How would a modern 21st century Nazi Germany look like?

TheSpectacledCloth

Gone Fishin'
I think, unless something like Valkyrie succeeding is the POD, there wouldnt be a Nikita Kruschev equivalent
All of the possible Hitler successors were sycophants trying to attach their image to that of the Fuhrer, who - if Germany is victorious - would be seen as a messianic figure of the likes of
Kim the First
Oh heavens, no! Not even the Valkyrie team would've been able to publicly desecrate Hitler's legacy or risk a massive backlash against them.

All of the potential successors would have to continue honoring Hitler, one way or another.
 
Last edited:
Oh heavens, no! Not even the Valkyrie team would've been able to publicly desecrate Hitler's legacy or risk a massive backlash against them.

All of the potential successors would have to continue honoring Hitler, one way or another.
Yeah, agreed, I think the successors of the Valkyrie conspirators could however revisit Hitler's legacy had they managed to keep Germany in one piece and perhaps atempt De-Hitlerisation once it comes to light how much of the blunders in the East were due to Adolf's poor decision making
Regardless he would still remain a popular figure and be seen as the "saviour of the german people" just like Stalin was even if later on the germans started seeing him as a flawed rather than infallible leader
 

TheSpectacledCloth

Gone Fishin'
Yeah, agreed, I think the successors of the Valkyrie conspirators could however revisit Hitler's legacy had they managed to keep Germany in one piece and perhaps atempt De-Hitlerisation once it comes to light how much of the blunders in the East were due to Adolf's poor decision making
Regardless he would still remain a popular figure and be seen as the "saviour of the german people" just like Stalin was even if later on the germans started seeing him as a flawed rather than infallible leader
That is certainly possible.
 
That's an apt visualization of all this: Europe as the tired old man, locked in a nursing home, with regular anal probes as a metaphor for its geopolitical "retirement", aging and relative non-relevance post-1945...
Though you don't need to be old to receive anal probes - just ask Cartman.
 
More to the point, I think this argument overlooks both how western Europe is a geopolitical centre of note and how letting a partner take on the costs of being a world power can be perfectly plausible. Why, exactly, does the European Union need to be a fully autonomous military power of the same scale as the United States? As we have learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, that American military power does not seem obviously able to produce successes, a lesson reinforced by the Russian experience in Ukraine.
I agree, but I think it's about independence for its own sake: whether Europe can pursue its own path without being tied to America, for good or bad. It may be that European foreign policy still mostly achieves its aims under an American military aegis, and it's still certainly an influential centre of note (being one of the three poles of the global economy, along with North America and East Asia), but there's still a necessary loss of power when you relinquish your military to a foreign hegemon, no matter how much autonomous you are in most respects still. But really, the whole debate here is whether you view independence and self-determination as a good thing, independent (heh) of how it affects your geopolitical influence in general. It could even be that _military independence_ could decrease European influence--for instance, North Korea is arguably much more politically independent than South Korea, which is pretty much a US client state, but I'd dare say the latter is much more influential in most respects aside from not having nuclear weapons and a political scare every few months. If you value state independence as something desirable for its own sake, (say) a Korean nationalist could prefer North Korea to South Korea, even if the latter is much more influential on the global stage.

Which isn't to say Europe pursuing an independent foreign policy is really an important or even necessarily positive thing (outside of European nationalists, obviously) - that was my original point, that when we view geopolitical hegemony as something inherently valuable on its own, we're not really talking as much about the interests of your average everyman so much as the interests of some Platonic disembodied spirit of the nation-state. Most people don't care about that stuff.
 
Yeah, agreed, I think the successors of the Valkyrie conspirators could however revisit Hitler's legacy had they managed to keep Germany in one piece and perhaps atempt De-Hitlerisation once it comes to light how much of the blunders in the East were due to Adolf's poor decision making
Regardless he would still remain a popular figure and be seen as the "saviour of the german people" just like Stalin was even if later on the germans started seeing him as a flawed rather than infallible leader
The difference between Nazis and Soviets is glorification of conquest and dominance by one and supposed liberation of workers and peoples by another. Hitler did nothing wrong or against Nazi ideology while Stalin and his purges, cult of personality and general rulership did fundamentally go against communist and socialist teachings and doctrine. The Nazi ideology may change to expand the definition of what an Aryan is and who or what is tolerable. Heck even conquest acceptance may change over time. But Hitlers conquest and persona would be glorified and I’d not be surprised if some esoteric segments of Nazis deified the man
 
Nazi victories are probably the most common counterfactual-history prompt out there. But most portrayals of a victorious Nazi society seems to be set in the late 20th century, usually around the Cold War: The Man in the High Castle, Fatherland, The New Order, etc. There are usually motifs of space programs, mass infrastructure projects, and obviously legions upon legions of atomic-armed bombers and missile silos...

...but, much rarer is the depiction of a Nazi Germany in the modern day, with Internet, computers and smartphones and all that fancy stuff. How might Nazi internet culture, with all of its subcultures, memes, quick trends and fads, evolve?


