WI: Rational Germany in 1930s tries to establish MittelEuropa

RousseauX

Donor
Let's say in the late 1920s the Nazi party suffers a bunch of irrevocable set backs, maybe Hitler gets shot by an assassin, or maybe the government suppressed them more effectively, basically, they don't take power and remain a right-wing fringe group which could get 5-10% of the votes.

let's say Weimar collapses but a military man, let's say someone younger, an officer who started lower on the command chain but rose to general's rank during the Great War (a more political savvy Lettow-Vorbeck?) takes over as a right-wing nationalist from the ailing Hindenburg. His party temporarily commands a majority in the Reichstag, after taking power, he passes enabling act analogue and cements himself as an ex-military but civilian dictator of Germany.

Let's say Lettow-Vorbeck more or less passes the same economic agenda of deficit spending as Hitler to keep up his popularity at home, and he turns his sights abroad and tries to establish a German hegemony in Europe, but he does not have any dreams of Lebascraum but merely wants a second Brest-Litvosk with Russia in the east, and the destruction of France as a great power in the west and every country west of rump Russia either under German occupation or a government firmly under the thumb of Germany.

How far does he get? Keep in mind that Hitler won a lot of gambles (Rhineland, Sudentenland etc) that a more "rational" leader would not have taken. Does a more rational German leadership successfully establish a German Europe?
 
I mean the Nazis were military successful by forcing rearmament at the expense of the economy, if this is a more pragmatic regime they probably aren't going to pursue these policies which gave the German armed forces and edge in the early game.

That being said, do they need to go to war? I don't think coaxing France into the fold is impossible, there were some determined efforts in the 20's to repair the rift between the two countries. Germany, once it's economy gets back on its feet, will be one of the most powerful states in Europe with a lot of clout. Perhaps it can use soft power to influence the eastern states into its own sphere.

In regards to the USSR... Uhhh maybe? If it ends up in a war and can somehow win, as long as they aren't pricks they might be able to free Ukraine and what not.
 

RousseauX

Donor
I mean the Nazis were military successful by forcing rearmament at the expense of the economy, if this is a more pragmatic regime they probably aren't going to pursue these policies which gave the German armed forces and edge in the early game.
Let's just say they do that anyways, because frankly a lot of generals don't understand economics very well or view it purely as a tool for military conquests: they could be stuck in the same situation as the Nazis, the arms buildup helps the economy to "recover" but they don't want to stop the buildup because they want to take over Europe and additionally if they are scared that a slow economy might threaten their domestic hold on power
 
otl Germany beat France+Britain on the continent

France and Britain alone isn't enough to beat Germany with some luck on the German side
Otl nazis were reckless and got such look i doubt it... people forgot the allies feared the nazies as much they hated it, other they would calle their bluff
 
Let's just say they do that anyways, because frankly a lot of generals don't understand economics very well or view it purely as a tool for military conquests: they could be stuck in the same situation as the Nazis, the arms buildup helps the economy to "recover" but they don't want to stop the buildup because they want to take over Europe and additionally if they are scared that a slow economy might threaten their domestic hold on power

Going to war with the Continent and then the rest of the world was the problem for Germany. Hitler was ballsy and a lot of the gambles he took probably wouldn't have gone ahead with out his devil may care attitude eg. Attacking Poland, invading France, attacking the USSR... They weren't driven from a pragmatic place. Lots of generals thought attacking France would be a disaster, but the sixes kept coming. I really feel Hitler's brand of crazy was unique.

To get your scenario off the ground perhaps.... *mumbles mumbles* Communist France? *mumbles mumbles" UK friends with Germany *mumble mumble* new Kaiser? *mumbles mumbles* Comintern/Germany war?
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
Going to war with the Continent and then the rest of the world was the problem for Germany. Hitler was ballsy and a lot of the gambles he took probably wouldn't have gone ahead with out his devil may care attitude eg. Attacking Poland, invading France, attacking the USSR... They weren't driven from a pragmatic place. Lots of generals thought attacking France would be a disaster, but the sixes kept coming. I really feel Hitler's brand of crazy was unique.

To get your scenario off the ground perhaps.... *mumbles mumbles* Communist France? *mumbles mumbles" UK friends with Germany *mumble mumble* new Kaiser? *mumbles mumbles* Comintern/Germany war?
Going to war with the USA was irrational, going to war with the USSR was -maybe- irrational.

Going to war with UK/France over hegemony over central/western Europe? I don't think that's all that irrational, it's a gamble, but not a unwinnable one.
 
