German economy & industry without the World Wars?

Woooow wait.

Great Britain is economically really better off than Germany?

Netherlands and UK both have a load of other factors who, at least too me, seem to have far more influence (work time, being a small country in case of NL etc.)

The "occassional bubble or bank insolvency" had harsh consequences in a lot of countries and just dismissing that seems a little simplistic.
It's my own opinion, they have for example higher home ownership rates, an own home is very expensive and the only realistic way for most people to get one is through loans and mortgages, things Germans distrust. The UK is also the only place in Europe you'll find world class universities and a top destination for other countries, including Germanys, brain drain, reducing it al to the horrors of Brexit is rather unfair.

The thing about bubbles and banking troubles is that they don't stay confined to the borders of the country they're happening in anyway, you'll get them too so you might as well enjoy the positive side of what caused them, large investment into durable goods and consumer spending creating loads of new business and job, before they happen.
 

Anchises

Banned
It's my own opinion, they have for example higher home ownership rates, an own home is very expensive and the only realistic way for most people to get one is through loans and mortgages, things Germans distrust. The UK is also the only place in Europe you'll find world class universities and a top destination for other countries, including Germanys, brain drain, reducing it al to the horrors of Brexit is rather unfair.

The thing about bubbles and banking troubles is that they don't stay confined to the borders of the country they're happening in anyway, you'll get them too so you might as well enjoy the positive side of what caused them, large investment into durable goods and consumer spending creating loads of new business and job, before they happen.

I think we can agree to disagree here.

And Germany just has a very different educational system, morr broad and less elite fixated. Making the Anglo-American system the standard imho is a simplification.
 
Well the world looks very different for one thing. Germany has no obvious reason to lose territory and has access to a lot more coal, iron, etc. Her lead in synthetic chemistry et al will continue and German will be on of the four dominant trade languages of the world (English, Spanish, and Mandarin round out the rest with French, Russian, Arabic, and perhaps Hindi just behind them). I think Belgium will peacefully split with France annexing one piece and the other becoming a de facto German satellite or be annexed by the Netherlands with Luxembourg probably still independent as a German dependency or outright annexed at some point, perhaps with Luxembourger blessing. A lot more of the intelligensia will survive especially without a Spanish Flu or Holocaust.

Scandinavia may unite at some point but more likely continues her common monetary union and perhaps puts a defensive pact atop it. Once Karl V of Sweden dies, the door opens for a combined polity to keep the respective states out of the orbits of Berlin, London, or Moscow. They will also be home to a great many naval innovations and may be among the world leaders in aquaculture.

Russia becomes a serious technological player, without the Stalinist purges or starvation there are also a lot more Russians around, perhaps 30 million or more. Aerospace and other engineering may find a welcome home there, we now believe that an early Soviet engineer independently developed a transistor as early as the 1920s but died before it could see mass implementation. There is still plenty of immigration to the US but not the concentration of intelligencia that was seen during the first half of the 20th century. Isolationism will still run rampant and ironically people might greet one another with a Bellamy salute as part of accepted daily life. The dangers of smoking may also catch on 20 years earlier as some of the first people to describe it were, unfortunately, Nazis.

France has her empire but is at the bottom of the top tier and is likely still allied to the UK, whose emphasis on global free trade will continue unabated. I could easily see many of the European minors joining an expanded Zolliverin, a true MittleEuropa but as a trading bloc among semi-equals, with the Netherlands and even the Austro-Hungarians playing major roles. Balkan troubles will rise again, especially as the Ottomans languish and likely shatter anidst furious attempts to save the 'sick man of europe' ultimately fail. There is no israel as we know it though a Palestinian protectorate exists with an increasing Jewish population by immigration. Persia does better though ultimately a neo-Ottoman state is likely to arise and try to take much of the region. If they succeed the oil money is likely enough to restore a large chunk of their Empire, especially as Germany moves to trade support for oil.

As mentioned much of the non-European world will *eventually* revolt, probably starting with India, Congo, or Indonesia. While Europe will still be master of much of the world that will be challenged once semi-automatic assault rifles appear, especially in places where people were continually worn down or where the worst of the atrocities occurred. Inevitably there will be a Communist revolt *somewhere*, personally I think India, East Africa, Egypt, and potentially China become the first Communist nation and may succeed in scaring the world into squashing them before the 'Red virus' can spread.

There will be a lot less tolerance of other cultures without the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s or counterculture thereafter. At best the overall culture probably looks akin to the early 1950s, especially as social programs and public welfare are just not on the agenda for most countries. Germany ironically leads in such programs but Scandinavia is not far behind. Women have the vote just about everywhere (if they are white) but heaven help the populations still confined to second-class status or worse. And interracial relationships are probably illegal in much of the world outside of South America and parts of Western and Central Europe. Racism become in this ATL what slavery was in OTL around 1810, strides are being made but very slowly.

Speaking of which a severe regional divide still exists in the United States as industry has largely avoided the South and Midwest outside of the Great Lakes and limited access highways are much fewer here. Two cross the country, one from Seattle to Chicago and the other from San Francisco to St Louis. Both are toll roads as are just about every other interstate-type highway outside of New England and the Mid-Atlantic. While car ownership continues to soar, subsistence living is still considered normal in much of the poorer half of the US and parts of the country still lack electricity into the 1990s. Rail travel is still commonplace especially in the deep South, rural Midwest, and Southwest. Cell phones are a newer invention and coverage is akin to that in the US of OTL circa 2000.

As for technology, it went in a very different direction in this TL. Aircraft development lags about 35-45 years behind OTL though it has become a hot area for innovation, especially as microelectronics advance. Jet engines are known and a near-747 is now in the skies. Russian aircraft are considered top-of-the-line and her lead in the new Space Race has everyone abuzz. German successes from the launch center at Pennemunde rival those of the Americans at Cape Canaveral, the work of Robert Goddard actually got more attention here than in OTL (though progress was slow) and it was the US that put up the first satellite in 1968. Goddard's work was 'picked up' by Von Braun who in this TL helped Germany become the second power to put a satellite into orbit. Russia followed soon after and thus by 1975 the race to get a man first into orbit (Russia) then to lunar orbit (Germany) began, with a manned moon landing in 1989 by the Americans who got there only a few hours before the German team. The photographed handshakes of Col. North and Kolonel Kraus still sit in their countries capital buildings to this day. The German landing on Mars in 1999 was surpassed by the American Space Hilton opening in 2005 with the larger Bigelow Corporate Space Annex coming online in 2014. Japan now has a space station of over 100 permanent population though it is the British who now lead in space thanks to their Camelot Station, the 18th birthday of Violet Virginia Escandele this year marks the first child born in space now able to vote. Talk is common of the preparations of a Jovian and a Venusian or Mercurial mission by the major powers, Mars has seven permanent bases (Three are German, two American) and almost everyone has at least one active mine and one active base on the moon. Space technology here is advancing quickly and definitely an area of difference, this ATL is probably 50+ years ahead of us.

With German use of biosynthetics ironically making much of the genetic and bioInformation technology of today available in this TL, information technology itself is still in its infancy but has begun to make strides. Even into the 1980s of this ATL room-sized computers were the norm as the push to improve them with military contracts as per OTL simply did not exist. Compact radio telephones capable of operating locally out of short-range antennae (or 'cells' of coverage) were developed by the still-monopolistic AT&T at Bell Labs and became a hot item almost immediately upon release. Unfortunately the price is such that the rich and growing middle classes are only ones able to afford them which has retarded development somewhat, the race to find cheaper technologies for mass implementation has already yielded benefits in almost every other electronic sector. Think of the late 1980s for personal computer equivalents in this TL as cutting edge and cell phones as circa 1995-1997.

Naval technologies are also behind as submarines and naval warfare simply did not have the impetus to develop as they did in OTL, nuclear propulsion and power exist though mostly as power plants for larger vessels and the military attack submarines of the US, Germany, the UK, and Russia. Nuclear weapons are theorized to exist though no one has dared detonate one as fears of meltdowns from the shipborne and land-bases fission reactors created horror stories no one dares repeat or attemot to actually recreate intentionally. Ironically the first commercial fusion power plant will go online in this ATL next year having been demonstrated in the lab in 2015.

Japan (still holding on to an ever-more Japanese Korea and Taiwan along with other satellite states including Manchuria and much of the Pacific) is at the cusp of gaining such tech and is still a global leader in both information technology and the electronics behind it, many suspect Japan could produce electronics ten to twelve years ahead of what is thought possible (true) but does not do so because they do not wish to lose that edge (also true). China actually remains fragmented in a warlord-type state situation and is one of the few places in the world to see widespread warfare in the last 2 centuries, the carefully-censured news from there ensuring public morality is maintained with no nudity, violence, or 'disturbing content' being shown at any time.
 
Last edited:
Modern money is underpinned by the countries reputation - how companies deliver goods and pay their bills, how much money flows into the country and out of it, how the credit servicing is going or not going etc, not like in the old days by actual savings, gold, silver or anything that can be redeemed at face value for the bills and coins it represents. The secret to having a strong consumer economy seems to be teaching the people to buy more than you can afford with your income, mortgages for homes, new cars bought with credits, student loans for the kids and multiple credit cards for everyone etc, they all play their small part in pulling earning from the future into the present where it's powering the economy. It leads to the occasional bubble and bank insolvency but overall the countries practicing it, USA, UK, Netherlands are running better than the German ordo-liberalism model.

Fair enough, but in the era of 1913 through 1930 I think we see more strength from actual savings to create borrowable monies. Germany did practice a quite modern loose money policy to create liquidity during the war, a thing I feel will by the standards of the day be reined in, contracting the economy. But since more debt was internally owned, the repayment of which merely recapitalizes the credit base and so long as you control capital flight you in effect inflate the economy in a more controlled way. Deflating the currency value relative to others stimulates exports, if it is balanced right the cost of raw materials is sustainable and competing imports are choked off.

Without the war we need some inflator to give Gold enough value to cover the growing economic value of trade. We use paper fiat currency and such, here would some form of trade credit system need be invented to keep pace? Here some form of "treasury" currency inflates the otherwise Gold Standard to allow flexibility to international commerce, potentially divorced in more ways from the domestic economy on its local currency underpinned by Gold and savings?
 

kernals12

Banned
It's an irrational action based on fear and distrust towards banks and stocks, it doesn't have to make sense, they still save loads of money despite receiving 0 % interest for it in a non 0 % inflation environment.

It is related imo, more spending equals bigger economy.
Wrong way around. Bigger economy equals more spending.
 

BooNZ

Banned
It's my own opinion, they have for example higher home ownership rates, an own home is very expensive and the only realistic way for most people to get one is through loans and mortgages, things Germans distrust. The UK is also the only place in Europe you'll find world class universities and a top destination for other countries, including Germanys, brain drain, reducing it al to the horrors of Brexit is rather unfair.

Always refreshing to have someone espousing the virtues of Gordon Gecko style capitalism, but inflating the value non-productive assets like housing stock (among others) merely reduces capital available for more productive uses. The home ownership rate in many western economies (good or bad) is a reflection of the health of the middle classes, but is not necessarily a virtue in itself.

Without the world wars, is there any reason why German universities would not continue to be recognized as pre-eminent centres of science? Without the world wars, is there any reason European states would not develop alternative styles of governance, independent of trickle down economics - in 1914 European socialism was on-trend.
 
...
Without the world wars, is there any reason why German universities would not continue to be recognized as pre-eminent centres of science?

These things are never static. What direction change might come from or head to I won't say at the moment. Its a question I've not looked at for some time. It is interesting to look at the specifics of why one nation or another were considered superior in some sectors of education, industrial development, or science.

Without the world wars, is there any reason European states would not develop alternative styles of governance, independent of trickle down economics - in 1914 European socialism was on-trend.

Good point. Specifically within Germany the ongoing tension between the Kaiser & aristocracy vs the democratic institutions was leading to the eventual destruction of the aristocracy as a political force. Ditto for Russia and Austro-Hungary. Even in the US there were fundamental changes in the system of government from the late 19th thru mid 20th Century and later.
 
Wrong way around. Bigger economy equals more spending.
It's not exactly the chicken and egg problem, bigger economy does not equal bigger spending, while bigger spending does mean bigger economy as that spending is also part of the economy.

Always refreshing to have someone espousing the virtues of Gordon Gecko style capitalism, but inflating the value non-productive assets like housing stock (among others) merely reduces capital available for more productive uses. The home ownership rate in many western economies (good or bad) is a reflection of the health of the middle classes, but is not necessarily a virtue in itself.

Without the world wars, is there any reason why German universities would not continue to be recognized as pre-eminent centres of science? Without the world wars, is there any reason European states would not develop alternative styles of governance, independent of trickle down economics - in 1914 European socialism was on-trend.
There's the point often said that the wars resulted in millions of people getting technical skills they did not possess before and had very little incentive to get on their own, like engine maintanance in the military, which could be used after the war to make cars more practical as there's now someone in every village who can repair it.
 
