What would the economy of a victorious Nazi Germany look like?

how victorious? they invaded America?! that's in the ASB realm

if its france was defeated and occupied.. England withdraws.. stalemate in the east. then okay..

whats the result. they don't get to de-mobilize . the rest of the world is gunning for them and round three wont be far behind. you need victory before the bomb is developed. once the US has that, well.. hey surprise.

I also think that the salve/death labor will slow down as the resource pool drops. why kill off your next to free work force. ( actually far from free.. the cost of trying to exterminate them wasn't cheap )

then hey.. what do you have, Heinrich .. hey look we now have all this virgin land!
Speer. great.. and no one to work it or run the factories or rebuild. yay.. way to go..

what is the point of war with no spoils besides land.. war is expensive. Odds are it becomes an apartheid society layered from "Aryan" ( or what ever twistd idea there is of that . ) down the rung to death camps.. different levels.. different rights.. etc etc

its pointless .. if the Reich was to continue in said direction it would collapse under its own non-productive weight by 1960...
I think you're missing the point of this thread.
 
I think you're missing the point of this thread.

Actually no .. When and how do they win? if by taking out france, and the UK bow out, you will then have an escalating cold war in the long term.
The Soviets will also continue to build up as well, this will in due time cause a cold war as well.

So lets assume that its Germany with a subservient grance, benlux, Denmark, Italy and spain at its disposal. you have a somewhat usable economy that could be continued.

looking to the east.. Poland will become a fairly empty place. agriculture..

if the soviets don't collapse then it will stagnate the economy long term.

IF the soviets do collapse then the germans will need to occupy it.


economic collapse.

what will it look like

In central Europe, factories, mining.. in Poland, mining, farming.. in france.. well what they did in france before :)

if the Germany Reich has to pour money into occupation and extermination camps and a cold war, its just going to be ugly.

Poles and other slavs will be used as cheap labor.

In the west, it will just be business as usual.
 
Hess, is a tough nut.. he wasn't whack.. but his elevator didn't go to the top floor. he was easily swayed and influenced. but he wasn't stupid .. Misguided and a tad naïve.

I honestly don't think he would be as fanatical, nor would Goering. It's others that I would be more worried about running the show and turning things into a literal hell in Europe.

Honestly after Hitler would pass away, you would need someone to de hitlerify the reich.
 
For a future leader of Germany in the scenario OP describes is Hess a viable candidate? What do we think his leadership would be like?

Hess flew the coop a bit too early, I think, to be included as a possibility with this POD. As for what he'd do... I'm honestly not sure.
Actually no .. When and how do they win? if by taking out france, and the UK bow out, you will then have an escalating cold war in the long term.
The Soviets will also continue to build up as well, this will in due time cause a cold war as well.

So lets assume that its Germany with a subservient grance, benlux, Denmark, Italy and spain at its disposal. you have a somewhat usable economy that could be continued.

looking to the east.. Poland will become a fairly empty place. agriculture..

if the soviets don't collapse then it will stagnate the economy long term.

IF the soviets do collapse then the germans will need to occupy it.


economic collapse.

what will it look like

In central Europe, factories, mining.. in Poland, mining, farming.. in france.. well what they did in france before :)

if the Germany Reich has to pour money into occupation and extermination camps and a cold war, its just going to be ugly.

Poles and other slavs will be used as cheap labor.

In the west, it will just be business as usual.

The British Empire is broke already crumbling in its crown jewel and the Soviets are freezing and/or starving in Siberia. Neither can afford to focus the kind of military pressure on Germany to prevent them from at least partial demobalization, with the spare industrial capacity and labor as well as plunder and slave labor being metabolized into the economy. Without American largess, London's economic realities (especially if she wants to maintain the Empire) basically demand a detente with Germany within a few years.
 
how victorious? they invaded America?! that's in the ASB realm
Well, the POD is that Britain rage-quits after Dunkirk leads to the massacre of the BEF and that the USSR, without Lend-Lease and with Germany's full might pressed against it due to Britain suing for peace, is forced east of the Urals in Barbarossa.
 

Hmm... I must say I hadn't considered this possibility. Himmler might try to pull this off if he felt the SS's version of Nazi thought had reached a critical enough mass, but not so much as to have gotten a majority of influence, and felt like there was a broader conspiracy among the more moderate and conservative factions to bring him down.
 
In a Nazi Germany ruled by Himmler or Goebbels, I could see something like this.
Both men truly believed in the indoctrination of the German people and both would genuine concerns that there were those who would rebel against them. But there's a huge difference between the two men. Himmler, whilst morbid, was uncomfortable about making the Nazis' brutality too public. He was rightfully concerned that the German people wouldn't accept such open violence. He would most definitely eliminate opposition to him within the government, but he'd probably be much more cautious with the overall population and instead seek to indoctrinate the German people with his ideals. He wanted to create a utopia, and you can't achieve that if your society's in chaos. If mass arrests did happen, they'd probably be more discreet. Goebbels believed in the concept of such public violence and intimidation. In his eyes, you were either a fanatical Nazi, or a parasite. And with his oratorical skills being second only to Hitler, he could have massive sway over the German people and brainwash them far more quickly than Himmler could ever dream of. Goebbels could easily find new scapegoats (like corrupt bureaucrats or even German war heroes) for the fanatical Nazis to butcher. And he would do this to anybody who opposed him and his ideals, or just about anyone he didn't like. He wouldn't care how violent the streets would become or how many Germans would die. All he would care about was cementing his idea for a better Germany and honoring Hitler.

Hmm... I must say I hadn't considered this possibility. Himmler might try to pull this off if he felt the SS's version of Nazi thought had reached a critical enough mass, but not so much as to have gotten a majority of influence, and felt like there was a broader conspiracy among the more moderate and conservative factions to bring him down.
Not only that, but Himmler would probably have to crack down on his own SS. If he was the leader of Germany, he'd have natural concerns that certain SS members are either eyeing for leadership or are making themselves too powerful. The most notable examples of this would be Reinhard Heydrich and Ernst Kaltenbrunner. In comparison to them, Himmler was extreme radical in ideology, but more moderate in practice. As a rather sickly man, he knew full well that these men were more impressive than him. So they would obviously have to be purged. Heydrich wasn't an ideologue, but Kaltenbrunner definitely was (about as ruthless as Goebbels, but much less intelligent).
 
Last edited:
Top