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

[Atterdag]

Let's say that Germany wins WW1 somehow around 1917-1918, the actual hows and whats here aren't that important.

Erich von Ludendorff is at this point more or less in charge of the German economy and government, he now also likely has massive popular support from being one of the generals who won Germany the war.

What's to stop Ludendorff from ruling as dictator in the new Germany? Neither the Kaiser or the Reichstag has the power to do so and he likely has the army's loyalty. Would Hindenburg oppose him, could he?

In OTL Ludendorff was not only a nationalist, but also anti-semitic, anti-catholic and seemed to have hated anything not pure german. With him in power, would Jews, Roma and other non-german minorities have been treated any better than OTL Nazi Germany?

In short, would Germany really have been better off, more democratic, less militaristic or less nationalistic than OTL? Or would people with believes similar to the Nazis just have taken power nevertheless?

 

[Tibi088]

From the two Hindenburg was always the vastly more popular one. And the army as a whole was more loyal to the dynasty than to any of its commanders.

 

[FBKampfer]

Ludendorff was never really all that popular with either the troops or the public.


Once the blockade is lifted, the barely standing German economy roars back to life, and there's not a whole lot for people to blame any one group of people for.

Hell, this drastically alters the financial situation in the 20's with the UK and France stuck with astronomical war debt, and no victim to ditch the bill with, and the US screaming bloody murder and possible trade embargos if the bill isn't paid.


Great Depression is drastically different.





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

 

[Lafayette_]

In short: there is no way in which Ludendorff’s regime (be it short-lived or not) isn’t better than what took place in Nazi Germany, as horrible as his censorship and repression of German democracy would be.

If the war is won as late as 1918, German society as a whole would demand some sort of compensation after four long years of sacrifices for the war effort. Basic reforms in voting suffrage and representation will come one way or another (most likely in the early 1920s, as soon as the economy fully demobilizes), even if they are held back by efforts of a “temporary” military junta.

A quick edit, if I may: any timeline in which the industrialized extermination of an entire religious-ethnic group is avoided will be better than our own. Prussian militarism and conservatism will eventually give if the economic conditions are right; what took place OTL was as bad as it gets.

 

[Whiteshore]

A quick edit, if I may: any timeline in which the industrialized extermination of an entire religious-ethnic group is avoided will be better than our own.

Well, it depends on whatever revanchist madness takes hold of Russia and France IMHO.

 

[altamiro]

Great Depression is drastically different.

Great Depression is literally a chain reaction triggered by bank collapses in Austria due to Versailles/Trianon payments.
Unless TTL's post WW1 treaty is a precise mirror image of OTL's Versailles/Trianon, there is most likely just no Great Depression as such. There may be A depression, earlier or later, deeper or less dramatic.

 

[Dorknought]

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

...?
What happens to all of Germany’s debts and loans it made to its partners?

 

[anotherlurker]

...?
What happens to all of Germany’s debts and loans it made to its partners?

... and make the French pay for it!

The French would be rioting in the streets for years, but they've done that even after winning the war, so no harm done.

 

[Mario]

I think they are important things to be considered in an eventual post-German-winning-WWI scenario:

- Is Brest-Litovsk enforced?
- Is A-H collapsing anyway and German Austria incorporated or not?
- Is France partially occupied by German garrisons (like Rhineland was IOTL)?
- Are UK/US relatively satisfied with the new scenario or aiming for another WW?

 

[Falecius]

In OTL Ludendorff was not only a nationalist, but also anti-semitic, anti-catholic and seemed to have hated anything not pure german. With him in power, would Jews, Roma and other non-german minorities have been treated any better than OTL Nazi Germany?

Almost certainly, yes. A Ludendorff dictatorship would be bad, but not insanely murderously bad.
The problem with comparing anything to the Nazis is that the Nazis, after a certain point, chose extermination. Partly out of ideology, partly as a (insane) war measure. Now, since almost everything else is better than fucking physical and cultural genocide, we could safely say that, even if a militaristic German dictatorship that shares some proto-Nazi features is going to be horrible, minorities are going to get a better deal than the attempt to erase them out of existence.
And note that, when I say "out of existence" I mean than literally. The Nazis were not content with enslaving and killing Jews, Slavs, Roma, and others. They notionally aimed at the erasure of any memory of their existence in the past, of their physical and cultural existence in the present, of the possibility that they might come to be ever again in the future. They did not simply hate, for example, Poles. They were offended by the very possibility of Poland having ever existed, and determined to change that to create a world in which "Poland" effectively never was.

