German victory WW1 - How different from Nazi Germany would it actually be?

[AussieHawker]

This is one of those relative bad things. Imperial Germany is still going to do bad things from our point of view. Evict a few million Poles from their homes in Poland of a strip to be annexed to Germany and then resettled with Germans. Poland, Ukraine, France, etc are going to get the TLC of German occupation IE iron fist and if there are any incidents civilians will get shot. They are going to try do some colonization or the like in Poland, Baltics, etc many Nazi ideas dated from WW1. What you wont get with the German Empire is industrial mass murder, the extermination groups, death camps, IE wholesale genocide.

So yes this is better than Nazi Germany but just about anything is better by comparison.

Michael

That was hardly the uniform demands of all German power brokers for the peace. The SPD coming to power right afterwards could easily torpedo such plans. Or the cost to the strained economy. Or the failure to really get any colonists to go east to said strip. Or the farmer's uproar if the government is pushing away all their seasonal labour. Imperial Germany is still a democracy, albeit a flawed one. One that is likely to become more representative after the war, like Britain expanding the franchise. They aren't going to bull through crazy plans like the Nazi's. They have a lot of other issues to deal with as well, and the post-war era had a habit of loosening the war era aims.

 

[altamiro]

This is one of those relative bad things. Imperial Germany is still going to do bad things from our point of view. Evict a few million Poles from their homes in Poland of a strip to be annexed to Germany and then resettled with Germans. Poland, Ukraine, France, etc are going to get the TLC of German occupation IE iron fist and if there are any incidents civilians will get shot. They are going to try do some colonization or the like in Poland, Baltics, etc many Nazi ideas dated from WW1. What you wont get with the German Empire is industrial mass murder, the extermination groups, death camps, IE wholesale genocide.

So yes this is better than Nazi Germany but just about anything is better by comparison.

Michael

Nothing of that sort was actually even practically considered. Large parts of today's Poland were a part of Germany before, without any mass expulsion of Poles (there were more than enough injustices but on a more local, individual scale) and as @AussieHawker mentions above all these suggestions by the radical wing were openly counterproductive to the interests of much of Germany, including - that is the difference to the Nazi Germany - to the interests of people in power: landlords, industrialists etc.
Harsh military occupation of Ukraine etc with heavy resource extraction may still occur, or treatment of locals as second-class citizens in comparison to the German minority in places like the Baltics or parts of Poland - but for mass evictions or "population exchanges" on the level of the Greek-Turkish population exchanegs of the 1920s there is simply no sufficient interest.
Just like OTL some parts of Dutch government bent on revenge for the Hunger Winter wanted, after 1945, to grab a huge strip of Northwestern Germany, evict Germans and re-settle with Dutch people - and they would have likely gotten support of Churchill&Co if they were insistent enough - but more practical minds pushed through and the plans were buried.

 

[miketr]

Nothing of that sort was actually even practically considered. Large parts of today's Poland were a part of Germany before, without any mass expulsion of Poles (there were more than enough injustices but on a more local, individual scale) and as @AussieHawker mentions above all these suggestions by the radical wing were openly counterproductive to the interests of much of Germany, including - that is the difference to the Nazi Germany - to the interests of people in power: landlords, industrialists etc.
Harsh military occupation of Ukraine etc with heavy resource extraction may still occur, or treatment of locals as second-class citizens in comparison to the German minority in places like the Baltics or parts of Poland - but for mass evictions or "population exchanges" on the level of the Greek-Turkish population exchanegs of the 1920s there is simply no sufficient interest.
Just like OTL some parts of Dutch government bent on revenge for the Hunger Winter wanted, after 1945, to grab a huge strip of Northwestern Germany, evict Germans and re-settle with Dutch people - and they would have likely gotten support of Churchill&Co if they were insistent enough - but more practical minds pushed through and the plans were buried.

We agree to disagree on what the historic record has to say here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Border_Strip

I have read of this idea in several books beyond wiki. Maybe the SPD would force a policy reversal but it would be a policy reversal.

Michael

 

[Chris Triangle]

True, the Germans may not have mass expelled Poles in the past but this border strip is a different case because the motivation for annexing it seems less for the land itself, which has little direct value to Germany, and more for the opportunity to create a barrier between areas of Germany with Polish populations and the larger areas of Lesser Poland and Galicia, where most Poles lived. That's presumably why the expulsions were only to be in the border strip and not in Upper Silesia or West Prussia. It leaves the Poles further West in a situation like OTLs Transylvanian Hungarian; disjointed from their mother country and correct me if I'm wrong, but doing this in Poland this was theoretically supposed to allow Germany to absorb the existing Polish population with less fear of a successful widespread uprising. Jews were presumably targeted because of simple antisemitism.

