Germany =/= CP. Easyto forget as they were by far the strongest of the CP but dont forget that AH put many millions of man on the field, and dont forget Bulgaria and the Ottomans. In a late german victory A-H is likely gone and the ability and willingness of the successor states to support german war effort might be a lot less. Not to mention if some of them goes red like OTL Hungary. Turkey too might not be willing to go for a second round if they lost out on the first.
WWII in world post-Central Powers victory
- Thread starter Siar
- Start date
Germany =/= CP. Easyto forget as they were by far the strongest of the CP but dont forget that AH put many millions of man on the field, and dont forget Bulgaria and the Ottomans. In a late german victory A-H is likely gone and the ability and willingness of the successor states to support german war effort might be a lot less. Not to mention if some of them goes red like OTL Hungary. Turkey too might not be willing to go for a second round if they lost out on the first.
Versailles failed because it sought to create a fiction, it sought to destroy all the natural advantages that Germany possessed that led to her becoming the biggest economy in Europe and a great power while hedging enough to restrain France and latter offset Russia. It allowed the German economy to falter enough to undue all the natural trade within Europe as trade with Russia had already failed. Another war results because Germany had to break those chains and sadly the recognition that Versailles was a serious misstep played into the revolution Hitler was leading, giving him legitimacy against the odds. You do not need Hitler for another war, history shows us that Europeans are quite willing and even wanting to use war as their diplomacy. But the incentives for war would not be easily flowing from Germany, her position is radically different, indeed all of Europe is quite altered by the war and this post-war environment.
First, the global free trade system was effectively broken by the war and the interconnections for trade, shipping, communications and finance are broken. Germany imports significant resources to manufacture goods it then exports. Its wealth was earned upon its export success. Access to raw materials and markets will not be restored so easily. The victorious Allies swiftly moved to the "Beggar-thy-neighbor" trade barriers that underpin the Depression. As losers they are likely even quicker to let patriotic scorn erect just as counter productive barriers and drag down the recovery. Germany will be scrambling to find its imports and rebuild markets for its goods, it will be struggling to restore credit and shipping links. And that is a source of friction.
Second, Germany retains its military power and will be the biggest kid on the continent. Both its economy and its arms will inspire fear and loathing but also draw her neighbors to her gravity. The busiest entry to Germany is through Dutch ports, the biggest export market for Danish dairy is Germany, the biggest buyer of Swedish iron ore is Germany, the biggest labor market for workers from Poland or Italy is Germany. A lot of bread will be buttered by the economy of Germany. Like it or not, the Russian economy is in the trash can no matter who prevails. France is not an equal to Germany and the British home economy is second place to her. And I will argue that the Empire is not nearly as valuable to London as the global trade she lost, it is as much a poor substitute as Mittel Europa is for Germany, the UK was exporting a lot to Germany, their trade may not have been balanced but it profited the UK, shunning it will not slip the UK into prosperity.
The French are likely to throw up a frosty barrier, turning their back on Germany but implicitly also the continent. So do they turn to the Empire for imports, exports, markets and money? Anglo-French relations are complex, here more so, the French do not behave better when beaten or made dependent, they will rankle London and frankly British self-interest does not make France much more than a useful bulwark, and a sacrificial one too. Italy has a defeat versus a mangled victory, her fears will steer her to London but her anger will make her unreliable, just as Mussolini proved, Italy will only play from London's desires so far before she breaks away. Japan has proven to be ambitious and just as predatory as the British, so another ally that should not be relied upon. The Entente is simply not going to be strong enough to threaten Germany. If it does, it will be more like our Cold War, proxy wars, backing unrest in colonies, creating proxy states, and the pivotal new power will still be the USA. The places that become battlegrounds are China, the Middle East, Africa and South America.
If you want "Nazis" for Rule of Cool fine, if you want another war to fill a narrative fine, but an undefeated CP or victorious Germany is a serious butterfly. Wars, famines, recessions and idiocy are common fellow travelers no matter the politics, the alliances or the technology, but to just replay OTL with an Imperial German flag feels too simplistic and trope ridden to be taken seriously. I think one can genuinely find a shockingly parallel world, but the departures will be more clever than to regurgitate OTL so conveniently.
First, the global free trade system was effectively broken by the war and the interconnections for trade, shipping, communications and finance are broken. Germany imports significant resources to manufacture goods it then exports. Its wealth was earned upon its export success. Access to raw materials and markets will not be restored so easily. The victorious Allies swiftly moved to the "Beggar-thy-neighbor" trade barriers that underpin the Depression. As losers they are likely even quicker to let patriotic scorn erect just as counter productive barriers and drag down the recovery. Germany will be scrambling to find its imports and rebuild markets for its goods, it will be struggling to restore credit and shipping links. And that is a source of friction.
Second, Germany retains its military power and will be the biggest kid on the continent. Both its economy and its arms will inspire fear and loathing but also draw her neighbors to her gravity. The busiest entry to Germany is through Dutch ports, the biggest export market for Danish dairy is Germany, the biggest buyer of Swedish iron ore is Germany, the biggest labor market for workers from Poland or Italy is Germany. A lot of bread will be buttered by the economy of Germany. Like it or not, the Russian economy is in the trash can no matter who prevails. France is not an equal to Germany and the British home economy is second place to her. And I will argue that the Empire is not nearly as valuable to London as the global trade she lost, it is as much a poor substitute as Mittel Europa is for Germany, the UK was exporting a lot to Germany, their trade may not have been balanced but it profited the UK, shunning it will not slip the UK into prosperity.
The French are likely to throw up a frosty barrier, turning their back on Germany but implicitly also the continent. So do they turn to the Empire for imports, exports, markets and money? Anglo-French relations are complex, here more so, the French do not behave better when beaten or made dependent, they will rankle London and frankly British self-interest does not make France much more than a useful bulwark, and a sacrificial one too. Italy has a defeat versus a mangled victory, her fears will steer her to London but her anger will make her unreliable, just as Mussolini proved, Italy will only play from London's desires so far before she breaks away. Japan has proven to be ambitious and just as predatory as the British, so another ally that should not be relied upon. The Entente is simply not going to be strong enough to threaten Germany. If it does, it will be more like our Cold War, proxy wars, backing unrest in colonies, creating proxy states, and the pivotal new power will still be the USA. The places that become battlegrounds are China, the Middle East, Africa and South America.
If you want "Nazis" for Rule of Cool fine, if you want another war to fill a narrative fine, but an undefeated CP or victorious Germany is a serious butterfly. Wars, famines, recessions and idiocy are common fellow travelers no matter the politics, the alliances or the technology, but to just replay OTL with an Imperial German flag feels too simplistic and trope ridden to be taken seriously. I think one can genuinely find a shockingly parallel world, but the departures will be more clever than to regurgitate OTL so conveniently.
The successor states, probably wouldn’t have much of a choice. Look at how many of them invaded Russia in WW2.
Why would Germany permit France to errect trade barriers against it? An important point in Versailles was that Germany stays open for business.
The beggar thy neighbor part came after the great depression broke out. Here it's not necessarily happening, for example Creditanstalt is not going to collapse if Austria-Hungary is on the winning side.
The beggar thy neighbor part came after the great depression broke out. Here it's not necessarily happening, for example Creditanstalt is not going to collapse if Austria-Hungary is on the winning side.
So would I. Playing out scenarios for answering yes and no to that condition:
1. CP wins, AH dissolves. Germany still commands its satellites in Poland, Ukraine, Belgium, Baltic Coast, and perhaps others along with its Bulgarian ally. Berlin likely seeks Anschluss with former Cisleithia along with Slovenia, likely Bohemia & Gallicia as well. Hungary remains strongly tied to the alliance while a semi-Yugoslavia is likely to emerge out of Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, +/- Albania. Russia loses much of her industry and agriculture in these areas with the Five Year Plans still pending if they happen at all. France loses its main iron ore source and has three less productive areas left, not counting whatever colonies she retains.
2. CP wins, AH intact. Germany now has some check on running over all of its allies but the combined and coordinated economy can potentially modernize and reform to create a whole even more additive than the sum of its OTL parts would be. Hungary may still develop the first turboprop engine just as Britain, Italy, and Germany develop their first jets among other advancements. If Eduard Teller stays in Hungary that alone has major butterflies for the US and Cold War (presuming it still happens).
The post WW1 map of real life for Austria-Hungary is not achievable in peace time or when it actually wins the war. At most you can get a velvet divorce of the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary. There's also no need for Anschluss because "the rest is Austria" has not happened, on its own it's perfectly viable as a state, and still retains large industries and the crown jewels Skoda and STT.
Austria tried to join Germany in 1918 and 1919 upon the collapse of AH but was specifically forbidden from doing so by the Allies and treaties.
That was after "and the rest is Austria". The desire for Anschluss stemmed from the idea that the new state can not economically and politically survive on its own.
This was the actual Austrian idea after Wilsons 14 points.
Bookmark1995
Banned
The only nation that has the ability and casus belli to start a war of revenge would be Russia.
The Brest-Litovsk Treaty makes Versailles look like the Marshall Plan: Soviet Russia lost of ton of its territory, resources, and population.
Russia also has a tendency towards authoritarianism.
And also, there is a massive hatred of Jews in Russian society.
A Russian-style demagogue could easily rally the nation around "avenging the lost of Russian lands at the hands of the German brutes and their Semitic masters." Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states could end up like Austria.
The Brest-Litovsk Treaty makes Versailles look like the Marshall Plan: Soviet Russia lost of ton of its territory, resources, and population.
Russia also has a tendency towards authoritarianism.
And also, there is a massive hatred of Jews in Russian society.
A Russian-style demagogue could easily rally the nation around "avenging the lost of Russian lands at the hands of the German brutes and their Semitic masters." Ukraine, Belarus, and the Baltic states could end up like Austria.
Would you consider it reasonable to call the USA---well, pretty much any time from the ARW to, well, today--"fascistic?"
If you do--perhaps you understand us radical leftists a bit better then.
But if you think, as even I do, that there is a difference between observing a given nation has brutal and horrifying aspects and saying it is therefore "fascistic," if you think "fascist" has a definite range of forms that do not include the USA as we have known it--whatever reasonable criteria you use to distinguish Yankee brutalities from fascism as such, will apply to the French Third Republic as well.
The Third Republic was in fact a liberal republic. It is as a liberal republic it had all that nasty stuff, racist bigotry, chauvinism, brutal class distinctions, high handed imperialistic colonial policies, bull headed militarism...these are evils that liberal societies can have. It is only a self-serving myth that says our liberal societies are automatically virtuous in every way; of course just about every society under the sun sees itself as specially good and justified by history, and sees deplorable flaws mainly in other people.
Like the US liberal republic, it was often in grave danger of stumbling over to becoming a different kind of order that would not be liberal--in fact if we see France as essentially one nation since 1789, "the Republic" has often stumbled in that way, becoming one or another kind of empire, reverting to absolutist or parliamentary monarchy, or in the case of Vichy under German overlordship, becoming up and out fascist for real. But during the Third, Fourth and Fifth Republics proper, hiving Vichy off from the former, while I shake my head at some very popular, even dominant, political stances, it was not in those periods, fascist.
Deleted member 1487
Depends on which period and what you mean by 'fascistic'. Some points arguably yes, though a lot comes down to what you mean by fascistic.
Eh, not sure you can call an imperial state a true liberal republic. It was a republic of sorts.
I would also not call the US a liberal republic, though it was a republic of sorts too.
