The idea that the Nazis would have direct analogues to the USSR or China in the late 20th century is overplayed. The Nazi state was heavily focused around Hitler's personal authority, and the bureaucracy was intentionally based on different groups and organizations fighting for dominance to prevent any challenges to his authority. In contrast, the USSR and China were/are party-states in which the Communist Party itself is the center of power. If it somehow survived, the Third Reich would be dominated by hardline Nazi demagogues violently fighting for dominance. However, this wouldn't include Himmlerites considering his lack of charisma and the unpopularity of his views. Figures who have been portrayed as liberal reformists in AH scenarios would not be likely to actually follow that path—there's not going to be schwartz-rot-gold tricolors with the swastika. Ordinary Germans would be susceptible to being drawn into these power struggles depending on which part of the bureaucracy mobilizes them, but it would gradually cause their faith in the state to deteriorate. This doesn't mean they would all be disillusioned with Nazism itself, but as normalcy deteriorates, the ordinary functioning of society would be lost to an "every man for himself" survival mentality. It would be inescapably hierarchical and tied to their profession of loyalty to whoever seized power in order to secure the dwindling resources of the country's failing economy for themselves. In these circumstances, there's not much space for a "pop culture" separate from Nazi cultural displays to develop.
How would a modern 21st century Nazi Germany look like?
- Thread starter spoonzandforkz
- Start date
TheSpectacledCloth
Gone Fishin'
The future of the Third Reich heavily depends on who succeeds Hitler. If he has any children, they will no doubt be a crucial factor in Germany's future and would probably be the new Fuhrer somewhere down the line.
A Goering-led Germany would have the brightest future. He wouldn't desire any more war and likely would try his best to reach a permanent detente with the West. So the likelihood of another global war is very slim with Goering at the helm. He probably would limit military spending in exchange for bringing more luxury to the German people, but also himself. He would still certainly loot and profit from the Eastern Kommissariats, but also wouldn't be as draconian towards their Slavic slaves. Nazis like Bormann, Streicher and von Ribbentrop would've definitely been purged in the aftermath of a Goering takeover, while Speer, Goebbels and Hess would've been demoted or sidelined. Party officials like Lammers, Sauckel and Klopfer likely remain to keep the party apparatus functional. As for the SS, either their leadership submits to the new Fuhrer or they'll be purged. Goering won't risk the possibility of the rivalry between the SS and Wehrmacht of boiling over, and he'd recognize both Himmler and Heydrich as potential threats. And as Hitler's designated successor, Goering would have the clout to have both SS leaders terminated. But he would still need to keep the SS around, so he would have a more loyal Nazi like Kaltenbrunner become the new Reichsfuhrer. Goering would probably have someone like Rosenberg be the Deputy Fuhrer, since he wouldn't be a threat but also isn't a lunatic like Hess. Before his inevitable death, Goering would likely designate his daughter Edda to be the new Fuhrer. Of course, the length of his rule depends on his morphine addiction and his obese figure. But Goering's rule would be the least bad outcome for the Third Reich.
I have nothing to say about Hess. He'd just be a loony figurehead for Bormann or the SS. Moving on.
Speaking of Bormann, his tenure would be a disaster too. He may have connections, but he doesn't have any charisma or clout to be the new Fuhrer. And he has made WAY too many enemies for any of the bigwig Nazis to ally with him. Best case scenario is that he has Hess be the new Fuhrer, while Bormann would either be the new Deputy or become the president of the new Nazi senate. But we've all seen how that story ends. And Bormann doesn't have the power to purge anybody, since that would mean having to collaborate with his rivals. The German people would have little reason to support Bormann, so they likely won't care too much if he gets overthrown. Case in point, Bormann operates in the shadows for a reason.
A Speer-led Germany could be a semi-bright outcome, but it wouldn't be nearly as seem-less as it would be for Goering. He too would try to make peace with the West, so war is a slim possibility. Like Hitler, Speer is an idealist and would probably spend too much money building ridiculous monuments. Not only does Speer have bad blood with the Gauleiters and party apparatus, but he has fierce rivals in Goering and Bormann, and neither of them would help Hitler's architect. Goebbels does have a working relationship with Speer, but their viewpoints are too fundamentally different to work long-term. Speer's best bet is to ally with Himmler by making him the new Deputy Fuhrer and increase the power of the SS, in exchange for greater stability and security. Speer had a disturbing history of working alongside the SS, even with the most insidious crimes committed by the Reich. With the duo of Speer and Himmler, they would successfully be able to purge their rivals and deter Heydrich from taking over, while also placating the Wehrmacht. So Speer's rule would benefit the Third Reich, but it would require him to sell whatever is left of his soul to the spectacled devil.
