Challenge: Nazi Victory TL Better Than OTL

We're asking for a better world with Nazi victory, and typically absence of frothing madness DOES moderate ideology, especially when the former involves genocide. Population transfers, albeit flawed ones being anything NEAR the Holocaust? Not really.

Also, we're talking about somewhat indirect Nazi rule over Eastern Europe with most of it being tasked to a Nazi client state. As long as they send their resources along and keep those troublesome Slavs out of German Lebensbraum I can't see any real reason for Germany to care, Hitler won't be around forever and a more peaceful Germany more influenced by moderate Nazis would find its ways to sideline old guard Hitler.

So yes, it is indeed a changed Nazi Party, but changed in the same way you call the Communist Party of the Soviet Union communist even after changing radically from Lenin to Stalin to Khrushchev (Malenkov technically came after Stalin but he was more of the same).

While I agree on the Holocaust, I think the damage being done is still pretty horrendous.

You'd need to change the basic ideology of the party to change to the point the Slavs are not at least as badly off in this regard, and probably worse.

The Nazi racist ideology being moderated to the level necessary to make it so that eastern Europe is "merely" under a German despot instead of a Russian would take a lot of work. And if the Germans are still depopulating Eastern Europe, and still convinced that Germany can and should dominate...its going to do something more than "request" that Poles move to Belarus.

I think its theoretically possible to have a German victory in WWII that becomes better than OTL. A Nazi victory? I don't have enough imagination to see how the party could change enough to not be worse than OTL for Eastern Europe, even if one finds a way to eliminate the Holocaust.

I suppose a question is, how many people are going to die as a consequence of mass deportation? Can Belarus support all of those deportees even assuming the Nazis go out of their way to ensure the actual transportation runs smoothly?

If you get figures over a certain number of deaths, eliminating the Holocaust still leaves a de facto genocide.

Though, I suppose a timeline where Israel doesn't arise in the Middle East has that in favor of it.

Also, how does a sufficiently moderate Nazi party - given the OTL ideology of the Nazis - meet this requirement: -The Holocaust does not have to happen but the Nazis must behave plausibly and must remain in power with ideological conviction.

My bold-italics.

The ideological convictions of the Nazis, whether or not they experiment on twins, seem incompatible with a moderate authoritarian regime.

I've already observed my doubts on if its plausible behavior, but would a behavior moderate enough to "merely" be moderate (in this sense) authoritarians be one still true to the "ideological conviction" of the Reich? Or is the Nazi ideology inherently too radical/extremist?
 
Last edited:
Not really, I'm just making points that Soviet communism was the most ambiguous thing ever since it went through so many different people that were often directly at odds with one or more of their predecessors ideology-wise. The rudimentary capitalism of Lenin's NEP getting replaced with Stalin's industrialization and collectivization.

Also, by your statements, folks Karl Doenitz would be a contradiction, the Nazi Party attracted significant enough amounts of people like him who believed it was their country right or wrong. Ideology does not trump the fact that people love to bend it around. Even the die-hard Nazis didn't always follow ideology over actual politics or viewpoints, nothing in Nazi doctrine would ever have come near suggesting a Nazi-Soviet pact.

Nazi ideology was relatively vague on what to actually do with Jews and other groups. They said eliminate but that just means get rid of, is it so hard to imagine that being interpreted as simply remove from the country and place somewhere else?

It isn't so much a question of ideology as it is politics. One could just say Hitler got a little more intelligent about resolving the issue while still vehemently desiring to do so. He's done better in the war and now with a peaceful, much stronger Germany he simply decides it's more effective to make people leave rather than spend the resources needed to find and kill all or a significant majority of the many, many people the Nazis found undesirable.

So it's basically affecting Hitler at a personal level or empowering the less-fervent elements of Germany at the time, yes, we are indeed changing the Nazi Party.
 
