stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857 
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jun 25, 2019 11:43:09 GMT
I concur with the assessment of other posters this PoD means, given social conditions of the time, female AH never becomes a public figure or at most becomes a nastier equivalent of Rose Luxemburg. However, even the latter is far from being enough to let the KPD seize power in post-WWI Germany, barring more radical changes to the TL (e.g. the Entente trying to conquer Germany and impose a harsher peace deal than Versailles). In other words, this PoD is functionally equivalent to AH never being born or dying in WWI or during the Beer Hall Putsch. In all likelihood, if nothing else changes, this means the NSDAP never rises to prominence and its role in the German political spectrum gets filled by the DNVP. The most likely solution to the crisis of Weimar democracy becomes the establishment of a right-wing 'moderate' authoritarian-militarist regime that is basically indistinguishable from Italian or Spanish fascism or the many right-wing authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe and Latin America of the time. The situation for Jews, Rom, homosexuals, and disabled people stays more or less the same it was under the Kaiserreich or the Weimar republic, or becomes the same it was in fascist Italy before it got influenced by Nazism. The regime gets political opponents killed, jailed, or exiled as usual; regrettable but the expected standard in these circumstances. At least in the case of the Communists, it is not such a big loss since in the absence of Nazism, Stalinism becomes the undisputable worst of the worst. Except as it concerns the above, the DNVP regime pursues a domestic and foreign policy agenda largely indistinguishable from the pre-1939 Nazi one, including reduction of unemployment through public works and rearmament, cessation of reparations, rearmament and remilitarization of Rhineland, pursuit of Germany's territorial claims about Austria, the Sudetenland, Danzig, and the Corridor, a strategic partnership with fascist Italy, and support of the Nationalists during the Spanish civil war. Rearmament however happens at a somewhat less reckless pace that creates less international alarm and is more financially sustainable for Germany since the regime is not actively preparing to fight a general war in a few years. Its strategic aims are military parity with France, armed containment of the USSR, and being able to fight a victorious war with Poland. It achieves pretty much the same pre-WWII milestones up to 1939, but respects the Munich Agreement and hence it keeps France and Britain mostly pinned to a appeasement mindset even when it moves to enforce its claims against Poland. It also helps TTL Germany has a significantly better international reputation since it does not persecute the Jews. Therefore, the British government never gives Poland a military guarantee and does not support the Poles vs. the claims of Germany about Danzig and the Corridor, and France follows London's lead as usual. As a result, either Poland capitulates to German demands or a German-Polish war occurs that sees Britain and France stay neutral and shake their heads. If the latter, the USSR almost surely intervenes to backstab the Poles and conquer the Kresy. A confrontation between the Germans and the Soviets is in the cards, but likely it does not escalate to war since the two powers share a strategic interest to a partial partition of Poland despite ideological enmity. The peace deal sees Germany grab Danzig, the Corridor, and Upper Silesia, with a mass expulsion of the Poles, and the USSR seize the Kresy. Germany may or may not get Posen as well, depending on whether it thinks it can afford the international PR cost. IMO any non-genocidal German government that wins a war against the Poles after WWI is going to try and settle the territorial dispute for good by the same forced population exchange means that the Greeks and the Turks used after their own conflict. WWII as we know it does not happen. TTL Germany tries hard with some remakable success to set up a fascist trade and military bloc under its leadership with Italy, Spain, and the Eastern European countries with right-wing regimes using the USSR as a common threat and Communism as a bogeyman. It otherwise goes on a development trajectory much similar to a more industrialized equivalent of Francoist Spain or right-wing Latin American or East Asian dictatorships, or what fascist Italy would have been in the absence of WWII, i.e. a lifespan of a few decades with a slow and gradual decline and fall followed by a peaceful return to democracy as the public becomes increasingly intolerant of authoritarianism.
In such a case either Poland keep Posen or there's no population exchange, just the explusion of all Poles from areas Germany wants whether their in the majority or the minority. As such an inaccurate comparison as while the Turks were brutal to the Greeks under their control [and sometimes vice-versa] at least it was based on geographical boundaries and an exchange of populations with respect to those boundaries.
The other problem with those scenarios is of course would Germany stop there? If its right wing and militaristic its still likely to carry a lot of resentment that it was defeated in WWI - although like with facist Germany its probably going to have a lot of denial about that. Hence there will be the desire for revenge. Plus having seen the democratic powers back down every time their pushed I can see them seeking to go after other areas and/or seek to impose increasing control on the Czech and Polish rump states as well as possibly other areas.
