Modern Nazi Germany

That's not my understanding, though admittedly this is a large part of that...



Yes, admittedly the criteria of "both Holocaust and Nazi Victory" are a lot easier said than plausibly imagine (again, Fatherland (with it's D-Day PoD) is unrealistic in this regard). I suppose there's some form comfort there, somehow...

Nitpick: D-Day was the PoD of the movie Fatherland, but the original PoD of the novel was Germany defeating the USSR in 1942 after a more successful Fall Blau (Case Blue) and figuring out Enigma had been cracked, allowing them to change their codes and win the Battle of the Atlantic. Still far-fetched, but certainly more realistic than Germany winning the war after an Allied defeat at D-Day (in the unlikely event of a loss in Normandy, Germany would still have lost IMO).
 
Last edited:
I made a post elsewhere, I'll add it lateer, but essentially Generalplan Ost was an economic disaster waiting to happen. First it relied on the starvation of much of urban Russia and Ukraine, with the survivors enslaved it deported. This alone destroys most of Nazi Germany's ability to profit from the East, as without workers the mines and factories can't be used and will fall into disrepair. Second, the Nazi's agricultural policies will make the Holodomor look like child's play. Farmer's crops will be taken at low prices and in greater amounts than farmers are willing to sell in order to feed the Reich. Eventually many farmers will starve, be killed, be forced off their land, or be unable to produce as much as they used to. Agricultural output will have fallen tremendously by 1950. Finally, Nazi settlement efforts would have been a huge net cost, rife with corruption, and would never reach pre-war production levels. Dumping people with no farming experience, no skills, etc out onto the steppe and expecting them to manage, buy new tools, and be profitable is extremely foolish.

The entire plan would do nothing but kill tens of millions for no gain.
 
the Nazis only chance of survival is...

...through a number of possibilities. Philip K. Dick pointed out with his novel-within-a-novel approach. Characters in The Man In The High Castle criticize the fictional novel A Grasshopper Lies Heavy for the simple fact that it posits a world wherein the Allies won WWII.

Rommel is said at one point in the book to be unbeatable more or less, while characters go on about how the Axis were destined to win for a variety of reasons.

In the characters' minds, the Axis's victory in WWII was assured by default, with notions of an alternate Allied victory being written off as implausible, or as its called on the alternate history forum "ASB"

And that's the approach I see far too often when people on this web site discuss an Axis victory. An Axis victory, even a fairly limited one, is written off as ASB. By this logic, the Allies victory is WWII was assured by default

But I don't think it was, just as much as I don't think a Union victory in the U.S. Civil War was assured by default.

For starters, the Nazis had many highly capable generals which were in some ways superior to opposing generals during WWII. Rommel was no doubt a great general whose abilities to win was hampered by a lack of support for his Suez Canal campaign.

Let's not forget Manstein, among others.

Add to that many other factors which to an extent went in favor of the Axis, and its not hard to see where and how they could have won at numerous points throughout WWII.

Obvious POD scenarios such as Stalingrad or Midway exist, as well as numerous smaller POD scenarios which could have ended in Axis victory, however great or limited that may be.

The Allies could've lost just as easily as the Axis in OTL, with numerous ways for them to lose which rival the Axis in scope.

Furthermore, history isn't set. the POD in Philip K. Dick's novel was FDR was successfully assassinated. After all, his premature death wasn't totally unavoidable.

And what about Winston Churchill nearly dying after being struck by a Taxi?

My point is that history could've diverged at many different points in time, such as Stalingrad or Dunkirk or the Nazi nuclear program (the latter example being the POD for the wonderful story entitled Moon Of Ice, which imagines an Axis victory through the nuking of the Soviets and of London)

What would a modern, socially and technologically speaking, Nazi Germany look like?

I'm not pretending to be an expert here, but I have several checked-out library books right now which clearly describe Nazi society from 1933-45 as well as detail minor and major Nazi documents from 1919-45

I'd like to add that Hitler's rise to power wasn't inevitable; somebody like Strasser could've risen to power no doubt. The Nazi Party wasn't destined to be the party of Hitler.

But being as the party was a racist and nationalistic party, it's manifesto openly and specifically discriminated against Jews. Strasser was just as racist as Hitler in views as the documents show from the early years of the party.

