US politics in a Nazis Win TL

[Max Sinister]

ewellholmes, that was uncalled for.

Back to topic: This week I read Sansom's "Dominion" and found a good idea in his background: After Halifax makes peace with the Nazis in the book, all British parties split along the line collaborators-resistance.

This is what might happen here as well: A big realignment of the parties. Then again, even with a victorious Nazi Reich, the US are very far from the rest of the world, so the influence may be not that big.

[Max Sinister]

On a lighter... no, rather black-humored note: When I try to imagine being American ITTL, I have the mental picture you know from so many media: A man with both a shoulder angel and devil. E.g. regarding the Civil Rights movement, with the angel saying "How dare you to treat the poor Negroes like that! Repent and become Communist!" and the devil "C'mon, admit it, you know you're better than those n*ers, and you want it too!"

In case I didn't say it yet: It reminds of politics in Russia under Yeltsin. Democrats caught between Commies and extreme rightists. Two wolves and one sheep.

[Max Sinister]

Still thinking. The ideological conflict ITTL will mirror the political/military/economic of the three blocks - the Communists, the Nazis and fascists, and the capitalists/democrats with a side of Christianity. But there will be some minor actors as well:

* Technocracy (IOTL it has disappeared - but that's maybe because it had won in many other ways)
* Integralism (right-wing movement from Brazil which wanted a corporate state, but with consideration that Brazil was multicultural)
* Libertarianism
* Charles de Gaulle's special way
* Trotskism and other Communist split-offs (Rule no. 1 for Marxists: With Hegelian dialectic you can justify everything and the opposite of it!)
* Roman Catholicism, both in left- and rightwing versions (wonder what the Vatican really is thinking...)
* Protestant Evangelicalism
* Arabism and Islamism
* All kinds of "Third Way" (ITTL rather "Fourth Way") leaders like Nehru and Nasser
* In the "Reich" a special undercurrent of rightists, even extreme rightists, who don't like the Nazis. Like Conservatives influenced by the one or other obscure intellectual, or even national bolshevists.
* And of course the split between technocratic and esoteric Nazis.

[corjomc]

"Have You Now, or Have You ever been a member of the Nazi Party?," - HUAC meeting, 1948

[stevep]

Sept 28, 2024 21:51:36 GMT Max Sinister said:

Still thinking. The ideological conflict ITTL will mirror the political/military/economic of the three blocks - the Communists, the Nazis and fascists, and the capitalists/democrats with a side of Christianity. But there will be some minor actors as well:

* Technocracy (IOTL it has disappeared - but that's maybe because it had won in many other ways)
* Integralism (right-wing movement from Brazil which wanted a corporate state, but with consideration that Brazil was multicultural)
* Libertarianism
* Charles de Gaulle's special way
* Trotskism and other Communist split-offs (Rule no. 1 for Marxists: With Hegelian dialectic you can justify everything and the opposite of it!)
* Roman Catholicism, both in left- and rightwing versions (wonder what the Vatican really is thinking...)
* Protestant Evangelicalism
* Arabism and Islamism
* All kinds of "Third Way" (ITTL rather "Fourth Way") leaders like Nehru and Nasser
* In the "Reich" a special undercurrent of rightists, even extreme rightists, who don't like the Nazis. Like Conservatives influenced by the one or other obscure intellectual, or even national bolshevists.
* And of course the split between technocratic and esoteric Nazis.

  Well De Gaulle won't be about but there might be others seeking an alternative way, although this is likely to be swapped pretty damn quickly in both the Nazi and Soviet spheres.  Not sure how much independence Italy or Spain might have in terms of doctrine, trade options and the like in the Nazi sphere.  If China still goes communist then how long would Mao be happy with following the Soviet lead?  In a more heated three sided cold war he might follow for a bit longer, even possibly if Stalin's death is followed by de-Stalinization but not forever given China's size and culture and Mao's ego.

  Which makes me think would a Korean war occur in TTL?  Possibly not because there probably isn't a Soviet intervention against Japan.  Which would probably means Japan keeps the Kurils and S Sakhalin but also that Japan doesn't have the OTL economic boost it did during the conflict.  

  Also who would be nuclear powers in this world?  The US, UK, USSR and Germany definitely assuming none of those get destroyed before they get nuclear capacity.  However there's not going to be a nuclear France here and would Germany allow an Italian nuclear programme?  Similarly would the USSR be less willing to have a nuclear China here, especially once it splits from the Soviet model.  India is likely to emerge as one, probably sooner than OTL unless there's an agreement between the big powers that none of their satellites will be allow nukes? - Which could raise issues for the UK as well as the US was not friendly to Britain getting nukes OTL but that might be different here.

