What If Hitler Had Survived? Three Futures for His Supporters

In May 1945, a German woman in her thirties walked through the ruins of her city and saw, for the first time, the newsreel footage the Allies were forcing on civilians. Piles of bodies. Starved survivors. The name of the camp flickered on the screen. She had heard rumors, of course. She had cheered Hitler in 1936. She had lost a brother at Stalingrad. Now she stared, frozen, and said what millions of people in defeated dictatorships say: “We didn’t know.”

In our world, Hitler died in his bunker and the Third Reich collapsed. Ordinary supporters were left to explain themselves to their children, to Allied denazification panels, and to their own consciences. Some denied. Some minimized. Some confessed. Many quietly moved on.

But what if Hitler had not died in 1945? What if he had been captured, or escaped, or even returned in some form to German politics? How would that have changed what ordinary Nazi supporters did with their guilt, their memories, and their excuses?

This is a counterfactual story, but it is built on real behavior from real people in real dictatorships. The question behind it is the one the Reddit post is really asking: when a destructive leader falls, do his supporters ever truly face what they cheered for?

How did real Nazi supporters behave after 1945?

Before twisting the timeline, it helps to be clear about what actually happened.

Most Nazi supporters were never tried. The Nuremberg Trials targeted top leaders. A broader denazification program in the Western zones processed millions of Germans, but by the early 1950s it had softened into a paperwork exercise. In the Soviet zone, purges were harsher but still selective. The average party member, voter, or flag-waver went home.

What they did next followed patterns we see in many defeated authoritarian societies:

1. Denial and “we didn’t know.” Many Germans claimed ignorance of mass murder. Some really had no idea of the scale or mechanics. Others had heard rumors, seen deportations, or read between the lines, then filed it away as “not my business.” After 1945, “we didn’t know” became a social shield. It allowed people to live with themselves and with their neighbors.

2. Moral outsourcing. A common line was “I was just following orders” or “I was just a small person.” Responsibility was pushed upward to Hitler, Himmler, or “the SS.” This let ordinary supporters keep their self-image as decent people who had been misled or pressured.

3. Selective memory. Many remembered the early 1930s: jobs, order, national pride. They separated that “good” Hitler from the war and the genocide. In family stories, Grandpa voted for Hitler because of unemployment, not because of antisemitism. The story was edited for comfort.

4. Quiet continuity. Former Nazis filled the bureaucracy, judiciary, universities, and business world in West Germany. In East Germany, many ex-Nazis quietly rebranded as loyal socialists. The Federal Republic did prosecute some perpetrators in the 1960s, but a large share of the population lived normal lives with Nazi pasts in their rearview mirror.

So what? In the real timeline, most Nazi supporters did not experience a dramatic moral reckoning. They adapted, rationalized, and aged. That reality is our baseline for any “what if” about Hitler surviving.

Scenario 1: Hitler is captured and put on public trial

First scenario: Hitler is captured alive in April or May 1945. Maybe he tries to flee Berlin and is caught by Soviet troops. Maybe he is knocked unconscious in the bunker and recovered. However it happens, he ends up in Allied hands.

The Allies then face a choice. In this scenario, they decide to try him publicly, in a trial similar to Nuremberg but even more theatrical. Think of the Eichmann trial in Jerusalem in 1961, but with the architect of the regime himself.

What would the trial look like?

The Allies had already planned war crimes trials. With Hitler alive, they would center everything on him. Prosecutors would present documents he signed, orders he gave, speeches he made. Survivors would testify. Film from liberated camps would be shown with him in the dock.

In our world, Nuremberg helped define “crimes against humanity.” In this alternate world, “Hitler on trial” would become the founding myth of postwar justice. The proceedings would be translated, broadcast, printed in newspapers worldwide.

Snippet-ready: A public trial of Hitler would have turned Nazi crimes into a single, focused story with a living villain at the center. It would have made denial harder, but scapegoating easier.

How would ordinary supporters react?

At first, many would cling to him. There is a pattern in authoritarian collapses: a core of loyalists insists the leader did nothing wrong, that the trial is “victors’ justice.” Think of some Serb nationalists’ reactions to Slobodan Milošević’s trial in The Hague.

