Rensslaer said:
hmm, I suppose that'll do, then.
But the Rhinelands should still be ours, together with the Belgian rebels.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
hmm, I suppose that'll do, then.
But the Rhinelands should still be ours, together with the Belgian rebels.
Epilogue: Chapter 3
The fact that, on paper, Germany seemed to have lost the American War was a thorn in the side of many Germans. But none so much as the veterans of that war, who knew that they had conducted themselves well, and that they deserved a more fitting peace than to be made to look like losers.
The pre-armistice warnings of Chancellor Gerhard Niemann to his Kaiser bore fruit when public opinion – after a post-war hiatus – turned sharply against him and “his lost war.” Faced with political repercussions, Niemann and the Konservatives came to a crossroads. They could choose to remain with the Kaiser, and share the burning heat being cast his direction. Or they could break with the Kaiser and bear the consequences of that.
The peace had been approved by the Reichstag without the support of most Konservatives, who wished to hold out for better terms. LiberalDems and Katholic Zentrums generally supported the peace. The Konservatives had also finally gotten the Empire’s fiscal house in order, and lowered tax rates to where the people did not consider them so onerous. They did not wish to risk their accomplishments by losing power, but how to preserve their power was the question…
Niemann chose to break with the Kaiser and pursue a Konservative electoral victory in opposition to the peace. This was accomplished in August of 1920, when the Konservatives garnered 47% of the Reichstag seats, to 29% Zentrum and 24% Liberal.
But, faced with a loss of his power base, Kaiser Waldemar turned to the parties who had stuck with him before and after the war – the Liberal Democrats and Center-Catholics – whose philosophies often seemed more aligned with Waldemar’s in any case. Jakob Dempewolf, leader of the Zentrums, became Chancellor at the head of a Liberal-Catholic coalition – the first ever to have held the Chancellory in the German Empire. Krysz Skiedweza became Foreign Minister, though he soon was appointed President of the new Republic of Poland.
As part of the new openness recommended by Dempewolf, socialist parties were allowed to organize for the first time. This ended a long period of socialist opposition to the Kaiser and the government. Generally, socialists chose to support the monarch who had allowed them to finally have the vote. Several parties of socialist character came into being, including a small party called the DeutscheArbeitPartei (German Worker’s Party) which was to ultimately have greater impact than any of the others.
Kaiser Waldemar, for many reasons, was able to become much more popular during the years 1920-23. In 1921, with the change in parliament looking more to the Dutch liking, a mutual desire for more interaction resulted in the Hague Treaty of 1921, which traded various colonies in the East Indies region. It recognized Prussia’s control of Brunei, and her other existing colonies, but otherwise granted the rest of Borneo to the Netherlands.
It was generally a good thing for Waldemar when he decided to intervene in the Near East at the collapse of the Ottoman Empire – to “exert influence on the situation, and guide its resolution on our terms.” The operations resulted in a vast expansion of Prussian power, in an improvement of Germany’s security situation, it was believed, and involved little real fighting. It showed Germany in control of events in the world.
Similarly, the public fright at having a regicidal communist revolution next door in Russia provided popular support for the Kaiser’s anti-Bolshevist military operations, which ranged far and wide through Russia. They reached as far as Moscow at some points, but were turned back by resistance from armed and organized peasants who supported the communists. Only when a larger war threatened, in 1923, did Waldemar’s resolve falter in Russia, and pressure let off the Bolsheviks.
In 1923, as will be treated elsewhere, Germany dispatched a limited number of troops to try to keep the internecine fighting in the Balkans from getting out of hand. However, the problem proved beyond the best efforts of an earnest power to solve (which left the solution to a not-so-earnest power).
The real primary test of Germany’s intentions as a world power, and Kaiser Waldemar’s ability as a leader, started in 1922, but came to fruition in 1923. Much of German history over the next several years was driven, increasingly, by the actions of, and reactions against, one man – Adolf Hitler.
As a politician, Hitler combined the appealing populist philosophy of socialism with the motivating visionary elements of nationalism. True socialists were appalled at this compromise of their beliefs, but from 1922 on, Hitler could point to the success of Premier Benito Mussolini, in Sardinia-Piedmont, whose very similar “fascist” policies seemed to have greatly improved that government’s performance.
