DBWI: German Politics if the CP loses the War?

[Nicole]

What would German politics look like had the Central Powers lost the Great War? Austria-Hungary would surely be gone (a fascinating topic on its own, considering how the Empire has lasted for nearly a thousand years all the way up to today, opening new states in that region...) so how would the Allies react to German Austrians trying to join Germany?

Would Germany become viciously revanchist like France did? I think that a revanchist Germany would be much stronger than the French were, with all the German industry...

 

[Max Sinister]

Sadly, I have to second you that A-H would be divided. Too many people demanding their independence. If Galicia goes to Russian Poland, Transsylvania to Romania, South Tyrol to Italy, Croatia and Bosnia to Serbia, why should the Czechs want to stay in?

A unification of Austria and Germany could well happen. Not immediately, the Allies will forbid that, but some decades later. No alliance has survived more than a few decades yet. France, Britain and Russia just worked together because they envied Germany, everyone knows that. How often did they make war with each other before? You see.

Who'd reign Germany? Difficult to tell, but I guess it could be a bit like France after 1789: For a while, monarchies and republics would follow, but at the end, the Germans would rather tend to a monarchy.

 

[ColeMercury]

One thing that's for sure is that the Central Powers wouldn't have taken any of the Allies' colonial possessions. In fact, they'd have lost most if not all of them. The British might have taken over all their African protectorates (imagine a world where Kamerun, Ostafrika, Namibia and Togoland were all British dominions rather than German ones!), and British New Guinea would have absorbed German New Guinea rather than the other way around.

 

[Kabraloth]

Victoriously revanchist? Germany would have been torn apart by civil war (reds vs. establishment) after civil war (reactionaries vs. establishment) for decades... something like present-day Australia, you know?

 

[Bockop]

Victoriously revanchist? Germany would have been torn apart by civil war (reds vs. establishment) after civil war (reactionaries vs. establishment) for decades... something like present-day Australia, you know?

Yeah, i thought about Australia too. I think Russia and France would constantly fight over the influence over Germany, like Argentine and China are fighting over Australia in the present day.

Or maybe they would divide Germany into a French controlled South and a Russian controlled North?

 

[Advernt]

What about a marxist Germany ?Though Marxism is a dead politcal theory , it might have been attempted by any number of nations should Germany have lost the Great war .

Ofcourse , in any scenario short of a total collapse of civillization , the rise of the Dragon is still almost inevitable ...

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Ofcourse , in any scenario short of a total collapse of civillization , the rise of the Dragon is still almost inevitable ...

You know, I always wondered which dragon people talk about when they say that.

The Chinese dragon, despite having its coast occupied by Japan to this day? It has numbers, but even now it can't get its act together. The Nationalist/Communist Civil War is still going on, even though Japan is still there.

The Japanese dragon? That one is utterly dependent on US oil and raw materials, especially after the aborted Pacific War in 1938 where Japanese Empire failed in its surprise attack on the US, leading to it becoming a near-puppet empire in Asia for the US.

Or even the Aztlan dragon, the Native American beast that has become the symbol for American south-western expansion after the Second Mexican War?

 

[galanx]

While most AHs with this POD result in a Red Germany, I think people under-estimate the possibility of a Nationalist Right- unlikely as it is to think of conservative Germans rejecting the monarchy, what if defeat had been so bad as to force the Hohenzollern Dynasty into exile, and left the whole idea of monarchy discredited?

A "Man on Horseback" might have arisen- one of the Generals not tainted with defeat- or even a figure risen from the ranks? Ludicrous as it is to think of the stolid Nationalists following a Semonov, could not the parallel of defeat and humiliation produce a Germanic Osual ("Leader") ?

Think of it- a young enthusiastic war hero, himself an outsider, shattered by defeat, blames the Communists and Liberals he holds responsible for the "Stab in the Back" that led to the defeat.

Although it certainly would be ASB territory to imagine that the horrendous anti-Semitism of the "Socialist Nationalists" in Russia would be duplicated against the tiny minority of educated, assimilated Jews in Germany- some other group would have to serve as scapegoats.

 

[TaetusPrimus]

A "Man on Horseback" might have arisen- one of the Generals not tainted with defeat

I was thinking the same thing. Perhaps someone like a Lettow-Vorbeck or Hindenburg as a dictator a-la Henri Petain in OTL? I can see the Germans (or at least some Germans) turning to one of them as a "savior figure." 'Course I somehow can't imaging Bavaria staying with the German Empire - possibly joining with what's left of German Austria?

