In a scenario where the Axis powers in Europe achieve total victory over their continental foes, could the racist-fascist ideology that linked them together survive long term?
Could Nazism Survive Long Term?
- Thread starter GlobalHumanism
- Start date
North Korea was still alive and kicking, last time I checked. So why would an infinitely more powerful ideology driven state survive? It would be worse than a nightmare, but it could theoretically survive.
Keep in mind that Nazism was limited to Germany until they set up the Ustashe in Croatia and the Arrow Cross Party in Hungary. And I think the Germans would still be able to look down on people on other continents, let alone those tot he South. They wanted a hundred years to consolidate in the Lebensraun anyways.mmight have to forcibly deport Western Europeans there though, since Germans apparently were unwilling to go farm some bogs and presumably haunted farms.
Deleted member 1487
I'd say the only way is if they change and go with different brands of it than the Hitler one.
Bad example. North Korea exists as an extension of Soviet, and later Chinese, will.
Without support from other 'Communist' powers North Korea would have collapsed decades ago.
A fascist nation could theoretically survive, but would need to undergo Chinese style reforms to increase stability. And you'd need to remove the cult of personality around Hitler because as soon as he dies, the nation collapses into a Civil War, even if he has named a successor. So, in practical terms almost impossible.
See Spain/Portugal for how difficult it is for Fascism to endure beyond a few decades, even a milder form. Nazism is balls to the wall crazy and made pretty much every other nation its enemy over time.
Hitler even thought he would live to see a Nazi invasion of the USA... Even as an Englishman I can tell you that NO ONE invades the USA in post 1900s, other than the USA.
Not really. Juche is much more influenced by Japanese racial doctrines and Christianity.
China only supports it because ROK hasn't yet decided on its US-China foreign relations.
Nazi supremacy lifespan?
The Germans saw themselves as racially superior to even their "Nordic brethren". This attitude and their actions (looting, callous disregard for any interests of the occupied states etc.) meant that this support evaporated within months leaving only sullen compliance and tacit, if not active, resistance. It's not impossible that a victorious Germany could evolve in the direction of leading Europe rather than dominating it in its own interests, but it seems unlikely. An ideology/state that relies essentially on force to hold down subject nations is always going to be vulnerable to discontent in them. Especially if the impact of ideology on its economic performance is going in the long run be very negative.
I'd say a qualified Yes but it would have to evolve from being a Deutsche uber alles doctrine to one that at least acknowledged the other Western and Northern Europeans as (near) equals. In OTL there was actually some support in France etc. for a German-led re-organisation of Europe's economies and societies into a "New Order" that would be Authoritarian but "fair". And not based on the austerity demands of international finance.
The Germans saw themselves as racially superior to even their "Nordic brethren". This attitude and their actions (looting, callous disregard for any interests of the occupied states etc.) meant that this support evaporated within months leaving only sullen compliance and tacit, if not active, resistance. It's not impossible that a victorious Germany could evolve in the direction of leading Europe rather than dominating it in its own interests, but it seems unlikely. An ideology/state that relies essentially on force to hold down subject nations is always going to be vulnerable to discontent in them. Especially if the impact of ideology on its economic performance is going in the long run be very negative.
Deleted member 1487
No, I don't think the ideology said that, they encouraged their soldiers to have babies with local women; their wartime actions in the Nordic countries was the result of politics and resistance rather than ideological belief of the inferiority of Nordics to Germans.
Yes, but North Korea frequently has problems feeding its own people. Without foreign support, I find it highly unlikely North Korea would still exist, at least as it exists today. The Kim family doubtlessly has a good sway in the military, but if the soldiers start starving there will be internal conflicts.
Besides, without Chinese/Soviet support in the Korean war the USA would have been more than happy to bulldoze the country off the map in favour of a US allied unified Korea.
North Korea can't be underestimated, but it is merely 1 player in a very large game. Being a member of an ideology that many of the larger powers of the world consider 'problematic' (be it Fascist, Communist etc.) will eventually lead to those countries doing everything possible to get rid of said ideology, unless that ideology is politically acceptable in the grander scheme (IE - Dictators friendly to the Greater Powers).
Problems Germany, which effectively controls Europe will not have (ASB as that might be). The Nazi 'ideology' had no qualms with applying brute force approach in solving any and all problems. If not faced with a significant outside threat, they could survive for a long time.
North Korea is funded by a much larger and wealthier benefactor. The USSR is a better analogue.
Ultimately, I think Nazi Germany can survive. Their plans in the East won't come to fruition because it will be like a Vietnam style situation for them. They'll probably end up torching the place and retreating to a boundary further West. The rest of the place will be a surviving, but economically failing and unpleasant place.
Nazis and Nordics
Possibly I should amend to clarify that while Nordics were acceptable as individuals, their states (Denmark, Norway etc) had no right to be considered "equal" to Germany? Hence could be exploited in the same way as France or the Netherlands. Which would itself explain resistance?
Maybe so - amend that to non-Nordic Europe then. Thanks for the catch!
Possibly I should amend to clarify that while Nordics were acceptable as individuals, their states (Denmark, Norway etc) had no right to be considered "equal" to Germany? Hence could be exploited in the same way as France or the Netherlands. Which would itself explain resistance?
That requires peace with both a) the USSR, which will not forget any lost ground b) the UK (NO SEALIONS) which whilst possible if the situation is dire enough may declare peace for a time, will never accept permanent Nazi rule in Europe and c) the USA (see UK).
Eventually, someone is going to challenge the Nazi hegemony as it is difficult to do business with a nation who's leader is known for Frequently Breaking Agreements and Mass Genocide.
Say what you want about the post WW2 world but you can't say that Stalin and the UK/USA were ever 'close'. If they could have collapsed the USSR sooner you know the UK and US would have done. Nazi Europe is a lot easier to take the fight to.
If the Nazis get any where near close to developing Nuclear Warheads this will increase the pressure for the UK/USA/USSR remnants to return to the fight.
Its not a case of everyone sits down, forgives a few million dead and carries on like before. At least the USSR never openly called for the extermination of Germans/French/British/Americans in theory, only the 'liberation' of the people. By WW2 everyone knew that Nazis with Nukes will probably mean Nazis USING nukes on undesirables.
Deleted member 1487
Well, here is the thing. Denmark was not militarily conquered, they collaborated and got special rights/privileges in terms of self governance and even protection of Jews (until late 1943). Norway resisted and were treated as an occupied nation. They also wouldn't accept the Quisling government and had a lot of resistance movements/sabotage action, plus they were partially on the front lines thanks to the fighting in Northern Norway against the USSR near Murmansk and with the war at sea and British attempts to sink the Tirpitz. The war situation resulted in increasingly harsh treatment out of desperation and need, rather than any ideology; effectively it was improvisation.
Not sure, since the Dutch and French didn't have too much resistance until the very end. In comparison the Norwegians lasted longer from beginning to end from invasion by Germany than France did, while also having a resistance throughout the war. There was not a single person of any real authority who gave overt support to the regime there.
As for Denmark, they were kind of conquered. The Germans hijacked Danish ferries and were shipping in the Danish army while threatening to carpet bomb Copenhagen if they didn't play along.
*Knock Knock*
"Hello there, we're your friendly neighbourhood Wehrmacht! You don't appear to be Fascist enough and we'd like to fix that..."
Denmark was, for all intents and purposes, conquered. Same as I consider Vichy France as being conquered. Any nation not fully able to make its open free choices without the permission of another is not a free country.
Having an army at your border gives you the choice of bloody conflict or surrender. Denmark could never have won a war if it had chosen to fight.
Deleted member 1487
Of course Denmark was conquered as it was militarily occupied, but because they accepted the Nazi ultimatum they were treated differently; I just repeating what Timothy Snyder says in "Bloodlands" to describe why Jews were treated differently in different place; because of the Danish acceptance of Nazi rule they were allowed to maintain self governance, while Norway fought and was treated as a conquered nation who had its government dissolved and replaced by a Nazi puppet that was not accepted by the public.
To be fair Devon, Vichy France had actually been introducing anti-Jewish laws without prodding and I think declared war on the British. I forget. The Danes at least dragged their feet and stuck to producing food while snubbing the Germans. The French collaboration meant the Germans didn't need hundreds of thousands to hold down the country as occupational troops and administrators. Plus they did send tens of thousands of Frenchmen to me used as laborera. I would blame Laval, but from what I have read he was actually looking out for the good fo France for years and had been constantly sabotaged (in a manner of speaking) in trying creating a front against Germany. Not sure about Petain, who I think may have been some doddering old aristocrat. Then again, he probably was Laval. Privately seething and hoping for the Germans to be burned alive.
Last edited: