Would a victorious Reich moderate?

Would a victorious Reich moderate?

  • Depends on the leadership

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • It would moderate to an extent

    Votes: 9 32.1%
  • It would stay just as crazy/evil

    Votes: 8 28.6%
  • It would get crazier/more evil

    Votes: 7 25.0%

  • Total voters
    28
Nov 2014
192
United States
#1
Imagine a scenario identical to the premise of CalBear's Anglo American Nazi War alternate history timeline where the Reich has dominated Europe, defeated the USSR and occupied it up to the Urals while achieving an indefinite state of peace/stalemate with the WAllies.

Link to story: The Anglo/American Nazi War | Alternate History Discussion

1: Would a victorious Reich that has complete continental hegemony moderate in any way? Would it be virtually identical to what it looked like during the war? Or would it get even more extreme becoming horrifyingly insane and nightmarish?

2: Would the Reich carry out the various plans it had IOTL (Generalplan Ost, replacement of the Heer with the Waffen SS, reconstruction of German cities, increased birthrate etc) or would those plans be altered or abandoned?

3: Would German society become increasingly indoctrinated/brainwashed in the Nazi worldview? Would there be any rebellion or discontent?

4: If Hitler died would his replacement be a moderate or a fanatic just as nuts as Hitler? How would the potential leaderships of Himmler, Speer, and Goering compare to one another?

5: Is this quote from Albert Speer accurate?

If the Nazis had won, of course, things on the surface would eventually have settled down to an appearance of normality. The milkman would deliver his milk in the morning, the policeman would enforce the law, the doctor would cure the sick, people would still worry about their jobs, fight with their wives, save for a new car. But they would be living in a nightmare, buried in a graveyard of human hope and dignity, trapped in a hell they would never recognize, much less question. The long dark night would have begun, and finally man would not even remember the light.
I personally believe that a victorious Reich under the insane leadership of Hitler and his inner circle of true believers would be built on top of a mountain of corpses that would make Mao and Stalin look like amateurs in terms of scope, scale and pure evil. Their position as the absolutely most evil nation state in history would be cemented. The Holocaust would have been a footnote when compared to what they had in the works for the Slavs after the war. 80% of the Slavs (Over 100 million Poles, Russians, Balts, Ukrainians, Belarussians, and Czechs) would be killed and the rest enslaved as serfs over a 30 year period.

You can't expect the same guys who industrialized MURDER and planned the death of tens of millions for the crime of existing to chill out on the mass killing when it was the whole point of the war they just waged and won.

The best way to describe a victorious Nazi Germany that stretched from the English Channel to the Urals would be a continent spanning necropolis, an unimaginably evil and nightmare fueled empire devoted to the extermination/enslavement of entire ethnic groups deemed "subhuman" and the superiority of the Aryan Race.
 
Aug 2012
1,554
#2
When one looks at the array of people who drifted towards Hitler, it is hard to believe that his successor could have been a moderate and gentle person.
The Nazi system really was a magnet for evil, a twisted freak show and menagerie of perversion. Pederast Oskar Dirlewanger, Frankenstein-esque Josef Mengele, bloated morphine addict Herman Goering.
I simply cannot picture such a system producing any real statesmen - at least not directly after Hitler.

And as for moderating the regime, I cannot see that being possible. With death camps, phony historical digs used to prop up phony racial science, and such an insistence on youth indoctrination - how could a Nazi regime possibly lessen its grip, and become the same kind of comfortable democracy which it consumed? Their whole ideology was based on worship of the leader, of constant war and bloodletting, and of rejecting individualism in favour of a collective national will.
Simply put, I do not believe it possible for a Nazi state to liberalise and still be called a Nazi state. Totalitarianism is in their DNA.
 
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
#3
Hitler came to power through fear, distrust and hatred; I cannot see how this would change after the war. Also the way to get promoted through the ranks in the Nazi party was by getting rid of those above you, so anyone who made it into the higher echelons of the Nazi party had to be clever, cold-blooded and ruthless - not the traits of a moderate!

For a picture of a post-WWII victorious Germany read 1984; with the proles as the non-Germans, Germans as members of the Outer Party, the upper levels of the Nazi elite as the Inner Party and Adolf as Big Brother.
 
