Alternate locations for German Lebensraum if Slavs are considered Aryan?

The Africa option I was talking about involves Germany seizing French Equatorial Africa, the Congo and some British colonies to gain a resource base, and transporting these resources through the Sahara and into the Mediterranean, where each inlets are controlled by Axis powers (Italy does far better).
How the fuck does Germany seize French Equatorial Africa and the Congo?
 
How the fuck does Germany seize French Equatorial Africa and the Congo?
The British are completely defeated, the USA is temporarily an ally of Germany (it makes sense in my timeline), Africa itself has far better infrastructure than in OTL and Germany keeps Southwest Africa because the British never succeed in taking it in WW1 and because in my timeline the colony has huge amounts of German settlers (it essentially becomes the German version of French Guiana). The French, who keep West Africa, essentially give up on Equatorial Africa since it was never profitable and infested with guerrilla fighters and let the Germans have it because post-war France doesn't have the strength to reclaim it, so the Germans can invade from West Africa. Actually seizing both these colonies happens after the war has ended.
 
The French, who keep West Africa, essentially give up on Equatorial Africa since it was never profitable and infested with guerrilla fighters and let the Germans have it because post-war France doesn't have the strength to reclaim it, so the Germans can invade from West Africa. Actually seizing both these colonies happens after the war has ended.
Are we talking about Vichy France or Free France here? Free France isn't simply going to relinquish Equatorial Africa or what parts of West Africa its holding onto.
 
Are we talking about Vichy France or Free France here? Free France isn't simply going to relinquish Equatorial Africa or what parts of West Africa its holding onto.
Vichy France. Germany also agrees to give French-speaking Switzerland when it is divided, along with some British colonies in West Africa to partially compensate them. Free France still controls Equatorial Africa, though after the war was lost Equatorial Africa became a de facto independent African country.
 
Vichy France. Germany also agrees to give French-speaking Switzerland when it is divided, along with some British colonies in West Africa to partially compensate them. Free France still controls Equatorial Africa, though after the war was lost Equatorial Africa became a de facto independent African country.
What makes it so that Britain isn't supporting Free France, Free Belgium and/or any other exiled European government/forces in Africa?
 
What makes it so that Britain isn't supporting Free France, Free Belgium and/or any other exiled European government/forces in Africa?
At the risk of mentioning the sea mammal that must not be named, Britain is invaded by Germany. As I mentioned earlier, the US is an Axis power (but the Nazis in my timeline are Notzis). The US defeats the Royal Navy in the Atlantic, allowing them to reach Germany and use the French Atlantic coastline to secure the English Channel. With Britain having no navy or air force to defend themselves, the US and Germany invade from occupied France.
 
At the risk of mentioning the sea mammal that must not be named, Britain is invaded by Germany. As I mentioned earlier, the US is an Axis power (but the Nazis in my timeline are Notzis). The US defeats the Royal Navy in the Atlantic, allowing them to reach Germany and use the French Atlantic coastline to secure the English Channel. With Britain having no navy or air force to defend themselves, the US and Germany invade from occupied France.
How plausible is this TL of yours?
 
How plausible is this TL of yours?
I like to think it's pretty plausible. The POD is all the way back in 1812, so besides the fact I ignore the ridiculous amount of butterflies that would probably prevent WW2 from happening I think the timeline is fairly realistic. Essentially the US wins the War of 1812, becomes more imperialistic and the rival of Britain, joins the Central Powers in WW1, loses, then becomes a populist dictatorship during the Great Depression allied with a Notsi Germany, which is basically Kaiserreich 2.0 (but without the actual Kaiser) instead of OTL Nazi Germany (still led by Hitler, but in this timeline he is a pretty good guy and also spoke Polish).

It's at least in the realm of possibility, but I will admit I used a lot of "rule of cool" when it came to Hitler's backstory.
 
Last edited:
No. They just thought that some Slavs who looked like Germans could be "umvolked" (that's a term the extreme right of today uses for "exchanging European people by Third World people", but the original meaning was different). They got German citizenship (provisional only), had to learn German and so on. This included kids who were taken from their families.
No.

