Death toll of a victorious Nazi Germany?

Death toll of a victorious Nazi Germany?

  • 10 to 20 million

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • 20 to 40 million

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • 40 to 60 million

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 60 to 80 million

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • 80 to 100 million+

    Votes: 55 90.2%

  • Total voters
    61

Wendigo

Banned
In a situation similar to @CalBear's Anglo/American Nazi War TL where the Reich has occupied the USSR up to the Urals and achieved peace with the WAllies and then carries out its plans/goals, what plausibly would be the Reich's death toll after several decades of compete hegemony in Europe assuming that Hitler and Himmler stay in power and aren't replaced by pragmatists or moderates?

The major example of what the Reich intended to do would be Generalplan Ost which called for 80% of all Slavs to be starved/deported/worked to death and the rest enslaved as serfs on German farms over a 30 year period. This would mean around 115 million Poles/Russians/Czechs/Ukrainians/Belorussians/Balts would become victims once you add up the numbers corresponding to the percentages assigned to each Slavic nationality (85% of Poles, 75% of Russians, 65% of Ukrainians etc).

In the AANW TL where the Reich was finally defeated in 1960 by the US/UK and didn't get to finish what it started in the '40s it still managed to rack up a death toll of 90 - 95 million people the majority of whom were Slavs killed using "Extermination Through Labor" but also including Jews, Gypsies and other groups designated for death by the Nazi leadership.

In your opinion is this a plausible number considering the scope and scale of Nazi Germany's plans for after the war or is it Nazi evil wank?
 
Last edited:
If the Nazis moderated, the death toll would be horrific enough. Moderation in my view would mean sticking to doing what they had already pledged to the German people, and were already carrying out. However, the full breadth of what the Nazis really intended to do was even more horrific, and involved a total uprooting of the existing culture, populations and order in Europe. It would not simply be confined to the east. The continent would become like a Khmer Rouge on a grand scale, which would result in horrific genocide and oppression on a scale even the average German would not expect, and likely an ensuing economic collapse, resulting in even more deaths from shortages and famine. That, already coupled with the plans for the eradication of eastern populations. I do not know enough to give numbers of the death and suffering resulting from a Nazi party that implemented everything it truly intended, but it will be horrific beyond any word we have.
 

Wendigo

Banned

You're 100% correct. A victorious Reich given the time to implement its plans would be a continent spanning necropolis, built and fueled by death and slavery and oppression on a scope and scale never before seen in history. It'd be Hell on a GOOD day. Stephen King would probably get nightmares trying to describe it.

Occupied Europe would be an unholy mixture of North Korea, Somalia, Saddam's Iraq and East Germany with a far more indoctrinated population and little to no opposition (thanks to the Gestapo and other fascist secret police).
 
Last edited:

Wendigo

Banned
I'm somewhat surprised that over 90% of people who voted chose the very worst option. I didn't think it would be that one sided.

Does anyone who voted for 80-100+ million deaths want to explain their choice?
 
I'm somewhat surprised that over 90% of people who voted chose the very worst option. I didn't think it would be that one sided.

Does anyone who voted for 80-100+ million deaths want to explain their choice?

Everyone who can be killed will be killed, everyone the Nazis want to kill will be killed, and many that the Nazis do not intend to kill will suffer from famine and shortages which result in death, which is the result of economic incompetence partly resulting from killing all those intended millions in mass genocide. The insanity of the Nazis we are familiar with and which was the policy during the war is moderate compared to the insanity Nazism could implement after victory in the war.

EDIT:
The reiterate, think the Khmer Rouge or the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution, but in Europe.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 96212

I'm somewhat surprised that over 90% of people who voted chose the very worst option. I didn't think it would be that one sided.

Does anyone who voted for 80-100+ million deaths want to explain their choice?

Part of it is because the option which resulted in the fewest amount of deaths was what happened OTL (and that's a low estimate).
 
Has anyone written a timeline where Nazi Europe does go the extreme route it could have, as I have mentioned? I see superpower Germany, but I do not recall seeing cut-off-from-the-world, nightmare, killing fields Germany. If anyone were to write it, I did have the idea of "The lamps are going out all over Europe" as a title.
 
I'm somewhat surprised that over 90% of people who voted chose the very worst option. I didn't think it would be that one sided.

Does anyone who voted for 80-100+ million deaths want to explain their choice?

Killing the Russians will be enough to go over 100 million.
 

Wendigo

Banned
I'm somewhat surprised that over 90% of people who voted chose the very worst option. I didn't think it would be that one sided.

Does anyone who voted for 80-100+ million deaths want to explain their choice?
Kill ALL the Jews and Gypsies, between using Slavs as slave labour and starving them by confiscating their food, you probably kill at least half the populations of the Soviet Union and Poland. Then add in the increased death rate in occupied countries like France.... Oh yeah, 80+ million is a minimum for a 'successful' Nazi régime. These are the guys who prioritized murder of Jews over military supplies when confronted with logistics bottlenecks.
 
I voted 80-100 million plus. I believe a more accurate toll after Nazi Germany has been defeated in this alternate 1960 would have to be 200 million minimum.
 
Top