No world war 2, Would the Nazis moderate

For the first 2-3 years, yes. Goering wasn't as hell bent on starting a Europe-wide war as Hitler was. Longer then that, though, there's the potential for Germany's oncoming economic implosion pushing them to do something drastic to try and recatch some of that earlier bloom of Fascist glory... so whether they'd stay more moderate is less certain.
 
This is nigh-impossible because warmongering was baked into Nazi ideology. Perhaps there's something of an informal 'palace coup' of the more leftist elements (Strasser, Rohm et al) that focus more on internal development.

If this lasts for a while, then I can see it ending up something like OTL's Deng-era China.
 
Hitler dies at any point before august 1939 WWII becomes FAR less likely.

The answer to OP's question is "yes". The USSR and China both moderated. That said, I expect more of a Chinese-style pattern -- hardline leadership while hitler is alive, another hardliner who escalates things in the 50s, culminating in a nazi *cultural revolution in the mid or late 1950s, followed by a restoration of order and movement towards more of an ordinary authoritarian regime -- there'd still be alot of hangovers from the *cultural revolution like there are in OTL China, of course.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
This is nigh-impossible because warmongering was baked into Nazi ideology. Perhaps there's something of an informal 'palace coup' of the more leftist elements (Strasser, Rohm et al) that focus more on internal development.

If this lasts for a while, then I can see it ending up something like OTL's Deng-era China.
Strasser and Rohm were killed before the Munich Conference.
 
"Nazi"..."moderate"...

Nazi + moderate = ???

1459444269317.gif
 
"Nazi"..."moderate"...

Nazi + moderate = ???

1459444269317.gif

If the Soviets had been taken out in the 1920's by outside invasion I'm sure people would say the same things about Commies based on the Red Terror.

I'd say yes; at some point, the Fascists are going to have to adopt more "pragmatic" approaches if a WWII is going to be avoided; if nothing else, they're going to need to reproach with the West in order to avoid the rapidly building Red Menace from gaining the upper hand in their relationship as the Soviet economy/industrial capacity overwhelms its smaller German counterpart. More reasonable territorial demands in the east, moderating the total militarization of the economy in order to avoid total bankruptcy, compromises with traditional conservative elements by whomever comes out of the power struggle on top in order to consolidate power, ect
 

elkarlo

Banned
For the first 2-3 years, yes. Goering wasn't as hell bent on starting a Europe-wide war as Hitler was. Longer then that, though, there's the potential for Germany's oncoming economic implosion pushing them to do something drastic to try and recatch some of that earlier bloom of Fascist glory... so whether they'd stay more moderate is less certain.
But no wwii means that after a while the re arming would stop and the German economy would eventually grow. They'd have a 1960s moment where kids growing up only knowing prosperity would rebel against the leadership. But that didn't last anywhere ie the USA, Japan nor the Soviet bloc
 
But no wwii means that after a while the re arming would stop and the German economy would eventually grow.

Eventually, yes. But by 1941/42 that could not be done without suffering extreme economic pain that the Nazis Party might not politically survive. Even in 1936, when the conditions to attempt such a normalization were vastly better, those advocating an end to rearmament in favor of a more standard export-based economy predicted up to 2.5 million unemployed in the short term but Germany had survived such hardships in the 20's and early 30's and it would have just been the cost of business. (Adam Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," pp.215-217)

The problem by the end of 1938 was that Germany had already antagonized the trading partners (Britain, France and America) she would have needed to make Goerdeler's reborn trade economy work. Aside from the fact that Germany was further down the road by then with a weaker economic hand to play, after Anschluss and Munich it's unlikely that Britain and France would have passed on the opportunity to throttle Germany's economy had they the chance. The short term consequences of attempting the same sort of normalization would hence be vastly worst.

It’s worth keeping in mind that Goering’s view on this matter can be found in a speech in the summer of 1938: "The armed forces should not concern themselves with the state of the economy... the collapse of parts of the economy was irrelevant. Ways will be found."(p.254) He might as well have said “Fuck sustainable economics.” The irresponsibility is breathtakingly characteristic of him.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Less genocidal, Less extreme policies to minority groups, less militaristic, etc
I mean...they weren't genocidal yet pre-war, still trying to force minorities to leave the country. Of course the genocidal ideas were there since at least the 1920s, they just weren't policy yet. In terms of minority repression that was not going to ease off any time soon. Less militaristic...depends what you mean about that. I have a hard time seeing Goering wanting to go to war without Hitler demanding it and likely I could see him moderating on that to try and sustain the economy once he was in charge. IOTL he was able to amass power by being the guy to wrestle the economy away from Schacht, but once he was responsible for the whole Ponzi scheme he'd be much more interested in regime protection than war and rearmament. That said I still could see him saber rattle to take over rump Czechia and get a settlement with Poland that would economically control it (through controlling Danzig and access to the Vistula river link with the Baltic Sea), but not go to war over it. Goering was pretty cautious in terms of foreign policy based on what I've been able to read about his private positions on the various wars Hitler started, but who knows what he'd do once the finances started crumbling. Rearmament was going to hit a wall eventually and have to be reduced, which would impact jobs even as the economy shifted to exports, the question is whether Goering could negotiate a loan from Britain to transition the economy away from armaments to export, which he actually was trying to do in July 1939 before the British press exposed the negotiations between intermediaries of Goering and Chamberlain and made it politically toxic for both sides.

It’s worth keeping in mind that Goering’s view on this matter can be found in a speech in the summer of 1938: "The armed forces should not concern themselves with the state of the economy... the collapse of parts of the economy was irrelevant. Ways will be found."(p.254) He might as well have said “Fuck sustainable economics.” The irresponsibility is breathtakingly characteristic of him.
A public speech to suck up to Hitler and sound tough to the public is not really what he actually thought. Hitler was all about "fuck sustainable economics, we're going to war bitches!" and Goering was maintaining his political position and power by being Hitler's handmaiden, so it is hardly surprising he's echoing what Hitler himself was saying and wanted to hear...because that was what was rewarded by Hitler. When Hitler is out of the picture and Goering isn't about going to war like Hitler was its a lot more likely that Goering out of necessity to protect his regime actually has to focus on sustainable economics. In fact without the entire reason for the unsustainable economic policy, Hitler's planned wars of conquest, there is no reason to maintain that unsustainable economic policy.
 
Eventually, yes. But by 1941/42 that could not be done without suffering extreme economic pain that the Nazis Party might not politically survive. Even in 1936, when the conditions to attempt such a normalization were vastly better, those advocating an end to rearmament in favor of a more standard export-based economy predicted up to 2.5 million unemployed in the short term but Germany had survived such hardships in the 20's and early 30's and it would have just been the cost of business. (Adam Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," pp.215-217)

The problem by the end of 1938 was that Germany had already antagonized the trading partners (Britain, France and America) she would have needed to make Goerdeler's reborn trade economy work. Aside from the fact that Germany was further down the road by then with a weaker economic hand to play, after Anschluss and Munich it's unlikely that Britain and France would have passed on the opportunity to throttle Germany's economy had they the chance. The short term consequences of attempting the same sort of normalization would hence be vastly worst.

It’s worth keeping in mind that Goering’s view on this matter can be found in a speech in the summer of 1938: "The armed forces should not concern themselves with the state of the economy... the collapse of parts of the economy was irrelevant. Ways will be found."(p.254) He might as well have said “Fuck sustainable economics.” The irresponsibility is breathtakingly characteristic of him.

Not necessarily; though this is perhaps just a difference in perspective on my part, I'd argue that if you stop at Munich (for whatever reason), the Nazi government will still have enough of its trustworthiness in check that the changes in the Eastern border can still be reguarded as (acceptable) rectifications to the Treaty of Versailles in line with the idea of ethnic German self-determination. Though its certainly not guranteed, there's a statistically significant chance that a Goering government could reach a detante with the West; particularly if Stalin starts making troubling moves in the direction of the East German states in line with perceived German weakness in his goal of establishing an expanded sphere of Soviet influence.
 

Deleted member 1487

Not necessarily; though this is perhaps just a difference in perspective on my part, I'd argue that if you stop at Munich (for whatever reason), the Nazi government will still have enough of its trustworthiness in check that the changes in the Eastern border can still be reguarded as (acceptable) rectifications to the Treaty of Versailles in line with the idea of ethnic German self-determination. Though its certainly not guranteed, there's a statistically significant chance that a Goering government could reach a detante with the West; particularly if Stalin starts making troubling moves in the direction of the East German states in line with perceived German weakness in his goal of establishing an expanded sphere of Soviet influence.
Probably better than average actually, Goering was still considered the 'moderate Nazi' in British power circles thanks to helping mediate with Hitler during the Munich situation.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Göring#Sudetenkrise_und_Münchner_Konferenz
In 1938, during the Sudeten crisis , he arranged behind the back of the Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop together with the Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini the Munich conference , in which the representatives of the Entente and their allies in the First World War (Italy, Britain and France) - in absence the uncharged Czechoslovakia - to the disappointment of Hitler yielded to prevent a possible war. In the run-up to the Second World War , Göring was therefore shut down foreign policy, so as not to disturb Hitler's plans again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Göring#Nazi_potentate
In Britain and the United States, some viewed Göring as more acceptable than the other Nazis and as a possible mediator between the western democracies and Hitler.[76]

Overy 2002, p. 236.

