AHC: Punish Germany as harshly as possible after WW2
- Thread starter Orko
- Start date
Basically Slavic Germans living near Czech/Poland. Hitler really didn't like them.
Simply OTL + No Marshall Plan would be brutal. Then again, you just butterflied away Korea and Vietnam, as the US suddenly is forced to occupy Germany at a level far greater than OTL.
One long-term punishment, which would cast a shadow well into the 21st century provided communism collapses as OTL, would be transferring control of all of Germany to the USSR.
I don't think it would matter. After all, many Germans at the time had difficulties realizing that places like Pomerelia (the so-called "Polish corridor") were not actually ancestral German territory...
I don't think it would matter. After all, many Germans at the time had difficulties realizing that places like Pomerelia (the so-called "Polish corridor") were not actually ancestral German territory...
Why I am so curious why an Anti-Prussianist movement in 1918 didn't result in a loss of East Prussia instead of West Prussia. Give ATL Germany upbto Danzig, and leave the Poles and Lithuanians to the rest.
But how much of Germany's recovery was due to the Marshall Plan and how much was due to the introduction of the Deutschemark and Erhard's reforms? Germany might have recovered SLOWER without the Marshall Plan but it still would have recovered.
Realpolitik
Banned
The US would have to be in a strategically suicidal and stupid mood to do this. And if the US government was somehow controlled fully by Soviet moles, France, the Netherlands and Italy will all piss themselves too and really not like it, and I don't blame them. I just don't see this happening.
It's actually rather irrelevant when you consider that the Jews didn't WANT anywhere in Europe, let alone Germany. And, again, I don't blame them. I don't think a West German Israel would have many takers.
Ben Gurion I think had a good quote about this.
The fact that I've never heard of them makes that very easy to believe...
The Nazis considered them Slavic-speaking Germans, as far as I'm aware they weren't particularly persecuted.
You probably haven't heard of them because there's only a few thousand of them.
This is from Wikipedia.
Wikipedia said:
TL;DR- The Nazis considered Sorbs to be Germans (but speaking a Slavic language)
Realpolitik
Banned
Isn't that interesting? I'm looking into Kashubians and Silesians too-it seems as though the Nazis thought a lot of the Slavic tribes as Wendish speaking Germans, and there were plenty of people who were Germanized way before the Nazis. Family history here.. homogeneous boundaries in Europe are a post 1945 invention, and it's kind of a shame, East Central Europe had some really interesting "melting pots". There is also the other way around-the Ostiedlung and the German influence in the Baltics, Russia, AH, Poland...
Anyway, the Sorbs are actually still around. The East German regime tried to preserve their culture-albeit still had problems because the Sorbians were religious and didn't like collectivisation, heheh! If you go to Dresden, you'll see stuff in Sorbian.
If there's only a few tens of thousands of Sorbs, doesn't that make the proposal at the top particularly hilarious, as it suggests that less than a hundred thousand Sorbs could subjugate what's essentially most of Germany?
Last edited:
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
I think the language thing is going overboard, but breaking it up into multiple states would be a good idea. The only problem is that it leaves you with a weaker Germany, which is a serious problem when you're relying on the Germans to provide a lot of manpower to NATO. But assuming that nobody is worried about that for some reason, you could have the following states carved out of the Third Reich:
-Austria
-Bavaria
-East Germany
-West Germany
Then you could give the Saarland to France, and let the Netherlands and Belgium expand their borders east a little bit into the Rhineland.This is really all you have to do. It guarantees that Germany will never be the leading power in any kind of EU-type organization, because it won't have the population necessary to do so. And even if you let East and West Germany reunite, they'll each be much weaker militarily and economically than the UK, France, or Italy.
-Austria
-Bavaria
-East Germany
-West Germany
Then you could give the Saarland to France, and let the Netherlands and Belgium expand their borders east a little bit into the Rhineland.This is really all you have to do. It guarantees that Germany will never be the leading power in any kind of EU-type organization, because it won't have the population necessary to do so. And even if you let East and West Germany reunite, they'll each be much weaker militarily and economically than the UK, France, or Italy.
King Thomas
Banned
How about Germany given to the USSR in exchange for Czechoslovakia given to the West?
sorbia, but the sorb core lands in poland?
karinthis, with the karinthian core lands in italy?
esperantos capital is munich but it's not within its borders?
this is like the break up of the soviet union, right? making the new borders in a way which will ensure future conflict.
British Republic
Banned
It also provided most of the Post-USSR leadership of Russia.
I agree, WW2 happened largely because we treated Germany too harshly, granted they did a lot of bad things in WW1, but in this case the victors went too far.
Doing it again many not cause a 3rd world war, but it would cause civil unrest.
You did a rather good job of the OP with your AANW TL by the way. Then again it took a even harder WW2 for that to happen.
What?
Yeah, thay worked out so well in 1918...
The reason for that and why Hitler and Co gained co much support was because we treated Germany too harshly, in the case of ITTL WW2, you are going to have Germans which question why they must continue to pay the price for their ancestors mistakes (as shown in AANW).
I fully agree with you there, if you think the Nazis are bad, imgaine what could come out of this, such as a German Hamas. Europe is not going to be stable in relation to this.