Think of it- a young enthusiastic war hero, himself an outsider, shattered by defeat, blames the Communists and Liberals he holds responsible for the "Stab in the Back" that led to the defeat.

Although it certainly would be ASB territory to imagine that the horrendous anti-Semitism of the "Socialist Nationalists" in Russia would be duplicated against the tiny minority of educated, assimilated Jews in Germany- some other group would have to serve as scapegoats.

Indeed, I think it's not ASB but highly unlikely that a "from the ranks" guy would take over. I still think it would have to be one of the junkers or military higher-ups. Blaming the Left? Perhaps, especially if it's a right-wing aristocrat who takes over.

Kaiser Wilhelm II? Gone. Probably the new military leader would rule while Wilhelm III would still reign, if only as a figurehead. (Again, I think only in Prussia).

As for German Austria, depends on whether they lose before old Franz-Josef dies. If they do, he'll still be kept as Emperor for his life? Afterward who knows? I still can't imagine them dropping the seven-century-old Habsburg dynasty. (Think Otto would still call himself "Emperor" of a tiny, rump Austria, like the last Eastern Roman "Emperors" of Constantinople?)

 

[Damar1]

I, like some others, like the idea of Germany moving to a constitutional monarchy in this scenario. That is, assuming the victorious Entente ITTL allows for a Kaiser, or some such monarch, to remain as a figurehead, while a parliamentary-style democracy has the real power.

Of course, depending on the nature of the ATL's nature of the Entente victory, there could be a backlash against the UK&France. That is, the gov't they place in Germany could be seen as catering to the whims of the above two, and so Fr/UK interests in the country might be targeted. We saw similar things in OTL's German colonies in N. Africa, or US controlled areas in the S. Pacific.

 

[Cherico]

Frankly Im rather happy Germany won the war their probally europes g
great hope when it comes to protecting them from the comunist threat.
They have led the effort to create a european common markit which
looks like its going forward, they have fought aganst trade protectionism
and their one of americas great markits. Ok you do hear the occasional
saber rattling but America and Germany share a common enemy in
Russia.
I wouldent call japan a puppet nation they put all sorts of tarriffs on our
goods, they ocassionaly opose us in the leage of nations and can be
a head ake. That said after the pacific war we came to an agreement.

If germany hadent won the war they wouldent have been strong enough
to stop Russian agreession in the second world war, and europe would have
been conqured by the comunists.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Since when has Russia been communist? Germany stamped out the Rusian Revolutionaries after WW1. Granted, there were some members in the Russian heirchy in WW2 with some leftish views, but WW2 Russia was a revenge state, nothing else.

Unless you were talking about France?


Remember, the Japanese empire is the de facto US puppet, not Japan proper. The Home Islands are completely autonomous, aren't occupied, and only have to guarantee basing rights to the US navy. It's the empire, which is occupied by US troops in certain strategic regions that shows the real picture. The naval ports for shipping? All controlled by the US's Expeditionary Force. And ever notice how, by Japanese law, all shipping must be done through American ships? Or how US resources are given priority over imperial goods?


As for the League of Nations? What a joke. After Germany started pulling strings to get Central Europe to follow its lead, no one not under German influence has ever really given it more than lip service. It serves as a forum, but can only take action when the biggest powers all agree. Hardly the world government some imagine.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Consider This...

Dean_The_Young- The reason for the American presence in the Japanese home islands is based on the post-Collapse state of the "East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" in 1996. The collapse of the Suharto regime in Indonesia, and the subsequent secession of East Timor in 1998 shows what is at stake in the region. The 1999 "Falun Gong bombings" in Beijing and Shanghai. The 2002 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Jakarta, Manila, and Kuala Lumpur is certainly a sign that it is certainly not in the U.S. interest to "back out and run"....

Another issue, would the shape of the Middle East. Since 1974, the U.S. government has been portrayed as a "gangster state" after it allowed Kach and Kahane Chai Chairman, Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in New York City, for the Zionist cause. The Arab Fderation under Chancellor Hosni Mubarak only allowed diplomatic relations in 1994. Would we have had a greater role, with the aid of British and French interests?

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Dean_The_Young- The reason for the American presence in the Japanese home islands is based on the post-Collapse state of the "East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere" in 1996. The collapse of the Suharto regime in Indonesia, and the subsequent secession of East Timor in 1998 shows what is at stake in the region. The 1999 "Falun Gong bombings" in Beijing and Shanghai. The 2002 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Jakarta, Manila, and Kuala Lumpur is certainly a sign that it is certainly not in the U.S. interest to "back out and run"....

