Alternate history AKICOLJ

[philmophlegm]

Help me out with an alternate history scenario.

Alternate histories where Germany won the Second World War are pretty common - off the top of my head I can think of Robert Harris's 'Fatherland', Philip K. Dick's 'The Man in the High Castle' and that Star Trek episode with Joan Collins in it*. However, the scenario I need help with is one where Germany won the First World War.

What has happened is that the war of attrition of 1915 to 1917 dragged on into a stalemate. The United States stayed out of the war. The Russian Revolution happened as it had happened in our timeline. Germany was able to reduce British industrial capacity through Zeppelin raids. German U-Boats cut off the flow of raw materials from the British Empire. And slowly Germany was able to advance through France.

Britain and what is left of France and the rest of the allies surrender to Germany in 1934. Southern Britain is a lawless place with much of its infrastructure destroyed. Many people have fled to the north. The Royal Family has moved to Canada. Under the terms of the surrender, Ireland has been granted independence, guaranteed by Germany. Large parts of France have been carved off as vassal states of Germany, most notably Burgundy. The same has happened to Italy, with Lombardy now a separate kingdom subject to the German Kaiser.

That's about as far as I got. My question is: what does the world look like in 1935, with Germany the dominant European power?







* Well, ok that isn't actually set after a German victory, but it does show how the non-death of an American pacifist leads to German victory.

Comments

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I haven't actually read/seen that scenario, either. I think there are a number of ways it could actually go. I think Wilhelm might see himself as a new Holy Roman Emperor, but I'm not sure his ministers would go along with it. Considering the land grab in Africa just before the Great War, I suspect that Germany would have annexed a number of the more profitable French, English and Belgian colonies. They might well over-reach themselves there if they didn't keep their hands off the long-established and heavily settled ones. In fact, I could see the Canadians asking for US help, and that country finally fulfilling its long-held ambition to take over at least the Anglophone parts of that Dominion.

The Great Depression started in the US but I don't think Germany would be as deeply affected as it was in our time-line (being bankrupted by the allies as a consequence of the Treat of Versailles) and I don't think Hitler would be a figure of any consequence, with Fascism certainly rising but in Italy, Spain, France and the UK.

All this supposes that, seeing its great rival in chaos, Germany did not take on the Russian Communists...

It's a interesting area of speculation.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Yes, I can definitely see Germany taking the choicest (i.e. most easily manageable and richest in raw materials) colonies of the defeated powers, but as you say, that might stretch their capabilities. Perhaps this is what would push them into peace with the USSR.

I think a US that stayed out of the war would be one where the overwhelming sentiment was to avoid imperial entanglements. But would that change in response to a German victory? Hmmm...

Since Germany comes out of the war with preferred trade access to most of Europe and the ability to get raw materials cheaply from the defeated powers and their colonies, you could imagine that Germany would become quite prosperous in the years following the war. (In this scenario, the war has not long finished, but we'd be going in that direction.) German nationalist types would rejoice in the victory of the old regime, and would be unlikely to pursue National Socialism. So would the main opposition to Wilhelm's rule come from communists or democrats? That might depend on the situation in the USSR.

And if, as you say fascism and extreme nationalism rises in Italy, Spain, France and the UK, to what extent is that tolerated by Germany?

[(Anonymous)]

CheckboutvSaki "When William came". Also Niall Ferguson "the pity of war " has osome discussion about how much better history would have been if Britain had stayed out of the war and just let Germany win it. Neuromancer

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

We actually have a copy of 'When William Came', so I'll check it out and I may look out for the Ferguson.

[helflaed.livejournal.com]

What's happening in Central Europe? Have any states been able to break away from the old Russian Empire? If so, which, and with what borders? Have the Germans grabbed any land in the East, or are there now buffer states between them and the USSR?

How are minorities being treated, and how are they behaving? if, for example, Poland is still being ruled by the Germans, Austrians and Soviets then are they accepting of this or is there simmering resentment which could lead to anything from street protests or occasional acts of terror to outright rebellion. Or this could have happened in the past and been repressed?

Also, is Germany a nationalistic state, or have they moved back to the older Prussian model?