Rational Germany would be less successfull until 1939 than OTL Germany. Hard to imagine Munich, if Germany is not feared, and Germany would not be feared without rearmament.
Would should happen to achieve Mitteleuropa post OTL ww1? Shift of alliances is needed IMHO-Germany must be allied to UK and France returns to alliance with Russia, even Red one.
 
Lettow-Vorbeck was politically active, FWIW - in the Konservative Volkspartei / Volkskonservative Vereinigung. Didn't help them though.
 
Lettow-Vorbeck was a leading pollitician in the DNVP (German National Peoples Party). The DNVP was a National-Conservative, Anti-Semitic, Monarchist, anti-democratic and Nationalist Party. In OTL the DNVP entered a coalition with the NSDAP and then joined the NSDAP after Hitler took power in 1933.

The DNVP was the moderate version of the nazi party and many of the old Junkers supported it.

Following the original scenario (nazi set back in the 20s, Hitler dead by an assasin, the party losing most of its influence) the DNVP could possibly take its place. Lettow-Vorbeck, as a former Weltkriegs general was very popular among the german elite.
A rise in popularity, a weak Weimar government, support of germanies ruling class and you may very well see the DNVP, led by Lettow-Vorbeck, take over Germany in the early 30s, transforming it into a nationalist/fascist dictatorship, a bit like Francos Spain. Maybe they would even re-invite Willhelm II or maybe his son Willhelm III into the government (wheater he would be a mere figurehead is another question).

The new Germany would be much like nazi germany domesticly, with pollitical crackdowns, killing of communists and social-democrats (maybe even jews) and a very strong police force, supported by a secret police. Socially, the DNVP would also adopt many pollicies, the nazis did OTL. Actions to counter unemployment and food shortages, partly by investing a lot into the military industry. However they could not do this on a scale comparable to the OTL nazis, as this would alienate the western powers. The Great Depression would mark Germany untill the mid 30s.

Foreign pollicies however, would be very different. There would be some kind of revanchism against the western allies, but Lettow-Vorbeck knows well enough that Germany would not stand a chance, alone in an all out war against the west.

In OTL, the western allies offered nazi germany an alliance in the late 30s, to attack the soviet union together. There were even talks of britain and france joining the anti-comintern pact. The talks were stalled untill 1939 when the invasion of poland took place. The concessions the western allies made to germany, were means by which they hoped they could get germany into an alliance against the ussr.

In this TL, with a more rational leadership, Germany is likely to accept this. Germany, without such an aggressive foreign pollicy and earlier acceptance towards the anti-communist alliance, does not annex Austria or the Sudetenland. However they gain Danzig from Poland as a concession (with Germany wanting to get the old Kaiserreich borders back, instead of Lebensraum).

Around 1940, the great anti-communist crusade beginns. A coalition of Germany, France, the UK and its Dominions, Poland, Italy, Spain (were the Falangists won faster with better Franco-German relations), a series of other european countries and Japan and its allies attack the USSR.

While the Soviets fight the invaders heroicly, they dont stand a chance. The USSR is defeated and split up into new capitalist states.

Germany gained a significant sphere of influence in eastern europe following the war. The Baltics, Ukraine, Bellarus and Poland are firmly under German influence and the western powers start to fear that Germany may after all has realized its dream of Mitteleuropa.

Maybe there would be a war between Germany and the western powers in the future, possibly with US intervention. But thats mostly speculation at this point.
 
A non-democratic but non-totalitarian Germany would fit right into its neighborhood in the 1930s. The various interwar regimes of central and eastern Europe would probably coordinate to crackdown Operation Condor-style on leftists and trade unions. Without a massive war involving the Soviet Union, the various states of central and eastern Europe would probably have minor border wars, Northern-Ireland style "troubles" with ethnic minorities (Ukrainians in southeastern Poland, etc.), and a winding, Latin-American style path to democratization.
 
Defeating France, creating a second Brest litovsk and making Eastern Europe German puppets would require essentially the same level of war and destruction that the Nazis wrought, something a “rational” authoritarian government would not attempt.
 
In OTL, the western allies offered nazi germany an alliance in the late 30s, to attack the soviet union together. There were even talks of britain and france joining the anti-comintern pact. The talks were stalled untill 1939 when the invasion of poland took place. The concessions the western allies made to germany, were means by which they hoped they could get germany into an alliance against the ussr.

Really? I’ve never heard of this before. Do you have a source?
 
I would imagine (and hope) that someone like Konrad Adenauer would become the Leader of Germany from 1933 (he was Chancellor of West Germany 1949-1963)

He dabbled with the Idea of MittleEuropa in the early 20s in an effort to stave off economical issues impacting the Rhineland Economy by generating closer economical ties to France
 

First thought: The author. Never heard of him and can't find any information on where he obtained his history degree. Also, from his website: "Peter Padfield’s second firm conviction is that in joining the European Union Britain’s political class committed a crime against British history and British liberties and the British people, compacting the crime by lying and continuing to lie to those who elected them. To use a Second World War word derived from a Norwegian Nazi-collaborator, they are Quislings all, wielding power on behalf of a foreign empire in Brussels without ever seeking genuine consent."[link] Doens't seem like an absolutely objective, professional historian. More like a journalist.

Second thought: The article doesn't mention any proposed alliance between the old Entente and Nazi Germany in the 30s. Neither does it mentioned either France or Britain joining the Anti-Comintern Pact. What it does mention is "... There is no mention of the treaty in any of the official archives which have since been made public, but Mr Padfield believes this is because there has been an ongoing cover-up to protect the reputations of powerful figures." Which is what a historian would call a conspiracy theory.
 
Doens't seem like an absolutely objective, professional historian. More like a journalist.
Agree with you about the tone and absolutely about the second point, however notwithstanding his biases even Europhile historians of Britain's entry to the EU would concede (see Hugo Young: This Blessed Plot) that the British public were systematically deceived by the political class and administrative elites albeit (to Europhile eyes at all events) with noble motives.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
A lot depends on how skilled the replacement leader for Hitler is. Do we have another Bismarck type figure or do we have Hans Average as leader. Or is it Otto the Idiot. The Otto case is obvious, almost nothing, so I will go with a talented leader.

The key is to emphasis the risk to Europe that is Stalin. And to let UK/Japanese relations deteriorate by staying out of the way. And to keep a moderate enough policy that the USA stays focus on Red/Japanese threats not German actions. Hitler end point right before he attacked Poland was about ideal, and if Hitler dies here, he will go down as a Bismarck type character. I think a more talented leader can get most of the same results, but avoid being such a villain in the eyes of Great Powers. So the reoccupation of the Rhineland and refortification of the Rhine can be done. It appears that Austria unification is quite doable if Italy gets what it needs, i.e Germans renouncing claims to Tyrol. It is likely a leader here can get either the Sudetenland or Danzig. Maybe West Prussia. But it is really hard to get both without being a villain. So the leader can probably pause here after the Sudetenland expansion and accept vassalization of the remainder of Czechoslovakia. I kind of think Danzig is doable if the Germans simply build a bridge to Danzig so you can get there without going through Poland. It was a German city, and given time (15-30 years), people just might accept that it is more German than Polish. Then accept it is only German. And you can build up a German Army and Air Force that no one takes lightly. And enough of a navy to be a consideration and to defend the near coast of Germany. This can probably done by Hans the Average or Hans the abit above average.

Now the real challenge is finding ways to get what you want without being the villain. Like the Danes broke a treaty Bismarck too advantage of. Or the French declare war on Prussia in 1870. So lets look at other things we want.

  • Poland. It is not the taking of Poland that was so hard, it was avoiding the French and UK reaction. Here we need the German leader to avoid aggressive acts and hope Stalin gets the UK and France attention first. We need France and/or the UK to be in an informal war first with the Soviets so they will deal with the Germans second, which will be never. So imagine that Russia moves on Finland and/or the Baltics. Or maybe we just get Russia to attack Poland first, not Germany. Maybe we only ask for West Prussia and Posen back.
  • Czechs. If we can get the Russians in conflict with the UK, then we can probably occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia, and get away with it.
  • Italy. Italy is nice as an ally. Even nicer if the Italians get the UK attention on Italian actions so German actions fade into the past.
 
It is not the taking of Poland that was so hard,
"Taking" Poland is a strategically unwise decision. Even a limited conflict over the corridor or Upper Silesia would threaten to expose Poland's eastern flank and bring the reds closer to Germany. It's a less risky strategic decision to turn Poland into an economic satellite, preserve it as a neutral buffer state, or bring Poland into a common fascist security architecture along the lines of Kalter Krieg. There is no World War Two, but Germany creates a kind of fascist EU/NATO alliance system that includes Poland, the Baltic States, Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Italy, and the former Yugoslav states.
Europe1943v3.png
 
Top