Latest possible Pan-Germanic state?

because they were owned by sweden for awhile and are considered by some a nordic country because of there close historic ties.

Finland is a Nordic country. What you intended to say was is considered Scandinavian by some. I still don't understand why one would want to include Finland in a pan-Germanic state since there's nothing Germanic about it except for its Swedish minority, but I hardly think a 5% (or 10%-15% since where talking about the 20th century here) minority would be enough of a reason to incorporate it. Unless we are talking about a fully Sweded out Finland here, which would require a POD of some sort quite far back in the past.
 
What exactly did he do to accomplish that? It does not seem like he was very succesful with it. Did he try to suppress the Dutch language, culture, etc?
No, he tried to organise society along the lines of German one, with central chambers for doctors, artists, and other professions. Also, every primary school had mandatory German classes.
Seyss-Inquart realised that doing things to fast would upset people, so he tried to do it at a slower pace (for which he was constantly hounded). It still didn't work, and some higher-ups in Germany just wanted to plunder the Dutch economy (especially Göring), but it was still the Nazi plan to win over the Dutch people for their cause.
 
No, he tried to organise society along the lines of German one, with central chambers for doctors, artists, and other professions. Also, every primary school had mandatory German classes.
Seyss-Inquart realised that doing things to fast would upset people, so he tried to do it at a slower pace (for which he was constantly hounded). It still didn't work, and some higher-ups in Germany just wanted to plunder the Dutch economy (especially Göring), but it was still the Nazi plan to win over the Dutch people for their cause.
That would at least take a generation, perhaps even more; certainly for as long as the Dutch Royal family would alive and not become some kind of Stadhouder (like Bernhard wanted).
 
That would at least take a generation, perhaps even more; certainly for as long as the Dutch Royal family would alive and not become some kind of Stadhouder (like Bernhard wanted).

The Nazis were ridiculously over-optimistic in their timelines. But I believe it was aimed to be done immediately after the war, and that it was considered that the Dutch would acquiesce fairly quickly once it was clear Nazi rule was the new, permanent order of things, and that it would be preferable to be seen as German than non-German. Scandinavia was planned to be annexed also, but I understand this was considered to happen in a latter stage, due to the awareness there was a bigger cultural/linguistic gap. There's a lot of information here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Germanic_Reich

In terms of the Royal Family, Hitler was planning on having a mass public execution of European Royals to announce the new National Socialist order of Europe.

PS. I closed the link on the older thread I quoted from, but it was just another poster (albeit a respected one), rather than a formal source.
 
That would at least take a generation, perhaps even more; certainly for as long as the Dutch Royal family would alive and not become some kind of Stadhouder (like Bernhard wanted).
The Nazis thought they'd win the war anyway. Mind you, when it was apparent this process wasn't going to be smoothly the occupier did put this process on the back-burner. It also happened to be becoming clearer (early 1943) losing the war was a real possibility, so priority was giving to Arbeitseinsatz and the imprisonment of former Dutch soldiers, things Seyss-Inquart was hesitant towards earlier as it would seriously damage their efforts.

By the way, I don't think that letter from Bernhard was real; it always seemed to me as a plot by nobodies to get media attention by using an easy target; don't forget that allegations about it started shortly after the Lockheed Affair.
 
By the way, I don't think that letter from Bernhard was real; it always seemed to me as a plot by nobodies to get media attention by using an easy target; don't forget that allegations about it started shortly after the Lockheed Affair.
I like Bernhard; he is my favourite Dutch royal. Mainly because he was such an old fashion nobleman from an era that was already past. If I look at his actions during World War 2 I have to agree with you, he probably didn't write that letter, but it is a great story (and why let the truth ruin a great story).
 
I am not too sure about that. He didn't annex the Netherlands and Flanders, which he did do with Alsace lorraine, German speaking Belgium, Luxemburg and Austria. I think even Hitler did not consider the Dutch and Flemish German. He probably would do the same with the Netherlands and Belgium as he would do with Denmark and Norway. Tie them closely to Germany, but don't make them German.

