The Nazis - their own worst enemy?
- Thread starter KJM
- Start date
It's an interesting question as to whether Nazism was inherently self-destructive; personally, I'd say, on the whole, 'Yes.' The doctrine was massively expansionist - that could have been tempered by a more thoughtful leader than Hitler - Goring, for example - but then again Hitler and Nazism were in many instances mutually dependent.
An interesting POD which I've never really seen seriously considered is the possiblity of Johann Georg Elser being successful in his attempt to kill Hitler in November 1939.
An interesting POD which I've never really seen seriously considered is the possiblity of Johann Georg Elser being successful in his attempt to kill Hitler in November 1939.
David S Poepoe
Banned
I would agree. A system ruled by thugs, each with their own fiefdoms, doesn't last long. There would probably be several interdepartmental clashes, perhaps even a succession war of sorts following Hitler's death. One can probably predict that eventually some show down would occur between the Regular Army and the SS.
From recent readings about the pre-Great War Imperial Army it seems apparent that interdepartmental rivalries at the highest levels were a common occurance in the German armed forces.
Ah.coms own Ian Montgomerie has an interesting essay pointing towards a possible answer.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/gateway/essays/NaziEconomy.html
And there is an interesting review of a book on the Nazi economy from Reason magazine.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/31084.html
Its been years since I read anything substantial on the subject, but I would say the odds of a Nazi collapse are quite high, and we can certainly rule out the cliche Nazi-run Germany ruling the world, or even being a serious competitor with the USA.
Last edited:
I wouldn't agree. It must never be forgotten that every conflict has 2 sides, so that if the empire begins to fall apart, there will be an opposing force able to fight to keep it together. If one postulates a weak successor to Hitler then one could look at a strong successor to Himmler, perhaps, maybe Schellenberg for example who by the later 50s has alliances and contacts throughout the branches of the military and perhaps more importantly throughout industry.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
i dont think that Nazi Germany would be able to survive for long. the nations that they counqured would be rebelling at every turn and their were confilicting ideas of what should happen after Hitler died. Himmler wanted the SS to take over and i dont think the Wehrmachet would like it if the SS took over so there could be an internal conflict
Well, I still maintain my position even tho it was ignored
One is not talking reform per se, but evolution. A whole strand of the SS, particuarly represented by Schellenberg, was involved in either/both infiltrating industry and creating strong ties with industry. In addition, after the demise of the Abwehr, Schellenberg controlled the main Nazi intelligence machine and was very well-informed, and from this very well connected. Yes, he was there partly as a result of Himmler's favour but considering that the alternative faction was Kaltenbrunner, one can see how Schellenberg within the SS structure seemed like a good option in his own right
Consider that after Hitler's death, we might see a holding position before the outbreak of a real power struggle, or papering over a power struggle going on beneath it
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
One is not talking reform per se, but evolution. A whole strand of the SS, particuarly represented by Schellenberg, was involved in either/both infiltrating industry and creating strong ties with industry. In addition, after the demise of the Abwehr, Schellenberg controlled the main Nazi intelligence machine and was very well-informed, and from this very well connected. Yes, he was there partly as a result of Himmler's favour but considering that the alternative faction was Kaltenbrunner, one can see how Schellenberg within the SS structure seemed like a good option in his own right
Consider that after Hitler's death, we might see a holding position before the outbreak of a real power struggle, or papering over a power struggle going on beneath it
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Although a number of semi-independent fiefdoms seem inevitable, I think that the divisions in a post-victorious Reich would be geographical rather than political. There would always be a fuhrer though, a unifying and powerful arbiter of the whole system.
The Gauleiters were always powerful figures, even able to mess around with high SS like Eichmann when it suited them, but the fuhrer could intervene without protest to settle any dispute anywhere.
A nazi superpower based on a system of gaus and protektorates running from the Atlantic to the Volga would be very stable I feel. The nazi doctrine was always based on the fuherprinzip, so a ruling oligarchy can be ruled out I think, though there could easily be a civil war at the death of each fuhrer.
A good model could be that of the Roman Empire post-Augustus, with the gauleiters and higher SS playing the roles of the governors, proconsuls and legates of the Roman system. Maybe a civil war every fifty years or so, then stability for a time until there was another disputed succession. The Army, with its personal vows of loyalty to the fuhrer and the overwatch of the Army by the Sipo and SS, should never be a danger to the Party.
Such a Reich would essentially be the Eurasian World with no real frontiers...Africa and South Asia would be composed of colonies or gaus, and the Americas very distant neighbours, of little threat.
As the Roman Empire went for well over a thousand years, including East Rome, I think the "Thousand Year Reich" was well on the cards. In fact I think that if a modus operandi was worked out with the Japanese, there would be no reason at all why it would ever fall at all, becoming in time a society based on rigid ethnic and cultural lines like the unified China founded 200 BCE.
The Gauleiters were always powerful figures, even able to mess around with high SS like Eichmann when it suited them, but the fuhrer could intervene without protest to settle any dispute anywhere.
A nazi superpower based on a system of gaus and protektorates running from the Atlantic to the Volga would be very stable I feel. The nazi doctrine was always based on the fuherprinzip, so a ruling oligarchy can be ruled out I think, though there could easily be a civil war at the death of each fuhrer.
A good model could be that of the Roman Empire post-Augustus, with the gauleiters and higher SS playing the roles of the governors, proconsuls and legates of the Roman system. Maybe a civil war every fifty years or so, then stability for a time until there was another disputed succession. The Army, with its personal vows of loyalty to the fuhrer and the overwatch of the Army by the Sipo and SS, should never be a danger to the Party.
Such a Reich would essentially be the Eurasian World with no real frontiers...Africa and South Asia would be composed of colonies or gaus, and the Americas very distant neighbours, of little threat.
As the Roman Empire went for well over a thousand years, including East Rome, I think the "Thousand Year Reich" was well on the cards. In fact I think that if a modus operandi was worked out with the Japanese, there would be no reason at all why it would ever fall at all, becoming in time a society based on rigid ethnic and cultural lines like the unified China founded 200 BCE.