How would Ukraine develop under the Central Powers

NoMommsen

Donor
Why are we hyper focusing on the food situation when Germany's famine ends with the war?
... because there's a reason needed for keeping the germans staying the protonazi personification of evil ...

At least regarding the Ukraine as the focus in this thread in accusing in advance the germans to cause a famine comparable to the genocide nearing Holodomor in OTL completly ignoring all of the circumstances - esp. the political as well as i.e. the meterological - how the latter was caused over a decade after the end of WW 1.
 
Last edited:
The Germans will probably continue to support Skoropyadski in rain or shine (due to a lack of imagination and palatable alternatives), and Ukraine sees some growth, and goes into some sort of extensive industrialization, via foreign (mostly German) investment.

A long term problem is that Skoropyadski probably isn't competent to oversee that economic transition, and destabilization occurs.
 
As others have said, Germany will have lots of problems after the war. And it will want to fix them by draining whatever colonies and satellites it posesses after the war to keep its public opinion happy. Famines on the scale of the OTL ones which occurred under Soviet rule seem unlikely, but there will definitely be a problem with food for years. It won't endear Germany to Ukrainian public opinion. If the equivalent of OTL's Great Depression hits, Germany will again have an incentive to mitigate domestic problems by exploiting its satellites. If German-Ukrainian relations start badly in the 20s it could require many decades of stability before the average Ukrainian stops resenting Berlin.

At this point in OTL Ukrainian national identity was not yet particularly anti-Russian. A war followed by a decade of exploitation might make the average Ukrainian think that however bad Tsarist rule might have been, this is even worse. Might it lead to Ukrainians embracing a Russian identity?

Industrialization will largely depend on whether this ukraine contains the donbass which lies on the eastern edge of the country. Russia might manage to keep it.

On a sidenote, I'd say that the appearance of such a Ukraine would be a rather unlikely result of an alt-WWI. Unless the PoD is quite a bit before 1914. In OTL the CP only got past the Riga-Pinsk-Tarnopol line because the hope of American help caused the Russians to stay in the war despite the decay of their army. If America is still in the war, the CP are going down anyway. But if there is no sign of American entry, Russia will most likely drop out earlier and cede something like what the Germans initially demanded at Brest-Litovsk: central Poland, Lithuania, Courland, and little else.
 
In OTL, the Germans overthrew the moderate socialists of the Rada and put in Skoropadskyi, believing a "strong hand" was necessary to assure the delivery of grain to Germany. I assume this also happens in OTL, and as in OTL Skorpadkskyi will be very unpopular with everyone but the landowners and capitalists. (See my discussion at https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...al-with-austria-hungary.495069/#post-20956054) The food situation will presumably ease after the German victory, but Skorpadkskyi will still have to be propped up by German bayonets.
OK, I am throwing this out not because I think it likely but because I am intrrigued by the idea of a second Sarajevo:

Sometime in the 1930's Hetman Skoropadsky's son and heir-apparent Danylo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danylo_Skoropadskyi is assassinated in Kharkiv. The Ukrainian government blames "Bolsheviks" trained and financed by Soviet Russia. The German, Polish, and Ukrainian governments address an ultimatum to the Soviet Russian government and get what they consider an evasive reply. (To some extent the assassination is a mere excuse. Germany, for all the economic concessions it has gained from Soviet Russia, is worried about the latter's increased industrial and military strength and its influence on radical elements of the German working class. Poland and Ukraine, besides being client states of Germany, dream of new territorial gains from Russia: Ukraine wants the Kuban, Poland the area of Belarus still under Soviet control.) Meanwhile, France and the UK, weakened but not destroyed by their loss in the First World War, see their chance for revenge in a Second, even if it means taking the side of the Bolsheviks...
 
Last edited:
Given German lack of concern over the fate of civilians of occupied countries elsewhere during the war, the shortfall in German domestic supply, the amount available, and the ability to proceed unhindered, I suspect it would be comparable.
if the war actually ends and the blockade is lifted food shipments from the western hemisphere can resume and take some of the pressure off; but given the likelyhood of civil war inside the borders and spilling in from the outside, and the central powers hard on for ethnic cleansing and genocide probably something worse than the Holodomor but not quite as bad as the holocaust; 10ish mm dead over 3 years wouldn't be far fetched, 33/33/33 famine/military actions/direct genocide
 
... because there's a reason needed for keeping the germans staying the protonazi personification of evil ...
... germans simply HAVE to be genociders, haven't they ?

:noexpression:

You're not necessarily wrong, but I would like to point out that many aspects of Nazi racial science were born in the Imperial era, such as the idea of sterilizing members of a 'inferior' population to avoid race-mixing. You can thank Eugen Fischer for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Fischer

Sure, these methods were used against Africans, not Europeans, but the groundwork was there. Also, as I pointed out before, Imperial Germans despised Eastern Europeans. Just ask the Poles what it was like to live under German rule. It was slightly better than the Nazi era, but the Imperial government still tried to suppress Polish culture, even though unlike in the Nazi era, Poles were recognized as German citizens.

If they could do that to their own citizens, how do you think they would treat a foreign, colonial population who don't have that protection?
 
You're not necessarily wrong, but I would like to point out that many aspects of Nazi racial science were born in the Imperial era, such as the idea of sterilizing members of a 'inferior' population to avoid race-mixing. You can thank Eugen Fischer for that.
You are aware that those ideas were around in all the Western countries - hell it was legal to forcibly sterilise female inmates in california to 2014 iirc.
When can we expect the death camps to open?
 
All of the senior Nazi killers got their starts in Wilhelm's Reich; Wilhelm's Reich beyond enabling the Armenian Genocide, and rampant Austrian violations of the laws of war, on their best day represented brutal military occupation and on their worst days allowed thousands upon thousands of Russian prisoners in their custody to die in their custody, just like they would do in the next war. It gets lost in the much wider awful human behavior they committed in the second war, and that the Russian/Romanians/Armenians committed mass war crimes on the other side; but any analysis that concludes something other than Hitlers 3rd Reich merely picked up an expanded on behavior already condoned and widespread in Wilhelms Reich has triple beer goggles on
 
You are aware that those ideas were around in all the Western countries - hell it was legal to forcibly sterilise female inmates in california to 2014 iirc.

Of course, I'm aware. But, Germany was the only one to outlaw intermixing between white colonists and black natives in their colonies, based on Fischer's science.

Also, if you bothered to read the article I linked, you'd know that Hitler read Fischer's work. Yes, it is a fact that Hitler also studied the eugenicist policies of the United States, but that doesn't change the fact that Germany has a hostile deposition towards colonial populations who don't count as Germans. France never bothered to ban intermixing in it's colonies, neither did Britain or Italy. South Africa would ban intermixing, but there is a strong difference between South Africa and colonies like German South-West Africa.
 
The answers to this thread are surreal... Do you REALLY believe that a German occupation policy, that will become de facto a Simply puppet state that MUST get strong to resist the RED menace is going to be worse THAN the fuxxing russian civil war, force collectivisation and forced requisition of the Stalin era ??? Are you joking right ?
 
Do you REALLY believe that a German occupation policy, that will become de facto a Simply puppet state that MUST get strong to resist the RED menace is going to be worse THAN the fuxxing russian civil war, force collectivisation and forced requisition of the Stalin era ???
Yes
 
The answers to this thread are surreal... Do you REALLY believe that a German occupation policy, that will become de facto a Simply puppet state that MUST get strong to resist the RED menace is going to be worse THAN the fuxxing russian civil war, force collectivisation and forced requisition of the Stalin era ??? Are you joking right ?
yes, probably by a lot too
 
When can we expect the death camps to open?
well considering they where already open, right away? Their Russian pow camps where death camps because they didn't bother feeding them and left them in such squalid conditions that typhus fever killed them by the 10's of thousands

Lance Corporal Hitler was sent to guard one of these places in 1919, I'm sure he carried much of that experience forward with him for re-use

so considering extended war conditions, Germany stealing all of the Ukraines food and their military/occupation policies of not giving a shit if they kill people, and the extensive propaganda of presenting the Russians as sub human rapists that they instilled in their troops which gave them open license to kill people... they would kill people

Hitler's ideas didn't come about in a vacume, they where at least 40 years in the making
 
well considering they where already open, right away? Their Russian pow camps where death camps because they didn't bother feeding them and left them in such squalid conditions that typhus fever killed them by the 10's of thousands

Lance Corporal Hitler was sent to guard one of these places in 1919, I'm sure he carried much of that experience forward with him for re-use

so considering extended war conditions, Germany stealing all of the Ukraines food and their military/occupation policies of not giving a shit if they kill people, and the extensive propaganda of presenting the Russians as sub human rapists that they instilled in their troops which gave them open license to kill people... they would kill people

Hitler's ideas didn't come about in a vacume, they where at least 40 years in the making
Completely adorning the littoral famine that was happening to the rest of Germany, is it any surprise that the pows dint get fed when by 1918 Germanys own soldiers were not getting enough food?
Of course, I'm aware. But, Germany was the only one to outlaw intermixing between white colonists and black natives in their colonies, based on Fischer's science.

