Topics

AH I'm kicking around

joatsimeon
 

I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.

Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.

Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.

There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.

Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.

If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.

Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  

It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.

Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.

The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

Dan Daast
 

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.


On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

joatsimeon
 

No, Germany was better off than most places.  What it needed was to reduce the trade imbalance by exporting more, which would require scaling back on the armaments program.
Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.



From: Dan Daast <paradoqz@...>
To: stirling <stirling@groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Oct 3, 2017 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

Dan Daast
 

At the very least, then, I think we'd see a lot more fascist movements  in Europe and across the world. Success breeds imitation. Chiang may invest more in the Blue Shirt movement, Peron would be overjoyed to be Berlin's protege. Or possibly Benito's - I suspect we'd see a rivalry between the two, similar to Beijing/Moscow in OTL.

Wonder how Czechoslovakia fares, having lost Sudetenland but not invaded. And now considerably warier of putting its faith into the West.

And Middle East is going to be tricky to forecast. Shoah literally as well as figuratively exterminated any political alternatives to Zionism. But in this scenario, Polish Jewry (and thus the Bund) would continue to play a role. Would be macabrely funny if instead, the big emigration to ME came fleeing Stalin's projected pogrom and the Birobidzhan Plan that was slated for the 1950s in OTL.


On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:31 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
No, Germany was better off than most places.  What it needed was to reduce the trade imbalance by exporting more, which would require scaling back on the armaments program.
Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.



-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Daast <paradoqz@...>
To: stirling <stirling@groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Oct 3, 2017 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

Victoria Short
 

Tooze's analysis isn't shared by all historians. I'd have to go looking at what Evans' thoughts were, but economic history isn't my field so I haven't paid attention to who came out on top in the Tooze-vs-other-historians fight.


The other issue is that the German generals were nervous about the Rhineland and the Czech adventures, but were not really worried about the Polish venture. They were in favor of invading Poland if they could do it without touching off a wider war. Feb 1939 is also before the total takeover of Czechoslovakia - at that point, Germany had only taken the Sudetenland. So they hadn't quite pushed the British and French into a corner. It's always possible that Goring would have continued the pressure to get Danzig/Gdansk back and might have succeeded. It's really the blatant taking of the rest of Czechoslovakia (okay, yeah, yeah, it was the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" and Slovakia was "freed from Czech oppression"... yeah, right) that put up the hackles of the British and French and made further "gains" difficult. It's not like the Polish colonel's government was all that stable or smart - without Hitler's monomania of wanting a war at any cost ... who knows what might have happened even if a war eventually resulted.


V  

On October 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

joatsimeon
 

To expand:  Germany had recovered because it launched an enormous Keynesian program of reflation.  The problem was that it was a reflationary economy in a deflationary world, which is sort of like leaving the airlock door open.


From: joatsimeon via Groups.Io <joatsimeon@...>
To: stirling <stirling@groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Oct 3, 2017 1:31 pm
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around

No, Germany was better off than most places.  What it needed was to reduce the trade imbalance by exporting more, which would require scaling back on the armaments program.
Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.



From: Dan Daast <paradoqz@...>
To: stirling <stirling@groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Oct 3, 2017 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

markus baur
 

Am 03.10.2017 um 21:44 schrieb Victoria Short:
Tooze's analysis isn't shared by all historians. I'd have to go looking at what Evans' thoughts were, but economic history isn't my field so I haven't paid attention to who came out on top in the Tooze-vs-other-historians fight.
The other issue is that the German generals were nervous about the Rhineland and the Czech adventures, but were not really worried about the Polish venture. They were in favor of invading Poland if they could do it without touching off a wider war. Feb 1939 is also before the total takeover of Czechoslovakia - at that point, Germany had only taken the Sudetenland. So they hadn't quite pushed the British and French into a corner. It's always possible that Goring would have continued the pressure to get Danzig/Gdansk back
back? what back? Danzig was a recognized part of germany, not poland - the question was unrestricted land access via a "corridor" from germany proper

this was something that Göring might have gotten with a little pressure and a nice, juicy carrot from the poles - its not necessary to go to war over that

servus

markus

and might have succeeded. It's really the blatant taking of the rest of Czechoslovakia (okay, yeah, yeah, it was the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" and Slovakia was "freed from Czech oppression"... yeah, right) that put up the hackles of the British and French and made further "gains" difficult. It's not like the Polish colonel's government was all that stable or smart - without Hitler's monomania of wanting a war at any cost ... who knows what might have happened even if a war eventually resulted.
V

On October 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:

I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once
again an unexpected death.
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes
-- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was
still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over
Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a
pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic. He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under
his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in
Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological
dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the
Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that
had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939
Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't
gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in
Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of
what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as
had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant
position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only
alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from
the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets. Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this
very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight
with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically. He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when
presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story
possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party
opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What
happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the
Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war
in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

--
markus baur SCA: markus von brixlegg
schluesselgasse 3/5 tel: +43 - (0)1 - 50 40 662
a-1040 wien email: baur@...
austria/europe icbm: 48°11'39"N; 16°22'06"E

a portrait: http://www.abcgallery.com/A/arcimboldo/arcimboldo9.html

"der Markus?? .... das ist der mit dem Buch..."

Demetrios Rammos
 

Germany is almost recovered but also on the way to bankrupting itself from the mass re-armament programs. How does Goring deal with that? Aside from the obvious like decreasing military spending and trying to sell stuff to anyone willing to buy.

So on the short run the Western powers will be closing the arms imbalance rapidly, by 1941 the French and British re-armament programs will be running full bore, putting on the field massive numbers of modern tanks and aircraft, the quality gap will be closing just as rapidly, things like Renault's G1R of Bloch's MB-157 were more than a match to the German next generation arms.

Then were I a betting man Britain is the world's first nuclear power and France the second... and I not that certain Germany is even the third. Depends on the nuclear meltdown Heisenberg's design would likely cause.  

Virus-free. www.avg.com

On 3 October 2017 at 22:21, joatsimeon via Groups.Io <joatsimeon@...> wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.

Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.

Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.

There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.

Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.

If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.

Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  

It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.

Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.

The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

Victoria Short
 

Technically, Danzig/Gdansk was a "free city" which wasn't quite total German control. I don't know the details, but I know that the Nazis used that as a grievance to whip up resentment against Versailles. Granted, it wasn't as big a grievance as the Rhineland or the limits on the army, but it was there.

Hitler might have managed to get what he wanted from the Poles without war if he hadn't snagged off Bohemia/Moravia in March 1939. But, Hitler wasn't really trying to "right the wrongs of Versailles"... he wanted war and that was his aim from taking office, pretty much.

Goring's a bit harder to figure on the Polish issue. And the German officers were definitely in the "we can beat the Poles anytime we want to" camp, so they didn't exactly resist hard when Hitler started war preparations against Poland.

V

On October 3, 2017 at 2:51 PM markus baur <baur@...> wrote:


Am 03.10.2017 um 21:44 schrieb Victoria Short:
Tooze's analysis isn't shared by all historians. I'd have to go looking
at what Evans' thoughts were, but economic history isn't my field so I
haven't paid attention to who came out on top in the
Tooze-vs-other-historians fight.


The other issue is that the German generals were nervous about the
Rhineland and the Czech adventures, but were not really worried about
the Polish venture. They were in favor of invading Poland if they could
do it without touching off a wider war. Feb 1939 is also before the
total takeover of Czechoslovakia - at that point, Germany had only taken
the Sudetenland. So they hadn't quite pushed the British and French into
a corner. It's always possible that Goring would have continued the
pressure to get Danzig/Gdansk back
back? what back? Danzig was a recognized part of germany, not poland -
the question was unrestricted land access via a "corridor" from germany
proper

this was something that Göring might have gotten with a little pressure
and a nice, juicy carrot from the poles - its not necessary to go to war
over that

servus

markus

and might have succeeded. It's really
the blatant taking of the rest of Czechoslovakia (okay, yeah, yeah, it
was the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" and Slovakia was "freed
from Czech oppression"... yeah, right) that put up the hackles of the
British and French and made further "gains" difficult. It's not like the
Polish colonel's government was all that stable or smart - without
Hitler's monomania of wanting a war at any cost ... who knows what might
have happened even if a war eventually resulted.


V

On October 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering,
but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that
point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:

I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once
again an unexpected death.
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes
-- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was
still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over
Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a
pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.
He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under
his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in
Germany's favor. It was only the institutional/psychological
dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the
Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that
had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939
Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. It hadn't
gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in
Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of
what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as
had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant
position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only
alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from
the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.
Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this
very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight
with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.
He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when
presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story
possibilities. Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann? How does the Party
opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do? What
happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the
Japanese opportunities? What's the impact on the US, without war
in Europe? Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

--
markus baur SCA: markus von brixlegg
schluesselgasse 3/5 tel: +43 - (0)1 - 50 40 662
a-1040 wien email: baur@...
austria/europe icbm: 48°11'39"N; 16°22'06"E

a portrait: http://www.abcgallery.com/A/arcimboldo/arcimboldo9.html

"der Markus?? .... das ist der mit dem Buch..."


Tony Zbaraschuk
 

On Tue, October 3, 2017 2:27 pm, Dan Daast wrote:
Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but
I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point
Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.
Tooze needs to be consulted.

Germany had been rearming heavily, spending its reserves, and bullying
Eastern Europe a lot on trade issues. Looting the Jews, the Austrians,
and the Czechs had kept things going, but there was going to have to be
some kind of change in the not-too-distant future.

I'm going to guess that there's some kind of giant gangster feud inside
Germany sometime between 1940 and 1941 here, and Goering isn't necessarily
going to come out on top.

I agree that Stalin is unlikely to attack, and no one else is likely to
attack Germany in this time period, but there's a lot of built-up worry
and energy in Germany's neighbors. Serious armament reduction would
reassure them somewhat, but there's a lot of German nationalism that
thinks they _should_ be in charge of Europe, just not sure how to get
everyone else to recognize this obvious fact. I predict a certain amount
of bullying Eastern Europe into submission to Germany (France and Britain
had very little credibility left after Munich; none of the Eastern
Europeaners wants to ally with Turkey or Russia; submission seems what's
left.)

But give France and Britain 2-3 more years of rearmament, and Germany's
already-small chances shrink to infinitesmal if war does break out...

Tony Z

--
Et vocavit Deus, "Fiat lux!"

Allen Pitt
 

I suppose one could construct a scenario where Stalin invades Finland (maybe through secret back channels he has reason to believe Germany will stay out of it?), gets bogged down, Britain/France intervene and suddenly it’s Britain/France/Germany against the USSR.

That could get weird fast.

On Oct 3, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz@...> wrote:


On Tue, October 3, 2017 2:27 pm, Dan Daast wrote:
Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but
I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point
Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.
Tooze needs to be consulted.

Germany had been rearming heavily, spending its reserves, and bullying
Eastern Europe a lot on trade issues. Looting the Jews, the Austrians,
and the Czechs had kept things going, but there was going to have to be
some kind of change in the not-too-distant future.

I'm going to guess that there's some kind of giant gangster feud inside
Germany sometime between 1940 and 1941 here, and Goering isn't necessarily
going to come out on top.

I agree that Stalin is unlikely to attack, and no one else is likely to
attack Germany in this time period, but there's a lot of built-up worry
and energy in Germany's neighbors. Serious armament reduction would
reassure them somewhat, but there's a lot of German nationalism that
thinks they _should_ be in charge of Europe, just not sure how to get
everyone else to recognize this obvious fact. I predict a certain amount
of bullying Eastern Europe into submission to Germany (France and Britain
had very little credibility left after Munich; none of the Eastern
Europeaners wants to ally with Turkey or Russia; submission seems what's
left.)

But give France and Britain 2-3 more years of rearmament, and Germany's
already-small chances shrink to infinitesmal if war does break out...

Tony Z

--
Et vocavit Deus, "Fiat lux!"



