1000 Jahren

Status
Not open for further replies.

Draven

Banned
I was thinking of creating an alternative timeline for roleplaying and writing purposes. The premise would be that the Third Reich won the war, then went on to survive 1000 years as envisioned by its leaders. It would then be a mix of future history, science-fiction and alternative history.

The turning point I was thinking about would be that the nazis won Barbarossa, maybe by concentrating forces towards Moscow instead of dividing them. The Japanese could also have won in Asia.

What do you think would have made a 1000 years Reich possible ?
 
By far the most efficient method is to keep the US out of the war. Presumably by having FDR die or not go into politics, followed by making the worst possible set of policy choices in response to the Great Depression. Maybe have a Business Plot-style coup or a Communist insurgency; it probably wouldn't succeed, but it could disrupt things enough to keep the US strictly focused on internal issues. Keep the US actively isolationist, not even doing Lend-Lease, until the war in Europe is over.
 
Reforms. The ideology made it impossible for the Reich to sustain a modern society/economy/technology. Maybe if the technocrats of the party (like Speer, Heydrich) would somehow take over in the forties and somehow "win" the war (or at least survive it) without loosing controll to a military junta they might be able to soften some of the most insane ideas.
As you probably want to have a surviving but bad and scary Reich here some ideas:
Race ideologie is not anymore genocidal but rather a Race based caste society with the "Arians" as highest and probably military caste. Perhaps promising children of the lower races can be uplifted by taking them away from their family and "germanize" them.
The education system has to be changed: Nazi education politics were insane. They focused mostly on ideology and sports, while some scientific fields (like physics) were seen as jewish and actively discouraged to be studied. For example the Ordensburgen were designed as elite schools for political leadership, but the few graduates were seen as absolutly useless when they returned home. A nazi school system will without doubt contain ideologic teaching but a sane goverment will probably create something resembling OTL communist education system.
Economy will have to return to a more capitalistic approach after the war and govermental spending will have to be cut, but you can produce a state not as hostile to investing in business as modern western states, somewhere between command economy and free market system. Well done it might even be (economy-wise) a bit more stable (because it is more regulated) but probably less productive than OTL.
Even with these minimal necessary changes we will have no stable state. The Germans/Arians might be a bit better off and more secured than in OTL, but especially students will demand political reforms on a regular base at least on behalve of their own rights. Some "acceptable or useful races" might be well off under these circumstances but the majority of non-arians will (for a long time at last) not be much more than slaves. THis will of course lead to regular uprisings and a certan instability where there are greater masses of them. Mind you I dont think this ideas are a probable outcome or will survive for more than perhaps a century (when the leadership is capable and ruthless), but it is as realistic a scenario I can think of without creating a common dictatorial system like a PRC with fancy black uniforms or a non-dystopic state which is still called the third Reich
 

Draven

Banned
Keeping the US out of the war sounds like a good idea. This will keep them from nuking Berlin anyway :).

@Historyfool :

I was actually thinking about a german civil war right after the death of Adolf Hitler (not long after the war), mainly fought between the SS and the Wehrmacht. The SS would win it (or the opposite, anyway), then create a really scary dystopic state for some years in cold war with the US. This cold war would become hot someday and lead to nuclear conflict and german dominance. Over time, Germany would of course become more and more unstable and inefficient and reforms would be taken or this unstability would lead to a new civil war/coup d'Etat by more moderate/pragmatic national-socialists. I could even imagine an eventual return to the Monarchy (aka. Fourth Reich ?).

Thus, in 2933, Germany would not necessarily be as dystopic as before, but more of a racial/genetic engineering-based totalitarian state still fighting opposition by strong African, South American and Asian states. Space colonization would also have been undertaken, leading to a US-like emigration (racial minorities, surviving Jews, etc, would be the main colony polulation).
 
