StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Probably everyone's favorite Post World-War 2 alternate history scenario is to speculate on what might have happened if the Axis powers won the Second World War. This scenario has always been a bit uninteresting to me, because I don't see a realistic route to victory for Germany, at least in the European theater.

I think a more interesting alt-history question is to speculate on what might have happened if the Nazi party didn't become so successful during the declining years of the Weimar Republic. There were many other parties vying for power in Depression Era Germany. At one point, it seemed completely plausible that Germany would become a Communist Republic under the pro-Soviet KPD (Communist Party of Germany). But after the Reichstag fire, the Nazis successfully blamed it on the Communists, and pretty much crippled them politically, destroying the future of Communism in Germany.

Let's imagine an alternate scenario in which Hitler was unable to turn Germany against the Communists, and Germany successfully became a Communist state.

Would this have potentially prevented World War 2, and kicked-off the Cold War a lot earlier? I would imagine that World War 2 may have been reduced to a war between the US/British Empire/USSR against Japan - but it's unclear how the Japanese Empire would have acted without the alliance with Germany. They would literally be a single aggressor without much of a chance, against the massive industrial base of the US, and the rapidly increasing industrial base of the USSR.

Another consequence would be that the industrialization of the USSR probably would have proceeded a lot faster. Millions of Soviet lives would be spared the horrors of Stalingrad and other catastrophes. So Stalin would be free to continue his plans for rapid industrialization much quicker. In turn, Cold-war tensions between the West and the USSR may have begun as early as the early 1940s. However, the idea of a "Cold War" is only really possible when nuclear weapons are involved, and without World War 2 to kickstart the Manhattan project, the development of the Atomic bomb likely would have been significantly delayed. The physicists involved with the Manhattan project of course would have known of the theoretical possibility of an atomic weapon, but they may not have been compelled to write the Einstein–Szilárd letter without the threat of Nazi Germany.

Additionally, without technology developed by the Nazis, the USSR would be way behind in rocket technology, and the Space Race would probably be significantly delayed.

Anyway, my predictions would be:

(1) World War 2 wouldn't happen, or would be much smaller in scale
(2) A communist Germany would help encourage the expansion of Communism much earlier
(3) The Cold War would begin much earlier, perhaps starting with conventional (non-Atomic) wars between Communist and non-Communist states
(4) The development of rocket technology, and the Space Race in general, would be delayed by at least a decade
(5) The Cold War would be more of a US/British Empire vs. USSR, with the British Empire playing a much larger role
(6) The USSR would industrialize much faster, but ultimately the same fundamental problems of a command-economy would eventually keep it's GDP lower than the US
(7) The atomic bomb wouldn't be developed until the late 1940s/1950s
(8) Israel would not exist, since the Holocaust wouldn't happen... but that's a whole other can of worms.

You do know Thanas is not a great fan of alt-history, right? This might end up getting booted elsewhere... but as long as it's here.

Channel72 wrote: (1) World War 2 wouldn't happen, or would be much smaller in scale

Some form of European war, as well as a Pacific war, is almost certain to happen. Germany was deeply unhappy about the Treaty of Versailles, and anti-Communism was quite strong in much of the Western world due to the very real horrors of the Stalin regime as well as the various events of the Russian Revolution. The Japanese had been expanding through Asia since the 1930s and a war with the various colonial powers was basically a certainty.

So it's most likely you would see a war against the Russians and Communists in Europe, and a war against the Japanese in Asia. Whether the Americans would get involved against Japan is a open question-- without an alliance with Germany it's uncertain whether the Japanese would have provoked the United States to war-- but they would probably get into the European conflict. Isolationism was a strong trend in the States at this point, thanks to the events of WWI, and it took a direct attack by Japan to tip us over the brink into the war despite FDR's strong desire to get involved.

(2) A communist Germany would help encourage the expansion of Communism much earlier

I think it's a bit premature to think that the Communists could have asserted control over Germany like the Nazis did. As far as I know (I honestly am not as well informed about the German Communists as I know about the Nazis), they were never as strong a presence in German politics as the Nazis were, occupying perhaps a place similar to today's Green Party in American politics-- a highly vocal but small minority. Internal struggles also prevented it from gaining a solid foundation and the general populace of Germany was fairly conservative for the most part, so liberal notions promoted by the Communists never gained much traction. Nazism was a solidly conservative party and that gave it an edge with the people.