But as evidence piles up, several things happen:

• Hardcore believers double down. They say the documents are forged, the witnesses coached, the Allies hypocrites. They form the nucleus of underground Hitler cults and later far-right groups.

• The majority retreats into “we were misled.” With Hitler alive and visibly on trial, it becomes easier to say, “He betrayed us.” Ordinary Germans can shift blame onto him personally. They can say, “We supported the economic recovery, not the killing.”

• Some experience real shock. In our world, many Germans first saw camp footage in 1945. With Hitler on trial, that shock would be repeated and extended. Younger Germans, especially, might react strongly against their parents’ generation.

For the Reddit-style question “did they ever come to terms with cheering for murder,” the answer here is: some would, more than in our timeline, but many would use the trial to narrow their guilt. “He is the criminal. I was fooled.”

Long-term effects

If Hitler is executed after a long trial, he becomes both a symbol of absolute evil and, for a minority, a martyr. Neo-Nazi movements in the 1950s and 1960s would likely be stronger, because they would have a vivid narrative of “our Führer killed by the victors.”

At the same time, the Federal Republic of Germany would have an even sharper founding break with Nazism. The political center could say, “We saw him judged. We know what he did. Never again.”

So what? A Hitler trial would push more Germans to acknowledge the crimes, but it would also give ordinary supporters a convenient way to offload responsibility onto one man, creating both deeper awareness and a stronger cult among the unrepentant.

Scenario 2: Hitler escapes and becomes a myth in exile

Second scenario: Hitler is not captured. He escapes Berlin, perhaps through a plane to northern Germany, then a U-boat to South America. Historically this is very unlikely, but for the sake of argument, assume he makes it to Argentina or another sympathetic regime and lives in hiding.

In this world, the Allies still win the war. The camps are liberated. Nuremberg still happens, but without Hitler in the dock. The Allies try him in absentia and sentence him to death. Rumors swirl about his whereabouts.

How does this change ordinary supporters’ behavior?

This scenario looks a lot like what actually happened, but with an added ghost.

• Denial gets easier. Without a body, conspiracy theories thrive. Some Germans would insist Hitler died heroically in Berlin. Others would claim he survived and will return. The lack of closure lets people avoid a final judgment on him.

• Myth replaces man. In exile, Hitler is no longer making speeches or issuing orders. That silence is powerful. Supporters can project whatever they want onto him. He becomes the “good Hitler” of early Nazi years in their memory, untainted (in their story) by the worst crimes, which they blame on Himmler or “fanatics.”

• Far-right subcultures form around the myth. Think of how some far-right groups treat figures like Franco or Pinochet, or how some Stalinists talk about Stalin. A living but distant Hitler would be a powerful symbol for extremists, especially outside Germany, where denazification pressure is weaker.

What about guilt and reckoning?

Here, ordinary Germans still face Allied pressure. They still see camp footage. They still go through denazification. West German society still has to rebuild. The basic patterns of denial, minimization, and gradual acknowledgment would look familiar.

The difference is psychological. With Hitler alive somewhere, some supporters can cling to the idea that “our cause wasn’t wrong, it was betrayed or defeated.” That is how many Confederates in the United States talked about their cause after 1865, and how some German nationalists talked about World War I.

Snippet-ready: A surviving Hitler in exile would have turned Nazism into a mythic lost cause for a minority of supporters, making full moral reckoning even harder for them.

For people like the Reddit poster, wondering if their relatives will ever see what they supported, this scenario is bleak. The myth of the leader in exile helps people avoid that recognition. They can always say, “History will judge him differently.”

So what? A Hitler in exile would encourage more fantasy and less accountability among his most loyal supporters, while leaving the broader pattern of denial and gradual, uneven acknowledgment among ordinary Germans largely the same.

Scenario 3: Hitler survives and returns to German politics

Third scenario, the most dramatic and the least likely: Hitler survives the war, is captured, but is not executed. Perhaps the Allies decide to imprison him for life instead, or he is handed to a German court that sentences him but later commutes it. Decades later, in a changed political climate, he is released or escapes and tries to re-enter public life.

This sounds far-fetched, but there are real-world analogies. Charles Taylor of Liberia, for example, went from exile to presidency to war crimes trial. Many authoritarian figures have had second lives in politics or public debate.

What would have to be true for this to happen?

