German WWI victory = Nazi-American Cold War?

I've recently come across a very interesting article by the late great John J. Reilly, concerning the (terrifying) ramifications of a German victory in WWI (link: http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm).

To break it down, he basically posits that the cultural/political climate of post-war Germany would resemble Weimar IOTL, dictated by preexisting cultural trends. From this turbulent culture, a radical party not unlike the Nazis would have risen to power, buoyed on the unquenched war-fervor of the people. Its aims would certainly have been the same; expansion into Eastern Europe and West Asia were almost 'truisms' in '20s German politics, and anti-semitism is a belief that predates Germany itself.

The differences begin to show themselves when Reilly talks about the effects a loss would have had on its other participants; France and Britain would suffer political collapse, with the latter facing the possible dissolution of its empire decades early and possibly forced to ally with the U.S. Interestingly, Soviet Russia might have been butterflied away as Germany would have turned it into a puppet state after using it for its own gains.

Thus, an alternate WWII inevitably erupts, but this time the Germans are holding the aces. With more competent commanders and a MUCH stronger army and navy (their expansion permitted by postwar demands), they would roll over most of Europe before besieging Britain with their new-found naval power. For aforementioned reasons, any Eastern Front is negligible, if resistance exists at all.

Here is where the article ends and my speculations begin. Weak and isolated, Britain would ultimately be starved into submission, becoming a puppet of the German empire. With all of Europe and much of Africa under Fascist rule, the U.S. has its hands tied. Unable to bring its military strength to bear without a foothold, it has no alternative but a staring contest, heralding the frigid dawn of a American-German Cold War. To imagine such an outlandish scenario, one could start by reading Robert Harris' 'Fatherland'.

This is the way it might have gone if the Allies had lost their nerve in WWI, the biggest and closest game of 'chicken' in history. What are your opinions?

Tamerlane
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
It is wrong to assume a Nazi-esque party would rule in Germany. They are butterflied away with a German victory. That would mean automatically no Versailles (and the other related points with that). Germany would remain a monarchy, it would have no territorial losses and would be able to defend herself properly. There would be no strangling reparations. Thus there would be a much less harsh inflation and not a such hard Great Depression for Germany. Also Germany wasn't as anti-semitic as France or Austria or Russia in that time (except perhaps Bavaria). Hitler wasn't elected by the people because of but despite his anti-semitism, which would be much lower, as there would be no need for a scapegoat.

That being said, Germany would have built up a line of pro-German states in Eastern Europe. The Soviets would likely be soon history. Russia would remain neutral, if there is no Stalin. If the Soviets were not eradicated, one would have a German power block facing the Soviets.

France and Britain would be in dire straits as they were in 1917 on the edge of bankrupcy. Now they were. They would need to pay much and likely lose some colonies. However, I guess they would have kept somehow their colonial empires, even if barely. I could see a French Hitler taking power in France. The USA would have problems as well, but not so much, as they had made a profit out of this business still.

Likely a second great war would not happen. France alone would not be able to win against Germany without an ally. Britain would remain her superiority over the German fleet, but would have had little to fight Germany on the ground, especially if there are no Soviets. With Soviets, or a strongly anti German government, a war might be possible though.
 

Asami

Banned
I agree with the above. Assuming that the Nazis must come to power at all is mistaken. Hitler could find his way into the Chancellor's office, but under different circumstances surely. The Nazi Party and the evils of National Socialism were not a guaranteed future for Germany at all, until the end of the Great War. When the Treaty of Versailles was signed, it sealed Germany's fate to begin a slow descent into madness...

Avoid that, and have Germany survive and thrive? You will have none of the sort.
 
Britain was near bankruptcy but had colonies as collateral, add in that her nose was bloodied badly in the war and you get a Britain that may decide that the problems on the continent aren't worth it anymore. France would probably take a dark path similar to OTL Germany but, as stated already, would have a hard time taking revenge with a chance of success. Anti-semitism loses it's luster when you don't need a scapegoat, maybe France shifts that way but that's taking the Turtledove route. In any case the worst case scenario is a smaller war between France and Germany in the 30s or so while the Germans are balls-deep in other problems (see next paragraph). Britain would still intervene before France is totally taken over out of sheer pragmatism.

The Russians would be in a bad way if the German puppets in the east don't fracture or fall. Ukraine was still the bread-basket of Russia at the time so a pro-German state there could really hurt any anti-German regime in Russia. As I said though, this is assuming the German puppets actually last. It wouldn't be all hunky dory and Germany could well have it's hands full propping up these new states on top of dealing with an Austria-Hungary that would be falling apart, and Ottoman state held together with bubble gum, paper clips, and hope, and a pissed off Italy that likely still went facist and wants to rip apart the remnants of AH.
 

Faeelin

Banned
It is wrong to assume a Nazi-esque party would rule in Germany. They are butterflied away with a German victory. That would mean automatically no Versailles (and the other related points with that). Germany would remain a monarchy, it would have no territorial losses and would be able to defend herself properly. There would be no strangling reparations. Thus there would be a much less harsh inflation and not a such hard Great Depression for Germany. Also Germany wasn't as anti-semitic as France or Austria or Russia in that time (except perhaps Bavaria).

In what way was France more antisemitic than Germany?


Also, Germany would, like the OTL victorious powers, face waves of unrest and strikes after the war, along with economic hardship. With the rise of a Soviet state in the east, some sort of conflict seems inevitable, as the peoples of Eastern Europe chafe under the German yoke.

And there will be a Soviet state, IMO. I don't see why German intervention would be more successful than the allied.
 
My problem with the article is that a German win post US entering the war isn't going to,

A) Happen.

B) result in GB losing anything.

I just don't see GB doing anything but siting behind the RN+USN and just blockading Europe (1803–1815/1914-18/1939-1945 etc.) They then,

a) build up and try to invade to win.

b) peace talks with a white peace.

My other problem is how does a win for WW1 German lead to the Nazis ? I would think the King/Army/old party's are unlikely to be discredited and stay in power.

JSB
 
Also, Germany would, like the OTL victorious powers, face waves of unrest and strikes after the war, along with economic hardship. With the rise of a Soviet state in the east, some sort of conflict seems inevitable, as the peoples of Eastern Europe chafe under the German yoke.

Would Germany's yoke be viewed so much more negatively by those involved than Imperial Russia's?

I'm thinking German-dominated puppet might be better for many than Russian subject province.

And I doubt very, very seriously that Germany was fool enough to try to actually occupy vast tracts of territory long-term postwar.
 
A second world war probably still occurs between Germany and the Soviet Union where Berlin tries to topple the communist regime in Russia. They would not use genocide to try and resettle it like the Nazis intended to, but probably establish a friendly regime or government in Moscow instead. With better leadership than Hitler in power they are much more likely to win the war in the East than OTL. The Germans will probably also have the blessing of Britain and France to take down the communist government in Moscow also.
 
I've recently come across a very interesting article by the late great John J. Reilly, concerning the (terrifying) ramifications of a German victory in WWI (link: http://www.firstworldwar.com/features/ifgermany.htm).

A Central Powers victory would be awful in many ways, but this is a bit far-fetched. Some interesting points, but the author seems to think that the existence of some of the cultural trends that also existed in Weimar Germany would be enough to cause a repeat of Germany's OTL 1918-1939 history. I think it's safe to say that the situation in Europe and most of the world would be so drastically different that keeping Bauhaus and Decline of the West around just isn't going to cut it.
 
Wouldn't it be more likely that France or Britain moved to Facism as well as Italy and perhaps some dissatisfied Balkan states
As well as this I imagine a central Powers victory would keep the Germans so busy with holding their crumbling allies together they would have to make permanent peace with Britain and the US pretty quickly.
 
I've been thinking about this lately.

"I realize that this assertion runs counter to the historiography of most of this century, but the conclusion is inescapable. Politics is a part of culture..."