Tony Zbaraschuk
 

On Tue, October 3, 2017 2:21 pm, joatsimeon via Groups.Io wrote:


I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again
an unexpected death.

Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes --
stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
Go for the tabloid vibe: "Dictator Dead In Den of Decadence!" - heart attack
after an evening with Eva Braun in his Alpine mountain retreat.


Tony Z

--
Et vocavit Deus, "Fiat lux!"

 


Long term issue for Germany is the economy.  Their autarky program and military buildup was hugely expensive.  

That said i agree Goering is unlikely to start a war.

michael

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

Dan Daast
 

I was thinking about that, and figured that with the relatively stable Europe, he may be more likely to after Japan, instead. He knows he can take them after Khalkin Gol. With a few years to rebuild the post-purge army - and with Japan still bogged down in China...

OTOH, they may not be. With European powers undistracted) Tokyo wouldn't be likely to jump into a war with them but FDR might have embargoed them anyway. China lobby was pretty strong, and he was leaning toward constraining Japan, anyway. They might have backed down and went back to controlling Manchuria. Maybe with a couple provinces and concessions tacked on to save face. 


On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 01:18 pm, Allen Pitt wrote:
I suppose one could construct a scenario where Stalin invades Finland (maybe through secret back channels he has reason to believe Germany will stay out of it?), gets bogged down, Britain/France intervene and suddenly it’s Britain/France/Germany against the USSR.

That could get weird fast.

On Oct 3, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz@...> wrote:


On Tue, October 3, 2017 2:27 pm, Dan Daast wrote:
Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but
I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point
Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.
Tooze needs to be consulted.

Germany had been rearming heavily, spending its reserves, and bullying
Eastern Europe a lot on trade issues. Looting the Jews, the Austrians,
and the Czechs had kept things going, but there was going to have to be
some kind of change in the not-too-distant future.

I'm going to guess that there's some kind of giant gangster feud inside
Germany sometime between 1940 and 1941 here, and Goering isn't necessarily
going to come out on top.

I agree that Stalin is unlikely to attack, and no one else is likely to
attack Germany in this time period, but there's a lot of built-up worry
and energy in Germany's neighbors. Serious armament reduction would
reassure them somewhat, but there's a lot of German nationalism that
thinks they _should_ be in charge of Europe, just not sure how to get
everyone else to recognize this obvious fact. I predict a certain amount
of bullying Eastern Europe into submission to Germany (France and Britain
had very little credibility left after Munich; none of the Eastern
Europeaners wants to ally with Turkey or Russia; submission seems what's
left.)

But give France and Britain 2-3 more years of rearmament, and Germany's
already-small chances shrink to infinitesmal if war does break out...

Tony Z

--
Et vocavit Deus, "Fiat lux!"



Timothy McFadden
 

Mussolini's italy is also at the top of it's game. They've just conquered Albania, have Ethiopia firmly under control, Il Duce managed to use the czech crisis to suck up to england, france and germany simultaneously and, IIRC , had a little de facto alliance of their own going with Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania. Just successfully concluded the Spanish civil war. Benito looks like a genius, doesn't he?



From: Victoria Short <petermccue@...>
To: stirling@groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around

Tooze's analysis isn't shared by all historians. I'd have to go looking at what Evans' thoughts were, but economic history isn't my field so I haven't paid attention to who came out on top in the Tooze-vs-other-historians fight.

The other issue is that the German generals were nervous about the Rhineland and the Czech adventures, but were not really worried about the Polish venture. They were in favor of invading Poland if they could do it without touching off a wider war. Feb 1939 is also before the total takeover of Czechoslovakia - at that point, Germany had only taken the Sudetenland. So they hadn't quite pushed the British and French into a corner. It's always possible that Goring would have continued the pressure to get Danzig/Gdansk back and might have succeeded. It's really the blatant taking of the rest of Czechoslovakia (okay, yeah, yeah, it was the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" and Slovakia was "freed from Czech oppression"... yeah, right) that put up the hackles of the British and French and made further "gains" difficult. It's not like the Polish colonel's government was all that stable or smart - without Hitler's monomania of wanting a war at any cost ... who knows what might have happened even if a war eventually resulted.

V  
On October 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?


Dan Daast
 

And likely continue to. If he doesn;t have to compete with German military glory, he might stay out of any ill-conceived military adventures of his own, until Italy is ready. And there was a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick economically - especially in the South. he could show relatively big gain, pretty quickly.

OTOH, over the long term his regime would gel more and more into classical totalitarian model rather than the more authoritarian scheme he was running at the beginning. With all that such implies.

Ironic really. In this TL we are likely to see the Nazi party go though a centrifugal process, and possibly mutate into a more conventional military/authoritarian system and the party barons bleed each other white. Fascists are likely to go the other way, as Benito gets more and more control over his "ras" and their squadristi.


On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 01:26 pm, Timothy McFadden wrote:
Mussolini's italy is also at the top of it's game. They've just conquered Albania, have Ethiopia firmly under control, Il Duce managed to use the czech crisis to suck up to england, france and germany simultaneously and, IIRC , had a little de facto alliance of their own going with Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania. Just successfully concluded the Spanish civil war. Benito looks like a genius, doesn't he?
 



From: Victoria Short <petermccue@...>
To: stirling@groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around

Tooze's analysis isn't shared by all historians. I'd have to go looking at what Evans' thoughts were, but economic history isn't my field so I haven't paid attention to who came out on top in the Tooze-vs-other-historians fight.
 
The other issue is that the German generals were nervous about the Rhineland and the Czech adventures, but were not really worried about the Polish venture. They were in favor of invading Poland if they could do it without touching off a wider war. Feb 1939 is also before the total takeover of Czechoslovakia - at that point, Germany had only taken the Sudetenland. So they hadn't quite pushed the British and French into a corner. It's always possible that Goring would have continued the pressure to get Danzig/Gdansk back and might have succeeded. It's really the blatant taking of the rest of Czechoslovakia (okay, yeah, yeah, it was the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" and Slovakia was "freed from Czech oppression"... yeah, right) that put up the hackles of the British and French and made further "gains" difficult. It's not like the Polish colonel's government was all that stable or smart - without Hitler's monomania of wanting a war at any cost ... who knows what might have happened even if a war eventually resulted.
 
V  
On October 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?
 


scott palter
 

The SS of 1939 is not the internal power it was 44-45.  There is a phase change after the failure of the bomb plot.


Bormann is probably out.  The other major players all hated him.  However someone will succeed to his position as spokesperson for the gauleiters.


Goering would have pushed for a second Munich in re Poland.  Danzig and extraterritorial road and RR connection across the corridor.  That was one of the few remaining nationalist demands popular with both German elites and the public.  Probably could have swapped this with the British for Germany reducing its arms spending.  The spending rate was unsustainable anyway but trying to match it was a severe strain on the more orthodox economies of France and the British Empire.  Poland would have been difficult about this but it seems doable.  Poland would probably have to dump Beck as foreign minister.  The four powers would have in return guaranteed Poland's independence and borders plus the West would have had to loan Poland the money for a new port on the Baltic at some subprime rate.  British could sweeten this for Poland and Germany with trade credits.  City of London still ruled world finance.


Goering could probably look forward to a long peaceful reign.  Hitler gets remembered as a genius on a par with Bismarck.


That inevitably leaves the Jewish Question.  Neither Germany nor Poland wanted their Jews.  Best guess is the French are pressured to take them for their colonies.  Baltic States, Hungary and Romania probably go 'me too'.


Scott




From: stirling@groups.io <stirling@groups.io> on behalf of Michael Rohde <Mtrohde@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:24 PM
To: stirling@groups.io
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around
 

Long term issue for Germany is the economy.  Their autarky program and military buildup was hugely expensive.  

That said i agree Goering is unlikely to start a war.

michael
On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

scott palter
 

Italy is near bankrupt by the end of the Spanish Civil War.  It needed a major breathing space to recover.


Scott




From: stirling@groups.io <stirling@groups.io> on behalf of Dan Daast <paradoqz@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:33 PM
To: stirling@groups.io
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around
 
And likely continue to. If he doesn;t have to compete with German military glory, he might stay out of any ill-conceived military adventures of his own, until Italy is ready. And there was a lot of low-hanging fruit to pick economically - especially in the South. he could show relatively big gain, pretty quickly.

OTOH, over the long term his regime would gel more and more into classical totalitarian model rather than the more authoritarian scheme he was running at the beginning. With all that such implies.

Ironic really. In this TL we are likely to see the Nazi party go though a centrifugal process, and possibly mutate into a more conventional military/authoritarian system and the party barons bleed each other white. Fascists are likely to go the other way, as Benito gets more and more control over his "ras" and their squadristi.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 01:26 pm, Timothy McFadden wrote:
Mussolini's italy is also at the top of it's game. They've just conquered Albania, have Ethiopia firmly under control, Il Duce managed to use the czech crisis to suck up to england, france and germany simultaneously and, IIRC , had a little de facto alliance of their own going with Hungary, Yugoslavia and Romania. Just successfully concluded the Spanish civil war. Benito looks like a genius, doesn't he?
 



From: Victoria Short <petermccue@...>
To: stirling@groups.io
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 4:44 PM
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around

Tooze's analysis isn't shared by all historians. I'd have to go looking at what Evans' thoughts were, but economic history isn't my field so I haven't paid attention to who came out on top in the Tooze-vs-other-historians fight.
 
The other issue is that the German generals were nervous about the Rhineland and the Czech adventures, but were not really worried about the Polish venture. They were in favor of invading Poland if they could do it without touching off a wider war. Feb 1939 is also before the total takeover of Czechoslovakia - at that point, Germany had only taken the Sudetenland. So they hadn't quite pushed the British and French into a corner. It's always possible that Goring would have continued the pressure to get Danzig/Gdansk back and might have succeeded. It's really the blatant taking of the rest of Czechoslovakia (okay, yeah, yeah, it was the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" and Slovakia was "freed from Czech oppression"... yeah, right) that put up the hackles of the British and French and made further "gains" difficult. It's not like the Polish colonel's government was all that stable or smart - without Hitler's monomania of wanting a war at any cost ... who knows what might have happened even if a war eventually resulted.
 
V  
On October 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?
 


scott palter
 

If Stalin makes a near term move the good bet is East.  He was supplying arms and cadres to Chiang.  He had hooks into Mao although FAR less than total control.  He also remembered Manchuria as a Russian protectorate before 1904.


Scott




From: stirling@groups.io <stirling@groups.io> on behalf of Allen Pitt <allenpitt2@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 8:18 PM
To: stirling@groups.io
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around
 
I suppose one could construct a scenario where Stalin invades Finland (maybe through secret back channels he has reason to believe Germany will stay out of it?), gets bogged down, Britain/France intervene and suddenly it’s Britain/France/Germany against the USSR.

That could get weird fast.

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 4:12 PM, Tony Zbaraschuk <tonyz@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, October 3, 2017 2:27 pm, Dan Daast wrote:
>> Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but
>> I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point
>> Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.
>
> Tooze needs to be consulted.
>
> Germany had been rearming heavily, spending its reserves, and bullying
> Eastern Europe a lot on trade issues.  Looting the Jews, the Austrians,
> and the Czechs had kept things going, but there was going to have to be
> some kind of change in the not-too-distant future.
>
> I'm going to guess that there's some kind of giant gangster feud inside
> Germany sometime between 1940 and 1941 here, and Goering isn't necessarily
> going to come out on top.
>
> I agree that Stalin is unlikely to attack, and no one else is likely to
> attack Germany in this time period, but there's a lot of built-up worry
> and energy in Germany's neighbors.  Serious armament reduction would
> reassure them somewhat, but there's a lot of German nationalism that
> thinks they _should_ be in charge of Europe, just not sure how to get
> everyone else to recognize this obvious fact.  I predict a certain amount
> of bullying Eastern Europe into submission to Germany (France and Britain
> had very little credibility left after Munich; none of the Eastern
> Europeaners wants to ally with Turkey or Russia; submission seems what's
> left.)
>
> But give France and Britain 2-3 more years of rearmament, and Germany's
> already-small chances shrink to infinitesmal if war does break out...
>
> Tony Z
>
> --
> Et vocavit Deus, "Fiat lux!"
>
>
>
>




scott palter
 

Slovakia was going to split off and the West could have lived with that.  The German army in Prague was the breaking point.


Scott




From: stirling@groups.io <stirling@groups.io> on behalf of Victoria Short <petermccue@...>
Sent: Tuesday, October 3, 2017 7:44 PM
To: stirling@groups.io
Subject: Re: [stirling] AH I'm kicking around
 

Tooze's analysis isn't shared by all historians. I'd have to go looking at what Evans' thoughts were, but economic history isn't my field so I haven't paid attention to who came out on top in the Tooze-vs-other-historians fight.


The other issue is that the German generals were nervous about the Rhineland and the Czech adventures, but were not really worried about the Polish venture. They were in favor of invading Poland if they could do it without touching off a wider war. Feb 1939 is also before the total takeover of Czechoslovakia - at that point, Germany had only taken the Sudetenland. So they hadn't quite pushed the British and French into a corner. It's always possible that Goring would have continued the pressure to get Danzig/Gdansk back and might have succeeded. It's really the blatant taking of the rest of Czechoslovakia (okay, yeah, yeah, it was the "Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia" and Slovakia was "freed from Czech oppression"... yeah, right) that put up the hackles of the British and French and made further "gains" difficult. It's not like the Polish colonel's government was all that stable or smart - without Hitler's monomania of wanting a war at any cost ... who knows what might have happened even if a war eventually resulted.


V  

On October 3, 2017 at 2:27 PM Dan Daast <paradoqz@...> wrote:

Was Germany healthy, economically, in 1939? I may be misremembering, but I think Adam Tooze in 'Wages of Destruction' argued that by that point Hitler needed war, or the economy would go into a tailspin.

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:21 pm, joatsimeon wrote:
I'm thinking of developing an AH idea -- the basic premise is once again an unexpected death.
 
Adolf Hitler drops dead in February of 1939; from natural causes -- stroke, chokes on a nut cutlet, whatever.
 
Fat Hermann was the designated successor at that point, and was still reasonably on the ball, so he'd take over for a while at least.
 
There is absolutely no way Goering was going to start WWII over Poland, or over anything else if he could help it; he was a pragmatic opportunist, quite ruthless but not a driven fanatic.  He knew the odds were not in Germany's favor.
 
Also, unlike Hitler he wouldn't have the generals completely under his thumb, and -they- were convinced that the odds were not in Germany's favor.  It was only the institutional/psychological dominance Hitler had acquired via successful rearmament, the Rhineland, the Saar, Austria and then the Munich agreement that had made it possible to bully them into going along with his program.
 
If you were a conservative German nationalist, by early 1939 Germany had succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.  It hadn't gotten all the territory lost at Versailles back (some bits in Poland, Alsace-Lorraine), but the acquisition of a huge chunk of what had once been the Habsburg domains more than compensated, as had the unification of most German-speakers in a Greater Germany.
 
Germany was in an absolutely politically and economically dominant position in Eastern Europe and the Balkans, and the only alternative to the universally feared and detested USSR.  
 
It was also the only major country that had fully recovered from the Depression, with full employment and no unused assets.  Everyone was afraid of Germany, or at least paid respectful attention.
 
Some think Stalin was planning an attack; I personally think this very unlikely. Stalin never once in his entire life picked a fight with a strong opponent; he was extremely cautious strategically.  He'd push if he saw an opportunity, but always drew back when presented with resolute opposition by a Great Power.
 
The next ten years would be interesting, and present lots of story possibilities.  Eg., who succeeds Fat Hermann?  How does the Party opposition develop -- eg., what does the SS and Himmler do?  What happens in the Far East, without a European crisis to give the Japanese opportunities?  What's the impact on the US, without war in Europe?  Does FDR seek a third term, and does he win?

Previous Topic Next Topic