The big problem that led to WWII was that too many in Germany were unhappy about any result of WWI other than an overwhelming German victory, regardless of whether or not the Versailles settlement was fair or not. As such its likely that some conflict will come in a few years as hard liners in German push for further gains.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jun 25, 2019 11:53:26 GMT
Well, let's say I am skeptical simple removal of Hitler from the TL, albeit in all likelihood more than enough to prevent NSDAP from seizing power or even gaining prominence, is sufficient cause to save Weimar democracy, unless the change also significantly ameliorates things for post-WWI Germany or at least makes the defenders of Weimar democracy more talented and/or luckier than they were in their hour of need. As a matter of fact, being a Germanophile optimist, I have indulged myself into writing about both kinds of scenarioes. Otherwise, I agree the combo of the Versailles mess and the Great Depression mess in all likelihood is just going to put a different kind of authoritarianism into place. For various good reasons, I tend to assume it would most likely be a different brand of fascism, more akin to the Italian original model and devoid of Hitler's racial hatred. One such reason is indeed Mussolini's rise to power predating and being independent of Hitler's one; second, in interwar Germany a far-right regime change was much easier to accomplish than a far-left one; third, there was an important and strong far-right component in the German political spectrum that embodied just this different kind of model, before the Nazis outstaged it, and hence seems the natural candidate to replace the NSDAP if it fails but nothing else changes. As it concerns the often told tale of the disappearance of Hitler just causing the rise of a more competent Nazi leader that actually wins WWII, I deem it an interesting morality tale about the dangers of messing with the timeline w/o checking for the consequences, but I am skeptical about its actual likelihood, first because there was no trace any such character actually existed as a potential leader in the Nazi ranks that was charismatic enough to bring the Nazis into power and brilliant enough to make a much better job of leading Nazi Germany than Hitler. And if he did, in all likelihood he would have just outsmarted Hitler in the struggle for NSDAP leadership. Second, I strongly dislike and disagree with the implied lesson of the tale about Nazi Germany being somehow fated to happen, because it is deterministic, lazy, anti-German, politically biased, and excessively fond of the tiresome cliché of Nazism as iconic ultimate evil. If one needs to make that kind of alt-WWII morality tale I much prefer and deem more plausible the Red Alert version, where time-travel killing of Hitler and elimination of Nazism just emboldens the parallel and independent ultimate evil of Stalinism to go on its own bloody rampage. Well, in discussing whether the rise of a far-right dictatorship in Germany was inevitable, it'd be best to look at the state of Weimar Germany back then. In contrast to a lot of people's perception of it, Weimar Germany was indeed still able to make the payments on the war debt that Versailles slapped them with, especially since these payments were reduced in 1924 and 1929. Germany may have been chaotic politically, what with being unable to properly create a government in a situation where anyone could make any political party they wanted, but economically they were doing relatively well. Now, the Great Depression is another story, really, but it's also important to note that Mussolini's rise to power was independent of the conditions brought about by the Great Depression, and in that kind of circumstance it might not be inevitable for Germany to fall to fascism even after the Great Depression begins. And another thing to take note of was that Hitler did really, really well with propaganda that helped people have a very negative view of the situation, focusing people on the fact they had been subjected to these humiliating terms even though Germany by then was doing well with meeting them.
mobiyuz
You raise some good points. I think if the depression occurs and is as bad for the US as OTL then Weimar will be in trouble as it was largely paying the much reduced reparations via loans from the US, which are almost certain to end when the US economy goes off the cliff. So there will definitely be a lot of instability and probably violence between extremes of right and left, which will both almost certainly exist without Hitler. Its possible some alternative economic solution to the world depression might occur as I have read that the British government was seeking to get international talks on restarting world trade but those died after the US further hiked its tariffs with the notorious Smott-Hawley tariffs. Unfortunately its difficult to see those being avoided and given what had happened in the 1919-1930 period the US was vital to any such revival as nobody else really had the potential market to generate a world-wide revival.
