Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nazis versus the Soviets? (Livability)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nazis versus the Soviets? (Livability)

    I read a bit of Nazi alternative history, so I'm really wondering whether the world would have been a more equitable and livable place if the Nazis had managed to defeat the Soviet Union, but were stalemated / partially-defeated by the Western Allies?

    Let me rephrase the question, were the Nazis worse than the Soviets? Would it have been preferable to fight a Cold War against the Nazis instead of the Soviets? Would the Nazi regime have collapsed due to civil dissension or the death of Hitler?
    Last edited by Inst; 12 Dec 08,, 14:38.

  • #2
    you mean if the concentration camps kept running, if one of the most productive areas of the world was split into two, and eastern europe fell under nazi tyranny instead of soviet? a three-sided cold war where one of the players was notoriously bad about breaking agreements or even thinking strategically?

    no thanks.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

    Comment


    • #3
      Why a three-sided Cold War? You mean the Japanese would have formed a third world pole?

      Comment


      • #4
        no, other side is the nazis, whom you said were only stalemated or partially defeated.

        japan was finished after dec 7 1941.
        There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

        Comment


        • #5
          No, what I intended to propose was that the Nazis destroyed the Soviet Union as an independent power, so that the future Cold War would be between the United States and Nazi Europe.

          In retrospect this would be a very bad idea because it would probably lead to the mass extermination of Soviet citizens.
          Last edited by Inst; 12 Dec 08,, 15:03.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Inst View Post
            In retrospect this would be a very bad idea because it would probably lead to the mass extermination of Soviet citizens.
            no it would lead to exterminating everyone who isn,t pure german, well i,m sure they would leave some other races live, as slaves.
            "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by omon View Post
              no it would lead to exterminating everyone who isn,t pure german, well i,m sure they would leave some other races live, as slaves.
              Not exactly. Their "plan" (as far as I remember) was something like this:

              Kill all jews in "our" land. Drive those out who we can't kill.
              Kill the political and cultural elte of "hostile" slavic people (poles, russians for example) subdue the rest and push them into forced labour. The role for the "remaining" poles/russians was aimed to be a similar to the one of blacks slaves in the US during the 19th century.
              "Reform" "friendly" and "related" slavic people into germanic people (czech, slovaks).
              Turn "allied" slavic and eastern peolpe into federati like allies/servants. (Romania, croatia, baltic countries).
              Increase the "German blood valua" by encouraging mixed marriages with scandiavians (mostly with women from norway) The Nazis did not believe per se that Germans were the "purest" but belonged to the "pure Germanics" races. And the further north you go the more "purer" it gets. I.E. the people ion Norway or Sweden were better then those in Germany since there was less "mixing" with "lesser slavic races".

              Russia, Ukraine etc should be turned into "Germany's India" and become the main source of food. The mediterranean area should be controlled by Italy and the Uk (who in "realily" are our "blood brother" but where "tricked by jews and communist" into fighting Germany) should take care of the rest of the world (i.e. the British Empire minus the Italians claims).

              Further after the "Endsieg" , at least that is the current dominant theory, Hitler had planned to purge the SS since it had become to powerful (as he did with the SA 34) and blame the killings in the KZs on them. Hitler was very careful about giving any formal orders about starting the killing of jews, roma, sinti and others but made it clear that this was what he wanted his men to do.

              This way, so he believed, he could later claim that he had nothing to do with it and blame it all on the SS, if the need for a scapegoat ever arises. This is today used as an arguement by Neo Nazis, that Hitler never gave a written order for the Holocaust and hence can't be blamed for "what might or might not have happenned in Buchenwald and co".

              That all said, even considering how bad life was behind the iron curtain, the Nazis were no way a better alternative.

              Comment


              • #8
                There was an excellent show on the history channel the other night. The Battle of Stalingrad. They compared the food, weapons, uniforms and general health of the soldiers during the seige. It was very informative the comparisons they walked through all the way done to the gun grease used in those frozen temperatures. One of the best comparisons I have seen yet.
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • #9
                  ^^^ i,ve heard all that from my relatives, and they lived thru it, was told things, no tv would ever dare to tell.
                  "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tarek Morgen View Post
                    Not exactly. Their "plan" (as far as I remember) was something like this:

                    Kill all jews in "our" land. Drive those out who we can't kill.
                    Kill the political and cultural elte of "hostile" slavic people (poles, russians for example) subdue the rest and push them into forced labour. The role for the "remaining" poles/russians was aimed to be a similar to the one of blacks slaves in the US during the 19th century.
                    "Reform" "friendly" and "related" slavic people into germanic people (czech, slovaks).
                    Turn "allied" slavic and eastern peolpe into federati like allies/servants. (Romania, croatia, baltic countries).
                    Increase the "German blood valua" by encouraging mixed marriages with scandiavians (mostly with women from norway) The Nazis did not believe per se that Germans were the "purest" but belonged to the "pure Germanics" races. And the further north you go the more "purer" it gets. I.E. the people ion Norway or Sweden were better then those in Germany since there was less "mixing" with "lesser slavic races".

                    Russia, Ukraine etc should be turned into "Germany's India" and become the main source of food. The mediterranean area should be controlled by Italy and the Uk (who in "realily" are our "blood brother" but where "tricked by jews and communist" into fighting Germany) should take care of the rest of the world (i.e. the British Empire minus the Italians claims).

                    Further after the "Endsieg" , at least that is the current dominant theory, Hitler had planned to purge the SS since it had become to powerful (as he did with the SA 34) and blame the killings in the KZs on them. Hitler was very careful about giving any formal orders about starting the killing of jews, roma, sinti and others but made it clear that this was what he wanted his men to do.

                    This way, so he believed, he could later claim that he had nothing to do with it and blame it all on the SS, if the need for a scapegoat ever arises. This is today used as an arguement by Neo Nazis, that Hitler never gave a written order for the Holocaust and hence can't be blamed for "what might or might not have happenned in Buchenwald and co".

                    That all said, even considering how bad life was behind the iron curtain, the Nazis were no way a better alternative.
                    You're pretty close.

                    The idea was actually to "cleanse" the Reich territory of Jews. Killing them became the "Final Solution" when earlier attempts to find them a remote homeland (Kenya, Madagascar, and Palestine were all tried) came to naught.

                    Polish people were to become essentially farm animals, taught to count to 100 and read and write their names, that's all. Russians similar, but it was believed that the bulk of any remaining Russians would be East of the Urals.

                    The Nordic countries were seen as natural to incorporate into the Reich. Net total of "Germans" was increased by grabbing young, "German looking" Polish and (to a lesser extent) Russian children. The Latins were seen as potentially useful allies, certainly as trading partners. The Magyars were valued for their military prowess, culture, and ethnic ties to Estonia and Finland. The various "People of Similar Blood" were seen at least as cousins, maybe younger siblings. It was expected to incorporate them fully into the economic sphere, and perhaps eventually, the ethnic.

                    There remained many tricky areas about which no ultimate decision is known to have been made, and its likely that any such decision would have changed over time, especially considering the realities of the front. Three examples:

                    the Belgians. The "similar blood" Flemish, who were expected to be natural soldiers for the Reich, were completely eclipsed by the contributions of the (non Germanic) Walloons. So, which side would the Nazis favor, the relatively slacker relatives, or their hard-fighting neighbors?

                    Groups like the Kalmucks. Ethnically and culturally unrelated, but superb allies who would never act in a subservient role militarily, and who could not be uprooted from their homeland or disarmed without serious trouble. The war-time military solution was to provide them with German liaison officers (supply, sanitation, communications) but give them independance of action within the larger strategic environment.

                    Italy and its sphere of influence. However much the glories of ancient Rome appealed to the Nazi mind, there was a recognition that Italians were not, and probably never would be, Romans. Hitler and Mussolini had a mutual distrust for each other inside their seeming friendship. They competed where their spheres of interest met, even to the point of having their proxies fight each other instead of the Allies. Italy kept building fortifications on the German border right through the war, and the South Tyroleans (Germans in Italian territory) were seen as another potential Sudetenland by both sides. Then there is the question of religion. Italy was predominantly Roman Catholic, like Hitler himself, but the Nazi heirarchy was slowly building their own neo-Pagan faith, based on "Blood and Soil." The Pope's support for the Nazis notwithstanding, a serious religious struggle loomed in the future. Italy would have eventually have needed to be sorted out, possibly by expanding Spain's sphere of influence at Italy's expense.

                    Finally, the idea that Hitler was eventually going to purge the SS seems unfounded. I have never spoken to a single Nazi (real Nazis, not self-appointed "Neos") or German from that period who think it is anything other than a recent fantasy, and there doesn't seem to be any documentary evidence for it.
                    .

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Finally, the idea that Hitler was eventually going to purge the SS seems unfounded. I have never spoken to a single Nazi (real Nazis, not self-appointed "Neos") or German from that period who think it is anything other than a recent fantasy, and there doesn't seem to be any documentary evidence for it.
                      I do have soom books that speak about the subject but those are currently in Bavaria, where I won't return to until Christmas. When I am there (and don't forget it) I can try to look it up, though they all would be in German.

                      The idea was actually to "cleanse" the Reich territory of Jews. Killing them became the "Final Solution" when earlier attempts to find them a remote homeland (Kenya, Madagascar, and Palestine were all tried) came to naught.
                      True, but I left out the Schwanseekonferenz on purpose (and the jewish policy before that) and tried to focused on what the nazis planned/dreamed of during the war for europe after they victory.

                      There remained many tricky areas about which no ultimate decision is known to have been made, and its likely that any such decision would have changed over time, especially considering the realities of the front.
                      Ver true. The nazi idiology and plans were not very conistent and changed often. Roma and Sinti for example were first seen as a form of "Savage Pre-Germanic people".
                      i.e. they were looked upon like we look today on Neandertals, and the idea was to "preserve" them for studies after the war. This changed and they became later victims of the same killing methods like the jews.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I once spent an afternoon speaking to an older german gentlemen whose father sailed on the Sharnhorst during WWII until her sinking at the hands of the British. You would be amazed at the difference between the sailors in the Kreigsmarine and the Nazi party proper. The difference between night and day although fighting for the same side. This man held no grudges whatsoever.
                        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Tarek & GF, thanks for a great summary of Nazi plans. Just a few notes from me.

                          German plans for European Russia & related territories included a plan to basically work to death anyone not required for slave labor. These were referred to by the chilling term 'surplus eaters'. The mass killings of jews & slavs during the war were just a beginning.

                          On religion, there was essentially a 3 way struggle within the Nazi hierarchy.

                          One group were those who remained Christian in the traditional sense (Catholic, varieties of Protestant). While none of the inner circle were such folk, there were plenty of them in what might be called senior middle management - potentially powerful players in the near chaotic world of Nazi internal politics. They also had the advantage that large numbers of party members & the vast bulk of Germans remained Christian.

                          Another group were the best known - the neo-pagans. Himmler was the best known of these, but there were others in both the inner circle & beyond. It is unlikely that Hitler was actually a neo-pagan, though he did dabble on the edges. This group had the advantage of patronage from senior ranks, but was probably the smallest of the three factions.

                          Next were those who believed that they were Christian, but that they were the bearers of a new type of Christianity free of Jewish infulence. While this idea dabbled with paganism, it wasn't paganism itself (and to be fair, Catholicism has done a fair bit of dabbling too). If Hitler fits anywhere in the religious spectrum it was probably here. I suspect that this group might actually have been the most successful in any future power struggles. They had adherents in senior positions & they could also form alliances with traditional Christians in a way that the neo-Pagans never could.

                          Hard to say how successful any of this would have been on the ground or what it might have meant for relations with Mussolini. I suspect his biggest problem would have been a powerful neighbour with an appetite for territory & influence.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I was under the impression that Hitler planned to turn Europe (minus most Slavic countries) into a European Union of sorts in which the members would be puppet states controlled by Germany.
                            "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yes but not the Russians who got the rough end of the deal. The plan was to cull Russia of excess population and create German colonies in the East (which did not work out). Starvation was built into the foodstuffs requisition system that was built over those territories that had been conquered and there were also other plans to de-educate Slavic populations (at least in Ukraine), with the eventual eliminatation of literacy as object.
                              All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                              -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X