Der Kampf: The Rise and Fall of the Austrian Führer

[Tanner151]

All of this is seriously exciting. Can't wait to see this Austria in action. Hopefully they have at least one impressive victory, like Germany's against France, before everything goes to hell for them

Glad you’re excited! Me too. Austria will do pretty well in the early years of the war. Eventually though the sheer weight of the Allied and Soviet industries and vast pool of manpower and resources will have the war end in a predictable result. Post-War Europe will look quite different than OTL. Less countries to fall to Communism for one.

The Germans IOTL disliked the word blitzkrieg. Do you mean that the Germany will wage rapid maneuver campaigns and that will popularize the term amongst outsiders?

Ahhh, really? Yeah the blitzkrieg term will become popular across the world while the Austrian word will be limited to their post-war military.

It's going to be against Yugoslavia. I'll bet on that.

The Fall of Yugoslavia is one of the things I’m really excited to get to. It’ll be tragic, that’s for sure. The Serbian Occupation Zone will be the General-Government equivalent here. Most of the Holocaust will happen in the former Yugoslavia.

I can see an Austro-Yugoslav Border War over Croatia perhaps...

I would think Slovenia would be a more likely option. I’m still debating on how the Austro-Yugoslav conflict starts. I have some ideas. One that I’m thinking of and am using as a placeholder is that there is a pro-Axis government in power in Yugoslavia (or at the very least a non-democratic one), and a pro-democracy coup happens, with Hitler ordering the Volkswehr in to ‘restore order’ and just never leave, eventually carving up Yugoslavia between Austria and Italy, Croatia would be a puppet state in the Axis.

Just an idea, but what do people think of a neutral Bulgaria during WW2? It’ll be surrounded by the Axis but won’t choose sides, and acts as a trade partner to both sides, indirectly benefiting Bulgaria a lot. The Axis don’t invade as they don’t want to have to occupy another nation in the midst of war, as well as Bulgaria being a neutral trading partner helps more than it hurts. What do y’all think of that idea.

I have also started a modern political story over in Political Chat about a different 2008 election. (https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/yes-we-can-an-obama-presidency.537281/#post-23842797). If anyone is interested in that sort of stuff, here is the link.

 

[Casting Crown]

Do you really think Austria could pull that off?

Bulgaria definitely stays neutral unless they're sure they can get their coastline back from Greece.

 

[Tanner151]

Do you really think Austria could pull that off?

Bulgaria definitely stays neutral unless they're sure they can get their coastline back from Greece.

Pull what off? Taking Yugoslavia or doing well in the early years? Remember the war in Europe will be difficult due to the geography of the Axis, Allies and Comintern in relation to one another. It’ll make sense once the ‘battle-lines’ are drawn. Austria will have an advantage of knowing where it will strike and win, but don’t expect sweeping victories like the Germans in 1939-1942. It’ll be more moderate.

 

[Sphinx]

I would think Slovenia would be a more likely option. I’m still debating on how the Austro-Yugoslav conflict starts. I have some ideas. One that I’m thinking of and am using as a placeholder is that there is a pro-Axis government in power in Yugoslavia (or at the very least a non-democratic one), and a pro-democracy coup happens, with Hitler ordering the Volkswehr in to ‘restore order’ and just never leave, eventually carving up Yugoslavia between Austria and Italy, Croatia would be a puppet state in the Axis.

Hmm... well I obviously don't know what geopolitical situation you have in mind, but it's difficult to imagine Austria declaring intervention to 'restore order' as it is a smaller and more minor country than Yugoslavia... and Italy and Austria are rivals are they not?
I feel that it would make some more sense and be more fun if there was a more protracted lead-up to the total war between Austria and Yugoslavia, with a short Austro-Yugoslav border war over Croatia (AND Slovenia, as you mentioned, though that might relate more to Italy...). Yugoslavia was never a very stable nation, Hitlerite Croatian independence movements are likely and there are a number of ways for a consistently deteriorating situation to occur in Yugoslavia, with the country slowly but surely being destabilised. Ethnic-and-territorial based geopolitics, essentially, is what I am suggesting for the long-term cause.