As someone noted elsewhere the Polish side of town was classified as the "Aryan" side. Slavs (or at least West Slavs) were deemed to have originally been Nordic, but there was considerable intermarriage with other groups that the Nazis really disliked. It wasn't that they looked like Germans, and so could be assimilated. It was that they looked like Nordics (because they were Nordics) and so would actually be making Germany better by being brought into it. There was a lot of shifting around regarding the how Germany was to define Aryan - with the general thrust for practical purposes being to render it essentially synonymous with German or Nordic ("tribally related to German blood"). Of course those theorists also had a great deal to say about the supposed criminality of eastern Germans - which they blamed on said "Inner Asiatic" blood - but those folks were still Germans and hence Aryans though (even if they may have been deemed to be less Aryan and generally worse than the Polish children who were being set to be Germanized).

That's the thing, the Slavs may have been deemed subhuman but that doesn't mean they weren't thought to have been of Aryan stock originally- merely that they had intermarried with Asians and that Germany wanted their land. So a small group of Slavs who were thought to be descended from the Aryan upper strata were eligible for Germanization. Similar issues were found in Germany though, the trend to idealize the Nordic had obvious issues given that many Germans, particularly in the south weren't really Nordic even though they were undeniably German. But in terms of long term theoretical goals the Nazis wanted to purify the German race too and integrating those Nordic Poles was part of that.

In general, official German use of the term Aryan was recognized by the Germans as being narrow and not precisely accurate - and was generally defined as being in relation to Germans not to "Aryans" more generally - for instance the Nazi Office of Racial Politics classified non-Jewish Turks as Europeans and Iranians were officially recognized as Aryans (despite this running directly against some earlier Nazi racial theorists ideas) for both practical and theoretical reasons.

Ultimately I'd say the focus on instrumentality vs. theory can be mostly clearly seen in how Croats and Bulgarians weren't subhuman but Serbs were. But like I said, in terms of the more serious, broader view on what an Aryan was Slavs were deemed to be Aryans but not pure (but then, neither were most Germans). In terms of the more narrowly defined meaning of Aryan it basically just meant how closely someone was tribally related to the Germans which although used at times still put Slavs as more closely related to the Germans than most other groups on Earth (although much less so than pretty much any other Europeans). I mean, it's not exactly the most coherent of systems regardless of course but even with the narrow definition of basically just being German many Slavs were deemed to be eligible for assimilation.
 
No.

As someone noted elsewhere the Polish side of town was classified as the "Aryan" side. Slavs (or at least West Slavs) were deemed to have originally been Nordic, but there was considerable intermarriage with other groups that the Nazis really disliked. It wasn't that they looked like Germans, and so could be assimilated. It was that they looked like Nordics (because they were Nordics) and so would actually be making Germany better by being brought into it. There was a lot of shifting around regarding the how Germany was to define Aryan - with the general thrust for practical purposes being to render it essentially synonymous with German or Nordic ("tribally related to German blood"). Of course those theorists also had a great deal to say about the supposed criminality of eastern Germans - which they blamed on said "Inner Asiatic" blood - but those folks were still Germans and hence Aryans though (even if they may have been deemed to be less Aryan and generally worse than the Polish children who were being set to be Germanized).

That's the thing, the Slavs may have been deemed subhuman but that doesn't mean they weren't thought to have been of Aryan stock originally- merely that they had intermarried with Asians and that Germany wanted their land. So a small group of Slavs who were thought to be descended from the Aryan upper strata were eligible for Germanization. Similar issues were found in Germany though, the trend to idealize the Nordic had obvious issues given that many Germans, particularly in the south weren't really Nordic even though they were undeniably German. But in terms of long term theoretical goals the Nazis wanted to purify the German race too and integrating those Nordic Poles was part of that.

