Germany wins the First World War: Speculating about its political future

[HerodotusTheSecond]

I don't know if this particular subject has been discussed at length in other threads speculating about a Central Powers victory in World War One, but I've often wondered about what political direction Germany itself would move in if it were to come out on top at war's end. No matter how the war itself proceeded for Germany, its likely that as in our timeline the General Staff would wind up becoming the real political authority in the Reich, imposing a virtual military dictatorship to manage the war effort, with Kaiser Wilhelm II being politically sidelined (the "Shadow Kaiser"0 to one extent or another due to his lack of any practical knowledge or experience of military command. The question is what would happen once the war ended. The German ruling classes and assorted reactionaries had talked repeatedly throughout the years before and during the war about how the purpose of a war should in this case be to ensure the triumph of monarchy over democracy, believing that a victorious war would be the only way to end Germany's social tensions and to quell the threat they saw in the presence of forces like the Social Democrats in the Reichstag.
They would not likely relinquish their power willingly, especially if Germany was victorious. Would the war have still put enough strain on society that a groundswell of revolution would force democratic reforms, giving the Social Democrats or a similar party far greater power? Would generals like Hindenburg and Ludendorff double down to conserve the power they had acquired during the war, resulting in violent repressions? (The Kaiser himself had on repeated instances throughout his reign openly declared that he expected to use his army to violently quell any outbreak of revolutionary dissent.) There would probably still be the equivalent of the Freikorps due to their being a large number of returning veterans who had grown distant from civilian life but who might not still be mobilized into the regular army, and they would more than likely take the side of the army and the monarchy.
Or would there be something akin to the rise of Mussolini in Italy in our timeline, where one of these paramilitary organizations made a bid to forcibly restore order (something akin to the failed Kapp Putsch of 1920), was permitted to do so by a tolerant government, and established a fascist or quasi-fascist dictatorship that on paper at least shared power with the Kaiser like Mussolini did with King Victor Emmanuel III (and presumably allocating significant power to the army as well)? Would Paul von Hindenburg still retire and permit someone like Erich Ludendorff to rise in power within the armed forces? What do you think would be the most plausible scenario?

 

[Evil Crusader]

The later said CP Victory happens, the more Germany will, even if victorious, experience strain. The rise of the SPD is pretty much guaranteed; but any violent left-wing action will be met with thorough crushing.

 

[HerodotusTheSecond]

Yes, I expected that much, I'm just speculating about who exactly would do the most crushing when the time came and what if any political changes would happen in the process.

 

[Dorknought]

In the West the state is a means of ensuring law and order, an arrangement that allows civil society to re-produce itself, to allow commerce to flourish under the rule of law and where the political rights and obligations of an individual can be negotiated and ultimately guaranteed, and where the armed forces are under the ultimate control of legislature.

In Prussia-Germany the state existed over and above society. The individual's rights and obligations were always subordinate to the powers-that-be who were, in the Lutheran scheme of things, ordained by God and that the state was a spiritual entity. Above all it was a warrior state. The government ruled the Empire according to the requirements of the army, and that is the true definition of militarism, namely the prioritisation of the perceived needs of the defence forces over all others.

To underline the difference between imperial Germany and western powers at the time, there existed in the Reich a separate constitution for the army Wehrverfassung. The essential feature of this arrangement was that the Empire was divided into military districts under the command of a general officer who was constitutionally controlled by an independent military cabinet that exercised the so-called Kommandogewalt meaning that the military stood under no other authority than that of the Kaiser, the all highest himself. Only the administrative structure was subsumed under the authority of the regular bureaucracy. But what is crucial was the fact that the Kaiser in times of national emergency could decree that the Kommandogewalt of the army should assume responsibility for all normal government policies and actions. The civilian bureaucracy would have to submit to the ultimate authority of the army, SDP majority or not.

The British army generally did not see itself as the guardian of British institutions beyond the authority of Parliament. It was the servant, not the master. No one in the United Kingdom seems to have understood that in Germany the opposite was true. The German General Staff saw itself as the guardian of the state. The Kaiser himself, who thought he was the state, had been sidelined in 1908 after giving a notorious interview to a British newspaper. In 1914 the General Staff ruled Germany, a situation which became more obvious during the war.

August Bebel, the founder and SDP leader till hes death in 1913 well understood this arrangement. He was so concerned that a victorious Prussia-Germany would squash the SDP for a generation that he secretly passed information about the German navy to the Royal Navy for years to ensure that GB was prepared to face Prussia-Germany.

 

[HerodotusTheSecond]

In the West the state is a means of ensuring law and order, an arrangement that allows civil society to re-produce itself, to allow commerce to flourish under the rule of law and where the political rights and obligations of an individual can be negotiated and ultimately guaranteed, and where the armed forces are under the ultimate control of legislature.

In Prussia-Germany the state existed over and above society. The individual's rights and obligations were always subordinate to the powers-that-be who were, in the Lutheran scheme of things, ordained by God and that the state was a spiritual entity. Above all it was a warrior state. The government ruled the Empire according to the requirements of the army, and that is the true definition of militarism, namely the prioritisation of the perceived needs of the defence forces over all others.

To underline the difference between imperial Germany and western powers at the time, there existed in the Reich a separate constitution for the army Wehrverfassung. The essential feature of this arrangement was that the Empire was divided into military districts under the command of a general officer who was constitutionally controlled by an independent military cabinet that exercised the so-called Kommandogewalt meaning that the military stood under no other authority than that of the Kaiser, the all highest himself. Only the administrative structure was subsumed under the authority of the regular bureaucracy. But what is crucial was the fact that the Kaiser in times of national emergency could decree that the Kommandogewalt of the army should assume responsibility for all normal government policies and actions. The civilian bureaucracy would have to submit to the ultimate authority of the army, SDP majority or not.

The British army generally did not see itself as the guardian of British institutions beyond the authority of Parliament. It was the servant, not the master. No one in the United Kingdom seems to have understood that in Germany the opposite was true. The German General Staff saw itself as the guardian of the state. The Kaiser himself, who thought he was the state, had been sidelined in 1908 after giving a notorious interview to a British newspaper. In 1914 the General Staff ruled Germany, a situation which became more obvious during the war.

August Bebel, the founder and SDP leader till hes death in 1913 well understood this arrangement. He was so concerned that a victorious Prussia-Germany would squash the SDP for a generation that he secretly passed information about the German navy to the Royal Navy for years to ensure that GB was prepared to face Prussia-Germany.

Wow, that line about August Bebel is certainly new information to me. But I didn't think that after the infamous Daily Telegraph incident of 1908 that the Kaiser was completely sidelined politically. In the years between that episode and the war he still managed to try and heighten tensions during the Agadir Crisis of 1911, give further guarantees to Austria that Germany would support it in the event of war, and of course, call the Imperial War Council of 1912 in which he straight up ordered his generals and admirals to prepare for a future European war after he became incensed by a statement from the British foreign minister Sir Edward Grey that Britain would not permit any one nation to disrupt the balance of power in Europe (and during which General Helmut von Moltke the Younger declared that "the sooner [war came] the better.") And of course he made several decisions personally that proved catastrophic during and subsequent to the July 1914 Crisis. But I can see why he was denied any further opportunities to speak directly to foreign reporters.

 

[Colonel Crittendon]

So for this scenario, we can possibly envision a different outcome to the German Spring offensive of 1918, whereby the Germans actually reign supreme in this campaign and defeat the addition of General Pershing’s American forces. Therefore, the combined Americans, French, and British forces surrender at the rail car in Campienge, thus preserving the German Empire.
In this scenario, the United States no longer becomes a world power because of the defeat, and resumes its status as an isolationist State. However, what is interesting is that the US is still likely a power in the financial world, and the Great Depression still happens. Thus, what effect does this have on the victorious German State?

 

[HerodotusTheSecond]

So for this scenario, we can possibly envision a different outcome to the German Spring offensive of 1918, whereby the Germans actually reign supreme in this campaign and defeat the addition of General Pershing’s American forces. Therefore, the combined Americans, French, and British forces surrender at the rail car in Campienge, thus preserving the German Empire.
In this scenario, the United States no longer becomes a world power because of the defeat, and resumes its status as an isolationist State. However, what is interesting is that the US is still likely a power in the financial world, and the Great Depression still happens. Thus, what effect does this have on the victorious German State?

I'm sure that its relationship with the United States will still be quite hostile for some time, and there may still be quite a bit of proxy fighting between them in the event that the Germans still have the strength to pursue additional empire in the Americas. But of course there is also the possibility of German victory occurring earlier in the conflict to consider.

 

[Dorknought]

Wow, that line about August Bebel is certainly new information to me.

August Bebel and the British Foreign Office, R. J. CRAMPTON - First published: June 1973

 

[BlondieBC]

I don't know if this particular subject has been discussed at length in other threads speculating about a Central Powers victory in World War One, but I've often wondered about what political direction Germany itself would move in if it were to come out on top at war's end. No matter how the war itself proceeded for Germany, its likely that as in our timeline the General Staff would wind up becoming the real political authority in the Reich, imposing a virtual military dictatorship to manage the war effort, with Kaiser Wilhelm II being politically sidelined (the "Shadow Kaiser"0 to one extent or another due to his lack of any practical knowledge or experience of military command. The question is what would happen once the war ended. The German ruling classes and assorted reactionaries had talked repeatedly throughout the years before and during the war about how the purpose of a war should in this case be to ensure the triumph of monarchy over democracy, believing that a victorious war would be the only way to end Germany's social tensions and to quell the threat they saw in the presence of forces like the Social Democrats in the Reichstag. They would not likely relinquish their power willingly, especially if Germany was victorious. Would the war have still put enough strain on society that a groundswell of revolution would force democratic reforms, giving the Social Democrats or a similar party far greater power? Would generals like Hindenburg and Ludendorff double down to conserve the power they had acquired during the war, resulting in violent repressions? (The Kaiser himself had on repeated instances throughout his reign openly declared that he expected to use his army to violently quell any outbreak of revolutionary dissent.) There would probably still be the equivalent of the Freikorps due to their being a large number of returning veterans who had grown distant from civilian life but who might not still be mobilized into the regular army, and they would more than likely take the side of the army and the monarchy. Or would there be something akin to the rise of Mussolini in Italy in our timeline, where one of these paramilitary organizations made a bid to forcibly restore order (something akin to the failed Kapp Putsch of 1920), was permitted to do so by a tolerant government, and established a fascist or quasi-fascist dictatorship that on paper at least shared power with the Kaiser like Mussolini did with King Victor Emmanuel III (and presumably allocating significant power to the army as well)? Would Paul von Hindenburg still retire and permit someone like Erich Ludendorff to rise in power within the armed forces? What do you think would be the most plausible scenario?

The end game varies greatly based on how and why the CP win the war. To give an example, the risk of General Staff taking over Germany in a military dictatorship will climb as the war goes longer. I don't see it ever as a high % chance, but whatever the odds, the odds rise the length the war lasts.

Most likely, the power returns to the Reichstag, and there will be a lot of hard politics in the post war years like OTL UK or France.

Hindenburg retired once, in a win, he likely retires again. Ludendorff never made rank of Field Marshal, so I think he will not head the Heer. And remember the point it depends on who wins. It might well be Falkenhayn who runs the Heer. Or Mackensen.

And with a win, the Heer, not the militia is where the armed men are at.

 

[rommel12]

at the end of the war the original German army no longer existed, they could crush a Spartacist uprising, but an uprising of the kind the story of a change of priorities would not.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

SDP government in 1919, manages to get blamed for both 1920s "decadence" and the *depression. Post-1929, you get a government like OTL's Imperial Japan during the 1930s to 1945 featuring a government that selects the most psychopathic and criminally inclined people then puts them in charge.