  In terms of alternative approaches I suspect that parts of the 3rd world under western influence are the most likely to see something.  India might try a Nehru 4th way as it is here or might, with the Soviets on the doorstep and probably a recent attempt at a Soviet invasion during the conflict be more eager to stay close to the west.  Especially since even if the west is more autocratic to a degree than OTL its going to be a lot more tolerant of other viewpoints.  Although not anything openly fascist or communist - or what might be seen as such as such so left wing elements in Latin America are likely to be viewed even less friendly by Washington.  Assuming that all of the ME and N Africa are under Nazi or Soviet control you can forget about any real independence for those states so Nasser and other leaders who try and get actual power are likely to disappear.

  Libertarianism will have supporters but in a heated cold war and arms race their likely to gain little support unless the situation starts looking less frightening and/or possible there are big scandals about big government and the military-industrial complex. 

  In terms of religion its going to be a rough time in the totalitarian realms, since they occupy basically the same sphere that the party - whether Nazi or Communist - seek to control.  Its going to be especially bad for those parts of the Muslim world held by the Nazis and probably to a slightly lesser degree the Soviets.  If the former gets control of Mecca and Medina - as their going to get Jerusalem - things are likely to get very heated, even if some appearance of tolerance is permitted.  This could have a big impact on Muslim states in the rest of the world.  provided they don't step too far out of line the churches, especially the Catholic one is going to have an easier role given its embedded status in many of the countries. - On Islam I suspect that its going to be a very nasty time to be a Muslim under Nazi or Soviet control and quite possibly you could see 'secret' western aid to guerrilla groups in such areas but their likely to be very brutally suppressed.

  The split between technocratic and esoteric Nazis - This is probably going to be the key issue for Nazi Germany and its empire.  OTL the esoteric's seemed to be winning and with a clear victory here that's likely to be even more the case.  Especially while Hitler is alive and also people like Himmler and Gobbles.  That would be very bad for those under their rule, including inside Germany itself as their deluded ideas are likely to cripple science and technology as well as any real ideas of independent thought - including in areas such as the military.  That's one reason why as I've said previously the German empire could be the last of the big three to get nukes and could fall further and further behind the other two blocs.  At the same time it would make it more and more unstable and reckless and if there was peace between the allies and the other blocs in say 43-44 I could see them turning on the Soviets again while the west is busy with Japan.  A 2nd Nazi-Soviet war could be very nasty for both sides and despite the greater theoretical resources the Nazis would have either side could win.  Or with western aid to whichever is doing worse it ends up in a new stalemate a year or three down the line.

  Anyway initial responses to your ideas.  Hope their useful.

[Max Sinister]

Sept 29, 2024 12:21:45 GMT stevep said:

Sept 28, 2024 21:51:36 GMT Max Sinister said:

Still thinking. The ideological conflict ITTL will mirror the political/military/economic of the three blocks - the Communists, the Nazis and fascists, and the capitalists/democrats with a side of Christianity. But there will be some minor actors as well:

* Technocracy (IOTL it has disappeared - but that's maybe because it had won in many other ways)
* Integralism (right-wing movement from Brazil which wanted a corporate state, but with consideration that Brazil was multicultural)
* Libertarianism
* Charles de Gaulle's special way
* Trotskism and other Communist split-offs (Rule no. 1 for Marxists: With Hegelian dialectic you can justify everything and the opposite of it!)
* Roman Catholicism, both in left- and rightwing versions (wonder what the Vatican really is thinking...)
* Protestant Evangelicalism
* Arabism and Islamism
* All kinds of "Third Way" (ITTL rather "Fourth Way") leaders like Nehru and Nasser
* In the "Reich" a special undercurrent of rightists, even extreme rightists, who don't like the Nazis. Like Conservatives influenced by the one or other obscure intellectual, or even national bolshevists.
* And of course the split between technocratic and esoteric Nazis.

  Well De Gaulle won't be about but there might be others seeking an alternative way, although this is likely to be swapped pretty damn quickly in both the Nazi and Soviet spheres.  Not sure how much independence Italy or Spain might have in terms of doctrine, trade options and the like in the Nazi sphere.  If China still goes communist then how long would Mao be happy with following the Soviet lead?  In a more heated three sided cold war he might follow for a bit longer, even possibly if Stalin's death is followed by de-Stalinization but not forever given China's size and culture and Mao's ego.

  Which makes me think would a Korean war occur in TTL?  Possibly not because there probably isn't a Soviet intervention against Japan.  Which would probably means Japan keeps the Kurils and S Sakhalin but also that Japan doesn't have the OTL economic boost it did during the conflict.  

  Also who would be nuclear powers in this world?  The US, UK, USSR and Germany definitely assuming none of those get destroyed before they get nuclear capacity.  However there's not going to be a nuclear France here and would Germany allow an Italian nuclear programme?  Similarly would the USSR be less willing to have a nuclear China here, especially once it splits from the Soviet model.  India is likely to emerge as one, probably sooner than OTL unless there's an agreement between the big powers that none of their satellites will be allow nukes? - Which could raise issues for the UK as well as the US was not friendly to Britain getting nukes OTL but that might be different here.