Perhaps. But are you saying that EACPS is more a Japanese Empire than American puppet one? Sure, we need alot of their resources to function at our current economic level, but their are studies that, given 2 years to prepare, we could develop a number of the government-owned resource resevoires. They serve as national parks now, but legislation keeps them in a constant preparation for development by American firms. While Asia is very important to us, it isn't our lifeblood like it is for Japan.

Another issue, would the shape of the Middle East. Since 1974, the U.S. government has been portrayed as a "gangster state" after it allowed Kach and Kahane Chai Chairman, Benjamin Netanyahu to speak in New York City, for the Zionist cause. The Arab Fderation under Chancellor Hosni Mubarak only allowed diplomatic relations in 1994. Would we have had a greater role, with the aid of British and French interests?

Perhaps, but would we want it? Middle Eastern oil is bought and paid for almost entirely by Europe and their colonies. Because the US has ANWAR, the Canadian fields, Venezuela's occupied/territorial zones, AND Asia, we are largly covered when it comes to oil. And because we buy so little from the Arab Federation, how does it hurt them to cut relations?

And considering the pressures the Middle East has forced on nations like Britain, France, and Germany in exchange for a modern economy, I'm not sure I'd want the US to be beholden to them anyway. The US can (barely) afford the loss of any one (or two) oil sources and still survive. If the Middle East's oil were to suffer a catostraphic breakdown, all of Europe would collapse, and the European Community a distant memory. It rather be dangling over a cliff by several small ropes, not one big one, thank you very much.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Perhaps. But are you saying that EACPS is more a Japanese Empire than American puppet one? Sure, we need alot of their resources to function at our current economic level, but their are studies that, given 2 years to prepare, we could develop a number of the government-owned resource resevoires. They serve as national parks now, but legislation keeps them in a constant preparation for development by American firms. While Asia is very important to us, it isn't our lifeblood like it is for Japan.

Unfortunately, it is isolationist "America First" dialogue like that has prevented America from being taken seriously as anything more than a regional power. While it is certainly admirable to announce the development of greater energy savings, we are constantly left behind in terms of literacy rates, engineering programs, employment rates, and manufacturing capability by the nations of Germany, Russia, Great Britain, France, India, China, Japan, and even the Arab Federation. We didn't even have a space program in the United States until 1974, yet Germany has had a space program running since 1948. What is even more insulting is that, even in 2007, we don't have a unified massive "Autobahn" network, like Germany, France, Italy, and Great Britain....

Perhaps, but would we want it? Middle Eastern oil is bought and paid for almost entirely by Europe and their colonies. Because the US has ANWAR, the Canadian fields, Venezuela's occupied/territorial zones, AND Asia, we are largly covered when it comes to oil. And because we buy so little from the Arab Federation, how does it hurt them to cut relations?

And considering the pressures the Middle East has forced on nations like Britain, France, and Germany in exchange for a modern economy, I'm not sure I'd want the US to be beholden to them anyway. The US can (barely) afford the loss of any one (or two) oil sources and still survive. If the Middle East's oil were to suffer a catostraphic breakdown, all of Europe would collapse, and the European Community a distant memory. It rather be dangling over a cliff by several small ropes, not one big one, thank you very much.

Unfortunately, we are also hampered by the threat of terrorist violence in the Asian continent. Hukbalahap and Abu Sayyaf rebels in the Philippines, who bombed the U.S.S. Cole at Subic Bay in 1998, still operate, despite claims by President Tom Tancredo. Then there was the 1999, rebellion of the East Timor regime. We also have Jemaah Islam launching violent attacks in Indonesia, such as the 2002 Jakarta bombing. All it would take, is another political coup by Yukio Nishina. According to most scientists, all it would take to ruin our supply of vital and strategic resources....

 

[Analytical Engine]

Unless you were talking about France?

Which one? 1922, 1957 or 1983?

Mind you, the Sardinian revolution came quite close to winning, had the Catalans not stabbed them in the back at the last minute.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

I'm Surprised...

Which one? 1922, 1957 or 1983?

Mind you, the Sardinian revolution came quite close to winning, had the Catalans not stabbed them in the back at the last minute.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned the failed 1968 coup attempt by Socialist leaders Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Roger Gregoire, and Fredy Perlman. The subsequent military crackdown at Sorbonne and Navarre, caused the deadliest wave of anti-Semitic violence until 1991....