But it wouldn't it be a bit challenging to get enough Germans willing to settle in the Border strip in a couple of years? The plan already involved a hitherto unprecedented scale of forced expulsion (it might easily spark an uprising) and paying settlers to move there and building the kinds of things needed to attract them would be even more expensive. I'm not even sure if the proponents of this plan even had a time table. That is not to say they couldn't or wouldn't attempt it but depending on the government, it is possible that they would eventually have to relent and decide to allow at least some Poles to remain, if only just to keep the place running.

 

[TastySpam]

We agree to disagree on what the historic record has to say here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Border_Strip

I have read of this idea in several books beyond wiki. Maybe the SPD would force a policy reversal but it would be a policy reversal.

Michael

True, the Germans may not have mass expelled Poles in the past but this border strip is a different case because the motivation for annexing it seems less for the land itself, which has little direct value to Germany, and more for the opportunity to create a barrier between areas of Germany with Polish populations and the larger areas of Lesser Poland and Galicia, where most Poles lived. That's presumably why the expulsions were only to be in the border strip and not in Upper Silesia or West Prussia. It leaves the Poles further West in a situation like OTLs Transylvanian Hungarian; disjointed from their mother country and correct me if I'm wrong, but doing this in Poland this was theoretically supposed to allow Germany to absorb the existing Polish population with less fear of a successful widespread uprising. Jews were presumably targeted because of simple antisemitism.

But it wouldn't it be a bit challenging to get enough Germans willing to settle in the Border strip in a couple of years? The plan already involved a hitherto unprecedented scale of forced expulsion (it might easily spark an uprising) and paying settlers to move there and building the kinds of things needed to attract them would be even more expensive. I'm not even sure if the proponents of this plan even had a time table. That is not to say they couldn't or wouldn't attempt it but depending on the government, it is possible that they would eventually have to relent and decide to allow at least some Poles to remain, if only just to keep the place running.

There was a mass Polish expulsion under Bismarck, but it proved wildly unpopular among basically everyone besides Bismarck. And it only applied to migrants from Austria/Russia, not locals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_deportations

So I can't imagine it'd only be the SDP in opposition, but the Center Party would almost certainly be outraged too and between the two, we've got a solid majority of the Reichstag. That being said, would the leaders of a victorious WWI Germany care about what the Reichstag thought? Dunno actually.

Weimar Germany was obviously no bastion of political stability, but a victorious WWI Germany wouldn't really have been either. And although it's hard to envision something as bad/worse than the Nazis, one could still envision something really really bad. Like a victorious WWI Germany that goes down the same path as WWII Japan.

 

[miketr]

But it wouldn't it be a bit challenging to get enough Germans willing to settle in the Border strip in a couple of years? The plan already involved a hitherto unprecedented scale of forced expulsion (it might easily spark an uprising) and paying settlers to move there and building the kinds of things needed to attract them would be even more expensive. I'm not even sure if the proponents of this plan even had a time table. That is not to say they couldn't or wouldn't attempt it but depending on the government, it is possible that they would eventually have to relent and decide to allow at least some Poles to remain, if only just to keep the place running.

More than a few of the ideas of the 3rd Reich towards Eastern Europe didn’t appear on their own. One of the ideas floating around was to give the land to former soldiers to act as a peasant militia and to help civilize the savage east. Does this sound at all familiar?

Michael

 

[Falk]

Honestly, Germany winning WWI is probably one of the best things that could happen to the world.

 

[FBKampfer]

View attachment 472950

Would hasten the collapse of imperialism, could have avoided or drastically reduced the great depression, avoided the holocaust, likely butterflies away the Commies, reduces US dickwaving in the long run.

Whats not to like there?

 

[Falk]

We don't know that. Its all ultimately an un-provable hypothesis.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

View attachment 472950

Though that is hilarious there are a number of benefits beyond just preventing WW2 and the Nazis. Potentially it could well prevent Stalin and communism, hasten the end of colonialism, end the likely future conflicts over borders in Europe (at least those involving regional powers), and bring on a fair bit of social liberalism that would happen in the wake of breaking down the old order in Europe and the globe.

 

[Colonel flagg]

Have anyone written a timeline covering this?

 

[BigBlueBox]

I like how everyone claiming that a militaristic authoritarian Kaiserreich would be better than the Nazis is completely ignoring that this Kaiserreich would probably get nukes and wouldn’t hesitate to use them copiously on any potential threat, real or imagined. It took a very special series of events to establish the nuclear taboo OTL. I don’t see that happening ITTL. As for the idea that a victorious Germany would adopt the liberal ideologies of its defeated foes, I consider that theory to be a little too Whiggish.