While my points have to be addressed, they can probably postponed for some time: But during this time the position of the Reich declines to foreign powers with different politics. And if you wait to long the abilities of the Reich may decline and perhaps can´t be retrieved, as the people still teached after a functioning system die out. If you flesh out your scenario you might consider some points considering the civil war:
The officers of the Wehrmacht were mostly nationalists and often even racists of varying degree but the actual nazis were a minority. They would certainly not have instituted the night-marish system you want (Although I wouldnt want to live under a militay junta either). But the victory of the SS has its own problems. Even in 1944 the Waffen-SS was much smaller than the regular armed forces totaling less than 600 000 including non fighting forces. And not all of them were fanatical nazis, as they got their share of the draftees. Adding that after years of fighting side by side with the Wehrmacht the loyality lay sometimes more with the brothers in arms than with the Reichsführer-SS and the Allgemeine-SS. Even if parts of the Luftwaffe with its greater share of nazi-officers support them (a big if) in a longer civil war they are in a serious disadvantage. Of course after the war the Wehrmacht would probably shrink and with the right pod the SS might get stronger, but you should consider it, if you want a real civil war and not just a coup where even the looser would probably retain serious power. Of course it depends upon how realistic and detailed your timeline shall be and how much you simply handwave, as for your purpose the events in the far future are probably more important. But perhaps you can use some of the points I made
 

Draven

Banned
Sure, I will !

I want it as realistic and as detailed as it can be.

You've got good points about the civil war. What about this : Himmler, who wanted his SS to eventualy replace the Wehrmacht and become a new nobility of the Reich, would keep expanding their role and pre-eminence after the war. When he gets to power as Hitler's successor, in the early fities (or late forties), this policy continues, finally pissing off the leaders of the Wehrmacht and elements of the SS loyal to them.

Given the time he has to expand the Waffen-SS, that should increase his chances of winning.

Maybe reforms of the system would occur before/during the third world war, when the german leaders realize they would lose it.

Being more moderate, leaders of the future could enforce a more universal policy, finally leading to a kind of totalitarian western empire or alliance uniting all states deemed "aryan" (of course, that would happen after many centuries of reform, peaceful and forceful annexations,...).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The chances of ANY government surviving 1,000 years is remote, at best.

The most stable Nation in the west was/is England/UK. (I apologize to our many British members for the following butchering of your history simply to make a point. You are invited to have a go at the U.S. in the same vein.)

1-4. 1,000 years ago it was ruled by mainly the Saxons (House of Wessex), although the Danes held much of the North and controlled all of England almost exactly 1000 years ago with the Danes and Wessex each have another go at control.

5. It was then invaded and occupied by the Normans who ruled as undisputed kings until 1215, when the Magna Carta was forced on John (which included a brief, albeit entertaining, period when half of England was under the de facto rule of France's Louis the Lion). This continued until

6. Henry IV wrested control from Richard II in a succession crisis(otherwise known as a civil war). The Lancasters then ruled until

7-10. The war of the Roses. A rather nasty bit of work that engulfed England in a Civil War for ~30 years. This ended with both the Yorks and Lancasters effectively annihilating each other and the last Lancaster king dieing in battle. This led to the

11. Tudors This lasted through a couple civil wars in which members of the House wacked each other with suprising zeal.

12. The Stuarts followed in a rather bloodless succession crisis after Liz the 1st left no heir. The last only a short time before

13. The real English Civil War. The resulted in the King getting executed and the Lord Protectors (don't call them kings or inherited rulers, that they were father and son is just one of those things).

14. The Stuarts return as undisputed rulers until

15. 1660 when Parliament states it has the right to approve the next ruler, thereby taking the whole undisputed bit out of being King. Still it is better than a bag of hammers until

16. 1701 Act of Settlement more or less makes the King increasingly a figurehead and the British government as we know it today evolves in quite civil fashion.

That is SIXTEEN separate governments (actually I probably missed a couple, but the point is clear enough) in a thousand years in a country renowned, quite justly, for its stability of governance.

The United States, another remarkably stable nation, had one full on Civil War that just about tore the country into little bits, not to mention democratically enacted changes that altered the Country beyond easy recognition to its founders. (As an American, I will say that I believe that the Founders would, on balance, like what the U.S. has evolved into, but that it is an utterly different nation than the one they set up is beyond question.)

Now the above all happened in countries that were run, on the whole, by sane men who had a basic moral compass that pointed the right direction.

Nazi Germany was run by a group of sociopaths who ate their morals with their breakfast porridge. It is quite literally impossible to imagine the Reich surviving for 60 years, much less 1,000, even if there was no external pressures on the state. The Nazis were anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-capitalism (National SOCIALIST), and ideologically driven to an extent that makes the most devout Marxist-Leninist seem indifferent. The Reich's economy was built on quicksand that would have lasted exactly as long as it had slave laborers to prop it up. Since the availability of the slaves is remarkably finite (especially when the stated policy was to eradicate them) the economic survival of the Nazi state was also limited. Once the Reich used up all the Slavs (followed, it can be reasonably assumed, by all the non Aryan appearing French, Italians, Greeks, Central Asians and Siberians) something that would have taken, at most 60 years at the rate they were being expended, the entire nasty house of cards would have utterly collapsed.

If one takes steps to alter the myriad pieces of National Socialism that ensured that the 1,000 Year Reich's ~60 year self destruct mechanism was removed you will have altered the country to the point that it would look at the Nazi era with a mix of disdain and horror (rather like today's Germany does). That altered country would no more want to be associated with the Third Reich than does today's Bundesrepublik.
 
For danger of coming across as nitpicking, but you should shave of an "n" from your title for grammatical correctness ;)
 

Draven

Banned
Right. Thanks.

@CalBear :

Well, I could discuss some of your assumptions there.

"the right side of the moral compass" : Please don't forget morals and ethics are relative. There is no "right side" (even if I of course don't agree with nazi germany's racial ethos). And your morals don't define if you win or lose a war.

"anti-capitalism " : Well. Capitalism is not the sole and only way to go.

"If one takes steps to alter the myriad pieces of National Socialism that ensured that the 1,000 Year Reich's ~60 year self destruct mechanism was removed you will have altered the country to the point that it would look at the Nazi era with a mix of disdain and horror (rather like today's Germany does). That altered country would no more want to be associated with the Third Reich than does today's Bundesrepublik."

I'm not so sure of that. A victory of nazi germany is also a victory of the racial ethos over democracy and the egalitarian/capitalist ethos that caracterizes the modern world. The Bundesrepublik is horrified by Nazi Germany not because it is Nazi Germany, but because today world's morals defined themselves as the opposite of Nazi Germany. If they had won, racial classification would have become a normal thing. As there are no real social classes per se (I mean that social conflict is not a priority) in the spirit of many contemporary people which live under capitalism without an alternative, the egalitarian ideal would be dead and morals built on another (a racial) basis.

Of course a 1000 years old Reich would be very different. But don't forget a change of government doesn't change an empire : the Roman Empire was still the Roman Empire, even when only Byzantium was left. The Roman Empire as a whole was there even when it was a Republic : it wasn't the same government, but there's a continuity of the political entity anyway.

The idea that empires will last longer in the future (because of more acute social understanding, propaganda techniques, etc) is also a sci-fi choice. It may not be the case in reality, but seems possible. And it happened in history, anyway.
 
"the right side of the moral compass" : Please don't forget morals and ethics are relative. There is no "right side" (even if I of course don't agree with nazi germany's racial ethos).

First of all, you could definitely argue that ther IS a right side, and the Nazis definitely weren't there. And then there's the question whether Nazi "morals" could persist for a while - that is highly doubtable.

"anti-capitalism " : Well. Capitalism is not the sole and only way to go.

Which other ways are actually functioning in a modern technology-based system?

I'm not so sure of that. A victory of nazi germany is also a victory of the racial ethos over democracy and the egalitarian/capitalist ethos that caracterizes the modern world. The Bundesrepublik is horrified by Nazi Germany not because it is Nazi Germany, but because today world's morals defined themselves as the opposite of Nazi Germany. If they had won, racial classification would have become a normal thing. As there are no real social classes per se (I mean that social conflict is not a priority) in the spirit of many contemporary people which live under capitalism without an alternative, the egalitarian ideal would be dead and morals built on another (a racial) basis.

Problem is that you cannot build a society over the long term on Nazi lunatic racial "science". There is no scientific base for the definition of an aryan, and sooner or later this will get known. Genetics for example should be of main interest for a victorious Nazi Germany - and an utter failure of their ideology.

Of course a 1000 years old Reich would be very different. But don't forget a change of government doesn't change an empire : the Roman Empire was still the Roman Empire, even when only Byzantium was left. The Roman Empire as a whole was there even when it was a Republic : it wasn't the same government, but there's a continuity of the political entity anyway.

Well - with that sort of continuity, it wouldn't matter much if you consider a victorious Nazi Germany, a persisting Weimar republic or the Kaiser victorious in WWI. The whole point of you proposing a Nazi Germany lasting for 1000 years is that something of Nazi ideology remains - at least for me as a reader. Continuity of something Nazi-esque over 1000 years is difficult. Some sort of Germany existing in 1000 years is not.
 

Draven

Banned
Well - I'm not there to discuss capitalist deterministic beliefs, moral absolutism or any other political/philosophical theory... Even if I would have much to say about this ;-).

Anyway, for this kind of "continuity", I think the fact that the Nazis won matters. It brings a lot of change : the change to racial ethics (which isn't really rendered obsolete by genetics - even now, in our democraties, many people think of themselves as a "race" and there are differences between "races" wether we like it or not (I'm not talking hierarchy here, I'm talking about objective differences, ie. skin color)), societal and scientific choices changes (a Nazi world most likely won't develop a civilian Internet, for example, in my opinion), cultural changes, geopolitical changes,...

I'm here for ideas on how to make it work. Not to get some deterministic advice on how it would never work.
 
Another nation that has survived the past 1,000 years has been China. Consider that although it was repressive and totalitarian, it lasted until 1912 as a state. Another idea to consider is the idea, that would feed into the Nazi mentality, is the idea of occupation. Consider that alien occupation of the planet, would actually provide an incentive for leaders to "maintain the old ways":

c.2069: New Policies are instituted, allowing for factionalism within the Nazi Party, despite the advice of Party officials....

c.2085: New Policies Forum overrules the Fuehrer on a policy matter

c.2516: First alien species establishes trade contacts

c. 2567: Treaties are established allowing for foreign world trade, although the state conducts and regulates all foreig world trade....

c. 2582: Aliens begin religious missionary work across the globe,...

c. 2624: Aliens seize control of Luna, despite heavy resistance by Earth forces...

c. 2721: Government officials attempt to pass laws banning the extraterrestrial religious activities....

c.2839: First "Lethe" War: Earth nationalists launch a war against alien traders, citing the spread of the alien drug "Lethe"....

c. 2856: Second "Lethe" War; Earth nationalists launch a war against alien traders , citing the spread of the alien drug "Lethe"....

c. 2900; Earth nationalists launch a massive armed insurrection against alien occupation
 

Draven

Banned
Another form of opposition could come from independent colonies. Ie. Mars could tend towards new forms of collectivism and democracy because of its mainly anti-totalitarian immigrants, polarizing the world once again.

I was indeed thinking of including aliens in some way. Maybe the Nazi racial ideology could somewhat mutate towards anti-alien and pro-human (of course, pro-western, but this part of the ideology could be slowly declining).
 
Using the changes in dynasties as a model, imagine the colonies (e.g. Luna, Mars, et al.) taking over the Earth government in c. 2132, 2260, 2368, 2644, and finally in 2912. With the overthrows, the government remained the same, but different factions controlled matters....

As for the race policies, I see them being transferred to aliens. This allows for the leaders to be able to claim major changes in government, with little changing from the Chinese model....
 

Draven

Banned
It's something I didn't think of, but interesting. This kind of "Dynastic" system is quite far from modern european politics in my opinion, but it could be nice for a long-term far future totalitarian state. Different leaders with different policies, but more or less the same fundamental ideology and state.

However I think I'd do a more radical opposition with the colonies, which would may be form their own states. Dynastic changes would most likely come from Earth.
 
Earth after a 1000 year reich:
Mustafar.jpg
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Right. Thanks.

@CalBear :

Well, I could discuss some of your assumptions there.