Hitler supported Kaiser Waldemar in 1921-22, when Germany was fighting “the good fight” against Bolshevism in Russia. This brought this “little man” closer to significance for two reasons. Hitler became regarded as a friend to the Konservatives, despite irreconcilable philosophical differences (Hitler was, after all, a socialist, not a conservative). The Konservatives had made a rapproachment with the Kaiser over the Russian Civil War, and Hitler brought his small but passionate base of support along in that sentiment. The Kaiser and his cadre were glad for any party’s support, no matter how marginal its standing, and no matter how off base its rhetoric. Hitler was “brought inside” to a small degree – not enough to convey legitimacy. Only to equate it in Hitler’s mind.
But Hitler was a politician, and therefore could have it both ways. He broke with the Kaiser, taking a good deal of public opinion with him, when the situation in South Africa came to the fore. He and his friend and mentor, General Erich Ludendorff, joined forces to speak in support of the Boers.
The Kaiser remained at first aloof and not wishing to embroil Germany in what he regarded as a distant and unimportant distraction from the main concern – Bolshevik Russia. But the German people were very concerned over the plight of the Dutch Boers – of a kin with the Germans – in their struggle with Prussia’s recent bitter enemy, Britain.
Merely from Hitler’s support of the Boers, and from Ludendorff’s association with him, he gained recognition and support. Ludendorff also added to Hitler’s support (his party, by now, referred to as the Nationalist Socialist German Worker’s Party, or NaSDAP), and discrediting Kaiser Waldemar, through a story that Waldemar had intentionally sold him out to the British and caused his capture, along with that of all the other generals whose efforts floundered and failed in the first stages of the Second Anglo-Prussian War.
Further, Hitler used his brilliant and motivational speaking style to amplify upon Ludendorff’s point, and to add that Waldemar had also sold the Germans out to the United States – the “stab in the back” – because of the influence of his American education, his prior “friendly” relationship with President Wilson, and, obviously, the Kaiserin’s undying loyalty to her homeland.
These seeds of lies found fertile ground among those who already felt they had reason to distrust or resent Kaiser Waldemar. The Second Boer War was, to many people, that reason to distrust their Kaiser, whose position on the war fit finely into the picture Hitler and Ludendorff were painting of a “collaborationist Kaiser” whose loyalties were pledged to powers outside of the German Fatherland.
Kaiser Waldemar remained the respected monarch of the German Empire in the eyes of the vast majority. But a growing number of Germans began to question his leadership. The situation was to grow more dire, over a succession of years.
The problems of power...
I see Hitler is as adept at the Big Lie in this timeline as he was in ours. As ever the perception of something is more important than the fact.
I see Hitler is as adept at the Big Lie in this timeline as he was in ours. As ever the perception of something is more important than the fact.
Dear, dear old Adolf does make a nuisance of himself, doesn't he... Incidentally, despite Waldemar and Wilhelm II having rather different philosophies, this could present quite an interesting historical 'what if', namely- what if the Allies had allowed Germany to keep a Kaiser after 1919... Aside from that, anothe great chapter in the epilogue, I find myself constantly checking for more during revision, and I salute your speed!
Rensslaer: ...These seeds of lies found fertile ground among those who already felt they had reason to distrust or resent Kaiser Waldemar...
not good! !
not good! !
Isn't there an event where the people of Germany discover Hitler was himself one of the starters of the American war upon which he gets killed much the same way like chef in south park episode 10-01, the return of Chef?
Oh dear...... The rise of Mr. Hitler again!
Sounds like Rensslaer made a bad decision when he persuaded the Kaiser to give up Mexico...
Sounds like Rensslaer made a bad decision when he persuaded the Kaiser to give up Mexico...
Hmm, good Dutchies!
Now, it's obvious the next kaiser should marry a Dutch person, as they are apparently well-regarded by the German populace. Maybe the later queen Juliana would be a nice idea?
Dutch puppetmasters for the Imperial throne, yeah!
Now, it's obvious the next kaiser should marry a Dutch person, as they are apparently well-regarded by the German populace. Maybe the later queen Juliana would be a nice idea?
Dutch puppetmasters for the Imperial throne, yeah!
It's amazing how much catching up one has to do after missing this AAR for 2 weeks...
Excellent finale, Renss. Nice of you to demonstrate that world-spanning empires are simply not made to handle the 20th Century.
Excellent finale, Renss. Nice of you to demonstrate that world-spanning empires are simply not made to handle the 20th Century.
Actually... Hitler was a socialist in OUR timeline!Minnesotan said:
His "Nationalist Socialist - Nazi Party" differed from the traditional socialists primarily in that it was of nationalist character, rather than internationalist as the socialists and communists were. The Nazi Party was all about state control of industry, etc., and only allowed capitalism so far as it supported the goals of the state (something Lenin tried, too, and which the Chinese communists are trying).Liberals would have you believe that Hitler was a "conservative", and often tag Nazis and conservatives in the same breath. But if you read conservative philosophy from folks such as Reagan or Goldwater, it will become clear that Nazism is as abhorrent a philosophy and as opposed to conservative thought as communism.
Rensslaer
Rensslaer said:
Nope. Hitler was actually on the right of the Nazi Party. Much of the party prior to 1933, particularly the SA under Röhm, was Volk-Socialist in inclination, but Hitler was strongly opposed to this both in principle and on opportunistic grounds; he needed to court Conservative industrialists and the Junkers in order to secure power - Hitler was, let's not forget, appointed Chancellor by a certain landed aristocrat you may have heard of called Paul von Hindenburg - and for campaign funds, and his concerns had always been of a Nationalistic bent rather than a social one. After the Night of the Long knives, the Röhm tendency was snuffed out completely and it never re-emeged.
I'm not sure where on earth you get the impression that Nazism was "all about state control of industry". Hitler's Nazism was actually pretty unconcerned about the economy, so long as it worked in the 'national interest'; (I.E, was non-Jewish) Germany under Hitler was generally, despite such things as the Four Year Plan - which, despite the name, was basically a glorified public works and raw-materials procurement operation - no more greatly infused with state-control than any other non-Communist state of the time. Hitler was no more a Socialist than FDR or Churchill was. (Britain's economy was probably more centrally-driven by the end of the war than Germany's was.)
Ever heard of IG Farben? One of the biggest private chemical cartels in history? Pretty good under a government which was "all about state control of industry".
Heck, we can throw in Daimler-Benz, Ferdinand Porsche, MAN-AG and Thyssen and Krupp into the mix for that matter. There was - as I've said - a strong Socialist element within early Nazism, but was Hitler part of it? Nein.In any case, I would argue that state control of the economy under Socialism is a means to an end; it is designed in theory to further the interests of the working class; this does not mean that state control or corporatism are inherently Socialist; the Byzantine Empire was strongly mired in state control of the economy, and I don't see anyone calling Justinian a Socialist.
The idea of economic differences being the crucial difference between the left and the right is largely a late 19th century innovation.(For the record, I'm a pragmatic Libertarian, before anyone pulls the bias card.)
Anyhoo, I come here for the AARing not the politics. I wonder how this Germany will fare in the twenties and thirties. Good update, as always!
Last edited:
:rofl: ((was thinking: "I wonder how long before Vincent Julien shows up, and what he will say!"))
I know Hitler broke the trade unions and sent them packing, but he did also replace them with a universal, state-controlled trade union, more or less. I consider that very socialistic.
And I know private industry was allowed to exist -- they didn't nationalize their major corps. But if IG Farben wanted to produce, say, baby formula instead of chemicals needed by the state, what would Hitler have said/done? I regard them as having a good deal of state control when it comes to one thing -- if it didn't contribute to the war effort (starting about 1936), it wasn't a very productive thing. I'm actually reading (listening to) a book about this right now.
Would you agree?
Renss
I know Hitler broke the trade unions and sent them packing, but he did also replace them with a universal, state-controlled trade union, more or less. I consider that very socialistic.
And I know private industry was allowed to exist -- they didn't nationalize their major corps. But if IG Farben wanted to produce, say, baby formula instead of chemicals needed by the state, what would Hitler have said/done? I regard them as having a good deal of state control when it comes to one thing -- if it didn't contribute to the war effort (starting about 1936), it wasn't a very productive thing. I'm actually reading (listening to) a book about this right now.
Would you agree?
Renss
Rensslaer said:
Heh, it's not a particularly Socialist move if you consider for a moment what the Deutsche Arbeitsfront was actually allowed to do - which is to say, shut up and follow orders.
The DAF was actually a capitalist's wet dream; the Nazis abolished all of the independent, and often Socialist (and thus very militant) Trades' Unions of the Weimar Era, and replaced them with a single organisation which was totally compliant, and devoid of any independent spirit. The Nazis fulfilled in a single stroke what every top businessman in the country had wanted for the last fifteen years.
(The DAF wasn't technically even a Trades' Union - it presented itself as an impartial arbiter between business and the workers.)Rensslaer said:
Oh, the government absolutely had influence, and, later, control, over production in key sectors crucial to the war; but this is not different to any other nation of the time. Göring's Four Year Plan was an attempt to set up a kind of proto-war economy, focusing on raw materials, armaments, and infrastructure, but Germany didn't - incredibly - set itself onto a proper war-footing until 1942, when Speer became Armaments Minister. Basically, if something in the economy wasn't directly related to the war, then the Nazis weren't really bothered by it. (Unless it was Jewish owned, of course.)
You have to remember that Hitler thought in broad, strategic, strokes; he was a foreign policy adventurer of the Napoleon variety, but he had none of Napoleon's dedication to administration. Consequently, the economy didn't interest him as a major area of policy. He was content to let it be put under the direction of men like Speer and Todt, in so far as that was required by the neccesities of the war and his ambitions.
Last edited:
May I point you to the fact that Hitler was a National-Socialist.
When he became the leader of Germany, he created a social system: the "Gleichschaltung". This meant that everybody was equal and led by one man (Hitler). That sounds pretty socialistic, doesn't it?
When he became the leader of Germany, he created a social system: the "Gleichschaltung". This meant that everybody was equal and led by one man (Hitler). That sounds pretty socialistic, doesn't it?
Though, naturally, as in any socialist or communist system, there are those who are equal, and then there are those who are MORE equal!
Renss
Renss
oh boy, it looks like modern politics have invaded my favorite AAR. May i suggest that perhaps Nazism might be liberal in character, in so much that it upheld some socialist ideas, and also more conservative in character, in that it was nationalistic (jingoistic might fit here) and more aggressive.
No liberal or conservative wants to think that the nazi's shared an ideology with themselves. I myself have long considered Nazism to be closest to conservatism than liberalism, but that is simply because it easy to get caught up in the fire eating rhetoric of american politics.
In the end, there is a pendulum in politics swinging back in forth between liberals and conservatives. One day LBJ might be able to force his great society through the house and senate, the next day "dubya" will enjoy a republican congress and a fairly pliant supreme court (though DC will always have voted 90%-10% against him). Progress comes in small incrimental steps, and im sorry for all those conservatives out there, as far as i can tell that progress is always moving left (consider how a conservative today would be a rabid liberal in 1806).
Speaking as a Washingtonian i have absolutely nothing good to say about the republican party in the last 40 years; they tend to ignore the city and oppose giving DC a voice in the nation's legislative process. This administration has also riled a few feathers with the city government when they actually left it out of all evacuation/contingency planning ( when a small plane flew over restricted airspace downtown, all federal employees and government were evacuated, however no one saw it fit to tell the mayor what was happening).
No liberal or conservative wants to think that the nazi's shared an ideology with themselves. I myself have long considered Nazism to be closest to conservatism than liberalism, but that is simply because it easy to get caught up in the fire eating rhetoric of american politics.
In the end, there is a pendulum in politics swinging back in forth between liberals and conservatives. One day LBJ might be able to force his great society through the house and senate, the next day "dubya" will enjoy a republican congress and a fairly pliant supreme court (though DC will always have voted 90%-10% against him). Progress comes in small incrimental steps, and im sorry for all those conservatives out there, as far as i can tell that progress is always moving left (consider how a conservative today would be a rabid liberal in 1806).
Speaking as a Washingtonian i have absolutely nothing good to say about the republican party in the last 40 years; they tend to ignore the city and oppose giving DC a voice in the nation's legislative process. This administration has also riled a few feathers with the city government when they actually left it out of all evacuation/contingency planning ( when a small plane flew over restricted airspace downtown, all federal employees and government were evacuated, however no one saw it fit to tell the mayor what was happening).
Sophianumg@mer said:
Honestly, do I really have to bother dealing with this one? May I draw your attention to the German Democratic Republic, otherwise known as East Germany?
Are we seriously sugesting that face-value name tags are a serious basis for understanding political systems and ideologies? By that measure North Korea is a veritable paradise on earth.
Sophianumg@mer said:
Gleichschaltung wasn't a social system and it wasn't about equality. Read up on the period in question and come back.
Maximilliano said:
I don't think it's useful to say that Nazism was close to this ideology or a strain of this ideology. Fascism is a unique phenomenon and it deserves to be appreciated as such.
For the record, anyone who is seriously interested in this subject and wants to delve deeper should consult the works of serious academic types like Roger Griffin, Roger Eatwell and Stanley Payne to get a better insight on the subject.
Last edited: