Possible "Croatias" in Nazi-occupied USSR?

Slovakia and Croatia were typical vasal countries, something like the level of independence of former Warsaw Pact countries. Reichkommesariats would be typical colonies, like British Kenya or French Cameroon.
I guess by 1941 even Hungary or Romania were sliding towards being vassals of Nazi Germany. Finland was trying to balance but did they really?
 
I guess by 1941 even Hungary or Romania were sliding towards being vassals of Nazi Germany. Finland was trying to balance but did they really?

Hungary and Romania basically were vassals in all but name as their independence from 1941-1945 relied on the Germans allowing them the degree of independence that they were allowed.
 
Finland was trying to balance but did they really?

At no part of the war did the Germans dictate what the Finnish government should do. Things were always negotiated, and for some German demands/suggestions the Finns also declined. This caused grumbling in Berlin and Hitler probably had a rant or two about the issue, but the thing was that the Finns were compliant enough (and competent enought to prosecute their side of the war, as well), so a crackdown did not, apparently, seem worth it.

Of course by 1943 the Germans could probably have forced the Finns to do something that they did not want to do - but then Finland itself made up a significant part of the front, and a Finland that would have changed sides due to the Nazis being too overbearing would have caused more trouble for the German war effort than accepting that the Finns in many things held on to their independence. Like what indeed happened in 1944 IOTL.

In a Nazi victory scenario as depicted in the OP, the Finnish relationship to the Nazis would originally be somewhat similar - Hitler et al would have their hands full everywhere, especially in the former USSR. To commit Nazi resources in cowing the Finns by force would not be seen as a priority. As long as Finland plays along, it can be left (relatively) alone. When the post-war years drag on, Finland would suffer from a pretty much similar predicament than it did IOTL with the USSR: its "special relationship" with the Nazi realm and all the official declarations of friendship would start corrupting the younger generations, who might start thinking that it is in the Finnish national interest to "work towards the Führer", rather than the official liturgy about friendship being in big part a show to keep Berlin/Germania inactive towards Finland, to retain some sovereignty and ability to make independent decisions in Helsinki.
 
Things were always negotiated, and for some German demands/suggestions the Finns also declined.
Interestingly even tiny Slovakia which creation was result of German actions was able from time to time deny or negotiate German requests. Romania and Hungary even more.
 
Interestingly even tiny Slovakia which creation was result of German actions was able from time to time deny or negotiate German requests. Romania and Hungary even more.
But would they be able to deny the Reich once they've become the rulers of Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals?
 

Deleted member 97083

From Wikipedia:

In a memorandum sent to Rosenberg in March 1942, Nazi anthropologist Otto Reche argued for the disappearance of 'Russia' both as an ethnic and political concept, and the promotion of a new plethora of ethnicities based on medieval Slavic tribes such as the Vyatichs and Severians. Even White Ruthenia, and in particular the Ukraine ("in its present extent") he deemed to be dangerously large. Heinrich Himmler had already advocated for such a general policy towards Eastern Europe in 1940. A top-secret memorandum in 1940 from Himmler entitled "Thoughts on the Treatment of Alien Peoples in the East" expressed that the Germans must splinter as many ethnic splinter groups in German-occupied Europe as possible, including Ukrainians, "White Russians" (Belarusians), Gorals (see Goralenvolk), Lemkos, and Kashubians and to find all "racially valuable" people and assimilate them in Germany. The Eastern Ministry responded that Reche's emphasis on the plurality of ethnic groups in the Soviet Union was correct "in itself", but was skeptical about his proposal to resurrect obscure and extinct nationalities. He defended his proposal by arguing that "[sic] in the area of ethnicity much has already been successfully brought back to life!", but inquired as to whether names connected with the main towns in each area might serve this role instead. A memo date written by Erhard Wetzel from the NSDAP Office of Racial Policy administration, on April 1942 details the splitting up of Reichskommissariat Moskowien into very loosely tied Generalkommissariats. The objective was to undermine the national cohesion of the Russians by promoting regional identification; a Russian from the Gorki Generalkommissariat was to feel that he was different from a Russian in the Tula Generalkommissariat. Also, a source of discussion in the Nazi circles was the replacement of the Cyrillic letters with the German alphabet. In July 1944, Himmler ordered Ernst Kaltenbrunner, the head of the RSHA, to begin the exporting of the faith of the Jehovah's Witnesses to the occupied east. Himmler considered the Jehovah's Witnesses of being frugal, hard-working, honest and fanatic in their pacifism, and that these traits were extremely desirable for the suppressed nations in the east — despite some 2,500 and 5,000 Jehovah's Witnesses becoming victims of the Holocaust.

A series of "semantic guidelines" published by the Reich Interior Ministry in 1942 declared that it was permissible to use the word 'Russia' only in a reference to the "Petersburg empire" of Peter the Great and its follow-ups until the revolution of 1917. The period from 1300 to Peter the Great (the Grand Duchy of Moscow and the Tsardom of Russia) was to be called the "Muscovite state", while post-1917 Russia was not to be referred to as an empire or a state at all; the preferred terms for this period were "bolshevik chaos" or "communist elements".Furthermore, historic expressions such as Little Russia (Ukraine), White Russia (Belarus/White Ruthenia), Russian Sea (for the Black Sea), and Russian Asia (for Siberia and Central Asia) were to be absolutely avoided as terminology of the "Muscovite imperialism". "Tatars" was described as a pejorative Russian term for the Volga, Crimean, and Azerbaijan Turks which was preferably to be avoided, and respectively replaced with the concepts "Idel (Volga)-Uralian", "Crimean Turks", and Azerbaijanis.

There could potentially be several "Croatias" including contrived ones.
 
At that time nobody would.

Well, yes and no. A Reich that reaches from the Atlantic to the Urals will be a very difficult thing to manage. If the Nazis just try to ram their decisions through by force and violence everywhere, it will become a very work-intensive system to uphold - basically, German shock troops constantly putting down a continent's worth of dissent and uprisings. on the other hand, a Nazi leadership that upholds a system of semi-autonomous vassals could saddle much of the administration and keeping order, etc, to its local client states/statelets, requiring less German troops and administrators, etc, to run. But for such a system to work, these local entities will need to have some leeway in making their own decisions and policies.

Personally, I think a Nazi empire spanning such an area is bound to fail and implode within a couple of decades, simply because the Nazis will be ideologically unable to devise such a system that can uphold this vast, bloated empire under functional, rational control. If their only answer to problems is more repression,violence and murder, they will soon go the way of the dodo. After causing massive damage and many horrors, of course.
 

Deleted member 94680

Personally, I think a Nazi empire spanning such an area is bound to fail and implode within a couple of decades, simply because the Nazis will be ideologically unable to devise such a system that can uphold this vast, bloated empire under functional, rational control.

But, within those couple of decades, there will be a new generation of Nazis educated and indoctrinated from birth in the ideology of National Socialism. Maybe even believers in some form of Nazi church and accepting without question the eugenic policies of Himmler, Rosenberg, Reche et al. They will 'understand' the 'need' to keep on with the policies but find new methods to implement them that don't require camps and deathsquads.

If their only answer to problems is more repression,violence and murder, they will soon go the way of the dodo. After causing massive damage and many horrors, of course.

Of course, a Nazi Empire of the 1960s would use more advanced methods than Einsatzgruppen and konzentrationlager, although the men that had used them would be venerated as heroes of the Reich that "steered them through the dark times" and "did what had to be done". It would probably be far more medical and scientific and all the more horrendous for it. Once they've won, collaborators and quislings would crawl out of the woodwork and 'the people' would acknowledge the right of what had been done. It's disgusting to think of it, but nothing in history leads me to doubt it would be probable. Resistance to the Nazis, well into the 60s, would be treated as a subversive menace - a new kind of red scare if you will - and hunted out by the SD or such rather than tanks and bombers. That, of course, is relying on there being a Great Power to support the resistance and provide 'voice of freedom' style assistance. The obvious one here is America, but if they're right wing or isolationist, then who knows?
 