Playing along with the thread, though, Communist Germany being the start of something like the Warsaw Pact? Sure. However, Stalin purged several of the KPD's leadership IRL. If Germany came under the Soviet sphere of influence, it's quite possible that he could have asserted his authority over the KPD in a similar manner.

Bear in mind also that Poland still exists as a buffer state between Germany and the Russians if we're assuming the Nazis don't enter the scene here. Unless the KPD and the Russians make another Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to knock off Poland, it's less likely that the Russians will just roll over Poland like they did IRL out of fears of retaliation by the Western powers.

(3) The Cold War would begin much earlier, perhaps starting with conventional (non-Atomic) wars between Communist and non-Communist states

Cold War? No. More like a 'hot war' between allied states of Europe, possibly the United States and some other nations, versus the Soviet Union. This might not take place until the 1950s, or it might start about the same time. Who knows. Really, once you posit the KPD succeeding in taking over Germany and Germany becoming a member of the Soviet Union or whatever, you're seeing a large enough divergence from real-world history that it becomes a lot harder to predict how things would happen.

What's interesting, though, is that the Japanese were fighting the Soviets in Asia throughout much of the late 30s in an undeclared war. It's quite possible that the Soviets might decide to keep things mellow in the West and start fighting Japan on their own-- but with a pre-WWII level to their military and economy, you have some questions to ask about whether they would steamroll Japan as they appeared ready to in 1945 IRL.

(4) The development of rocket technology, and the Space Race in general, would be delayed by at least a decade

Rockets are still useful, and Werner von Braun and all those guys are still on the scene. The only difference is that the Soviet Union might get an edge since now they're within the Russian sphere of influence, not Allied. However, it's quite possible that they won't focus on rocket technology for some time as one big boost to that was Hitler's V-weapons and the designs that came from that. Goddard was an American pioneer in the field, but after his death the Americans didn't really take much notice of rocket technology until the war.

(5) The Cold War would be more of a US/British Empire vs. USSR, with the British Empire playing a much larger role

Possible. But it's still likely that the British Empire will break up as it did in the 50s and 60s. It had simply gotten to the point where it was too big to really control. WWII helped, but some colonial dominions such as India would have likely still managed to break away regardless. I don't really see any reason to assume that that would've changed.

(6) The USSR would industrialize much faster, but ultimately the same fundamental problems of a command-economy would eventually keep it's GDP lower than the US

You've just given it a burgeoning industrial nation in the form of Germany, which is also a 'Western' country as opposed to 'Eastern'. That's going to give it a significant edge. American GDP also doesn't have WWII (initially at least) to give it a kick in the pants-- they're still recovering from the Depression under FDR at this point. If the US doesn't become an ally, it's probably still going to do considerable trade with the Western allies, which will be an economic boost but probably not as major as the mobilization for WWII was.

(7) The atomic bomb wouldn't be developed until the late 1940s/1950s

This is probably close enough to accurate. Again, depends on if the war happens on schedule, but if it takes a few years to develop, sure, it won't be given as much a priority as it was IRL.

(8) Israel would not exist, since the Holocaust wouldn't happen... but that's a whole other can of worms.

Not sure. The Balfour Declaration did lay the groundwork for it in the Mandate of Palestine, and I suspect some form of Jewish state would be established eventually. It probably wouldn't be as authoritative as the state of Israel, though, and you probably wouldn't see an abrupt large-scale Jewish migration to Israel. It would be more a gradual drift towards the state in the Middle East.

Oh, yes. Another point to consider. Would the KPD have been as likely as the Nazis to try and annex Austria-Hungary and Czechoslovakia? Because Czechoslovakia at least was a major provocation for WWII.

Elheru Aran wrote:You do know Thanas is not a great fan of alt-history, right? This might end up getting booted elsewhere... but as long as it's here.

That's Thanas' problem to deal with. I read the rules, and they explicitly state alt-history scenarios are allowed as long as they show proper understanding/research of why such a change is plausible/interesting.

Elheru Aran wrote:I think it's a bit premature to think that the Communists could have asserted control over Germany like the Nazis did. As far as I know (I honestly am not as well informed about the German Communists as I know about the Nazis), they were never as strong a presence in German politics as the Nazis were, occupying perhaps a place similar to today's Green Party in American politics-- a highly vocal but small minority. Internal struggles also prevented it from gaining a solid foundation and the general populace of Germany was fairly conservative for the most part, so liberal notions promoted by the Communists never gained much traction. Nazism was a solidly conservative party and that gave it an edge with the people.

They were much more influential than the US green party. They achieved something like 10% of the vote, compared with the Nazi's 30%. So yeah, they were not as popular as the Nazis but they were pretty significant. It's not entirely implausible to me that they could have gained control, had they been more unified.

From what I know of the German politics of the time, the KPD would face two obstacles: the SDP and the conservatives, with the former siphoning away support and the latter being likely to get the army to come out and crush the KPD if it ever seemed to be gaining power.

Hitler's takeover was made possible because of timely alliances with German indusrialists and conservatives. His becoming Chancellor was actually a maneuver by the conservatives that backfired, since they had intended to be the real masters of the government before being outmaneuvered by Hitler. Thanas can correct me if I'm wrong, but the likelihood of the KPD getting the same route Hitler did is minimal. I suspect a KPD takeover of Germany would require different forces and circumstances to come into play.

Channel72 wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:You do know Thanas is not a great fan of alt-history, right? This might end up getting booted elsewhere... but as long as it's here.

That's Thanas' problem to deal with. I read the rules, and they explicitly state alt-history scenarios are allowed as long as they show proper understanding/research of why such a change is plausible/interesting.

As of right now, you demonstrate neither, so I give you the next twelve hours to come up how this might be plausible. Specifically, how the KPD would have marshalled the same resources as the NSDAP and how they would have overcome the resistance from the German elites, business community, middle class and the Army.

A much better idea is the success of the German revolution earlier, in 1918.

Won't happen as it didn't spread to the real power, the army. The Navy mutinied but even there it wasn't as if the overwhelming majority of the sailors were behind it. One could see how small the potential for a real revolution was when Liebknecht and Luxemburg tried their idiotic attempt which collapsed after no more than ten days and never even managed to get control of Berlin.

Time to get the mind-controlling Communist Alien Space Bats, it seems....

Just kidding just kidding! *ducks to avoid Thanas throwing objects*

Thanas wrote:Won't happen as it didn't spread to the real power, the army. The Navy mutinied but even there it wasn't as if the overwhelming majority of the sailors were behind it. One could see how small the potential for a real revolution was when Liebknecht and Luxemburg tried their idiotic attempt which collapsed after no more than ten days and never even managed to get control of Berlin.

Revolutions are a tricky business, with very small groups capable of altering the situation. Unlike peacetime slow and steady empowerment, which happened with the Nazis. I merely suggested a clearly more feasible scenario. The peacetime power rise one does not seem to be feasible unless we talk of strategy changes.

Yeah, agreed. The trouble with getting a bigger revolution though is that it would most likely require the war to drag on for much longer and also require the infantry getting exposed to red propaganda. Neither is likely to happen and in fact seem to be mutually exclusive - if the war drags on longer it means Germany would have achieved significant victories on the Western Front, which precludes those same soldiers listening to red propaganda (and which opens a whole other can of worms with regards to the shape of the allies etc.)

And I don't think the red forces were ever enough to take Berlin. Heck, the rebellious forces weren't even enough to do much against the few returning divisions. The Freikorps outnumbered and outfought them. They couldn't turn Kiel into a significant strategic centre of power. Even worse, they lacked popular support. The vast majority of Germans probably did not even want the Kaiser gone that hard, they just wanted peace. Anything more than Ebert was clearly not acceptable to most people.

A temporary success can mean a lot in the long run, though. Just look at the Chinese revolutionaries. Even if they control Kiel or some areas for a while, that may be important in the endgame scenario where they get all power in the state, maybe losing sone territory in the process, but still.

Stas Bush wrote:A temporary success can mean a lot in the long run, though. Just look at the Chinese revolutionaries. Even if they control Kiel or some areas for a while, that may be important in the endgame scenario where they get all power in the state, maybe losing sone territory in the process, but still.

Yeah but the scenario is totally different here. Kiel is no important city when it comes to land warfare and it is totally dependent on imports. It cannot be defended from an attack (because the revolutionaries do not control the battleships and even if they do chances are they cannot use them effectively), it offers little to no protection from artillery and offers no safe avenue for retreat.

Besides, the Germans could always call in the brits. Beatty would have chomped at the bit to sink the German fleet at anchor. If he has to level a town to do it, he'd probably be glad to do that as well.

The fleet is not a strength, it is a weakness. It needs valuable supplies - which the rebels cannot get - spare parts (ditto) etc. and it still is worthless in a power struggle for Berlin. Nevermind that sailors make bad soldiers. You can't really imagine them standing up to the Sturmtruppen, can you?

In short, Kiel becoming a safe base or so is completely impossible IMO.

Thanas wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:A temporary success can mean a lot in the long run, though. Just look at the Chinese revolutionaries. Even if they control Kiel or some areas for a while, that may be important in the endgame scenario where they get all power in the state, maybe losing sone territory in the process, but still.

Yeah but the scenario is totally different here. Kiel is no important city when it comes to land warfare and it is totally dependent on imports. It cannot be defended from an attack (because the revolutionaries do not control the battleships and even if they do chances are they cannot use them effectively), it offers little to no protection from artillery and offers no safe avenue for retreat.

Besides, the Germans could always call in the brits. Beatty would have chomped at the bit to sink the German fleet at anchor. If he has to level a town to do it, he'd probably be glad to do that as well.

The fleet is not a strength, it is a weakness. It needs valuable supplies - which the rebels cannot get - spare parts (ditto) etc. and it still is worthless in a power struggle for Berlin. Nevermind that sailors make bad soldiers. You can't really imagine them standing up to the Sturmtruppen, can you?

In short, Kiel becoming a safe base or so is completely impossible IMO.

Revolution is both like and unlike war. Having the time and the population to spread your ideas to is important even if you lose; Russia's 1917 wouldn't have been possible without 1905-1907, for example. So I am not sure it is a question of mere military might.

But that gets even worse when you consider that the communist message simply failed on all fronts. It could not establish itself among the educated youth, it failed to attract enoug workers to become a real power and was universally hated among farmers.

BTW, the chain of events you propose happened. The Spartakus insurgency and the Ruhr uprising were largescale and yet they failed and thus could be counted as Germany's 1905. But a decade later the communits were no closer to their goal despite having economic conditions favorable to a revolution.

Fact is communism never really caught on in Germany. It was weakened by moderate (in some cases state-sponsored) socialism. A week or a month more of communist control of a middle-sized city in the north of Germany would not change that. Nor would more martyrs, because Liebknecht and Luxenburg were about the best martyrs there were. And they were not enough.

Hrm... would that mean Bismarck's strategy ultimately worked? That socialist benefits to the working classes kept them from radicalizing enough to become Communist, if not holding them back from becoming SDP?

Thanas wrote:

Channel72 wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:You do know Thanas is not a great fan of alt-history, right? This might end up getting booted elsewhere... but as long as it's here.

That's Thanas' problem to deal with. I read the rules, and they explicitly state alt-history scenarios are allowed as long as they show proper understanding/research of why such a change is plausible/interesting.

As of right now, you demonstrate neither, so I give you the next twelve hours to come up how this might be plausible. Specifically, how the KPD would have marshalled the same resources as the NSDAP and how they would have overcome the resistance from the German elites, business community, middle class and the Army.

That's your call to make, Thanas.

Regardless, I'm surprised you think a communist Germany would have been completely implausible, given the wide support for a revolution in 1918, and the fact that the SPD and KPD combined received 30% of the 1933 vote, compared with Hitler's 43%. Yes, obviously the Nazis were more popular, but the margin isn't significant enough to dismiss the possibility that the Communists could have won, had they been more united. Obviously, their message resonated with a lot of people, despite fierce opposition from the right. The Enabling Act was really the nail in the coffin for them, but the events which led to that seem more or less flexible.

Thanas wrote:BTW, the chain of events you propose happened. The Spartakus insurgency and the Ruhr uprising were largescale and yet they failed and thus could be counted as Germany's 1905. But a decade later the communits were no closer to their goal despite having economic conditions favorable to a revolution.

Yes, but they had competition - in the fascists. Which positioned themselves as the third-way force and frankly, a lot of the fascist success depended on how well the fascists presented themselves.

Steve wrote:Hrm... would that mean Bismarck's strategy ultimately worked? That socialist benefits to the working classes kept them from radicalizing enough to become Communist, if not holding them back from becoming SDP?

The strategy worked when it came to the sugar (socialist ideas being enacted), less so when it came to the whip (repression). Which is pretty much how every single one of Bismarck's strategies went.

Stas Bush wrote:Yes, but they had competition - in the fascists. Which positioned themselves as the third-way force and frankly, a lot of the fascist success depended on how well the fascists presented themselves.

But that competition only went into full forces well over 14 years after the failed revolution. Which is much too long a time period compared to Russia.

That's your call to make, Thanas.

And on that, off we go to a more suitable location.

Thanas wrote:

That's your call to make, Thanas.

And on that, off we go to a more suitable location.

I concur. The topic is interesting (it is actually an uncommon AH scenario, I know only one book that follows it, it's also a relatively good one). But it is far from being historical news or a serious study on the matter.

Thanas wrote:

Stas Bush wrote:A temporary success can mean a lot in the long run, though. Just look at the Chinese revolutionaries. Even if they control Kiel or some areas for a while, that may be important in the endgame scenario where they get all power in the state, maybe losing sone territory in the process, but still.

Yeah but the scenario is totally different here. Kiel is no important city when it comes to land warfare and it is totally dependent on imports. It cannot be defended from an attack (because the revolutionaries do not control the battleships and even if they do chances are they cannot use them effectively), it offers little to no protection from artillery and offers no safe avenue for retreat.

What about Bavaria? In 1918 they established a moderate socialist government. In real history Eisner lost the elections and was shot, and then replaced by idealistic (i.e. incompetent) socialists and then by hard-liner (i.e. incompetent in a different way and also ready to kill) communists. In a different timeline the second wave of socialists might have been actually competent and established a working government. And then still would have been slaughtered by the freecorps.

For the communists getting into power a lot would have been different. The democratic governments would have to clean the bureaucracy from supporters of the ancient regime. And there would have to be no right wing alternative like the NSDAP. And the KPD would have had to soften enough to be electable for larger constituencies (as Hitler did in the early 30s to get mainstream), but not soft enough to be part of the established party system. If all that happens, then the Germans would probably voted the KPD into power to get any kind of change, as they did with Hitler.

If that happened, I doubt it would have stayed long. Either a military coup d'etat would have ended it, or the western powers would have started a pre-emptive war. They may have waited what happened under the NSDAP, but a communist government in a western (or at least middle European) country would have meant they would be next. Also there wouldn't have been a doubt that they ally with the USSR. Hitler was in no small part acceptable for the western part because it was a given that he never would ally with the communists and vice versa.

A war against Germany and the USSR aligned in the European continent might not have ended this well for the Western powers, though.

Welf, that is one scenario that might have worked....but not on a national level, I think.

IMO the best shot for a commmunist or socialist Government would be if the Versailles treaty is not designed to put all the blame on Germany. Without that, you got no instant and indefensible attack weapon against the socialist. Max Ebert for example was one of Germany's best politicians ever, yet Versailles wrecked him. If you remove the stigma of "socialist surrender monkeys" the SPD and especially the more socialist factions of it would be a lot more palpable to the public, especially with success in treaties like Lausanne or Rapallo that might have been negotiated by socialists as well (though this is the weak point of the scenario as Streseman was just a dominant figure that removing him is so hard).

And it would necessitate the sort of charismatic and pragmatic leader that the socialists and communists lacked after Ebert. Because there will be a challenge from the right in the form of another charismatic leader, be it Hitler, Göring or even Roehm. And there will have to be concessions made to the Wehrmacht and the right-wing. There will be an annexation of Austria and other territories and there would have to be an effort to get Danzig and the corridor back.

And in the end, such a Germany would not look like what we associate with communism. It would have to be more of a saloon communism of the sort of Ferdinand Lasalle, in essence more closer to the nowadays right-wing of the Linke or maybe even the SPD than anything resembling Stalins regime.

Thanas wrote:And in the end, such a Germany would not look like what we associate with communism. It would have to be more of a saloon communism of the sort of Ferdinand Lasalle, in essence more closer to the nowadays right-wing of the Linke or maybe even the SPD than anything resembling Stalins regime.

Pfft. As if Stalin was not adept at reacquiring lost territories of the former Empire! German communists could use the very same tactic; especially with the USSR backing their reconquista.