If Nazi Germany wins WWII and later becomes a democracy, what is it going to do with its Lebensraum?

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,759
At present SD, USA
#31
The Knights Templar, Germanic but not "Germany," made incursions into what is now Poland, Lithuania, and Estonia, I believe. Prussia/German Empire in 1870 had much of what is now Poland. Not all of what Hitler desired, but even those lands could not be filled with German "settlers," even with very favorable conditions.
German Eastern Marches Society - Wikipedia
I'm not disagreeing that there were previous attempts. My chief point is that the power to make people move or encourage them to have a higher birthrate was lower than it was under Hitler. The German states often had a lot of local power and their own agendas that may also conflict with whoever was at the head of the "government."

Look at the Protestant Reformation. At that time the Holy Roman Emperor, a Catholic from what is now Austria was firmly in the belief that Martin Luther's heresy should be punished for his disagreements with the Pope. Yet, Luther got protection from local nobles and German barons ultimately allowed Luther to practice his interpretation freely and this would lead into many of the wars of religion after 1517 in which Catholic and Protestant barons would be fighting each other heavily over the interpretation of Christianity that the Holy Roman Empire would follow. And despite the fact that Gustavus Adolphus's campaigns in the Thirty Year's War amounted to an invasion of the Holy Roman Empire, he was able to win support from many of the Protestant barons...

And later, when Wilhelm I or Wilhelm II was confronted by issues stemming from conflicts between the German army and the people of Alsace/Lorraine, the local population largely won out and while the area remained a German province, the German Emperor was not able to completely dictate terms to the Alsatians.

This would then mean that even if other conditions were favorable for such immigration, the fractured nature of the German political structures between local barons and lords would mean that no King or Prince could force the people of a different German state if they didn't wish to join the German state that did wish to go... and could even have some degree of trouble trying to force it on those they could control.

The Nazis were changing that in Germany and had they been able to retain power... they MIGHT have had a chance of success. Perhaps not a great chance, but better chance in that they were trying hard to try and strip the regions within Germany of their local authority, which could in turn stall or stop their agenda.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,366
US
#32
I'm not disagreeing that there were previous attempts. My chief point is that the power to make people move or encourage them to have a higher birthrate was lower than it was under Hitler. The German states often had a lot of local power and their own agendas that may also conflict with whoever was at the head of the "government."

Look at the Protestant Reformation. At that time the Holy Roman Emperor, a Catholic from what is now Austria was firmly in the belief that Martin Luther's heresy should be punished for his disagreements with the Pope. Yet, Luther got protection from local nobles and German barons ultimately allowed Luther to practice his interpretation freely and this would lead into many of the wars of religion after 1517 in which Catholic and Protestant barons would be fighting each other heavily over the interpretation of Christianity that the Holy Roman Empire would follow. And despite the fact that Gustavus Adolphus's campaigns in the Thirty Year's War amounted to an invasion of the Holy Roman Empire, he was able to win support from many of the Protestant barons...

And later, when Wilhelm I or Wilhelm II was confronted by issues stemming from conflicts between the German army and the people of Alsace/Lorraine, the local population largely won out and while the area remained a German province, the German Emperor was not able to completely dictate terms to the Alsatians.

This would then mean that even if other conditions were favorable for such immigration, the fractured nature of the German political structures between local barons and lords would mean that no King or Prince could force the people of a different German state if they didn't wish to join the German state that did wish to go... and could even have some degree of trouble trying to force it on those they could control.

The Nazis were changing that in Germany and had they been able to retain power... they MIGHT have had a chance of success. Perhaps not a great chance, but better chance in that they were trying hard to try and strip the regions within Germany of their local authority, which could in turn stall or stop their agenda.
Yeah. Hitler would have relocated his own by force. They would have needed a great deal more people, a really high birth rate.
 

Sam-Nary

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
6,759
At present SD, USA
#33
Yeah. Hitler would have relocated his own by force. They would have needed a great deal more people, a really high birth rate.
Agreed... and while Hitler had policies that were intended to increase the German birth rate, the only way it would have worked would be if they had very long period of rule without any interruption of their policies and thus a gradual shift from dictatorship to democracy...

Though, while it is possible, I don't find it likely. The Nazi Party had too many people with big egos that weren't going to get along well with others and at times even battled within themselves that were at times contrary to what they even said their party philosophy. Much of their party agenda seemed to focus on a more unitary style of government in which all decisions would largely come from the top down with little to no local authority, but yet at times even their own party members found areas they were assigned to as something of a personal fiefdom that they didn't want to give up. Spear wrote a lot after the war that he often had a lot of trouble with various Gauleiters who didn't want to follow his orders with regard to armaments production in that region... because those Gauleiters often saw the areas they had as their own little kingdoms where they got to be the boss and weren't going to just bow to Spear, even though in pure theory, they were supposed to when it came to armaments production.

It's why I think the most likely way that Nazi Germany "becomes" a democracy would be through some chaotic civil war type of issue when Hitler dies, which would then in turn destroy the very things they were trying to attain.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,205
SoCal
#34
Wanting to and having to would be different issues altogether. The Nazis certainly intended for the lands they annexed to become truly German territories, which would mean they couldn't have a lot of non-Germans running around territories they intended to colonize. And while somehow winning WW2 might ease some of their problems, it wouldn't necessarily remove them...
I agree with all of this.

Take for example their policies regarding the Jews and what then came from that. Their first solution was expulsion, by removing them from Germany, they would purify Germany of the "misfortune" they felt they had. However, if true expulsion was the only real goal, then it would make sense to make it EASY for them to leave. They wouldn't die and they'd be gone. It'd be a policy success for the Nazis without any death involved. The problem though, was that the Nazis also sought to profit off this expulsion, which made immigration difficult. Jews trying to leave Germany had to practically give up everything just to leave, and according to one documentary (Rise and Fall) they would have to pay the taxes for the year of their departure and he following year as well. That's not going to make it easy for German Jews to want to leave Germany.
Yes, you are correct that there was sometimes a disconnect between Nazi desires and Nazi actions. Similarly, the Nazis sought to expel Jews but also sought territorial expansion--which would only increase the size of their Jewish population given the large numbers of Jews in various parts of Europe.

This reminds me of an old comment by Underlankers where he said that the Nazis were "back at stage one" after they acquired various territories due to all of the additional Jews that they acquired as a result of these territorial gains.

To make matters worse, many countries outside of Germany weren't too eager to accept German Jews and others trying to flee the Nazis. FDR, Daladier, Chamberlain/Churchill all made periodic comments on Nazi Party policies, but they weren't at all keen on welcoming in millions of German refugees. The story of the St. Louis highlights that as German Jews tried to flee to the US and got blocked by the American immigration quota system, and ultimately have to go back. If Germany somehow wins WW2 and the US and Britain are not made openly aware of the horrors of Nazi Party action... they're not going to suddenly change their minds about welcoming Jews trying to get away from the Nazis, even if the Nazis try to demand it as part of the treaty... Especially as the "Madagascar Option" would still have to depend on the German navy being able to bully the Royal Navy out of the way...
I agree that, in spite of their rhetoric, Britain and the U.S. are probably going to be unwilling to accept large numbers of refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe in the event of a Nazi victory. Still, there is the option of forcing the Soviet Union--which will presumably be pushed back east of the Urals in the final peace treaty--to accept all of the refugees that Nazi Germany decides to throw their way. Of course, building a lot of additional infrastructure in Siberia and Central Asia to accommodate tens of millions of refugees is certainly not going to be easy for the Soviet Union to do--which could result in a lot of deaths as a result of the inadequate infrastructure in these areas combined with the massive population boom in these areas as a result of the refugee expulsions from Europe.

Latin America might be willing to accept some European refugees--though probably much less than would be required. Of course, there is the option of settling a lot of European refugees in Europe's various colonies--sort of how Palestine was viewed as a good destination to resettle Holocaust survivors after the end of WWII. (Of course, this colonial resettlement would not have necessarily been pleasant; for instance, there was the Madagascar Plan for resettling Europe's Jews.)

