The REAL Churchill

[Spanky The Dolphin]

If the Treaty were any harsher than it already was, then the outcome could have been much worse.

[Sea Skimmer]

If the Treaty were any harsher than it already was, then the outcome could have been much worse.

No, it would have been better if anything. The very problem with the treaty of Versailles was it punished the Germans, yet not enough to prevent their rapid recovery. If it had gone further, with the permanent occupation of the Saar and parts of the Ruhr and Germany perhaps broken up to return it t its 1870 state then it would have been unable to launch a second world war, at least not without taking far more time to go about it.

[Lucius Licinius Lucullus]

No, it would have been better if anything. The very problem with the treaty of Versailles was it punished the Germans, yet not enough to prevent their rapid recovery. If it had gone further, with the permanent occupation of the Saar and parts of the Ruhr and Germany perhaps broken up to return it t its 1870 state then it would have been unable to launch a second world war, at least not without taking far more time to go about it.

Breaking up a nation in the age of Nationalism that had strived for unity for the last 2-300 years yeah it might have worked, then Hitler would have come to power in Bavaria, and strived to unite germany again, wich 99% of all Germans would have wanted. Great Britain would most likely have stayed out of it as they already percived the Versaille treaty as being to harsh as it was, thus the French is all by themselves (the Yankee congress would very unlikely agree on a renewed war on Germany, or even to raticify the peace trearty if it contained any obligations for involvement in European affairs). And any party in France supporting renewed war with Germany in the early thirties would have been doomed. No one in France wanted to loose another 1-1.5 million in dead for another war with Germany.

So had Germany been carved up, no one would have opposed a reunification of Germany, not France, not Great Britain or the USA. There was as it was no will in Europe (or in the USA for that matter) to fight a new war over the enforcment of a peace treaty. And then we are right back where we started. An angry Hitler-Germany, with a grudge against everyone.

[TheDarkling]

Let us assume that Germany would reunite and the "allies" do nothing and then everything goes as it did in OTL, we have still given Britain and France another decade of two to pull themselves back to gave and get over the war (both economically and psychologically), the Germans were damn lucky the French were such a push over when they tried it in the 40's if the French of the 50-60s have some backbone and a touch of tactical ability (maybe DeGualle has risen into a position of power, he may have been an arrogant prat but he at least realised what armoured warfare was about) then the Germans get stopped dead at he border and hammered once again.

Now for the fair more likely outcome, Britain/France/America get together to discuss what is to be done with Germany and the decision is made to fragment it. Bavaria and Austria will be combined, Hanover will become free, Poland will get some of Prussia and the Rhineland becomes an independent buffer state. Prussia is given the biggest share of the debt, almost total blame and the most restriction on its army/navy etc.

Now I ask you, why would the Catholic States of Germany (Bavaria and Austria) want to ally with the militant Protestants in Prussia and be their lackeys again? Bavaria never liked being subservient to the Protestants in reality now they have a nice relatively powerful Catholic state, why dilute it and had control to Prussia who are protestants, just lost them a war, come with a hefty price tag (due to them having much higher debt) and are militant in the extreme. No the Catholic states will remain independent and start trying to forge a new destiny, if for no other reason than the people ruling this nice little empire won't want to lose their jobs and be dictated to from Prussia - they will take the allies line that it was all the Prussians fault in order to keep their people away from unification ideas.

Now Hanover, well they have less of a problem with Prussia on religious grounds however they never chose to join Germany in the first place but were conquered and they were still a mite sensitive about that at the time, their leaders will have the same problem with unification as Bavaria.

As a note one of Britains war aims when it first entered the war was an independant Hanover (given to the fact that we once shared a monarch I guess) and I also believe the Czar was keen on the idea as well.

The Rhineland, they have some nice cash and don't want to share it with the paupers in Prussia not to mention that the French made sure that there is a friendly guy in charge (and the French will have less problem taking on the Rhineland alone meaning the guy behaves well).