Always refreshing to have someone espousing the virtues of Gordon Gecko style capitalism, but inflating the value non-productive assets like housing stock (among others) merely reduces capital available for more productive uses. The home ownership rate in many western economies (good or bad) is a reflection of the health of the middle classes, but is not necessarily a virtue in itself.
Speaking of home ownership - I see potentially huge infrastructural differences for Germany in such a TL. Germany's sprawling suburbias, and its de facto conversion of all villages into micro-suburbia, too, with good roads, central water supply and sewage, public baths, libraries and the like, are all not really natural outgrowths of some inevitable development of the 20th century, they are based on post-WW2 political decisions favouring broad home ownership to stabilise a middle class (lest workers turned Red again) and favouring individual car ownership and road infrastructure. Without Hitler's Autobahnen already in place, without the Volkswagen plans, not only would Germany perhaps never lead the automobile industry, this different Germany may also slowly bleed out much of its rural population into towns and cities (like France or Spain have) as agriculture requires less people, and railroads may play a greater role in its infrastructure. After all, the empire-spanning railroad infrastructure is already in place in 1914. And, as I've said before, without two world wars, Germany would be much less inclined towards very radical structural shifts.

Without the world wars, is there any reason why German universities would not continue to be recognized as pre-eminent centres of science?
Unlike some highly succesful US universities, all German universites are state-owned. Their funding depends on the government's budgetary situation, which is why German research lost much of its edge already in the Weimar Republic, long before the Nazis chased away or killed a great part of them: during Weimar times, the country was poor, public budgets were very limited, and so was research funding, even though additional private funding was already a thing even back then. The basis was just broader elsewhere, hence other countries became more attractive for great scholars. This can happen to TTL's Germany, too, when it enters prolonged economic depression.

Without the world wars, is there any reason European states would not develop alternative styles of governance, independent of trickle down economics - in 1914 European socialism was on-trend.
On this, I agree. Especially Germany would be a candidate for such transformations. What that would do to its economy is another question...
 

BooNZ

Banned
There's the point often said that the wars resulted in millions of people getting technical skills they did not possess before and had very little incentive to get on their own, like engine maintanance in the military, which could be used after the war to make cars more practical as there's now someone in every village who can repair it.
While conflict certainly provides human development opportunities, one of the distinguishing features of the German military in WW1 was the proportional number and quality of thier NCOs, so prima facie, technical skills within Germany were no so uncommon.

Speaking of home ownership - I see potentially huge infrastructural differences for Germany in such a TL. Germany's sprawling suburbias, and its de facto conversion of all villages into micro-suburbia, too, with good roads, central water supply and sewage, public baths, libraries and the like, are all not really natural outgrowths of some inevitable development of the 20th century, they are based on post-WW2 political decisions favouring broad home ownership to stabilise a middle class (lest workers turned Red again) and favouring individual car ownership and road infrastructure. Without Hitler's Autobahnen already in place, without the Volkswagen plans, not only would Germany perhaps never lead the automobile industry, this different Germany may also slowly bleed out much of its rural population into towns and cities (like France or Spain have) as agriculture requires less people, and railroads may play a greater role in its infrastructure. After all, the empire-spanning railroad infrastructure is already in place in 1914. And, as I've said before, without two world wars, Germany would be much less inclined towards very radical structural shifts.

The absence of the OTL world wars are huge PODs, so there are likely to be significant consequences. However, the concept of the Autobahn is not exactly splitting the atom. The development of automobile infrastruture could conceivable be either faster or slower, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't see any modern state being shackled to rail forever. I always understood the USA led the automobile industry with the introduction of mass-production and the Germans were merely high quality contributors - I don't see that changing too much.

I understood the Anglo-Saxon obsession with home ownership was still not a German priority, or am I mistaken?

Unlike some highly succesful US universities, all German universites are state-owned. Their funding depends on the government's budgetary situation, which is why German research lost much of its edge already in the Weimar Republic, long before the Nazis chased away or killed a great part of them: during Weimar times, the country was poor, public budgets were very limited, and so was research funding, even though additional private funding was already a thing even back then. The basis was just broader elsewhere, hence other countries became more attractive for great scholars. This can happen to TTL's Germany, too, when it enters prolonged economic depression.

Whatever the scientific environment was in Germany up to 1914, it outperformed its contemporaries. I would expect state funding to be more dependable than private funding if there is a prolonged economic depression and otherwise German cartels were probably well placed to pool private funding for applied research.

On this, I agree. Especially Germany would be a candidate for such transformations. What that would do to its economy is another question...
Most elements of the German economy had been booming for decades, so the impetus for reform is not obvious. The one area in need of reform was agriculture, which would be shaken up if and when Germany starts introducing custom unions and mitteleuropa concepts. The Junkers were influencial, but the socialists were gaining influence - lower tariffs would reduce the price of food for the masses and force the Junkers to improve productivity in agricultural production.
 
Good point. Specifically within Germany the ongoing tension between the Kaiser & aristocracy vs the democratic institutions was leading to the eventual destruction of the aristocracy as a political force. Ditto for Russia and Austro-Hungary. Even in the US there were fundamental changes in the system of government from the late 19th thru mid 20th Century and later.

Can we be sure about this? I only want to question this and dont say that I have an answer.

Just that OTL after the Great Depression fascism and non democrative movements were on the rise. Can we be sure that in this alternate timeline there wont be a change that leads to totalitatian states/dictatures. The technological means of that were created OTL and would be created TTL.

Also it was the world wars that largely discredited rabid nationalism. Without them how long will that remain an incredibly powerful force? Could it be harvested for the above goals? Is it impossible for example a tsarist Russia to limp along as an absolutist monarchy till the means of stregthening the governments grip become available?

What im trying to say is that I wouldnt take it for certain that everyone is moving toward democracy and eventually everyone will get there.
 
In 1913, Germany was Russia's biggest trading partner. This was heavily weighted towards Germany £46m vs £32m for Russia due to the 1904 German-Russian Commercial Treaty that gave generous access to Russian Agriculture and Industrial sectors. First signed in 1894, it played a big part in accelerating German Industrial growth at the expense of Russian. Russia had been strong-armed into renewing in 1906 due to Germany exploiting Russia's weakness during the Russo-Japanese War where Russia was unable to redeploy units from Europe to Asia. The Treaty was due to run until 1918 and Russia wont be bullied again. This will impact 10% of German industrial capacity.
 
Last edited:

Anchises

Banned
In 1913, Germany was Russia's biggest trading partner. This was heavily weighted towards Germany £46m vs £32m for Russia due to the 1904 German-Russian Commercial Treaty that gave generous access to Russian Agriculture and Industrial sectors. First signed in 1894, it played a big part in accelerating German Industrial growth at the expense of Russian. Russia had been strong-armed into renewing in 1906 due to Germany exploiting Russia's weakness during the Russo-Japanese War where Russia was unable to redeploy units from Europe to Asia. The Treaty was due to run until 1918 and Russia wont be bullied again. This will impact 10% of German industrial capacity.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

There is a convincing argument that WW1 delayed revolutionary activities to a certain degree. In 1918 Russia might have serious internal problems.

Sure, the Revolution won't have happened. I can easily imagine a situation though, where enough unrest is happening, that the Tsarist government concludes that a confrontation in 1918 would be unwise.

Can we be sure about this? I only want to question this and dont say that I have an answer.

Just that OTL after the Great Depression fascism and non democrative movements were on the rise. Can we be sure that in this alternate timeline there wont be a change that leads to totalitatian states/dictatures. The technological means of that were created OTL and would be created TTL.

Also it was the world wars that largely discredited rabid nationalism. Without them how long will that remain an incredibly powerful force? Could it be harvested for the above goals? Is it impossible for example a tsarist Russia to limp along as an absolutist monarchy till the means of stregthening the governments grip become available?

What im trying to say is that I wouldnt take it for certain that everyone is moving toward democracy and eventually everyone will get there.
.

Possible. Maybe a Mussolini-type situation where Fascists takeover but formally the Tsar remains in power.

Given Fascisms economic track record IOTL, I doubt that Russia would be able to win against the full might of the German Empire. If Russia risks confrontation its going to lose. Even if France backs them, which I would see as highly unlikely once the inevitable ugly face of Fascism is revealed.
 
In regards to savings, the gap between German Government Revenue and Expenditure meant that the nation was piling on the debt at 3-4% of GDP per year and stood at £982m (40% GDP) in 1913. Most of this debt would be owned by Germans themselves that was wiped out by hyper inflation.
 
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

There is a convincing argument that WW1 delayed revolutionary activities to a certain degree. In 1918 Russia might have serious internal problems.

Or maybe not. https://web.stanford.edu/~ikorolev/Ivan_Korolev_Russian_Revolution.pdf

Evaluating Russian Economic Growth without the Revolution of 1917
Ivan Korolev
July 5, 2017

Abstract:
This paper uses modern econometric techniques, such as the lasso and the synthetic control method, to construct the counterfactual GDP per capita series for Russia for 1917–1940. The goal of this paper is twofold: first, to predict how the Russian economy might have developed without the Revolution; second, to evaluate and compare various econometric methods for computing the counterfactual GDP per capita series. The counterfactuals based on the pre-ferred method, the synthetic control, suggest that without the Revolution Russia might have grown at about *1.6% a year in 1917–1940.

*Author notes 2.5% from 1917-1929 in his conclusion.
 