Speaking of Himmler, his ascension would be almost impossible unless Hitler specifically designated him as the new Fuhrer. Even then, his tenure would be tenuous because of his strained relationship with the Wehrmacht. So he can't fundamentally change German society without starting a civil war. At least Himmler is a capable public speaker and could dispatch much of his party rivals with ease. Hess, Bormann and Goebbels would be easy to deal with, and Heydrich would have to be terminated. But Speer would be too valuable of an ally to purge, and Goering can't be purged without invoking the ire of the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. Some disloyal generals can be purged here or there, but Himmler can't rock the boat too much or his regime would be in trouble. Himmler would probably make Speer his Deputy and would promote his own loyalists in the SS. But he would be forced to placate Goering and the Wehrmacht, so he can't introduce reforms that would be viewed as too radical. Himmler would seek to slowly de-industrialize Germany into an agricultural society and would also be even more ruthless with Generalplan Ost. Himmler would also try to be on peaceful terms with the West, but they no doubt would reject him. He would also try to destroy whatever is left of the Russians, and unlike Hitler, Himmler wouldn't have any qualms of using chemical warfare against what he viewed as lesser beings. But still, the future of the Third Reich wouldn't be that terrible under Himmler, largely thanks to the presence of the Wehrmacht.
Heydrich has long been viewed as a potential successor to Hitler, but it is largely impossible due to two big reasons. One is his strenuous relationship with the Wehrmacht, and they probably wouldn't be that keen of letting him be the new Fuhrer unless Hitler declared it as such. But the bigger reason is that Heydrich won't be able to publicly speak without revealing his embarrassing high pitched voice. Any leader that fails to be at least a decent speaker is doomed to fail. Sure, he can get rid of most of his rivals, but what would that really accomplish? Heydrich's best case scenario is that he purges Himmler and becomes the new Reichsfuhrer, while also having a puppet like Hess be the new Fuhrer. But again, we know how that story ends. The smart thing for Heydrich to do is to play nice and choose whoever he thinks will fulfill his ambitions. But he might also be too dangerous to keep alive, so his future would be uncertain.
But a Goebbels-led Germany would be the darkest scenario. While he isn't loony like Hess, Goebbels also wouldn't have qualms about rallying Germans to commit heinous levels of violence. His fanatical loyalty to Hitler means that there would be no possibility of an detente with the West. Goebbels' incredible public speaking and his ability to put people in a frenzy means that he could have all of his rivals lynched on a whim. The Wehrmacht and the SS wouldn't really have a choice but to accommodate the firebrand. Not even Goering would be safe from Goebbels' wrath. Goebbels' rule would mirror Mao's China, and we would see the sheer of extent of the Nazis' brainwashing of the German youth. The streets would filled with young people just as fanatical as him, and they'd likely commit bloody massacres based on the rhetoric of the small rabble-rouser. Goebbels being the new Fuhrer would be the textbook definition of a dystopia, and the rest of the world would just look on with horror.
Nazi Germany, had it won WWII, had multiple different pathways to the 21st century. But it all depends on who comes after Hitler.
A Goering-led Germany would have the brightest future. He wouldn't desire any more war and likely would try his best to reach a permanent detente with the West. So the likelihood of another global war is very slim with Goering at the helm. He probably would limit military spending in exchange for bringing more luxury to the German people, but also himself. He would still certainly loot and profit from the Eastern Kommissariats, but also wouldn't be as draconian towards their Slavic slaves. Nazis like Bormann, Streicher and von Ribbentrop would've definitely been purged in the aftermath of a Goering takeover, while Speer, Goebbels and Hess would've been demoted or sidelined. Party officials like Lammers, Sauckel and Klopfer likely remain to keep the party apparatus functional. As for the SS, either their leadership submits to the new Fuhrer or they'll be purged. Goering won't risk the possibility of the rivalry between the SS and Wehrmacht of boiling over, and he'd recognize both Himmler and Heydrich as potential threats. And as Hitler's designated successor, Goering would have the clout to have both SS leaders terminated. But he would still need to keep the SS around, so he would have a more loyal Nazi like Kaltenbrunner become the new Reichsfuhrer. Goering would probably have someone like Rosenberg be the Deputy Fuhrer, since he wouldn't be a threat but also isn't a lunatic like Hess. Before his inevitable death, Goering would likely designate his daughter Edda to be the new Fuhrer. Of course, the length of his rule depends on his morphine addiction and his obese figure. But Goering's rule would be the least bad outcome for the Third Reich.