May 2016
762
Thüringen
#4
Dont see any difference to the outcome we have today.

An EU superstate led by a mentally unstable german chancellor aka Merkel. People do their daily life but live in a never ending nightmare of "performance" "social uprooting", scaremongering, islamic terrorism and more and more chaos.

The problem isnt germany or any other european country for that matter. Its the failure we never corrected. That we can have the same chancellor again and again without Limit. Merkel or Hitler went mad after a certain timespan and there is no easy way we can get rid of them.

There are many in germany who want that this finally changes.

The Reich itself would of course moderate if the war would have been won. War time is never equal peace time. It would moderate itself. I´m sure of that. Propably focus on achievements in science and engineering.
 

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
26,209
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#5
Like the Roman Empire, an eventual Nazi Empire would have suffered "Barbarian invasions" facilitated by a new religion coming from East: Islam.

Islam would have slowly invaded the Nazi Empire making it permeable to external infiltration and ... it would have been just a matter of time before of seeing its fall.
 
Feb 2014
1,863
Kingdom of the Netherlands
#6
Like the Roman Empire, an eventual Nazi Empire would have suffered "Barbarian invasions" facilitated by a new religion coming from East: Islam.

Islam would have slowly invaded the Nazi Empire making it permeable to external infiltration and ... it would have been just a matter of time before of seeing its fall.
Or the Germans would expand into the middle east and get rid of undesired religions instead. The German government would never have allowed migration coming from non-European areas.
 

Scaeva

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
5,538
#7
Considering Goering's drug addiction would probably cause him to self destruct eventually, and Heydrich was likely to emerge on top of the dung heap if Hitler and Goering were out of the picture, a good argument could made for Nazi Germany actually being worse. Heydrich was probably the most evil, monstrous man in all of Germany.

It certainly wouldn't have become a more moderate state. Most of the Nazi leadership were depraved sociopaths and the party's entire ideology was based on a doctrine of extreme racial intolerance and constant struggle.
 

Nemowork

Ad Honorem
Jan 2011
8,356
South of the barcodes
#8
I wouldnt call Heydrich evil, that needs belief in something even if its just the wilful joy in destroying somebody else work or life.

Heydrich was cold, clinical and very ambitious, its doubtful whether he believed in anything except rising to the top and would do anything needed, he's virtually the textbook example of a ruthless sociopath.

But when you come down to it, other people came up with ideas, Hitler, Strasser, all the other ideologues, Heydrich was just the machine who carried them out which is partly why he's so scary.

If you'd put him in the US army, Dow chemical or Disney he would have turned that same ruthless cold energy to being the best at what he did, at making his company the best and at getting to the top.

This is the guy who stopped the mistreatment of czech workers and who started adding a carrot to the nazi stick until he managed to turn a rebellious conquest into a willing arms manufacturer.

Heydrich at the top would have made the nazi state more organised and efficient but what he would have done with it is anybodies guess because its uncertain what the man actually believed in.
 

macon

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
3,931
Slovenia, EU
#9
You have Spain and Portugal as an example what would happen after victory in a war and death of first fuhrer.

Success of a state depends on economy and fascist states were not so crazy in this field as communists.
 
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
#10
I wouldnt call Heydrich evil, that needs belief in something even if its just the wilful joy in destroying somebody else work or life.

Heydrich was cold, clinical and very ambitious, its doubtful whether he believed in anything except rising to the top and would do anything needed, he's virtually the textbook example of a ruthless sociopath.

But when you come down to it, other people came up with ideas, Hitler, Strasser, all the other ideologues, Heydrich was just the machine who carried them out which is partly why he's so scary.

If you'd put him in the US army, Dow chemical or Disney he would have turned that same ruthless cold energy to being the best at what he did, at making his company the best and at getting to the top.

This is the guy who stopped the mistreatment of czech workers and who started adding a carrot to the nazi stick until he managed to turn a rebellious conquest into a willing arms manufacturer.

Heydrich at the top would have made the nazi state more organised and efficient but what he would have done with it is anybodies guess because its uncertain what the man actually believed in.

I don't think he did what he did for the sake of being evil, he was just ruthlessly efficient at whatever he was tasked with doing - in many ways that is actually worse.
 

Similar History Discussions