Science and Technology In A Modern Nazi Germany

[Zyobot]

Throughout World War Two-oriented media, Nazi Germany is depicted as a powerhouse, especially in the fields of science and technology. From advanced spacecraft to superheavy tanks, their alleged mastery of engineering is displayed for every consumer of such media to see. Judging by internet commentary and the Third Reich's depicted technological superiority, it has a strong influence. In my eyes, it's unduely so.

I, like many on Alternate History.com, am quite skeptical of the OP Nazi trope being a true one. Do correct me if I'm wrong about this, but their frequently over-engineered armor, insane investments into Wunderwaffen, and gross economic mismanagement not just in real life, but in what they planned to do, very much implies otherwise.

Most of all, though, Nazi Germany was a state enslaved to a fanatical, uncompromising ideology of war, genocide, and Aryan supremacism. In addition to promoting evils beyond all question, it forbade the kind of open exchange, freedom of experimentation, and fact-over-narrative mindset necessary (or at least, game-changing) for the acquisition of knowledge--not just in the hard sciences, but in such fields as history, literature, philosophy and perhaps everywhere else. Pretty much any field of knowledge that I can think of could end up stunted, under or badly developed, or otherwise amount to mental gymnastics that goes unquestioned under Nazi oversight.

Add that to an entire generation growing up under a bang-head-on-desk-terrible education system, and I see little hope for breaking their nationwide echo chamber.

But what do you guys think? What are some better-informed opinions about how Nazi German science and technology would've turned out, had the Third Reich magically survived up to 2018?

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

 

[Althistory Bavaria]

Well, to survive I assume the Nazis win WWII. Lets say Hitler doesnt decleare war on the US, and the Americans only fight Japan in the pacific and give land lease aid to the USSR and Britain. The Nazis defeat the Soviets in the Caucasus campaign, cuting the Soviets from their oil supply. In 1943 the Nazis take Moscow and Leningrad, and by 1945, the Soviets are pushed behind the Urals. Hitler planned for a 'permanent bloody border' to 'keep the spirit of the Aryan race high', meaning that they will fight an endless war against Soviet guerrillas in the Urals.
Another battle of Britain begins, and with all resources focused ob britain, they are forced to surrender in 1947. The remaining free Dominions decleare independence and ally with the US.

In Asia, the Japanese Empire is defeated by the Americans in 1947 (later than OTL, with weaker british presence in the region).

The world is divided between the German and American blocs. The Germans rule europe and most of africa, while the USA dominate asia and most of the americas.
Cold war begins after the Germans attack and conquer neutral switzerland.

Now to the original topic:

The Germans will keep their focus on military undustry, as they still need a strong army to counter the US, fight their war in the east and proxy wars and control the occupied regions. Western europe will be released as Nazi pupets. The 'Lebensraum' plan of the Nazis will be implemented, and at least 50 million slavs will be exterminated immidiately, while the rest will be reduced to slaves, many of the transfered to Germany proper and western europe for hard physical labor. After a forced baby boom of Germans, the eastern areas annexed into the 'Greater German Reich' (Poland, Czechoslovakis, The Baltics,Belarus, Ukraine and european russia) are flooded with German settlers.

Technological developement will be held back by Nazi doctrine and underfunding (bcause of the immense military expenditures and aid to the pupet governments). Assuming the Nazi-American Cold war still goes on by 2018, there wont be mobile phones, an internet of any kind, advanced medicine or modern industrial techniques. Technological level would be around the OTL 80s-90s level (the USA has to counter the Nazi military buildup, and the Nazis are much more aggressive than the USSR. Most likely no Detènte in this TL).

Nazi Germany would be a rather poor state by our first world standarts. Permanent mobilisation to crush revolts in the colonies bleed the budged dry. The 'superior Aryan race' would suffer from relatively low living standarts, economic stagnation, mass conscription of an incresingly discontend new german generation. Also the treat of atomic war is much more prevelant than in OTL, even by our Cold war standarts. Nazi Propsganda would blame anyone imaginable, the Jews, the Communists, the Gay, the Old, the Americans, etc. , but as the Germans have lower living standarts than many nation considered inferior by Nazi ideology, they would become less and less believable.