 

[anotherlurker]

I like how everyone claiming that a militaristic authoritarian Kaiserreich would be better than the Nazis is completely ignoring that this Kaiserreich would probably get nukes and wouldn’t hesitate to use them copiously on any potential threat, real or imagined. It took a very special series of events to establish the nuclear taboo OTL. I don’t see that happening ITTL. As for the idea that a victorious Germany would adopt the liberal ideologies of its defeated foes, I consider that theory to be a little too Whiggish.

Which TTL cities would get Hiroshimad and Nagasakid to establish the taboo? France on its own is too weak for another round and Russia without Ukraine and the Kaukasus is not much of a threat here. Maybe the UK gets the honor as the ultimate Brit-screw? Everyone else is either too far away to really butt heads with Germany in a serious way or too unimportant to warrant such use of expensive material.

 

[Tibi088]

We agree to disagree on what the historic record has to say here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Border_Strip

I have read of this idea in several books beyond wiki. Maybe the SPD would force a policy reversal but it would be a policy reversal.

Michael

AFAIK and this is confirmed by your link as well this was Ludendorff's idea - but it would not be Ludendorff who made the peace. If he pushes hard enough it may come to pass but we cant be certain and say: this will happen if the german wins - its just one of the possibilities with not the worst chance of actually happening.

 

[Scerus]

I like how everyone claiming that a militaristic authoritarian Kaiserreich would be better than the Nazis is completely ignoring that this Kaiserreich would probably get nukes and wouldn’t hesitate to use them copiously on any potential threat, real or imagined. It took a very special series of events to establish the nuclear taboo OTL. I don’t see that happening ITTL. As for the idea that a victorious Germany would adopt the liberal ideologies of its defeated foes, I consider that theory to be a little too Whiggish.

I don't understand this, the military dictatorship could not last forever without political disruption or revolution. Wilhelm had promised reform in 1917 after the war and the Reichstag felt confident enough to present their own proposals for an honourable end to the war, which would have been the best outcome for all involved. With Germany exhausted as everyone and thereafter facing new elections where the SPD would historic gains or even the Chancellorship.

• If a revolution became increasingly like I doubt Wilhelm would completely lose his marbles and fight them in civil war. It's also worth remembering that Friedrich Ebert (SPD heavyweight) supported maintaining the monarchy but was overruled by the knee-jerk reaction of Scheidemann.

• As for nukes, once their awesome power had been revealed they would have had a similar affect to the horrors of air aids before WWII; using them willy nilly is frankly ASB in my opinion.

 

[Remitonov]

Honestly, Germany winning WWI is probably one of the best things that could happen to the world.

The French, Poles and Baltic States would greatly disagree. A victorious Germany would pretty much reverse the situation IOTL, where the defeated Entente would be faced with collapsing empires and the Central Powers would help themselves to the spoils. It won't be a perfect mirror, though, given that Germany would never be able to defeat Britain or America without starving into submission, so they would have to mitigate their demands to them accordingly. Everyone that's not protected by the sea from them, however, would get to embrace the 'benevolent' new age of Pax Germanica. Would it be better? Depends on who you ask. The Central Powers and breakaway states of old Russia would certainly say so, but certainly not the continental Entente, who'd be liable for more territorial losses and expulsion of populations, and hoo-boy, do the CPs like those.

Have anyone written a timeline covering this?

I only heard of the Hearts of Iron mod, Kaiserreich, and there might be some timelines here I haven't noticed. Other than that, if you do not mind giant robots and Japanese anime... *shameless self-advertisement*

 

[Tibi088]

I like how everyone claiming that a militaristic authoritarian Kaiserreich would be better than the Nazis is completely ignoring that this Kaiserreich would probably get nukes and wouldn’t hesitate to use them copiously on any potential threat, real or imagined. It took a very special series of events to establish the nuclear taboo OTL. I don’t see that happening ITTL. As for the idea that a victorious Germany would adopt the liberal ideologies of its defeated foes, I consider that theory to be a little too Whiggish.

After the war Germany will have millions of veterans returning home. Most of them are workers and the rest mostly middle class man. People whom the old prussian constitution had classified as 2nd and 3 class and who's votes were worth less. Now especially the workers/socialist had enough of this - and certain promises were made before and during the war about how this will change. If Germany doesnt want a civil war and the monarch wants to remain a head of state Germany will have to keep this promises. This will result in Germany becoming much more democratic and be run by the SPD after the war. They had as war aims peace without annexations and are not really the belligerent agressive imperialist type. So putting aside the "small" matter of industrialized mass murder this Germany would be a much better place than a nazi dictatorship

And the nuclear taboo will be established just like OTL - after its first actual use in a war. Its not at all guaranteed that this will be by Germany. If unlucky this could mean more nukes than just 2 - but the taboo would be established either way.