As such National Socialism was primarily a middle-class, shopkeepers movement (a form of 'shopkeepers' socialism') which had considerable backing from wealthy industrialists despite the party's rhetoric about supposedly being anti-capitalist and so forth. (leading industrialists actively financed the Nazi Party's 1932-33 election campaign, with the Circle of Friends of the Economy coming to the fore after the Nazi Party's seizure of power)

Assuming that Nazi Germany continued to exist post-1945 I'd imagine that the SS would grow considerably in power and prestige, esp. assuming if the planned state of Burgundy was carved out of occupied France after an Axis victory in WWII.

In the excellent AH TL The Anglo-American Nazi War, the SS soon enough replaces the Wehrmacht as Germany's sole army which is a real possibility IMHO assuming Nazi Germany survives.

Nazi Germany would of course be highly authoritarian as well as heavily bureaucratized (as the National Socialist movement was far from being anti-bureaucratic), with large doses of nationalistic and racist propaganda being spoon-fed to Germany's citizenry.

Colonization by 'Aryans' or (supposedly) ethically-pure Germans would take place across Nazi-dominated Russia, esp. in the breadbasket of the Ukraine. Leningrad would be destroyed, being as it was to be completely wiped off the face of the earth.

Poland was designed in OTL post-war to be kept artificially low as far as culture, education, living standards go for native Poles. I'm sure that gradually the native Poles would be replaced by Germans if the weren't already being replaced across occupied Poland.

In shorter words, a surviving (if not thriving) post-1945 Nazi Germany would be wholly Orwellian. It was and would continue to be a police state dominated by an aging, cult-like Hitler, whose death could very well lead to a power struggle inside the Nazi Party.

Just Thank goodness the Nazis didn't win WWII.
 
I have never seen a convincing argument made that Nazi Getmany could defeat the Soviet Union, or had the logistics/resources to do better in Africa than IOTL.
 
I have never seen a convincing argument made that Nazi Getmany could defeat the Soviet Union

It could've very well won against the Soviet Union. There are many POD scenarios for a more successful German invasion of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union's victory in WWII wasn't predestined, as if Stalin and his Generals 'knew' that victory was just around the corner.

Things could have very well gone rather differently as the war thundered on.
 
It could've very well won against the Soviet Union. There are many POD scenarios for a more successful German invasion of the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union's victory in WWII wasn't predestined, as if Stalin and his Generals 'knew' that victory was just around the corner.

Things could have very well gone rather differently as the war thundered on.

Actually, if you read STAVKA planning documents and such, there's a very clear trend of over optimism among Stalin and his commanders. Every major counteroffensive was intended to be a "war winner" that would utterly destroy the German army.

Please offer facts, a serious scenario, or some kind of proof. You can very well claim German victory was possible, but all the evidence I have read says the exact opposite. The Soviet Union's ability to generate new forces, increasingly sophisticated forces, skill at deception, and sheer size made German victory in the long run impossible.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
You could CalBear it like in the Anglo-American/Nazi War.

I would think you would need to stop lend lease, capture the oil fields, the A-A line, have the British out of the war and then proceed to grind down the Red Army.
 
You could CalBear it like in the Anglo-American/Nazi War.

I would think you would need to stop lend lease, capture the oil fields, the A-A line, have the British out of the war and then proceed to grind down the Red Army.

Calbear's defeat of the Soviet Union was very unrealistic for a number of reasons. He himself has admitted that much. The rest of the story is brilliant enough that it can be shrugged off.

1. If Britain is out of the war then Stalin will be prepared for an invasion.

2. The A-A line can't be reached logistically.

3. Neither can the oil fields.

4. Lend lease is basically guaranteed, the American public, Congress, and the president were all in favor of it even prior to Pearl. And American entry into the war would eventually happen due to USW and increasingly interventionist attitudes.
 
Not to mention Calbear had Stalin go crazy and kill all his good generals; IRL Stalin wasn't that stupid.
 
Calbear's defeat of the Soviet Union was mainly a backdrop as to allow for the TL author to posit a world in which the Germans won WWII.

I agree that the entirety of the story is excellent on it's own right. I don't think that the defeat of the USSR was supposed to be realistic or overly plausible-it just had to happen to allow for the alternate history story to progress.
 
I think it all depends on who's leading the way. I can see easing up and reforming on the one hand if a "new guard" of moderates is seen fit to lead, while I can just as easily see more of the same socially and economically if the next generation of Nazi leaders supports the ideologies of the "old guard."

I can see technological advances either way, though.


I dont get why people say Nazi Germany will prosper, given the sum total of their econmic policy could be stated in two words MOAR DAKKA!