However possibly Weimar could have survived if say you had a confident and skilled politician arise who successfully played on fear of the two extremes and their violence and got a crack down on a strong law and order platform without going autocratic. This could have been followed by Keynesian type policies for which there was some potential in Germany but focused on economic revival rather than that coming of military based programmes. You would likely see a suspension of repartitions in such a case anyway which would play to the political right but not enough to let them get too strong.
Steve
|
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Jun 25, 2019 20:38:42 GMT
In such a case either Poland keep Posen or there's no population exchange, just the explusion of all Poles from areas Germany wants whether their in the majority or the minority. As such an inaccurate comparison as while the Turks were brutal to the Greeks under their control [and sometimes vice-versa] at least it was based on geographical boundaries and an exchange of populations with respect to those boundaries. Well, I happen to share the view that in the case of a non-Nazi Germany winning a war with Poland in the 1930s-1940s, the peace deal the Germans might realistically claim w/o alienating international public opinion too much was either West Prussia and Upper Silesia with mass expulsion of the Poles, or the 1914 border without a forced population transfer. I mentioned the second case for the sake of completeness, but I am skeptical the Germans would choose it. In all likelihood, given their previous bad experiences with a sizable and restive Polish minority during the Kaiserreich and more so in 1919-21, they would choose to limit their gains to the most economically and strategically important territories, and seek to make them lasting by changing the ethnic facts on the ground. I fail to see the relevance of your point about the Greek-Turkish population exchange case, since other historical examples show forced population transfers were entirely feasible even in the lack of a clear natural border or a somewhat symmetrical population exchange. E.g. cfr. the case of the ethnic Germans expelled from East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, and the Sudetenland after WWII. For that matter, TTL case would include a population exchange element, since it would include the Poles in West Prussia and Upper Silesia, and the Germans in Posen and Lodz. True, it would not be an equivalent exchange in the terms of people moved, but nothing indicates it would need to be in order to be acceptable for the rest of the world. Vae Victis and all that. Theoretically possible, since victory disease is a thing, but unlikely in practice. First, we have extensive historical documentation about the aims of the German nationalist-militarist right in the interwar period, and everything indicates they would deem themselves satisfied with what TTL Germany stands to gain w/o picking another fight with the other great powers. Their list of territorial claims to be actively pursued basically stopped with Austria, the Sudetenland, Danzig, the Corridor, Upper Silesia, and the Memelland. The other potential claims (Alsace-Lorraine, South Tyrol, Eupen-Malmedy, Northern Schleswig) ranked so low in their priorities and/or were deemed so risky to pursue that the rule about them basically was 'leave them alone unless the other side picks a fight with us and we are in a position to dictate terms afterwards'. Even Hitler basically clung to this standard. Second, and more important, after winning the war with Poland TTL Germany would be in a good position to achieve its next strategic objective (creation of a sphere of influence) by relatively peaceful means, thanks to the existence of Soviet Russia and the flaws of the Versailles settlement. 1930s France and Britain were substantially OK with Germany building such a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe provided it happened w/o reckless military aggression, because it bolted Germany in the role of anti-Soviet bulwark, the region was not a vital strategic interest of theirs, and it left them free to focus on their own problems about their increasingly restive colonial empires. There were several states TTL Germany could pull to its side w/o conquering them. Finland and the Baltic states: potentially willing to side with Germany if the USSR looks any threatening, unless of course the Soviets exploit the Polish crisis to occupy the Baltic states, as they might well do. Rump Poland: in all likelihood going to sulk into resentful isolationism for a while, but eventually going to side with non-Nazi Germany as the lesser evil in comparison to Stalinist Russia, much like OTL Romania did, esp. if the Germans sweeten the alliance deal with favorable terms for use of its Baltic ports and promises of supporting a recovery of the Kresy in case of a conflict with the USSR. Rump Czechoslovakia: even IOTL it actively took the stance of a client state of Germany after Munich and before Hitler broke the deal. ITTL it would have even more reason to do so. I have no clear idea on whether ITTL Slovak separatism is going to cause a breakup of the state or not, even if the Germans do not actively support it, but it changes little about the issue at hand. Hungary: almost sure to side with Germany for the usual reasons (ideological