Not really, I'm just making points that Soviet communism was the most ambiguous thing ever since it went through so many different people that were often directly at odds with one or more of their predecessors ideology-wise. The rudimentary capitalism of Lenin's NEP getting replaced with Stalin's industrialization and collectivization.

Also, by your statements, folks Karl Doenitz would be a contradiction, the Nazi Party attracted significant enough amounts of people like him who believed it was their country right or wrong. Ideology does not trump the fact that people love to bend it around. Even the die-hard Nazis didn't always follow ideology over actual politics or viewpoints, nothing in Nazi doctrine would ever have come near suggesting a Nazi-Soviet pact.

"My country right or wrong" to the extent of being willing to support the OTL Hitler is not "moderate". It is merely supporting the Nazis as a fanatical patriot willing to scrap one's conscience for the Fatherland vs. a fanatical Nazi who was attracted on the fact they wanted to make Jews suffer.

Given that the pact was used in the most cynical manner possible, I'm not sure it indicates anything other than actual brain function - had the Nazis not backstabbed the Soviets (whether Stalin was planning the same thing later or not is not the point), maybe it would make more sense as an example of committing to practical politics on this flank.

Nazi ideology was relatively vague on what to actually do with Jews and other groups. They said eliminate but that just means get rid of, is it so hard to imagine that being interpreted as simply remove from the country and place somewhere else?
Its kind of hard to imagine that it would be a peaceful process as opposed to "leave or we kill you" - with people being killed in large numbers (though perhaps not millions) to drive that home. Peaceful as in the Nazis giving one way tickets to everyone and herding them on a train with with the level of force usually used when imposing say, conscription.

It isn't so much a question of ideology as it is politics. One could just say Hitler got a little more intelligent about resolving the issue while still vehemently desiring to do so. He's done better in the war and now with a peaceful, much stronger Germany he simply decides it's more effective to make people leave rather than spend the resources needed to find and kill all or a significant majority of the many, many people the Nazis found undesirable.

So it's basically affecting Hitler at a personal level or empowering the less-fervent elements of Germany at the time, yes, we are indeed changing the Nazi Party.
This is where I'm not sure how well the Reich is still holding to its "ideals", assuming for the sake of discussion that a Nazi commitment to "merely" deporting on pain of death instead of "round up and kill" is within what the Nazis can accept.

Doenitz is not a politician. Raising this because its that part of the party that needs to be altered, not its voters - presumably if Doentiz was what you say he was (I'm not familiar enough with him as a person to even begin to argue one way or another) he'd support any sufficiently powerful nationalist movement that happened to be an option, and the Nazis happened to be powerful enough to be backed as the one he felt was most likely to further that goal. I'd refer to them as the winning horse, but that has the wrong connotations - it makes it sound like a cynical choice, which may be true, but makes it sound bad.

Why I'm concerned about it sounding bad for him to pick the Nazis out of cynicism is something I'm not sure I can explain properly.
 
Last edited:
"My country right or wrong" to the extent of being willing to support the OTL Hitler is not "moderate". It is merely supporting the Nazis as a fanatical patriot willing to scrap one's conscience for the Fatherland vs. a fanatical Nazi who was attracted on the fact they wanted to make Jews suffer.

Given that the pact was used in the most cynical manner possible, I'm not sure it indicates anything other than actual brain function - had the Nazis not backstabbed the Soviets (whether Stalin was planning the same thing later or not is not the point), maybe it would make more sense as an example of committing to practical politics on this flank.

Its kind of hard to imagine that it would be a peaceful process as opposed to "leave or we kill you" - with people being killed in large numbers (though perhaps not millions) to drive that home. Peaceful as in the Nazis giving one way tickets to everyone and herding them on a train with with the level of force usually used when imposing say, conscription.

This is where I'm not sure how well the Reich is still holding to its "ideals", assuming for the sake of discussion that a Nazi commitment to "merely" deporting on pain of death instead of "round up and kill" is within what the Nazis can accept.

