Calculating the population/demographics of a victorious Reich?

DPRK follows the ultranationalist tradition of Imperial Japan with a dash of Christian messiahism and clothed in supposed Communism. At the core the only difference is the urge to enslave other ethnic groups.
No there's some pretty significant difference between the two states, the 3rd Reich has private property and a mixed economy.
 
DPRK follows the ultranationalist tradition of Imperial Japan with a dash of Christian messiahism and clothed in supposed Communism. At the core the only difference is the urge to enslave other ethnic groups.
Which is why I said formally communist. I am well aware that North Korea's communism is a rather... special breed in practice. However, even all of these three come from completely different ideological origins than Nazi Germany's case; at most they can be said to be tangential. Yes, there are similarities between them and Nazi Germany for social policies, but say, South Korea and Germany, despite both being democracies, also have different social policies and structures. For an intensely ideological project like pro-natalist policy, these distinctions must figure at the forefront. How did the two states compare on their position of women in society, childcare, marriage, agricultural policy, benefits to workers, and what sort of incentives were used? There are critical differences between the two that merely comparing their macro-economic data cannot show. Saying that because North Korea has had a natalist policy (the overall effectiveness of which I'm still not convinced is as effective as you tout, given North Korea's government nature, and its comparison to surrounding nations during the early period) and thus Germany can do the same as North Korea, is irrelevant even beyond the fact that the German economy will be dramatically different. Some broad comparisons can exist between the two, such as autarky, intense military spending, a relatively large rural population and heavy industry, but these are very broad differences which conceal vast differences between the two, not even taking into account societal differences.
 
In addition, many Germans may seek to emigrate to the Americas or other places of the world with a presumably higher standard of living, so even with a higher birthrate growth will stall somewhat. Why move to a farm near Moscow when you can flee to a place that will actually improve your quality of life?

It could be the opposite would happen. That is - the sons of former Germans who became immigrants into the US, return to the Fatherland encouraged by the promise of land in the 'East'.
 
Depending from the actual plans drawn for settling the East with Aryans and how able Nazi Europe is to trade with outside markets, the number of settler sent to the East varies.

For exemple, a plan calling for middle-sized farms, awarded to a settler exploiting them with his family and Slavic farmhands doesn't produce the same demographic effect than latifundia given to Nazi bigwigs.

I know any time we are talking about how the "New Order" of a Nazi victory TL would manifest as, it naturally devolves into a spectacle of barbaric insanity, but was there really any remotely coherent reason for this seemingly random categorization?

National Socialism being barbaric insanity is enough to explain it.

It is madness of course.

It is National Socialism.

It could be the opposite would happen. That is - the sons of former Germans who became immigrants into the US, return to the Fatherland encouraged by the promise of land in the 'East'.

Would the United States allow the exile of American citizens to the Reich or would a state of war be kept, allowing the government to try everyone defecting to the Nazis for treason?
 
Would the United States allow the exile of American citizens to the Reich or would a state of war be kept, allowing the government to try everyone defecting to the Nazis for treason?

There may be a 'cold war' but I doubt if they would stop travel, and even if they do, there's always alternative routes. In the Band of Brothers, the GIs encounter POWs who were from America yet fighting for Germany - assume the author would have some factual basis for putting that in, and if it happened in OTL circumstances, plausible for it to happen on a bigger scale in a Victorious Reich situation.
 
How successful will the attempts to get Germans who had settled in South Africa, Australasia, and the Americas to return and settle their frozen graveyard be?
 
Well, that sums up the Reich in almost every respect, really.

As far as the Estonian question goes, the 'logic' (such as it was) was that centuries of Scandinavian and German influence had 'uplifted' them into Germanic sorts. (Per Norman Rich's Hitler's War Aims; I can dig up his source if anybody's curious.) In this TL, the Estonians who don't make the cut move to Finland to help settle its own lebensraum along the White Sea.
I imagine the Balts were not considered extermination worthy. The amount of Baltic Germans in the Nazi leadership may push for things to return as they were before, with the Germans on top and the Estonians shutting up if they knew what was good for them. I think the Germans might keep them from leaving until they went through them for people considered to have enough Danish or German lineage to be shoved into Ukraine and Germanized. Or they keep them around so the Baltic keeps humming and providing economic production for the Reich, at least until Germanics can come over to take their jobs.

