Atrocities and peace in a CP-victory WWII

Eurofed

Banned
A common assumption (also eagerly made by yours truly) is that a CP victory TL (hereby defined for the sake of this discussion to be caused at least by Italy in the CPs and USA out of the war) is going to produce a rather more utopian 20th century than OTL. The CPs becoming socialdemocratic liberal constitutional monarchies, creating an early EU, no Hitler, perhaps no or a contained Lenin-Stalin, the stuff. Another common assumption is that France and/or Russia are going to switch nasty, seek a rematch and cause a *WWII. Well, I was wondering, if all of this be the case, how much of OTL 1930s-1940s bad stuff would we really miss ?

Let's assume that indeed things for the CPs go as good as usually assumed. Nonetheless, at some point Russia somehow remains/swings Red/Brown, and France somehow swings Brown (I deem Communist or too early a blatant revanchist France too unlikely, the CPs would intervene and crush it in the bud). The CPs sleep at the helm, and the nasty duo, in an alliance of opportunist convenience with imperialist militarist Japan, unleash WWII. How much of the OTL WWII atrocities would be avoided, and how much would still happen, perhaps with different victims, in this scenario ?

Moreover, let's assume that the CPs still end up victorious in the rematch, perhaps with some serious Anglo assistance (hereby assumed that Britain would have got a lenient peace, so it would have made its peace with the CP hegemony soon after WWI), perhaps on their own efforts alone. What kind of "1945" harsh peace would France and Russia get ?
 
I imagine that France might get a slightly anti-Semitic, nationalist regime perhaps restoring one of the three monarchist factions (Orléanist, Legitimist or Bonapartist) although I don't see anything like Nazism emerging. Hitler's teachings were a rather unique set of ideas combined into one ideology which is unlikely to emerge in a different context, in a different country and without Hitler and his oratory skills. I don't see a holocaust in France, but I do see general oppression of Jews, immigrants, blacks, communists, Freemasons, Protestants etc.

Russia I'm not sure of. If it turns fascist we might see pogroms against the Jews. Tsarist Russia was already known for this and in spite of the USSR's atheist nature, low level anti-Semitism was a problem there too. Stalin was a little anti-Semitic (how much of that was induced by the little voices in his head is debatable though). If Russia goes commie and Stalin rises to power, it'll be more or less the same as OTL, perhaps with atrocities against the Poles is this weaker USSR manages to get that far.

Japan, if it's militarist like you say, has no reason to treat POWs any better than they did IOTL so the slave labour, bad treatment, atrocities in China and the Pacific will still happen. Not necessarily another 'rape of Nanking', but it won't be pretty.

All in all, not very nice, but still better than OTL.
 
Not if you ask people like Hurgan, giobastia, Spitfiremk1....

They generally think Germany will go to hell and back to make a CP victory world as dystopian as humanly possibble, overshadowing Hitler when it comes to atrocities and war.

I dont share their opinion, I am simply warning you about this.

And why does a revanchist regime have to be fascist or communist? France wasnt neither before WWI, and yet they were "hoooray, war" revachists. How about a TL were fascism never rises to prominence, or where its most serious representative is a Mussolini-like regime?

How much of the OTL WWII atrocities would be avoided, and how much would still happen, perhaps with different victims, in this scenario?

Hmmm.... Probably the Red/Brown Russians and Japanese would be the main perpetrators, with Russia comminting a watered down Holocaust against non-Russians and Eastern European Germans?
 
Prior to WWI, militarism and anti-Semitism were generally associated with France, not Germany.

About the treatment of Jews, Imperial Germany was one of the most Jew-friendly European states and look what happened a generation later. France going homicidally insane is not without plausibility.
 
It is a question of faith...

I myself guess that the development would cover a middle-ground for Europe when compared to OTL.