Now, people will offer the obvious retort that the Nazis couldn't have survived, would have eventually collapsed, etc, and scenarios like The Man In the High Castle and The New Order are already predicated on pretty ASB preconditions and developments (i.e. the Germans hilariously getting the bomb first and somehow managing to deliver it to the US).

So, sure. I'm well aware of the arguments, and don't necessarily disagree with any of them: the Third Reich was a regime of mass plunder, and the likeliest scenario even given their (already-unlikely) survival is eventual collapse due to gross economic mismanagement, probably sometime in the late 20th century.

But assume, by some dint of luck, it somehow didn't.

Assume out of the millions of worlds, diverging since WW2, most ending up with with allied victories, or continued Nazi survival but eventual collapse in the late 20th century, we choose instead to peer into the (say) few dozens of worlds where a Nazi regime, or something close to it, exists in the modern day... in 2023. No US entry into the war, but the Soviets still fall (the Nazis roll all sixes, the Soviets roll snake eyes: maybe Stalin dies early—smoking habit caught up to him?—and the Soviets are divided in leadership: the political climate of the 1940s Soviet Union was not a chill one), and the Germans swoop most of the East, with Siberia being a rump state, maybe under US protection or something.

How does it look like? For the sake of survival does it likely eventually moderate—do we see a Nazi Germany eventually chilling, as most totalitarian states do, or does it somehow retreat into its shell, remaining a North Korea-type bastion of extremist nationalism and totalitarianism? Or something in the middle, not as extreme as the 1940s, but not entirely apologetic or liberal either?

Then there is the obvious question of all those Genocides, of all those tens of millions (maybe hundreds of millions—if they're "successful") of corpses. Possibly they employ the US/Australia/insert-settler-colony type excuse of "we're regretful, but no reparations beyond symbolic sorries: it's a done deal, and it was a long time ago, and everyone who did it is dead or old, and they fought and murdered each other anyway, and what's this about your own history?"-type excuse, but it might not be as clean-looking without the international hard or soft power that comes from being the leading global hegemon to back it up (not to mention the lack of a cool movie industry: "Naziwood?"... but the censors, man!)

Or assuming they're _really_ thorough, maybe with most of the victims dead, there just isn't anyone to advocate for them (well, aside from the US Jewish lobby...)

Obviously the question of how the Nazis do (somehow!) survive, does directly relate to how they will look like in the modern day. That's not something you can just handwave, I concede. But basically I'm just looking for thoughts and ideas here.
I would imagine that eventually there would be a significant market for German technology and industrial/consumer products.
 
I agree, but I think it's about independence for its own sake: whether Europe can pursue its own path without being tied to America, for good or bad. It may be that European foreign policy still mostly achieves its aims under an American military aegis, and it's still certainly an influential centre of note (being one of the three poles of the global economy, along with North America and East Asia), but there's still a necessary loss of power when you relinquish your military to a foreign hegemon, no matter how much autonomous you are in most respects still. But really, the whole debate here is whether you view independence and self-determination as a good thing, independent (heh) of how it affects your geopolitical influence in general. It could even be that _military independence_ could decrease European influence--for instance, North Korea is arguably much more politically independent than South Korea, which is pretty much a US client state, but I'd dare say the latter is much more influential in most respects aside from not having nuclear weapons and a political scare every few months. If you value state independence as something desirable for its own sake, (say) a Korean nationalist could prefer North Korea to South Korea, even if the latter is much more influential on the global stage.

It is worth noting that you are excluding forms of self-determination that you do not like as legitimate. The sort of absolute independence that you talk about is more of a fetish than a practical policy.

Beyond that, as the contrasting trajectories of North Korea and South Korea show, the sort of complete independence that you are talking about as desirable actually does not translate at all to citizens having enjoyable lives. Great, North Korea does not have to deal with complicated alliances and can arguably avoid compromises, but North Koreans also eat grass when the harvest is poor.

How are German citizens supposed to benefit personally from Nazi hegemony, once the easy gains of the time of the first conquests are done?

I would imagine that eventually there would be a significant market for German technology and industrial/consumer products.

To who, outside of Nazi Germany's European clients? Non-Nazi Europe is likely to be lost, North America is not an option, and who else will be rich enough?

Meanwhile, it is worth noting that Nazi Germany was deeply inefficient. The contrasting trajectories of the Soviet and Nazi bomb programs, the first eventually triumphing under rational management and the second being sabotaged at birth by deep infighting, is indicative. Remember how East Germany and Czechoslovakia, once cutting-edge industrial economies, ended up slipping badly under Communism. Why would Germany do better under Naziism?
 
A Speer-led Germany could be a semi-bright outcome, but it wouldn't be nearly as seem-less as it would be for Goering. He too would try to make peace with the West, so war is a slim possibility. Like Hitler, Speer is an idealist and would probably spend too much money building ridiculous monuments. Not only does Speer have bad blood with the Gauleiters and party apparatus, but he has fierce rivals in Goering and Bormann, and neither of them would help Hitler's architect. Goebbels does have a working relationship with Speer, but their viewpoints are too fundamentally different to work long-term. Speer's best bet is to ally with Himmler by making him the new Deputy Fuhrer and increase the power of the SS, in exchange for greater stability and security. Speer had a disturbing history of working alongside the SS, even with the most insidious crimes committed by the Reich. With the duo of Speer and Himmler, they would successfully be able to purge their rivals and deter Heydrich from taking over, while also placating the Wehrmacht. So Speer's rule would benefit the Third Reich, but it would require him to sell whatever is left of his soul to the spectacled devil.
Well, about Speer's construction focus: he was he one directly benefiting the most from the construction projects, as RBI and chief architect of the Reich. Considering the scope of the construction plans, it would give Speer the ability to control finances, resources, and labour, which would enable him to control the German economy in a manner similar to Göring's level of control through the Office of the Four Year Plan and the mobilisation of the economy for rearmament. Control of the economy on such scale translates into immense political power: the Gauleiters would all want construction activity in their areas, since it would allow them to retain popularity and even increase it, as well as line their pockets, many would love the (impressive) construction activity and the jobs that it would create or be expected to create (although the problems, ranging from anarchic planning to displacement, to inflationary pressures, would appear at some point), as well as immense enrichment for Speer that would allow him to buy favour and gain a growing personal clientele aside from his bureaucratic empire-building.

About the bad blood with the Gauleiters: this was to a large extent over Speer's measures to centralise control of the economy in his hands, away from the local Gau economic offices, and his pressure to militarise more and more of the economy, which many feared would reflect negatively on public morale and mood, although his personal traits like his haughtiness certainly didn't help his case. After the war, and with him holding the power of the purse to such an extent, it would be very tempting for many to accept his patronage - it would be a real test for the ability of Bormann and the Party Chancellery to control their hand-picked Party officials. Therefore, although it's lkely the feud would continue after the war, it's not a given.

About the relations with Göring and Bormann: it's true, but I think that he could still survive: were Göring to be able to succeed Hitler, he would try to reduce Speer's influence a lot, but would most likely focus a lot on the Party as well, aiming at neutralising the Control Faction in order to reinforce his rule. However, it's likely that he could die after having managed to displace the Control Faction from its dominant position, but before he had created an alternative power centre of his own in it; and after his death, Speer could manage to attract all those worried about a potential return of the Bormannites/Control Faction types. If Göring somehow died before Hitler, then the situation could indeed be very serious for Speer, because the Senate would kick in, although there's still a possibility for him to emerge victorious, again by gathering the anti-Control Faction forces around him. If the Control Faction managed to prevail, then yes, he's most likely done.
 
The Lebensborn was just one example I was giving.

It was the only example you gave.

Why do we think that Nazi Germany would have been able to multiply the German population fivefold? That would be a huge volume of growth.for. developed country: Canada grew fourfold between 1940 and now only because of a notably large baby book followed by sustained heavy immigration.
 
It was the only example you gave.

Why do we think that Nazi Germany would have been able to multiply the German population fivefold? That would be a huge volume of growth.for. developed country: Canada grew fourfold between 1940 and now only because of a notably large baby book followed by sustained heavy immigration.
Ironically (or rather, not so ironically), the economic inefficiencies of Nazi Germany might actually help with population growth. As chances are the factors of demographic transition (greater rights, economic prosperity, higher education, late/post industrialization, access to contraceptives, etc.) are unlikely to be found in a victorious Nazi Germany (especially if they end up going full blood & soil), they might just have generations' worth of population growth.

Now as to whether said resulting population being economically useful or the quality of life is another matter entirely.
 
Ironically (or rather, not so ironically), the economic inefficiencies of Nazi Germany might actually help with population growth. As chances are the factors of demographic transition (greater rights, economic prosperity, higher education, late/post industrialization, access to contraceptives, etc.) are unlikely to be found in a victorious Nazi Germany (especially if they end up going full blood & soil), they might just have generations' worth of population growth.

You might well get some growth, but the example of a Romania that is our best example of coercive pronatalism suggests the effects will be relatively limited. Fertility rates in Romania went from slightly below replacement levels to slightly above, with a brief spike as those people who were planning to abort got an unpleasant surprise. They then resumed a slow decline, followed by a sharp drop in 1989-1990 with the revolution.

I would go so far as to say that anything close to a twofold growth in the German population, forced assimilations and the unlikely prospect of substantial immigration aside, would be unlikely. Germany was still a substantially urbanized and industrialized country with mass literacy and other decent metrics. Making it the sort of country that could experience the sorts of rates of population growth that deeply underdeveloped countries did in the latter half of the 20th century, barring a POD that long predates the Nazis, is not possible.

Now as to whether said resulting population being economically useful or the quality of life is another matter entirely.

One thing we do know about Nazi Germany's economy is that it was deeply inefficient and factionalized. There might well be great schemes that go unrealized.
 
Africa's population is expected to grow almost five-fold from 2000 to 2100 so it's not exactly ASB to expect Germany to undergo similar growth in that same time period I gave especially given the incentives and indoctrination German couples will go through.

I remember from Robert Harris's Fatherland and Wolfenstein: The New Order reading ads from older men looking for younger women to settle the east with the expressed purpose of child-bearing. If this continues over the century then 500 million by 2100 is certainly doable.
 
Top