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

[CRCV]

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 After the war the Soviets became a pariah state and the USA has withdrawn from the continent.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.

I will renew my point about Africa: do you truly believe that a Germany with a larger portion of Africa will become less brutal than the French? I highly doubt it.
It was one of the most brutal colonizer, and I don't see them stop even if they become more democratic.
Democracy and brutality can come hand in hand see how the US treated black people at the time.

Now back to Europe: you say that Germany will want to keep the status quo. Sure, but how can it do it? It will need to have a brutal repression system in the land it vasselised in Eastern Europe, and even if more democratic, it won't be pretty.
It is easier to be brutal in officially foreign yet still controlled land than on your own, as strange as it can seems.
So all the land it got with Brest-Litovsk are not going to like it that much. I am not even sure Ukraine will be better treated by Germany than by Stalin. Which says a lot.
And this is only for the eastern part of Europe.
What is going to happen to the western part? There will be border changes. Too much blood has been spilled, and can see the what happened to Russia as reference. So what do you think will happen to France and Belgium?
What do you think will happen to the Netherland? Sure they were not invaded, but they are right next to a colossus now. What will it means for their society? Will they take a siege mentality? Will they become vassals in all but name?
Then there is the Italian problem. And Austria. Is Austria-Hungary intact? How will Italy be treated? And what the f**k will happen in the Balkan?
Seriously, I find it difficult to see how things will be "peaceful" in Europe, without very brutal repression to make the status quo stick.

And this is just Europe. Asia can turn to hell very quickly too. Remember there is still the Ottoman empire, which will likely continue to exist if Germany prop them up, and they were genocidal too.

Now it could all turn out to be a lot better. But Germany has appalling diplomacy since Bismark's death. So they truly don't have the best track record for leading to a better world.

 

[Tibi088]

I will renew my point about Africa: do you truly believe that a Germany with a larger portion of Africa will become less brutal than the French? I highly doubt it.
It was one of the most brutal colonizer, and I don't see them stop even if they become more democratic.
Democracy and brutality can come hand in hand see how the US treated black people at the time.

Now back to Europe: you say that Germany will want to keep the status quo. Sure, but how can it do it? It will need to have a brutal repression system in the land it vasselised in Eastern Europe, and even if more democratic, it won't be pretty.
It is easier to be brutal in officially foreign yet still controlled land than on your own, as strange as it can seems.
So all the land it got with Brest-Litovsk are not going to like it that much. I am not even sure Ukraine will be better treated by Germany than by Stalin. Which says a lot.
And this is only for the eastern part of Europe.
What is going to happen to the western part? There will be border changes. Too much blood has been spilled, and can see the what happened to Russia as reference. So what do you think will happen to France and Belgium?
What do you think will happen to the Netherland? Sure they were not invaded, but they are right next to a colossus now. What will it means for their society? Will they take a siege mentality? Will they become vassals in all but name?
Then there is the Italian problem. And Austria. Is Austria-Hungary intact? How will Italy be treated? And what the f**k will happen in the Balkan?
Seriously, I find it difficult to see how things will be "peaceful" in Europe, without very brutal repression to make the status quo stick.

And this is just Europe. Asia can turn to hell very quickly too. Remember there is still the Ottoman empire, which will likely continue to exist if Germany prop them up, and they were genocidal too.

Now it could all turn out to be a lot better. But Germany has appalling diplomacy since Bismark's death. So they truly don't have the best track record for leading to a better world.

Colonies: I dont think that in this regard it will be any better or worse than OTL. I dont think that a strong Germany will bring about a faster deconolization.

Eastern Europe: The thing is that you compare this territory to OTL and conclude that instead of true independence this territories will be off worse. Thats true. But you are wrong about brutal repression being needed to maintain them. They dont know OTL. What they know is that after the russian yoke they just regained their "independence" - of course it could be better but it still a big improvement to direct russian rule. They will have much more freedom than previously. I think that will be enough for Germany not to need brutal repression to keep them in line. The other thing is Russia. They need German protection because Russia might want to come back. This means that it will be in their interest to be loyal to Germany. So no need for brutal repression. And Ukraine might be pretty bad during the war but when the war is ower the germans will leave and there will be an ukrainian state. I dont think it will approach anything that Stalin did. The germans too are interested in making these states work - because they dont want the costs to brutally repress them.

Western Europe: I dont see much border change there. Luxemburg will become a full fledged german state with maybe some additional bits from Belgium. Smaller changes are possible on the french border (Longvy) but thats it.

Austria-Hungary: thats anyone guess but I doubt it will be much worse than OTL.

The Balkans: Will have a Great Bulgaria for one part and an Austrian dominated western Balkans with Greece likely unchanged.