On science, the Nazis would likely underfund any science, except the pseudo-science of eugenics or so called 'scientific racism'. Science would be massively hindered by Nazi ideology, aswell.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

Throughout World War Two-oriented media, Nazi Germany is depicted as a powerhouse, especially in the fields of science and technology. From advanced spacecraft to superheavy tanks, their alleged mastery of engineering is displayed for every consumer of such media to see. Judging by internet commentary and the Third Reich's depicted technological superiority, it has a strong influence. In my eyes, it's unduely so.

I, like many on Alternate History.com, am quite skeptical of the OP Nazi trope being a true one. Do correct me if I'm wrong about this, but their frequently over-engineered armor, insane investments into Wunderwaffen, and gross economic mismanagement not just in real life, but in what they planned to do, very much implies otherwise.

Most of all, though, Nazi Germany was a state enslaved to a fanatical, uncompromising ideology of war, genocide, and Aryan supremacism. In addition to promoting evils beyond all question, it forbade the kind of open exchange, freedom of experimentation, and fact-over-narrative mindset necessary (or at least, game-changing) for the acquisition of knowledge--not just in the hard sciences, but in such fields as history, literature, philosophy and perhaps everywhere else. Pretty much any field of knowledge that I can think of could end up stunted, under or badly developed, or otherwise amount to mental gymnastics that goes unquestioned under Nazi oversight.

Add that to an entire generation growing up under a bang-head-on-desk-terrible education system, and I see little hope for breaking their nationwide echo chamber.

But what do you guys think? What are some better-informed opinions about how Nazi German science and technology would've turned out, had the Third Reich magically survived up to 2018?

Thank you in advance,
Zyobot

Contrary to popular opinion, dictatorships can often breed quite effective science and technology. They're more focused on actual, practical achievement, and less on making money, than capitalist democracies. After all, it was the Soviet Union that successfully launched the first satellite, and put the first man into space. And, currently, even Kim Jong-un's extremely small, poor and repressive North Korea continues to surprise the world with its ability to develop impressive weapons technology.

So, on the whole, given the Nazi's pretty good track record in terms of science and technology -- rockets, jets, guided missiles, rocket planes etc. -- I'd say they probably would have done pretty well, in this area. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the world weren't a bit farther ahead than it is now, given the current state of things. In any case, we wouldn't have utterly corrupt pathological liars like Elon Musk and SpaceX running things, and, that could only be an improvement, I'd say. With Elon in charge of things, we'll never have any progress at all, ever. He just wants to make money, after all.

 

[The Byronic Hero]

We could see detente by the fifties. Hitler isn't surviving much longer than OTL either dying or becoming a figurehead. When he goes, we either see a civil war which sees the end of the Reich (Alexander the Great's legacy writ large with modern weapons) or someone competent enough to hold it together comes to power (I doubt they'll be as fanatical as Hitler since that's virtually impossible). I don't see Himmler coming to power. His forces proved amateurish against professional forces and the military will stay a power bloc opposed to the SS' insanity. If we see a peaceful succession, Goering is likely President with Goebbels or Speer in a Chancellor's role (everything depends on when and how the Nazis win but Hitler will reward those who he likes and he loved Goebbels and Speer to the end).

With the ever increasing costs of occupation, the Germans are going to be pragmatic: genocide or draw down. I see the latter as Goering could paint the SS with the excesses of the Holocaust absolving the German people and removing Himmler as a threat. One more reason I support draw down: There is an inherent fear of the public (Hitler feared a revolution which is why he avoided Total War for so long). The Nazis realize the people need their bread and circuses.

German scientists remain in Germany rather than being scooped up by the Americans likewise German patents stay in Europe. Now the quality of education in Germany was starting to collapse under Hitler. Whether they shed the Aryan bs in their schools is up for debate.

This is not going to be an expansionist (overly aggressive) Reich with the sheer amount of problems they will have digesting their winnings. With all the oil at their fingertips, they could use their resources as a monetary means to prop up the state.

I see computers being VERY important to the US due to their military use. The internet was originally a military project afterall and the consumer market further drove research.

So I see the Nazis likely behind the US but trading with their "opponents" to make up the shortfall. Even the USSR didn't stay totalitarian forever. The aging Nazi elite are going to relax eventually even if it takes senility.

 

[generalurist]

Contrary to popular opinion, dictatorships can often breed quite effective science and technology. They're more focused on actual, practical achievement, and less on making money, than capitalist democracies. After all, it was the Soviet Union that successfully launched the first satellite, and put the first man into space. And, currently, even Kim Jong-un's extremely small, poor and repressive North Korea continues to surprise the world with its ability to develop impressive weapons technology.

