Hitler's Post-war Plans

[Snake Featherston]

Some people could do with citing a sources.

The Nazis put men like this in charge of their self-proclaimed Germanization of the East: http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/erichkoch.html

This is the *starting* point when Nazi Germany still retains most of the German Empire/Weimar Republic's non-ideologue trained elite who can help at some level weaken its excesses and a relatively large domestic opposition. Later generations will only get worse from guys like this, Reinhard Heydrich, Globocnik, and other such leaders of the Nazi extermination plan. Nazi Germany was seriously contemplating at the bare minimum murder of 30 million people, some of the discussions for Generalplan Ost were actually going so far as to make it 75 million.

 

[Faeelin]

Regarding France it is highly likely that significants parts of northeastern France in the Lorraine, Picardie and parts of Champagne would have been annexed as well eventually. As it was refugees were prevented to return to their homes if they were located there an initial plans aimed at settling the area with Germans settlers were also drawn..

The Germans had lots of pie in the sky plans, but IMO this one is unlikely to happen. The Germans were by and large focused on the east, and there are only so many settlers. More importantly, the French Empire (and French industry) meant that the French had to be respected and treated in a certain manner that was never considered for Poles.

 

[Snake Featherston]

The Germans had lots of pie in the sky plans, but IMO this one is unlikely to happen. The Germans were by and large focused on the east, and there are only so many settlers. More importantly, the French Empire (and French industry) meant that the French had to be respected and treated in a certain manner that was never considered for Poles.

Never underestimate the sheer pettiness of Adolf Hitler. A man who made France surrender in the exact same rail car in the exact same place as in 1918 is unlikely to be very nice postwar. I think his wartime "niceness" was a tactical delay more than what he actually wanted, as he was evidently planning to ensure France was culturally overawed by his twisted idea of Kultur while being reduced to somewhere around the economic power and potential of Kiribati.

 

[zoomar]

Regarding France, there is some evidence (mostly in secondary sources to my knowledge) that, had the Nazis won, they were considering carving out a buffer state that linked French Speaking areas of Belgium, eastern France and perhaps even Switzerland as a direct puppet of the Reich, with the remainder of France being restored to nominal independence. I suspect the situation with Britain would have a lot to do with France's fate. Absent a true peace treaty ending the European War (and not just an armistice), Germany would probably continue to occupy France outside of Vichy.

Regarding the East, anyone who believes the Nazis would not try to go through with Hitler's grandiose and horrible germanic resettlement plans for the Soviet Union is just plain wrong. Such a plan was central to the Nazis' raison d-etre in the same way forced collectivization was to the Communists.

I said "try" however, because the grandiose plans of totalitarian dictatorships often run aground on the hard rocks of reality. First there would be the continued reisistance of partisans and likely support for these partisans by the US and others even in peacetime. Then there is the problem of recruiting millions of germanic western Europeans willing to voluntaily resettle in the new settlements. Then there is the likely cost of maintaining huge Army or SS garrisons to protect the settlers and the armed frontier with whatever portion of the former USSR the Nazis did not occupy. Finally, this would be a long process. I suspect that at some point a second or third generation of Nazi leaders would be more realistic and change direction.

 

[zoomar]

The Germans had lots of pie in the sky plans, but IMO this one is unlikely to happen. The Germans were by and large focused on the east, and there are only so many settlers. More importantly, the French Empire (and French industry) meant that the French had to be respected and treated in a certain manner that was never considered for Poles.

Truly, who knows. But there is evidence that by 1942, Hitler would much rather have had Petain's France as an ally than Mussolin's Italy. Assuming Germany is not master of the entire world, the Nazi Empire will need to maintain certain fictions, both as a propaganda tool and to balance what was aparently going on in the east. One of these will be the appearance that western europe is a happy alliance of like-minded germanic (and honorary germanic) states that is still saving the world from bolehevism. Thus, the appearance of French independence as an actual friend of Germany will be important. (Franks are after all a germanic tribe despite of all that latin and gallic claptrap). It would be independence under a heavy Nazi thumb, of course, but it would sure beat being Polish.

 

[Eurofed]

The Nazi plans for post war eastern Europe called for 1/3 to be exterminated, 1/3 to be left to die off, 1/3 to be reduced to slaves.

Actually, to give democidal scumbags credit where credit is due, even the radical Nazis that drafted Generalplan Ost never planned to kill, deport, or enslave *all* European Slavs. There always was a quota that was deemed racially acceptable for assimilation and earmarked for forced Germanization, percentages varying for different nationalities: 50% for Czechs, Latvians, and Estonians; 15-20% for Poles and Lithuanians; 25% for Belarusians; 35% for Ukrainians; 25-35% for Russians. And Croats, Slovaks, and Bulgarians were effectively given "honoray Aryan" status due to their Axis membership.