"the right side of the moral compass" : Please don't forget morals and ethics are relative. There is no "right side" (even if I of course don't agree with nazi germany's racial ethos). And your morals don't define if you win or lose a war.

Actually neither ethic or morals codes are relative. There is a range of both that are acceptable depending on circumstances. These are generally seen as one variety or another of "normal" and can be labeled under the heading of Malum prohibitum. These particular behaviors vary from society to society and can represent a remarkably wide range. A textbook example of prohibitum is represented by "age of consent" laws wherein one society may consider legally to be 13 or 14 and another segment of the same society may consider it legally to be 18.

There are, however, other actions that are outside of normal in virtually every human social grouping for which records exist. These sort of acts are always wrong and to be condemned. These are, of course, known collectively as Malum in se or, quite literally evil in itself. To use the above example regarding age of consent, there is no human society that accepts the use of infants or toddlers for carnal gratification. While laws exist to address those deviants who violate this cultural taboo, they frequently protect the deviant more than the society, since the act itself is so far beyond the Pale that without the laws those who commit the act would be ripped asunder by the general citizenry of the victim society.

There are also acts that, through social evolution, move from prohibitum to in se. Examples of this include chattel slavery and "honor killing". These tend to move between categories slowly and are not always embraced by cultural groups that do not share certain religious or historical commonalities.

Nazi Germany was built on Malum in se virtually from the onset. It willfully killed children, not due to the "fortunes of war" or mischance, but as direct governmental policy. It willfully killed the "simple-minded". It willfully killed long established cultural subsets. It willfully used slavery with the express intent of killing the slave (known to the Reich lawgivers as "extermination through labor"). It willfully violated the basic "laws of war" as they had existed since the 17th Century. The list of Malum in se actions that formed the basis of Nazi policy can be extended for pages.

Nazi Germany was as close to a purely evil state as has EVER existed. If your disagreement with the Reich is limited to its racial beliefs alone, I utterly pity you.

"anti-capitalism " : Well. Capitalism is not the sole and only way to go.
True. However it has proved to be the most economically stable system yet encountered.

"If one takes steps to alter the myriad pieces of National Socialism that ensured that the 1,000 Year Reich's ~60 year self destruct mechanism was removed you will have altered the country to the point that it would look at the Nazi era with a mix of disdain and horror (rather like today's Germany does). That altered country would no more want to be associated with the Third Reich than does today's Bundesrepublik."

I'm not so sure of that. A victory of nazi germany is also a victory of the racial ethos over democracy and the egalitarian/capitalist ethos that caracterizes the modern world. The Bundesrepublik is horrified by Nazi Germany not because it is Nazi Germany, but because today world's morals defined themselves as the opposite of Nazi Germany. If they had won, racial classification would have become a normal thing. As there are no real social classes per se (I mean that social conflict is not a priority) in the spirit of many contemporary people which live under capitalism without an alternative, the egalitarian ideal would be dead and morals built on another (a racial) basis.
Since I am not a German citizen, I will leave it to one of our German members to determine exactly how deeply you have insulted their society. I will simply state that, with the specific exception of the Nazi era, there has NEVER been a Germanic society in the last 1,000 years that would not have found some part of the Nazi movement to be loathsome beyond belief.

Of course a 1000 years old Reich would be very different. But don't forget a change of government doesn't change an empire : the Roman Empire was still the Roman Empire, even when only Byzantium was left. The Roman Empire as a whole was there even when it was a Republic : it wasn't the same government, but there's a continuity of the political entity anyway.

The idea that empires will last longer in the future (because of more acute social understanding, propaganda techniques, etc) is also a sci-fi choice. It may not be the case in reality, but seems possible. And it happened in history, anyway.
The fact that the late rulers of Constantinople chose to style themselves as Emperors of the Roman Empire when Rome was 1,000 years past its days of Empire does not mean that the Empire still existed except within the delusions.
 
CalBear's said everything there is to say about this guy's "argument" that he's only writing a Nazi victory scenario because he finds it interesting and compelling.

It should be abundantly clear to anyone that this level of denial of what the Nazi regime was is due either to sympathy or massive stupidity. Either way, since this is the only thread he's posted, he's banned.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top