All in all even in thing go badly I dont really see more brutal repression than OTL - and most likely much less. As I said earlier: Germany winning wwI doesnt guarantee a better world than OTL but in my opinion its much more likely. OTL was far too close to worst case scenario for any alternative to be much worse.

 

[anotherlurker]

Keeping peace in Eastern Europe is very easy - you just tell them that if they missbehave they'll be sold back to Russia. In a more diplomatic, less direct way of course.

 

[CRCV]

Colonies: I dont think that in this regard it will be any better or worse than OTL. I dont think that a strong Germany will bring about a faster deconolization.

Eastern Europe: The thing is that you compare this territory to OTL and conclude that instead of true independence this territories will be off worse. Thats true. But you are wrong about brutal repression being needed to maintain them. They dont know OTL. What they know is that after the russian yoke they just regained their "independence" - of course it could be better but it still a big improvement to direct russian rule. They will have much more freedom than previously. I think that will be enough for Germany not to need brutal repression to keep them in line. The other thing is Russia. They need German protection because Russia might want to come back. This means that it will be in their interest to be loyal to Germany. So no need for brutal repression. And Ukraine might be pretty bad during the war but when the war is ower the germans will leave and there will be an ukrainian state. I dont think it will approach anything that Stalin did. The germans too are interested in making these states work - because they dont want the costs to brutally repress them.

Western Europe: I dont see much border change there. Luxemburg will become a full fledged german state with maybe some additional bits from Belgium. Smaller changes are possible on the french border (Longvy) but thats it.

Austria-Hungary: thats anyone guess but I doubt it will be much worse than OTL.

The Balkans: Will have a Great Bulgaria for one part and an Austrian dominated western Balkans with Greece likely unchanged.

All in all even in thing go badly I dont really see more brutal repression than OTL - and most likely much less. As I said earlier: Germany winning wwI doesnt guarantee a better world than OTL but in my opinion its much more likely. OTL was far too close to worst case scenario for any alternative to be much worse.

You are optimistic about such a scenario, and I am certainly pessimistic here.

For me, your arguments are sound, if you consider everyone to be logical, and if Germany act magnanimously in victory. I don't think it would.

You think there would be no changes on the western border except Luxemburg, and I highly doubt it. Again, too much blood has been spilled, and no one can do anything against Germany if it won.
And for the rest of Europe, you think they will be gentle in their use of force, while I don't. For me, how they acted in Alsace show their ability to be brutal to who they think are their own people. Why would they act differently for the rest? No one can contest them.
Anotherlurker make a good point:

Keeping peace in Eastern Europe is very easy - you just tell them that if they missbehave they'll be sold back to Russia. In a more diplomatic, less direct way of course.

This can lead to Germany overplaying its' hand. Don't missbehave, or back to Russia again. It can also mean that Germany can take the glove off easily, as it will think anything it does will better than what the "barbaric Russians" would do.
The issue is that ever since Bismark died, Germany assessment of its' own situation tended to be wrong. And due to that, it made a lot of mistakes. Why would that change for the better?

About decolonization: WWII was what made decolonization so "fast" in Africa. Without such a war to break the power of the European, I think it will take decades more to have it happen. So more decades of suffering at the hand of European, and, once again, Germany was not on the "gentle" side on that point. After how many years of decolonization being delayed would it be worse than having around 15 years of Nazi Germany? I have honestly no idea. I bring that point to show you how difficult it can be to asses how a TL can be "better" than OTL.

I also see that you don't seem to have an opinion on what will happen in Asia and the Middle East. I see a lot of ways where it could become far worse in that region than OTL. And I am not sure Germany will be able to do anything to improve the situation.

 

[HelloThere]

Keeping peace in Eastern Europe is very easy - you just tell them that if they missbehave they'll be sold back to Russia. In a more diplomatic, less direct way of course.

And what happens if they say "better the Bolsheviks/Russia than Germany"? The "independent" pro-german states in Eastern Europe were highly unstable and the local rulers needed german soldiers very badly. I think that in a CP-world, the Soviet Union/Soviet Russia will encourage local anti-german guerilla warfare. And this will be a big problem for Germany.

 

[Mario]

I think the continental stability in a post-WWI German victory scenario might depend on how clever or not are the German elites/politicians on developing their new area of influence (Mitteleuropa):

- If this is going to be a bunch of puppet states tied by force to Germany, in a Warsaw Pact style, it will be not stable and new conflicts will come.

- If this would be a more liberal union based on free trade, maybe common currency and relative political freedom (like an earlier EU), it could succeed and attract new members to the area by their own interest (i.e. the Netherlands).