  In terms of alternative approaches I suspect that parts of the 3rd world under western influence are the most likely to see something.  India might try a Nehru 4th way as it is here or might, with the Soviets on the doorstep and probably a recent attempt at a Soviet invasion during the conflict be more eager to stay close to the west.  Especially since even if the west is more autocratic to a degree than OTL its going to be a lot more tolerant of other viewpoints.  Although not anything openly fascist or communist - or what might be seen as such as such so left wing elements in Latin America are likely to be viewed even less friendly by Washington.  Assuming that all of the ME and N Africa are under Nazi or Soviet control you can forget about any real independence for those states so Nasser and other leaders who try and get actual power are likely to disappear.

  Libertarianism will have supporters but in a heated cold war and arms race their likely to gain little support unless the situation starts looking less frightening and/or possible there are big scandals about big government and the military-industrial complex. 

  In terms of religion its going to be a rough time in the totalitarian realms, since they occupy basically the same sphere that the party - whether Nazi or Communist - seek to control.  Its going to be especially bad for those parts of the Muslim world held by the Nazis and probably to a slightly lesser degree the Soviets.  If the former gets control of Mecca and Medina - as their going to get Jerusalem - things are likely to get very heated, even if some appearance of tolerance is permitted.  This could have a big impact on Muslim states in the rest of the world.  provided they don't step too far out of line the churches, especially the Catholic one is going to have an easier role given its embedded status in many of the countries. - On Islam I suspect that its going to be a very nasty time to be a Muslim under Nazi or Soviet control and quite possibly you could see 'secret' western aid to guerrilla groups in such areas but their likely to be very brutally suppressed.

  The split between technocratic and esoteric Nazis - This is probably going to be the key issue for Nazi Germany and its empire.  OTL the esoteric's seemed to be winning and with a clear victory here that's likely to be even more the case.  Especially while Hitler is alive and also people like Himmler and Gobbles.  That would be very bad for those under their rule, including inside Germany itself as their deluded ideas are likely to cripple science and technology as well as any real ideas of independent thought - including in areas such as the military.  That's one reason why as I've said previously the German empire could be the last of the big three to get nukes and could fall further and further behind the other two blocs.  At the same time it would make it more and more unstable and reckless and if there was peace between the allies and the other blocs in say 43-44 I could see them turning on the Soviets again while the west is busy with Japan.  A 2nd Nazi-Soviet war could be very nasty for both sides and despite the greater theoretical resources the Nazis would have either side could win.  Or with western aid to whichever is doing worse it ends up in a new stalemate a year or three down the line.

Thanks for the long answer, stevep.

Maoist China - it depends on many things. For example: Whom will the other two blocks hate most? But unless a Nazi-capitalist teamup will happen (and the Communist propaganda will claim every day it does),  Sheesh, we don't exactly have lots of well-done TLs like that, so maybe it's too early to look whether those have something in common. One thing they might, though: Since neither block is strong enough to fight down (or even fight off) an alliance of the other too, soft power will become more important. Diplomacy and propaganda included. It seems that the Anglosphere would have a certain advantage there...

About Korea - I'll have to decide about this later. Other things too. Until recently I thought "If Korea goes Communist, it'll have to be under Kim", but there were other candidates as well. Like Pak Honyong, Kim Gu, and Cho Manshik.

Nuclear powers - US of course, UK with US support at least, Germany has good chances. About the SU - there's the big question how long it'll take them without German scientists, and if due to McCarthy the US will be more careful about Soviet spies. 1951? 1953? 1955? And Red China - useless to speculate as long as it's unclear re: the SU.

We must not forget the India-Pakistan split (let alone what happens if there were more states around, like Bengal!). It's Pakistan which would border the SU sphere, not India. Hence, Pakistan will stand firmly with the West, while India has more freedom.

About LatAm - IOTL their economy took off because old Nazis going there brought along lots of stolen gold. Of course, if the Nazis win, they might have even more money to spend. As said, if the LatAms are cunning, they might play off the sides against each other. Also, they'll get involved into an earlier GATT/WTO/NAFTA, for better or for worse.

Libertarianism... it doesn't look like the best idea, but some people will wish for it nonetheless. Think about Hoover. ITTL he may become even more radical.

The Nazis I can see giving more religious freedom to the Muslims. This applies for former Soviet territory, but also in TLs where the Nazis occupy Turkey and reverse Kemalist reforms. If only because they hope to distract them this way from RL stuff. Whether it'll work in the long run, is a different question. If the Muslims will get "uppity", the Nazis will stop being nice to them. The antisemitism which unites them only goes so far.

