eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586 
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Oct 28, 2017 22:06:09 GMT
After the sobering lesson of WWI (which was the toxic spawn of the sum of aggressive nationalism, imperialism, and militarism that spread among all the European great powers and several other nations in equal measure), there was nobody in Germany but the Nazis that had any residual urge to try and dominate Europe by military conquest. Pretty much all the people that clung to that mindset filled the ranks of the NSDAP or were fellow-travelers. Everyone else (even including a lot of people in the professional military) just wanted Versailles undone, Austria and the Sudetenland into the Reich, a favorable solution to the Corridor problem, and an army strong enough to defend the Fatherland. If this sometimes required forcing neighbors to give up their ill-gotten gains by means of diplomatic pressure given teeth by a decent army, there was a sea of difference between that and going on a Genghis Khan-style rampage for conquest of a continent.
Before Hitler showed his true colors and made an horrible mess of everything, turning well-meaning pragmatists into desplicable cowards and chauvinist warmongers into venerated heroes, there was a lot of people that understood this and they were not willing to throw the continent in another huge bloodbath for the sake of propping a bunch of Eastern European nationalist cliques with delusions of grandeur raised up by Wilson's meddling idiocy and Clemenceau's paranoia and vindictiveness. If Nazism is strangled in the crib, the horrible mess never happens and never will, so well-meaning pragmatists can get proper recognition and chauvinist warmongers can be thrown to the wayside.
Having said that, the proper solution to the interwar puzzle of German military power and French security if Germany stayed democratic and reasonable was not to forcibly keep the Germans divided, disarmed, and unable to protect themselves, which in a generation or so was would guarantee Soviet tanks reach the Atlantic. It was to get Europe at large as close as possible, as soon as possible, to a mix between mutual and balanced limitation of forces between the capitalist powers and integrated collective defence against the Soviet empire. As little as possible British, French, German, and Italian soldiers, tanks, and planes deployed on the Rhine or the Alps, as many as necessary available someplace non-threatening and ready to be deployed in Eastern Europe at the first sign of trouble. Of course the more this pattern would get close to a proper military alliance and grow to NATO levels of integration, the more wasteful excesses of remarmament could be avoided and the greater the mutual trust. Of course any NATO analogue would have to adjust for the fact the Americans shall not be available to bear the bulk of the effort and the four European big guys shall have to fill their boots in a balanced way, from each according to their own resources. Other European peoples may of course help, especially the Eastern European nations that would be on the line of fire, but on their own they would be mere speed bumps once the Red Army grows into WWII levels of effectiveness.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 30, 2017 15:41:05 GMT
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Oct 30, 2017 19:48:25 GMT
After the sobering lesson of WWI (which was the toxic spawn of the sum of aggressive nationalism, imperialism, and militarism that spread among all the European great powers and several other nations in equal measure), there was nobody in Germany but the Nazis that had any residual urge to try and dominate Europe by military conquest. Pretty much all the people that clung to that mindset filled the ranks of the NSDAP or were fellow-travelers. Everyone else (even including a lot of people in the professional military) just wanted Versailles undone, Austria and the Sudetenland into the Reich, a favorable solution to the Corridor problem, and an army strong enough to defend the Fatherland. If this sometimes required forcing neighbors to give up their ill-gotten gains by means of diplomatic pressure given teeth by a decent army, there was a sea of difference between that and going on a Genghis Khan-style rampage for conquest of a continent. If by the Nazis you mean the ~38-40% of Germans who voted for them and the number of significant right wing figures who thought they could control them and when they realised they couldn't were happy to go along for the ride, at least until the armies started to be forced back towards Berlin your right. There were a lot of people who were fearful about a new war in Germany but easily enough to