Incidentally, it could be interesting to read "When William Came" by Saki- written before WW1 it imagines Britain under German occupation and makes for a very interesting read, not least for the manner in which many parts of the population get on surprisingly well with their occupiers.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

We have a copy of 'When William Came' - good idea.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

I imagine that the peace between Germany and the new USSR is secured by a similar treaty to Brest-Litovsk, with a buffer zone of neutral states between the two - although the buffer would be rather closer to Moscow than to Berlin I think.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I wonder if one reason this scenario is less common is that, since no Versailles, and presumably, no Hitler (at least as an important political figure) would probably mean no Holocaust and no Israel, hence less tension in the Middle East, and a large prosperous Jewish population in Germany helping to rebuild Europe instead...

A 20th century where Germany won WWI might look quite attractive from some perspectives, and clearly from a British/French/Russian point of view that's a bit of a disturbing thought.

Without the US, I'm a bit surprised that Britain managed to hang on as long as 1934, but maybe the 'flu epidemic of 1918-1919 hit both sides and delayed the German advance? I imagine it would have severely impacted the war effort, and given how many people it killed as it was, I imagine the impact would have been even worse if they'd tried to fight through it.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

The flu epidemic is a good point. Also, I wonder if an Imperialist Germany would open up new theatres in Africa in order to annex the colonies, accepting the stalemate on the western front.

[fanf]

Speaking of the Middle East, what happens to the Ottoman Empire in this scenario?

[akicif.livejournal.com]

The middle east may eventually end up like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabesk_trilogy)....

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Have you read A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin? It's a fascinating account of how wide-ranging the effects of the Versailles Treaty were; it might help you figure out what the effects of the outcome of WWI would be in your timeline. Especially recommended if you want to explore what happens in your version of the Middle East.

(Here via Andrew Ducker.)

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

I'll look out for it - thanks.

[eledonecirrhosa.livejournal.com]

Aaargh! Typed a long reply then LJ ate it!

Short version... Russian Revolution caused Russians to go home and German troops from Eastern Front to be sent to Western Front to give the Allies a kicking. Could you beef up that kicking to give them victory?

Book suggestion - The Kaiser's Holocaust by David Olusoga and Casper Erichsen goes into the nastier aspects of 19th & pre WW1 German colonialism in southern Africa. Some inspiration there too?

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

The March 1918 offensive very nearly came to victory anyway. According to Haig's diaries (which I was reading recently, though I think it was only extracts) the French at least were getting very worried about Paris, and there was a debate about whether the BEF should fall back on the Channel or stick with the French army when the breakthrough came.

[bart-calendar.livejournal.com]

Well, America probably doesn't become a global superpower or build a military industrial complex.

This means America gets the chance to head in a very socialist direction when the Great Depression happens.

That said, we still end up with a huge war down the line, because once Stalin comes into power in the USSR and starts with gulags and attempts to annex Eastern Euro states, Germany has the dominant power in Western Europe has to confront them.

At which point the US probably sides with Germany. During this crisis Germany wins by nuking Moscow and becomes the global nuclear superpower.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

That makes some sort of sense. In fact, with the war raging in Europe throughout the 1920s, cutting off major export markets, does the Great Depression in the US start rather earlier?

[king-pellinor.livejournal.com]

The US would have gotten very anti-German. They were quite anti-British due to concerns over imperialism (to be distinguished from the US having a sphere of influence and dependent states, which was an entirely different matter), and I'm sure that would have been transferred to Germany if she took over ex-Allied colonies.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

But not having a Lusitania sinking makes a difference here (enough to not enter the war in the first place). How US internal politics turns out in response to a) a German victory and b) an earlier or later Depression will play a very important role in shaping the world of 1935.

[danieldwilliam.livejournal.com]

(here via Andrew Ducker)

I wonder if Zeppelin raids on the south of the UK are enough to dislocate enough of our industry to force us to make a disadvantageous peace. I’d check out the Strategic Bombing Survey done after WWII. I’m not sure our huge bombing effort between 1941 - 45 had that much of an effect.

I think there is also a man power issue. I think Germany would run out of men if they were attacking. So even allowing them a win you might end up with a situation where Britain and France lost fewer troops compared to Germany who now have a man power shortage and weird demographic issue.

If Germany hive off parts of France as vassal states then I think you get periodic open rebellion there. (There is an interesting book on the economics of Nazi Germany that talks a little about how inefficient France as a vassal state was. I think it’s called the Wages of Death by Adam Twose.)


After 20 years of war even the victor will be industrially exhausted. No matter if they pick up the good bits of the Empires of Britain and France. The main economic advantage of our colonies and Empire was raw materials for our factories. This doesn’t help Germany if they don’t have any factories making stuff to receive the raw materials because they’ve built nothing but munitions works for twenty years and don’t have any merchant ships because they’ve built nothing but U-boats.