Prussia sits off to the side whining about how they weren't beaten and everybody just shakes their heads and ignores them.

The world is somewhat more stable in their timeline (in the short-term at least) although the US may have a tougher time without WW2 to pull it out of the depression.

You see the beauty of this plan is that it doesn’t' require Britain/France to enforce it, the local leaders will do that to keep themselves in power and anything a single Germany state does can easily be put down, even by the Poles or the Czechs.

Of course if you wanted to you could carve up Germany a little more (as I have seen others suggest) but I think 4 is good enough.

[Lucius Licinius Lucullus]

You are forgetting the most powerfull force in the early 20th century, nationalism. Germans wanted to be united. Germany had been united for more then an generation.

But what do you mean with another decade?

Hitler might very well have succeded to come to power in Bavariaduring the late 20s in your scenario, as the Germans would be even more embittered and resentfull then they already was. Not to mention that Hitlers most vivid supporters were Southern Germans, not the Prussians.

Germany would most likely already be reunited by -33 in your scenario. And maybe Hitler would already be rearming by that time in Bavaria.

[TheDarkling]

You are forgetting the most powerfull force in the early 20th century, nationalism. Germans wanted to be united. Germany had been united for more then an generation.

If Germans wanted to be united then why did Bismarck have to conquer half of it, beat the two neighbouring Major powers and strong arm Bavaria into joining?

You say Germans wanted to be united but Bavaria went independent after the War until the Free Corps marched into Munich and had a killing spree to bring them back into line. Do not forget that Hitler himself used this Bavaria first (and only if necessary) line to gain power, your allegation that it would have had no support is unfounded, in fact it flies in the face of evidence with have.

You trump nationalise but you forget that the nationalise expressed need not be to Germany, Bavaria had its own King (he could have been given control of an independent state) and before the war it had its own army and even embassies - Bavaria was hardly unified with Germany in the same manner as a modern nation state. The King and his Parliament could easily state that "this is a return to the true nation of Bavaria after all just look what those Prussian morons and their Kaiser cost us, never again shall the generals of Prussia send Bavarians to die for their foolish pride" and so on, the crowd will eat it up.


Nationalism is not some crutch you can use to support your theories; if they are to stand they must stand on evidence.

Hitler might very well have succeded to come to power in Bavariaduring the late 20s in your scenario, as the Germans would be even more embittered and resentfull then they already was. Not to mention that Hitlers most vivid supporters were Southern Germans, not the Prussians.

Of course Adolf said "Bavaria first" and then said "cheerio chaps I'm going to Berlin to fight for you", in my scenario people look at him strangely and say "Hmm Adolf we are independent already". He also used the treaty to gain ground but under my scenario the allies just restored the government of Bavaria under its rightful monarch and they aren't doing much else untoward so that excuse won't gain him power either (which also forces we to wonder why the Germans would be more bitter).

So Hitler has less of a platform than ever and only managed real political power due to luck, frankly I can see Adolf giving up politics and trying to re-enter the art scene.

Germany would most likely already be reunited by -33 in your scenario. And maybe Hitler would already be rearming by that time in Bavaria.

Assuming we do see Adolf pull off what he did in OTL to go from jail in 1929, to leader of Bavaria and then uniting Germany by 1933 is fairly brisk work indeed and is the stuff of fantasy land IMO.

[Peregrin Toker]

Yeah, he's sort of our resident tinfoiler.

I thought I were the resident tinfoiler?

I mean.... come on, I've honestly believed that the Republicans plans to use a global mindcontrol network to secure the 2004 election!

(and that's just the top of the iceberg!)

[Lucius Licinius Lucullus]

If Germans wanted to be united then why did Bismarck have to conquer half of it, beat the two neighbouring Major powers and strong arm Bavaria into joining?

What the people want and what the governments want, are not necessarily one and the same. Don’t forget that Prussia also defeated Denmark. But what do you mean with “have to conquer half of it”? Half of what? Half of what is to become Germany? Or half of the remaining parts of what is to become Germany?

You say Germans wanted to be united but Bavaria went independent after the War until the Free Corps marched into Munich and had a killing spree to bring them back into line.

A communist revolt and commune can hardly be classified as independence.

You trump nationalise but you forget that the nationalise expressed need not be to Germany, Bavaria had its own King (he could have been given control of an independent

Had is the right word, as Ludwig III abdicated in November 1918, incidentally because of an armistice.

Bavaria was hardly unified with Germany in the same manner as a modern nation state. The King and his Parliament could easily state that "this is a return to the true nation of Bavaria after all just look what those Prussian morons and their Kaiser cost us, never again shall the generals of Prussia send Bavarians to die for their foolish pride" and so on, the crowd will eat it up.

Bavaria had no King at that time, “the crowd” thought of themselves first as Germans, and Bavarians secondly. Germany was united not to dissimilar as the United Kingdom was

Nationalism is not some crutch you can use to support your theories; if they are to stand they must stand on evidence.

Right, two words: Frankfurt Assembly.

Of course Adolf said "Bavaria first" and then said "cheerio chaps I'm going to Berlin to fight for you", in my scenario people look at him strangely and say "Hmm Adolf we are independent already". He also used the treaty to gain ground but under my scenario the allies just restored the government of Bavaria under its rightful monarch and they aren't doing much else untoward so that excuse won't gain him power either (which also forces we to wonder why the Germans would be more bitter).

It is your scenario. I’m merely pointing out the flaws of your scenario, and stating the implausibility of it

So Hitler has less of a platform than ever and only managed real political power due to luck, frankly I can see Adolf giving up politics and trying to re-enter the art scene.

Well, it is your scenario, and to me it is frankly quite ridiculous, but what do I know of history, political science and social science

Assuming we do see Adolf pull off what he did in OTL to go from jail in 1929, to leader of Bavaria and then uniting Germany by 1933 is fairly brisk work indeed and is the stuff of fantasy land IMO.

Jail in 1929? I think you need to go and brush up on your history knowledge somewhat.

[TheDarkling]

What the people want and what the governments want, are not necessarily one and the same. Don’t forget that Prussia also defeated Denmark. But what do you mean with “have to conquer half of it”? Half of what? Half of what is to become Germany? Or half of the remaining parts of what is to become Germany?

They conquered Hanover and annexed it (along with the other northern German territories), they grabbed Alsace Lorraine from the French, they nicked Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark and they strong armed just about everybody else into joining Germany due to those wars. That is what I meant by half of it (although it wasn't meant to actually be half), the major land grab before Bismarck was the Napoleonic wars which gave them the Rhine and Westphalia although that was 50 years earlier it shows that Germany hardly came together out of warm fuzzy feelings but came togethr because of Prussian expansionism, military conquest and strong arming.

A communist revolt and commune can hardly be classified as independence.

Still shocking considering that the people of Germany have always wanted to be united and would never consider anything to contrary.

Had is the right word, as Ludwig III abdicated in November 1918, incidentally because of an armistice.

Well done clueless and he would be kept on the throne and given rule of his new independent Bavaria instead of being deposed.

Bavaria had no King at that time, “the crowd” thought of themselves first as Germans, and Bavarians secondly. Germany was united not to dissimilar as the United Kingdom was

That is rubbish, the UK did not have separate institutions (with the exclusion of Scottish courts which hardly compares to embassies) and armies, not to mention the UK had been around long than 50 years and wasn't formed under military pressure (we bought Scotland fair and square ).

And again in case you aren't getting this, under my scenario the King stays.

Right, two words: Frankfurt Assembly.

Yeah, worked like a charm didn't it.

It is your scenario. I’m merely pointing out the flaws of your scenario, and stating the implausibility of it

Indeed, stating as opposed to proving (or even reasoning).

[quote="]
Well, it is your scenario, and to me it is frankly quite ridiculous, but what do I know of history, political science and social science[/quote]

I wouldn't know, however you have displayed little here because you haven't backed up anything you have said.

Jail in 1929? I think you need to go and brush up on your history knowledge somewhat.

Oh the pain.

I should spell it out for you then should I?

He was originally sentenced to a minimum of 5 years, a stable government is going to want him locked away for as long as possible so they won't release him early.

You caught up now?

I could point out that the Nazi party was constantly teetering on the brink of dissolution (lack of popularity, lack of voter appeal, lack of notoriety, lack of power, lack of money) and they managed to skim through by happenstance (Great Depression, disorganised political scene and the former, Hitler’s arrest and trial, sweetheart political alliance and Hindenburg’s death) and thus having to start off in a smaller state and work up is likely to negate these lucky breaks and thus leave Hitler out in the cold.


You have provided nothing to back up your assertions except to say that Bavarians would not hold with independence, I have argued the opposite with reasoning and you simply repeat that Bavarians sure themselves as German first and Bavarians such a distant second that they could not be manipulated into accepting a separate state. The only concrete things you have stated is that Hitler’s support was better in the south than the north (something that is very dubious considering that was only true while he was centred on Bavaria, come 1929 there is a distinct Catholic/Protestant split and thus a north - south split, or North east - South west if you wish to be pedantic, with Hitler doing 20% in the Protestant areas.) please provide some evidence in support of your view point or just admit you can’t really find fault with what I have said but just want to think it is wrong.

[Lucius Licinius Lucullus]

please provide some evidence in support of your view point

Evidence of what? German nationalism and want for unification? I have given one and can give you one other.

Or for Hitler managing to take power in Bavaria in your scenario?

[TheDarkling]

Evidence of what? German nationalism and want for unification? I have given one and can give you one other.

Well that really isn't the issue is it, some Germans wanted to be united (although Bavaria has an independence streak a mile wide and still does) sure but once split up would they be quick to reunite with their leaders blaming Prussia (rightfully in my opinion but that is another matter) and it no being in their best interest. Then we have the fact that if they do decide to reunite the other nations have to want it and once over that hurdle they have to form a government in which everybody is going to be competing for advantages. This is a rather long process and a difficult one while things are not in a very stable situation (economically or politically at home).

So just to be clear I have no doubt a large portion of the German population would favour staying together (I reserve judgement on Bavaria however) but once split apart I think less people would favour reunification (especially as things drag on and their nation gains advantages over the others) and that there will most certainly be political impediments both locally (in each nation) and in Germany as a whole.

You have failed to address what I have raised and simply reiterated that in a set of circumstances some Germans wanted to become part of a lose federal Germany (which isn’t what they ended up with by the why and there is no guarantee it is what they would be returning to), you haven't taken into account the particulars of Bavaria, the political road blocks or the factors that in the scenario will influence the German people against reunification. You have also failed to address the time factor involved (you think reunification will be done and dusted by 1933 which is frankly laughable) and whether an unstable Extreme right wing regime would get people to willingly give over their power (not just the people by the politicians as well).

In the scenario I have no doubt Germany would eventually form something like a federal union (maybe EU like in nature) but that would take time and political stability and with which it doesn't really matter anymore because a stable democratic nation isn't going to start invading anybody within sight or start slaughtering undesirables (Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, the handicapped, Catholics, etc).

Or for Hitler managing to take power in Bavaria in your scenario?

You can't prove that however you could explain your reasoning as to why you think it would happen (I could state Hitler will move to Tibet and become a monk but without something to back it up I don't expect to be taken seriously).

[dummnutzer]

About German nationalism post WW I:

Look at the elections held in areas, where the people had to decide whether the area should remain in/return to Germany.

In rich Belgium, German nationalism was so strong, that Belgium had to create the "little Belgian Farce" to keep its territorial gains.

In the border area between Germany and Poland, the voting went so badly for the Allies, that the voting districts had to be recut after the plebiscite.

Another example is Austria, which had been forbidden to unite with Germany in St.Germain-en-Laye, but where several areas held votes about joining Germany with results of 95% + pro Unity.

And the Bavarian commies saw themselves as spearheads of communist Germany, not as Bavarian separatists. They were largely crushed by Bavarian Reichswehr units and rural Bavarian Freikorps. Leftist Munich <> Bavaria.

The nationalism was strong in Germany post WW I, IMHO.

Assuming that one delays a German revenge war, and no German gouvernment could have ignored the ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland and Poland for ever, there is the terrible possibility that Germany gets the Bomb, as there is no reason for German nuclear scientists to emigrate in the 1930´s under this scenario.

WW II in 1950 with German Nukes. Ungood.

[TheDarkling]

About German nationalism post WW I:

Look at the elections held in areas, where the people had to decide whether the area should remain in/return to Germany.

In rich Belgium, German nationalism was so strong, that Belgium had to create the "little Belgian Farce" to keep its territorial gains.

In the border area between Germany and Poland, the voting went so badly for the Allies, that the voting districts had to be recut after the plebiscite.

Another example is Austria, which had been forbidden to unite with Germany in St.Germain-en-Laye, but where several areas held votes about joining Germany with results of 95% + pro Unity.

And the Bavarian commies saw themselves as spearheads of communist Germany, not as Bavarian separatists. They were largely crushed by Bavarian Reichswehr units and rural Bavarian Freikorps. Leftist Munich <> Bavaria.

The nationalism was strong in Germany post WW I, IMHO.

Assuming that one delays a German revenge war, and no German gouvernment could have ignored the ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland and Poland for ever, there is the terrible possibility that Germany gets the Bomb, as there is no reason for German nuclear scientists to emigrate in the 1930´s under this scenario.

WW II in 1950 with German Nukes. Ungood.

Yes but those examples are all leaving another nation to join Germany, in my scenario they have been reverted back too "their" original German state and there no longer is a Germany to join

Look at the Saar referendum - 90% voted to rejoin Germany, 9% to remain LoN mandate and .5% to become French. This in a situation where there was a lot of ill will to what the French had been upto, if they had had their own viable state, less anger and a government doing its best to discourage unification do you really think that 10% couldn't be increased quiet a bit (need not be to 50% the constitution could be arranged to require 3/4 or 2/3 for a referendum of this type) and this was the Saar not Bavaria.

I also don't see the German bomb before the British or Yank bomb (which is shortly thereafter stolen by the USSR) which will surely happen eventually.

[dummnutzer]

Yes but those examples are all leaving another nation to join Germany, in my scenario they have been reverted back too "their" original German state and there no longer is a Germany to join

I am no Turtledove, so all this is idle speculation, but IMHO

You tend to confuse regionalistic ramblings about the evil central gouvernment (a la rural USA vs. Washington today) with true separatist movements.

These ramblings were often limited to a displaced elite (e.g. Hannoveran nobility), not the middle classs, which profited from unification.

There had been 50 years of hyper-nationalistic indoctrination after the Reichsgruendung.

Your proposal would have required delicate manipulations of public opinions in these German States to (re)create parochialism. I cannot associate "delicate manipulation" with Anglo/French diplomacy after WW I.

[TheDarkling]

I am no Turtledove, so all this is idle speculation, but IMHO

You tend to confuse regionalistic ramblings about the evil central gouvernment (a la rural USA vs. Washington today) with true separatist movements.

These ramblings were often limited to a displaced elite (e.g. Hannoveran nobility), not the middle classs, which profited from unification.

There had been 50 years of hyper-nationalistic indoctrination after the Reichsgruendung.

Your proposal would have required delicate manipulations of public opinions in these German States to (re)create parochialism. I cannot associate "delicate manipulation" with Anglo/French diplomacy after WW I.

Well as I have said it wouldn't be upto to British/French manipulation but the manipulation of the local power elites to keep themselves the big fish the small pond.