allow the Nazis to gain power and push through rampant militarisation, rabid xenophobia and brutal abuse of internal and external opponents. After the fall of France the Nazis had massive popular support. Many Germans had complaints about the Versailles treaty but in most cases it was not it was unfair but that it had been inflicted on them! Coupled with the lies the army and establishment made pretending they hadn't failed and been clearly defeated. Which made it easier for many Germans to choose hatred rather than accept they had lost. Note that when there was talk, albeit pretty feeble, by elements of the German military of a coup against Hitler it was when they thought he would bring Germany into a disastrous war, not when his gambles seem to have worked with the German empire expanding. By this I presume you mean the assorted states and people's that at worse are small time Nazi-light who pose no great threat to the international order and at best are people who just want to live in peace and not be under abusive foreign rule again. Rather doubtful about this. I know the Soviets are pretty much your ideal empire but like the other autocracies you favour it has serious shortcoming. Generating millions of people unhappy with the current situation will not help. Also some vast alliance to raise millions of men to sit in eastern Europe would be a political and economic disaster. They need to be in eastern Europe for your plan, whether its offensive or defensive, as otherwise, if your idea of a highly successful and large Soviet military would be too threatening to leave the region undefended. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 9, 2018 10:14:27 GMT
I agree.... Versailles was hated by basically ALL germans. That wasn´t a "small clique" of germans disliking it, it was basically plain pure hate against it. Everyone, from the diehard communists to the most religious peacenik saw it as utter unjust, unfair and need to get removed. Every german government worked to crush it. From 1919 till 1933. Germany would enlarge its army, airforce, navy, even if luck keep hitler out of business (say he dies at nov 11. 1918). Radical parties would never gain the same influence without this criminal charismatic scum. But don´t think that the germans would not do everything to crush Versailles. Also, any german state ruled by whatever party (outside the communists), would try to solve these "problems" (as they saw it) Areas taken from germany by poland - the "best" would be a compromise, in that germany get back the corridor and some still heavy german populated areas (best for poland) the worst would be a limited conflict, maybe together with the USSR to get back the original borders. Honestly i can´t see any peaceful solution for this. But a non-nazi-germany would act smart(er), would not risk a total war. But the second france and/or UK are to weak and distracted germany would strike, as hard as it could. No love for poland, nada.The same with Danzig - this could be the spark that cause a polish-german war. Next point the germans would want to "fix" is austria. Austria and germany wanted to be united in that time. Even if after the war the austrians "detected" that they were the first victim of Hitler, in the time before the Anschluss each election/voting would give us the same result. Huge majority in germany and austria for the Anschluss. This could be solved peacefully - as ironically hitler did OTL, but without his maniac behaviour it also could spark a local conflict. The last - but less problematic thing is the Sudetendeutsche areas... before austria joins this is a lesser problem, after it will gain heat. We do need to know that the tsechoslovak government was ruled by benesh, who was no nice guy. Still these minorities (infact in the areas they had the majority) were treated quite good. So maybe longer tensions, maybe mistreatment by a more readical government could cause the spark for a conflict. But also problems could be reduced. Beside this Weimar-Germany would be satisfied. They would enlarge their army - to protect themself from belgian-french agressions, they would try to work with china - a missing opportunity for a timeline - and - after their economy had recovered would gain new strength in economic terms. But NO chance for a lunatic rearming that cripples the economy and force the state to start a war or get bankrupted. That weimar state would be - compared to eastern europe states - a paradiese for jews, even if a important minority, but to weak to have real influence would try to make em the evil guy. Most important would be the development of science in the world.Pre Nazi-takeover germany was the major hub of science, leading in nearly every "hot" disciplines. Without the braindrain the germans would keep the lead so we could see different developments, but most important the language of science would be still german. Sounds strange today, but american cracks would learn german to talk with the other high brainers... Germany could - to anger UK and or france - later (say around 1945-50) start to help colonials to free themselves. Esp the left in germany - after having no colonies at all - would make a lot noise for "free the supressed". Including weapons, training missions (in allready liberated areas)... the biggest thing would be China... the germans could work together with the USA here, even if they would be in opposition to each other in economic terms. With japan beeing - well japan - you even could see a war in that germany supports china, use dutch bases and get their butts whipped in some Java-sea-engagements. In that time the germans maybe could hope to gain some former colonies, if they are involved in that pacific war. (former german and now japanese colonies). It would be quite funny if - after this war - germany would have Pelieu and the marianes back  Russia is an interesting case. Stalin was careful, i doubt he would strike without the european countries distracted.If france turns radical (some say there was a chance for this in the 30ties) some "ideas" for a russian-french-alliance could happen, in such scenario the british would massivly support the germans and poles, to act as a counter. The civil war in spain propably would end different, no Legion Condor The monarchy was dead, the monarchs had lost any credibility after 11.11.1918, but i think this germany would be conservative and completly different from modern germany. Death penalty, racial and radical elements wouldn´t be banned, on the other side i could see millions of jews comming to germany, from russia and poland (who was a very unpleasant place for jews pre-naziinvasion). So please find someone to move back in time to kill Hitler at 11.11.1918, okay? (i need to try a bit... don´t know why it not worked, sorry again. Here is now my post to it) |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 9, 2018 10:52:26 GMT
Some very wild phases here. Expand the army to full size means what? Ditto military parity with France and the USSR, which is meaningless. If you have military parity with the USSR, which Germany has NO common border with that means your maintaining far greater forces than practical for a France your insisting strip their border of all defences. Anything which assumes Germany on its own must be able to defeat the Soviet empire must mean it has far greater forces than the rest of Europe put together would wish to have. A lot of people in Germany disliked the Versailles treaty. What Eurofed refuses to accept is that it wasn't just the Nazis who saw Germany's role to dominate Europe by military means. Arming Germany as suggested and forcing neighbours to give up important territory and population is a recipe for instability just as it was OTL. Important Note: I'm not suggesting some sort of racial bias in Germany to make them obcessive conquerors. I'm pointing out that the sort of believe in military conquest and 'survival of the fittest' in military terms was still widespread in Germany, although there were many who were also fearful of another great war in Europe. This was a hang over of the dominance of the military in imperial Germany and the refusal of many in the nation to accept they had been defeated in WWI and hence assume that another war was fully justified to 'restore' German dominance. A democratic Germany emerging without a dictatorship period isn't certain. However if it starts a massive rearmament programme and bullying neighbours at the very least there will be a lot of people thinking another period of German military expansionism is quite possible. I agree.... Versailles was hated by basically ALL germans. That wasn´t a "small clique" of germans disliking it, it was basically plain pure hate against it. Everyone, from the diehard communists to the most religious peacenik saw it as utter unjust, unfair and need to get removed. Every german government worked to crush it. From 1919 till 1933. Germany would enlarge its army, airforce, navy, even if luck keep hitler out of business (say he dies at nov 11. 1918). Radical parties would never gain the same influence without this criminal charismatic scum. But don´t think that the germans would not do everything to crush Versailles. Also, any german state ruled by whatever party (outside the communists), would try to solve these "problems" (as they saw it) Areas taken from germany by poland - the "best" would be a compromise, in that germany get back the corridor and some still heavy german populated areas (best for poland) the worst would be a limited conflict, maybe together with the USSR to get back the original borders. Honestly i can´t see any peaceful solution for this. But a non-nazi-germany would act smart(er), would not risk a total war. But the second france and/or UK are to weak and distracted germany would strike, as hard as it could. No love for poland, nada.The same with Danzig - this could be the spark that cause a polish-german war. Next point the germans would want to "fix" is austria. Austria and germany wanted to be united in that time. Even if after the war the austrians "detected" that they were the first victim of Hitler, in the time before the Anschluss each election/voting would give us the same result. Huge majority in germany and austria for the Anschluss. This could be solved peacefully - as ironically hitler did OTL, but without his maniac behaviour it also could spark a local conflict. The last - but less problematic thing is the Sudetendeutsche areas... before austria joins this is a lesser problem, after it will gain heat. We do need to know that the tsechoslovak government was ruled by benesh, who was no nice guy. Still these minorities (infact in the areas they had the majority) were treated quite good. So maybe longer tensions, maybe mistreatment by a more readical government could cause the spark for a conflict. But also problems could be reduced. Beside this Weimar-Germany would be satisfied. They would enlarge their army - to protect themself from belgian-french agressions, they would try to work with china - a missing opportunity for a timeline - and - after their economy had recovered would gain new strength in economic terms. But NO chance for a lunatic rearming that cripples the economy and force the state to start a war or get bankrupted. That weimar state would be - compared to eastern europe states - a paradiese for jews, even if a important minority, but to weak to have real influence would try to make em the evil guy. Most important would be the development of science in the world.Pre Nazi-takeover germany was the major hub of science, leading in nearly every "hot" disciplines. Without the braindrain the germans would keep the lead so we could see different developments, but most important the language of science would be still german. Sounds strange today, but american cracks would learn german to talk with the other high brainers... Germany could - to anger UK and or france - later (say around 1945-50) start to help colonials to free themselves. Esp the left in germany - after having no colonies at all - would make a lot noise for "free the supressed". Including weapons, training missions (in allready liberated areas)... the biggest thing would be China... the germans could work together with the USA here, even if they would be in opposition to each other in economic terms. With japan beeing - well japan - you even could see a war in that germany supports china, use dutch bases and get their butts whipped in some Java-sea-engagements. In that time the germans maybe could hope to gain some former colonies, if they are involved in that pacific war. (former german and now japanese colonies). It would be quite funny if - after this war - germany would have Pelieu and the marianes back Russia is an interesting case. Stalin was careful, i doubt he would strike without the european countries distracted.If france turns radical (some say there was a chance for this in the 30ties) some "ideas" for a russian-french-alliance could happen, in such scenario the british would massivly support the germans and poles, to act as a counter. The civil war in spain propably would end different, no Legion Condor The monarchy was dead, the monarchs had lost any credibility after 11.11.1918, but i think this germany would be conservative and completly different from modern germany. Death penalty, racial and radical elements wouldn´t be banned, on the other side i could see millions of jews comming to germany, from russia and poland (who was a very unpleasant place for jews pre-naziinvasion). So please find someone to move back in time to kill Hitler at 11.11.1918, okay? steffen you quoted everything so i do not know what you post was and what the one you quoted is. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Mar 12, 2018 8:33:21 GMT
i changed it... i have no clue why this happened.
But now i removed everything that wasn´t mine. hope it is now better to read.
Sorry
|
|
perkeo
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 25
Likes: 6
|
Post by perkeo on Apr 5, 2018 22:18:23 GMT
I want him dead in late 1931 to ensure that st the peak of the crisis, the right wing has no clear leader. This could save democracy.
|
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Apr 6, 2018 7:49:33 GMT
I want him dead in late 1931 to ensure that st the peak of the crisis, the right wing has no clear leader. This could save democracy. Hi, that should be the LATEST date... earlier is better. Here is the preferred moment - for me It has nothing to do with Daimler-Benz, but i think it make clear - sometimes you need to be evil to avoid much worser evil. So kill that bugger here - or after his birth, that is okay for me. |
|
perkeo
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 25
Likes: 6
|
Post by perkeo on Apr 7, 2018 11:59:04 GMT
sometimes you need to be evil to avoid much worser evil. So kill that bugger here - or after his birth, that is okay for me. Killing Hitler that early prevents something as extreme as as OTL Nazis, but it doesn’t prevent a more moderate dictatorship. That‘s why I want him around until 1931 to let him fill the void- and then die to open it again. The Hydra shall be busy growing new heads and those heads who are busy arguing who’s the boss until the window of opportunity is passed. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 7, 2018 12:05:03 GMT
sometimes you need to be evil to avoid much worser evil. So kill that bugger here - or after his birth, that is okay for me. Killing Hitler that early prevents something as extreme as as OTL Nazis, but it doesn’t prevent a more moderate dictatorship. That‘s why I want him around until 1931 to let him fill the void- and then die to open it again. The Hydra shall be busy growing new heads and those heads who are busy arguing who’s the boss until the window of opportunity is passed. That reminds me of this thread: What if: Killing Baby Hitler |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,836
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Apr 7, 2018 12:09:36 GMT
sometimes you need to be evil to avoid much worser evil. So kill that bugger here - or after his birth, that is okay for me. Killing Hitler that early prevents something as extreme as as OTL Nazis, but it doesn’t prevent a more moderate dictatorship. That‘s why I want him around until 1931 to let him fill the void- and then die to open it again. The Hydra shall be busy growing new heads and those heads who are busy arguing who’s the boss until the window of opportunity is passed. I agree. At this point the Nazis are likely to have a possibly prolonged period of bitter inflighting, both over who will be the new leader and what policies to follow. Ideally they will collapse totally but even a couple of years of infighting would stop their OTL surge to power and you could well see democracy surviving, which would change history totally. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Apr 7, 2018 12:44:19 GMT
Killing Hitler that early prevents something as extreme as as OTL Nazis, but it doesn’t prevent a more moderate dictatorship. That‘s why I want him around until 1931 to let him fill the void- and then die to open it again. The Hydra shall be busy growing new heads and those heads who are busy arguing who’s the boss until the window of opportunity is passed. That reminds me of this thread: What if: Killing Baby HitlerWell... it is brutal,but kill him and thats it. Same with Stalin or - maybe a bit a surprise - churchill. Or a lot other politicans.... Kaiser Willhelm2, Teddy Roosevelt are only two more. For UK - kill Thatcher as an infant mean she can´t terminate british manufacturing industry. That seems a bit harsh, but how much pain, death (self murderer by killing itself, drinking into death) did she cause by this? But - for me it is enough to kill Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol-Pot... all as babies... this reduce the most evil men in history. Others maybe evil, too... but these are on my "kill-list" the 5 big ones... If you want, kill their mothers as they are pregnant... i do not care. It is allways bad to kill someone, but here the ratio of "do something evil to avoid much more evilness" is to singlesided. |
|
steffen
Ensign
Posts: 300
Likes: 18
|
Post by steffen on Apr 7, 2018 13:00:29 GMT
sometimes you need to be evil to avoid much worser evil. So kill that bugger here - or after his birth, that is okay for me. Killing Hitler that early prevents something as extreme as as OTL Nazis, but it doesn’t prevent a more moderate dictatorship. That‘s why I want him around until 1931 to let him fill the void- and then die to open it again. The Hydra shall be busy growing new heads and those heads who are busy arguing who’s the boss until the window of opportunity is passed. Well, yes. But the NSDAP was in 1931 quite efficent, some "key-players" are in. If the Nazis break down in 1931 you have still the SA and they are significant numbers. Also they allready tyrannize/kill lots of jewish germans. Beeing german myself i want to avoid all these killings and threatenings and beatings... so kill that swine as a baby and it is fine. Right-wing-parties existed quite long in germany, they never were a real problem. Remove the head and the rump is helpless... with no hitler no succsessfull NSDAP. Strasser is just another nazi with leftist tendency, he will fight the communists or switch to them. Communism never will take over weimar germany, it was the combination of the nazi