The Lettow-Vorbeck Conspiracy

Here's my new timeline, charting the political career of everyone's favourite German general of the First World War - Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck.


Chapter One: Rise and Fall


“The disastrous 1928 Reichstag election saw the DNVP lose 30 seats, with their share of the vote falling to 14.3%. The Reichstag was now dominated by the left-wing Socialist (SPD) and Communist (KPD) parties, who held 153 and 54 seats respectively … Recriminations followed within the DNVP with Alfred Hugenberg, the chairman of the party, challenging Kuno Graf von Westarp for the party leadership. However, his attempt to move the party away from its traditional monarchist stance and towards an alliance with the NSDAP was frustrated when, on 29th May 1928, he was arrested for tax fraud. Although later released without charge the accusations dented his political integrity amongst the grassroots supporters of the party, and he withdrew his challenge two weeks later. Despite this, Westarp resigned from the party leadership, naming famed war-hero Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck as his temporary successor.

Lettow-Vorbeck’s first major action as leader of the party was to begin negotiations with the ‘Stalhelm’ (Steel Helmet – an ex-servicemen’s organisation) with regards to the formation of a popularly nationalist alliance against socialism and Nazism. In July 1928 Lettow-Vorbeck met with Hans-Jurgen von Blumenthal, editor of the Stalhelm journal, and an agreement was made whereby a united front would be formed to fight the next election. This Vorbeck-Blumenthal Pact was to be the first step towards re-establishing the DNVP as a force to be reckoned with in German politics.

A second, unanticipated success came with the collapse of the Catholic Centre Party in October of 1928. Divisions within the party had persisted, with the broad policy of support for the Catholic Church not enough to unite Christian trade-unionists on the left of the party and Christian nationalists on the right. Of the party’s 61 Reichstag deputies, 22 (including Franz von Papen) joined the DNVP, 9 the Bavarian People’s Party (BVP), and 6 the Christian-National Peasanst’s and Farmer’s Party (CNBL). The remaining 24 deputies formed a new party – known as the Christian Party (CP). The end of the Centre Party cemented the DNVP as the second biggest party in the Reichstag, and left them as the most obvious rival to the SPD.”

“The success that had accompanied Lettow-Vorbeck’s leadership thus far came to an end at the close of 1928. Franz von Papen, already well-known within the German political community as a schemer, declared that it was his intention to challenge for the leadership of the DNVP. Wishing to avoid what he saw as pointless division, Lettow-Vorbeck considered giving Papen the deputy leadership of the Party, but was convinced by his inner clique that defeating the challenger would be the best way to ensure continued unity and loyalty. The Party member ship voted on the 19th December 1928. The results were announced two days later, with Von Papen gaining 41% of the vote, Lettow-Vorbeck 49%, and 10% of the party membership choosing to abstain. Successful but lacking an absolute majority, Lettow-Vorbeck stood down from the party leadership, choosing Oskar von Hohenzollern as his caretaker successor.”
Lettow-Vorbeck: An Extraordinary Life by Cecil P. Liddle


“I was never elected to this position, and feel unable to continue without the absolute support of the party behind me. I have served the party, as I served my country, to the best of my ability, and I offer my successor the following advice; do not seek an ultimate victory before the foundations of success are ready, instead chip away at the enemy – for the radical elements within this country are our enemies – and seek to attack his policies and harmony at every opportunity.”
- Lettow-Vorbeck’s parting speech to the membership of the DNVP.


Next: The Wilderness Month
 
Chapter Two: The Wilderness Month


“Commentators who had been quick to dismiss Lettow-Vorbeck as a mediocre politician were forced to change their opinion as the events of early 1929 unfolded. His decision to resign had shocked the party, who had begun to hope for an upturn in the polls after the alliance with the Stalhelm and the absorbtion of elements of the Centre Party. Later observers would suggest that, as Hitler had threatened to do in the 1920s, Lettow-Vorbeck had left in order to demonstrate how necessary he had become to the fortunes of his party – although it is just as likely that he had from the start viewed his job as simply guiding the DNVP until a successor to Westarp could be found.

Lettow-Vorbeck retired to Prussia, where he owned a large estate. He expressed no regret at leaving the DNVP and settled down to beekeeping. However in Berlin at the party headquarters von Hohenzollern had alienated a number of high-echelon deputies, including the ardent monarchist and naval hero Admiral von Tirpitz, who viewed the excesses of one of the heirs of Wilhelm II with disgust. Reports of Oskar’s drinking, gambling and womanising dismayed the highly conservative members of the party; Lettow-Vorbeck was approached by a delegation who attempted to persuade him to return to the party. Lettow-Vorbeck however held out, and biographers have noted this as the point at which his narcissism became evident – refusing to rejoin the party unless they declared him leader unconditionally – and effectively holding the DNVP to ransom.