I think Reilly's point is that the toxic cultural elements that ultimately led to the horrors of Nazism would still be present regardless. It'd be different ofc, you prolly wouldn't have the wacky Thule Society crap, but the witch's brew of antisemitism, "scientific" racism, militarism, and desire for Lebensraum would still be there.

Dumping the wacky Thule Society crap and delusional hacks like Hitler would just make them more dangerous.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about this lately.

I realize that this assertion runs counter to the historiography of most of this century, but the conclusion is inescapable. Politics is a part of culture...

I think Reilly's point is that the toxic cultural elements that ultimately led to the horrors of Nazism would still be present regardless. It'd be different ofc, you prolly wouldn't have the wacky Thule Society crap, but the witch's brew of antisemitism, "scientific" racism, militarism, and desire for Lebensraum would still be there.

Dumping the wacky Thule Society crap and delusional hacks like Hitler would just make them more dangerous.


Well, in 1920s America they were sterilizing "idiots" with a distinct preference for ones from racial minorities. Did that make America "dangerous"?
 
I could see a French Hitler taking power in France.

Hm. An interesting AH. A Nazi-esque France which takes over small countries with threats (the Benelux?), then lunges east to deal with Germany once an for all in the name of a buffer state between Europe and Soviet Russia, driving out the BEF (from Bremerhaven instead of Dunkirk?) and launches air/sea attacks on the British Isles...

How would a Francekrieg WWII look? A France based Battle of Britain might look little different, given the range and distances involved. A France based Battle of the Atlantic, with the larger (as opposed to OTL's KM, anyway) French Navy would certainly play out differently but to the same endgame, I suspect. An Eastern Front the begins at the Rhine? No Russian winter (or distance or rail gauges) to deal with. OTOH, no Urals for Germany to move their population and industry to. Would Baltic convoys fare better against French attacks than Arctic convoys did against German ones? Lend Lease to Germany through the Mediterranean?

With Italian naval power in the Med and Italian territory between the French & British on the North African shore, to whom does Italy become a target and to whom an ally? OTL, the UK sailed round the Horn to supply Egypt to fight Rommel. Could they do so against DeGaulle? Do we have some version of Torch? What would Overlord look like?

And-dare we speculate on...l'innommable mammifere marin?
 
I realize that this assertion runs counter to the historiography of most of this century, but the conclusion is inescapable. Politics is a part of culture...
This thinking is pretty near to rascism and specialy when it comes to Germany and its fall to Adolf Hitler and his lunatics.

Okay, you have nuts in every nation, but it needs a breakdown of society like it happened in OTL Weimar to make fringe movements strong enough to conquer the middle ground and the power.

So if in a Central Powers victory scenario the Great Depression still hits Germany so hard, than perhaps some extremist movement can come to power. Otherwise this still leaves out that a victorious Kaiserreich would in no way resamble the Weimar republic with its low legitimacy, constant politcal fighting, state in a state Reichswehr, e.t.c..
 
Some of the major reasons why the NSDAP came to power were the economic problems that occured in Germany, which were directly caused by the repartations hat Germany had to pay after losing WWI. Another cause was the dissatisfaction of losing quite a lot of their country after WWI. A third cause was the way the allies had treated Germany in the treaty of Versailles and after (like the occupation of the Rhineland, where French soldiers treated the Germans relatively badly). All these reasons where directly linked to losing WWI. Simply put, without WWI there will be no Nazi's. There were other reasons why the Nazi party came to power, but without the causes that were directly linked to WWI, they will not be enough to make the NAZI party a dominant power in Germany.

Mind you, Germany still won't be heaven on earth. It will probably an archconservative state, with less democratic freedom than it had before the war. Culural minorities (like the Poles), will probably be second class citizens, unless they assimilated into Germans. But it won't be as bad as Nazi Germany.

Still a cold war between imperial Germany, which dominates a large part of continental Europe and the USA is certainly possible.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Some of the major reasons why the NSDAP came to power were the economic problems that occured in Germany, which were directly caused by the repartations hat Germany had to pay after losing WWI. Another cause was the dissatisfaction of losing quite a lot of their country after WWI. A third cause was the way the allies had treated Germany in the treaty of Versailles and after (like the occupation of the Rhineland, where French soldiers treated the Germans relatively badly). All these reasons where directly linked to losing WWI. Simply put, without WWI there will be no Nazi's. There were other reasons why the Nazi party came to power, but without the causes that were directly linked to WWI, they will not be enough to make the NAZI party a dominant power in Germany.

Mind you, Germany still won't be heaven on earth. It will probably an archconservative state, with less democratic freedom than it had before the war. Culural minorities (like the Poles), will probably be second class citizens, unless they assimilated into Germans. But it won't be as bad as Nazi Germany.

Still a cold war between imperial Germany, which dominates a large part of continental Europe and the USA is certainly possible.

It is not necessary to assume Germany would become more arch conservative. I think the opposite as the reasons for the 1918 constitutional reform were already there. Indeed I think the big winner will be the SPD, although they will lose parts to the USPD/KPD, which would happen anyway as well. Also because of their support of the war, the SPD will more likely be more accepted by the right.
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Hm. An interesting AH. A Nazi-esque France which takes over small countries with threats (the Benelux?), then lunges east to deal with Germany once an for all in the name of a buffer state between Europe and Soviet Russia, driving out the BEF (from Bremerhaven instead of Dunkirk?) and launches air/sea attacks on the British Isles...

How would a Francekrieg WWII look? A France based Battle of Britain might look little different, given the range and distances involved. A France based Battle of the Atlantic, with the larger (as opposed to OTL's KM, anyway) French Navy would certainly play out differently but to the same endgame, I suspect. An Eastern Front the begins at the Rhine? No Russian winter (or distance or rail gauges) to deal with. OTOH, no Urals for Germany to move their population and industry to. Would Baltic convoys fare better against French attacks than Arctic convoys did against German ones? Lend Lease to Germany through the Mediterranean?

With Italian naval power in the Med and Italian territory between the French & British on the North African shore, to whom does Italy become a target and to whom an ally? OTL, the UK sailed round the Horn to supply Egypt to fight Rommel. Could they do so against DeGaulle? Do we have some version of Torch? What would Overlord look like?

And-dare we speculate on...l'innommable mammifere marin?

If we have an Adolphe Hitlère in France we have a very different situation than Germany. France is less populous and less industrialized than Germany. That means they have to put more resources into their army to win against Germany. And that's simply not really possible. Germany will not be disarmed and thus have enough reserves. They will have their Maginot line in AL. And they will have better tactics and strategics than the French. The fundaments of the German ww2 tactics were already made at the end of ww1. In any case they need a potent ally for another revenge.

Britain will isolate herself more from Europe, as long as their ways to India are not threatened. Russia might be anti-German, but will have problems without the grain and the industry of the Ukraine. If we have the Soviets there these East European nations will have even greater ties to Germany.

Thus it will be much harder for France to do, what the Germans did.
 
it would be impossible for France, losing WWI would be the end of it as a great power let alone being able to take on Germany.

losing WWI may force Britain to keep stronger ties to the Commonwealth and Empire though, as well as the Americas.
 
Even though a victorious Germany would be complete incomparable to the Weimar Republic, like no reparation payments, communists forbidden and no broken pride, the rise of a nazi-like party is still very very likely. Right wing politicians and militarists had insane ASB post war plans and would still initiate some kind of a stab-in-the-back-myth against a peace with moderate german gains. Kaiser Wilhelm II also promised some more democracy, which would also piss of the right wing, but probably still wan't go far enough for the SPD and Zentrum. They will eventually force the Kaiser to give more power to the Reichstag, and when the great depression fires, they are going to lose popularity and a right wing party. A 'Strong Leader' will be made Kanzler and will strengten his ower against the Reichstag. Actually, a proto-party already excised in the late war period, the Deutsche Vaterlandspartei (German Fatherland Party), with similar right wing goals as the nazis.
 
Top