 

[Tibi088]

You are optimistic about such a scenario, and I am certainly pessimistic here.

For me, your arguments are sound, if you consider everyone to be logical, and if Germany act magnanimously in victory. I don't think it would.

You think there would be no changes on the western border except Luxemburg, and I highly doubt it. Again, too much blood has been spilled, and no one can do anything against Germany if it won.
And for the rest of Europe, you think they will be gentle in their use of force, while I don't. For me, how they acted in Alsace show their ability to be brutal to who they think are their own people. Why would they act differently for the rest? No one can contest them.
Anotherlurker make a good point:



This can lead to Germany overplaying its' hand. Don't missbehave, or back to Russia again. It can also mean that Germany can take the glove off easily, as it will think anything it does will better than what the "barbaric Russians" would do.
The issue is that ever since Bismark died, Germany assessment of its' own situation tended to be wrong. And due to that, it made a lot of mistakes. Why would that change for the better?

About decolonization: WWII was what made decolonization so "fast" in Africa. Without such a war to break the power of the European, I think it will take decades more to have it happen. So more decades of suffering at the hand of European, and, once again, Germany was not on the "gentle" side on that point. After how many years of decolonization being delayed would it be worse than having around 15 years of Nazi Germany? I have honestly no idea. I bring that point to show you how difficult it can be to asses how a TL can be "better" than OTL.

I also see that you don't seem to have an opinion on what will happen in Asia and the Middle East. I see a lot of ways where it could become far worse in that region than OTL. And I am not sure Germany will be able to do anything to improve the situation.

Actually a lot depends on how Germany has won. From OP we know that it was a long and exhaustive war. My assumption is that Germany won in the east (brest litovsk or something like that). In the west it was likely a stalemate where the Entente sought terms as they didnt think they could have won any longer. That doesnt change much in the west. If you assume that germany managed to decisivly win in the west as well that changes a lot but this late I think thats extremly unlikely.

In the East there are 2 important things:
1. Its better than Russia is a very good selling point for the locals.
2. The local elites that got the power in the german puppet states this is especially true if Russia is the Soviet Union - they would loose everything.

Germany might turn as nasty as you suppose. The only thing against that is that with a franchise reform that is surely coming to avoid civil war in Germany the SPD is guaranteed to take power. I think under their leadership Germany will show its less nasty and brutal side. When the conservatives or nationalists gain power this likely changes for the worse however hopefully by that point a modus operandi has been established in the east and thing wont turn that bad. But I admit this is a better scenario. The simple true for the life of Eastern Europe is that being between the giants of Germany and Russia you will likely always have to bow to one of them.

Colonization is actually a very good point against me:
I think that likely avoiding WW2 - at least in Europe, the nazis and the holocaust is a great thing. OTOH this might easily elongate the colonial era. Actually the soviets could be a big factor here - I do think they will support decolonization as much as OTL - or maybe even more. But its likely delayed. So later and maybe bloodier decolonization and no holocaust, nazis and ww2 compared to OTL.
Thats definetely a win in Europe in my book and a sadly a loss for Africa.

Middle East: I admit thats not my area of expertise. Seeing how it turned out OTL im tempted to say that the sh*t simply hit the fan earlier. More seriously in a soo late german win scenario I really dont see Germany propping up the Ottomans. But if they do this too might be an area that really has it worse than OTL.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

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.

Based on what, exactly?

 

[BigBlueBox]

Based on what, exactly?

Reasoning. I think it's a small miracle that Truman resisted MacArthur's demands to nuke China during the Korean war, which would have prevented the nuclear taboo from ever forming. If America was ran by a clique of ultranationalist generals instead of civilian president elected by civilians then the Korean war would have looked very different. I don't see any reason why German leadership wouldn't use nuclear weapons on any enemy who couldn't retaliate in kind. If anything, they would likely launch pre-emptive wars against any European rivals whom were developing their own nuclear weapons.

 

[Mario]

Maybe this is a little off-topic but...what would have happened if Germany/A-H would have decided to invade Russia during March 1917, when the chaos and the anarchy was ravaging the country?

Could it be possible?

 

[Falecius]

I would like to stress that, particularly for Eastern Europe, OTL sets a really, really low bar.
It's possible to conceive worse paths, but in general, it is easier to imagine that a change would be either for the better, or have a balance close to real life. I mean, take Ukraine. They were invaded, experienced one of the worst fronts of the Russian civil war, and then came Stalin and Holodomor. Then the Nazis invaded, determined to destroy the Ukrainians (among others) as a distinct people forever. Then they had the Soviet rule, and Chernobyl, and the Soviet collapse. And finally all the post-Soviet increasingly messy mess, and the partial Russian invasion. Now, yes, some other countries in the region have been luckier than that, but in general, the twentieth century there sucked all along.

