, 2024 20:45:03 GMT ewellholmes said:

American Popular Opinion and the War Against Germany: The Issue of Negotiated Peace, 1942 by Richard W. Steele,The Journal of American History , Dec., 1978, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Dec., 1978), pp. 704-723:

The coming of war to America changed but did not destroy the peace issue. Many of those who had stubbornly resisted involvement now hoped to terminate it as quickly as possible, and apparently only a lack of organization significantly differentiated sentiment for a negotiated peace from the isolationism of 1941. Moreover, as the President quickly learned, the leadership for an effective negotiated peace movement seemed likely to emerge from the die-hard remnants of the America First Committee, particularly in the person of the isolationist national hero, Charles A. Lindbergh.​
​
America First officially disbanded in February, and many of its officials announced their support for the war effort. Nevertheless, the activities of some members, including Lindbergh, remained the subject of government interest and concern. In mid-February Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover informed the President that former members of the Committee had "gone underground" and were "biding their time," awaiting the opportunity to emerge again as a "political force." Hoover cited as evidence a mid-December meeting at which the renowned flyer had allegedly held forth on the yellow and Bolshevik menaces, on the foolishness of the current war in Europe, and on what might be done to reverse American policy. ​
​
According to Hoover's informant, Lindbergh declared that "when the American people, by reason of the lists of the missing and the statements of war losses, realize that they have been betrayed by the British and the Administration," the Committee should be ready to "advocate a negotiated peace." Hoover also noted that he had obtained information from other sources to the effect that the America Firsters had a "secret mailing list of 8,476,000"; that lately a "great many individuals among foreign speaking groups have been circularized"; and that the leaders of the underground organization planned to hold a "series of house parties . .. to keep alive contacts."34​

Further:

Nevertheless, the President could not rest easy, for the fate of the extremists notwithstanding, he had reason to ponder the possibility that his more respectable political enemies might use the peace issue to unsettle and embarrass the administration. In April OFF warned that in the fall congressional campaigns "subversion will probably be intermingled with politics" as both administration opponents and Nazi propagandists seek to "promote defeatism or play upon the war weariness of the people." Fleshing out this prediction was a report informing the President that three leading isolationist Republicans, Congressman Joe Martin, former Congressman Bruce Barton, and publisher Roy Howard, had "just held a secret meeting in far off Tucson," leading to speculation that they were planning an "isolationist attack" against administration war policies. A more explicit warning came to Roosevelt from a friend, New Dealer Gardiner Jackson, who told him in the fall of 1942 that the business interests behind the presidential candidacy of Thomas E. Dewey were working hard for a negotiated peace and had taken a recent conciliatory speech by Hitler as the "opening gun of the drive to call the war off. . . ." The problem raised by these reports (if true) was, as OFF warned, that even if the agitation of the peace issue could not force the administration into negotiations, it could do "much damage" by strengthening "the hand of those in Congress whose main goal is the harassment and obstruction of the President."37

  So there were fringe groups that put their hatred of Roosevelt and the New Deal ahead of the needs of the US and thought they could get a balanced peace with Hitler.  We know the latter was definitely delusional. 

[ewellholmes]

Sept 22, 2024 21:31:17 GMT stevep said:

Sept 22, 2024 20:45:03 GMT ewellholmes said:

American Popular Opinion and the War Against Germany: The Issue of Negotiated Peace, 1942 by Richard W. Steele,The Journal of American History , Dec., 1978, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Dec., 1978), pp. 704-723:

Further:

  So there were fringe groups that put their hatred of Roosevelt and the New Deal ahead of the needs of the US and thought they could get a balanced peace with Hitler.  We know the latter was definitely delusional. 

How exactly they will evolve politically is definitely something to consider; a shift of just 2.1% is enough to get Dewey a win in 1944 after all. 

[stevep]

Sept 22, 2024 21:48:45 GMT ewellholmes said:

Sept 22, 2024 21:31:17 GMT stevep said:

  So there were fringe groups that put their hatred of Roosevelt and the New Deal ahead of the needs of the US and thought they could get a balanced peace with Hitler.  We know the latter was definitely delusional. 

How exactly they will evolve politically is definitely something to consider; a shift of just 2.1% is enough to get Dewey a win in 1944 after all. 

  Which is in late 44 - or early 45 when the Republican candidate takes power by which time Japan is on its last legs and Germany has either persuaded the US to make peace or is starting to suffer badly.  Plus that assumes that the Republican candidate is in favour of appeasement and would depend on the circumstances of the war at the time.

[ewellholmes]

Sept 23, 2024 9:32:43 GMT stevep said:

Sept 22, 2024 21:48:45 GMT ewellholmes said:

How exactly they will evolve politically is definitely something to consider; a shift of just 2.1% is enough to get Dewey a win in 1944 after all. 

  Which is in late 44 - or early 45 when the Republican candidate takes power by which time Japan is on its last legs and Germany has either persuaded the US to make peace or is starting to suffer badly.  Plus that assumes that the Republican candidate is in favour of appeasement and would depend on the circumstances of the war at the time.

U.S. war planning in the event the USSR was knocked out was to make peace with Germany, so I agree the war will be over before the 1944 election. What's interesting with this is that Thomas Dewey was indeed the 1944 GOP nominee and FDR's domestic intelligence apparatus was saying some of his backers supported a peace program and business deals with Germany. That has a lot of implications, especially given the status of German-American and Italian-American political blocs in this era.

[stevep]

Sept 23, 2024 22:19:27 GMT ewellholmes said:

Sept 23, 2024 9:32:43 GMT stevep said:

  Which is in late 44 - or early 45 when the Republican candidate takes power by which time Japan is on its last legs and Germany has either persuaded the US to make peace or is starting to suffer badly.  Plus that assumes that the Republican candidate is in favour of appeasement and would depend on the circumstances of the war at the time.

U.S. war planning in the event the USSR was knocked out was to make peace with Germany, so I agree the war will be over before the 1944 election. What's interesting with this is that Thomas Dewey was indeed the 1944 GOP nominee and FDR's domestic intelligence apparatus was saying some of his backers supported a peace program and business deals with Germany. That has a lot of implications, especially given the status of German-American and Italian-American political blocs in this era.

  I said if because things could change but assuming Dewey was the Republican candidate he was actually an interventionist himself.  Even so he lost by 8% of the vote polling "45.9% of the popular vote compared to Roosevelt's 53.4%".

  The US might have had some plans for a settlement with Germany if the USSR was knocked out but they would have been among a wide range of plans.  Furthermore even with the assumptions your making for the Germans being in about 3 places at the same time the Soviets are gravely weakened but not totally defeated.

[ewellholmes]

Sept 24, 2024 10:38:21 GMT stevep said:

  I said if because things could change but assuming Dewey was the Republican candidate he was actually an interventionist himself.  Even so he lost by 8% of the vote polling "45.9% of the popular vote compared to Roosevelt's 53.4%".

Popular vote percentages don't decide elections in the United States, the Electoral college does. A shift of 2.5% (Not 2.1%, was wrong on the exact amount) would've resulted in this map:



Popular vote percentage would be 50.9% for FDR and 48.4% for the record. As for Dewey, I think it's important to note that his interventionist bonafides are inflated:

Dewey tried to hold a middle ground as to the best action to the Nazi invasion and take over of Europe. The problem was the rest of the Party was pretty devoted to taking the isolationist form and that much of the country did not want to get involved in a European war. It did not help that one of his major advisors was John Foster Dulles, who believed that Communism was the greater threat to the world and that Hitler was a ‘passing phenomenon who would disappear. Allen, his brother, bluntly told him how he wrong was, but Dewey heeded Foster more.

His later shift to interventionism was mostly for electoral effect. 

 

The US might have had some plans for a settlement with Germany if the USSR was knocked out but they would have been among a wide range of plans.  Furthermore even with the assumptions your making for the Germans being in about 3 places at the same time the Soviets are gravely weakened but not totally defeated.

Steve, I would rather not re-litigate an argument we already agreed to disagree on in this thread. Let’s stick to this thread's topic?