True, but unlike Nazi Germany the USSR wasn't insanely obsessed with racial and ideological 'purity' of it's science establishment. Meanwhile, Germany discards major parts of quantum physics as being impure "Judenphysik".

 

[Jerry Kraus]

True, but unlike Nazi Germany the USSR wasn't insanely obsessed with racial and ideological 'purity' of it's science establishment. Meanwhile, Germany discards major parts of quantum physics as being impure "Judenphysik".

Well, Albert Einstein rejected quantum physics -- "God does not play at dice!" I'm not sure I'm too keen on quantum physics myself, and, it was not particularly a product of Jewish scientists. Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg were quite pure Aryans, I believe.

And, take a little closer look at the Nazis attitude toward racial and ideological purity, with regards to science and technology. Werner Heisenberg was openly anti-Nazi, but he retained his positions and influence, and was largely involved with the Nazi A-bomb project. Melitta von Stauffenberg was both half-Jewish, AND the sister in law of Claus von Stauffenberg, the leader of the plot to assassinate Hitler, but she was a top Nazi scientist and test pilot, as well known and respected as Hanna Reitsch. She retained her positions after the assassination plot failed, although she had been slated to fly the top assassins to their targets! She was simply deemed to be too valuable to be liquidated, so they exonerated her. The Nazis could be remarkably flexible, at times, you know.

 

[Zyobot]

Contrary to popular opinion, dictatorships can often breed quite effective science and technology. They're more focused on actual, practical achievement, and less on making money, than capitalist democracies. After all, it was the Soviet Union that successfully launched the first satellite, and put the first man into space. And, currently, even Kim Jong-un's extremely small, poor and repressive North Korea continues to surprise the world with its ability to develop impressive weapons technology.

So, on the whole, given the Nazi's pretty good track record in terms of science and technology -- rockets, jets, guided missiles, rocket planes etc. -- I'd say they probably would have done pretty well, in this area. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the world weren't a bit farther ahead than it is now, given the current state of things. In any case, we wouldn't have utterly corrupt pathological liars like Elon Musk and SpaceX running things, and, that could only be an improvement, I'd say. With Elon in charge of things, we'll never have any progress at all, ever. He just wants to make money, after all.

Well, dictatorships are also prone to rejecting knowledge that they don't like. Do remember that the USSR did promote Lysenkoism, for instance.

I also imagine that when it comes to command/planned economies, they can be pretty hit-or-miss when it comes to entrepreneurial ventures, many of which gave us the technologies that we have nowadays. For instance, the internet probably wouldn't expand into what it is now, under a Nazi regime.

Furthermore, if the state says no to backing a business pitch, the people who proposed them are out of luck. In a capitalist economy, there'd be many potential backers for such ventures. Some are bound to say no, but there's the possibilities that others will fund the project.

 

[Anchises]

We could see detente by the fifties. Hitler isn't surviving much longer than OTL either dying or becoming a figurehead. When he goes, we either see a civil war which sees the end of the Reich (Alexander the Great's legacy writ large with modern weapons)

That would be an AWESOME TL. Also one could let a lot of Nazis die a very deserved and cruel death.


On topic:

I think in "mainstream" alternate history Nazi technology is a trope that is overused, while this site's mainstream is to critical from my point of view.

If, in the post war power struggle, the "free market faction wins" and after a massive economic crisis a somewhat sustainable economic order is established, the technological race with the Nazis might drag on significantly longer than the economic race with the Soviets.

If Nazi Germany becomes a planned economy it might do marginally better than the Soviets. Due to bad intelligence services this Third Reich would probably not have the same espionage successes though. So the slightly better RnD would not transform into better technology in the late CW.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

Well, dictatorships are also prone to rejecting knowledge that they don't like. Do remember that the USSR did promote Lysenkoism, for instance.

I also imagine that when it comes to command/planned economies, they can be pretty hit-or-miss when it comes to entrepreneurial ventures, many of which gave us the technologies that we have nowadays. For instance, the internet probably wouldn't expand into what it is now, under a Nazi regime.

Furthermore, if the state says no to backing a business pitch, the people who proposed them are out of luck. In a capitalist economy, there'd be many potential backers for such ventures. Some are bound to say no, but there's the possibilities that others will fund the project.