 

[Falecius]

Maybe this is a little off-topic but...what would have happened if Germany/A-H would have decided to invade Russia during March 1917, when the chaos and the anarchy was ravaging the country?

Could it be possible?

Weren't they already invading Russia at that point?

 

[lukedalton]

I think the continental stability in a post-WWI German victory scenario might depend on how clever or not are the German elites/politicians on developing their new area of influence (Mitteleuropa):

- If this is going to be a bunch of puppet states tied by force to Germany, in a Warsaw Pact style, it will be not stable and new conflicts will come.

- If this would be a more liberal union based on free trade, maybe common currency and relative political freedom (like an earlier EU), it could succeed and attract new members to the area by their own interest (i.e. the Netherlands).

Well going for the premise of the Mitteleuropa project, how they have treated the local nationalist, their future plan for the Poland strip and in general the attitude of L&H and allies...i think that we can clear go for option 1

 

[Mario]

Weren't they already invading Russia at that point?

I meant a large-scale invasion up to Saint Petersburg and Moscow.

 

[Salvador79]

I meant a large-scale invasion up to Saint Petersburg and Moscow.

They fought at that front. If you mean a massive offensive on the level of the 1918 Spring Offensive in the West, Well, why would they? Russia was collapsing anyway, the Front was very far from Germany anyway, and the other fronts could not be weakened that much.

So, it's close to ASB. But let's say H&L really went all Mad and went for it - Well, I suppose there is a possibility for them to push through, until Kerensky surrenders, which could mean an earlier Brest-Litowsk, and then He is overthrown by Bolsheviks who castigate him for selling out.

 

[r1ncewind]

Have anyone written a timeline covering this?

@rast has.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Reasoning. I think it's a small miracle that Truman resisted MacArthur's demands to nuke China during the Korean war, which would have prevented the nuclear taboo from ever forming. If America was ran by a clique of ultranationalist generals instead of civilian president elected by civilians then the Korean war would have looked very different. I don't see any reason why German leadership wouldn't use nuclear weapons on any enemy who couldn't retaliate in kind. If anything, they would likely launch pre-emptive wars against any European rivals whom were developing their own nuclear weapons.

The Generals in charge of Germany from 1917 onwards weren’t ultranationalist in the modern sense. I also doubt they would run Germany after a victorious War. Germany pre-War had a political system that, while almost worshipping the machismo of the military man, kept the Army separate from the political institutions of state. One could say the military were insulated from political control as the Zabern affair, or even the “Captain of Köpenick”, illustrates. But it’s also important to note that the Army didn’t exercise political control the other way either. Von Trotha was relieved of command (effectively by promotion) at the request of the civilian political establishment.

As to the second emboldened part, that just runs to “Germans are bad, m’kay?”

 

[Deleted member 94680]

They fought at that front. If you mean a massive offensive on the level of the 1918 Spring Offensive in the West, Well, why would they? Russia was collapsing anyway, the Front was very far from Germany anyway, and the other fronts could not be weakened that much.

So, it's close to ASB. But let's say H&L really went all Mad and went for it - Well, I suppose there is a possibility for them to push through, until Kerensky surrenders, which could mean an earlier Brest-Litowsk, and then He is overthrown by Bolsheviks who castigate him for selling out.

There was no need for it, was there? They had what they wanted from Russia, they needed the troops on the Western Front and to conquer that much land would bring all kinds of problems into the Empire that no-one wanted to take on.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

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

Would those veterans accept a peace that doesn't give enough? Look at Italy. Secondly i don't have too much fate in a soft foreign policy of the SPD at that moment. Even when the german imperial powers that be were completely disgraced by the defeat in 1918 IOT they didn't grasp the opportunity to completely push through their demands. Combined with the point that the veterans wouldn't want the sacrifice be in vain, and this was their eletoral base, i can see the SPD going on the one hand after a democratic Germany, as this had been their goal for decades. At the same time to achieve this goal they are going likely to compromise on the severity of the peace with the conservative nationalistic forces. Not that the SPD and the ideologically socialist voters didn't also show nationalistic tendencies themselves.

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

Indeed, i haven't seen a good argument for this yet. And even worse the Germans showed the same sort of colonial contempt to the slavs, which doesn't bode well for the poles under the Kaiserreich.

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.

To be the strongest isn't enough to create stability. Look at Napoleon.

 

[Mario]

If WWI would be long enough, maybe the German Empire and A-H could suffer internal revolutions (as IOTL) because of the popular discontent for the long war and thus become republics without withdrawing from war, maybe just changing their leaderships.

This might make post-WW1 softer.