Could Nazism Survive Long Term?

To be fair Devon, Vichy France had actually been introducing anti-Jewish laws without prodding and I think declared war on the British. I forget. The Danes at least dragged their feet and stuck to producing food while snubbing the Germans. The French collaboration meant the Germans didn't need hundreds of thousands to hold down the country as occupational troops and administrators. Plus they did send tens of thousands of Frenchmen to me used as laborera. I would blame Laval, but from what I have read he was actually looking out for the good fo France for years and had been constantly sabotaged (in a manner of speaking) in trying creating a front against Germany. Not sure about Petain, who I think may have been some doddering old aristocrat. Then again, he probably was Laval. Privately seething and hoping for the Germans to be burned alive.

True, but again Vichy existed by the will of the Nazis. How likely would the French have been to support the Vichy government had German Soldiers NOT been on French soil?

Vichy, without German support, would have been torn down by angry Frenchmen in a day. The collaborators were never a majority or had the popular support of a majority in any democratic sense.

Vichy made it easier, but obeying the will of a foreign power is basically conquest, no matter how cooperative or uncooperative some of the locals are.

Denmark was conquered. France was conquered. Doesn't matter how many or how few soldiers were on the ground, it was an occupation.
 
I fear we have digressed a little bit from the question posed.

I personally feel that a system as dysfunctional as that of the Nazis, with vague directions on the top level combined with ludicrous micromanagement at the lower levels and competing interests in the same areas all the time, would figuratively (and hopefully not literally) eat itself alive before long.
 
Highly unlikely but possible

The Nazi state had a number of problems, it was a very short amount of time from Bankruptcy when it started the war, and would have gone bankrupt already without looting Czechoslovakia and aquiring Austria. Given this tendency to overspend I doubt it is going to be much better postwar.

Sure they won't need quite the breakneck buildup as before, but they still have major partisan wars to fight even if they win, they still need to rebuild everything that got broken during the war, the only major country that isn't significantly impoverished now hates their guts, and they still need to keep around a large chunk of their military to keep the US/UK/Rump USSR from doing anything

Combined with Hitlers own grandiose projects and it easily looks like the Nazis are headed for bankruptcy and economic collapse. Even if Hitler is not in charge, I don't see anyone with the economic savvy to keep things going reaching the top in the Nazi power structure
 
Nazi longevity

I fear we have digressed a little bit from the question posed.

I personally feel that a system as dysfunctional as that of the Nazis, with vague directions on the top level combined with ludicrous micromanagement at the lower levels and competing interests in the same areas all the time, would figuratively (and hopefully not literally) eat itself alive before long.
Not sure that we've diverged too far. The Nazi system was incoherent and contradicted itself on many levels. It was incapable of seeing other nations as equals, even those that were or should be "racial allies". Denmark at one level collaborated and kept a bit of autonomy. However, it would never have been allowed to do anything that seemed contrary to German wishes or needs. Rather than woo Norway Germany sought to suppress resistance by force. There was no incentive for any state in the New Order to co-operate with Germany, only try to limit its demands. Hopefully, its dysfunctional economy (the flaws you note) would drag it down relative to the USSR or Free World soon enough for it to either collapse or be brought down quickly.

To survive it would have to change the German race primacy into a European primacy - at least IMHO.
 
Quite right. If they went through with their plans to try beginning back back those they toted as being of the best blood, the adventures and settlers who went to North America, Australia, South Africa, and South America, they might find a lot not wishing to be sent back to be used settling frozen tundra. Could be like in WWI-era America, where the last of German patriotism and culture was mostly subsumed, though in their case German-Americans had had come from areas that were each other's enemies and had generations to get settled and mix. Those countries with high German populations that don't toe th elite might be seen as enemies, as the Nazis apparently wished to either regain or destroy anyone with a drop of German blood in them. And what point would the Germans and their allies have one at? Makes a big difference in who their allies are. Kinda-sorta.
 
If the Nazis manage to survive Hitler's death without falling into civil war, then yes, the Nazism could survive long term.
 
Top