The problem is, the fact that a new technology is socially useful, doesn't mean it will be profitable. In particular, fundamentally new technologies that are very useful, are almost impossible to control with patents. People will simply ignore the patents, if they really need the new technology. So, it's not in the interests of successful capitalists to develop really important new inventions. They cost money to develop, but can't be controlled sufficiently to allow companies to make the money back. Hence, the innumerable new versions of Windows, from Microsoft, to control their monopoly, and make money, with no significant technological development, at all, ever. Monopolies are good business, fundamentally new technologies are very bad business.

 

[prosper o]

Given the Nazi’s utter disregard for human life, I think it’s feasible that a Third Reich that got its shit somewhat together and invested in sound science would push biotech farther then it is in our world, once they follow eugenics to its natural conclusion, find it lacking, and look to the genome.

Cloning, genetic engineering, biografting and all sorts of other unseemly, gross biotech stuff that is technically feasible IOTL, but untapped for ethical reasons might be commonplace in this Europe, with some of that knowhow leaking out into the rest of the world. Genetically engineered plagues would be stockpiled, but also targeted genes meant to kill mosquitoes and other pests might be used for commercial purposes. Research from the deaths of millions might make its way to Bayer, and then licensed to Pfizer.

 

[The Byronic Hero]

That would be an AWESOME TL. Also one could let a lot of Nazis die a very deserved and cruel death.


On topic:

I think in "mainstream" alternate history Nazi technology is a trope that is overused, while this site's mainstream is to critical from my point of view.

If, in the post war power struggle, the "free market faction wins" and after a massive economic crisis a somewhat sustainable economic order is established, the technological race with the Nazis might drag on significantly longer than the economic race with the Soviets.

If Nazi Germany becomes a planned economy it might do marginally better than the Soviets. Due to bad intelligence services this Third Reich would probably not have the same espionage successes though. So the slightly better RnD would not transform into better technology in the late CW.

Many German scientists complained about the next generation: full of pride and arrogance but not quite willing to do the research. If the Nazis are lucky, that generation's hubris will give way to reform (like the Soviets moving away from theories that applied Marxism to EVERYTHING as well as crackpot scheme's such as Lysenko's jarovization, the Virgin Lands campaign).

I could see Goebbels or Speer granting autonomy back to the educational system within reason once they realized how rotten things became as they competed with the US. Now how much of an advantage that would give the Germans with the money they are burning through (Africa and Eastern Europe are going to soak up capital like a sponge) and against the early lead the Americans have in markets especially in Asia (unless the Germans stand by China rather than Japan which would HEAVILY aid Germany's economy) are interesting questions.

I do see the Germans supporting Baathists and other anti-colonial forces in the Middle East and Africa locking down a majority of the world's oil supply giving the Nazis a great deal of leverage regarding the world economy. Proxy wars are going to be fought throughout Arabia and the Caucusus. Maybe the US pushes toward other energy sources earlier. Nuclear becomes even more popular.

 

[COMV99]

The problem is, the fact that a new technology is socially useful, doesn't mean it will be profitable. In particular, fundamentally new technologies that are very useful, are almost impossible to control with patents. People will simply ignore the patents, if they really need the new technology. So, it's not in the interests of successful capitalists to develop really important new inventions. They cost money to develop, but can't be controlled sufficiently to allow companies to make the money back. Hence, the innumerable new versions of Windows, from Microsoft, to control their monopoly, and make money, with no significant technological development, at all, ever. Monopolies are good business, fundamentally new technologies are very bad business.

There's always a possibility that a new competitor emerges and disrupts the market, like Uber and taxis. And how hasn't Mircosoft made any technological develeopment? Sure, it's possible for a company for get laws enacted to protect their business and prevent competition, like ISPs, but it's not certain.

Given the Nazi’s utter disregard for human life, I think it’s feasible that a Third Reich that got its shit somewhat together and invested in sound science would push biotech farther then it is in our world, once they follow eugenics to its natural conclusion, find it lacking, and look to the genome.

Cloning, genetic engineering, biografting and all sorts of other unseemly, gross biotech stuff that is technically feasible IOTL, but untapped for ethical reasons might be commonplace in this Europe, with some of that knowhow leaking out into the rest of the world. Genetically engineered plagues would be stockpiled, but also targeted genes meant to kill mosquitoes and other pests might be used for commercial purposes. Research from the deaths of millions might make its way to Bayer, and then licensed to Pfizer.