brutallity, their "sündenbock"-method, but also their promises of social support (and yes - they helped the (aryan) old and ill people, financed by stealing from wealthy jewish people, they reduced the unemployment to nil (by arming them to the teeth ruining the german industry). If i could i would avoid anything in this direction.... weimar germany will reduce the versailles-treaty, but if a war happens than it is a polish motivated war, that will end very bad for poland and france (if they even support it), but you don´t see the second european massacre with 35-40 million deaths. Yes, that weimar germany will grew and will be - around 1940-45 ultra strong, it will bully weaker (east european) neighbours, but - again beeing german - not loosing 6-9 million people,no forced movement for 14 million sounds quite good for me. For poland the eastern neighbour not loosing 20% of their people this is also a good news. Italy will face some conflict, also albania, greece.. but the rest of europe? the old cities not burned to the ground, no generation slaughtered or killed sounds good for me. the bad thing is that colonialism will go on a generation more, but hopefully the communists (russia), the germans (to hurt UK and france) and the USA (they hated colonialism) will help to reduce this brutallity quite fast... maybe not as fast as OTL, because france and UK are more healthy, not broken by ww2, but if the nations i mentioned influence and finance the liberty groups in these countries they could destabilize the colonialistic states... it is enough to take out one african state (maybe some spanish or portuguise), that will function as a base to take out colonialism quickly. UK will suffer an early indian liberation, that will break the empires neck. Hopefully before 1942 (to avoid the mass starvations in the bengal area), but if we can´t avoid this, latest around 1950 the empire will be gone. France could stay to its colonies a bit, but they lack the economy and hopefully the will to slaughter hundred thousends of liberty fighters... Remove hitler and you remove ww2. It is that simple. Stalin is to carefull to risk something, nobody else is that insane as hitler. So you see a more or less peacefull solution to austria (my bets are that latest in 1940 they unify with germany), and the sudetenareas (either an independent area in the checheslovakia or it goes to germany sometimes between 1938 and 1945.) Danzig will be dangerous, but maybe a better german-russian jointventure helps to press poland into a corner. The best would be a return to germany (danzig), and the poles are forced to give up the taken areas they took from russia in 1919/20. the ideal world would avoid war in europe after this... sometimes the people get more rational after this... Japan will be solved by either the Allies in a war or russia supply the chinese so much (also the germans - selling produced weapons and make money and in the same time help to kill japanese mass murderers is a win-win-situation for me) that they get kicked out of the continent. These genocidal criminals need to be removed, but hopefully it could be done without a pacific war... maybe the army try to kill the kaiser and a civil war that is supported by the americans (to the "better" side) do it? Maybe we see a much better 40ties-50ties? one is allowed to dream about it, right? |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,979
Likes: 49,385
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 7, 2018 13:21:20 GMT
Well... it is brutal,but kill him and thats it. Same with Stalin or - maybe a bit a surprise - churchill. Or a lot other politicans.... Kaiser Willhelm2, Teddy Roosevelt are only two more. For UK - kill Thatcher as an infant mean she can´t terminate british manufacturing industry. That seems a bit harsh, but how much pain, death (self murderer by killing itself, drinking into death) did she cause by this? But - for me it is enough to kill Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol-Pot... all as babies... this reduce the most evil men in history. Others maybe evil, too... but these are on my "kill-list" the 5 big ones... If you want, kill their mothers as they are pregnant... i do not care. It is allways bad to kill someone, but here the ratio of "do something evil to avoid much more evilness" is to singlesided. But i do, please while i do have no problem with them being killed (some of them) i do not agree ore allow the killing of their mothers, that is a bit to far for me. |
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Apr 7, 2018 18:23:42 GMT
The best moment is before he even comes close to power, so I'd say getting killed somewhere in the first world war. His rise to power had immense negative effects on the position of German science and education, the core pillars of a modern economy. These are much more important than some bits of land. In addition, he seriously damaged the economy by his focus on conquest, which he did right from the start. A sensible government could easily have come to an arrangement with Czechoslovakia and Poland for certain bits of land, and could also have proven to have much more long-lasting effects.
And then of course there is the horrible impact of national socialism on the position of women, which also did immense damage.
|
|