Doenitz is not a politician. Raising this because its that part of the party that needs to be altered, not its voters - presumably if Doentiz was what you say he was (I'm not familiar enough with him as a person to even begin to argue one way or another) he'd support any sufficiently powerful nationalist movement that happened to be an option, and the Nazis happened to be powerful enough to be backed as the one he felt was most likely to further that goal. I'd refer to them as the winning horse, but that has the wrong connotations - it makes it sound like a cynical choice, which may be true, but makes it sound bad.

Why I'm concerned about it sounding bad for him to pick the Nazis out of cynicism is something I'm not sure I can explain properly.

People like Doenitz just sort of happen in world politics, the people most destined to change a system are often the ones who are in it themselves. Also, Doenitz's not being a politician is irrelevant, he actually WAS the leader of Germany after Hitler's title passed on to Goebbels who killed himself a few days later. Doenitz was the one who oversaw the final surrender of Germany.

I'm not making an argument for the process to happen in a rational way nor am I really justifying that my proposed to make this timeline possible wouldn't have caused OTL Hitler to be disgusted at this version of Nazi Germany.

A deportation process would OF COURSE be quite difficult, again, my point is that it's not 12 million people slowly worked to death over a long period of time using the horrors of modern technology and industry to accomplish a crime against humanity.

The pact being an example of politics over ideology is exactly my point so no need to address it.

Why are we arguing about this still? No Holocaust alone without any act horrific enough to replace it happening instead is argument enough for a better world that still contains Nazi Germany. Make no mistake. It, really, sucks, to be a Slav or a Jew in this world if you aren't chill with living in Belarus or Madagascar, the improvement comes in that you're still around to live that sucky life.
 
People like Doenitz just sort of happen in world politics, the people most destined to change a system are often the ones who are in it themselves. Also, Doenitz's not being a politician is irrelevant, he actually WAS the leader of Germany after Hitler's title passed on to Goebbels who killed himself a few days later. Doenitz was the one who oversaw the final surrender of Germany.

The point on him not being a politician is that the odds are that he will be what he was prior to that appointment - a naval leader. Not one of the people leading the state.

Doentiz is not a reflection of the make up of the part of the party that you're trying to say becomes made up of moderate men. Picking him as a moderate Nazi is no more reflective of what government policy will be than picking Rommel.

I'm not making an argument for the process to happen in a rational way nor am I really justifying that my proposed to make this timeline possible wouldn't have caused OTL Hitler to be disgusted at this version of Nazi Germany.

Noted.

A deportation process would OF COURSE be quite difficult, again, my point is that it's not 12 million people slowly worked to death over a long period of time using the horrors of modern technology and industry to accomplish a crime against humanity.
So instead we see how many million killed and suffering? Changing what atrocities the Nazis commit doesn't necessarily mean they're committing less awful crimes.

The pact being an example of politics over ideology is exactly my point so no need to address it.
The pact is temporary and ended with German brutal invasion. This is not like say the German alliance with Italy. This is more like "okay we're going to temporarily focus on other goals". Not really a good foundation for assuming any long term arrangements.

You're looking at somehow the Nazis making a long standing peaceful agreement of the sort that for instance the US has with North Korea (or better, ideally, but it'll do for purposes of your scenario).

Why are we arguing about this still? No Holocaust alone without any act horrific enough to replace it happening instead is argument enough for a better world that still contains Nazi Germany. Make no mistake. It, really, sucks, to be a Slav or a Jew in this world if you aren't chill with living in Belarus or Madagascar, the improvement comes in that you're still around to live that sucky life.
Because it is very doubtful that the replacement is significantly different.

If six million people are slaughtered by the Nazis as part of the forced migration of Poles and others to Belarus and Jews being deported to Madagascar, you have something like enough to the Holocaust that the world is no better than OTL (Madagascar and Belarus might be better off, maybe). And its not like a mass influx of refuges isn't going to involve dying off in great numbers in all likelihood.

That's why we're still arguing about it.
 
Sure, but if the result of Nazi WW2 in a given scenario is stable China without Mao-esque dictator the population losses in Eastern Europe will be inconsequential.

I feel that you and Heavy Weapons Guy are overlooking the very real prospect for genocide, famine, mass murder, and forced assimilation in Eastern Europe that would result from a Nazi victory against the USSR during the phase of the war when that was possible. Butterflying the holocaust may alleviate the suffering of some under Nazi rule, but it won't save the millions of Slavs and others to be victims of the Reich in the event of a Nazi victory.
 
Hmm? My notion was for the deportation idea to be implemented on a wide policy as opposed to utter genocide. At no one point was I arguing that it did not absolutely suck to be someone viewed as undesirable.
 
I think the point Wendell raised better than I did is that it would suck to the point that even if you removed the Holocaust specifically the amount of suck would be as bad or worse than OTL.

That the Nazis would simply engage in mass deportation without there being "genocide, famine, mass murder and forced assimilation" on a very large scale seems improbable for a group still committed to the Nazi ideology.
 
I think the point Wendell raised better than I did is that it would suck to the point that even if you removed the Holocaust specifically the amount of suck would be as bad or worse than OTL.

That the Nazis would simply engage in mass deportation without there being "genocide, famine, mass murder and forced assimilation" on a very large scale seems improbable for a group still committed to the Nazi ideology.

Yeah, would still be a shitty world in some if not many ways, just by scale it would not be quite as bad.

The ones who got lucky enough to be shipped off to somewhere in Madagascar or South America would luck out though.
 
Have the Italians steamroll in Greece.
How?:confused::confused: By slipping Mussolini Gowron's subspace number?:rolleyes:
the Nazis don't have to waste time in Greece and can attack Russia earlier without a winter looming ahead quite as close.

4. Germany...strikes faster and sooner
With what weather magic?:rolleyes: Rivers were in flood. More than about a day's difference is not going to happen.
Hitler decides against personal misgivings
Misgivings, hell. He had to realize Göring's a moron.
Goering keeps the Luftwaffe attacking the RAF and not British cities.
Fat chance. That requires both Hitler & Göring not to be idiots. Since both are, your chances of failing are 100%.
US, China, India and New Europe trade places on which has the largest economy.
Not with ROC on the mainland, they don't. Population 500 million & economic growth to rival OTL '50s Japan.
Halifax becomes PM of Britain. Rudolf Hess's flight is successful in obtaining a peace agreement.
:confused::confused: Nobody in Britain's Establishment thought Hess was anything but deluded, & AFAIK, nobody took him seriously. Unless you mean to say Halifax is a nitwit.:rolleyes:
Hitler decides killing the Jews is too much work
:eek::confused: Normally, I'd say any lunatic decision Hitler could make is credible.:rolleyes: This one isn't.
Part 7: Moscow is taken in early 1942 with tremendous losses to both sides.
Fat chance. If the Germans don't do it in '41, the chances of doing it drop to lottery-winning: near nil.
Part 6: Japan attacks the US and UK on Dec 7, 1941. Hitler and Mussolini go WTF! and don't declare on either power.

Part 9: US / UK defeat Japan in 1945 after using nuclear weapons on 3 cities.
Don't make me laugh. With no U.S. effort against Germany (in aid of Britain), Japan is a parking lot in 1943. The Bomb probably doesn't appear until, oh, 1947, if then, as it becomes clear the German nuclear program is being run by the Marx Brothers.
World develops as a quad-polar world. Democracy/Isolationist (US/UK/Japan/India/Scandinavia/ANZAC/S. America), Fascism-Nazism (Germany/France/Italy/Spain/E. Europe/S. America).
:confused::confused: Britain & France stop fighting Germany when? After Germany signs an alliance with Poland to jointly attack Mexico?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Top