solidarity, anti-Soviet containment, pursuit of German support for its territorial claims), esp. after it gets southern Slovakia at TTL Munich. Romania: potentially willing to side with Germany if the USSR looks any threatening. Italy: almost sure to side with Germany for the usual reasons (ideological solidarity, anti-communism, pursuit of German support for its expansionist objectives in the western Balkans). The South Tyrol issue can be dealt with the same way Hitler and Mussolini did, by agreeing on a population transfer of ethnic Germans. If WWII does not happen, in the near future Italy is going to discover the Libyan oilfields, and become the main source of oil for Germany, building quite a solid economic partnership. Not going after Greece w/o WWII already raging, it would bear too much a risk of goading the British into a fight due to its strategic proximity with their Eastern Mediterranean interests, and even Mussolini and TTL German leaders are going to acknowledge it. Albania and Yugoslavia are much less dangerous targets. Nationalist Spain: almost sure to side with Germany and Italy for the usual reasons (ideological solidarity, anti-communism, gratitude for the support received during the civil war). Since ITTL fascism has a better international reputation thanks to leaving the Jews alone, and Stalinist misdeeds are much more noticeable in the absence of the Nazi ones, there is a genuine chance Britain and France show sympathy to the Nationalists as the lesser evil and are tolerant of Axis support for their side, esp. if the left-wingers are not in power. Bulgaria: traditionally pro-Russian but potentially willing to side with Germany and Italy about everything else if it gets support about its territorial claims. Nationalist China: would be quite happy to keep the budding partnership Germany had built in the interwar period, provided the Germans do not break it to side with Japan as Hitler did. Yugoslavia might go various ways but IMO it is the obvious candidate for Germany to throw under the bus in order to make its allies happy without risking too much. The most likely scenario is the Germans, Italians, Hungarians, and Bulgarians covertly cooperate to support the unrest of the unhappy nationalities, and intervene to 'restore order' when civil war explodes. Britain and France do not intervene since they don't care about integrity of the Yugoslav state that much, its collapse seemingly occurs because of its notorious domestic instability, and pretty much all its neighbors appear to support intervention and a breakup. A 1941-style territorial settlement follows, with independent Croatia joining the Axis sphere of influence and the Axis states picking their territorial claims. Doing this kind of stuff anywhere else in Europe after the war with Poland would probably be unfeasible or too risky for the Axis states, but Serbia's little empire was enough of a genuine mess that I am confident in this case they can get away with it. As I see it, TTL Germany stands to gain pretty much all of the above, and establish a sizable sphere of influence in Central/Eastern/Southern Europe without any recourse to overt military aggression, or at most just doing things that international public opinion would be prone to forgive or deem the lesser evil. What, exactly, would TTL Germany stand to gain more by going on a rampage? Alsace-Lorraine? Control of French and Benelux resources and captive markets? Not worth the risk of a world war, esp. after the sobering lesson of WWI. Restoration of a colonial empire in Mittelafrika? Not a realistic objective unless the Germans can be reasonably sure they can subjugate Britain or overwhelm its naval power. Not even Hitler was confident enough Germany would be able to pursue that kind of objective before it had harnessed the resources of captive Russia. There is pretty much no evidence anyone in the nationalist-militarist right was itching for a war of revenge, and a lot that they would seek to avoid a rematch if possible, for fear of losing again if nothing else. Heck, even Hitler seemed prone to leave Britain and France alone if he could be reasonably sure they were not going to backstab him when he engaged in Barbarossa. Now, as it concerns the USSR a great deal of TTL Germany's strategic planning post-Poland is certainly going to be about anti-Soviet containment in Eastern Europe, both for its own sake and as the plausible justification to prop up its European sphere of influence. As such, a non-Nazi Germany may indeed jump in the fray with its Axis allies if the Soviets overreach themselves and stumble in a war with Finland or Romania, and exploit the opportunity to try and impose a restoration of the Brest-Litovsk settlement if they win. Not going to say it would necessarily or even likely happen, but it might, if a combo of successful intervention in Poland, occupation of the Baltic states, the rate of Soviet rearmament in comparison to the German one, the non-interventionist stance of the democratic powers, and ignorance of the effects of the purges lulls the Soviets in overconfidence they can get away with picking a fight with Finland or Romania. However, in such a case an Axis-Soviet war would happen w/o any of the Nazi genocidal brutality, and as such the Germans and their allies would bring a relative but genuine improvement in comparison to Stalinism (restoration of private property, religious freedom, no more mass terror or artificial famine, less screwed-up economy, a less extreme kind of authoritarianism, inclusion in the Axis system as allies/clients) and be welcome by non-Russian nationalities and White Russians accordingly. IOTL the expectations of the Ukrainians about the German soldiers being liberators from the Soviet yoke were horribly betrayed, but ITTL they would be basically correct, at least if they don't set their goals about independence and democracy too high. And of course Germany would fight w/o a second front, suffering no blockade or embargo, and with the USSR getting no Lend-Lease. The western democracies are going to buy popcorn and be happy with the spectacle of the fascists and the communists busy slaughtering each other, or even think the non-genocidal brand of authoritarianism that respects private enterprise and religion is the lesser evil. The far-leftists would of course beg to differ, but their influence outside their own circles is going to be limited in these circumstances. If the Axis powers can just put their hands on some convincing evidence of Stalinist atrocities and feed it to the world with their propaganda machine, they can rest their case. If the Soviets are wise enough not to fall in such a trap, chances are the Germans are going to be content with keeping a Cold War stance vs. the USSR together with their allies for the foreseeable future, since the Soviet empire seems far too tough to risk the kind of gamble Hitler pursued. Again, there is pretty much no evidence anyone in the German political spectrum aside of card-carrying Nazis advocated invading an intact USSR. Of course, this is in the assumption Stalin does not instead decide East Asia is the low-hanging fruit and picks the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts, the 2nd Sino-Japanese war, and/or the Chinese Civil War as opportunies to intervene in the Far East, as he may well do in the absence of a war in Europe. I am not sure what TTL Germany would do in such a case. |
|
eurofed
Banned
Posts: 586
Likes: 62
|
Post by eurofed on Jun 26, 2019 2:38:42 GMT
Getting back to society in Hitler's younger days, it was pointed out in an essay that the same thing would apply to a female Lenin - they'd end up in dresses and perfume, fulfil the role expected of them and marry someone, and history would never of them. They might not even leave their town or village. True. Admittedly, I'd need to check the history of the Russian Revolution to be sure, but I seem to remember Lenin was pivotal in persuading the rest of the Bolshevik leadeship, which was skeptical about their chances of success, to engagé in the October 1917 coup, and before that to take a harcore oppositional stance vs. the provisional government. Without him, chances are there would have been no October revolution, and the other great evil of the 20th century would have been avoided. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jun 26, 2019 8:30:04 GMT
In such a case either Poland keep Posen or there's no population exchange, just the explusion of all Poles from areas Germany wants whether their in the majority or the minority. As such an inaccurate comparison as while the Turks were brutal to the Greeks under their control [and sometimes vice-versa] at least it was based on geographical boundaries and an exchange of populations with respect to those boundaries. Well, I happen to share the view that in the case of a non-Nazi Germany winning a war with Poland in the 1930s-1940s, the peace deal the Germans might realistically claim w/o alienating international public opinion too much was either West Prussia and Upper Silesia with mass expulsion of the Poles, or the 1914 border without a forced population transfer. I mentioned the second case for the sake of completeness, but I am skeptical the Germans would choose it. In all likelihood, given their previous bad experiences with a sizable and restive Polish minority during the Kaiserreich and more so in 1919-21, they would choose to limit their gains to the most economically and strategically important territories, and seek to make them lasting by changing the ethnic facts on the ground. I fail to see the relevance of your point about the Greek-Turkish population exchange case, since other historical examples show forced population transfers were entirely feasible even in the lack of a clear natural border or a somewhat symmetrical population exchange. E.g. cfr. the case of the ethnic Germans expelled from East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, and the Sudetenland after WWII. For that matter, TTL case would include a population exchange element, since it would include the Poles in West Prussia and Upper Silesia, and the Germans in Posen and Lodz. True, it would not be an equivalent exchange in the terms of people moved, but nothing indicates it would need to be in order to be acceptable for the rest of the world. Vae Victis and all that. Theoretically possible, since victory disease is a thing, but unlikely in practice. First, we have extensive historical documentation about the aims of the German nationalist-militarist right in the interwar period, and everything indicates they would deem themselves satisfied with what TTL Germany stands to gain w/o picking another fight with the other great powers. Their list of territorial claims to be actively pursued basically stopped with Austria, the Sudetenland, Danzig, the Corridor, Upper Silesia, and the Memelland. The other potential claims (Alsace-Lorraine, South Tyrol, Eupen-Malmedy, Northern Schleswig) ranked so low in their priorities and/or were deemed so risky to pursue that the rule about them basically was 'leave them alone unless the other side picks a fight with us and we are in a position to dictate terms afterwards'. Even Hitler basically clung to this standard. Second, and more important, after winning the war with Poland TTL Germany would be in a good position to achieve its next strategic objective (creation of a sphere of influence) by relatively peaceful means, thanks to the existence of Soviet Russia and the flaws of the Versailles settlement. 1930s France and Britain were substantially OK with Germany building such a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe provided it happened w/o reckless military aggression, because it bolted Germany in the role of anti-Soviet bulwark, the region was not a vital strategic interest of theirs, and it left them free to focus on their own problems about their increasingly restive colonial empires. There were several states TTL Germany could pull to its side w/o conquering them. Finland and the Baltic states: potentially willing to side with Germany if the USSR looks any threatening, unless of course the Soviets exploit the Polish crisis to occupy the Baltic states, as they might well do. Rump Poland: in all likelihood going to sulk into resentful isolationism for a while, but eventually going to side with non-Nazi Germany as the lesser evil in comparison to Stalinist Russia, much like OTL Romania did, esp. if the Germans sweeten the alliance deal with favorable terms for use of its Baltic ports and promises of supporting a recovery of the Kresy in case of a conflict with the USSR. Rump Czechoslovakia: even IOTL it actively took the stance of a client state of Germany after Munich and before Hitler broke the deal. ITTL it would have even more reason to do so. I have no clear idea on whether ITTL Slovak separatism is going to cause a breakup of the state or not, even if the Germans do not actively support it, but it changes little about the issue at hand. Hungary: almost sure to side with Germany for the usual reasons (ideological solidarity, anti-Soviet containment, pursuit of German support for its territorial claims), esp. after it gets southern Slovakia at TTL Munich. Romania: potentially willing to side with Germany if the USSR looks any threatening. Italy: almost sure to side with Germany for the usual reasons (ideological solidarity, anti-communism, pursuit of German support for its expansionist objectives in the western Balkans). The South Tyrol issue can be dealt with the same way Hitler and Mussolini did, by agreeing on a population transfer of ethnic Germans. If WWII does not happen, in the near future Italy is going to discover the Libyan oilfields, and become the main source of oil for Germany, building quite a solid economic partnership. Not going after Greece w/o WWII already raging, it would bear too much a risk of goading the British into a fight due to its strategic proximity with their Eastern Mediterranean interests, and even Mussolini and TTL German leaders are going to acknowledge it. Albania and Yugoslavia are much less dangerous targets. Nationalist Spain: almost sure to side with Germany and Italy for the usual reasons (ideological solidarity, anti-communism, gratitude for the support received during the civil war). Since ITTL fascism has a better international reputation thanks to leaving the Jews alone, and Stalinist misdeeds are much more noticeable in the absence of the Nazi ones, there is a genuine chance Britain and France show sympathy to the Nationalists as the lesser evil and are tolerant of Axis support for their side, esp. if the left-wingers are not in power. Bulgaria: traditionally pro-Russian but potentially willing to side with Germany and Italy about everything else if it gets support about its territorial claims. Nationalist China: would be quite happy to keep the budding partnership Germany had built in the interwar period, provided the Germans do not break it to side with Japan as Hitler did. Yugoslavia might go various ways but IMO it is the obvious candidate for Germany to throw under the bus in order to make its allies happy without risking too much. The most likely scenario is the Germans, Italians, Hungarians, and Bulgarians covertly cooperate to support the unrest of the unhappy nationalities, and intervene to 'restore order' when civil war explodes. Britain and France do not intervene since they don't care about integrity of the Yugoslav state that much, its collapse seemingly occurs because of its notorious domestic instability, and pretty much all its neighbors appear to support intervention and a breakup. A 1941-style territorial settlement follows, with independent Croatia joining the Axis sphere of influence and the Axis states picking their territorial claims. Doing this kind of stuff anywhere else in Europe after the war with Poland would probably be unfeasible or too risky for the Axis states, but Serbia's little empire was enough of a genuine mess that I am confident in this case they can get away with it. As I see it, TTL Germany stands to gain pretty much all of the above, and establish a sizable sphere of influence in Central/Eastern/Southern Europe without any recourse to overt military aggression, or at most just doing things that international public opinion would be prone to forgive or deem the lesser evil. What, exactly, would TTL Germany stand to gain more by going on a rampage? Alsace-Lorraine? Control of French and Benelux resources and captive markets? Not worth the risk of a world war, esp. after the sobering lesson of WWI. Restoration of a colonial empire in Mittelafrika? Not a realistic objective unless the Germans can be reasonably sure they can subjugate Britain or overwhelm its naval power. Not even Hitler was confident enough Germany would be able to pursue that kind of objective before it had harnessed the resources of captive Russia. There is pretty much no evidence anyone in the nationalist-militarist right was itching for a war of revenge, and a lot that they would seek to avoid a rematch if possible, for fear of losing again if nothing else. Heck, even Hitler seemed prone to leave Britain and France alone if he could be reasonably sure they were not going to backstab him when he engaged in Barbarossa. Now, as it concerns the USSR a great deal of TTL Germany's strategic planning post-Poland is certainly going to be about anti-Soviet containment in Eastern Europe, both for its own sake and as the plausible justification to prop up its European sphere of influence. As such, a non-Nazi Germany may indeed jump in the fray with its Axis allies if the Soviets overreach themselves and stumble in a war with Finland or Romania, and exploit the opportunity to try and impose a restoration of the Brest-Litovsk settlement if they win. Not going to say it would necessarily or even likely happen, but it might, if a combo of successful intervention in Poland, occupation of the Baltic states, the rate of Soviet rearmament in comparison to the German one, the non-interventionist stance of the democratic powers, and ignorance of the effects of the purges lulls the Soviets in overconfidence they can get away with picking a fight with Finland or Romania. However, in such a case an Axis-Soviet war would happen w/o any of the Nazi genocidal brutality, and as such the Germans and their allies would bring a relative but genuine improvement in comparison to Stalinism (restoration of private property, religious freedom, no more mass terror or artificial famine, less screwed-up economy, a less extreme kind of authoritarianism, inclusion in the Axis system as allies/clients) and be welcome by non-Russian nationalities and White Russians accordingly. IOTL the expectations of the Ukrainians about the German soldiers being liberators from the Soviet yoke were horribly betrayed, but ITTL they would be basically correct, at least if they don't set their goals about independence and democracy too high. And of course Germany would fight w/o a second front, suffering no blockade or embargo, and with the USSR getting no Lend-Lease. The western democracies are going to buy popcorn and be happy with the spectacle of the fascists and the communists busy slaughtering each other, or even think the non-genocidal brand of authoritarianism that respects private enterprise and religion is the lesser evil. The far-leftists would of course beg to differ, but their influence outside their own circles is going to be limited in these circumstances. If the Axis powers can just put their hands on some convincing evidence of Stalinist atrocities and feed it to the world with their propaganda machine, they can rest their case. If the Soviets are wise enough not to fall in such a trap, chances are the Germans are going to be content with keeping a Cold War stance vs. the USSR together with their allies for the foreseeable future, since the Soviet empire seems far too tough to risk the kind of gamble Hitler pursued. Again, there is pretty much no evidence anyone in the German political spectrum aside of card-carrying Nazis advocated invading an intact USSR. Of course, this is in the assumption Stalin does not instead decide East Asia is the low-hanging fruit and picks the Soviet-Japanese border conflicts, the 2nd Sino-Japanese war, and/or the Chinese Civil War as opportunies to intervene in the Far East, as he may well do in the absence of a war in Europe. I am not sure what TTL Germany would do in such a case.
The Turkish-Greek expulsions were mentioned because you raised them and I pointed out you were talking about something more extreme. Your reined back on that now by saying that might either take all the lands formally under their rule or only a smaller area and expel the people from that but your original comments were harsher.
The problem is that some nationalists might have thought further territorial expansion might have thought that 2nd set of areas too risky but would they do so if every time they pushed for more territory they found an open door? Not to mention your scenarios, regardless of which are your chosen people in any one have them establishing massive empires way beyond any territory actually occupied by their people. 
By the unfortunately past experience with Poles you mean Polish resentment at being ruled by a foreign power who seeks to suppress their identity and discriminate again them. I agree this is unlikely to change with regard to Polish majority areas - such as Posen or much of W Prussia - coming under German rule again, or as you suggested initially being depopulated by mass expulsions.