1. In Germany, anything could happen. We might see a quick development into a constitutional monarchy, but even with the 1914-constitution, Germany might calm down a lot. Germany would most probable not evolve into a Nazi-like regime. Why not? Because there is no reason for it. German elites don't have any, and neither would the electorate have.

What I deem realistic is a Germany which has serious troubles with the Europe they try to create, especially in the East, maybe also in Africa. In some places, they might simply over-extend and get more trouble than these places are worth.
Also, there will be some economic trouble as Entente reparations won't be sufficient to pay for that expensive war (unless the ASBs can make the USA pay reparations :D).

German Colonial Rule in Africa won't be easy and Germany is simply too young as a colonial power to prepare giving up any parts of it. But - can't be much worse than Belgian rule either.

Certainly no Hitler Chancellorship. Certainly no Holocaust as we know it.

2. Austria-Hungary, as discussed recently, will have turbulent times ahead and I cannot see how a crackdown of the original Ausgleich can be avoided. But it will should down and generally, it will do better than the single countries in OTL.

Austro-Hungarian rule in Serbia was harsh in WW1 (much worse than German rule in Belgium) and I expect it to be troublesome for some time, if Serbia gets annexed.

3. Depending on the POD, Communist rule will probably be established in what is left of Russia, so we have a Sovjet Union in the borders of present-day Russia plus maybe Byelorussia, maybe Central Asia.

Germany will find out it is not worth meddling in what is outside its sphere of influence (Finland, Baltic State(s), Ukraine), the Entente powers will be too weak to bother with the Russian Civil War, so I assume this one will be shorter.

Also, as Stalin will have less people to rule over, he will have less possibilities to kill them. Will he be accepted at all if maybe Georgia manages to remain independant?

4. Japan will probably act not much different than OTL. It might even feel less inhibited if Britain and France remain weakened.

5. France might change its system, but doesn't have to. Will it be revanchist? It wouldn't be helpful as the balance of power has tipped. Period.

The will have to apply Strésémân - tactics for a long time.
 
Not if you ask people like Hurgan, giobastia, Spitfiremk1....

They generally think Germany will go to hell and back to make a CP victory world as dystopian as humanly possibble, overshadowing Hitler when it comes to atrocities and war.


Don´t you know that the zermans are teh evol and that the Kaiser ate babies alive?!1? :D
 
Prior to WWI, militarism and anti-Semitism were generally associated with France, not Germany.

France wasn't perfect and Germany was not as bad as is often made out, but this just ain't so. The army in France were not nearly so much of a political lobby, and the reason there was no German Dreyfuss case is not so much that there was no German Dreyfuss as that there was no German Emile Zola. There was a report during the war making the (ludicrous) assertion that Jews were more likley to skip duty and nobody exposed it.
 

The Vulture

Banned
The Germans might not administer newly gained colonies in Africa (which I see in some but not all CP victory TLs, I'll include them for the sake of argument) so peacefully. I would imagine native unrest at the change of fiefdom being put down fairly hard, look at what happened to the Herero and Namaqua under German colonial rule.

Just a thought.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I would imagine native unrest at the change of fiefdom being put down fairly hard, look at what happened to the Herero and Namaqua under German colonial rule.

It is very hard to see the rather sociopolitically underdeveloped 1917 subsaharian Africans getting up in arms about a change of masters, and let's be frank, what happened to the Herero was an kinda extreme case of a generalized standard about "scorched earth" colonial counterinsurgency back then. Witness the French in Algeria in the 19th century, or even more so, the Italians in Libya in the 1920s.

France wasn't perfect and Germany was not as bad as is often made out, but this just ain't so.

True, but in our case, we only need France not to be any really better than Germany, in order to be quite liable to falling to the same demons, when exposed to the same kind of extreme shock. And that was quite the case. The seeds of fascism were as plentiful in pre-WWI France as in Germany and Italy.

1. In Germany, anything could happen. We might see a quick development into a constitutional monarchy, but even with the 1914-constitution, Germany might calm down a lot. Germany would most probable not evolve into a Nazi-like regime. Why not? Because there is no reason for it. German elites don't have any, and neither would the electorate have.

What I deem realistic is a Germany which has serious troubles with the Europe they try to create, especially in the East, maybe also in Africa. In some places, they might simply over-extend and get more trouble than these places are worth.
Also, there will be some economic trouble as Entente reparations won't be sufficient to pay for that expensive war (unless the ASBs can make the USA pay reparations :D).

German Colonial Rule in Africa won't be easy and Germany is simply too young as a colonial power to prepare giving up any parts of it. But - can't be much worse than Belgian rule either.

Certainly no Hitler Chancellorship. Certainly no Holocaust as we know it.

All very true, and for the record, I would add that Italy (which would almost surely eagerly modeling itself into a junior copy of Germany) would face pretty much the same problems and opportunities, on a lesser scale. Certainly no fascist regime, surely remaining a sane and civil constitutional monarchy and quite likely evolving further towards liberalism. Quite possibly some amount of colonial overextension. Quite likely accelerated industrialization owing to strong economic integration with Germansphere.

How strong would expect those post-war CP economic troubles to be ? The more they are, the more they shall try to squeeze reparations out of France (and Russia, if it doesn't go Red). Oh, the scenario assumes that the USA doesn't go Entente. ;)

2. Austria-Hungary, as discussed recently, will have turbulent times ahead and I cannot see how a crackdown of the original Ausgleich can be avoided. But it will should down and generally, it will do better than the single countries in OTL.

Agreed, regardless of whether the A-H crisis results into federal stabilization or Italo-German-Hungarian partition.

Austro-Hungarian rule in Serbia was harsh in WW1 (much worse than German rule in Belgium) and I expect it to be troublesome for some time, if Serbia gets annexed.

Unfortunately, true, regardless of whether Serbia gets annexed by the Habsburg or becomes a heavily garrisoned CP vassal. A less dystopian outcome for them could happen if A-H is partitioned and they are set up as an independent clinet kingdom with Bosnia, this could make them content enough to calm down.

Depending on the POD, Communist rule will probably be established in what is left of Russia, so we have a Sovjet Union in the borders of present-day Russia plus maybe Byelorussia, maybe Central Asia.

Germany will find out it is not worth meddling in what is outside its sphere of influence (Finland, Baltic State(s), Ukraine), the Entente powers will be too weak to bother with the Russian Civil War, so I assume this one will be shorter.

All quite possible, unfortunately.

Also, as Stalin will have less people to rule over, he will have less possibilities to kill them.

He might redirect his "attentions" from Ukrainians to Central Asians, however.

Will he be accepted at all if maybe Georgia manages to remain independant?

Not going to be a relevant factor, IMO.

Japan will probably act not much different than OTL. It might even feel less inhibited if Britain and France remain weakened.

True.

France (..) will have to apply Strésémân - tactics for a long time.

Quite true, but I don't expect France to get seriously revanchist before 10-15 years after the war, if it is going to have any success. Doing so too blatantly, too soon after the war is only going to unleash a quick Italo-German bitchslap. Fritz and Guido back in Paris in a month, end of story.

I imagine that France might get a slightly anti-Semitic, nationalist regime perhaps restoring one of the three monarchist factions (Orléanist, Legitimist or Bonapartist) although I don't see anything like Nazism emerging. Hitler's teachings were a rather unique set of ideas combined into one ideology which is unlikely to emerge in a different context, in a different country and without Hitler and his oratory skills. I don't see a holocaust in France, but I do see general oppression of Jews, immigrants, blacks, communists, Freemasons, Protestants etc.

Russia I'm not sure of. If it turns fascist we might see pogroms against the Jews. Tsarist Russia was already known for this and in spite of the USSR's atheist nature, low level anti-Semitism was a problem there too. Stalin was a little anti-Semitic (how much of that was induced by the little voices in his head is debatable though). If Russia goes commie and Stalin rises to power, it'll be more or less the same as OTL, perhaps with atrocities against the Poles is this weaker USSR manages to get that far.

Japan, if it's militarist like you say, has no reason to treat POWs any better than they did IOTL so the slave labour, bad treatment, atrocities in China and the Pacific will still happen. Not necessarily another 'rape of Nanking', but it won't be pretty.

All in all, not very nice, but still better than OTL.

A quite reasonable assessment.

Not if you ask people like Hurgan, giobastia, Spitfiremk1....

They generally think Germany will go to hell and back to make a CP victory world as dystopian as humanly possibble, overshadowing Hitler when it comes to atrocities and war.

I dont share their opinion, I am simply warning you about this.

And why does a revanchist regime have to be fascist or communist? France wasnt neither before WWI, and yet they were "hoooray, war" revachists. How about a TL were fascism never rises to prominence, or where its most serious representative is a Mussolini-like regime?

Hmmm.... Probably the Red/Brown Russians and Japanese would be the main perpetrators, with Russia comminting a watered down Holocaust against non-Russians and Eastern European Germans?

Well, of course French fascism could quite possibly take the lite Mussolini-like form, sure. And I agree that the Russians and Japanese would be the most likey culprits of the really nasty stuff, for the reasons OW listed. OTOH, I tend to expect a totalitarian swing a most likely prerequisite for post-WWI French revanchism, if nothing else because it would be the hallmark of the rather fanatical swing in the French collective psyche that needs to happen in order to fulfill the scenario. In comparison to 1871, the revanchist struggle is going to look rather more uphill (Britain out of the mess, Germany strongest than ever, Italy stronger too and tied to Berlin at the waist), it needs France to go more revenge psychotic to be undergone.

I dunno about the other guys, but concerning Hurgan, not going to give any serious concern whatosoever to the lunatic ramblings of a paranoid conspiracy theorist Germanophobe Pole supremacist that basically seems to think Main Kampf was penned in all but name by Frederick II of Prussia and co-authored by Catherine II of Russia, modern Germany and the EU are secretly managed by SPECTRE cabals of neo-Nazi, and Poles are the real chosen people, singled out for persecution by evol neighbors on all sides since the Romans. :rolleyes::eek::mad:
 
...

3. Depending on the POD, Communist rule will probably be established in what is left of Russia, so we have a Sovjet Union in the borders of present-day Russia plus maybe Byelorussia, maybe Central Asia.

Germany will find out it is not worth meddling in what is outside its sphere of influence (Finland, Baltic State(s), Ukraine), the Entente powers will be too weak to bother with the Russian Civil War, so I assume this one will be shorter.

Also, as Stalin will have less people to rule over, he will have less possibilities to kill them. Will he be accepted at all if maybe Georgia manages to remain independant?

...
Why assume
a) There will still be a recognisable USSR, and
b) Stalin will end up in charge of it?

We haven't even decided when/how alt-WWI ends, apart from "the Central Powers win". That has a huge effect on what happens in Russia.
 
Not if you ask people like Hurgan, giobastia, Spitfiremk1....

Yeah, Exactly :mad::D:mad:. I have never said a victorious German Empire in WW1 is going to turn into a "teh zermanz are evil killign gews!!!" sort of scenerio. But i still have two serious problems with the scenerio put foward.

1. Seriously, think about it. What are the chances of the leaders of both a Victorious Whilhelmine Germany and Hapsburg Austro - Hungary (especialy with an early victory as this scenerio seems to suggest) throwing in the towel upon victory and transforming thier countires into "socialdemocratic liberal constitutional monarchies", which seems to suggest to me they will both become like uber Sweden's politicaly. It's the stuff of CP Victory Romantisists.

and...

2. Why on Gods Green Earth would Britain, who has probably spent alot of money and lives fighting the Central powers in this scenerio, suddenly decide to join them in TTL's WWII analouge and turn agianst thier former allies France and Russia. Far more likely IMO that they would suport France and Russia against the CP's (depending on the state of the Political Regimes in those two countires, i imagine the relationship being somewhat like that of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union during OTL WWII), perhaps taking care of Germany's Colonies while sending a small force to Europe? The wild card in this scenerio of course (as with almost any CP Victory TL) is Japan.
 

Eurofed

Banned
1. Seriously, think about it. What are the chances of the leaders of both a Victorious Whilhelmine Germany and Hapsburg Austro - Hungary (especialy with an early victory as this scenerio seems to suggest) throwing in the towel upon victory and transforming thier countires into "socialdemocratic liberal constitutional monarchies", which seems to suggest to me they will both become like uber Sweden's politicaly.

You may notice that social democrats had become the plurality party in Germany immediately before the war (with the Italian socialists not too far behind), that after a victorious major war the masses typically push successfully for a leftward swing of the political and socio-economic status quo to reap a reward for their efforts, and that Sweden had started with a constitution not really much democratic than German one back in mid-late 1800s. It's not "throwing the towel", as much yielding to the irresistible socio-political pressure created by the war, which only heightens ongoing evolutionary trends existing for decades.

2. Why on Gods Green Earth would Britain, who has probably spent alot of money and lives fighting the Central powers in this scenerio, suddenly decide to join them in TTL's WWII analouge and turn agianst thier former allies France and Russia. Far more likely IMO that they would suport France and Russia against the CP's, perhaps taking care of Germany's Colonies while sending a small force to Europe? The wild card in this scenerio of course (as with almost any CP Victory TL) is Japan.

But Britain has got a lenient peace, and the war has been a couple decades ago. The British had a generation to overcome the shock of the balance of power's demise, witness that the new CP continental hegemony is not going to to raise a huge fleet to invade their isles or their empire, and that they can do business with the new Europe as well as they did with the old. The Entente was long ago, and most likely dismissed in hindsight as a foolish mistake, where Britain fruitlessly spilled its blood and money to fulfill French mad revanchist dreams and Russian foolhardy imperial aspirations. Once they realize that the CP hegemony is stable, business-minded, and not threatening to their empire, they have no stake in striving again to undo it, for the sake of a France and Russia that are most likely rather more hostile ideologically than the CP liberal constutional monarchies, and looks like the aggressive upsetters of the generation-long status quo.

Japan has a stake in going aggressive against the status quo, Britain doesn't.
 
Why assume
a) There will still be a recognisable USSR, and
b) Stalin will end up in charge of it?

We haven't even decided when/how alt-WWI ends, apart from "the Central Powers win". That has a huge effect on what happens in Russia.

1. That's why I started my discussion about Russia with "depending on the POD". However, I assume that a CP powers win is most probable due to a collapse of Russia as we know it.

(IMHO, the only way the CP powers can win is to understand that Russia's demise is already the big strategic victory and should play the "Status Quo"-game to the rest of the Entente from late 1917 on. As usual in this period, there is a total failure of German strategic and diplomatic thinking.)

2. I questioned myself whether Stalin would become an important figure in this timeline. However, he is more probable to end up on top of something in a CP victory timeline than Hitler.
 
1. Seriously, think about it. What are the chances of the leaders of both a Victorious Whilhelmine Germany and Hapsburg Austro - Hungary (especialy with an early victory as this scenerio seems to suggest) throwing in the towel upon victory and transforming thier countires into "socialdemocratic liberal constitutional monarchies", which seems to suggest to me they will both become like uber Sweden's politicaly. It's the stuff of CP Victory Romantisists.

Germany was Über-Schweden concerning its programs of social welfare. :eek:Each type of Government - Kaiserreich, Weimar Republic, 3rd Reich, FRG/GDR managed to enact even more social programmes while Scandinavia overtook Germany after WW2 to this regards.

I don't want to seem as a Victory Romanticist. But...this is not a matter of leadership, but of electoral results.

In the case of Germany, a government based on the majorities in the Reichstag was what everybody expected for the near future, probably after the elections which would have been held in 1917.

In the 1912 Reichstag, 298 out of 397 seats had been won by parties which during the war demanded more rights for the Parliament after the war. Add to that further 28 Poles, Danes and Alsatians!
These parties represented 77,1% (+ 5%) of the electorate. Constitutional changes were a matter of when rather than if. Basically, only two relatively small changes would have changed the whole outlook of German politics: a) reform the Prussian 3-class-census suffrage (seriously discussed in 1910) b) have the Reichstag confirm any appointment of a Reichskanzler.

Btw, what leadership? The Kaiser, whose position was under discussion more often than not before the war already, got seriously undermined by the war which completely destroyed the imagery of his prestige - only a very quick victory (1914/15) could restore that.

The 3rd OHL was not a constitutional approach but a mean to manage/win the war as well as a result of every other centre of power yielding to what was deemed as military neccessary: Reichstag, Reichskanzler, Kaiser and even Hindenburg as Ludendorffs second man generally just followed his suggestions in the end. The so-called military dictatorship is IMO an ex-post construction.

Once the Reich had a Reichskanzler again who tried to act (Max von Baden, though on Ludendorff's own suggestion), the political position of the 3rd OHL became untenable and Ludendorff got quickly sacked.

In the case of Austria-Hungary, victory or not, it is a matter of reform or die.


2. Why on would Britain, who has probably spent alot of money and lives fighting the Central powers in this scenerio, suddenly decide to join them in TTL's WWII analouge and turn agianst thier former allies France and Russia. Far more likely IMO that they would suport France and Russia against the CP's (depending on the state of the Political Regimes in those two countires, i imagine the relationship being somewhat like that of the Western Allies and the Soviet Union during OTL WWII), perhaps taking care of Germany's Colonies while sending a small force to Europe?

I agree, though not completely. I do not see the UK at Germany's side in a new conflict. But - why die for Metz....again?

Unless Germany were the agressor the second time around I see Britain rather as a neutral nation unless there would have been unacceptable direct British losses in the peace following the CP victory (I mean on the magnitude of e.g. South Africa).

For Britain to become this substantially aggressive that it plans a war of aggression against a major power in the 1930s would be a complete turnaround of its 20th century politics and maybe even society.

Also, Britain's other problems in this period wouldn't be whisked away. Other powers would contest the Empire and what about India?

I can see a PM Neville Chamberlain claiming "we would have been better of remaining neutral the first time around" when the French invade the Ardennes and both sides ask for British support.
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to see what sort of lenient peace Britain gets - possibly something along the lines of give Germany back it's colonies, no or little reparations and don't complain when Germany and/or other CP feast on the French and Belgian Empires. Britain would also probably have to withdraw from thos parts of the Ottoman Empire it occupied. It would be interesting to see what happens to Persia

Assuming this sort of peace and then 20+ years of a stable trading relationship with the CP I see no reason why Britain would then join France and Russia in an attack on the CP, they have no cause. Indeed they may have more interest in supporting the new status quo. Saying that I don't think they'd actually go to war against France and Russia, rather you may get the situation where Britain blocks Entente naval operations in it's waters whilst turning a blind eye to CP operations providing they don't actually engage in offensive combat

I can kind of envisage a frustrated France launching a Pearl Harbour type raid on Scapa Flow in such a situation, bringing Britain in that way
 
I can kind of envisage a frustrated France launching a Pearl Harbour type raid on Scapa Flow in such a situation, bringing Britain in that way

I can only envisage such stupidity if the Austrian-born Adolphe Hitlér, who moved to Paris, the city of the arts, at the eve of the Great War and who decided to start a political career after the humiliating defeat of la Grande Nation actually manages to come to power, establishing the "3ère Émpire".
 

Eurofed

Banned
It would be interesting to see what sort of lenient peace Britain gets - possibly something along the lines of give Germany back it's colonies, no or little reparations and don't complain when Germany and/or other CP feast on the French and Belgian Empires. Britain would also probably have to withdraw from thos parts of the Ottoman Empire it occupied. It would be interesting to see what happens to Persia

Assuming this sort of peace and then 20+ years of a stable trading relationship with the CP I see no reason why Britain would then join France and Russia in an attack on the CP, they have no cause. Indeed they may have more interest in supporting the new status quo. Saying that I don't think they'd actually go to war against France and Russia, rather you may get the situation where Britain blocks Entente naval operations in it's waters whilst turning a blind eye to CP operations providing they don't actually engage in offensive combat

I can kind of envisage a frustrated France launching a Pearl Harbour type raid on Scapa Flow in such a situation, bringing Britain in that way

I agree with this most reasonable assessment.
 

Nikephoros

Banned
It would be interesting to see what sort of lenient peace Britain gets - possibly something along the lines of give Germany back it's colonies, no or little reparations and don't complain when Germany and/or other CP feast on the French and Belgian Empires. Britain would also probably have to withdraw from thos parts of the Ottoman Empire it occupied. It would be interesting to see what happens to Persia

How, pray tell, will this happen?

When does the war end?

If it ends in 1914/1915, it won't be decisive enough to convince the French to give up their colonies. Nor has Britain occupied the Middle East by this time. Nor will Germany fell the need to force France to forfeit her colonies. Belgium's colonies likely returned to her as well.

If it ends in 1917/1918, the German economy won't be able to handle any continued fighting. The British, who happen to control Germany's colonies by this time, will see no intention in restoring German control to those colonies. Japan need not fear Germany either, so Germany's Pacific colonies will be lost completely. The German economy will be wrecked, and they will struggle to maintain Continental Hegemony. Either they concentrate on their navy, and still be inferior to the British, or they concentrate on their army to protect against France and keep the East pacified. (Although without B/L, it will be interesting to see what Russia relinquishes.) If they win after B/L, they certainly will find it hard to keep the East under their thumbs.
 
France wasn't perfect and Germany was not as bad as is often made out, but this just ain't so. The army in France were not nearly so much of a political lobby, and the reason there was no German Dreyfuss case is not so much that there was no German Dreyfuss as that there was no German Emile Zola. There was a report during the war making the (ludicrous) assertion that Jews were more likley to skip duty and nobody exposed it.

About militarism being a French disease, here's my source:

http://books.google.com/books?id=k1...onepage&q=militarism "french disease"&f=false
 

Susano

Banned
The problem with Germany winning WW1 (or at least winning it in a "quick victorious war") is that all the bigoted, reactionary militarists in German politics and society will be confirmed in their position, and will get quite a boost. Hence teh assumption that the SPD will simply continue to gather seats in the Reichstag is flawed. And seeing how the conservatives increasingly radicalised, it will not be the same nasty but harmless reactionary militarists as under Wilhelm II - the Crown Prince Wilhelm at that time already was the political frontfigure for the ultra-conservatives...

So, ironically, it would be ideal for Germany to win the war, but in such a dragged-out and exhaustive way that the people get sick with the Emperor and either take away his power or his throne alltogether as IOTL...

*(and also anti-semite, but thats secondary - they wanted to keep every second demorgaphic group secodn class citizen, including for example women, so meh)

Nikephoros:
Oh, Britain can only be brought one way anyways: The submarine blockade. However, if it is kept up throughout the entire war, then it might actually work in bringing Britain down, at least down to the negotiation table where it can use the occupied German colonies and the smooth transfer of the French colonies as bargaining chip.
 
Top