Also, huge loss of skills. Pretty much every male under 38 will only ever have been a soldier. (So not hugely employable, but armed. See the situation in Lithuania after WWI for the impact of a demobbed German army.)

Germany will have endured another 16 years of economic blockade by the Royal Navy.

So a pretty bad economic situation all round.

What happens to the Austro-Hungarian Empire in your scenario?

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

These are all good points. I definitely see a resistance movement in the bits of France now under explicit or implicit German control - assassinations of Franco-German aristos, shaming of collaborators, civil disobedience - that sort of thing.

The effect of the loss of skills on the German labour market is a particularly good point. Maybe this, more than anything else, allows the US to become the workshop of the world, because nobody else can make anything. Or would skilled occupations now be the preserve of female workers? What effects does this have on feminism, women's emancipation etc...?

In my scenario, the German u-boats were far more effective against British shipping, both military and civilian, so Germany has not been blockaded by the Royal Navy.

Austro-Hungary is something I haven't thought too much about yet. My initial feelings are that the empire did badly in the war, but happened to be on the winning side. I can see ethnic nationalist uprisings against Habsburg rule. In fact, even with a German victory, I don't see Austro-Hungary surviving as an empire. Smaller ethnic groups would seek independence, many perhaps with that independence guaranteed by Germany. What remained of Hungary could perhaps follow Russia in having a bolshevik revolution.

[charleysjob.livejournal.com]

There's a very interesting book called Lords of Finance, by L. Ahamed, that deals with economic policy during and after WWI, and how they lead to the Great Depression. Worth a read, not least for the parallels with today. Based roughly on that, there's a serious risk that the Great Depression would *not* have been avoided, and that the US would emerge as the world's major economic player anyways.
Basically, during the course of WWI a huge portion of the world's gold deposits were transferred to the U.S. As Germany, France and England tried to get back onto the Gold Standard post-war, they set themselves up for failure and the economic center of the world shifted to New York. Meanwhile, in your scenario the U.S. can go right ahead with the roaring twenties just as in reality, as we spent most of that decade trying to pretend Europe didn't exist anyway.
What you'd probably get is an England-Germany reversal, with the U.K. paying crippling reparations to Germany and suffering Wiemar-style hyperinflation and economic ruin. Couple this with the loss of many important colonies (including India?) and you have an England ripe for the arrival of a populist, megalomaniacal dictator who promises to restore the Empire's glory.
Also consider the Middle East: England and France divvied up the failing Ottoman Empire's territories post-WWI; a German-backed Ottoman renaissance could be an interesting scenario.
(here from Andrewducker)

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

"...and you have an England ripe for the arrival of a populist, megalomaniacal dictator who promises to restore the Empire's glory"


Churchill, perhaps...? Or would it need to be someone untainted by wartime failure?

[andrewducker]

Interesting comment from Nancylebov on my journal, saying that if Germany wins WW1 then Israel doesn't happen, at least not in anything like its current form. Which completely changes the dynamics in the area.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

One thing I know nothing about is the attitude of the ruling class in Imperial Germany to German jews. Clearly the nazis didn't invent anti-semitism in Germany, but was it previously just working class prejudice or were the ruling class just as anti-semitic?

[(Anonymous)]

Hmm. The Lusitania was used as an excuse, not a reason, to push a hesitant US public into a war wirh Germany. US industry was already heavily involved supporting the allied war effort and couldnt afford a British or a French defeat.

At most the Lusitania not being sunk delays US entry a year but has no effect on German production or manpower problems. France would be worst off in this scenario since they were almost at the end of their manpower tether anyway.

Britain is much more difficult to determine what would happen. The UBoat would have to operate at a level far beyond their historical ability. There is a reason subs rarely if ever cooperated with surface fleets so I dont see how the blockade of Germany is affected.

Lastly, and though it may be unpopular, the British army (with material but not manpower help from the US) defeated the German army in Europe in detail through superior tactics and with better equipment. They advance quicker and faster across Germany in 1918 than the Allies do after Normandy in 44-45.

I dont see that changing by a delayed US entry although the financial cost may be greater.

Germany's best chance to win the war, as Von Moltke and Schlieffen predicted, was early on. 1914 really although they missed a chance when the French army mutinied. By the time they did attack the French they latter had resolved most of their immediate morale issues.

[daniel-saunders.livejournal.com]

(Long-term lurker, here originally via parrot_knight.)

Following on from various points made above, I agree that Israel doesn’t exist in this history: no Holocaust for world sympathy and a large mass of refugee Jews, but also no British mandate over post-war Palestine means the Balfour Declaration is void if it even gets written. However, Zionism does exist: Hess’ Rome and Jerusalem was published in 1862 (although largely ignored at the time) and Herzl’s The Jewish State in 1896, both in response to antisemitism in Western Europe. The First and Second Aliyot (Jewish mass migration to what is now Israel) were in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, driven by both economic factors and Russian persecution of the Jews.

So tensions between Arab and Jewish communities are present and increasing and the violence on both sides that characterized the British Mandatory period would probably have been much the same, depending on the attitude of the Ottoman authorities to further Jewish immigration (and their success at stemming it). The Irgun would probably have carried out attacks against the Ottoman authorities rather than against the British, although how much support they would have found for this without the Holocaust as justification is debateable (as it was the Zionist movement was bitterly divided as to the use of violence).

The survival of the Ottoman Empire (for how long?) and no Sykes-Picot Agreement when it does go means the rest of the Middle East might look very different too, but I don’t know enough about twentieth century Arab history to speculate on that.

Regarding German antisemitism, I would say it is present at all levels of soceity. Racial antisemitism, and racial pseudo-science generally, probably continue across Europe without Nazism to discredit them – note that the term ‘anti-Semitism’ was coined in nineteenth century Germany to make anti-Jewish prejudice sound more scientific and respectable. Certain nineteenth century German thinkers advocated the reghettoization or deportation of the Jews. According to Walter Laqueur in The Changing Face of Antisemitism, Kaiser Wilhelm II did in fact advocate the murder of the Jews while in exile after the war, but Laqueur adds that Wilhelm “was not a stable or consistent thinker” so how this would affect your scenario is debateable.

It is possible, as others suggested, that the post-war histories of ‘our’ Britain or France and Germany are largely transposed in your scenario and this could apply to antisemitism too, with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the ‘stabbed in the back’ theory of military defeat being popular in Britain; perhaps in this history The Times does not expose The Protocols as a forgery. This theory might gain credence given that leading figures in the wartime administration (Lloyd George, Balfour, Churchill) were philosemitic and pro-Zionist.

Austria-Hungary?

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

What happens to Austria-Hungary? Does it become part of the new pan-Germanic Reich?

I thought - may be entirely wrong - that the British/French calculations on a war of attrition in 1915-16 were that they would outlast the Germans. Remember also that attacking was much more destructive than defending.

Re: Austria-Hungary?

[(Anonymous)]

The French and British calculated they could bleed German manpower dry. The Germans calculated they could bleed the French dry before the British mobilised the manpower of the Empire. Britain calculated right, just. The other two got it wrong.

The collapse of the German army in 1918 and French in 1917 happened at roughly the same casualties suffered to adult population level in both countries. No one else reached those ratios. IIRC the Russian and A-H collapses also happened at similar levels to each other and the Italians were not far behind.

The only historical winners from WW2 were the USA and Japan. Britain probably got a draw. Everyone else lost though the French didnt realise it at the time.

[wellinghall.livejournal.com]

I have a collection with an essay on a similar(-ish) scenario. I'll see if I can dig it out.

[ice-hesitant.livejournal.com]

Note that Germany did not lose WW1 on the battlefield. Your alternate history seems to assume no German Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%931919).

What prevented the German Revolution from happening? Better supply of food and other consumer products in Germany?

You are assuming that UK would need to be ground down. This is strategically plausible in light of UK's perfidious behaviour during the Napoleonic wars. One could, however, speculate about a British revolution or change of government in a prolonged WW1.

Britain didn't give all men the right to vote until 1918 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom#20th_century) (women under 30 had to wait until 1928). If they tarried on that while feeding more men into the meatgrinder, a Republic of Britain might have signed an armistice sooner than some might expect.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Yes you're right - my scenario does assume that the Imperial German government remains. This is sort of deliberate - I'm pondering what the impact is on politics in other countries if the most important European power is an empire with proper aristocratic trappings - nobles as ministers etc. I imagine something of a co-opting of the SPD to the Kaiser's cause (more than happened in reality) in return for measured reforms and to present a united front against the common enemies of Great Britain and communism.

As for Great Britain, yes, I think the conditions would certainly be ripe for revolution by the end of the war in 1934, if not before.