Technocratic vs. esoteric nazis - I don't know, in practice the opposite happened in many ways. The nazi government advised people to stop using the "Germanic" month names (during the Weimar Republic, rightists have touted them - I once read a story about a rightist teacher who told a student "It's not 'Februar' but 'Hornung'!"), the blackletters were abolished and even claimed to be Jewish, Hess who was much into this first lost influence and then flew to Scotland, Darré was replaced by the more technocratic Backe, technocrat Speer amassed a lot of power... I guess you're thinking of Himmler who was into esoterics and gained lots of power after 1943/44. (And even he tried to make deals with the Allies.) But all of this happened in a TL where the Nazis were losing. When things run badly for people, they rather go crazy than if the opposite happens.

Even so, IOTL the Nazi scientists managed to do something at Haigerloch where afterwards irradiated corpses of forced laborers were found. Very suspicious. But even if they get nukes, it'll be because they had scientists educated during the Weimar republic or the Kaiserreich even, not in Nazi schools.

One important question you didn't mention in this post will be the one about how strong the Anglo economies will be. Post-WW2 Britain will have more food available because the US won't have to feed a starving Germany. But there'll be many influences to consider.

[stevep]

Oct 2, 2024 5:03:29 GMT Max Sinister said:

Sept 29, 2024 12:21:45 GMT stevep said:

  Well De Gaulle won't be about but there might be others seeking an alternative way, although this is likely to be swapped pretty damn quickly in both the Nazi and Soviet spheres.  Not sure how much independence Italy or Spain might have in terms of doctrine, trade options and the like in the Nazi sphere.  If China still goes communist then how long would Mao be happy with following the Soviet lead?  In a more heated three sided cold war he might follow for a bit longer, even possibly if Stalin's death is followed by de-Stalinization but not forever given China's size and culture and Mao's ego.

  Which makes me think would a Korean war occur in TTL?  Possibly not because there probably isn't a Soviet intervention against Japan.  Which would probably means Japan keeps the Kurils and S Sakhalin but also that Japan doesn't have the OTL economic boost it did during the conflict.  

  Also who would be nuclear powers in this world?  The US, UK, USSR and Germany definitely assuming none of those get destroyed before they get nuclear capacity.  However there's not going to be a nuclear France here and would Germany allow an Italian nuclear programme?  Similarly would the USSR be less willing to have a nuclear China here, especially once it splits from the Soviet model.  India is likely to emerge as one, probably sooner than OTL unless there's an agreement between the big powers that none of their satellites will be allow nukes? - Which could raise issues for the UK as well as the US was not friendly to Britain getting nukes OTL but that might be different here.

  In terms of alternative approaches I suspect that parts of the 3rd world under western influence are the most likely to see something.  India might try a Nehru 4th way as it is here or might, with the Soviets on the doorstep and probably a recent attempt at a Soviet invasion during the conflict be more eager to stay close to the west.  Especially since even if the west is more autocratic to a degree than OTL its going to be a lot more tolerant of other viewpoints.  Although not anything openly fascist or communist - or what might be seen as such as such so left wing elements in Latin America are likely to be viewed even less friendly by Washington.  Assuming that all of the ME and N Africa are under Nazi or Soviet control you can forget about any real independence for those states so Nasser and other leaders who try and get actual power are likely to disappear.

  Libertarianism will have supporters but in a heated cold war and arms race their likely to gain little support unless the situation starts looking less frightening and/or possible there are big scandals about big government and the military-industrial complex. 

  In terms of religion its going to be a rough time in the totalitarian realms, since they occupy basically the same sphere that the party - whether Nazi or Communist - seek to control.  Its going to be especially bad for those parts of the Muslim world held by the Nazis and probably to a slightly lesser degree the Soviets.  If the former gets control of Mecca and Medina - as their going to get Jerusalem - things are likely to get very heated, even if some appearance of tolerance is permitted.  This could have a big impact on Muslim states in the rest of the world.  provided they don't step too far out of line the churches, especially the Catholic one is going to have an easier role given its embedded status in many of the countries. - On Islam I suspect that its going to be a very nasty time to be a Muslim under Nazi or Soviet control and quite possibly you could see 'secret' western aid to guerrilla groups in such areas but their likely to be very brutally suppressed.

  The split between technocratic and esoteric Nazis - This is probably going to be the key issue for Nazi Germany and its empire.  OTL the esoteric's seemed to be winning and with a clear victory here that's likely to be even more the case.  Especially while Hitler is alive and also people like Himmler and Gobbles.  That would be very bad for those under their rule, including inside Germany itself as their deluded ideas are likely to cripple science and technology as well as any real ideas of independent thought - including in areas such as the military.  That's one reason why as I've said previously the German empire could be the last of the big three to get nukes and could fall further and further behind the other two blocs.  At the same time it would make it more and more unstable and reckless and if there was peace between the allies and the other blocs in say 43-44 I could see them turning on the Soviets again while the west is busy with Japan.  A 2nd Nazi-Soviet war could be very nasty for both sides and despite the greater theoretical resources the Nazis would have either side could win.  Or with western aid to whichever is doing worse it ends up in a new stalemate a year or three down the line.

Thanks for the long answer, stevep .

Maoist China - it depends on many things. For example: Whom will the other two blocks hate most? But unless a Nazi-capitalist teamup will happen (and the Communist propaganda will claim every day it does),  Sheesh, we don't exactly have lots of well-done TLs like that, so maybe it's too early to look whether those have something in common. One thing they might, though: Since neither block is strong enough to fight down (or even fight off) an alliance of the other too, soft power will become more important. Diplomacy and propaganda included. It seems that the Anglosphere would have a certain advantage there...

About Korea - I'll have to decide about this later. Other things too. Until recently I thought "If Korea goes Communist, it'll have to be under Kim", but there were other candidates as well. Like Pak Honyong, Kim Gu, and Cho Manshik.

Nuclear powers - US of course, UK with US support at least, Germany has good chances. About the SU - there's the big question how long it'll take them without German scientists, and if due to McCarthy the US will be more careful about Soviet spies. 1951? 1953? 1955? And Red China - useless to speculate as long as it's unclear re: the SU.

We must not forget the India-Pakistan split (let alone what happens if there were more states around, like Bengal!). It's Pakistan which would border the SU sphere, not India. Hence, Pakistan will stand firmly with the West, while India has more freedom.

About LatAm - IOTL their economy took off because old Nazis going there brought along lots of stolen gold. Of course, if the Nazis win, they might have even more money to spend. As said, if the LatAms are cunning, they might play off the sides against each other. Also, they'll get involved into an earlier GATT/WTO/NAFTA, for better or for worse.

Libertarianism... it doesn't look like the best idea, but some people will wish for it nonetheless. Think about Hoover. ITTL he may become even more radical.

The Nazis I can see giving more religious freedom to the Muslims. This applies for former Soviet territory, but also in TLs where the Nazis occupy Turkey and reverse Kemalist reforms. If only because they hope to distract them this way from RL stuff. Whether it'll work in the long run, is a different question. If the Muslims will get "uppity", the Nazis will stop being nice to them. The antisemitism which unites them only goes so far.

Technocratic vs. esoteric nazis - I don't know, in practice the opposite happened in many ways. The nazi government advised people to stop using the "Germanic" month names (during the Weimar Republic, rightists have touted them - I once read a story about a rightist teacher who told a student "It's not 'Februar' but 'Hornung'!"), the blackletters were abolished and even claimed to be Jewish, Hess who was much into this first lost influence and then flew to Scotland, Darré was replaced by the more technocratic Backe, technocrat Speer amassed a lot of power... I guess you're thinking of Himmler who was into esoterics and gained lots of power after 1943/44. (And even he tried to make deals with the Allies.) But all of this happened in a TL where the Nazis were losing. When things run badly for people, they rather go crazy than if the opposite happens.

Even so, IOTL the Nazi scientists managed to do something at Haigerloch where afterwards irradiated corpses of forced laborers were found. Very suspicious. But even if they get nukes, it'll be because they had scientists educated during the Weimar republic or the Kaiserreich even, not in Nazi schools.

One important question you didn't mention in this post will be the one about how strong the Anglo economies will be. Post-WW2 Britain will have more food available because the US won't have to feed a starving Germany. But there'll be many influences to consider.

  Max

  To answer some of those points.

a)  Nukes.  US 1st but a lot depends on developments in both Germany and the USSR.  The latter will have some help still from spies in the Anglo-American project although Stalin making a separate peace and then effectively allying with the Nazis again could weaken the commitment from some.  I suspect given its played the major role in 'defeating' the allies the US will be at least as paranoid against Nazi as Soviet espionage and influence but a higher level of paranoia might mean at least some of the Soviet spies to be picked up earlier.

  I think after a bit more thought that the US will fully support a UK nuclear programme here given the much greater perceived threat than OTL. Think the Soviets will come 2nd unless events in the war change things drastically as here, without a massive threat to their homeland and having to put so much into fighting the Germans they will have more resources and they will still have some agents in the west.  Germany seemed to be so far off track with a belief that a critical mass would be several tons of fissile material and such a fragmented system, even the German Post Office having their own project! Although once the allies detonate a nuke, unless in great secrecy, that will give them a wake up call.  The secret tapes of top German officials held in captivity after the German defeat had the scientific people, including Heisenberg expressing disbelief that the allies could do something they had failed at.  The Haigerloch incident sounds interesting and could be a failed reactor experiment that goes sub-critical with some sort of melt down? 