The immediate short-term cause could perhaps be something like Croatia declaring independence (similar to the German invasion of Czechoslovakia; Slovakia declared independence after direct instruction by Hitler, Germany threatened to intervene if the Czechs didn't back down, and of course invaded and dismantled Czechoslovakia) and subsequent Austrian intervention, but not necessarily to 'restore order' (again, it's odd for a minor nation to 'restore order' in another nation) rather to support the Croats.

I don't know, it's just an idea, I could be abysmally wrong about a number of factors, but this is what I think.

Just an idea, but what do people think of a neutral Bulgaria during WW2? It’ll be surrounded by the Axis but won’t choose sides, and acts as a trade partner to both sides, indirectly benefiting Bulgaria a lot. The Axis don’t invade as they don’t want to have to occupy another nation in the midst of war, as well as Bulgaria being a neutral trading partner helps more than it hurts. What do y’all think of that idea.

I personally feel like a neutral Bulgaria is unlikely if they think they can hitch along for the ride on the winning side- of course, that is if the Axis are formidable enough and successful enough to lure Bulgaria into the fold. Bulgaria was just far too militaristic and aggressive in my opinion to sit by like Turkey and Spain IRL.
Again, like my note above, maybe I am completely wrong, but this is what I think.

 

[Casting Crown]

Pull what off? Taking Yugoslavia or doing well in the early years? Remember the war in Europe will be difficult due to the geography of the Axis, Allies and Comintern in relation to one another. It’ll make sense once the ‘battle-lines’ are drawn. Austria will have an advantage of knowing where it will strike and win, but don’t expect sweeping victories like the Germans in 1939-1942. It’ll be more moderate.

Taking Yugoslavia, it just seems like, on their own.

Unless yes it does it on its own.

Had to go actually read about how Croatia became part of Yugoslavia, I can see where that wasn't a happy union.

We should have a grand federation,King Peter, no.

And even though it fought along side us and doesn't want to join, you too Montenegro. And we're renaming you Zeta.

At least the other banovina I assume that's the Serb word for province looked like they were trying to respect their sovereignty, that one was just cold hard nationalistic douchery.

If they actually respect Slovenians, there's a potential ally.

Slovakia too, as per otl.

Hungary, not sure what you're planning there, nor how accurate but I didn't realize there were so many German communities scattered.

I guess the Sudetenland really didn't like their change of hands.

 

[Reisen Storm]

Post-War Europe will look quite different than OTL. Less countries to fall to Communism for one.

Shame. Really wanted Europe to be painted Red.

 

[Mayukh]

Italy and Austria are rivals are they not?

The very first post says thst both breslauer and pavolini both say that yugoslavs have been relocated.

 

[Ironshark]

tanner I love the story and can't wait for the war but I have to ask why did you decide story wise to have Austria still fight the war and belike our Germany?

 

[Casting Crown]

Shame. Really wanted Europe to be painted Red.

Yes, I'm sure the Europeans themselves will be quite disappointed they're not going to be liberated by Stalin.

Whatever will they do 😂

Ah. Well, at least the Soviets know how to appreciate l’interne

The British not as much

 

[Tanner151]

Hmm... well I obviously don't know what geopolitical situation you have in mind, but it's difficult to imagine Austria declaring intervention to 'restore order' as it is a smaller and more minor country than Yugoslavia... and Italy and Austria are rivals are they not?
I feel that it would make some more sense and be more fun if there was a more protracted lead-up to the total war between Austria and Yugoslavia, with a short Austro-Yugoslav border war over Croatia (AND Slovenia, as you mentioned, though that might relate more to Italy...). Yugoslavia was never a very stable nation, Hitlerite Croatian independence movements are likely and there are a number of ways for a consistently deteriorating situation to occur in Yugoslavia, with the country slowly but surely being destabilised. Ethnic-and-territorial based geopolitics, essentially, is what I am suggesting for the long-term cause.

The immediate short-term cause could perhaps be something like Croatia declaring independence (similar to the German invasion of Czechoslovakia; Slovakia declared independence after direct instruction by Hitler, Germany threatened to intervene if the Czechs didn't back down, and of course invaded and dismantled Czechoslovakia) and subsequent Austrian intervention, but not necessarily to 'restore order' (again, it's odd for a minor nation to 'restore order' in another nation) rather to support the Croats.

I don't know, it's just an idea, I could be abysmally wrong about a number of factors, but this is what I think.

I personally feel like a neutral Bulgaria is unlikely if they think they can hitch along for the ride on the winning side- of course, that is if the Axis are formidable enough and successful enough to lure Bulgaria into the fold. Bulgaria was just far too militaristic and aggressive in my opinion to sit by like Turkey and Spain IRL.
Again, like my note above, maybe I am completely wrong, but this is what I think.

Austria will have an army bigger than one would expect of such a small country, about half filled with conscripts from their territories taken pre-war. I like the Croatian angle, of them rebelling and the Sozinats sweeping into a divided and weak country. Fair point on Bulgaria, I’ll keep them in the Axis.

Taking Yugoslavia, it just seems like, on their own.

Unless yes it does it on its own.

Had to go actually read about how Croatia became part of Yugoslavia, I can see where that wasn't a happy union.

We should have a grand federation,King Peter, no.

And even though it fought along side us and doesn't want to join, you too Montenegro. And we're renaming you Zeta.

At least the other banovina I assume that's the Serb word for province looked like they were trying to respect their sovereignty, that one was just cold hard nationalistic douchery.

If they actually respect Slovenians, there's a potential ally.

Slovakia too, as per otl.

Hungary, not sure what you're planning there, nor how accurate but I didn't realize there were so many German communities scattered.

I guess the Sudetenland really didn't like their change of hands.

Yugoslavia will be invaded by multiple Axis members, with the Austrian Volkswehr getting the limelight.

Shame. Really wanted Europe to be painted Red.

The very first post says thst both breslauer and pavolini both say that yugoslavs have been relocated.

Austria and Italy by the late 1930s have a far better relationship than they do 1920s/early 1930s ITTL.

tanner I love the story and can't wait for the war but I have to ask why did you decide story wise to have Austria still fight the war and belike our Germany?

I’m what way do you mean? Austria starting the war seems like a very Hitler thing to do, sooner the better in his eyes. The war will start later than Hitler wants but that’s due to needing to digest their newly taken territories pre-war and modernize the military and their logistics. Austria will be much more of a ‘team player’ with the Axis out of necessity.

Yes, I'm sure the Europeans themselves will be quite disappointed they're not going to be liberated by Stalin.

Whatever will they do 😂

Ah. Well, at least the Soviets know how to appreciate l’interne
View attachment 801705

The British not as much

This will lead to larger and more powerful NATO and once European Communism eventually falls (thinking maybe early 2000s, due to a less devastated post-war USSR and Sverdlov’s and his successors policies) there will be less financial ruin and instability in Europe.

 

[Mayukh]

Communism eventually falls

Why does Communism need to fall at all.

 

[YankeeCharlemagne]

Why does Communism need to fall at all.

Because there is literally no way it can survive long term at a national level

 

[Reisen Storm]

Because there is literally no way it can survive long term at a national level

But the Soviet Union fell due specific circumstances that would be really hard to replicate. Not to mention that war will be less devastating to the Soviet Union which will help it in the long-term.

 

[YankeeCharlemagne]

But the Soviet Union fell due specific circumstances that would be really hard to replicate. Not to mention that war will be less devastating to the Soviet Union which will help it in the long-term.

It doesn't matter. Realistically, there is quite literally no way for communism to survive long term on a national level in any meaningful sense. The actual answer is probably just that Tanner151 wants it to be this way for some narrative reason and so that's what he's doing.

 

[Sphinx]

Austria will have an army bigger than one would expect of such a small country, about half filled with conscripts from their territories taken pre-war. I like the Croatian angle, of them rebelling and the Sozinats sweeping into a divided and weak country. Fair point on Bulgaria, I’ll keep them in the Axis.

I understand your point, though my personal opinion is still that 'restoring order' is an excuse reserved for the superpowers and Great Powers.
Thanks for liking the idea!

Realistically, there is quite literally no way for communism to survive long term on a national level in any meaningful sense.

This sentence makes no sense to me.
Firstly, the use of "quite literally" really confuses me, it's unnecessary and doesn't really make any sense, one uses 'literally' in a situation where the subject it refers to can be taken metaphorically or as hyperbole, and neither of those apply to that sentence.
Secondly, the sentence sounds pretty fancy but it's pretty hollow. Can you expand and elaborate? What 'communism' are we talking about? Actual, stateless, classless, cashless Communism? Because that's never been achieved and is probably impossible to establish in the first place. Are we talking about the Soviet authoritarian system then? If so, there was nothing Communistic about the USSR except how it branded itself (Symbolism, propaganda, name, etc.) and I suppose a few of its policies (universal housing and education, for example). Therefore, why shouldn't the USSR survive? As someone above pointed out, the circumstances towards its collapse were very specific.
Thirdly, what do you mean by 'long-term'? The Soviets lasted over 70 years, do you not consider that long-term? The PRC is still around, North Korea and Cuba, Vietnam and Laos too, they are all still around. Is that still not long-term enough? How long does a system have to survive for you to consider it long-term? Obviously, nothing is permanent, so yes; 'Communism' would always eventually fall- but so will every single other idea, system, bloc or nation.
There is absolutely no "inevitable reason" for the USSR to collapse before the modern day. There is no formula to apply to any one nation and go: "it is literally impossible for these guys to make it". It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[YankeeCharlemagne]

I understand your point, though my personal opinion is still that 'restoring order' is an excuse reserved for the superpowers and Great Powers.
Thanks for liking the idea!

This sentence makes no sense to me.
Firstly, the use of "quite literally" really confuses me, it's unnecessary and doesn't really make any sense, one uses 'literally' in a situation where the subject it refers to can be taken metaphorically or as hyperbole, and neither of those apply to that sentence.
Secondly, the sentence sounds pretty fancy but it's pretty hollow. Can you expand and elaborate? What 'communism' are we talking about? Actual, stateless, classless, cashless Communism? Because that's never been achieved and is probably impossible to establish in the first place. Are we talking about the Soviet authoritarian system then? If so, there was nothing Communistic about the USSR except how it branded itself (Symbolism, propaganda, name, etc.) and I suppose a few of its policies (universal housing and education, for example). Therefore, why shouldn't the USSR survive? As someone above pointed out, the circumstances towards its collapse were very specific.
Thirdly, what do you mean by 'long-term'? The Soviets lasted over 70 years, do you not consider that long-term? The PRC is still around, North Korea and Cuba, Vietnam and Laos too, they are all still around. Is that still not long-term enough? How long does a system have to survive for you to consider it long-term? Obviously, nothing is permanent, so yes; 'Communism' would always eventually fall- but so will every single other idea, system, bloc or nation.
There is absolutely no "inevitable reason" for the USSR to collapse before the modern day. There is no formula to apply to any one nation and go: "it is literally impossible for these guys to make it". It just doesn't make any sense.

"Quite literally" as in no way you slice it, it won't happen. Not going to bother with the rest of your stuff because they are just the same tired old arguments that fall apart under scrutiny. And besides, this isn't the kind of discussion that I am willing to have over text, given that I can tell it would take a while of back and forth. As much as I enjoy discussing politics, I would much rather sleep at such a late time.

 

[Casting Crown]

tanner I love the story and can't wait for the war but I have to ask why did you decide story wise to have Austria still fight the war and belike our Germany?

H. I. T. L. E. R.

 

[Casting Crown]

Why does Communism need to fall at all.

Because Communism gives us things like this. And you had to wait 20 years to maybe possibly get one.

 

[marathag]

Why does Communism need to fall at all.

It changes so much, its hardly recognizable as Communism anymore, like with today's China, Cuba or North Korea.

 

[CountDVB]

It changes so much, its hardly recognizable as Communism anymore, like with today's China, Cuba or North Korea.

Anyone thinking any of those nations were communist are the same people who think North Korea is democratic merely because they call themselves that.