France though was a particularly nasty one with fascistic elements that did in fact in the right circumstances, a defeat in a world war(!), become a Fascist state for some time. My point being that with the right pressures France too could become a Fascist state itself in the interwar period, especially after WW1 if defeated. They did after all do so after being defeated in WW2 until the Allies returned the non-fascistic elements to power.
So in 1918 there had been talk by the CP of potentially taking much or all of Lorraine for Germany, seafront from France to weld to a satellite Belgium, and welding Belgium east of the Meuse to Germany along with its annexation of Luxembourg. Presuming that, here is a worst-case map:
France will be angry at the loss of territory and I believe they will try to reclaim it in the future. Nationalism would be suppressed in some of the other countries but would likely not be extinguished, meanwhile the creation of satellites in Eastern Europe and seizure of French coal/iron reserves will strengthen the Central Powers at Allied expense. Russia still has her civil war and the Ottomans probably fall apart at some point in the near future even with Azerbaijan, Dajestan, and Armenia. AH is not monolithic but likely survives intact if her people have a victory to rally behind and the economy is not in complete tatters. The stage is still set for a war in another 25-45 years of even more devastating consequences, this time with the resurgent (former) Allies either vindictive in their victor's peace or possibly being dissected permanently by the (former) Central Powers in their repeat occupation.
France will be angry at the loss of territory and I believe they will try to reclaim it in the future. Nationalism would be suppressed in some of the other countries but would likely not be extinguished, meanwhile the creation of satellites in Eastern Europe and seizure of French coal/iron reserves will strengthen the Central Powers at Allied expense. Russia still has her civil war and the Ottomans probably fall apart at some point in the near future even with Azerbaijan, Dajestan, and Armenia. AH is not monolithic but likely survives intact if her people have a victory to rally behind and the economy is not in complete tatters. The stage is still set for a war in another 25-45 years of even more devastating consequences, this time with the resurgent (former) Allies either vindictive in their victor's peace or possibly being dissected permanently by the (former) Central Powers in their repeat occupation.
"Liberal" is a "good" word in the USA, generally, unless one is a reactionary in which case it is a bad word, but either way we have a pretty vague usage of it. Fundamentally, it means a society based on the notion of universal rights in the abstract, rule of law, and property is deeply intertwined into the notions of right and wrong. Democratic norms are deemed the normal thing, except maybe in a state of emergency--such as a war.
The USA and the various French Republics are practically the definition of "liberal" in this sense. The notion that it is a good thing to be liberal in the strict sense is very much up in the air, and one reason for that is the evils you point to--which don't make France fascist.
The made up word "fascistic" which I've surely used a lot myself and don't object to is a lot vaguer, and by golly my point is that liberal societies often do have a lot of fascistic practices. And when there are enough of them, intense enough, normalized enough--that society may cease to be liberal and become actually fascist.
Except for Vichy this never happened to France while it was nominally republican, nor would I say any of the Napoleonic imperial periods were fascist; they were something older fashioned. Nor were the Bourbon absolutist periods fascist, they were older still, Old Regime in fact,
"Fascistic," meaning some factions acted in a fascist way and threatened to take over as fascists or pretend normal society was indistinguishable from fascist--yes. And yes to most liberal nations too; some might have been notably more scrupulous about staying away from that extreme, but you'll have to identify them and they will stand out as exemplary and unusual. The USA is the classic liberal regime, and we have had lots of terroristic authoritarianism with the sort of corporatist mysticism and racist crap that characterizes fascist regimes--without however going full on fascist, because the larger republic has always if imperfectly sheltered dissenters and at least haphazardly upheld their rights to dissent and call attention as best they were able to massive abuses and violations of liberal norms.
I think it is absurd to suggest France was less liberal for being an imperial and bigoted power. All the European Great Powers were imperialist--and the USA was in that game too, starting in the 1880s and going over decisively in the 1890s.
We had fewer colonies, and our biggest one in 1941 was scheduled for independence and was in process of divorce via scheduled development of autonomy leading toward full independence, when the Japanese invaded. The Philippines were indeed set free.
Nevertheless, we retained such ill gotten gains as say the Panama Canal zone for generations to come, held a vast territorial empire in the Pacific even after WWII, to this day hold some people subject to US law, in one case (American Samoa) we won't even clarify whether they actually are citizens or not--and Puerto Rico, as populous as Oklahoma or Connecticut and larger than dozens of US states, remains a subject territory too.
Imperialism, "justified" on frankly racist grounds, was just the norm for European societies in the early 20th century and the USA was no exception--and that does not even count our informal hegemony over Central America and a number of Caribbean nations such as Haiti. And Cuba, where we unilaterally claimed to legalize a "right" to intervene under the Platt Amendment.
No, I don't think France was any kind of outlier.
If you want to argue France could go fascist, I agree--any liberal nation can. The USA can, Great Britain can, Australia can. So could modern Japan, or Sweden, or any country you care to name. It takes strong conditions though.
You are saying France is an especially likely nation to go fascist though, and one closer to it than most, and I think that part of the claim is just ridiculous.
Then you trot out as evidence--what the handpicked, supervised, coerced Vichy regime did under actual Nazi occupation?
Would you say Norway was fascistic because the Nazis could find Vidkun Quisling and purport to put him in power over Norway?
Certainly I'd agree there was more fascistic leaning among some people in France than the Nazis could scrape up in Norway. These were numerous and powerful people--yet, I think they never stood a very large chance of seizing power in France and getting away with it, or they would have tried, because these were indeed fascists. But they lacked the degree of traction in mass society, and the degree of acquiescence of the ruling circles, that the Nazis had in Germany or Mussolini had in Italy. Had they had that, they would have taken over.
Vichy does not count, because France was under coercion and constant direct control of a properly fascist regime. Certainly I hold the willing collaborators of Vichy to be individually fascists, and culpable for that. But these reactionary gentlemen were only able to realize their fantasies of purifying and ordering France about as lapdogs of the Nazis; they failed to ever do it on their own.
As a liberal republic, the French were guilty of many violations of liberal norms--just like all the other racist, imperialist, propertarian liberal republics and liberal parliamentary monarchies. The scale of French imperialism was surpassed only by Britain's empire; in its bigotry and brutality, it was quite normal and the Dutch, the Belgians, and in their day until they were shorn of their colonies in the Great War, Germans, had their own horrors. As did the British formal and informal possessions, and the US's too.
Imperialism and fascism have some relation but a liberal republic can in fact have empire--it just tends to present put up or shut up type challenges to the liberal norms; the empires cannot persist indefinitely without undermining the liberalism, which is why the liberal powers let them go--formally. We continue with informal hegemony and by golly, it undermines our liberal norms. And that is one reason we might go fascist in full someday, or France might, or Britain.
xsampa
Banned
Germany’s hegemony will create a contradiction between “democratic state -at home” and hegemon abroad, certainly. How this will be resolved through retreat from empire, both formal and mostly informal , or by applying the logic that powerful nations impose on foreigners to its own citizens
For the likelyhood of A-H's survival in a late CP victory:
I didnt say it will fall apart but i think it more likely than not, like 2 to 1 odds. In a late CP victory the mismanagment during the war have strained relations near to breaking point between the nations of the Empire and vastly eroded the loyalty felt toward the monarchy. Without a reorganization and even with a badly done reorganization A-H will fall. But even if it survives some scale of civil war is likely - because you simply cant reorganize A-H without seriously destroying the hopes of at least some of the nationalities - and far from only the hungarians.
My point was that IF Austria is gone Germany will loose on that. Even if germany annexes much of the Austrian half an annexed Czechia will be much less loyal to Germany than it would have been to a federalized Austria. If a jugoslavia is created it will be hard to control - the most numerous populace in it will be the serbs and it will be hard to get them to send troops on your side to fight against Russia. Also the quality of the armies of the new small states might be even worse than A-H's was.
And regarding the other CP's: The ottomans - or whatever is left of them will be hardly enthusiastic for a second round. Bulgaria has likely gotten everything it could hope for and has no reason to risk it on another conflict. It also wont be enthusiastic to fight Russia.
So IF Ausrtria is gone Germany will be economically in a stronger position - as the individual successor state will be in a much weaker position against Germany - but also in a militarily worse one - not to mention German throwing around its weight to force on them deals they dont like or want would seriously lessen the loyalty of the small states. And if a Franco-Russian alliance is revived among these circumstances - either by France going red or simply setting aside its ideological antipathy like they tried OTL before WWII - Germany will be in a worse position vis-a-vis them than OTL before WWI as he would have lost its major ally and only has a huge number of small states with various degree of loyalty towards Germany to rely on. Throw in London for the anti-German and im not sure that Germany is the stronger side - a stage is certainly set to challenge its continental hegemony. Likely to start by trying to chip away some of those small states that are in Germany's orbit.
OTOH If Austria survives in a good shape its really hard to see German hegemony seriously challenged in the foreseable future. Because Austria has the great benefit of being a guaranteed ally for Germany and if its manages to reform also commanding the loyalty of most of Middle Europe.
I didnt say it will fall apart but i think it more likely than not, like 2 to 1 odds. In a late CP victory the mismanagment during the war have strained relations near to breaking point between the nations of the Empire and vastly eroded the loyalty felt toward the monarchy. Without a reorganization and even with a badly done reorganization A-H will fall. But even if it survives some scale of civil war is likely - because you simply cant reorganize A-H without seriously destroying the hopes of at least some of the nationalities - and far from only the hungarians.
My point was that IF Austria is gone Germany will loose on that. Even if germany annexes much of the Austrian half an annexed Czechia will be much less loyal to Germany than it would have been to a federalized Austria. If a jugoslavia is created it will be hard to control - the most numerous populace in it will be the serbs and it will be hard to get them to send troops on your side to fight against Russia. Also the quality of the armies of the new small states might be even worse than A-H's was.
And regarding the other CP's: The ottomans - or whatever is left of them will be hardly enthusiastic for a second round. Bulgaria has likely gotten everything it could hope for and has no reason to risk it on another conflict. It also wont be enthusiastic to fight Russia.
So IF Ausrtria is gone Germany will be economically in a stronger position - as the individual successor state will be in a much weaker position against Germany - but also in a militarily worse one - not to mention German throwing around its weight to force on them deals they dont like or want would seriously lessen the loyalty of the small states. And if a Franco-Russian alliance is revived among these circumstances - either by France going red or simply setting aside its ideological antipathy like they tried OTL before WWII - Germany will be in a worse position vis-a-vis them than OTL before WWI as he would have lost its major ally and only has a huge number of small states with various degree of loyalty towards Germany to rely on. Throw in London for the anti-German and im not sure that Germany is the stronger side - a stage is certainly set to challenge its continental hegemony. Likely to start by trying to chip away some of those small states that are in Germany's orbit.
OTOH If Austria survives in a good shape its really hard to see German hegemony seriously challenged in the foreseable future. Because Austria has the great benefit of being a guaranteed ally for Germany and if its manages to reform also commanding the loyalty of most of Middle Europe.
Thing is germans already considered Austria basically useless as an ally by 1918, mine as well go for smaller but more internally homogeneous states and hope they can make smaller but better armys (and I'm always sceptical austry could have reformed considering how much they dint after 1859 and 1866) besides the new eastern states are useful more a ablative shielding and resources denial agenst Russia then for there armys of which would be provided by Germany.
So presuming AH collapses and Anschluss puts Austria, Slovenia, Czechia, and parts of Poland under Germany, Bosnia with the semi-Yugoslavia, and gives Hungary Slovakia, Croatia, Transylvania, with Poland and Ukraine getting the eastern leftovers:
Berlin is now dominant over all of the satellites and nationalism is still a problem for Hungary et al...
Berlin is now dominant over all of the satellites and nationalism is still a problem for Hungary et al...