Overy, Richard J. (2002) [1994]. War and Economy in the Third Reich. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Eventually, yes. But by 1941/42 that could not be done without suffering extreme economic pain that the Nazis Party might not politically survive. Even in 1936, when the conditions to attempt such a normalization were vastly better, those advocating an end to rearmament in favor of a more standard export-based economy predicted up to 2.5 million unemployed in the short term but Germany had survived such hardships in the 20's and early 30's and it would have just been the cost of business. (Adam Tooze, "Wages of Destruction," pp.215-217)

The problem by the end of 1938 was that Germany had already antagonized the trading partners (Britain, France and America) she would have needed to make Goerdeler's reborn trade economy work. Aside from the fact that Germany was further down the road by then with a weaker economic hand to play, after Anschluss and Munich it's unlikely that Britain and France would have passed on the opportunity to throttle Germany's economy had they the chance. The short term consequences of attempting the same sort of normalization would hence be vastly worst.

It’s worth keeping in mind that Goering’s view on this matter can be found in a speech in the summer of 1938: "The armed forces should not concern themselves with the state of the economy... the collapse of parts of the economy was irrelevant. Ways will be found."(p.254) He might as well have said “Fuck sustainable economics.” The irresponsibility is breathtakingly characteristic of him.
Good reply. Though if no WWII, and no built up for it by the Germans. Well they know they're not going to war so they may not dump everything into rearming. Perhaps avoiding putting too much into, which perhaps would avoid the economic rebound.
I dunno. Georing was crazy irresponsible, to a cartoon level.
But Hitler could shift the econ blame on international Jews. German has a great econ, but the Jews won't let others bank nor deal with us.
 
Well, Germany would probably die economically if WWII is avoided. Trying to make a militaro industrial complex work without waging war is kinda like trying to power an electric car with oil. Yes, it's usually necessary to make a car/ an economy work, but it's just innapropriate in this case. So there would be an economic crisis, plus who can you trade with and export to if everyone is inferior and doesn't deserve your better human being "help" ?

So there would be a succession crisis and probably the hard line nazis would be kicked out in the name of political realism. Then you could have "moderate nazis" that would be in a "They are inferior, that's why we have to take care of them" mindset, some kind of authoritarian mom interventionnism. They would probably have their own small clique of Aryan States (they might end up with some supports in Scandinavia and Netherlands.

I lack of knowledges about the whole thing, but I guess that's what moderate nazis would look like if they existed. (They might even "befriend" poland with this mom attitude and share responsability about the Dantzig-Gdansk zone)
 
The Soviet Union "moderated" only when it stopped being the USSR and the avatar/leader of communism. While the current Russia is a nasty piece of work under Putin, it is more a traditional great power sort of thing, not a power with a religious fervor feeling that history is with it to make the whole world communist. Likewise China is communist only in name, it is a more or less standard authoritarian dictatorship with a communist name. Sure lots of state enterprises but not communist.

The Nazis could "moderate" their economic policies to have an economy that actually worked without war booty. Otherwise, exactly how would they "moderate". If you take away their racial policies? While in 1939, even after they absorbed Czechoslovakia but before the war, they wren't killing Jews wholesale it happened retail, and Jews and Roma in Nazi occupied territories had a pretty nasty time even before the Wannsee Conference. The Czechs were not treated well after their "welcoming" in to the Großdeutches Reich. The T4 program was in full swing, and the mixed race males who were born of German women and French African soldiers in the post WWI occupation were being sterilized. At some point would the Nazis say "oops, this Aryan business is wrong", Jews, Slavs, and Roma are now equal citizens of the Reich - come out of the ghettos"?

Starting in 1933 the Germans, especially young Germans, were being inculcated in Nazi propaganda and theory from early ages. Simply not starting WWII in 1939 (?wait until 1946) and reforming the economy won't mean they change that.
 
Probably better than average actually, Goering was still considered the 'moderate Nazi' in British power circles thanks to helping mediate with Hitler during the Munich situation.

I believe I saw on somebody's private alt-history site a claim that Hitler himself would have been considered "moderate" compared to Himmler, whom the author speculated might have negotiated peace with the West if he'd succeeded Hitler in 1944 (this was a "what if the assassination attempt succeeded" scenario) but also might have offered sacrifices to Odin at the Brandenburg Gates.
 
Top