 

[CRCV]

I find you all very optimistic. Why would it be necessary better for the world? Why would a more powerful Germany, controlling more lands, and having control over more people in total can't do as much damage while being "far better" on each one of those people than Nazis?

Nazism didn't just happens due to Versailles, and there were roots of that crazy ideaology pre-existing in Germany (such as the Volkisch doctrine). Germany winning WW1 doesn't turn it into present day Germany.
You still have a highly hierarchical society, which value discilpline and submission. Racism will continue, why would it go away?

And moreover, I fail to see why it would end imperialism and/or colonialism.

If the German find themselves controlling a large portion of the previously French colonies, do you think they will just let them become independent?
German colonial policies were not the best of them all. It could even be on par with Leopold II. Do you truly think they would mellow if they gain more colonies? Would they truly become softer than the French (which were truly brutal too)?

I think many of you think that preventing the Nazis must be better. But it might not. Having a country not turn genocidal sounds good, but it can be very brutal on many more people without being genocidal.
Take Mao for example. One could make the argument that while brutal, he didn't kill as many of his people as Nazis in proportion. He still killed more. Pol Pot killed more than Nazis in proportion, but less in total (I am speaking here of his own population for the relative figure). So a Germany controlling twice as many people can be far less brutal than Nazis while killing more.

And that is just in Germany. The rest of the world can turn truly crazy too while Germany will seems like "good guys" in comparison.

Truly, there are so many way a world where Germany win WW1 can turn worse than OTL without even having Germany be "bad".

 

[Tibi088]

I find you all very optimistic. Why would it be necessary better for the world? Why would a more powerful Germany, controlling more lands, and having control over more people in total can't do as much damage while being "far better" on each one of those people than Nazis?

Nazism didn't just happens due to Versailles, and there were roots of that crazy ideaology pre-existing in Germany (such as the Volkisch doctrine). Germany winning WW1 doesn't turn it into present day Germany.
You still have a highly hierarchical society, which value discilpline and submission. Racism will continue, why would it go away?

And moreover, I fail to see why it would end imperialism and/or colonialism.

If the German find themselves controlling a large portion of the previously French colonies, do you think they will just let them become independent?
German colonial policies were not the best of them all. It could even be on par with Leopold II. Do you truly think they would mellow if they gain more colonies? Would they truly become softer than the French (which were truly brutal too)?

I think many of you think that preventing the Nazis must be better. But it might not. Having a country not turn genocidal sounds good, but it can be very brutal on many more people without being genocidal.
Take Mao for example. One could make the argument that while brutal, he didn't kill as many of his people as Nazis in proportion. He still killed more. Pol Pot killed more than Nazis in proportion, but less in total (I am speaking here of his own population for the relative figure). So a Germany controlling twice as many people can be far less brutal than Nazis while killing more.

And that is just in Germany. The rest of the world can turn truly crazy too while Germany will seems like "good guys" in comparison.

Truly, there are so many way a world where Germany win WW1 can turn worse than OTL without even having Germany be "bad".

A world after German victory wont necesserily turn out better than OTL but IMO its much more likely to do so on average. Of course there will be those who will be worse off than OTL as well.

However I made an argument in my previous post why even a victorious Germany will become a more democratic and better place. But it seems that an important point is that some people seem to think that Kaiserreich = Nazi Germany without the genocide. Thats hugely inaccurate. The Kaiserreich had no institutionalized racism and antisemitesm, no Nurnberger laws and remained a (flawed) democracy throughout its existence - which would likely change for the better. There was no Gestapo etc. And its true that the nazi's werent solely due to the Versailles treaty but its very hard to imagine them getting in to power without it.

Whats more a strong Germany that dominates Europe will provide stability in the continent. OTL the Entente could win thanks to the joint efforts of Brittain, France, Russia and the USA (not mentioning the less important ones). After the war the Soviets became a pariah state and the USA has withdrawn from the continent. The british werent interested in propping up a french hegemony in the continent. This basically ment that the potentially strongest player, Germany, if it could ever get its sh*t together would dominate the continent - and its priority would be to change the status quo.

If Germany wins the strongest power will be interested in maintaining the status quo. And the only power that could really threaten it on the continent - Russia - is not likely to form any alliances against it or become so strong as to confidently start a war against Germany.

 

[Catsmate]

Have anyone written a timeline covering this?

I've alluded to it in the first version of my EDC. The Great War ends in 1915 with a grey-ish peace, Russia in chaos and the USA in recession. However there's still a Great Slump in the '30s and a resurgent, nationalistic Russia starts another war, losing big.
Generally a slightly better world.