I have no clear idea of what the Nazis planned to do with the Slovenes (tentatively I'd say they would treat them like the Czechs, due to their similar long-lasting association with the HRE) and the Serbs (same deal as the Poles, maybe, although in all likelihood they would earmark the area to be settled by other Axis nationalities).

 

[Faeelin]

Truly, who knows. But there is evidence that by 1942, Hitler would much rather have had Petain's France as an ally than Mussolin's Italy... It would be independence under a heavy Nazi thumb, of course, but it would sure beat being Polish.

This sounds about right. I imagine it looks a lot like Hungary's "goulash communism."

 

[I Blame Communism]

There always was a quota that was deemed racially acceptable for assimilation and earmarked for forced Germanization,

What does the 'forced Germanisation' of a third of Ukrainians, say, actually entail, while you're indiscriminantly slaughtering the other two-thirds?

 

[CalBear]

For help with a WW2 timeline. In this timeline, Germany has won a total victory over the Soviet Union, but not Britain.

1. What is the likelihood of an actual annexation of France? The German goals weren't to conquer France, it was just the result of defeating them, and they kept it as a war measure against Britain. However, would the German leadership be open to annexation since France is already in their lap?

Annexation was not in the cards, except for those regions that were considered to be German (primarily the A/L)

2. I simply can't see a genocide of the Slavs. Trying to Holocaust the Slavs would have caused the mother of all revolutions... assuming Germany owned the Soviet Union, would they be likely to use logic and keep the Slavs as slaves, or still try and eradicate them?

You utterly underestimate the depravity of the Reich if you think that they would care a bit about a revolt. You do not need to use the industrial methods of the Holocaust to wipe out the Slavs, in fact that was never the plan. The term of art used by the Reich was "extermination through labor" or simply put working slaves to death. The Reich was remarkably adept at this as can be seen from what happened in Poland just during the 5+ years of German occupation. The Reich would have kept somewhere around a quarter of the Slavic population alive as illiterate serfs to work on German plantations.

3. In the aftermath of the war, Germany is effectively the only European power left (let's suppose Britain is being decolonized and wracked with a depression), leaving America and a victorious Japan as the other competitors on a national stage. Germany was not the aggressive conqueror it is now thought of as... would a superpowered Germany led by a fascist regime gleefully attack everybody, or would it be content with it's borders and stay dormant?

A victorious Japan is a practical impossibility. The United States was going to crush the Japanese. No question, no chance, no hope of any other outcome. The U.S. destrouyed Jpan with a total force that amounted to around 1/10 of the ground forces utilized in WW II and a naval force that was of limited utility in the ETO. Norway had a better chance against the Reich in 1940 than Japan did against an outraged United States.

The Reich would have been aggressive as it was allowed to be. Hitler had every intention of eventually dealing with the "Jew dominated and mongrelized " United States as his later writing clearly indicates. The Nazis seriously believed they were destined to rule the world.

 

[Eurofed]

What does the 'forced Germanisation' of a third of Ukrainians, say, actually entail, while you're indiscriminantly slaughtering the other two-thirds?

For instance, from a Nazi PoV, 66% vs. 100% may be a substantial difference as it concerns the logistical, economic, military etc. burden of the democide to the Nazi empire, and also as it concerns the easiness of actually repopulating the land and making it a profitable settler "new territory" after the fact. From a humanitarian PoV, it's a difference of millions and their descendants being alive or dead.

 

[I Blame Communism]

For instance, from a Nazi PoV, 66% vs. 100% may be a substantial difference as it concerns the logistical, economic, military etc. burden of the democide to the Nazi empire, and also as it concerns the easiness of actually repopulating the land and making it a profitable settler "new territory" after the fact. From a humanitarian PoV, it's a difference of millions and their descendants being alive or dead.

You're grossly misunderstanding the question. I mean what are the Nazis actually going to do?

We know what's going to happen: the remains of the cities, and huge other areas, are going to be denied food. Millions of Ukrainians will be removed from Ukraine as slaves, as was already happening. This will cause epidemic disease and the collapse of economic chains of supply, leading to out-of-control death. And if it's life or death, more people will go into the forest. They'll be shot down, or sent into slavery if caught, and the absence of the young and strong will further foul everything up.

In this circumstance, how do you decide which Ukrainians are going to be assimilated? How do you identify them in the midst of the population, when some of them are in the forest or dying of typhus? How do you place them in some sort of working community? How do you 'Germanise' them? How do you respond to their resistance? What if turning them into serfs looks a lot easier than turning them into Germans?

 

[RousseauX]

What does the 'forced Germanisation' of a third of Ukrainians, say, actually entail, while you're indiscriminantly slaughtering the other two-thirds?

More to the point, what does "Germanisation" even mean?

Because they certainly couldn't figure this out OTL.

 

[RousseauX]

In this circumstance, how do you decide which Ukrainians are going to be assimilated? How do you identify them in the midst of the population, when some of them are in the forest or dying of typhus? How do you place them in some sort of working community? How do you 'Germanise' them? How do you respond to their resistance? What if turning them into serfs looks a lot easier than turning them into Germans?

Most likely exactly the same way as OTL Poland: which is to say that entire towns or provinces are going to be Germanized by administrative fiat, meaning that someone is simply going to declare that they are germanized on a piece of paper somewhere and that's that.

 

[Eurofed]

You're grossly misunderstanding the question. I mean what are the Nazis actually going to do?

Well, that was what the Nazis in charge of drafting postwar plans for the East planned to do. How well their plans would succeed, and how they would change when faced with reality, is another matter entirely.

For instance, IMO their expectation they would be able to refill everything east of Germany with German settlers was widely optimistic, even if they'd (and they would) push strong natalist policies.

In this circumstance, how do you decide which Ukrainians are going to be assimilated?

Well, they had part of their civil service charged to deal with such matters, e.g. in Poland. I suppose they would try and do the same on a larger scale.

How do you identify them in the midst of the population, when some of them are in the forest or dying of typhus?

Not all of them. For the rest, although on paper the criteria would be racial alone, in practice I expect they would be a mix of racist pseudoscience, political reliability, and economic usefulness.

How do you place them in some sort of working community?

Don't understand the issue here.

How do you 'Germanise' them?

Forbidding use of original language, putting the children in German schools, atomizing the survivors among German settlers, dealing draconian punishment for attachment to original culture, I suppose. Given the extreme circumstances, I assume that many survival-minded Slavs that are given a chance, would leap at it.

How do you respond to their resistance?

Well, this is easy, given the record: overwhelming brutal force.

What if turning them into serfs looks a lot easier than turning them into Germans?

In an industrial economy, illiterate serfs are much, much less efficient and useful than an population of assimilated, educated workers.

As yourself pointed out, from an amoral PoV, there was a logic behind the Nazis' actions and plans for the East, and it was to turn the area in the German equivalent of North America or Australia. It doesn't work very well if you make it a pseudo-medieval re-enactment.

 

[RousseauX]

In an industrial economy, illiterate serfs are much, much less efficient and useful than an population of assimilated, educated workers.

Define assimlated and why do they have to be assimilated to work?

Because this certainly hasn't shown to be true at any point OTL.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Actually, to give democidal scumbags credit where credit is due, even the radical Nazis that drafted Generalplan Ost never planned to kill, deport, or enslave *all* European Slavs. There always was a quota that was deemed racially acceptable for assimilation and earmarked for forced Germanization, percentages varying for different nationalities: 50% for Czechs, Latvians, and Estonians; 15-20% for Poles and Lithuanians; 25% for Belarusians; 35% for Ukrainians; 25-35% for Russians. And Croats, Slovaks, and Bulgarians were effectively given "honoray Aryan" status due to their Axis membership.

I have no clear idea of what the Nazis planned to do with the Slovenes (tentatively I'd say they would treat them like the Czechs, due to their similar long-lasting association with the HRE) and the Serbs (same deal as the Poles, maybe, although in all likelihood they would earmark the area to be settled by other Axis nationalities).

Actually there is quite a bit of reason to assume that the Nazis weren't exactly doing anything but biding their time. After all one of the most savage massacres of Slavic civilians was in Lidice, in a part of the Nazi Empire that had been annexed since before WWII itself. They weren't intending to slaughter them all, no, but the sheer death toll and the great gap between what Russian soil was actually capable of from an agricultural POV and what Nazi ideology expected it to be capable of will still lead this empire to be an economic sinkhole that will implode the Nazis regardless. And with the deliberate and self-imposed enervation of German intellectuals that follows, the Nazis only worsen things for themselves long-term. Expect much more Virgin Lands and much less of any dial-down into lesser corruption, the Nazi system continued deliberately to reward the worst excesses and to punish moderation, while butchering its way through any opposition in Germany proper, much less in the rest of Europe.

 

[Snake Featherston]

For instance, from a Nazi PoV, 66% vs. 100% may be a substantial difference as it concerns the logistical, economic, military etc. burden of the democide to the Nazi empire, and also as it concerns the easiness of actually repopulating the land and making it a profitable settler "new territory" after the fact. From a humanitarian PoV, it's a difference of millions and their descendants being alive or dead.

No, they must be *dead* by Nazi standards. This is the regime that when it occupied its supposed nearest and dearest friend (i.e. Italy) was willing to unleash some of its grossest and most vulgar barbarisms (such as the Massacre at the Ardeatines Cave), and which used things like Lidice and publicly listing the number of people killed, their names, and their "crimes" as DETERRENTS. The Nazis aren't people capable of "moderating", the Stalinists were able to be deposed because the regime created a bureaucracy intent on preserving itself.

The Nazis, by contrast, deliberately set out to reward and promote the worst possible and imaginable excesses and hobbled their own future intellectual growth. Put that together and you've got one of the most vicious and nasty humanitarian catastrophes awaiting the Nazi regime and one entirely self-inflicted. It should be noted that in the USSR the Virgin Lands catastrophe led to Khrushchev deposition. In Nazi Germany it would be covered up and/or blamed on Untermenschen foolishness.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Well, they had part of their civil service charged to deal with such matters, e.g. in Poland. I suppose they would try and do the same on a larger scale.

And we know what was achieved in Poland: a few traitors who declared that they belonged to fictitious Aryan peoples and were turned on by their communities; and mass kidnapping of children. Such an improvement.

Not all of them. For the rest, although on paper the criteria would be racial alone, in practice I expect they would be a mix of racist pseudoscience, political reliability, and economic usefulness.

And so how are all the background checks and sessions with the Aryan measuring-tape going to be carried out in a country engulfed by famine and war?

Don't understand the issue here.

If you destroy civilisation, civilisation is destroyed and for the floating flotsam left behind, well, coralling them in a camp as slaves under military power whose whole economic life you control is in some ways easier than trying to rebuild actual communities when the whole structure sustaining civilisation has been broken.

Forbidding use of original language, putting the children in German schools, atomizing the survivors among German settlers, dealing draconian punishment for attachment to original culture, I suppose. Given the extreme circumstances, I assume that many survival-minded Slavs that are given a chance, would leap at it.

Actually the historical evidence is that threats and repression increase people's attachment to their native culture. The Gaels have been in English schools for centuries and they still haven't obligingly forgotten their native language. Atomising them among outside foreigners is going to make them objects of two-way hatred and fear. Only kidnapping has any particular potential.

Well, this is easy, given the record: overwhelming brutal force.

Bingo! And now some of that precious Aryan racial material is dead in a ditch.

In an industrial economy, illiterate serfs are much, much less efficient and useful than an population of assimilated, educated workers.

As yourself pointed out, from an amoral PoV, there was a logic behind the Nazis' actions and plans for the East, and it was to turn the area in the German equivalent of North America or Australia. It doesn't work very well if you make it a pseudo-medieval re-enactment.

If you read WoD, you see how the Nazis planned to establish a modern and diversified economy in the east - for the new population. The use of slavery, which was already ongoing on a gigantic scale, was to facilitate this.

This is not a medieval form of society being envisages: that would mean a massive majority of peasants who are recognised as part of the community in their way. This is a force of unwanted subhumans to be 'used up' through slavery in unskilled tasks as part of the establish of the new civilisation.

 

[zoomar]

The Reich would have been aggressive as it was allowed to be. Hitler had every intention of eventually dealing with the "Jew dominated and mongrelized " United States as his later writing clearly indicates. The Nazis seriously believed they were destined to rule the world.

This is all true, but at one time or another in their history both the Soviet Union and China seriously believed in the inevitability of worldwide communist revolution. Hitler's writing and the equally depraved rantings of his close allies in the 1930's and 1940's might easily go the way of Trotsky and Mao when it became apparent to later Nazi leaders that they had to deal with, not defeat, the United States and its allies.

 

[Snake Featherston]

This is all true, but at one time or another in their history both the Soviet Union and China seriously believed in the inevitability of worldwide communist revolution. Hitler's writing and the equally depraved rantings of his close allies in the 1930's and 1940's might easily go the way of Trotsky and Mao when it became apparent to later Nazi leaders that they had to deal with, not defeat, the United States and its allies.

Except the USSR abandoned that pretty much after 1921, well before Trotsky was exiled, and the process had been under way from the German suppression of their two Communist uprisings and then the third in 1921. The Nazis, by contrast, were getting more and more radical when they were going well, and they got more and more radical when they were getting beaten to death. Given the same process happened whether Nazism was geopolitically a rising tide or a leaky, sinking, ship the auguries for Nazi Germany imply more Democratic Kampuchea in charge of Europe than a Deng Xiaopeng.