This trope is overplayed, the Nazi scientists were utter garbage at getting actual useful data from their experiments. They were merely performed experiments to satisfy their sadism.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

There's always a possibility that a new competitor emerges and disrupts the market, like Uber and taxis. And how hasn't Mircosoft made any technological develeopment? Sure, it's possible for a company for get laws enacted to protect their business and prevent competition, like ISPs, but it's not certain.


This trope is overplayed, the Nazi scientists were utter garbage at getting actual useful data from their experiments. They were merely performed experiments to satisfy their sadism.

Actually, no. The Nazi experiments were often rather good and practical research, despite the obvious sadism, just performed in a totally unethical manner. Their work on hypothermia, for example, is probably the most useful that has ever been done. Unfortunately, the moral costs of using the research far outweigh any benefits to be derived from using the information they obtained, and they can't be employed, for this reason.

The Japanese performed rather similar experiments on Chinese and POW subjects.

One could argue that a great deal of medical research is rather sadistic, actually. Why do you think the animal rights activists are so keen on destroying their laboratories?

 

[COMV99]

Actually, no. The Nazi experiments were often rather good and practical research, despite the obvious sadism, just performed in a totally unethical manner. Their work on hypothermia, for example, is probably the most useful that has ever been done. Unfortunately, the moral costs of using the research far outweigh any benefits to be derived from using the information they obtained, and they can't be employed, for this reason.

The Japanese performed rather similar experiments on Chinese and POW subjects.

One could argue that a great deal of medical research is rather sadistic, actually. Why do you think the animal rights activists are so keen on destroying their laboratories?

The usefulness of even the Nazi hypothermia research is doubtful, and they're methods were hapazard at best.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199005173222006

Modern medical research is still bound by ethics. Even if animals are killed as a result of research, efforts are made to reduce suffering. Sadism is enjoyment of the infliction of pain, not just inflicting it, sadism gets in the way and leads to a hapazard attitude when gathering data. Respect for test subjects and their sacrifice means you make every effort to gather the data correctly. Without it, you just fudge the numbers to make yourself look good to party superiors so you can keep on torturing.

 

[Max Sinister]

Without it, you just fudge the numbers to make yourself look good to party superiors so you can keep on torturing.

Exactly. Eugen Kogon wrote in his book about the concentration camp of Buchenwald that nazi "researchers" often made up results of experiments they never did.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

The usefulness of even the Nazi hypothermia research is doubtful, and they're methods were hapazard at best.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199005173222006

Modern medical research is still bound by ethics. Even if animals are killed as a result of research, efforts are made to reduce suffering. Sadism is enjoyment of the infliction of pain, not just inflicting it, sadism gets in the way and leads to a hapazard attitude when gathering data. Respect for test subjects and their sacrifice means you make every effort to gather the data correctly. Without it, you just fudge the numbers to make yourself look good to party superiors so you can keep on torturing.

Not really. If your test results are inaccurate, then they won't be useful. So, the Party Superiors will be very angry at you, and will have you shot. The Nazi hypothermia research at Dachau is accepted by modern scientists as having been the most comprehensive ever done, specifically because they could do anything they wanted to their subjects. These results could be used to help German Nazi soldiers survive hypothermia.

Surely, you can see, that given the experiences the Nazis were having on the Eastern Front, in Russia, that such research on hypothermia would be very practical indeed, and would be put to the test? That's precisely why it was done. So, probably, fudging the results wouldn't have been too good an idea for the Nazi scientists involved, at all. It would have severely affected their own life expectancy, in a very negative way.

 

[COMV99]

Not really. If your test results are inaccurate, then they won't be useful. So, the Party Superiors will be very angry at you, and will have you shot. The Nazi hypothermia research at Dachau is accepted by modern scientists as having been the most comprehensive ever done, specifically because they could do anything they wanted to their subjects. These results could be used to help German Nazi soldiers survive hypothermia.

Surely, you can see, that given the experiences the Nazis were having on the Eastern Front, in Russia, that such research on hypothermia would be very practical indeed, and would be put to the test? That's precisely why it was done. So, probably, fudging the results wouldn't have been too good an idea for the Nazi scientists involved, at all. It would have severely affected their own life expectancy, in a very negative way.