Vorbeck initially snubbed the party, and arranged a month-long trip to Tanganyika, with the support of the British colonial authorities. Here he attended a memorial service to the dead of both sides that had fought in the East African Campaign, and met with members of his former Askari and representatives from Britain and South Africa. He regaled his retinue with tales of the guerrilla-style nature of the campaign, and returned in mid-February reinvigorated and enthusiastic. Almost immediately he signalled his intention to take over the leadership of the DNVP for a second time, and travelled back to the party headquarters on 26th February 1929, where he was reinstated.

Franz von Papen, who had challenged Lettow-Vorbeck for the leadership in the preceding year, was once again vocal in his criticism of the returning general – at the same time attempting to portray him both as an intriguer and as a naïve politician who was more suited to military matters. The leadership of the DNVP was, however, behind Vorbeck, as they rightly viewed von Papen as a manipulator whose aim was simply to gain the chancellorship by any means. His segregation within the party led him to cross the floor once again, and he threw in his lot with the NSDAP. The majority of the old Centre Party members, however, stayed, and von Papen had done the DNVP an immeasurable favour in leaving them as the only united moderate party of the right.”


Next: Clashes and Collusion
 
Lettow-Vorbeck retired to Prussia, where he owned a large estate.

Did he have a Prussian estate? He was born in th saar and spent some of the 1920s working for an import/export firm in Bremen, after all.

Everyone who wanted VL in my TL should be reading this and praising effusively.

Not really sure what the POD is, though.
 
Last edited:
Did he have a Prussian estate/ he was born in th saar and spent some of the 1920s working for an import/export firm in Bremen, after all.

Everyone who wanted VL in my TL should be reading this and praising effusively.

Not really sure what the POD is, though.

The POD is Hugenberg being accused of tax fraud, and therefore not taking over the DNVP (which he did OTL). He attempted to change its monarchist stance and brought it more in line with the NSDAP. Here Lettow-Vorbeck takes over instead and continues opposition to the Nazis.

Thanks for pointing out the Prussia thing, think I'll changed it as I can't find the source I used (I must have got confused with something else :eek:.)
 
Any chance of a Kaiser Wilhelm III?

Or if Lettow-Vorbeck wants a more acceptable Kaiser maybe Louis Ferdinand? Who would only be 21 at the time?
 
I have been considering the different sons of Wilhelm II, AFAIK the crown prince was forced to sign his abdication at the same time as his father though, so it probably won't be him.

Also found out that in 1916 the Irish revoluntionary leaders considered making Prince Joachim von Hohenzollern king of an independent Ireland - interesting for a central powers first world war victory timeline!
 
I have been considering the different sons of Wilhelm II, AFAIK the crown prince was forced to sign his abdication at the same time as his father though, so it probably won't be him.

Also found out that in 1916 the Irish revoluntionary leaders considered making Prince Joachim von Hohenzollern king of an independent Ireland - interesting for a central powers first world war victory timeline!

Have you a source for this claim?
 