I have nothing to say about Hess. He'd just be a loony figurehead for Bormann or the SS. Moving on.
Speaking of Bormann, his tenure would be a disaster too. He may have connections, but he doesn't have any charisma or clout to be the new Fuhrer. And he has made WAY too many enemies for any of the bigwig Nazis to ally with him. Best case scenario is that he has Hess be the new Fuhrer, while Bormann would either be the new Deputy or become the president of the new Nazi senate. But we've all seen how that story ends. And Bormann doesn't have the power to purge anybody, since that would mean having to collaborate with his rivals. The German people would have little reason to support Bormann, so they likely won't care too much if he gets overthrown. Case in point, Bormann operates in the shadows for a reason.
A Speer-led Germany could be a semi-bright outcome, but it wouldn't be nearly as seem-less as it would be for Goering. He too would try to make peace with the West, so war is a slim possibility. Like Hitler, Speer is an idealist and would probably spend too much money building ridiculous monuments. Not only does Speer have bad blood with the Gauleiters and party apparatus, but he has fierce rivals in Goering and Bormann, and neither of them would help Hitler's architect. Goebbels does have a working relationship with Speer, but their viewpoints are too fundamentally different to work long-term. Speer's best bet is to ally with Himmler by making him the new Deputy Fuhrer and increase the power of the SS, in exchange for greater stability and security. Speer had a disturbing history of working alongside the SS, even with the most insidious crimes committed by the Reich. With the duo of Speer and Himmler, they would successfully be able to purge their rivals and deter Heydrich from taking over, while also placating the Wehrmacht. So Speer's rule would benefit the Third Reich, but it would require him to sell whatever is left of his soul to the spectacled devil.
Speaking of Himmler, his ascension would be almost impossible unless Hitler specifically designated him as the new Fuhrer. Even then, his tenure would be tenuous because of his strained relationship with the Wehrmacht. So he can't fundamentally change German society without starting a civil war. At least Himmler is a capable public speaker and could dispatch much of his party rivals with ease. Hess, Bormann and Goebbels would be easy to deal with, and Heydrich would have to be terminated. But Speer would be too valuable of an ally to purge, and Goering can't be purged without invoking the ire of the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine. Some disloyal generals can be purged here or there, but Himmler can't rock the boat too much or his regime would be in trouble. Himmler would probably make Speer his Deputy and would promote his own loyalists in the SS. But he would be forced to placate Goering and the Wehrmacht, so he can't introduce reforms that would be viewed as too radical. Himmler would seek to slowly de-industrialize Germany into an agricultural society and would also be even more ruthless with Generalplan Ost. Himmler would also try to be on peaceful terms with the West, but they no doubt would reject him. He would also try to destroy whatever is left of the Russians, and unlike Hitler, Himmler wouldn't have any qualms of using chemical warfare against what he viewed as lesser beings. But still, the future of the Third Reich wouldn't be that terrible under Himmler, largely thanks to the presence of the Wehrmacht.
Heydrich has long been viewed as a potential successor to Hitler, but it is largely impossible due to two big reasons. One is his strenuous relationship with the Wehrmacht, and they probably wouldn't be that keen of letting him be the new Fuhrer unless Hitler declared it as such. But the bigger reason is that Heydrich won't be able to publicly speak without revealing his embarrassing high pitched voice. Any leader that fails to be at least a decent speaker is doomed to fail. Sure, he can get rid of most of his rivals, but what would that really accomplish? Heydrich's best case scenario is that he purges Himmler and becomes the new Reichsfuhrer, while also having a puppet like Hess be the new Fuhrer. But again, we know how that story ends. The smart thing for Heydrich to do is to play nice and choose whoever he thinks will fulfill his ambitions. But he might also be too dangerous to keep alive, so his future would be uncertain.