Besides that you would still lack Switserland (and Sweden), although to be fair in a Nazi victory timeline Hitler would no doubt attack Switserland (and make Sweden do exactly what he wanted).

Thats only because he wanted more local support. He wanted them to become part of Germany after WWII, and wanted to settle Dutch and other ethnicities in the former Soviet Union.
 
Well, the latest possible would seem to be about 1940, yes? I mean, pretty much everything you mention was under German rule then. You'd have to stipulate that Hitler doesn't go batshit crazy and attack Russia the way he did, and that a political resolution is reached with the West that allows him to keep at least all the "Germanic" areas, but that's certainly the latest it's could happen. Probable? Meh, maybe not so much.
 
Finland is a Nordic country. What you intended to say was is considered Scandinavian by some. I still don't understand why one would want to include Finland in a pan-Germanic state since there's nothing Germanic about it except for its Swedish minority, but I hardly think a 5% (or 10%-15% since where talking about the 20th century here) minority would be enough of a reason to incorporate it. Unless we are talking about a fully Sweded out Finland here, which would require a POD of some sort quite far back in the past.

I in no way want to swedenize finland.

What if hitler built this pan-germainic state before WWII the same way Lenin built the soviet union.
Then what are his odds of winning? Certainly much higher?
 
Last edited:
What if hitler built this pan-germainic state before WWII the same way Lenin built the soviet union.
Then what are his odds of winning? Certainly much higher?
Why would the Scandinavian countries, the Benelux countries and Switserland (let alone the UK/England) cooperate with Nazi Germany to form some kind of pan-Germanic state?
 
I in no way want to swedenize finland.

What if hitler built this pan-germainic state before WWII the same way Lenin built the soviet union.
Then what are his odds of winning? Certainly much higher?

The Soviet Union under Lenin never expanded outside the borders of the old Russian Empire. Everything was already under Russian control. Even when the USSR did expand, it was never through peaceful means.

Unifying several nation-states who lacks any feeling of unity towards one another, let alone even having been unified at one point in history, without actually conquering them is impossible.
 
Unifying several nation-states who lacks any feeling of unity towards one another, let alone even having been unified at one point in history, without actually conquering them is impossible.
Exactly. As I said for peaceful unification of Austria and Germany you need a POD around 1945, fto include Luxemburg late 19th century-early 20th century, for the Netherlands and Belgium around 1600 (although Belgium could be a bit later), for Switserland before 1600, for Scandinavia somewhere in the middle ages, for England 1066. Are there any Germanic countries I forgot?
 
Not if you remember this part of the question.

He said "prefer," not "insist." And much of the German-speaking territory was added by politics, not conquest (Austria and the Sudetenland). Now it's not entirely in the intended spirit of the OP, I'll grant you, but that probably was the last chance in history to see it happen.

Come to think of it, since the OP doesn't list longevity as a condition, I'd say his scenario was, in fact, met for those few years. Switzerland speaks more than German, and he apparently wasn't insisting on Scandinavian countries. so Sweden and Finland aren't a concern.
 
Last edited:
For a true pan-Germanic state that encompasses all Germanic tribes, I would have to go with a surviving charlemagnes empire with proper successionine that involves one heir.

My favourite would be a Saxon victory over Charlemagne that goes onto to unite the Germanic tribes.
 
For a true pan-Germanic state that encompasses all Germanic tribes, I would have to go with a surviving charlemagnes empire with proper successionine that involves one heir.

My favourite would be a Saxon victory over Charlemagne that goes onto to unite the Germanic tribes.

Well, maybe.
Or alternatively, stop the fascination of early German Kings (AD 900-1000) with becoming Emperor. And let them concentrate on centralizing Germany.
All that attention on Italy and becoming Emperor wasted lots of attention and resources.
And keep the Habsburgs away from the Royal crown. :D
 
You know Nietzsche, if there was one person to trust with a Germanic timeline it would be you. You could probably do it with an uber lucky Prussia too.
 
Top