Would a victorious Reich moderate?

[DrakonFin]

You keep making it seem like all the "kooks" in Nazi Germany were confined solely to the SS.

The entire German government/military/bureaucratic apparatus was deeply involved in various atrocities and war crimes from 1939-1945 particularly in the East. Things like the Holocaust, the genocide of over 2.5 million Soviet POWs within 8 months in 1941, the Commissar Order, wiping out whole villages suspected of assisting partisans, the policy of 100 civilians killed for every German death, deporting people as slaves, use of millions of slave workers in horrible conditions, mass looting, mass confiscations of foodstuffs from the local population etc were all horrific things that couldn't have occurred if it was solely up to the "kooks" in the SS. Everyone involved was guilty to some extent the only thing that varied was how much blood they had on their particular hands.

There were committed/true believer Nazis throughout German society especially among the government, the various ministries and the military. People who had and would have no issue implementing Hitler/the Fuhrer's policies to the letter. These people wouldn't disappear or grow consciences in the event of a total victory. To do so would be going back on the tenets and doctrines of National Socialism to which they adhered to either totally or partially. If they committed or organized atrocities during the war then why wouldn't they continue to do so or support those who are doing it after the war when the REAL work was at hand?

Again, you are talking about the war time, and I am talking about the postwar. We might again draw parallels with the USSR here, as we know that the Red Army did not commit similar bloodletting and atrocities in the early 50s as it did during WWII. I am not saying that it was "only the SS kooks" who were involved in the crimes of Nazi Germany during the war (even if they were the most prominent among German war criminals), what I am saying that they would be chief among those who would argue for keeping up the extermination policies after the war while the "moderate" groups in the Nazi/German power structure would find different priorities in the postwar period (rebuilding the German cities, restarting trade, cooperation with various allied/satellite states to control the occupied areas, various building projects on national and continental scale, defence against the US and its allies, etc, etc). For most of the Germans, the postwar would be different to total war. For every W-SS and Einsatzgruppen member and concentration camp guard, there were many men who served in Heer units or worked on the home front who took no part in war crimes or were only peripherally involved, to give an example. Many men who would serve the Nazi empire in the 50s and 60s did not even fight in the war, being too young for that at the time. And, to be sure, many people who did take part in atrocities during the war would regret that and not want part in more of the same. This is human nature.

The extermination of the lesser races would be the main goal of the most committed believers in the Nazi ideology. But the question is, to me, how big part of the German population would be committed to this ideology after the war, to the exclusion of other, more human and more mundane goals? Most would pay lip service to the tenets of Nazism, sure. But how many would be true believers ready to keep the extermination going or to go East and gleefully fulfill the horrid quotas of a Generalplan Ost? I don't believe it would be as big a part of the population as you seem to believe.

The problem is, though, that this is pretty much up to what I believe and what you believe. As we are talking hypotheticals here, it is pretty hard to say which one (if either) might be right.

 

[Wendigo]

. I am not saying that it was "only the SS kooks" who were involved in the crimes of Nazi Germany during the war (even if they were the most prominent among German war criminals), what I am saying that they would be chief among those who would argue for keeping up the extermination policies after the war while the "moderate" groups in the Nazi/German power structure would find different priorities in the postwar period (rebuilding the German cities, restarting trade, cooperation with various allied/satellite states to control the occupied areas, various building projects on national and continental scale, defence against the US and its allies, etc, etc).

Who says they can't do all of the above while at the same time reducing the Slavic population bit by bit each year over a 20-30 year period like GP Ost called for?

The logistics of killing that many people over decades wouldn't be strenuous. All those building projects you mentioned? Where do you think they would get the manpower to accomplish those things? Why use precious German laborers when you have tens of millions of expendable workers in the form of the "subhuman" Slavs who you don't have to feed or take care of as much?

It isn't that hard to kill large numbers of people particularly for a nation like the Reich which had such a horrifically brutal and racist ideology and millions of people who were true believers in said ideology.

You only need a handful of trains to deport tens of thousands of slaves on a daily or weekly basis. This requires a small number of railway workers/attendants the same ones who had no issue transporting thousands of Jews to their death in cattle cars. Those Slavs who are left behind in the East get eliminated destroying their cities brick by brick dying in the process which kills two birds with one stone. You only need a small number of individuals to watch over the Slavs as they toil and die off in mines, factories, construction sites and any other job too dangerous or dirty for the "superior race." And we know that the Reich had individuals like that in spades who had no issue overseeing starving workforces of "subhumans" and making sure they don't slack off.

As long as you can replace them as fast as they're worked to death what reason is there to assume killing off the Slavs wasn't possible given enough time? They may have had trouble building settlements in the East but wiping out the Slavs in a few decades is doable if you truly believe in the Nazi worldview like the senior leadership and large numbers of the German populace did.

It wouldn't have taken a massive amount of effort to do the above even if there are those who don't want to be a part of it. Hitler and Himmler had no issue firing and replacing officials who wouldn't obey orders. Dictatorships especially those as evil as the Reich DON'T need complete unanimity to carry out policies of murder they just need enough people who are dedicated Nazis and WILL carry out their orders however immoral. There never was a shortage of cold blooded individuals to do the dirty work in the Reich IOTL and this wouldn't change ITTL. Sure many people would refuse to aid in genocide but they can be replaced or moved to another position in the hierarchy just like IOTL.

You don't need millions of people to kill millions more. Especially when it's a continent spanning dictatorship doing it. The Holocaust and various other genocides in history have shown this.

Genocide is made far easier when you are just a small part of a massive bureaucracy and therefore don't have to see the bloody results of your work.

 

[CrimsonKing]

Regarding the logistics of Generalplan Ost, it is probably true that it is within the physical capabilities of the German bureaucracy and armed forces to implement the requisite deportation/killing, albeit not as easily as many think. However, as the results of the trial run at Zamosc made clear, the SS couldn't have carried the plan out on its own without substantially being backed up by the regular army. This is worth noting, as it means that the plan could not have begun until some time after victory over the Soviet Union, because the overwhelming bulk of the army would have been immediately transferred west to deter a Wallied landing, leaving behind the bare minimum needed to maintain control over the occupied territories (even in the circumstance of some sort of German-Wallied peace there isn't going to be any trust on either side). It would have been years before enough missiles, bombers, and poison gas/biological weapons were accumulated to establish even a rudimentary level of Mutually Assured Destruction with the Wallies, and enough forces could be sent east again. By that time, Hitler would definitely have been out of the picture.

The bottom line remains, given the extreme unpopularity of Himmler, the forces which would have been arrayed against him after Hitler was gone, and everything that has been gathered about the personality of Speer, it is incredibly unlikely that the German high command would have remained interested in implementing the plan. Bureaucracies and armed forces do not make policy on their own, they implement orders from above. If the orders aren't coming, the actions would not have been carried out. This isn't to say that occupied Eastern Europe would have been a nice place, there would undoubtedly have still been considerable use of forced labor and general oppression. The best comparison would probably be Japanese rule over Korea and Manchuria.

 

[Wendigo]

The bottom line remains, given the extreme unpopularity of Himmler, the forces which would have been arrayed against him after Hitler was gone, and everything that has been gathered about the personality of Speer, it is incredibly unlikely that the German high command would have remained interested in implementing the plan.

Are you saying Hitler/Himmler's plans WOULD have been implemented as long as Hitler was alive?

Also a large amount of Hitler's health issues were clearly stress related that got worse as the war went on. If Hitler knocks the USSR out early and stalemates the WAllies then there's no reason why Hitler's condition would deteriorate and he would die in a few years like everyone assumes. If he wins the war it's plausible he lives another decade if not longer.

 

[CrimsonKing]

Are you saying Hitler/Himmler's plans WOULD have been implemented as long as Hitler was alive?

Possibly, as long as "alive" is taken to mean "alive and functioning." Hitler was a rather temperamental individual who could be influenced by those around him. So in a situation in which he highly values Speer's opinion as a result of the "armaments miracle" and subsequent victory, I could see him listening if Speer came to him saying that GpO would be counterproductive and that there were better alternative approaches.

Also a large amount of Hitler's health issues were clearly stress related that got worse as the war went on. If Hitler knocks the USSR out early and stalemates the WAllies then there's no reason why Hitler's condition would deteriorate and he would die in a few years like everyone assumes. If he wins the war it's plausible he lives another decade if not longer.

I find the much simpler explanation for the decline in Hitler's health to be due to the fact that he was being injected on a daily basis with dozens of highly toxic substances, including literally strychnine, as a result of his being completely under the spell of Morell, who he met back in 1936, and his quack remedies. It happened that the effects of years of such "remedies" were becoming apparent at the same time the military situation was deteriorating. There are plenty of people whose health has suffered from substance abuse despite being successful in their professional lives, think of all the music stars who have died as a result of drug overdoses, and the popular image of the cocaine-addicted Wall Street executive from some decades ago.

 

[Wendigo]

The "Moderate to an extent" and "It would get crazier/more evil" options are pretty much equal in number of votes (29-28) after the latter choice was ahead for a while.

If I took out the "Depends on the leadership" option I wonder how the votes would look.