But a Goebbels-led Germany would be the darkest scenario. While he isn't loony like Hess, Goebbels also wouldn't have qualms about rallying Germans to commit heinous levels of violence. His fanatical loyalty to Hitler means that there would be no possibility of an detente with the West. Goebbels' incredible public speaking and his ability to put people in a frenzy means that he could have all of his rivals lynched on a whim. The Wehrmacht and the SS wouldn't really have a choice but to accommodate the firebrand. Not even Goering would be safe from Goebbels' wrath. Goebbels' rule would mirror Mao's China, and we would see the sheer of extent of the Nazis' brainwashing of the German youth. The streets would filled with young people just as fanatical as him, and they'd likely commit bloody massacres based on the rhetoric of the small rabble-rouser. Goebbels being the new Fuhrer would be the textbook definition of a dystopia, and the rest of the world would just look on with horror.
Nazi Germany, had it won WWII, had multiple different pathways to the 21st century. But it all depends on who comes after Hitler.
Last edited:
Hitler wouldn't have lived to see 1950
Parkinson's and other disorders along with the long term effects of a two decade long meth habit would have done him in.
I disagree. It’s likely Hitler could have lived at least into the 1950s considering his largest source of stress (which exacerbates illness) would be gone and his father and all his siblings died in their 60s and 70s. He also wouldn’t need anywhere near as many drugs and quack medical treatments as he did IOTL when the war (and his condition) got worse and worse which would further extend his lifespan.
The internal factionalism of the Third Reich is overplayed. They could and regularly did work together. Hitler wasn't playing them off against each other so much as keeping individual power players weak enough to not be a threat.
You not attacking enemy, who has superior strength of 1 to 4 and later push to 1 to 6 ratio, to crush The Third Reich.
Next incompetent leadership (Göring with Luftwaffe) Generals blunder at Wehrmacht and Hitler micro Management let to the Downfall.
Without declaration of War to USA, i would grow up under Communist Rule in West Europe !
Back to topic
NAZI victory despite against all odds, how Would Europe evolve ?
next come planned mass murder of population in East Europa and Russia, around 65 million people die!
The surviving 10% live as slave for Nazis
The Would-be Painter start megalomaniac building program in Germany, reshape the city scape with gigantic buildings.
With 3 Trillion Mark budget that exceed finance of Third Reich after the War...
While that derange Chicken farmer builds his "SS Vatican" and create free state of Burgund west of The Third Reich.
Would life of Germans be better ?
If you a loyal member of Nazi Party, yes !
But for rest of Germans not, the Gestapo would increase their surveillance to level, that East German STASI look like amateur !
and STASI build the perfect Surveillance State after WW2.
German society will dominated by principle Bread and circuses, with propaganda, games and easy entertainment, as distraction for masses.
but also heavy indoctrination of Nazi ideology in all level of German society...
oh by the way, all is dictated by NSDAP: what you see, what you read, what you listen to, what you do and what you think...
...this is a world i not want to live in !
Garrison
Donor
Invading the USSR was built into Hitler's plans, it was going to happen and given the disparity in resources, terrible German logistics and the slew of Generals only too wiling to tell Hitler what he wanted to hear, then insist in their memoirs that if only Hitler had listened to them they would absolutely have won the war, it was going to be the disaster it became. Yes Germany was getting resources from the USSR but those were subject to the whims of Stalin and he turned to screw to demand a higher price at every opportunity, Hitler wanted the land, the resources, and to destroy communism, the M-R Pact was just a temporary postponement. Also declaring war on the USA was not a whim, was with the USA was all but inevitable given that the USN was already essentially at war in the Atlantic and the USA was sending huge amounts of materiel to the British and was planning to do the same for the Soviets. Declaring war in December 1941 was also designed to bolster the Japanese, in the hope that the war in the Pacific would keep the USA distracted while the Wehrmacht finished off the Red Army.
If you want a Nazi state that somehow stumbles into the 21st century then you best bet is Hitler suffers a fatal heart attack right after Munich, whoever succeeds him doesn't launch a pointless war and somehow avoid the economy having a meltdown.
Art Vandelay
Banned
Even if a US-Nazi war was inevitable (which I don't believe at all, given the strong sentiments in America against going to war with Germany, despite general distaste for the Nazis), there was nothing to gain from provoking it sooner rather than later. Sending supplies to Britain and Russia is a vastly different order of involvement than millions of American troops invading Europe. If declaring war in December 1941 was meant to have America distracted by Japan, wouldn't America be paying even more attention to Japan if Germany hadn't declared war? It definitely was a whim, and a pants-on-head stupid one at that.
