What if? Democratic Germany (new expansion)

[LaurenceC96]

Hi all,

Bit of an alternate history scenario here. For anyone familiar with the latest development diary for HOI4, I am very interested in the implications of following the path of installing Willhelm III and forming the democratic Central European Alliance.

Ive been wondering how the postwar situation might look in such a scenario. I know theres a whole load of butterfly effects to think about and various details but in broad terms, if Germany in the scenario were to lead the multitude of minor neighbours to victory against the soviets and bring democracy to Russia, how would the UK, France and USA react? As Germany has not been expansionist and instead acted in the interests of democracy would there be a new United Nations like organisation with more representation from Germany or would the French and British oppose this new strong Germany - particularly considering it is unlikely Germany in this situation would want to continue with reparations and made even more contentious by a possible naval race with the UK and even the possibility of Germany developing the nuke during the war with USSR.

For the purpose of this A/H scenario lets assume that while Germany was leading central Europe against the Soviets, the Italians and Japanese continued along their course and led to conflicts with the UK and France in the Med and UK and USA in the Pacific and the allies were victorious - I know its debatable as to whether they would have been this bold without Germany in the axis but I want to keep the main POD being about Germany.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Hi all,

Bit of an alternate history scenario here. For anyone familiar with the latest development diary for HOI4, I am very interested in the implications of following the path of installing Willhelm III and forming the democratic Central European Alliance.

Ive been wondering how the postwar situation might look in such a scenario. I know theres a whole load of butterfly effects to think about and various details but in broad terms, if Germany in the scenario were to lead the multitude of minor neighbours to victory against the soviets and bring democracy to Russia, how would the UK, France and USA react? As Germany has not been expansionist and instead acted in the interests of democracy would there be a new United Nations like organisation with more representation from Germany or would the French and British oppose this new strong Germany - particularly considering it is unlikely Germany in this situation would want to continue with reparations and made even more contentious by a possible naval race with the UK and even the possibility of Germany developing the nuke during the war with USSR.

For the purpose of this A/H scenario lets assume that while Germany was leading central Europe against the Soviets, the Italians and Japanese continued along their course and led to conflicts with the UK and France in the Med and UK and USA in the Pacific and the allies were victorious - I know its debatable as to whether they would have been this bold without Germany in the axis but I want to keep the main POD being about Germany.

Japan and Italy would have to be suicidal to start wars against France, UK and USA without Germany on their side. The whole idea of anything like ww2 taking place makes no sense in that context.

And if Germany were democratic she would not attack the USSR. There might be an attack by the USSR on Germany's allies though if they (USSR) thought Germany wouldn't defend them. That could set off a mini ww2 like confrontation. But it would make the UK and French game very, very boring. They might support Germany timidly, but not with troops as it would be Germany's war first and foremost and the whole idea of a resurgent Germany, democratic or not, pulling countries out of French and British influence and supporting their revanchist claims, would not be something these two would be enthusiastic about. Helping Germany beat the Soviets would be stupid in their view.

How do you make an interesting war game out of that scenario? I don't think you can.

 

[LaurenceC96]

Japan and Italy would have to be suicidal to start wars against France, UK and USA without Germany on their side. The whole idea of anything like ww2 taking place makes no sense in that context.

And if Germany were democratic she would not attack the USSR. There might be an attack by the USSR on Germany's allies though if they (USSR) thought Germany wouldn't defend them. That could set off a mini ww2 like confrontation. But it would make the UK and French game very, very boring. They might support Germany timidly, but not with troops as it would be Germany's war first and foremost and the whole idea of a resurgent Germany, democratic or not, pulling countries out of French and British influence and supporting their revanchist claims, would not be something these two would be enthusiastic about. Helping Germany beat the Soviets would be stupid in their view.

How do you make an interesting war game out of that scenario? I don't think you can.

I completely agree about your point re. Japan and Italy - the only reason I left that little caveat in is as I doubt the ai in HOI4 is smart enough to realise this and I always like to try A/H scenarios in paradox strategy games and think about the potential long term effects of these and how different the world might be.

In terms of democratic Germany not starting a war against the USSR, the understanding I got from the DD was that although democratic, this was still a very conservative Germany dominated by the Prussian military aristocracy so conflict with the soviets is not that outlandish.

I suppose with the threat of communism gone, the allies would be unlikely to look past the threat of a resurgent Germany and although it may not have resulted in military action, some form of cold war might ensue. Although I appreciate this may not be the most interesting wargame as a scenario, I think it would be interesting to see how a cold war like scenario may appear bearing in mind it would be based more on the countries involved and nationality rather than ideology as in OTL.

 

[JodelDiplom]

In terms of democratic Germany not starting a war against the USSR, the understanding I got from the DD was that although democratic, this was still a very conservative Germany dominated by the Prussian military aristocracy so conflict with the soviets is not that outlandish.

Strictly historically it actually is very outlandish. A democratic Germany wouldn't elect Prussian aristocrats to power, or grant its government the power to attack the USSR.

Now for the purposes of a computer game, yeah of course you can posit that they do, but that isn't alternate history any more, it's cartoonish nonsense like C&C Red Alert 2 and 3.

 

[LaurenceC96]

Strictly historically it actually is very outlandish. A democratic Germany wouldn't elect Prussian aristocrats to power, or grant its government the power to attack the USSR.

Now for the purposes of a computer game, yeah of course you can posit that they do, but that isn't alternate history any more, it's cartoonish nonsense like C&C Red Alert 2 and 3.

To be fair, this is a democratic Germany only in the sense that democracy was restored by German officers after a civil war vs the nazis as a form of constitutional monarchy where most of the german officers fighting for the pro-monarchy side are likely to have come from old military aristocracy - the actual truth of the matter is more likely to be that the Prussian aristocracy would only hand power over with guarantees of preferential treatment in this democracy - not too dissimilar from the house of lords in British politics.

 

[JodelDiplom]

To be fair, this is a democratic Germany only in the sense that democracy was restored by German officers after a civil war vs the nazis as a form of constitutional monarchy where most of the german officers fighting for the pro-monarchy side are likely to have come from old military aristocracy - the actual truth of the matter is more likely to be that the Prussian aristocracy would only hand power over with guarantees of preferential treatment in this democracy - not too dissimilar from the house of lords in British politics.

Even with preferential treatment, even counting their non aristocratic hangers-on, aristocrats really are a very, very tiny class of people by numbers.

The idea that they would dominate the government of a country where an elected parliament passes laws and chooses the government, is silly. Just imagine that the enlisted men who fought under those officers also get to vote. They alone outnumber them 20:1... And their needs and wants in the aftermath of civil war victory are very different from those of their officers. You can't run a military with elected officers, so how are these mythical Prussian officers supposed to run the whole country with an elected government?

 

[keynes2.0]

Japan and Italy would have to be suicidal to start wars against France, UK and USA without Germany on their side. The whole idea of anything like ww2 taking place makes no sense in that context.

I could see a more limited conflict breaking out with Italy. They would still have their imperial ambitions. Without the threat of Germany, Britain and France would have both been interested in demobalizing. The US wouldn't have gotten involved in the war without Germany. There were fascists in Spain, Austria and Yugoslavia that Italy could have drawn support from. So it's not crazy to imagine a scenario where for instance France ends up in a war with Italy while Britain remains neutral.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I could see a more limited conflict breaking out with Italy. They would still have their imperial ambitions. Without the threat of Germany, Britain and France would have both been interested in demobalizing. The US wouldn't have gotten involved in the war without Germany. There were fascists in Spain, Austria and Yugoslavia that Italy could have drawn support from. So it's not crazy to imagine a scenario where for instance France ends up in a war with Italy while Britain remains neutral.

Nah... I consider that unlikely as well. Reason: What the Italians feared most, was not the French or British armies (which would require mobilization) but their navies. Italy depended on overseas trade to supply her economy with almost all resources, including those needed to keep a war economy running like iron ore, coal and oil. Both the French and British navies would have been able to interdict Italy's overseas trade, shutting her economy down unless some outside power was willing to supply her with large amounts of those resources more or less free of charge. (there wasn't much Italy had to offer in return asher civilian economy would be greatly slowed down too.) In our ww2 Germany filled that role, extorting oil from her vassal Romania and supplying Italy with a share for her participation in the war, and sending coal to Italy via train from the German coal deposits. If Germany doesn't bully Romania into helping Italy out, and doesn't send any of its own coal, then Romania has no reason to help Italy out with anything beyond what the Italians can pay for in cash. That would be quite a problem for the Italians as sea lane interdiction by the royal navy and the French navy would make it very difficult to source raw materials from other sources.

 

[keynes2.0]

Both the French and British navies would have been able to interdict Italy's overseas trade, shutting her economy down unless some outside power was willing to supply her with large amounts of those resources more or less free of charge.

Italy was already under an overseas embargo with the major economies she didn't have a land route to. And while the British navy was certainly fearsome, the Italian surface navy was superior to the French surface navy on paper. An important matter to note is that the Italians had gone to considerable expense to upgrade their old dreadnoughts with more powerful engines. While the result was mediocre compared to a modern fast battleship, it still meant that the Italians had a considerable advantage in terms of fast naval vessels. So essentially the Italians might have thought that both they and the French had 4 modern fast battleships but the Italians would additionally have four battlecruisers to the French zero.

Now we happen to know that the poor Italian quality control severely undermined their battleship firepower. However obviously the Italians didn't know that (or else they would have fixed the problem). And we happen to know that radar fire control would render optical fire control obsolete around 1943 but the Italians didn't know that at the time, all they knew was their optical fire control was up to the standards of the day. We happen to know that naval aviation was extremely powerful but neither the Italians nor the French had fleet carriers, all the Italians knew was they had more seaplanes (which would have actually been a considerable asset). So the Italians might have easily overestimated themselves vis-a-vis the French.

Oh plus there were the Frogmen which were quite effective and which I believe the French had no knowledge of.

I'm not saying that the considerable French advantages of population, industry and trade wouldn't have brought themselves to bear. I'm just saying that the contest isn't a lopsided cakewalk. It's akin the situation in the Pacific but less so, at the start they are on even terms but after a couple years the French ability to implement new technology and out produce would matter. But how much would the French be able to mobilize without the fear of German conquest? How many lives are overseas investments in Romanian oil fields worth? It would be a different kind of war...

 

[Kovax]

The course of events would likely depend on the nature of the German government, and how willingly the French and British would be to allow a de facto industrial giant to dominate central Europe. If France and the UK try keeping German industry in check by restricting German imports of raw materials, Germany still has almost all of its original reasons to go to war: to avoid vulnerability to an embargo shutting down its imports (that's not even including the gripes with Poland and Czechoslovakia over their Germanic populations), without the ideological drive to start another front in the East. If France and the UK don't restrict Germany, it steadily turns into an industrial giant, and effectively marginalizes France in a decade.

 

[keynes2.0]

If France and the UK try keeping German industry in check by restricting German imports of raw materials,

And if they wore underpants on their heads, they wouldn't need as many hats. But why would they wear underpants on their heads?

France and Germany put sanctions on Germany because Germany was breaking treaties left and right, annexing territories and very clearly planning to attack them. They didn't just slap sanctions on Germany for shits and giggles. If Germany isn't doing those things, France and Britain would be eager to sell to Germany. In fact one of the biggest geopolitical failures of the French and British policies towards Germany during the Weimar era was they tried to sell too much to Germany while importing too little in return which was an unsustainable trade balance.

 

[JodelDiplom]

If Germany were to remain democratic throughout the 1930s then the modes which had already been set in motion under Bruning would have continued and Germany would have renounced the Versailles treaty bit by bit through symbolic stuff like ceasing to pay what little reparation payments were due, modest rearmament (a few ships, a few planes) and other stuff. Nothing like the nazi armament effort, but still enough to prod the French and British to come out and admit that the treaty was a thing of the past. This was already happening in the 1930s and would have met no resistance from France and Britain. The Saar plebiscite would be due for 1935 and it would result in that territory rejoining Germany, removing another obstacle to full German rehabilitation. Relations would greatly improve and by the second half of the decade I could imagine people would start talking about a closer economic union. I don't see how antagonism between France and Germany could really be anywhere near strong enough to make the two countries consider each other enemies in war.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Japan would have to be suicidal to start wars against France, UK and USA without Germany on their side.

I wouldnt bet on that.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I wouldnt bet on that.

You can't bet on alternate history, but you can argue your case

 

[LaurenceC96]

If Germany were to remain democratic throughout the 1930s then the modes which had already been set in motion under Bruning would have continued and Germany would have renounced the Versailles treaty bit by bit through symbolic stuff like ceasing to pay what little reparation payments were due, modest rearmament (a few ships, a few planes) and other stuff. Nothing like the nazi armament effort, but still enough to prod the French and British to come out and admit that the treaty was a thing of the past. This was already happening in the 1930s and would have met no resistance from France and Britain. The Saar plebiscite would be due for 1935 and it would result in that territory rejoining Germany, removing another obstacle to full German rehabilitation. Relations would greatly improve and by the second half of the decade I could imagine people would start talking about a closer economic union. I don't see how antagonism between France and Germany could really be anywhere near strong enough to make the two countries consider each other enemies in war.

I imagine Germany rearming for war with the soviets may cause some concern for the french - this could lead to some tensions although a war does seem very unlikely

 

[Easy-Kill]

The main challenge for Germany to overcome in this scenario will be its balance of payments. It is not whether the UK/FRA/USA restricts German imports, it is how she will pay for them that really matters. Being cut off from world markets during the first world war, having an economy that was only consistent in its continual dive towards a collapse that never happened meant that although Germany had the potential to make a lot of goods for export, it was never able to generate sufficient external currency to acquire the raw materials it needed to make such goods.

This was always going to be Germany's challenge. The way the Nazis overcame this was by setting people to work to build mostly military goods. Germany stole from the civillian sector to re-arm and then was in a position to absorb/steal raw materials from overseas in order to keep its economy afloat and industry building more internal goods. The problem is that the only way for Germany to unite its neighbours against Russia is to follow the course it did historically, otherwise it will be a long slow rebuilding of the economy and Germany is in no place to start a war against the Soviet Union.

 

[Klausewitz]

Wouldn't even for a Democratic Germany, the first and most important priority be the Auslandsdeutsche, i.e. German minorities in Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. and even a potential Anschluss of Austria given that German Austria prior to Saint-Germain (their version of Versailles) had defined itself as a part of the German Empire?!
Basically, why would a Democratic German not still see Poland and France as its main rivals and opponents?
Given that a Democratic Germany would most likely be a Germany with a strong social democratic but also a strong national conservative electorate (the votes for the NSDAP would have to go somewhere and some of them staying with the DNVP, DVP and other parties of their ilk seems likely) there is still ample reason and reservoir for revanchism.

 

[keynes2.0]

The main challenge for Germany to overcome in this scenario will be its balance of payments. It is not whether the UK/FRA/USA restricts German imports, it is how she will pay for them that really matters.

The German deficit under the Nazis was an artificial creation. They diverted economic activity to war materials which caused exports to fall and they got in the way of foreigners who would have been happy to keep investing in German industries. Germany would still have a deficit of physical goods but it would be a sustainable deficit that would eventually go away when their capital reached a sufficiently high level.

otherwise it will be a long slow rebuilding of the economy and Germany is in no place to start a war against the Soviet Union.

No, it would have been trivially easy to make it higher. German industry was attractive to foreign investment. It's like how Germany sprung back after WWII or China sprung back after Deng took over.

Wouldn't even for a Democratic Germany, the first and most important priority be the Auslandsdeutsche

Because in democracies people dont start petty wars of conquest over imaginary grievances. The Nazi myths about the oppressed foreign germans wouldn't exist if the Nazis weren't in control.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Wouldn't even for a Democratic Germany, the first and most important priority be the Auslandsdeutsche, i.e. German minorities in Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc. and even a potential Anschluss of Austria given that German Austria prior to Saint-Germain (their version of Versailles) had defined itself as a part of the German Empire?!
Basically, why would a Democratic German not still see Poland and France as its main rivals and opponents?
Given that a Democratic Germany would most likely be a Germany with a strong social democratic but also a strong national conservative electorate (the votes for the NSDAP would have to go somewhere and some of them staying with the DNVP, DVP and other parties of their ilk seems likely) there is still ample reason and reservoir for revanchism.

In a democratic system, the parties who want to form the government must seek a mandate from the electorate first. Nationalist goals like annexing Austria would likely raise cheers and elicit praise in the newspapers and beer halls but only in so far as the government doesn't try to cut farmers' subsidies or unemployment benefits and raise property taxes or VAT in order to fund such efforts. A rich country can often find the political will to set aside funds for "vanity" projects like that but a struggling country like interwar Germany would find this a hard sell. Yes conservative governments would cut unemployment benefits and raise VAT to increase military funding but they wouldn't be able to do this to anywhere near the extent that would be necessary to actually be able to affect things via saber rattling, let alone armed conflict. Not without a serious external threat.

 

[Easy-Kill]

The German deficit under the Nazis was an artificial creation. They diverted economic activity to war materials which caused exports to fall and they got in the way of foreigners who would have been happy to keep investing in German industries. Germany would still have a deficit of physical goods but it would be a sustainable deficit that would eventually go away when their capital reached a sufficiently high level.

That's not how it is presented by either Overt or Tooze. Industrial exports dropped under the Nazi's because Schlacht borrowed huge sums of money to spend externally, while simultaneously issuing IOUs to national companies for their own investment. The effect of this was devaluing of the German currency, leading to decreasing income from exports and increasing cost of imports. Essentially, Germany could not maintain its balance of payments and had no foreign capital with which to buy raw materials. The only way to prevent unemployment was to steer all of that idle industry to internal projects, causing the German economy to be hugely isolated (hence why you still see increasing GDP).

No, it would have been trivially easy to make it higher. German industry was attractive to foreign investment. It's like how Germany sprung back after WWII or China sprung back after Deng took over.

But this still doesn't overcome the issues highlighted above. Yes German industry was attractive, but without the state intervention to keep the industry afloat, it would not have continued to expand. Without state autarky, German industry is unlikely to experience the huge growth that the Nazi's achieved. That was only achieved by isolating the economy and stealing basic materials from the civilian sector.