  In terms of other nuclear powers it would depend on circumstances and who ends up in which camp.  A communist China will want one but what attitude the USSR would take on that would be uncertain.  There could be other options but it would depend on what happens with a number of countries and what stance the bloc leaders take on either spreading or restricting technology on nuclear matters.  After all while it adds an additional source of strength to a bloc it also adds a degree of uncertainty in case that relatively minor nuclear power triggers a nuclear exchange, which I think was a concern for both the US and USSR OTL.

b)  I think that the Nazis will offer some tolerance to Muslims to win support against former dominant powers, whether British or Soviet, although I don't think they will have any real territories from the latter with Muslim populations unless the Crimean Tartars aren't expelled before they seize it.  However they will quickly find this only goes so far and only while they toe the line. Plus in racial rather than religious terms the Muslims that will be under their control are pretty much as semantic as the Jews although massive slaughters are only likely to occur if major revolts are attempted against German domination.

c)  On India if there's a clear threat from a larger USSR and even invasion attempts - as seem likely as other than Iran, parts of Anatolia and possibly Iraq and the Gulf states there's not much else Stalin can seek to get control of - then an Hindu-Muslim split might well not occur as the danger of division would seem too great given the external threat.  As such while it could be a rocky union while there's a major threat right on the border I could see OTL India-Pakistan-Bangladesh staying united.  Suspect Burma would go its own way but Ceylon could go either way.

d)  LatAm could be interesting.  Europe is a better economic partner for it than the US because its main exports are raw materials - food and minerals - which Europe has demands for while the US has its own supplies of both and hence has tended to be protectionist.  However a Europe under Nazi control is not something any state in the region could get too close to with America rather twitchy about its interests and security.  Here you might see the US as hostile to right wing groups looking to Berlin for inspiration and/or close economic links as to any looking for social reforms of any sort.  Britain could again be a close trading partner but its economy will be drained by the war and also it has the US, the dominions and the bulk of the surviving empire to draw on as well. 

  This could be good for LatAm as the US wants it on side or bad depending on whether Washington is more prone to use the carrot or the stick.

e)  In terms of Technocratic vs. esoteric Nazis a lot will depend on the circumstances.  The esoteric's gained more influence to a degree as the regime thrashed about in a worsening situation but similarly would technocrats like Spree have gained as much influence if the situation hadn't been as desperate as it was and the regime realised it needed total war and more and more production?  Do agree Germany had a broad range of excellent people from the late imperial and Wiemar periods but have doubts about what will be coming through after then given Nazi influence on 'education'.  Also similarly a victorious Nazi regime could feel a lot more secure to play about with its ideas. 

f)  The economy of Britain will depend on a lot of things.  How long the war goes and how it ends.  If its going into 44 then you could see a stronger Germany - with no immediate threat from the east and more resources to call upon - having massive V1 and possibly V2 resources earlier than OTL which could be devastating.  Ditto if the allies lose the Battle of the Atlantic or even still win but later and to a lesser degree.

  After the war there's not going to be a need to secure and aid the continent but there's going to be a massive threat right on the door-step which will mean a sizeable military and hence an economic burden on an already largely exhausted economy.  Once the fighting ends food and other such materials will be more readily available IF Britain can afford it.  OTL rationing actually increased because with the sudden ending of L-L Britain had to pay its way again while seeking to adjust to a peace-time economy.  Here this will be compounded by having to maintain a much larger military and possibly also a significantly larger US component based in the UK.  A lot of bases, especially air fields won't be going back to agricultural use for instance.  Also with Nazi Germany being a lot closer and being, at least for the near/medium term more technologically advanced than OTL there will be a continued threat to the trade lines which will mean a larger naval force.  Ditto does Britain risk using the Med and the Suez Canal which would be a shorter and more economic route but would leave shipping on such routes hostages to new hostility from the Axis?  I think it would have to after a period of caution but its going to be an issue of concern.  Ditto with things like a blackout.  Likely to go after a period but have measures in place for it to be quickly resumed if needed,

  It would also depend on what sort of government takes power and their policies.

  In terms of the empire India will be going shortly one way or another.  Malaya is likely to stay for a while because of its mineral wealth and strategic location.  The western bloc won't make any attempt to maintain colonial regimes in either the DEI or FIC as its simply not in their interests and puppet regimes in Nazi controlled France or the Netherlands won't be able to either.  A French government might make an attempt but with their nearest friendly bases being say in Egypt and western as well as communist aid going to the rebels its going to be a long and losing cause.  Similarly Belgium won't 'control' the Congo and Denmark won't get Iceland, Greenland or the Faeroe's back.

  South and Central Africa will be more complex as they have resources, in some cases white settler populations and of course the western bloc won't want them falling under fascist or [less likely] communist control or influence.  However would this be done by seeking to maintain colonial control longer or seeking to establish friendly independent states.  Probably going to depend on the individual case and the date but likely to be messy. 