In the Nazi ideology/mythology, different peoples were suited to different soil, so the Finns were seen as suitable settlers for the far northern areas that Germans weren't accustomed to. It is madness of course.
The Finns were deemed Honorary Nordics anyways, and as far as Hitler's comments in Table Talks went, he seemed to think they were so religious because of being trapped in their homes in month long blizzards. Not the sort of place he wanted to send his men too. But yes, I think their was actually a rather large, ever changing hierarchy among the 'Master Race'. The Sioux, Aztecs, and Inca were seen as Aryans due to their large cizilizations and cowboy westerns, as were the Iranians due to linguistics (India being seen as having lost their own Aryans long ago). Then they got into Nordics, with people like Himmler preferring to think of civilization starting with Germans, believing that they came from Greenland, effectively ruling out Asians as Nordics in one sense. Then there were Germanics for those who spoke Germanic languages, then the Volksdeutsche who were sometimes teased for their accents by the Reichsdeustch, who were to be on top of everything, which the Western Europeans realized during occupation. I think there was some anger in Alsace-Lorraine because they had to change their names when they sounded French, while Germans coming to settle their had similar ones, yet did not need to change them.
 
Last edited:
50% of Estonians, 50% of Latvians and 85% of Lithuanians were marked for death in Generalplan Ost.
Good point. Though was that through outright extermination or through working them to death? The Germans found later in the war that they needed lots of labor, causing them to conscript hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen for factory work. I can see them killing off the non-German leadership of the Balts, but using them as intensive labor in the Baltic before sending the survivors to work in mines or the like.
 
Good point. Though was that through outright extermination or through working them to death?
If by outright extermination you mean bullets or gas chambers then no but the Reich had a term for working people to death called "Extermination Through Labor" which in my opinion is far worse than the former methods. This in combination with disease, starvation and exposure is how they intended to kill off the majority of Slavs in 2 to 3 decades.

Would there be some shootings and hangings as reprisals against partisans or when slave laborers refuse to work? Yes but that wouldn't be the Nazis' main method. The gas chambers would be retired and destroyed once the Jews and Roma are gone.

CalBear elaborated on how the Reich would carry it out in the East with this:
There is this rather interesting belief that controlling large numbers of people is difficult. It isn't, not if you literally don't care when they die (they are already condemned, only question is when they physically cease to exist, so it it isn't even a matter if they live or die). It would be difficult for you or I, or any of the members here, but it wasn't for the SS.

This is how the Nazis did it:

10,000 people can be kept inside a walled ghetto by 100 German guards, 25 per shift, backed up by three utterly obsolete Pz-38(t) (larger numbers can be handled by adding a zero all the way around 100K people needs a battalion of 1000 troops backed up by 30 obsolete tanks/armored cars) and couple hundred foreign "volunteers"/Hiwis. The Wall is built by those who are being walled in. You use a group that isn't condemned (yet) to go through and take out ALL the food. You take out work parties, chained together in groups of 50 or so, work them doing heavy demolition by hand (or whatever other task is selected for them) from dawn to dusk. At the end of the day those that are still alive (any sign of resistance results in the entire work gang being killed out of hand, bodies of those who topple over are also dragged to where ever they are being burned/buried by another work crew, which is how the did it in the camps) are fed 300 or so calories of sawdust bread before they are allowed back into the ghetto. Don't work, don't eat. Sick? Too bad, Don't work, don't eat. Get out of line? If you are Polish the Lithuanian/Ukrainian/French/etc. ghetto police beat you to death with clubs (if you are Lithuanian, a Polish/etc.ghetto cop does it). Between the starvation, beatings for the smallest offense (being a brick short of the unreasonable quota, eating a dandelion, whatever), exposure in unheated barracks, the overseers will probably have to refill the ghetto two or three times before it is totally demolished (since that was the Reich's goal, to literally demolish, to the last brick, the Great "Slavic Cities" from Warsaw to Moscow and beyond)

Children under the age of five, who are too young to left a hammer or carry a brick, are fed in some centralized location, 150-200 calories once a day. They are not educated, not even taught their letters. Once they can be useful, say pulling weeds or other farm work, they are sent out to the Settler plantations to do farm work and are picked up at the end of the day (these are the "lucky ones", they may survive to become serfs for the German landholders)

The hard part is keeping people alive so you can continue to use them as slave labor in factories, That requires more effort, including about double the calories, a bit more if they are actually doing something that requires a bit of training, a few more guards and someone who has a modicum of leadership skills (in the East you can have a some SS NCO run things, with maybe a few lower grade officers to maintain discipline, approve duty rosters, and ensure that none of the guard force goes soft).

This is how it was done IOTL. I wish to God I was making this horror up, I'm not. Read about the Warsaw ghetto, read about how the camps were managed (actually, it is probably best you don't unless you have a really strong constitution, I still get the occasional nightmare from the research I did for AANW).
Guarding vast number of prisoners would be easy since the Reich managed to guard between 375,000 and 400,000 Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto with less than 1000 German troops and around 2,500 Jewish police. The Warsaw Ghetto was only 1.3 square miles in area yet again showing the Reich had no problem keeping large numbers of "untermensch" under control and in one place.
 
Last edited:
There may be a 'cold war' but I doubt if they would stop travel, and even if they do, there's always alternative routes. In the Band of Brothers, the GIs encounter POWs who were from America yet fighting for Germany - assume the author would have some factual basis for putting that in, and if it happened in OTL circumstances, plausible for it to happen on a bigger scale in a Victorious Reich situation.

Could these Germans have come before Pearl Harbour? For exemple, a German-American comes to Germany to work in a family business, or simply to visit, before being blocked after December 11th and conscripted in the Wehrmacht as German.

This is how Iva Toguri d'Aquino and Mitsugi Nishikawa ended up drafted to the service of Imperial Japan; I don't doubt such stories could be found in Europe.
 
Most of the "Americans" who ended up in Germany were first or second generation immigrants who went back to Germany for various reasons such as visiting family, looking for employment when Hitler started public works and work seemed more available there than in the USA, etc. Of course there were reverse immigrants who came back because they believed in the Nazi doctrines. Those in the first category were caught up in the war effort/drafted like other German males.
 
Not an enormous amount - 30,000-40,000 maybe, concentrated in and around Katharinashafen (Kherson).
That might make things hard to calculate..... but assuming that the Reich gives these people preferable treatment, maybe we can see 4 kids being born to a family, so that would be..... what, 200,000 by 2017?
 
That might make things hard to calculate..... but assuming that the Reich gives these people preferable treatment, maybe we can see 4 kids being born to a family, so that would be..... what, 200,000 by 2017?

That might be a little on the high side - I'd go with 3 or 3.5 - but it's not outlandish, either. Wish I could have worked one into the second story now.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Personally, I look to Maoist PRC for how crazy Natalist the Reich can be. I'll see if I can run some numbers later.

It's much easier to have a high total fertility rate in a pre-industrial country (as opposed to in an industrialized country), though.

That's one of the million dollar questions, isn't it? I imagine the Reich leadership going all out in that regard what with all the enormous, empty and thus economically void areas in the east waiting to be filled. I'm not sure how successful such efforts would be. (I don't even know much about their policies in OTL, I admit.) Would the birth rate continue to fall after the war in this Germany? This Reich isn't nearly as prosperous as Germany was, for what it's worth.

Didn't the Nazis "Germanize" a lot of Poles in our TL because they couldn't get enough ethnic Germans to settle in western Poland, though? Indeed, why have a lot of babies if you don't have much motivation to settle Germany's eastern Lebensraum?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That might be a little on the high side - I'd go with 3 or 3.5 - but it's not outlandish, either. Wish I could have worked one into the second story now.
So, our TL's 2017 Israeli levels? Indeed, Israel's current TFR is 3.1 children per woman right now.
 