 

[HerodotusTheSecond]

The end game varies greatly based on how and why the CP win the war. To give an example, the risk of General Staff taking over Germany in a military dictatorship will climb as the war goes longer. I don't see it ever as a high % chance, but whatever the odds, the odds rise the length the war lasts.

Most likely, the power returns to the Reichstag, and there will be a lot of hard politics in the post war years like OTL UK or France.

Hindenburg retired once, in a win, he likely retires again. Ludendorff never made rank of Field Marshal, so I think he will not head the Heer. And remember the point it depends on who wins. It might well be Falkenhayn who runs the Heer. Or Mackensen.

And with a win, the Heer, not the militia is where the armed men are at.

Yes, I mentioned Ludendorff because his role would depend on how long the war goes on for and when the Germans might obtain victory. If the war ended later and Hindenburg retired for a second time as he had in 1911, Ludendorff as his closest associate might have been able to rise in influence. I read once that at one point Ludendorff had supposedly been offered the post of Field Marshal but had turned it down by saying that "Field Marshals are born, not made," but in a situation like this he might be offered a higher rank and take it. Also, I assume the number of men who would be out of uniform after the war would depend on how large it remained, as one wouldn't know how many men would be demobilized even without the existence of the Treaty of Versailles forcing the Germans to reduce their forces to a skeleton army.

 

[Riain]

The Kaiser's 1917 Easter message spelled out changes in the Prussian and therefore Imperial political system that would e enacted once the war ended. After 2 1/2 years of war and the Turnip Winter the powers that be realised that they could not deny equal voting rights to millions of young ex-servicemen, so pledged to scrap the 3 class indirect franchise in Prussia after the war. Given that political tradition in the German Empire was for the Kaiser to choose the Prussian Prime Minister as Chancellor this will have major political impacts.

It is likely that the left will fracture when not united against the system while the right will coalesce without the systematic advantages they previously enjoyed.

 

[NoMommsen]

In the West the state is a means of ensuring law and order, an arrangement that allows civil society to re-produce itself, to allow commerce to flourish under the rule of law and where the political rights and obligations of an individual can be negotiated and ultimately guaranteed, and where the armed forces are under the ultimate control of legislature.

What do you mean with 'west' ?
... as it seems your personal perception of anglo-americanism, I assume

In Prussia-Germany the state existed over and above society. ...

If you would have cared learning a wee bit more about Prussian history, you might have rwalized that THIS essentially meant the same as ... let me quote an US-president on his inauguration :

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

The individual's rights and obligations were always subordinate to the powers-that-be who were, in the Lutheran scheme of things, ordained by God and that the state was a spiritual entity. Above all it was a warrior state. The government ruled the Empire according to the requirements of the army, and that is the true definition of militarism, namely the prioritisation of the perceived needs of the defence forces over all others.

... and where did you get this from ? ... british, french pro-agit of 1915 ?

...
To underline the difference between imperial Germany and western powers at the time, there existed in the Reich a separate constitution for the army Wehrverfassung. ...

Something not only common but in a way needed in countries featuring conscription.

Therefore this 'underlines' nothing of the ... you try to depict.

The British army generally did not see itself as the guardian of British institutions beyond the authority of Parliament. It was the servant, not the master. No one in the United Kingdom seems to have understood that in Germany the opposite was true. The German General Staff saw itself as the guardian of the state. The Kaiser himself, who thought he was the state, had been sidelined in 1908 after giving a notorious interview to a British newspaper. In 1914 the General Staff ruled Germany, a situation which became more obvious during the war.

BE CAREFUL !!! ... you might trip un the propagandistic slime you emanate ...

 

[HerodotusTheSecond]

The Kaiser's 1917 Easter message spelled out changes in the Prussian and therefore Imperial political system that would e enacted once the war ended. After 2 1/2 years of war and the Turnip Winter the powers that be realised that they could not deny equal voting rights to millions of young ex-servicemen, so pledged to scrap the 3 class indirect franchise in Prussia after the war. Given that political tradition in the German Empire was for the Kaiser to choose the Prussian Prime Minister as Chancellor this will have major political impacts.

It is likely that the left will fracture when not united against the system while the right will coalesce without the systematic advantages they previously enjoyed.

Yes, I'm wondering about the consequences of that decision; if it would cause the elites to panic in the face of a newly enfranchised population or how it might affect things if a Mussolini-esque regime were to arise as part of a reactionary attempt to keep the perceived political instability in check.

 

[HerodotusTheSecond]

What do you mean with 'west' ?
... as it seems your personal perception of anglo-americanism, I assume

If you would have cared learning a wee bit more about Prussian history, you might have rwalized that THIS essentially meant the same as ... let me quote an US-president on his inauguration :


... and where did you get this from ? ... british, french pro-agit of 1915 ?

Something not only common but in a way needed in countries featuring conscription.

Therefore this 'underlines' nothing of the ... you try to depict.

BE CAREFUL !!! ... you might trip un the propagandistic slime you emanate ...

I'm not sure if he's literally asserting that the Kaiserreich was a warrior state so much as he's referring to the opinions of certain powerful individuals that it should be regarded as such. Wilhelm II famously gave a speech to his troops at Potsdam not long after taking the throne in which he declared to them that he placed infinitely more trust in them than any elected politicians, and made similar declarations throughout his reign (usually accompanied by his endless disparagement of the Reichstag.) It might also be a commentary on the disproportionate political influence that the Army wielded within Prussia, as the 1849 Prussian constitution had affirmed that ultimate control over them rested solely with the King (a measure that had put into place in response to the 1848 revolutions as a measure to ensure that the army could always be called out to suppress any serious threats to the monarchy.) Bismarck later ensured that this provision was incorporated into the Imperial constitution in 1871. And besides, the idea that Prussia was a nation of warriors was just as likely to be positively invoked by native patriots as to be spun negatively by Prussia/Germany's enemies, regardless of whether or not one believes it was an accurate description of the structure of political life and power in the country.

 

[BlondieBC]

Yes, I mentioned Ludendorff because his role would depend on how long the war goes on for and when the Germans might obtain victory. If the war ended later and Hindenburg retired for a second time as he had in 1911, Ludendorff as his closest associate might have been able to rise in influence. I read once that at one point Ludendorff had supposedly been offered the post of Field Marshal but had turned it down by saying that "Field Marshals are born, not made," but in a situation like this he might be offered a higher rank and take it. Also, I assume the number of men who would be out of uniform after the war would depend on how large it remained, as one wouldn't know how many men would be demobilized even without the existence of the Treaty of Versailles forcing the Germans to reduce their forces to a skeleton army.

He turned down Hitler. Field Marshals earn their rank by leading battles leading wars, not being a XO.

 

[HerodotusTheSecond]

He turned down Hitler. Field Marshals earn their rank by leading battles leading wars, not being a XO.

Ooh, that's right, it happened well after the war was over.

 

[Dorknought]

BE CAREFUL !!! ... you might trip un the propagandistic slime you emanate ...

If you are going to shout and adopt that tone then I wont participate further.

 

[CalBear]

What do you mean with 'west' ?
... as it seems your personal perception of anglo-americanism, I assume

If you would have cared learning a wee bit more about Prussian history, you might have rwalized that THIS essentially meant the same as ... let me quote an US-president on his inauguration :


... and where did you get this from ? ... british, french pro-agit of 1915 ?

Something not only common but in a way needed in countries featuring conscription.

Therefore this 'underlines' nothing of the ... you try to depict.

BE CAREFUL !!! ... you might trip un the propagandistic slime you emanate ...

You went well over the line here. To use a phrase that one of our fellow members gave me: Ballspiel, mit Foul.

Play the ball not the man when you return. Might want to keep in mind that the Kaiser's Germany has about as much in common with today's country as the U.S. of 1858 resembles today, and making a statement about the ones a century or more in the past IS NOT generally an insult for those living there today.

Kicked for a week