 

[Catsmate]

Let's say that Germany wins WW1 somehow around 1917-1918, the actual hows and whats here aren't that important.

Erich von Ludendorff is at this point more or less in charge of the German economy and government, he now also likely has massive popular support from being one of the generals who won Germany the war.

What's to stop Ludendorff from ruling as dictator in the new Germany? Neither the Kaiser or the Reichstag has the power to do so and he likely has the army's loyalty. Would Hindenburg oppose him, could he?

Not even remotely plausible. The military is far more loyal to the state and kaiser.

In OTL Ludendorff was not only a nationalist, but also anti-semitic, anti-catholic and seemed to have hated anything not pure german. With him in power, would Jews, Roma and other non-german minorities have been treated any better than OTL Nazi Germany?

Many countries were anti-Semitic and anti-catholic, Britain for example. Ludendorff is not even remotely a Nazi and is not going to start a programme of large scale repression.

In short, would Germany really have been better off, more democratic, less militaristic or less nationalistic than OTL?

Yes, vastly better off.

Or would people with believes similar to the Nazis just have taken power nevertheless?

No.

 

[rast]

Nothing of that kind. Once the war is over, there's something happening called demobilisation. Upon which L. becomes (if he's lucky) Chief of the General Staff residing in a nice red brick building in Berlin - and having no power of command, except over the few officers and NCOs working in said building. - Turning dictator would require a putsch, which will not happen because the army (the militia - in L.'s own words) is not going to do something that might disrupt demobilisation and returning home. - The civilian authorities, the chancellor and his men, including the minister of war, will be in charge, and the struggle for reforming the constitution will be on again. So, you'll have a bunch of very conservative old men trying to run the affairs of continental Europe. That will be bad enough for the economy and for reconstruction, but hardly worse than what IOTL peace dictates wreaked.

 

[DracoLazarus]

... and make the French pay for it!

The French would be rioting in the streets for years, but they've done that even after winning the war, so no harm done.

France would likely wind up having to declare bankruptcy.

 

[lukedalton]

Politically, well the socialist will want the reward for their support during the war in the form of politically changes, unfortunely the Junkers and the Kaiser will not be very happy to do it and i doubt that they will be very proactive in their changes and if we add the trauma of the biggest massacre know to man till that moment things will not be very quiet.
There will be also the need to prop up the various regime post B-L and to be sure that they behave like good pup...slav...ehm allies and this will mean keep troops there and naturally there is the situation in A-H, it will need continous prop up otherwise it will not survive for long.

Economically, well they planned to make the loser pay for the wardebt but honestly i doubt that they will get enough from Italy, URSS and France (good luck trying to get anything from UK).

 

[anotherlurker]

France would likely wind up having to declare bankruptcy.

Germany tried that in the early 20s... the French who occupied the Rhineland just took what they wanted instead.

If it's too big there's obviously going to be some renegotiations and new payment plans etc. but in the beginning it's goign to be rough.

 

[Mina-van-Mako]

Great Depression is literally a chain reaction triggered by bank collapses in Austria due to Versailles/Trianon payments.

Can you explain me how ? (not questionning if it's true or not, just really asking)

 

[DracoLazarus]

Germany tried that in the early 20s... the French who occupied the Rhineland just took what they wanted instead.

If it's too big there's obviously going to be some renegotiations and new payment plans etc. but in the beginning it's goign to be rough.

France's existing war debt - even if it doesn't have to pay reparations - plus effectively Russia's since the Tsarists had largely borrowed from France was way too large. And that's assuming a peace in the West with no annexations nor reparations. Loss of chunks of Lorraine or the Nord would be economically devastating.
France doesn't really have the option to inflate its currency away either since most of it is to the US and Britain.

 

[altamiro]

Can you explain me how ? (not questionning if it's true or not, just really asking)

Basically the Austrian and German banks were heavily borrowing from the American banks to serve the debt incurred to pay the Versailels reparations, and once one bank failed, it triggered a run on other banks which also failed in turn. This put American banks holding their debt under a massive pressure which they tried to relieve by selling off a lot of stock market investment they were holding, which led to panic sales on the stock exchange.
What turned a bank crisis into a depression was the great American idea (Smoot-Hawley act) to stop capital outflow from USA by putting heavy tariffs on imports, which was duly copied by nearly every other country in retaliation, and THAT pretty much put a battleship shell into the global trade system's kneecap.

 

[miketr]

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

 

[Falecius]

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

Michael

Well, the Nazis set the bar so low, that it's truly hard to be worse. Nevertheless, there are people who tried with some claim to success (Khmer Rouge, arguably Interahamwe).