  I think Britain will be under more strain than OTL although a shorter war might mean less overall destruction.  It could also see a flow of refugees from the continent as people seek better lives although most are likely to end up in N America or possibly parts of the empire.  This would help but things are going to be tougher than OTL with the greater threat meaning a large military burden and the economic impact on a battered nation.  It will be determined and armed to the teeth but that will come with costs, both economic and social.

  Anyway another of my 'short' replies but hopefully of use.

[Max Sinister]

a. Maybe Heisenberg was scientifically on the wrong track? Hard to tell. If (as in "How many Sixes") there's an earlier break between WAllies and SU, they may improve their search for nuclear spies. As long as it's not organized by McCarthy.

Yes, if the US have the bomb, they'll also give it to Britain, soon.

b. Well, they had Bosnia.

c. Nothing to add here.

d. The problem of the US: If they don't buy raw materials from LatAm, the Nazis will. A true conundrum... the US may do it, but many people won't be happy. Still, more stupid economic decisions have been made.

e. Nazi Germany will have to give anything economically, hence Speer and such would still gain power. (And he didn't create the production miracle all alone.)

f. Well, I do think that the "Reich" will have to win the submarine war ASAP. Robert Harris suggested 1944, but I think mid-1943 makes more sense. No idea whether it might be even faster.

Yes, makes sense that the end of L&L helps Britain.

The Empire may also remove inner tariffs to help the economy. Of course, as with the WTO and such, some will suffer in the name of efficiency.

[stevep]

Oct 3, 2024 1:40:14 GMT Max Sinister said:

a. Maybe Heisenberg was scientifically on the wrong track? Hard to tell. If (as in "How many Sixes") there's an earlier break between WAllies and SU, they may improve their search for nuclear spies. As long as it's not organized by McCarthy.

Yes, if the US have the bomb, they'll also give it to Britain, soon.

b. Well, they had Bosnia.

c. Nothing to add here.

d. The problem of the US: If they don't buy raw materials from LatAm, the Nazis will. A true conundrum... the US may do it, but many people won't be happy. Still, more stupid economic decisions have been made.

e. Nazi Germany will have to give anything economically, hence Speer and such would still gain power. (And he didn't create the production miracle all alone.)

f. Well, I do think that the "Reich" will have to win the submarine war ASAP. Robert Harris suggested 1944, but I think mid-1943 makes more sense. No idea whether it might be even faster.

Yes, makes sense that the end of L&L helps Britain.

The Empire may also remove inner tariffs to help the economy. Of course, as with the WTO and such, some will suffer in the name of efficiency.

  I think you misread my post, or at least my intent.  [Unless you were being sarcastic?]  It actually came as a nasty shock to the British government and caused something of a hard crash for the economy.  Britain has to go cap in hand to the US for a loan and to add insult to injury the US leadership accepted the British case that it needed X amount [forget what it was] but they would only give about half of that and that was with restrictions on British control of its economy.  Britain was forced to remove some trade protection measures when it needed a period with them to help the economy readjust to peace-time and be able to compete with the much stronger US economy on something like level ground.

  I don't think there were inner tariffs, other than those imposed by India and the dominions against all imports, including from Britain and Britain was in no position to force a change on this.  Britain had finally in ~1931/32 established an imperial tariff after nearly a century of free trade but it was only really when war started and then with the election of the Labour Party in 45 that there was actually any sort of industrial policy like in most other countries.

[Max Sinister]

Oct 3, 2024 8:34:54 GMT stevep said:

Oct 3, 2024 1:40:14 GMT Max Sinister said:

a. Maybe Heisenberg was scientifically on the wrong track? Hard to tell. If (as in "How many Sixes") there's an earlier break between WAllies and SU, they may improve their search for nuclear spies. As long as it's not organized by McCarthy.

Yes, if the US have the bomb, they'll also give it to Britain, soon.

b. Well, they had Bosnia.

c. Nothing to add here.

d. The problem of the US: If they don't buy raw materials from LatAm, the Nazis will. A true conundrum... the US may do it, but many people won't be happy. Still, more stupid economic decisions have been made.

e. Nazi Germany will have to give anything economically, hence Speer and such would still gain power. (And he didn't create the production miracle all alone.)

f. Well, I do think that the "Reich" will have to win the submarine war ASAP. Robert Harris suggested 1944, but I think mid-1943 makes more sense. No idea whether it might be even faster.

Yes, makes sense that the end of L&L helps Britain.

The Empire may also remove inner tariffs to help the economy. Of course, as with the WTO and such, some will suffer in the name of efficiency.

  I think you misread my post, or at least my intent.  [Unless you were being sarcastic?]

Sorry for the misunderstanding! By this L&L, I had meant that some of the material delivered to the SU came from Britain and her Commonwealth. If they don't have to send it away, they can use it for themselves.

The end of L&L from the US for Britain is of course a very different thing.

[stevep]

Oct 5, 2024 11:06:08 GMT Max Sinister said:

Oct 3, 2024 8:34:54 GMT stevep said:

  I think you misread my post, or at least my intent.  [Unless you were being sarcastic?]

Sorry for the misunderstanding! By this L&L, I had meant that some of the material delivered to the SU came from Britain and her Commonwealth. If they don't have to send it away, they can use it for themselves.

The end of L&L from the US for Britain is of course a very different thing.

  OK thanks for the clarification.  That will be a factor here although its likely to be dwarfed by the heavier losses in the wider war,  However that would be reduced overall given a shorter war if say it ends in Europe in say late 43 as the big losses, in terms of deaths anyway, were in the fighting in Italy from 43 and N Europe from 44.

  Sorry about the late response but had some network issues so been off line since last Friday.

[Max Sinister]

Another important point: US politics towards Nazi Germany won't be made in a vacuum. They will have some info about the "Reich" (although it might be wrong) and will consider it. (Well, they should.) One important question will be: Which way will Nazism itself develop? Not only whether it'll go towards technocracy or esoteric BS, but also whether it'll become more conservative or populist-egalitarian.

Regarding this, I recently had an idea: The "führer" once had stated that he wanted a meritocratic "Reich" where anyone (as long as he doesn't say anything against the Nazis...) can make a career, independent of his parents. However, that didn't stop some Nazi bigwigs to have other ideas. Hinrich Lohse, head of the Reichskommissariat Ostland, wanted his little son become his successor, to name one example. And I'm sure he won't be the only one.

Hence, I guess that after the death of the "führer", the "Reich" might well become more conservative. Enjoy what you have, don't risk it. With a crackdown against anything that looks Marxist, but better relations towards clerical and conservative groups. Especially if the more disgusting Nazis - think Streicher - are removed from their positions of power.

If we look at the Franco regime, we also have a regime which rather becomes more conservative, although the Falangists were somewhat revolutionary. But this happens with many regimes...

And then? Good question. I'll think about it later.

[Max Sinister]

A smart US government might decide to sometimes support the SU against the Nazis and sometimes the opposite. Whatever they do, one opponent will be weakened. Theoretically, either big party might "adopt" one such method even. The big question would be though: What'd the public opinion say about this? There are enough people who hate either the Nazis or the Commies, if not both. And if the bureaucracy or the secret services will act behind the people's back, as soon as investigative journos will discover what is happening - or if something'll go wrong - there'll be a huge scandal.

[stevep]

Oct 30, 2024 19:09:32 GMT Max Sinister said:

A smart US government might decide to sometimes support the SU against the Nazis and sometimes the opposite. Whatever they do, one opponent will be weakened. Theoretically, either big party might "adopt" one such method even. The big question would be though: What'd the public opinion say about this? There are enough people who hate either the Nazis or the Commies, if not both. And if the bureaucracy or the secret services will act behind the people's back, as soon as investigative journos will discover what is happening - or if something'll go wrong - there'll be a huge scandal.

  Well there's always been the viewpoint the enemy of my enemy is my friend - or more accurately potential ally.  It was the Republicans after all, who were more anti-communists who under Nixon link up with Mao's China as they conceived the USSR as the most dangerous threat.  Standard practical as well to support a weaker power against a more powerful general threat.  Although ideological hostility towards one system rather than another can foul up such an idea.  On the other hand with possibly a lot of refugees from Europe who have fled Nazi rule when that's still seen as the primary threat could well mean any scare in postwar US could be more anti-fascist than anti-communist.  You can't have the same level of friendship with the Soviets, at least for a while as in WWII because of their betrayal of the allies in 1941-42.

  I think the problem for a democratic state is that, without possibly a change in government due to an election result you can't have a sudden switch in alignment towards the other two super-powers as occurred between the Nazis and Soviets OTL between ~1939-41  and in TTL between 1939-~43 at least.  Where they swing from almost rabid hatred to friendship, then hatred again then in TTL at least a weary mutual alignment.

[Max Sinister]

stevep:

"Although ideological hostility towards one system rather than another can foul up such an idea." This might become a factor: If things go bad (and a war not won against the Nazis is at least a half loss), many people will start to deny reality and turn to drugs/religion/madness/AH (j/k)/ideology.

The refugees from Europe are there and won't return, that's true. Those with real or suspected sympathies for Communism might get troubles, though. Nazism at least can pretend to be pro-Christianity.

Good point about dictatorships being able to do sudden switches. As Jared Diamond pointed out: If they make a step into the right direction, it'll be a huge step. Whereas democracies have to resort to what Sir Popper called "piecemeal engineering".