The Holocaust as well as Generalplan Ost are well known aspects of Nazi Germans that any half decent Nazi victory TL talk about. Less attention, however, is put on the slavery system that Nazi Germany had. Before death camps became the staple for extermination of “Undesirables” towards the end of the war, extermination through labor was the standard practice. So, in a theoretical Nazi victory, what would the role of slavery be? How would the different ethnic groups of the conquered territories be managed?
 
I suspect that economic interests would lead to a "moderation" (if it can be called that) of the extermination plans, if only to maintain a steady availability of labor. Slavery would certainly be a big part of the economy.
 

Garrison

Donor
Only the State could own them, but would lease to companies.
That is basically what they did in WWII, and it was not a renewable resource. It was more economic to wear slaves out and replace them. The kind of relatively restrained treatment of slave needed to maintain a long term supply is beyond the Nazis.
 
Similar to OTL China, with the same ethical discussions on multinationals using such labour.
I've for a while held the opinion that the relationship between a victorious Nazi Germany and the USA would resemble OTL's relationship between China and the USA. Lots of trade on the one hand but also a lot of tension (and of course American outrage over Nazi atrocities).
 
That is basically what they did in WWII, and it was not a renewable resource. It was more economic to wear slaves out and replace them. The kind of relatively restrained treatment of slave needed to maintain a long term supply is beyond the Nazis.
You're taking things out of context a bit. With the lower availability of food due to war shortages, and priority for provisions going for the army and German population above all else, in addition to extermination policy, it is no surprise they took this approach during the war. However, I find it probable that in a Nazi victory scenario, after a large portion has been worked to death, it would reach an equilibrium where slaves are kept alive in the long-term as a permanent undercaste.
 

Garrison

Donor
You're taking things out of context a bit. With the lower availability of food due to war shortages, and priority for provisions going for the army and German population above all else, in addition to extermination policy, it is no surprise they took this approach during the war. However, I find it probable that in a Nazi victory scenario, after a large portion has been worked to death, it would reach an equilibrium where slaves are kept alive in the long-term as a permanent undercaste.
No they did it because they regarded their slave labour as an expendable resources, they chose to starve people to death, there was no need to do it.
 
No they did it because they regarded their slave labour as an expendable resources, they chose to starve people to death, there was no need to do it.
It was a combination of reasons. Moreover, I acknowledged extermination was one of the motives for their wartime treatment of forced laborers (though I would note that forced labor was not applied in the same uniform fashion across the entire board). The assumption that behavior would not change at all when it becomes economically desirable to maintain a slave labor force over the long run, does not have sufficient support. Nazi policy was not static; it often changed as circumstances shifted.
 
Last edited:
Top