However, the concept of the Autobahn is not exactly splitting the atom. The development of automobile infrastruture could conceivable be either faster or slower, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't see any modern state being shackled to rail forever. I always understood the USA led the automobile industry with the introduction of mass-production and the Germans were merely high quality contributors - I don't see that changing too much.
The CONCEPT of the Autobahn is simple indeed, and there were precursors in other countries (in the US, or more specifically: in the state of New York; in Italy, in Canada, and in Germany itself between Köln and Bonn). Note, though, that all these were short limited access toll roads in and near highly populated areas, whose control of access (no turning onto the road at all points) was primarily meant, besides allowing toll collection, to allow drivers to enjoy the joy of high speed and to reduce pedestrian / non-automobile traffic participant injuries and casualties, the numbers of which (while really low when compared to today) were still (rightly, imho) considered a great scandal back then, while today we've just learned to accept them. The historical US term "parkway" illustrates their purpose and character pretty well.

Turning this concept into a nation- and continent-spanning spiderweb of massive and expensive concrete infrastructure (complete with tunnels, high bridges etc.) designed to allow fast transportation of goods and people (and military material) is, again, something which many people could have come up with. But I doubt that it would have been tried and implemented in a democracy first. There had, actually, been Autobahn plans being thrown around during Weimar Republic times, but they had been considered a crazy idea, given the frail public finances and the massive amount of property confiscations etc. this would have required in Germany.
Note that the large US interstate system is basically an heritage of Eisenhower's presidency, i.e. it was implemented only after the Nazis had done it first.
It is no coincidence that the transformative leap from petite private parkways to massive omnipresent freeways was done in an extremely totalitarian dictatorship which was building up for war. (The Führer had tanks, not Volkswagens, in mind to roll over the Autobahnen, and so they did.)

You said, rightly, that the US was leading in automobile mass production, and no other country had joined on that bandwagon yet. I agree that German automobile industry may have continued in the luxury section (much like the British, too), for that is what automobiles were in the 1930s, and what they may have remained post-WW2 in a world without omnipresent freeways (and good quality rural roads to go with them, too): a luxury good. In a country with such vast distances such as the US, and such a weakly developed public transportation system, the switch to mass individual automobile transportation may have been logical or even inevitable at some point, even without freeways, or at least without so many of them. But in the smaller, much more densely populated countries of Europe, at least where railroad infrastructure was extremely extensive, this may never have become a reality. Even more so, if we consider that without the two world wars, the role of the world's greatest power and the no. 1 source of cultural and political inspiration for Germany might not have shifted from Britain to the US. And in Britain, both trends (automobile manufacturing being a luxury toy, and railroads being good and everyhwere) were even more pronounced than in Germany pre-WW2.

I understood the Anglo-Saxon obsession with home ownership was still not a German priority, or am I mistaken?
It wasn't in 1914, and it even still wasn't so much in 1939, although things had begun to move slowly in that direction, both under the Republic and under the Nazis. But ever since the 1950s and the "Wiederaufbau", in which millions of small houses in suburbia and quasi-suburbia were built (where people had lived in large "Mietskasernen" or in the tiny houses of crammed old towns before, but WW2 had reduced much of that to rubble), the obsession with home ownership is a thing in Germany, too. Of those who graduated from school with me in 1999, I'm almost the only one who hasn't bought a house or at least flat of their own to live in (and even that only because, as a scholar without tenure yet, I'm still moving around the country a lot).

Whatever the scientific environment was in Germany up to 1914, it outperformed its contemporaries.
No doubt about that.

I would expect state funding to be more dependable than private funding if there is a prolonged economic depression
Hm, not really. In the crises of the 20th and 21st centuries which were caused by market collapses, the private sector crashed hard, governments struggled to do something about it, the private sector recovered relatively speedily, but the government is stuck with staggering piles of debt which greatly reduce their space for maneuvre. Now, a Germany in the boundaries of 1914 may be so relatively autarkic as to afford implementing hair-cuts on its own public debts, so maybe things wouldn't be THAT bad. It was just one tangent into which the development of German research could have gone which would have derailed it from the shining glorious future some people painted for it. That_could_have happened, but Germany could just as well have taken the path of Britain's institutions of higher learning, which don't have a great 20th and 21st century of applied scientific breakthroughs. The anti-natural sciences, anti-applied sciences attitude was certainly there among German intellectual circles (Dilthey's invectives against the natural sciences comes to mind, Weber's anti-scientistic approach to sociology...)

The Junkers were influencial, but the socialists were gaining influence - lower tariffs would reduce the price of food for the masses and force the Junkers to improve productivity in agricultural production.
I doubt an SPD government would focus on lowering tariffs, unless it had to form a coalition with the Progressives or even National Liberals. If they get really strong, like through a Russia-in-October-like revolution, they'll nationalise industries and divide Junker land among the peasantry. If they lead a parliamentary reform coalition, then the Catholic Zentrum is an indispensable partner for any centre-left alliance, and their focus was on South Germany's small-holding peasantry and crafters, who weren't overly eager about free trade, either.
 
I wouldn't be so sure about that.

There is a convincing argument that WW1 delayed revolutionary activities to a certain degree. In 1918 Russia might have serious internal problems.

Sure, the Revolution won't have happened. I can easily imagine a situation though, where enough unrest is happening, that the Tsarist government concludes that a confrontation in 1918 would be unwise.

.

Possible. Maybe a Mussolini-type situation where Fascists takeover but formally the Tsar remains in power.

Given Fascisms economic track record IOTL, I doubt that Russia would be able to win against the full might of the German Empire. If Russia risks confrontation its going to lose. Even if France backs them, which I would see as highly unlikely once the inevitable ugly face of Fascism is revealed.

I brought up Russia as an example - mainly because I give the tsarist absolutism the most chance to survive long enough. But im not sure if German and Austria wouldnt join it or at least they aristocrats and army try.
 

Anchises

Banned
I brought up Russia as an example - mainly because I give the tsarist absolutism the most chance to survive long enough. But im not sure if German and Austria wouldnt join it or at least they aristocrats and army try.

I don't see Fascism in the Kaiserreich happening. Not at all. About as likely as GB or France turning Fascist in a no WW2 scenario. Fascism won the support of the nobles, the army and some members of the royal family due to the trauma of WW1. Without the communist uprisings, without the Kaiser having to flee Germany, without the Dolchstoßlegende and without the revanchism there is no way for Fascism to take hold. Even in Weimar you needed a severe economic crisis, political deadlock and one if not the most skilled demagogue of the 20th century.

Just look at the actual power that parliament had. They already controlled the budget, sure the Military still had considerable freedoms here but that was the case in most countries. Once the parliament controlls the flow of money it is very hard to stop democratization.

All of this also ignores that the vaunted "junker, Prussian officers and bureaucrats" already tried to stop the rise of the Social Democrats with fairly draconian laws. All of these laws failed in the Reichstag. They never tried the "Staatsstreich" at the turn of the century and they would be completely crazy to try it at a later point. They knew that the workers were already organized and that they had missed their window.

And all of this ignored that a lot of people on the right would have never acceped this, even nobles loyal to the Kaiser.

The National Liberal Party was strongly in favor of civil rights and would have opposed any attempt to enforce authoritarian rule with the army.

The German Conservative Party would have opposed any kind of centralization of the Empire and basically was a lobby group for agrarian interests by 1914.

The Free Conservative Party might have supported a coup d'état but was only a small part of the rightwing party spectrum.

The Alldeutsche Verband probably would have gladly supported a military overthrow of the Reichstag.

So most of the people liable to overthrow the semi-democracy would have probably opposed such a measure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Telegraph_Affair Even the Conservatives at this point were parlamentarians through and through, who would have supported and governed Germany after your proposed overthrow of the Reichstag?


For A-H I am really not sure. There it might actually happen. I have yet to complete my reading but the "proto-Einsatzgruppen" and the radicals trying to solve the nationality-conflicts with force are imho indicating that a fascist development might be possible.
 
The CONCEPT of the Autobahn is simple indeed, and there were precursors in other countries (in the US, or more specifically: in the state of New York; in Italy, in Canada, and in Germany itself between Köln and Bonn). Note, though, that all these were short limited access toll roads in and near highly populated areas, whose control of access (no turning onto the road at all points) was primarily meant, besides allowing toll collection, to allow drivers to enjoy the joy of high speed and to reduce pedestrian / non-automobile traffic participant injuries and casualties, the numbers of which (while really low when compared to today) were still (rightly, imho) considered a great scandal back then, while today we've just learned to accept them. The historical US term "parkway" illustrates their purpose and character pretty well.

Turning this concept into a nation- and continent-spanning spiderweb of massive and expensive concrete infrastructure (complete with tunnels, high bridges etc.) designed to allow fast transportation of goods and people (and military material) is, again, something which many people could have come up with. But I doubt that it would have been tried and implemented in a democracy first. There had, actually, been Autobahn plans being thrown around during Weimar Republic times, but they had been considered a crazy idea, given the frail public finances and the massive amount of property confiscations etc. this would have required in Germany.
Note that the large US interstate system is basically an heritage of Eisenhower's presidency, i.e. it was implemented only after the Nazis had done it first.
It is no coincidence that the transformative leap from petite private parkways to massive omnipresent freeways was done in an extremely totalitarian dictatorship which was building up for war. (The Führer had tanks, not Volkswagens, in mind to roll over the Autobahnen, and so they did.)