Thirty years on, the North has calmed down and it's safe - and even useful - to be a republican again. But, still, we don't hear much about my favourite character of the entire 1916 Rising - Prince Joachim Franz Humbert of Prussia.
It's now safe for Bertie Ahern to waffle about republicanism's commitment to "religious and civil liberties" - as though independent Ireland didn't become for decades a grim Monarchy of Bishops. And Enda Kenny is free to squabble about how Bertie doesn't give enough republican credit to Fine Gael's political ancestors. The Provos can continue to lay claim to the one true, holy and apostolic republicanism.
The republican past can again be safely used to hustle for votes. And Prince Joachim, God rest him, spins in his grave.
My problem with the official National Codswallop started with Wolfe Tone, the Father of Irish Republicanism. Yes, he was genuinely enthused by Republican France - but that was late in the day. On the whole, Tone was an adventurer who loved uniforms.
The Father of Irish Republicanism repeatedly begged Prime Minister William Pitt to allow him colonise the Sandwich Islands on behalf of England: "I hope to see the colony yet a terror to Spain and the pride of England. I hope that a fortress called after your name may perpetuate your glory when other less splendid, though not lessuseful, parts of your administration are, if they can ever be, forgotten."
In the year he was hanged, Tone tried and failed to win a place in Napoleon's imperial campaigns, to play a part in subjugating colonies on behalf of France.
Does this mean he was a knave? No, he was an ambitious young man, bouncing from one enthusiasm to the next, genuinely attracted to republican ideals in his final days but as shallow as most ambitious young men.
Another republican icon, John Mitchel, had no problem with monarchy as long as the Brits were kicked out: "I am no republican doctrinaire, and I would accept an Irish monarchy or Irish anything." This republican hero was also a supporter of slavery.
And in the GPO, during the fighting, Patrick Pearse, Joseph Plunkett and Desmond FitzGerald had a discussion about the Ireland they would like to see come out of the rebellion. They knew the chances of winning were microscopic, but they had their dreams.
FitzGerald, the only one of the three to survive, recorded that they agreed on an acceptable outcome: "an independent Ireland with a German Prince as King".
Yes, you guessed - in the GPO, at the heart of the Rising, three of its heroes, including two of its martyrs, agreed that Prince Joachim would make a suitable king of Ireland. Joachim's dad, Kaiser Wilhelm II, presided over the German empire and was a powerhouse in imperial Europe. Prince Joachim would make a suitable strong man to safeguard the new "republic".
Were they knaves or fools - from Tone to Pearse? No, just men of their time, of limited political sophistication. They believed - with good reason - that England ruled Ireland solely in its own interests, so they wanted the Brits out. Republicanism is a set of democratic principles, but for these men "republicanism" was interchangeable with "nationalism".
Their republicanism was compatible with monarchy.
It isn't necessary to worship the political actors of the past, nor to reproach them. It's advisable only to try to understand them in their time. And to recognise when today's political actors - politicians, academics or media pundits - are using the past to seek to shape the future.
Had things gone differently, there might today be a Joachim Street in Dublin, a Joachim Station in Kerry, his descendants might be yet on the Irish throne. As it was - in 1918 there was revolutionary fervour in Germany and Prince Joachim's dad abdicated. By the time Michael Collins's ruthless campaign brought the British to the conference table, Joachim was two years dead. His political prospects zero, his marriage falling part, Joachim had shot himself at the age of 30.
By then, the age of kings was over. His erstwhile Irish subjects, purifying the national legend, were laundering their country's past.

http://www.independent.ie - The Irish Independent

The British government's concession of Home Rule in 1914 proved too little too late. It did not deal with the conflicting demands of Irish nationalism and Irish unionism, and was put on hold for the duration of the First World War. In 1916, a small band of republican rebels staged an attempted rebellion, called the Easter Rising under Padraig Pearse and James Connolly. Initially their acts were widely condemned in nationalist Ireland, much of which had sons fighting in the British Army at the urging of Irish Parliamentary Leader John Redmond. Indeed major newspapers like the Irish Independent and local authorities openly called for the execution of Pearse and the Rising's leadership. However Britain's handling of the aftermath, and the execution of rebels and others in stages, caused fury.
Britain and the Irish media wrongly blamed a small monarchist party called Sinn Féin for the rebellion, even though it had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Rising survivors, notably Eamon de Valera (who contrary to myth did not avoid being executed because he was American, but because firstly he was held in a different prison from the other leaders and so could not be executed immediately, and secondly because of his American citizenship, a technical delay occurred; by the time a decision had been taken to execute him, all executions had been stopped) infiltrated and took over Sinn Féin.
Up to 1917, Sinn Féin under its founder Arthur Griffith had campaigned for a form of repeal championed first by O'Connell, namely that Ireland would become independent as a dual monarchy with Britain, under a shared king. Such a system operated under Austria-Hungary, where the same monarch, Emperor Karl I/King Charles IV reigned (under a different nomenclature) in both separately. Indeed Griffith in his book 'The Insurrection in Hungary' modelled his ideas on the manner in which Hungary had forced Austria to create a dual monarchy linking both states.
Faced with an impending split between its monarchists and republicans, a compromise was brokered at the 1917 Sinn Féin Árd Fhéis (party conference) whereby the party would campaign to create a republic, then let the people decide if they wanted a monarchy or republic, subject to the proviso that if they wanted a king, they could not choose someone from Britain's Royal Family. (Pearse during the Rising had suggested having Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany's youngest son, Prince Joachim as King of Ireland).

http://www.irelandinformationguide.com/History_of_Ireland
 
Top