Also, if you bothered to read the article I linked, you'd know that Hitler read Fischer's work. Yes, it is a fact that Hitler also studied the eugenicist policies of the United States, but that doesn't change the fact that Germany has a hostile deposition towards colonial populations who don't count as Germans. France never bothered to ban intermixing in it's colonies, neither did Britain or Italy. South Africa would ban intermixing, but there is a strong difference between South Africa and colonies like German South-West Africa.
This is gust hilarious, need i remind you of Jim crow, the Algerian genocide, South African consntration camps, fucking congo free state, colonization was a horrific event nomader what happened and claiming what Germany did was somehow unique is a gross myth.

All of the senior Nazi killers got their starts in Wilhelm's Reich; Wilhelm's Reich beyond enabling the Armenian Genocide, and rampant Austrian violations of the laws of war, on their best day represented brutal military occupation and on their worst days allowed thousands upon thousands of Russian prisoners in their custody to die in their custody, just like they would do in the next war. It gets lost in the much wider awful human behavior they committed in the second war, and that the Russian/Romanians/Armenians committed mass war crimes on the other side; but any analysis that concludes something other than Hitlers 3rd Reich merely picked up an expanded on behavior already condoned and widespread in Wilhelms Reich has triple beer goggles on
I like how you both completely gloss over the shite the other sides did (and mostly not Germany but othe central powers) but don't mention once how both the german ambassador and the german forin office tried to stop the Armenian genocide but had no leverage because they despritly needed to keep the ottomans in the war, dosnt absolve them from not doing more but its still really bad fath makeing this argument.
 
You are aware that those ideas were around in all the Western countries - hell it was legal to forcibly sterilise female inmates in california to 2014 iirc.
California had literal concentration camps at some point, so I'm not sure how this whataboutism precludes the idea that the German Empire could also engage in famine-causing economic doctrine.
 
This is gust hilarious, need i remind you of Jim crow, the Algerian genocide, South African consntration camps, fucking congo free state, colonization was a horrific event nomader what happened and claiming what Germany did was somehow unique is a gross myth.

Alright, Jim Crow was not a colonial venture and the Algerian War was in the 1950s.

Of course, there were the South African concentration camps, but Britain wasn't the one who sterilized the products of union between Africans and white people. Also, the atrocities in the camps were a result of Kitchener's apathy. There was no document that says 'let's exterminate the Boers'. This does not discount Kitchener's criminality in letting men, women and children starve to death, however.

Also, the Congo Free State technically doesn't count because the Congo was King Leopold's private land. I am not saying rule by the Belgian government was any better (Thank you for laying the groundwork for the Rwandan Genocide, Belgium), but there is that distinction that needs to be made.

Also, I was not talking in broad terms about colonial atrocities. I was discussing a cornerstone of German colonial policy which was to prevent the intermixing between Africans and Europeans.

And finally, the Herero and Namibian genocide is often considered the first genocide of the 20th Century, a genocide which involved the Germans cutting the heads off the dead and taking them back to Germany for study. No one is applying the term 'genocide' to the South African concentration camps and last time I checked, no one was decapitating Boer corpses.
 
German-occupied Ukraine would be effectively a colony, geared towards producing food for the German metropole and probably with no other kind of infrastructural development allowed to the locals by the German authorities. The likelihood of a Holodomor-like event or a longer drawn-out famine occuring in this TL is high, coupled with paranoia about Russian/Bolshevik subversive infiltration.
 
The answers to this thread are surreal... Do you REALLY believe that a German occupation policy, that will become de facto a Simply puppet state that MUST get strong to resist the RED menace is going to be worse THAN the fuxxing russian civil war, force collectivisation and forced requisition of the Stalin era ??? Are you joking right ?
The Holodomor and the cases of famine and forced requisition in the Ukrainian SSR occured not necessarily because of irrational thinking on the Soviet state's part -- all exploitation is rational from a colonialist empire's point of view, and i'm afraid "basic human needs be damned, we need development ASAP" has been more common a line of thinking among nation-states than we like to think. The USSR's leadership in the 1920's and 1930's had witnessed the destruction that the Russian Civil War had caused on the land and aimed to industrialize at a breakneck pace to feed into national strength and prepare for a possible enemy invasion, all of which came at the cost of starving Ukrainian farmers or forcing them into back-breaking labor due to ambitiously planned urban growth.

Now, look at a hypothetical victorious German Empire in 1918, weakened by a trade blockade, still opposed by a bloody-nosed Western Entente, facing labor unrest, dominated by an increasingly strong stratocratic regime and now in possession of conquests in eastern Europe. Does its situation seem similar to that of the stalinist Soviet Union? My answer would be yes -- and in a situation like this, it's likely that manual production of foodstuffs in the periphery will be shifted into overdrive as the Germans adopt plans to recover food security and produce more arms and military goods to counter the French and British, who will likely be given a helping hand from the unassailable US.
 
Last edited:
Top