But, within those couple of decades, there will be a new generation of Nazis educated and indoctrinated from birth in the ideology of National Socialism. Maybe even believers in some form of Nazi church and accepting without question the eugenic policies of Himmler, Rosenberg, Reche et al. They will 'understand' the 'need' to keep on with the policies but find new methods to implement them that don't require camps and deathsquads.

Of course, a Nazi Empire of the 1960s would use more advanced methods than Einsatzgruppen and konzentrationlager, although the men that had used them would be venerated as heroes of the Reich that "steered them through the dark times" and "did what had to be done". It would probably be far more medical and scientific and all the more horrendous for it. Once they've won, collaborators and quislings would crawl out of the woodwork and 'the people' would acknowledge the right of what had been done. It's disgusting to think of it, but nothing in history leads me to doubt it would be probable. Resistance to the Nazis, well into the 60s, would be treated as a subversive menace - a new kind of red scare if you will - and hunted out by the SD or such rather than tanks and bombers. That, of course, is relying on there being a Great Power to support the resistance and provide 'voice of freedom' style assistance. The obvious one here is America, but if they're right wing or isolationist, then who knows?

This all of course is dependent on who leads the Nazi empire after the war, and which methods they prefer. The Germans, even the Nazi leadership, were not a hive mind. There would be different factions post-Hitler, in fact creating different factions was what the Nazi system excelled in - by design. So, personally, I don't see the Nazi system as such an internally consistent apparatus of self-perpetuating supervillainy some people portray it to be - in my view, it was a very ramshackle structure that would be seriously overextended and thus prone to many problems if it tried to control all of Europe and the (former) USSR up to the Urals. I see failure through trying to maintain a high level of Nazi continuity and a measure of liberalization as a way to keep the German elites in power as the most likely options for the future of the Third Reich post-1950.
 
Well, yes and no. A Reich that reaches from the Atlantic to the Urals will be a very difficult thing to manage. If the Nazis just try to ram their decisions through by force and violence everywhere, it will become a very work-intensive system to uphold - basically, German shock troops constantly putting down a continent's worth of dissent and uprisings. on the other hand, a Nazi leadership that upholds a system of semi-autonomous vassals could saddle much of the administration and keeping order, etc, to its local client states/statelets, requiring less German troops and administrators, etc, to run. But for such a system to work, these local entities will need to have some leeway in making their own decisions and policies.

Personally, I think a Nazi empire spanning such an area is bound to fail and implode within a couple of decades, simply because the Nazis will be ideologically unable to devise such a system that can uphold this vast, bloated empire under functional, rational control. If their only answer to problems is more repression,violence and murder, they will soon go the way of the dodo. After causing massive damage and many horrors, of course.
Possibly they would implode. But shortly after their victory would be hardest for small eastern European countries to resist Nazi requests. Same as as worst time under commies were during Stalin era.

In central Europe they have option to play Romanians against Hungarians and Hungarians against Slovaks. Possibly they would employ same tactics on occupied territory of USSR.
 

Deleted member 94680

This all of course is dependent on who leads the Nazi empire after the war, and which methods they prefer. The Germans, even the Nazi leadership, were not a hive mind. There would be different factions post-Hitler, in fact creating different factions was what the Nazi system excelled in - by design. So, personally, I don't see the Nazi system as such an internally consistent apparatus of self-perpetuating supervillainy some people portray it to be - in my view, it was a very ramshackle structure that would be seriously overextended and thus prone to many problems if it tried to control all of Europe and the (former) USSR up to the Urals. I see failure through trying to maintain a high level of Nazi continuity and a measure of liberalization as a way to keep the German elites in power as the most likely options for the future of the Third Reich post-1950.

Exactly, the soviets post-Stalin are a good model. As the supreme leader nears his end (probably Hitler in this scenario) factions would vie and collude for power. There's every chance of a "palace coup" and even a "counter palace coup" in the aftermath of Hitler's death as the SS and their leader (Himmler? Heydrich? Kaltenbruner?) make a play for power and the civilians (Bormann, Goebells, Speer) attempt an orderly and serene succession. There's been plenty of TLs on the subject but the point is that it's unlikely the Nazis of the 1960s would bear much resemblance to the OTL Nazis we know except on the battlefield.
 
Top