By the outbreak of WW2 the Nazi econmy was being kept afloat by fraud & looted Austrian gold reserves etc. Post-WW2 Nazi Europa will be a MASSIVE net-drain on Germany. And the Reich itself will be viewed with with such fear & hatered abroad that it'll make OTL North Korea look like paragons of tact & diplomacy.

Add in the epic corruption of the Nazi Party, countless wasteful vanty projects, and crazy plans for the new living space in the east, and the fact the whole rotten mess was utterly built & centred around Hitler . It'll decay more than prosper.

As for technological advances, these will be retarded a great deal, once the people educated by the Weimar & Kaiser's govrments die/retire and the producats of ''Nazi education'' take their place.
 
And as I stated earlier, it's policies in regards to Russia would be nothing short of disastrous.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
I think the Education can swing either way. I read somewhere that Hitler and the rest, or maybe just the rest were leaving the tainted Jewish science Idea. And coming to the conclusion that it was science and if einstein didn't come up with a theory someone else would.

But even so it still comes down to how long Hitler lives. He lives past 1948. the Hitler Jugend replaces primary schools because Himmler is the one that takes power when he dies. If he dies before that someone less "cray cray" takes power and so you get a Soviet System where the best students get scholarships to university (bugged with listening devices and filled with Gestapo agents of course).

Really depends on what you want out of the story.
 
Thing is, the whoole cartoonization of Nazi crimes serves the notion that the Nazis are some kind of another species, for whom the normal trends in human societies don't apply.
This. Nazis wouldn't breed any new and unique society with regards to violence or genocide - this was still very close to, or overlapping, the time when in America people set up picnics, watched a black person get hung to death, then took pictures for postcards and cut off body parts for souvenirs. Genocide and outlandish cruelty, and their acceptance by society when applied to 'those people', is unfortunately not unique at all. Which isn't to say Nazi society wouldn't be notably beastly.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
this was still very close to, or overlapping, the time when in America people set up picnics, watched a black person get hung to death, then took pictures for postcards and cut off body parts for souvenirs.

Really! Wow that's disturbing.
 
Possible, but unlikely....

IMHO, the scenario presented in the novel "Fatherland" by Robert Harris, or some combination of the scenarios in "What If? Strategic Alternatives of WWII" edited by Harold Deutsch and Dennis Showalter, present the most plausible "Nazi Germany wins" alternatives.

In other words....Germany wins militarily on the Western front in 1940 as in OTL, but then caps its victory with a negotiated armistice with Great Britain in late summer or autumn of 1940. The 1941 German invasion of the Soviet Union proves even more spectacularly successful than in OTL, with the Wehrmacht capturing both Leningrad and Moscow. Soviet military resistance west of Urals collapses, due in no small part to Stalin suffering a nervous breakdown and perhaps even committing suicide. Germany waits until its military victory is largely consolidated in the European Soviet Union in 1942, before it sends in the brutal SS and Nazi Party bureaucrats that quickly turned the non-Russian Slavic peoples--who hated Stalin and initially greeted the Wehrmacht as their liberators--against their German occupiers. A victorious Nazi Germany pursues a less hurried, more deliberate policy of genocide against the Jews, Gypsies, and others whom Nazi ideology defines as "undesirables", taking great care to cover up and eventually destroy almost all evidence of the very existence of the death camps built in the occupied East to carry out that gruesome policy.

As in "Fatherland," the USA never enters the War in Europe, but defeats Japan in a one-front Pacific War and develops the atomic bomb. Germany focuses on rocket and jet-fighter development. The USA sponsors continued Soviet war, from the unoccupied Soviet territory east of the Urals, against German-occupied Soviet territory west of the Urals. The Soviet Union proves too large for Nazi Germany to "digest" along with the rest of occupied Europe, and a decades-long hot and cold guerrilla war continues in the East. A Cold War develops between the USA and German-dominated continental Europe, with both sides having atomic weapons and long-range delivery systems (rockets and strategic bombers).

What happens after Hitler passes away, perhaps sometime in the 1960s? It depends largely on who his successors are. Hess or Goring (neither of whom falls out of favor if Britain signs an armistice in 1940 and the War in the East is won in 1942-43) or Himmler or Bormann would be old Nazi comrades unlikely to bring about a "thaw" in relations with the USA. Ditto for any younger doctrinaire Nazi from the SS.
 
Last edited:
Top