In general, official German use of the term Aryan was recognized by the Germans as being narrow and not precisely accurate - and was generally defined as being in relation to Germans not to "Aryans" more generally - for instance the Nazi Office of Racial Politics classified non-Jewish Turks as Europeans and Iranians were officially recognized as Aryans (despite this running directly against some earlier Nazi racial theorists ideas) for both practical and theoretical reasons.

Ultimately I'd say the focus on instrumentality vs. theory can be mostly clearly seen in how Croats and Bulgarians weren't subhuman but Serbs were. But like I said, in terms of the more serious, broader view on what an Aryan was Slavs were deemed to be Aryans but not pure (but then, neither were most Germans). In terms of the more narrowly defined meaning of Aryan it basically just meant how closely someone was tribally related to the Germans which although used at times still put Slavs as more closely related to the Germans than most other groups on Earth (although much less so than pretty much any other Europeans). I mean, it's not exactly the most coherent of systems regardless of course but even with the narrow definition of basically just being German many Slavs were deemed to be eligible for assimilation.
How successful would this Germanisation have been?
 
if all you are looking for is a super power germany..

then really.. Germany with 1914 borders
then add
  • Lithuania
  • Latvia
  • Estonia
  • Netherlands
  • Denmark
  • Luxemburg
  • Liechtenstein
  • ( area of Austria in 1914 ) include the Czechs, Belarus, all of Poland, Slovenes and Croats in the deal and call it a day. heck you might even get the Ukrainians to join up if they are not full on whack genocidal and get something that works.. That's a superpower right there
question is how do they manage all of the groups.

They don't need Russia to be a super power
 
if all you are looking for is a super power germany..

then really.. Germany with 1914 borders
then add
  • Lithuania
  • Latvia
  • Estonia
  • Netherlands
  • Denmark
  • Luxemburg
  • Liechtenstein
  • ( area of Austria in 1914 ) include the Czechs, Belarus, all of Poland, Slovenes and Croats in the deal and call it a day. heck you might even get the Ukrainians to join up if they are not full on whack genocidal and get something that works.. That's a superpower right there
question is how do they manage all of the groups.

They don't need Russia to be a super power
How would Germany have achieved making Poland a part of Germany? From what I've heard, Germany has tried to integrate Poland before and it didn't really work out too well.
 
How would Germany have achieved making Poland a part of Germany? From what I've heard, Germany has tried to integrate Poland before and it didn't really work out too well.
Either germanizing, or playing nice Preferably. Many Germans who came to America from Poland came as Germans..

If they make 50 or 60 years germaniztion can be more complete

Be more inclusive and stuff
 
The Nazis didn't want lands in the East because they considered Slavs Untermechschen. They considers Slavs Untermenschen because they wanted lands in the East.
 
Either germanizing, or playing nice Preferably. Many Germans who came to America from Poland came as Germans..

If they make 50 or 60 years germaniztion can be more complete

Be more inclusive and stuff
So they could politically integrate Poland and the rest of the Slavic lands they need in 50 or so years? Thanks for the info.
 
So they could politically integrate Poland and the rest of the Slavic lands they need in 50 or so years? Thanks for the info.
I don't see why they couldn't be on the way to such a situation . Depends on how people are treated . If they are treated like dirt then no..
 
What about southern Africa? Namibia used to be a German colony and still has a large German population.
I've suggested Africa-based Lebensraum in Namibia and East Africa but apparently that's unrealistic. My suggestion involved Germany having the Congo, Angola, Equatorial Africa and East Africa, with massive railways and highways connecting important cities. There would be a railway through Chad into Italian Libya, which would be used to transport stuff back and forth through the Mediterranean, which would be safe waters for Germany.
 
I've suggested Africa-based Lebensraum in Namibia and East Africa but apparently that's unrealistic. My suggestion involved Germany having the Congo, Angola, Equatorial Africa and East Africa, with massive railways and highways connecting important cities. There would be a railway through Chad into Italian Libya, which would be used to transport stuff back and forth through the Mediterranean, which would be safe waters for Germany.
How would Germany be able to get to East Africa?
 
Top