Did you read the link? It goes in depth into how the experiments were incredibly poorly done, and how the scientist behind them was a charlatan who regularly fasified reports to make himself appear better. In the end he was executed, but it shows how a poor scientist can reach high levels of influence in the Nazi organization though politics.

 

[Jerry Kraus]

Did you read the link? It goes in depth into how the experiments were incredibly poorly done, and how the scientist behind them was a charlatan who regularly fasified reports to make himself appear better. In the end he was executed, but it shows how a poor scientist can reach high levels of influence in the Nazi organization though politics.

This is a much more scholarly article on the subject, and it is quite clear that the results of the hypothermia research at Dachau have been repeatedly used, including by the U.S. military, and have proven extremely useful.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ec6d/b79ef14cf8d85579ab1af1ec8cd3b3bcd4cb.pdf

It's often hard to disentangle science from politics, you know. In particular, the article emphasizes that standards of scientific research in 1942 were far less stringent than they are currently. For the time, it was high quality research. In terms of current standards, it would be substandard. But, the whole question is being viewed through the prism of politics and morality, which confuses scientists all the time.

 

[COMV99]

This is a much more scholarly article on the subject, and it is quite clear that the results of the hypothermia research at Dachau have been repeatedly used, including by the U.S. military, and have proven extremely useful.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ec6d/b79ef14cf8d85579ab1af1ec8cd3b3bcd4cb.pdf

It's often hard to disentangle science from politics, you know. In particular, the article emphasizes that standards of scientific research in 1942 were far less stringent than they are currently. For the time, it was high quality research. In terms of current standards, it would be substandard. But, the whole question is being viewed through the prism of politics and morality, which confuses scientists all the time.

I don't think an article in the New England Journal of Medicine any less scholarly than an excerpt from Military Medical Ethics.

The weird thing is they both cite similar sources, but come to opposite conclusions. The article I cite makes more specific mentions of the shortfallings of the report published by the Nazis. However, the paper you cite mentions how the Nazi's data indicated various attributes of hypothermia that have been proven true. 2 major areas where the Nazis were said to be correct were the effect of alcohol on hypothermia and on the ineffectiveness of body warming in hypothermia cases. There do appear to be a greater number of areas where the Nazis appear to have gotten incorrect results and various inconsistencies, both internally within the report and with currently known knowledge. The areas are a bit more complicated to explain and there are quite a few of them.

A major area of conflict is on the effect of hypothermia on the heart.

According to the Dachau Comprehensive Report, death from cooling was caused by heart failure due to peripheral vasoconstriction and cold-induced structural myocardial injury. However, there is no mention of clinical signs of cardiac failure or evidence of myocardial damage at autopsy. Extensive experimental and clinical experience has clearly shown that contrary to the claim from Dachau, death from hypothermia is usually due to ventricular fibrillation, and cold does not injure the heart but instead protects it.

It is apparent that the data were
of value to understanding the mechanisms of hy-
pothermia, as well as to the use of hypothermia as
an adjunct to open-heart surgery.

 

[MernStahl]

A monkey banging away on a typewriter for a 1000 years could probably reproduce Shakespeare's work, yet I wouldn't pick the monkey over Shakespeare. What I mean by this is is that even though dictatorships can produce tech and promote science (indeed science did n ot arise in a free society), they are often fairly inefficient. North Korea has produced nukes at the expense of everything else. Germany could build a working nuclear device in three months if they wanted to.

The Jewish physics stuff was ditched and wasn't taken as seriously as thought. However the damage - by expelling the Jewish scientists and conscripting the German ones - was done. It was noted that towards the end of the war the Nazis recalled several thousand physicists to try to work on weapons projects but they had lost a chunk of them as either KIAs or POWs.

In addition, the Nazi economy worked was even more inefficient than the Soviets, so that will further limit things. Throw in the resources dedicated towards an endless guerrilla conflict on the Eastern front, you have even more restrictions. This might be counter-balanced by the greater control of European resources (if we assume a Fatherland-type scenario) and captured technology and research but only to a limited extent

If the regime "moderates" and just becomes a generic authoritarianism (like Fatherland) it will likely do better than if it keeps up its full totalitarian momentum

I would conclude that it would be less advanced than modern day Germany is certainly. They probably wouldn't be at North Korea levels. Maybe former Eastern-bloc levels at best, possibly a bit behind.