Ritos

Banned
I actually think these figures are wildly too low, I have not doubts a surviving Reich would have a TFR well over 3 perhaps even closer to 4 for the greater part of the 20th century. They did not merely offer heavy incentives for getting married and producing children, but they entered the psyche of the German volk, just like religious communities, made it a holy duty to create a family, raised it as the ideal.

"The Amish population has increased from roughly 5,000 at the turn of the 20th century, to a quarter-million today, a pace of growth likely to continue."
-City Lab
This is a fifty-fold increase over 110 years, roughly 4 generations. These people, have the chance to return to modern civilization, with all its liberal values and luxurious amenities, but they for the most part(I recall it is usually 2/3 to 90%, depending on the community) decide to stay living in an outdated lifestyle, in the Amish community. Why? They were socialized in it, internalized it's values, and social momentum. All this, with relatively free access to a completely different lifestyle and world view.

Nazi Germany, is not only less free as to what outside information, but they controlled the education system. Nazi German teaching has both the fetishization of freeholding and sanctification of procreation, alongside the relative poverty of the cities, with near free land to serve as a lure. We tend to think of a decline in birth rates as inevitable, because we take our western values and emphasis on individualism, and the glorification of self-fulfillment, as self evidencing fact, and thus the net financial negative of children in a REGULATED industrial society forever depresses birthrates. But if you remove one of the core pillars of liberalism, the equality of people, from the set of implicit virtues as Nazi's did, you end up with a system, where people refusing to have children are harming not just themselves, but betraying everyone around them, their people, and the society which raised them, by giving their proportional "birthright" of the earth's population, to every other race, country, and peoples. I think the pressure to have a pair of children, is inescapable in such a value framework, that even without policies that encouraged creating children, the birthrate would never fall below replacement level, moreover fecundity would necessarily be a focus of both national and personal pride.

Also keep in mind, your birthrates come in the context of 5 decades of occupation and de-nazification, disillusioned with what destroyed their fatherland, particularly in the more agrarian communist occupied east.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2768366

is a source I found useful. You might find it helpful for your timelines.
 
Last edited:
I actually think these figures are wildly too low, I have not doubts a surviving Reich would have a TFR well over 3 perhaps even closer to 4 for the greater part of the 20th century. They did not merely offer heavy incentives for getting married and producing children, but they entered the psyche of the German volk, just like religious communities, made it a holy duty to create a family, raised it as the ideal.
"The Amish population has increased from roughly 5,000 at the turn of the 20th century, to a quarter-million today, a pace of growth likely to continue."
-City Lab
This is a fifty-fold increase over 110 years, roughly 4 generations. These people, have the chance to return to modern civilization, with all its liberal values and luxurious amenities, but they for the most part(I recall it is usually 2/3 to 90%, depending on the community) decide to stay living in an outdated lifestyle, in the Amish community. Why? They were socialized in it, internalized it's values, and social momentum. All this, with relatively free access to a completely different lifestyle and world view.
Nazi Germany, is not only less free as to what outside information, but they controlled the education system. Nazi German teaching has both the fetishization of freeholding and sanctification of procreation, alongside the relative poverty of the cities, with near free land to serve as a lure. We tend to think of a decline in birth rates as inevitable, because we take our western values and emphasis on individualism, and the glorification of self-fulfillment, as self evidencing fact, and thus the net financial negative of children in a REGULATED industrial society forever depresses birthrates. But if you remove one of the core pillars of liberalism, the equality of people, from the set of implicit virtues as Nazi's did, you end up with a system, were people refusing to have children are harming not just themselves, but betraying everyone around them, their people, and the society which raised them, by giving their proportional "birthright" of the earth's population, to every other race, country, and peoples. I think the pressure to have a pair of children, is inescapable in such a value framework, that even without policies that encouraged creating children, the birthrate would never fall below replacement level, moreover fecundity would necessarily be a focus of both national and personal pride.

Also keep in mind, your birthrates come in the context of 5 decades of occupation and de-nazification, disillusioned with what destroyed their fatherland, particularly in the more agrarian communist occupied east.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2768366

is a source I found useful. You might find it helpful for your timelines.

Thanks!
 
Top