Breakdown of Europe alternate WW2

edtorockio

Banned
Ive seen so many posts with alternate histories where Germany wins ww2 by developing the bomb, becoming an ally of Russia, etc....

During the great depression and the super inflation of the Weimer Republic, is there any possibilty that things could have become much much worse economically to the point where industrial civilization crumbles? In today's world we often think about what would happen if there was a breakdown in supply chain of food, energy and communication. Basically the worst parts of a zombie appocolaypse, minus the zombies.

What series of events beginning in 1918 could lead to a total collapse of the German government, followed by a domino effect rendering almost all of Europe in total anarchy? I mean communication failures, no jobs, no fuel for vehicles and rail systems, no food, crop failures, destruction of the intellectual institutions etc.... The ultimate goal would be a Europe completely frozen in anarchy resulting in new governments, new countries even and an eventual rise to a second world war sometime in the 50's or 60's.

If anyone has any ideas the only thing I would NOT want to see is somehow tying in the Spanish Flu to be the catalyst, or for that mater any other super bug.

Just a thought.
 
What would work is a loosening of the bonds of social cohesion The acceptence that 'this' is right and 'that' is wrong.
Try this
After the war, in Germany there was a massive rise in what may be called super hedonism [think of the movie 'Cabaret']
This was probably a reaction against the effort and suffering involved in the war.
Drink,drugs, new forms of artistic expression ,fashion, a love affair with new technology and 'non standard' sex are all on show.
Only a small section of Germany followed this trend but in a highly visible manner IOTL.
Suppose though that a significantly larger section took up this life style [and whats not like;)]
Naturally there will be a reaction against this, and in the normal course of human nature this will not only opposite but roughly equel in power.
But what if 'reactionaries' are not equel and are unable to stop the flow of new recruits to the hedonists [see brackets above]
The hedonist movement may take on some, though not all of the aspects of a religion.
The hedonists will consist to a large degree of the young [say under 30] and the reactionaries those over that age .
Further a lot of those of practical bent, the engineers, trades men industrialists etc are drawn to the reactionaries
Lets say that having used all other available methods of fighting, the hedonists decide to 'leave' Germany and set up automotious self sufficient enclaves in say Prussia or Bavaria [The conservative parts of Germany]
If enough of the 'right' people leave for these enclaves and if this is coupled with a tax strike there may not be enough people to turn on the lights etc.
I don't know of any interperitive dance artists that can run a power plant so eventualy things that depend on a cohesive well regulated society will break down.
It would not happen overnight and it would play merry hell with reperation payments .IOTL France took a dim view of a failure to pay up and invaded again in 1923. In order to forestall this Germany must export its hedonist movement not only to France but to other countries as well. This need not be by design but if it does not I cant see it ending well
Finaly I would say that Europe in general and Germany in particular has a tradition of internal migration that streaches back to the middle ages, and that these enclaves would eventualy combine and form new countries
 

Hnau

Banned
So, hugh lupus, you are suggesting a sort of German Atlas Shrugged scenario? That could be interesting.

Europe was in quite an apocalyptic mess after WWI, not as bad as it was after WWII, but the difference was, I think, that at least in the aftermath of WW2 there was a lot of foreign interest to help rebuild. The Americans were able to finance the Marshall Plan, while the Soviets didn't so much rebuild as maintain order. In the aftermath of WWI, the Americans wanted to get out as soon as they could and forget the whole experience, and the Soviets were too busy with their own internal struggles.

There could be a number of PODs to make the Great War more apocalyptic, to really push Germany to the limit. First of wall, what if the Americans didn't enter the war in 1917? You could argue that the British and French would still be able to attain a victory... perhaps a few months later. The stab-in-the-back legend would be even worse, as in this situation the German military would probably end the war with more territory under their control, but the economy couldn't take continued wartime. The Treaty of Versailles would be much worse on Germany without the influence of President Wilson. Longer wartime, more reason to feel betrayed, a worse peace treaty... it could make the Spartacist Revolt spiral out of control into a full-blown civil war. The British and French would be so tired of Germany they would be slow to try and save it... instead they would just grab the Rhineland and the Ruhr and try to make the most money off of it. That would exacerbate Germany's financial problems. Then, you could throw in the flight of the rich and skilled, just like what happened in Russia following the communist revolution. Millions of the most affluent Germans migrate, leaving Germany to smolder. All the people who could fix Germany have abandoned it.

What is probable at this point is a Communist dictatorship and help from the Soviets. Maybe to make the situation even worse, you could have the Whites win in the Russian Civil War and remove whatever help the Germans could receive from them. Then, maybe the authorities in power in Germany would launch a war against Poland in order to unite the German people and steal what they needed. Have that be as drawn out and bloody as possible... and it could possibly lead to some new coup d'etat in Berlin that leads to anarchy once more, only this time no one is left to pick up the ashes.

As bad as you can make it in Germany, I don't see how conditions would spread throughout Europe. If Germany fell into anarchy today, yeah, it's possible that it would plunge Europe into a new dark age, because the continental economy is so interdependent. But back then countries were more economically self-sufficient, especially after wartime when they were cut off from the economies of the other side. I don't see how it could spread very far.
 
Goodness I had never heard of this book before now :eek: I'm a genius:rolleyes:
Yep relevent points made there .
First of the rank. Yep the Hedonist movement can be most powerful in Germany but must have at the very least enough adherents to weaken the surrounding coutries otherwise they will intervene out of self interest [think of the present situation with Germany/Greece]
Russia/ USSR ...Pretty much a dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
Communism is big in Germany after the war and the USSR is bound to have a view,but maybe has enough problems of its own.Internal with rounding up the last of the the royalists and orginising the country allog socialist lines ,externaly the've got Poland and possibly the British are still occupying parts of southern Russia?
If the Whites win, well they are natural reactionaries arent they! and they also will have problems of their own ..even failed revolutions bring social change
To be honest I can't see Russia red or white intervening in any meaningful way in the 1920's .Both sides, no matter who wins have an interest in seeing a weakened Germany
Making the war last longer is interesting .The more tension is placed upon Germany during the war ,the greater the reaction afterwards ,and for the hedonists to 'win' their movement must both grow and spread QUICKLY
This I think is the achilies heal of my [and Ann Ranyd's] idea the authorities must either be indifferent until too late ,or too impotent to act
 
You can have the US and League of Nations withhold food aid to Germany, which wouldn't be too difficult considering how much internal opposition there could be towards such measures. The food situation was nowhere near as bad it was in the post-WWII era, but there was starvation in many parts of the country.
 
You can have the US and League of Nations withhold food aid to Germany, which wouldn't be too difficult considering how much internal opposition there could be towards such measures. The food situation was nowhere near as bad it was in the post-WWII era, but there was starvation in many parts of the country.

Well that would not help the situation ,but why are they doing it?
 
There are a few nastier possibilities, yes. One of which is to have the Bolsheviks make some significant errors in holding together their empire, producing a "White" victory that leads to a second phase of the Civil War among the Whites, resulting ultimately in a Russian Empire large on paper but hollow and divided with more or less endless bushwhacking on its frontiers. Another is a neutral Ottoman Empire through the entirety of the war, which ultimately leads to a shorter Entente victory and then a few years later the stresses of the war topple Tsarism Arab Spring-style and things go downhill from there.

A different, post-WWI possibility is that the USSR starts putting serious efforts into developing an atomic bomb from the very first instance when the Germans realize fission is a possible means to make an atomic bomb, giving them an ace in the hole in 1945, and thus offering a different nuclear war in Europe scenario where the Soviets get the Bomb just a few months before the democracies do.

The problem is that WWII will in almost all ATLs wind up being connected with atomic bombs and nuclear strategies, and this strongly mitigates against the shit hitting the fan as nobody will want to scotch their empire when nuclear weapons are a clear and present danger.
 
Well that would not help the situation ,but why are they doing it?

At Versailles, the victorious Allies declared that then entire war was Germany's fault, and many Allied leaders felt that any suffering the German people endured in the aftermath of the war was something they'd brought upon themselves. Coupled with the nationalistic jingoism and the vigorous anti-German propaganda campaigns that had been pursued during the war, many US senators who voted in favor of sending food aid to neutral Belgium were adamantly opposed to sending similar shipments to Germany.

Here's an interesting excerpt from a contemporary newspaper article on this divisive subject matter.

Scores Germans in House
-----
Lineberger Defends French Course in Ruhr; Democrat Refers to Bergdoll and Yellow-Streaked Race
-----
WASHINGTON.—Occupation of the Ruhr was attacked and defended today in the House. Representative Knutson of Minnesota, the Republican whip, declared France was seeking to dismember the German republic and that the time had come for America to break its “long silence” with reference to the occupation.
Representative Butler of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Naval Committee, who had yielded Knutson time in which to make his address, told the House that he in no way concurred in what the Minnesota member had said.
“My sympathy is with France,” he declared, “and I hope she can collect every dollar that is due her.”
Representative Vinson, Democrat, of Georgia, made a like announcement, declaring he had a brother whose “blood was spilled on the battlefield of France.”
“I am for France and always will be for France,” said he.
Knutson, who delivered a prepared address, asked how much longer the United States was going “to stand aside and permit the violation of the promises made at the time of the armistice.”
“President Wilson said we were not fighting the German people,” he contended, “and yet, the children of Germany now are undernourished because the Allies have taken all of their cows. Almost everything produced in Germany since the armistice has been taken from them.”
Replying later to Representative Knutson, Chairman Bulwinkle, Democrat, North Carolina, who served in the World War, told the House that “Grover Cleveland Bergdoll and all the others of that white livered, yellow streaked race, will applaud and say the American Congress is in favor of us.”
He declared that the Germans had murdered and ravished during the war in an effort “to carry out their imperialistic aims” and asserted that they had failed to deliver to the people of the occupied district the fats, sugar and other foodstuffs sent to them from America.
Representative Lineberger, Republican, California, also a World War veteran, declared Knutson had “unfurled the German imperial standard on the floor of the House of Representatives.”
“You may say,” said Lineberger, “that the war is over, but the war has never begun for gentlemen such as the gentleman from Minnesota.”
 
Ok if that report is indicative of popular sentiment no aid will be forthcoming from the USA .It may be that similar thoughts are held else where and I see Color-Copycats idea that no cavalry will be coming over the hill carrying bags of food. This isnt going to help Germany survive.
Not so sure that white Russia is going to be a threat to anyone in a disintergrating Germany in the early twenties communisum is hard to kill and I think Snake Featherston may be right in that a white empire may be a paper tiger.
A red victory may cause problems for the hedonists. I always thought the early Russian communists to be a dour lot ,extremists usualy are:rolleyes: so they will be opposed to the very idea of hedonism.
Fortunately the commintern, though up and running is not yet at the height of its power so maybe the sparticists can do little to impede the growth of hedonism and maybe they will loose some converts to communism to the new movement. Again I'm generlising but a personality which has extreme tendencies may be tempted to change to another cause? Especialy if that cause seems to be winning
A further thought hedonism as a culture is self limiting ,in that it can only survive in a country that has the economic ability to support them. If Germany as a society dies they die with it ... of course by then the damage will be done
There is a lot of guesswork here I do admit, and if there are any socialologists out there they may blow my ideas out of the water
PS
I thought that Bulwinkle was a made up name from an American cartoon but NO!
Much obliged Color-Copycat for the information... much obliged:)
 
Top