For Hitler to reappear in politics, several constraints would have to bend:

• The Allies would have to avoid executing him, which runs against their public mood in 1945.

• Postwar Germany would have to liberalize enough to allow some far-right activity, but not so much that Hitler is universally toxic.

• He would have to live long enough. Born in 1889, he would be in his 70s by the early 1960s.

Assume, for the scenario, that he is imprisoned in West Germany, then released on health grounds in the 1960s. He is frail but alive, and far-right groups rally around him.

How do former supporters react?

By the 1960s, in our world, West Germany was going through a slow generational shift. Younger Germans were starting to question their parents about the war. Trials like the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials (1963–1965) brought camp crimes back into public view.

Now add a living Hitler to that mix.

• For many, he is an embarrassment. Ordinary Germans who had spent 20 years saying “we didn’t know” would not want the old man on TV reminding everyone of their past. Politicians in Bonn would treat him as a dangerous relic.

• A minority would flock to him. Former SS men, hardline nationalists, and disaffected youth might see him as a symbol of resistance to the “Americanized” Federal Republic. He might give a few interviews, issue statements, or become a figurehead for fringe parties.

• Families would be forced into awkward conversations. Imagine being a teenager in 1965, watching Hitler speak on television, then turning to your father who once marched in a Hitler Youth rally. The gap between “we were misled” and the living reality of the man would be harder to paper over.

Would this produce more real reckoning?

Paradoxically, a living Hitler might push more people away from him. By the 1960s, the full horror of the Holocaust was better documented. A frail, ranting ex-dictator would not look like a heroic figure to most. He would look like a reminder of everything that had gone wrong.

For some, that might trigger deeper self-examination. For others, it might harden the “we were just ordinary people” narrative. They could say, “Look at him now, he is crazy. We were young. We did not know.”

So what? A Hitler who reappears in postwar politics would sharpen generational conflict and force more explicit choices, but most former supporters would likely distance themselves from him in public while keeping their edited memories in private.

Which scenario is most plausible, and what does it tell us about supporters?

Of the three, the first two are more grounded in real constraints. Hitler being captured and tried is plausible. Hitler escaping is much less so, but still within the realm of logistical possibility. Hitler returning to politics is very unlikely given Allied intentions and his health, but it is useful as a thought experiment.

Across all three, some patterns are stubborn:

1. Most people protect their self-image first. Whether Hitler is dead, on trial, in exile, or on TV at age 75, ordinary supporters reach for the same tools: “We didn’t know.” “We were misled.” “We had no choice.” “It was different back then.” That is not a German trait. It is a human one. You can see it in post-Franco Spain, post-Soviet Russia, post-apartheid South Africa.

2. A minority will double down, regardless of evidence. In every scenario, some people cling to the leader. They see trials as persecution, evidence as propaganda, and defeat as martyrdom. A living Hitler would give them a stronger symbol, but the basic dynamic exists even with him dead.

3. Real reckoning usually comes slowly, through generations. In our world, many Germans did not really confront the Holocaust until their children and grandchildren pushed them. School curricula, trials, films, and public debates in the 1960s–1980s mattered. A Hitler trial in 1946 or a Hitler in exile would change the details, but not the basic fact that societies process guilt over decades, not overnight.

Snippet-ready: Most ordinary Nazi supporters did not wake up in 1945 and confess they had cheered for murder. They adjusted their stories to fit the new reality and passed those stories on, edited for comfort.

For someone in the United States today, watching relatives cheer for a leader they find dangerous, the German case offers a sobering answer to the Reddit question. In 10 or 20 years, some supporters will quietly admit they were wrong. Some will insist they were right all along. Many will say, “We just wanted jobs, or security, or to shake things up. We did not know it would go that far.”

Whether the leader dies, is tried, escapes, or returns, the hard work of facing what people supported rarely happens because of one dramatic event. It happens, if it happens at all, because later generations refuse to accept “we didn’t know” as the end of the story.

So what? The most plausible futures for a surviving Hitler all point to the same lesson about his supporters: the fall of a leader rarely produces an instant moral awakening. It produces a long, messy struggle over memory, excuses, and responsibility, and that struggle is shaped less by what happens to the leader than by what later citizens choose to ask of the people who once cheered.