You said, rightly, that the US was leading in automobile mass production, and no other country had joined on that bandwagon yet. I agree that German automobile industry may have continued in the luxury section (much like the British, too), for that is what automobiles were in the 1930s, and what they may have remained post-WW2 in a world without omnipresent freeways (and good quality rural roads to go with them, too): a luxury good. In a country with such vast distances such as the US, and such a weakly developed public transportation system, the switch to mass individual automobile transportation may have been logical or even inevitable at some point, even without freeways, or at least without so many of them. But in the smaller, much more densely populated countries of Europe, at least where railroad infrastructure was extremely extensive, this may never have become a reality. Even more so, if we consider that without the two world wars, the role of the world's greatest power and the no. 1 source of cultural and political inspiration for Germany might not have shifted from Britain to the US. And in Britain, both trends (automobile manufacturing being a luxury toy, and railroads being good and everyhwere) were even more pronounced than in Germany pre-WW2.
Road infrastructure in Europe had been improving from the early modern age onwards, the motorway was just a logical next step after the 18th century chaussée style roads and bitumising in the 19th and early 20th century. Car ownership was on the rise and even before the Great War it was obvious that it wouldn't remain confined to the upper classes. In Germany manufacturers had already started targeting the (lower) middle class as the 1909 Opel 4/8 PS Doktorwagen clearly demonstrates.

In many european cities entire old quarters with their norrow winding closes had been torn down in the 19th and early 20th century and replaced with broad multilane streets or boulevards, lined by impressive town houses and it may sound ironic, but without the devestations WW2-style carpet bombing brought about there might be fewer old structures around today because the contiousness that they are worth preserving might never have arisen the way it did after the shock of losing so many to the war IOTL.

The motorway construction programme would likely have been a more drawn our affair and possibly have entailed more upgrading of old highways to motorway standards but without the delays caused by the wars it might have caught up with OTL in the later part of the 20th century.
 
Last edited:
I don't see Fascism in the Kaiserreich happening. Not at all. About as likely as GB or France turning Fascist in a no WW2 scenario. Fascism won the support of the nobles, the army and some members of the royal family due to the trauma of WW1. Without the communist uprisings, without the Kaiser having to flee Germany, without the Dolchstoßlegende and without the revanchism there is no way for Fascism to take hold. Even in Weimar you needed a severe economic crisis, political deadlock and one if not the most skilled demagogue of the 20th century.

Just look at the actual power that parliament had. They already controlled the budget, sure the Military still had considerable freedoms here but that was the case in most countries. Once the parliament controlls the flow of money it is very hard to stop democratization.

All of this also ignores that the vaunted "junker, Prussian officers and bureaucrats" already tried to stop the rise of the Social Democrats with fairly draconian laws. All of these laws failed in the Reichstag. They never tried the "Staatsstreich" at the turn of the century and they would be completely crazy to try it at a later point. They knew that the workers were already organized and that they had missed their window.

And all of this ignored that a lot of people on the right would have never acceped this, even nobles loyal to the Kaiser.

The National Liberal Party was strongly in favor of civil rights and would have opposed any attempt to enforce authoritarian rule with the army.

The German Conservative Party would have opposed any kind of centralization of the Empire and basically was a lobby group for agrarian interests by 1914.

The Free Conservative Party might have supported a coup d'état but was only a small part of the rightwing party spectrum.

The Alldeutsche Verband probably would have gladly supported a military overthrow of the Reichstag.

So most of the people liable to overthrow the semi-democracy would have probably opposed such a measure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Telegraph_Affair Even the Conservatives at this point were parlamentarians through and through, who would have supported and governed Germany after your proposed overthrow of the Reichstag?


For A-H I am really not sure. There it might actually happen. I have yet to complete my reading but the "proto-Einsatzgruppen" and the radicals trying to solve the nationality-conflicts with force are imho indicating that a fascist development might be possible.

I didnt say that it would suceed. But by 1914 the sozialist were becoming the leading power of the Reichtag. I dont assume that this election result would change for the worse for the socialists. The conservatives might prefer either fascism - or some other rightist-absolutist idea to socialists. Part of the liberals - especially the monetarily better off when facing rule by socialism might prefer - i dont say they would - a rightist absolutist regime that leaves them more money.

So when faced by a socialist led state - which they were - the rightist antidemocrats especially if they get a charismatic leader might have enough of a base to give it at least a try.

And mostly Im not sure that the yunkers will go down without a fight.

I agree that Germany is the least likely to go down this path but i wouldnt say its impossible.
 
Top