And many of the conquests the Germans had in 1939 to 1942 actually INCREASED the Jewish population the Nazis had to deal with. So, while they initially tried to argue for expulsion, they botched that to a point where it was hard for Jews to leave, compounded by how other countries responded to it, and made even more problematic by the fact that as they expanded their territory, they found themselves having to rule over more Jews, Slavs, and other undesirables than they really knew what to do with or had an effective plan for. So even if killing them wasn't planned from the start (which I'd personally doubt given the lines Hitler gave in "Mein Kampf), they might still HAVE to turn to killing to try and solve their perceived "problem."
Which lines in Mein Kampf are you talking about here?

Also, Yes, I completely agree with everything that you wrote here.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,205
SoCal
#35
The German desires for breathing room , especially to the east, has been a dream since the days of Charlemagne. It was never able to be fully realized because there weren't enough Germans who had an interest in living in those regions.
The Ostsiedlung actually was pretty successful. Nevertheless, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, there was actually a population shift from the east of Germany to the west of Germany:

Ostflucht - Wikipedia

The issue with eastern Germany is that it was less industrialized than western Germany was--which in turn reduced the incentive to stick around in the east after the age of mass industrialization began in Germany. Indeed, the Nazis' agrarian fantasies in the East were especially incompatible with Germany's industrialized nature in the 1930s and 1940s. Ultimately, short of continuously using extremely brutal force, I think that the most successful form of Lebensraum in the East for Germany would have been an urban one--as in getting Germans to move en masse to urban areas in the East. However, this would probably require a much higher German birth rate and also various incentives for Germans to move to the East.
 

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,366
US
#36
The Ostsiedlung actually was pretty successful. Nevertheless, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, there was actually a population shift from the east of Germany to the west of Germany:

Ostflucht - Wikipedia

The issue with eastern Germany is that it was less industrialized than western Germany was--which in turn reduced the incentive to stick around in the east after the age of mass industrialization began in Germany. Indeed, the Nazis' agrarian fantasies in the East were especially incompatible with Germany's industrialized nature in the 1930s and 1940s. Ultimately, short of continuously using extremely brutal force, I think that the most successful form of Lebensraum in the East for Germany would have been an urban one--as in getting Germans to move en masse to urban areas in the East. However, this would probably require a much higher German birth rate and also various incentives for Germans to move to the East.
Like you mentioned, the easter marches were agrarian. It would have taken a massive influx of capital to industrialize these places. And I doubt the junckers would have let this happen anyway. The manors were their form of income.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,205
SoCal
#37
Like you mentioned, the easter marches were agrarian. It would have taken a massive influx of capital to industrialize these places. And I doubt the junckers would have let this happen anyway. The manors were their form of income.
I agree with all of this, though I would like to point out that I was thinking of industrializing Eastern Europe rather than eastern Germany here.
 
Feb 2016
539
ROK
#38
Judging from how a lot of the Europeans feel about the EU, I think the Nazis in the long term would've faced difficulties in keeping control of the vast territory. The Nazis took these territories through warfare. There would've been so much more hatred against the Nazi rule. I noticed that the general view of how the Europeans feel about the EU changed since 2003. These days, I met some Europeans who wish to leave the EU.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
14,205
SoCal
#39
Judging from how a lot of the Europeans feel about the EU, I think the Nazis in the long term would've faced difficulties in keeping control of the vast territory. The Nazis took these territories through warfare. There would've been so much more hatred against the Nazi rule. I noticed that the general view of how the Europeans feel about the EU changed since 2003. These days, I met some Europeans who wish to leave the EU.
I doubt that a withdrawal from the EU would pass in any additional EU countries unless something especially severe happened (such as Western Europe accepting tens of millions of additional Third World refugees).

Also, the EU doesn't involve mass deportations while the Nazis did plan for mass deportations in the East in the event of victory.
 
Feb 2016
539
ROK
#40
I doubt that a withdrawal from the EU would pass in any additional EU countries unless something especially severe happened (such as Western Europe accepting tens of millions of additional Third World refugees).

Also, the EU doesn't involve mass deportations while the Nazis did plan for mass deportations in the East in the event of victory.
I don't think it has come to the point of an EU breakup either. I'm just saying that there would've been more hatred against Nazi rule when compared to how a lot of the Europeans feel about the EU.
 
Likes: Futurist

Similar History Discussions