A non-Nazi but militaristic Germany will be seen as the least bad option compared to the communists if Stalin takes an attitude similar to what he did after the deal with Hitler OTL, looking to expand the areas under his control. However it will be the less bad option rather than a popular one, especially for the Czechs and Poles who have suffered under German expansion regardless of any beliefs you have otherwise.
|
|
mobiyuz
Chief petty officer
I have returned.
Posts: 167
Likes: 161
|
Post by mobiyuz on Jun 26, 2019 8:39:48 GMT
I'd just like to say how much I love that a question as objectively silly as "What if Hitler had been a girl?" managed to produce a three page thread.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 26, 2019 9:16:29 GMT
I'd just like to say how much I love that a question as objectively silly as "What if Hitler had been a girl?" managed to produce a three page thread. You are not the only one. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jun 26, 2019 12:07:46 GMT
I'd just like to say how much I love that a question as objectively silly as "What if Hitler had been a girl?" managed to produce a three page thread. Indeed. For me, it's yet another reminder that one insignificant-seeming tweak in this or that time period can create a completely different history than the one we know. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 26, 2019 13:40:36 GMT
I'd just like to say how much I love that a question as objectively silly as "What if Hitler had been a girl?" managed to produce a three page thread. Indeed. For me, it's yet another reminder that one insignificant-seeming tweak in this or that time period can create a completely different history than the one we know. Yep, all because one of the most hated man of the 20th Century is born a girl instead of a man. |
|
mullauna
Banned
Banned
Posts: 376
Likes: 40
|
Post by mullauna on Jun 27, 2019 0:27:01 GMT
You also get the image of a young Hitler being *spontaneously* turned into a girl and ending up at a glittering ball, in an ill-fitting dress, and falling in her high heels.
|
|
mobiyuz
Chief petty officer
I have returned.
Posts: 167
Likes: 161
|
Post by mobiyuz on Jun 27, 2019 0:37:05 GMT
You also get the image of a young Hitler being *spontaneously* turned into a girl and ending up at a glittering ball, in an ill-fitting dress, and falling in her high heels. This enraged his her father, who punished him her severely. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 27, 2019 3:03:56 GMT
You also get the image of a young Hitler being *spontaneously* turned into a girl and ending up at a glittering ball, in an ill-fitting dress, and falling in her high heels. This would fall in the ASB category and thus not the place to discuses in this thread which is about if he was born a girl. |
|
mobiyuz
Chief petty officer
I have returned.
Posts: 167
Likes: 161
|
Post by mobiyuz on Jun 27, 2019 4:28:23 GMT
With all the people talking about Adele Hitler as being staunchly pro-German, I do have to wonder though, what if instead Adele became more of an Austro-Hungarian nationalist? What if instead of being a Rosa Luxemburg figure, she was instead a political activist in the Austro-Hungarian Empire both before and after its collapse? How might that have gone?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,857
Likes: 13,238
|
Post by stevep on Jun 27, 2019 9:09:13 GMT
With all the people talking about Adele Hitler as being staunchly pro-German, I do have to wonder though, what if instead Adele became more of an Austro-Hungarian nationalist? What if instead of being a Rosa Luxemburg figure, she was instead a political activist in the Austro-Hungarian Empire both before and after its collapse? How might that have gone?
Its a possibility, especially if she is more obedient to her father and deeply conservative. Although that would be likely to make her reluctant to enter politics in any serious way.
I was thinking of her being pro-German for the same reason as a male Hitler was, in response to the bad relationship with his father who was an ardent Austrian nationalist. If relations are still poor and she is prompted to rebel, that would push her toward Germany in response as with Adolf and also because there was more opportunities for females to be accepted there, towards the left rather than the right. If the relationship was a lot better I would suspect that would be because she was more submissive basically to his point of view - as good girls especially were expected to be at that time. In that case she would be loyal to Austria but both as a female and a social conservative she's likely to be have [or see] much of a political role for herself. Could be wrong here but that seems to be the way people tended to react and I'm not aware of any females in prominent roles in conservative or hard right politics in this time period other than those who were by birth or marriage royal or at least high ranked.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,433
|
Post by lordroel on Jun 27, 2019 13:26:40 GMT
I still think she will stay in Austria, maybe if she like here male version likes art, go to the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna from (problem is she can only go from 1920 onward when women were first admitted to the Academy).
As we all know, the male Hitler in 1907 and 1908 was twice denied admission to the drawing class.
|
|