This happened because while the USA was genocidal, the USA was less systemic in its physical genocide than Nazi Germany. The Nazis have no intent on leaving anyone around who can try and get Germans to disavow the Holocaust. They might fail anyway when it comes to queer people and the disabled, because new members of each group are assigned more or less randomly each generation. But for ethnic groups and religions? There's not going to be anyone left.
Garrison
Donor
There was everything to gain, waiting would just mean a stronger USA and the Germans wanted to be seen to actively support Japan in 1941, though Doenitz had been eager to unleash the U-Boats in US waters even before this. The USN and the Kriegsmarine were already shooting at one another in the summer of 1941 and the isolationist sentiment is greatly overstated as can be seen in the opinion polls that have been provided multiple times when these same Nazi victory scenarios are dredged up. The declaration of war was coming, either by Germany or the US, and the decision in 1941 was not a whim.
Americans did not change their mind about genocide because of the Indians, of whom barely any were left alive by the end of it to be a significant voice in society. It was largely self-retrospection, borne out of the quiet after the Indian Wars.
Last edited:
Art Vandelay
Banned
As I said, even if a German-American war was inevitable, it would still have been smarter to postpone it until the Russians are defeated. Crushing Japan should absorb most of American attention for a few years, during which the Russians can be beaten, and then Germany can turn its full attention to the war that may or may not be brewing in the west.
Assuming Israel somehow exists, I think that the PM would have to be physically restrained from launching the nukes.
Garrison
Donor
And you make the flawed assumption that Germany could somehow defeat the USSR, while it is receiving Lend-Lease. Barbarossa had failed utterly before the declaration of war against the USA, and of course the Soviet counteroffensive had begun several days earlier. Until the latter part of 1942 the only German resources being tied down by the USA were the U-Boats and as mention they were already engaged in combat with the USN. You also assume that the Germans have full control over when the USA enters the war against them, given the steady escalation in the Atlantic the USA will find an excuse to fully enter the war by the summer of 1942 at the latest.
Art Vandelay
Banned
If the Germans took Moscow in 1941, which they could have done, they would have decapitated Russia, as Moscow was the major transportation and industrial (even accounting for the industry moved to the Urals) hub of the USSR. Also, Stalin insisted on remaining in Moscow, and nobody else in the Soviet leadership had the same force of character has him, since anybody who did was purged.
Even if Germany could never have won the Eastern Front, there is no way declaring war on America improved the German chances there. America may have gone in against Germany sooner or later, but why hasten it? There is no advantage that could Germany conceivably have gained by declaring war on America
Not at all. People were criticizing the genocides even while they were taking place. Regret after the fact was a growth on that. At any rate, the Indians were never socioeconomically relevant enough to be a serious self-advocacy force in the United States. They always were and remain, sidelined. People may not like the "nice white guy" trope, but in this case this group of nonwhites were simply so completely destroyed and subjugated that they were in no real position to change public opinion themselves. This was, after all, a case of successful genocide, one which rewarded the perpetrating country beyond its wildest dreams.
Last edited:
I think it’s important to acknowledge that the wistful remorse of late 19th and early 20th century Americans vis a vis indigenous extermination was not really introspection, regret, and reconciliation. It was more of a cultural fetish for the noble savage who roamed free on the plains and was inevitably doomed to be subjugated by the white man and his guns and railroads and cities. The same sort of lament went along with popular feeling about the general demise of the west and the closing of the frontier. It was linked to the flood tide of progress and Manifest Destiny - regrettable and perhaps even vicious but distinctly Greek in its tragedy. I don’t think it was insincere and it generated some comparatively noble efforts, but I think we can distinguish that introspection from the more forceful reassessments of indigenous-American contact that started to emerge in the 1960s and 1970s. A reassessment that *did* involve significant indigenous activism and input, especially with movements like the AIM. That’s spawned it’s own virtues and vices, but I think the distinction is important because it was a more serious and sustained effort at introspection and understanding than anything that came out of the post-war quiet of the late 19th century, and I don’t think the earlier sentiments deserve the lions share of the credit for the attitudes of today. Especially when serious historical works of the 1950s and early 1960s were still describing native peoples as “savages” and portraying them as unduly aggressive barbarians who wrought much of their own destruction.
Last edited: