AHC: Nice Guy Nazis

[Gudestein]

What a tricky subject this is to even discuss. Its things like this that gets people banned in drowes.
I know there are reason for being carefull here, but lets hold the harsh and personal critique untill something clearly wrong/off has been said.

Just one more suggestion and this example doesn't go all the Way, but currently in Russia, Stalin is becoming more appreciated as a statesman. Basically fits the nationalism poster boy qualities. Could this happen in a post-Nazi Germany. Say the coup goes ahead in 1938, but now Germany is out of the Versailles restrictions and the Nazis didn't get to go that far.
Have a France staying in depression and the German economy surviving into a reduced pace and some French nationalists might become envious.

 

[Appalachian Nationalist]

God you guys are some close-minded pricks.

I know that assuming bad faith is bad form on a forum like this, but I feel compelled to speak up. If it was a typical user that started this discussion then I wouldn't mind quite as much, but when the user is a self-described "Nationalist" of an area who's only flirtation with nationalism came during a war motivated in very large part by racism, it really sets off an alarm buzzer in my head. To me, it comes across like they're using this thread as wish fulfilment, especially when they're rewording their original challenge because we're not making the modern U.S. explicitly pro-Nazi enough.

I hope I'm wrong, and if the mods want to kick me for a while for "making false accusations" or whatever, fine, but it bugged me when I saw this thread yesterday and OP's most recent post only reinforces that instinct.

You do realize Appalachia was Unionist, right? Like, West Virginia seceding from the Confederacy and East Tennessee trying to secede Unionist? That Appalachia also extends way up into the North? That Appalachians have a different cultural and ethnic background than Southrons (Scots-Irish as opposed to, if I'm not mistaken, North English and West African in the rest of the South)?


As for my own challenge, what I've been thinking is that Hitler dies, like, really early into his reign, but one of his more sane subordinates takes over and sort of reforms the Reich, kind of like how Franco ruled Falangist Spain but turned it into more of a traditionalist state over time. Have Germany end up fighting the Soviet Union anyways, possibly on the side of the United States.

If you could also somehow get the United States to really drop the ball with regards to managing its racial and class tensions (like, say, an unsuccessful revolution in the 1960s), then you could see a lot of conservative Americans glorifying their former German allies as being the people who kept the world safe for Western civilization. The Nazis have probably still committed countless atrocities, but with no equivalent of the Nuremberg Trials, it's a controversial subject as to what exactly they did behind their walls...

 

[Michele]

this example doesn't go all the Way, but currently in Russia, Stalin is becoming more appreciated as a statesman.

The example doesn't go all the way, indeed, because Russia isn't a Western democracy.

 

[pattersonautobody]

What a tricky subject this is to even discuss. Its things like this that gets people banned in drowes.
I know there are reason for being carefull here, but lets hold the harsh and personal critique untill something clearly wrong/off has been said.

Just one more suggestion and this example doesn't go all the Way, but currently in Russia, Stalin is becoming more appreciated as a statesman. Basically fits the nationalism poster boy qualities. Could this happen in a post-Nazi Germany. Say the coup goes ahead in 1938, but now Germany is out of the Versailles restrictions and the Nazis didn't get to go that far.
Have a France staying in depression and the German economy surviving into a reduced pace and some French nationalists might become envious.

Precisely. The fact the Stalin is actually remembered fondly in Russia speaks volumes as to his significance in Russian history (he saved them from oblivion) forgiving his greater sins. In all honestly, if Stalin died at seminary, Russia probably would have never even had to worry about German invasion and would be twice as wealthy today--and have borders constituting Imperial Russia. But don't let the facts get in the way.

 

[Appalachian Nationalist]

In my timeline Nazism becomes a real political movement respected in countless countries as a legitimate ideology, though later on it gets under scrutiny just like the Fascist and authoritarian regimes across the continent.

Do you have a link to your timeline? It sounds interesting.

That's a generous interpretation.



It actually explicitly is. The subject has come up before.

