8mm to the Left: If Hitler Died in 1923

[Garrison]

I would say the major balancing factor as far as German rearmament goes is probably going to be the need to listen to those in the finance ministry and business looking to rebuild Germany's export industries, not to mention bolstering the domestic civilian economy. Another big economic question is does Germany bite the bullet and come off the gold standard when other major nations do? A major impediment to German diplomacy in the mid 1930s were its economic dealings, including their efforts to subsidize exports by some rather dodgy buy back schemes for German bonds held in the USA.

 

[JamesHunter]

I would say the major balancing factor as far as German rearmament goes is probably going to be the need to listen to those in the finance ministry and business looking to rebuild Germany's export industries, not to mention bolstering the domestic civilian economy. Another big economic question is does Germany bite the bullet and come off the gold standard when other major nations do? A major impediment to German diplomacy in the mid 1930s were its economic dealings, including their efforts to subsidize exports by some rather dodgy buy back schemes for German bonds held in the USA.

To be fair this Germany is not run by a bunch of poorly educated racist idiots who only cared about getting enough guns to go rape the world, there will be no Mefo bills this time as Vorbeck will recognize that rebuilding to fast will only make a mess and make any future war that much harder (Hitler was literally on the clock in the late 30's and if he hadn't been able to take Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland he would have been bankrupt long before he could attack anywhere else). That said one thing this leadership will understand (given much of it was in the military the last time round) is that any reconstruction cannot include the German fleet. Firstly because it would provoke Britain and also because except for the UBoat arm and a coast defense force its functionally useless anyway as it can be to easily bottled up in the Baltic. That should save quite a bit of money as there won't be any flights of fancy about building new Battleships or a carrier this time. Combined with a sane timetable for any war that will probably be intended to be limited to the East (no earlier than 1945) that should keep economic overheating down to a level that can be dealt with.

That said leaving the gold standard is probably inevitable as its unsustainable in the mid 1930's.

 

[CalBear]

It's simply a big no IMO. France isn't going to give colonies up to Germany, it's France. Britain will not give up East Africa and South Africa simply will not give up Namibia. And Pacific colonies simply are too strategically irrelevant for Germany if they have nothing in between to provide logistical support.

>racist South Africa
>way the winds are blowing
Honestly, this just indicates such a lack of knowledge on South African history. The first part of the 20th century was when the white and black sections of South Africa were at a rough demographical parity with a minor advantage to its black part. Jan Smuts, post WW2, was hoping to make the country into a white majority by encouraging European migration. The Bantustans were a attempt to introduce self governance for the black population in admittedly vastly outdated tribal area's. The eventual goal was for them to gain indepence like the British protectorates over Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland had. Despite this, millions migrated from the wartorn regions of Middle Africa to South Africa. The South African government was in the end unwilling to take Greater Apartheid (the Bantustans, seperate from Little Apartheid which already existed under the British Cape Colony) to its natural end by decoupling the white economy from cheap black labour. I'm honestly sick of seeing views on South Africa framed by nothing but anti-Apartheid communist political agitators.

The ship on the whole dominion talk may already have sailed with the 1931 Statute of Westminster. But the crisis you're proposing for South Africa may only be really possible because of it. Funny thing is, for as much as Smuts was the more pro-British part of South Africa politics, he would be absolutely unwilling to part with Namibia, I think he stated as such in the context of negotations surrounding the end to WW1. As for East Africa, a Manchuria type of deal for the railroads and maybe some degree of British involvement in German military deployment in the region could well help Britain into selling Tangyanika.

Perhaps you also need to spend some time looking into South African History. While there are plenty of examples earlier, maybe start with the Cape Colony 1892 Franchise and Ballot Act and the 1894 or South African Republic's laws that required all Africans to wear a badge and denied the the right to remain on the Rand altogether unless they had a "white Master".

Since this will likely take a considerable amount of reading and research, lets give you 168 Hours to concentrate on the subject.

Kicked for a week.

 

[JamesHunter]

Perhaps you also need to spend some time looking into South African History. While there are plenty of examples earlier, maybe start with the Cape Colony 1892 Franchise and Ballot Act and the 1894 or South African Republic's laws that required all Africans to wear a badge and denied the the right to remain on the Rand altogether unless they had a "white Master".

Since this will likely take a considerable amount of reading and research, lets give you 168 Hours to concentrate on the subject.

Kicked for a week.

Thanks for posting the background stuff for SA. While I accept that maybe a returned South West Africa might be a settler colony again (although its unlikely as unlike before WW1 the current leadership are intimately aware they can't support colonies in wartime due to the inability to deploy the fleet and so are more likely to focus on simple exploitation rather than risk massive numbers of trapped German civilian's they can't help) South African history makes it very clear they would still meddle and any chance they can't keep Namibia under white minority rule would see them reject any attempt to take it away. Also Von Lettow-Vorbeck is someone whose well aware he can make use of natives in running a colony since that's how he kept his army in being for four years and is likely to see that the best way to keep a returned colony is to work with the people who already live there. Which is the very last example even pre 1948 South Africa is going to want on their Northern border.

 

[KaiserKatze]

Thanks, while I accept that maybe a returned South West Africa might be a settler colony again (although its unlikely as unlike before WW1 the current leadership are intimately aware they can't support colonies in wartime due to the inability to deploy the fleet and so are more likely to focus on simple exploitation rather than risk massive numbers of trapped German civilian's they can't help) South African history makes it very clear they would still meddle and any chance they can't keep Namibia under white minority rule would see them reject any attempt to take it away. Also Von Lettow-Vorbeck is someone whose well aware he can make use of natives in running a colony since that's how he kept his army in being for four years and is likely to see that the best way to keep a returned colony is to work with the people who already live there. Which is the very last example even pre 1948 South Africa is going to want on their Northern border.

You are correct there. He isn't a non-racist, he still believes in white supremacy, but he approaches it somewhat like I see him approaching sexism, with there being "exceptions to the rule". That doesn't mean he'd turn German Africa into some kind of utopia, though. At best he'd place men like the Askari in positions of importance under a white as a way to try and push natives to aim to be more Prussian.

Regarding Germany gaining a colony from Britain... I, personally, don't see Britain--especially under someone like Chamberlain--as being wholly opposed as long as British interests are respected. I also feel that sometimes the actions of nations surprises us, like when, against all odds, the Germans gained the Sudetenland or even the Russian invasion of Crimea. That said, I will also wait until we reach the point where the context for a potential purchase is revealed and see if people feel that such an event still seems deeply unlikely, and if the overwhelming majority says it would never happen, I probably won't do it.

 

[JamesHunter]

You are correct there. He isn't a non-racist, he still believes in white supremacy, but he approaches it somewhat like I see him approaching sexism, with there being "exceptions to the rule". That doesn't mean he'd turn German Africa into some kind of utopia, though. At best he'd place men like the Askari in positions of importance under a white as a way to try and push natives to aim to be more Prussian.

Regarding Germany gaining a colony from Britain... I, personally, don't see Britain--especially under someone like Chamberlain--as being wholly opposed as long as British interests are respected. I also feel that sometimes the actions of nations surprises us, like when, against all odds, the Germans gained the Sudetenland or even the Russian invasion of Crimea. That said, I will also wait until we reach the point where the context for a potential purchase is revealed and see if people feel that such an event still seems deeply unlikely, and if the overwhelming majority says it would never happen, I probably won't do it.

Exactly broadly he would take the route Britain took in most of its Empire that wasn't a pure settlement colony or named South Africa, make the local's partners, but very junior partners your still exploiting.

 

[Migrant_Coconut]

Also, L-V's just one politician of hundreds - President or not, if it's just him pushing to recolonize Africa while everybody else wants Eastern Europe, how likely is it that anything actually happens?

 

[JamesHunter]

Also, L-V's just one politician of hundreds - President or not, if it's just him pushing to recolonize Africa while everybody else wants Eastern Europe, how likely is it that anything actually happens?

Absent the Nazis the drive to the east idea isn't mainstream, getting back what went to Poland (at least the German speaking bits), the sudatanland and obviously getting Austria into the Reich is one thing. Genocidal campaigns in the east are quite another.

Especially as this government is trading on what Hitler originally claimed to be after, a return to the glory days before the war rather than the mad scheme for world domination. L-V isn't a front soldier he was a general and even on a secondary front he would have seen and had access to enough information to know the war could not be won and trying to take over vast areas of the east will just cause a two front war they once again cannot win.

Getting back Germany's old place, a few colonies and eventually hegemony over Eastern Europe after defeating Stalin is one thing. The mad schemes of the hyper racists to extirpate everyone west of the Ural mountains is quite another and not something a sane Germany is going to try for.

 

[Knightmare]

You are correct there. He isn't a non-racist, he still believes in white supremacy, but he approaches it somewhat like I see him approaching sexism, with there being "exceptions to the rule". That doesn't mean he'd turn German Africa into some kind of utopia, though. At best he'd place men like the Askari in positions of importance under a white as a way to try and push natives to aim to be more Prussian.

Regarding Germany gaining a colony from Britain... I, personally, don't see Britain--especially under someone like Chamberlain--as being wholly opposed as long as British interests are respected. I also feel that sometimes the actions of nations surprises us, like when, against all odds, the Germans gained the Sudetenland or even the Russian invasion of Crimea. That said, I will also wait until we reach the point where the context for a potential purchase is revealed and see if people feel that such an event still seems deeply unlikely, and if the overwhelming majority says it would never happen, I probably won't do it.

Also let's be honest, if he wants a colony back, that means he needs a fleet, and well, he knows how that song and dance went.

No, better to look eastward. Oh sure, Eastern Europe might not want to be directly under German control, but defensive and or economic pacts, against their old foe, Russia? That might sound awfully appealing. Especially since France is way back on the other side of Europe.

 

[KaiserKatze]

Also, L-V's just one politician of hundreds - President or not, if it's just him pushing to recolonize Africa while everybody else wants Eastern Europe, how likely is it that anything actually happens?

Well actually, upon researching it, the loss of Germany's colonies was considered by many to be more insulting and offensive than even the loss of many mainland territories, as it was felt that Germany wasn't being respected as a Great European Pwoer. Hell, Adenauer himself was the Head of the German Colonial Society in the 30s, advocating for their return. It was definitely not a minority view. The Weimar government even worked towards this by sending former plantation owners to Cameroon and having them buy up land to try and steal territory out from under the French.

Absent the Nazis the drive to the east idea isn't mainstream, getting back what went to Poland (at least the German speaking bits), the sudatanland and obviously getting Austria into the Reich is one thing. Genocidal campaigns in the east are quite another.

Especially as this government is trading on what Hitler originally claimed to be after, a return to the glory days before the war rather than the mad scheme for world domination. L-V isn't a front soldier he was a general and even on a secondary front he would have seen and had access to enough information to know the war could not be won and trying to take over vast areas of the east will just cause a two front war they once again cannot win.

Getting back Germany's old place, a few colonies and eventually hegemony over Eastern Europe after defeating Stalin is one thing. The mad schemes of the hyper racists to extirpate everyone west of the Ural mountains is quite another and not something a sane Germany is going to try for.

This rather hits the nail on the head. Yes, Germany sees itself as the rightful Lord of Eastern Europe, but settlement in the East is no longer feasible. Even the only semi-realistic expansion, the Baltics, is understood to have been made impossible by the national consciousness which emerged following WW1 and that it just wouldn't be worth it now.

The difference with Africa is that such colonies were seen as healthy expansions of perceived European supremacy and even as a necessity for population expansion. Even as early the Locarno Treaties, claims of German Colonial guilt were retracted, and the regions were never transformed from Mandates into full colonies because the nature was seen as still open to discussion.

The only real interest Britain had in annexing East Africa was building its precious railroad, and Germany would certainly be willing to respect their rights as long as relations remain good. Yes, this would require a navy, but Britain didn't oppose Germany having a navy--look at the Weimar Republic--they just opposed Germany trying to be a significant naval power, which I don't see this Germany trying to do without good reason. Britain could even use this to their advantage by roping Germany into a role defending their holdings in East Africa, especially.in the event of them being concerned about Italy.

 

[1962strat]

Since main argument against a sale of Tangyanika seems to be the Cape to Cairo railway, it’s worth noting that by all accounts the project was dead by 1935. From some research, there’s little information on the status, but everyone seems to agree that after the Great Depression it was abandoned. Furthermore, I could find this debate from the House of Commons in 1927 that mentions that there was no project underway for the railway, so it seems that even before the Great Depression there were no plans to finish it.

If anyone can find better information on it by all means share it, but from what I’ve been able to find it pretty safe to assume that it wouldn’t be a big consideration for the British.

 

[KaiserKatze]

Since main argument against a sale of Tangyanika seems to be the Cape to Cairo railway, it’s worth noting that by all accounts the project was dead by 1935. From some research, there’s little information on the status, but everyone seems to agree that after the Great Depression it was abandoned. Furthermore, I could find this debate from the House of Commons in 1927 that mentions that there was no project underway for the railway, so it seems that even before the Great Depression there were no plans to finish it.

If anyone can find better information on it by all means share it, but from what I’ve been able to find it pretty safe to assume that it wouldn’t be a big consideration for the British.

I had a similar issue with their being little information and taking it to be dead, which in my mind makes selling to Germany even more useful, as they can make a condition of the purchase that Germany aids them in completing it (perhaps in exchange for a 10% stockholder control or such). I'd love to imagine them also roping Portugal into this, as personally I feel that the railroad would only work as a multi-national project, but that seems unlikely.

 

[1962strat]

I had a similar issue with their being little information and taking it to be dead, which in my mind makes selling to Germany even more useful, as they can make a condition of the purchase that Germany aids them in completing it (perhaps in exchange for a 10% stockholder control or such). I'd love to imagine them also roping Portugal into this, as personally I feel that the railroad would only work as a multi-national project, but that seems unlikely.

I’m not sure cause I think a large part of the reason it died was simply that it wasn’t all that profitable. Sea shipping is simply more efficient for such distances, and the missing stretches wouldn’t have connected many more economically significant places.

The German economy is also not that great either, and I imagine the purchase of East Africa would already put a dent in their coffers.

 

[JamesHunter]

Well actually, upon researching it, the loss of Germany's colonies was considered by many to be more insulting and offensive than even the loss of many mainland territories, as it was felt that Germany wasn't being respected as a Great European Pwoer. Hell, Adenauer himself was the Head of the German Colonial Society in the 30s, advocating for their return. It was definitely not a minority view. The Weimar government even worked towards this by sending former plantation owners to Cameroon and having them buy up land to try and steal territory out from under the French.

This rather hits the nail on the head. Yes, Germany sees itself as the rightful Lord of Eastern Europe, but settlement in the East is no longer feasible. Even the only semi-realistic expansion, the Baltics, is understood to have been made impossible by the national consciousness which emerged following WW1 and that it just wouldn't be worth it now.

The difference with Africa is that such colonies were seen as healthy expansions of perceived European supremacy and even as a necessity for population expansion. Even as early the Locarno Treaties, claims of German Colonial guilt were retracted, and the regions were never transformed from Mandates into full colonies because the nature was seen as still open to discussion.

The only real interest Britain had in annexing East Africa was building its precious railroad, and Germany would certainly be willing to respect their rights as long as relations remain good. Yes, this would require a navy, but Britain didn't oppose Germany having a navy--look at the Weimar Republic--they just opposed Germany trying to be a significant naval power, which I don't see this Germany trying to do without good reason. Britain could even use this to their advantage by roping Germany into a role defending their holdings in East Africa, especially.in the event of them being concerned about Italy.

True and a Germany with a defensive fleet of cruiser's, Destroyer's and a (very) few Battleships to show the flag does not concern Britain anymore than it did before the Naval program started in the first place. Britain never had a problem with other people having a navy they just didn't want anyone having one stronger than theirs. If the Kaiser had just accepted "Hey I'm top dog in Europe, I have a few colonies and don't need a Navy to do more than defend them from the French making a revenge attempt, Britain won't have any problems and we can all get along." Of course this was Wilhelm II we're talking about and common sense was not his strong suit.

Hell even with Hitler they were happy to let him have a Navy 33% as strong as the RN and this is a much more reasonable Germany. Obviously subs might be a worry but as they're the coming tech they may just accept they can't keep Germany from playing with them as well.

I had a similar issue with their being little information and taking it to be dead, which in my mind makes selling to Germany even more useful, as they can make a condition of the purchase that Germany aids them in completing it (perhaps in exchange for a 10% stockholder control or such). I'd love to imagine them also roping Portugal into this, as personally I feel that the railroad would only work as a multi-national project, but that seems unlikely.

A nice megaproject to bind Europe back together and also get some people into work building bits for it could work very well. Well for everyone but the French who won't be to happy Britain and Germany are getting closer, but even having given up on the western bits it lost I imagine Germany would see this as a feature rather than a bug.

 

[Whiteshore]

Absent the Nazis the drive to the east idea isn't mainstream, getting back what went to Poland (at least the German speaking bits), the sudatanland and obviously getting Austria into the Reich is one thing. Genocidal campaigns in the east are quite another.

And the ”moderate” German right’s plan for Eastern Europe involved puppetization, not extermination or enslavement, with what Germany did in territories they occupied in WW1 in mind.

You are correct there. He isn't a non-racist, he still believes in white supremacy, but he approaches it somewhat like I see him approaching sexism, with there being "exceptions to the rule". That doesn't mean he'd turn German Africa into some kind of utopia, though. At best he'd place men like the Askari in positions of importance under a white as a way to try and push natives to aim to be more Prussian.

So, something like the evolue system in French Africa could be a thing in German Africa, then?

 

[KaiserKatze]

So, something like the evolue system in French Africa could be a thing in German Africa, then?

Yes, something like that. I will confess that, aside from the basics, I do not know a great deal about the different methods taken by the different major colonial powers and I would have to research them further. I know that Germany invested more heavily in colonial infrastructure than most others did, so I could see them trying to turn the region into an "African Prussia".

 

[1962strat]

I know that Germany invested more heavily in colonial infrastructure than most others did

I’d say you can’t accurately describe German colonial policy as a whole, due to how irregular it was. While there were some colonies like East Africa and Samoa in which Germany carried out policies ahead of their time, there were also run-of-the-mill colonies like Togo and Kamerun, and absolute shitshows like Namibia that trail behind the Belgian Congo for most horrific European administrations in Africa. Even in East Africa itself, the reforms started fairly late in the German rule period, and there was at some point a famine that could easily be considered a genocide.

 

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yes, something like that. I will confess that, aside from the basics, I do not know a great deal about the different methods taken by the different major colonial powers and I would have to research them further. I know that Germany invested more heavily in colonial infrastructure than most others did, so I could see them trying to turn the region into an "African Prussia".

This might help.

 

[KaiserKatze]

This might help.

That's somewhere between funny and horrifying

 

[Migrant_Coconut]

That's somewhere between funny and horrifying

Mission accomplished.