Trust me, I live in East Tennessee, I know plenty of Neo-Confederates. Most of them are basically social conservatives and strict Constitutionalists who are just pissed at Lincoln for expanding the Federal government's powers. Since it's hard to make a hero out of slaveowners, they just choose to ignore the slave-owning aspect of the South (muh states rights, muh Lee was an abolitionist, etc.). Sometimes the cognitive dissonance leads to them become white supremacists, sometimes they abandon their views later in life.

It's still rather embarrassing, since their views carry the implicit belief that Black people having any sort of freedom is less important than having lower taxes, but they usually aren't motivated by a hatred of Blacks. It's the same type of behavior that I'm imagining out of my Western Nazi-sympathizers in the challenge, or, say, modern Stalinists. People twisting the imagery of one ideology to meet their own ideological needs.

 

[Geon]

I am likely putting my head in the lion's mouth here.

But...

The idea here is to make the Nazi party more "acceptable" not to turn them all into Mister Nice-guy.

So...

First, like it or not you need Hitler in the equation for the Nazis to come to power. No Hitler and the Nazi party stays a third rate right-wing political party.

So, first, you need to moderate Hitler's views.

We can do this starting from a real event in OTL, namely the death of Hitler's mother. The doctor who tended her at the end was Jewish and Hitler never forgot the doctor's efforts to save his mother, even calling him a "noble Jew." So, perhaps we have Hitler develop more friendships among Jewish soldiers in World War I, and even have one of them save his life at the cost of his own during the war. Hitler comes to see the Jewish soldiers and officers in a more favorable light. This moderates his rabid anti-Semitism.

But Hitler still has a deep hatred for Bolshevism which becomes the new "boogie-man" for him and the reason behind the seeming "stab in the back." When Hitler joins the German Worker's Party his anti-Bolshevism becomes the leading point. Hitler allows the anti-Semitic elements in the party to remain but moderates them.

When the Nazis do come to power you have several purges of anyone left of center politically after the Reichstag fire.

You still have thousands going into concentration camps for political and other reasons. But most of them are communist oriented and at the time communism particularly Soviet communism is considered the major threat among Western European nations.

Hitler emphasizes in his expansion how he is saving Austria and later Czechoslovakia from communist uprisings and takeovers similar to what nearly happened in Spain. His arms buildup is meant more to prepare for the inevitable battle against the forces of Bolshevism as much as against the shame of Versailles, which to Hitler's mind is as much influenced by communistic traitors in the Allied governments. When he moves into Poland, his excuse is "evidence" that Poland was about to suffer an overthrow by communist conspirators.

There is no Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact. Hitler ends up taking all of Poland.

Whether the western Allies buy all of this or not one thing does emerge here. Because Hitler is more focused on Bolshevism then anti-Semitism it is likely, not certain, but likely the Final Solution does not occur. You still have concentration camps and many of the horrors that go with them. But not on the scale you had in OTL. And Hitler's emphasis is more on the destruction of communism and not on genocide.

 

[MortimerWClankitybritches]

*sees title

"M'frau"

 

[Appalachian Nationalist]

I am likely putting my head in the lion's mouth here.

But...

The idea here is to make the Nazi party more "acceptable" not to turn them all into Mister Nice-guy.

So...

First, like it or not you need Hitler in the equation for the Nazis to come to power. No Hitler and the Nazi party stays a third rate right-wing political party.

So, first, you need to moderate Hitler's views.

We can do this starting from a real event in OTL, namely the death of Hitler's mother. The doctor who tended her at the end was Jewish and Hitler never forgot the doctor's efforts to save his mother, even calling him a "noble Jew." So, perhaps we have Hitler develop more friendships among Jewish soldiers in World War I, and even have one of them save his life at the cost of his own during the war. Hitler comes to see the Jewish soldiers and officers in a more favorable light. This moderates his rabid anti-Semitism.

But Hitler still has a deep hatred for Bolshevism which becomes the new "boogie-man" for him and the reason behind the seeming "stab in the back." When Hitler joins the German Worker's Party his anti-Bolshevism becomes the leading point. Hitler allows the anti-Semitic elements in the party to remain but moderates them.

When the Nazis do come to power you have several purges of anyone left of center politically after the Reichstag fire.

You still have thousands going into concentration camps for political and other reasons. But most of them are communist oriented and at the time communism particularly Soviet communism is considered the major threat among Western European nations.

Hitler emphasizes in his expansion how he is saving Austria and later Czechoslovakia from communist uprisings and takeovers similar to what nearly happened in Spain. His arms buildup is meant more to prepare for the inevitable battle against the forces of Bolshevism as much as against the shame of Versailles, which to Hitler's mind is as much influenced by communistic traitors in the Allied governments. When he moves into Poland, his excuse is "evidence" that Poland was about to suffer an overthrow by communist conspirators.

There is no Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact. Hitler ends up taking all of Poland.

Whether the western Allies buy all of this or not one thing does emerge here. Because Hitler is more focused on Bolshevism then anti-Semitism it is likely, not certain, but likely the Final Solution does not occur. You still have concentration camps and many of the horrors that go with them. But not on the scale you had in OTL. And Hitler's emphasis is more on the destruction of communism and not on genocide.

How does this change his anti-Slavic views? Does the good experience with Jews give him a better appreciation of different people in general?

 

[jerseyguy]

There's a timeline called Kalter Krieg that arguably fits this definition. The POD is Hitler's assassination in '38 just after Germany takes the Sudetenland. Germany forms a fascist alliance system aimed against the USSR with Poland, Romania, Hungary while the communist nations and a Franco-British democratic bloc form two more sides of a 3-way cold war. America remains neutral, but the US sees a red scare as well as a brown scare.

 

[KuboCaskett]

I'll give my two cents on this; basically to see the Nazis in a "positive" light, Hitler needs to die sometime after taking power and that Nazi Germany must not start WWII in the short run. There are a few TLs that accomplish this including Kalter Kreig, but the main thing to get this...view of the Nazis is to have the USSR act aggressive and perhaps worse than them ITTL; it worked the same way with the Soviets against the Nazis ITTL.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Hitler dying early and his successors moderating the government and/or Hitler not being such a jerk seem doable.

The problem is, as has been said, peeling away the most evil and deranged elements of the ideology eventually makes them not Nazis anymore.

 

[MerryPrankster]

On the matter of Hitler and his attitude toward the Jews, even if he decides that German-speaking, assimilated Jews (like, presumably, his mother's doctor) are fine, according to A New History of the Third Reich, there were a lot of Jewish immigrants from Russia and other Eastern European states who even other Jews looked down on them--they called them "sons of the steppes of Asia" or something like that.

We could have a situation where Hitler doesn't bother "German" Jews but is hostile toward Russian/Polish Jews, possibly with German Jews going along with it out of cultural/class prejudice.

And if you want to bring in weird racial theories, perhaps he thinks that "German" Jews are authentic Biblical Jews (you get into the Deicide issue with that, but Nazi anti-Semitism was racial more so than religious) and the Eastern Jews are Khazar impostors or something like that.

 

[Don Corleone]

Hitler dying early and his successors moderating the government and/or Hitler not being such a jerk seem doable.

The problem is, as has been said, peeling away the most evil and deranged elements of the ideology eventually makes them not Nazis anymore.

What about Himmler dying early? His worldview was based on neopaganism, and Hitler gravitated toward that over time. Get rid of Himmler's influence and maybe you have a less evil Hitler. Not saying that would work, just trying to think of a possible POD.

 

[Michele]

I'll give my two cents on this; basically to see the Nazis in a "positive" light, Hitler needs to die sometime after taking power and that Nazi Germany must not start WWII in the short run. There are a few TLs that accomplish this including Kalter Kreig, but the main thing to get this...view of the Nazis is to have the USSR act aggressive and perhaps worse than them ITTL; it worked the same way with the Soviets against the Nazis ITTL.

Yeah, and how many people in Western democracies see the Soviet system as "nice" or even "acceptable"?

 

[Michele]

Precisely. The fact the Stalin is actually remembered fondly in Russia speaks volumes as to his significance in Russian history (he saved them from oblivion) forgiving his greater sins.

Trust me, I live in East Tennessee, I know plenty of Neo-Confederates. ... Sometimes the cognitive dissonance leads to them become white supremacists,

So we have been offered two examples, Stalin and the CSA.

In the first case, Stalin is said to be "remembered fondly" ... in Russia. Which isn't a Western democracy, and it's the country of Stalin. And I'll add that those Russian polls are usually pretty carefully worded. The question normally is something like whether Stalin was "a great, important figure of history", not whether he was a "nice guy". Even Russians answer differently to that.

In the second case, we have the CSA epigons, who sometimes are white supremacists. I.e., the CSA is loved by a group that is geographically, socially and culturally very narrow, to use a kind definition. What percentage of the relevant country's population might they represent? Not to discuss the CSA's popularity in other Western democracies.

If those are the best examples, well, there's not much to add.

 

[pattersonautobody]

^^^Cherrypicking here, another post of mine mentioned Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt.

 

[Tibi088]

Many here assume that the world and especiallly the western democracies would be the same without the holocaust. It did a great deal to discredit antisemitism, dictatories, nationalism etc. The world would be in terms of ideology a vastly different place without this experience.

If you can avoid the war and the holocaust and stir some trouble in the west it may be enough. Nazi Germany could be seen as a successfull, stabil state in a chaotic world. An ideal for right leaning and if something akin to OTL develops in the west to conservative minded people.

 

[Michele]

^^^Cherrypicking here, another post of mine mentioned Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt.

Well of course it's cherry-picking, I said so myself: I chose the best examples. Stalin is very nearly in the same league as Hitler. Being pro-slavery isn't really close but it's possibly the closest you can get if you stay in the USA.
But Jackson and Roosevelt? In Hitler's league, they wouldn't be allowed to serve as ball boys. You should be grateful I did not mention your bad examples, instead of trotting them out again.

 

[Michele]

Many here assume that the world and especiallly the western democracies would be the same without the holocaust. It did a great deal to discredit antisemitism, dictatories, nationalism etc. The world would be in terms of ideology a vastly different place without this experience.

Don't conflate anti-Semitism with tyranny. Tyranny by definition has a bad reputation in, you know, a democracy, and that's true since the Greek city-states. Sure, small minorities, say the British Union of Fascists, were fascinated by fascism (nice allitteration, eh) back in the day, and a strong man could still be appealing even today in democracies in times of trouble - in the short term. Now as to the long term, you have Franco - the Spaniards opted for democracy, the Greek colonels - the Greeks opted for democracy, Pinochet - the Chileans opted for democracy.

Franco, the Greek colonels, Pinochet did not wage a losing war, nor did they run extermination camps. Nor were the Spaniards, Greeks or Chileans overly concerned with Hitler in the 1940s. As soon as circumstances allow people to choose again, they don't want a new tyrant. It's because people prefer to be free, especially after having had a taste of tyranny.

 

[Tibi088]

Don't conflate anti-Semitism with tyranny. Tyranny by definition has a bad reputation in, you know, a democracy, and that's true since the Greek city-states. Sure, small minorities, say the British Union of Fascists, were fascinated by fascism (nice allitteration, eh) back in the day, and a strong man could still be appealing even today in democracies in times of trouble - in the short term. Now as to the long term, you have Franco - the Spaniards opted for democracy, the Greek colonels - the Greeks opted for democracy, Pinochet - the Chileans opted for democracy.

Franco, the Greek colonels, Pinochet did not wage a losing war, nor did they run extermination camps. Nor were the Spaniards, Greeks or Chileans overly concerned with Hitler in the 1940s. As soon as circumstances allow people to choose again, they don't want a new tyrant. It's because people prefer to be free, especially after having had a taste of tyranny.

But you are confusing the situation. I didnt say the western states would become dictatories. I said a lot of people in the west - looking at nazi Germany from afar will like what they see very much. I also said that holocaust, the world war have to be avoided.

In the west feminists will get rights and equality for women, blacks will fight and gain their rights as well. Homosexuality will start to be acceptable and completly accepted after a time. And I could continue. This are things that many people resented in the west OTL and will resent ITTL as well. To them nazi Germany - even if its dictatorial will seem like a good place from afar. The OP didnt ask for the west willingly turn to nazism just it to be accepted and liked by a sizeable amount of westerners. I dont think thats impossible if we remove the worst excesses.

The real problem would be finding a nazi leader who would be willing and in a position to do this when you remove Hitler.