A What-if question

[mapuc]

yesterday I saw a documentary about the last day of Berlin. Later in the evening I saw the primetime news where they had an issue about North Korea.

That made me wonder What if

Nazi-Germany didn't became aggressive against other European countries, but became a European version of North Korea. A country where the Nazi parti runs an extreme form for dictatorship.

1. Would Germany been attacked by England, France and Perhaps Soviet, if they had stayed home and mind their own business ?

2. I haven't expand my what if to Japan. My thought is only about what if Germany......

Markus

[Platapus]

Several historians and some German Generals thought that Hitler started the war about 3-5 years too soon.

In retrospect, I think that if Germany just kept to their own borders that the rest of the world would have turned a blind eye at least for a few more years

Japan is another story as they needed the resources outside their country so they really did not have the option of "keeping to themselves"

[Eichhörnchen]

Desire for 'Lebensraum' meant that conflict was inevitable... Hitler would never have kept things at home. But if he'd not started by trying to make "home" bigger, and instead gone straight after Russia, then things would of course have been different. But could he have done so without first annexing Austria?

[mapuc]

Thank you for your answer. I know Hitler had a Lebensraum-desire

But my question was inside this What if-Germany didn't attack other countries but stayed home and developed an European version of North Korea. Where the Nazi Party run the country with extreme dictatorship.

Would Germany have been attacked by the Allied under any circumstances whether they had stayed home or not ?

I have read a lot of what if/alternative stories about Germany just before, under and after, I have not found any what if/alternative stories about a Germany that stayed home and who minded their own business after about June 1939. and forward.

Markus

[Skybird]

Is North Korea really that defensive as you imply? Or are they simply lacking the strength needed to strike beyond their borders?

And what about inner dynamics ? Can a regime turning paranoid really assumed to remain defensively when paranoia may lead it sooner or later to concuding that it must preemptively strike before the others do? Another inner dynamic may result from the desire of the regime to surivve in times of nation-wide economic and social collapse - by cretaing a strawman the masses can project their anger on. In Germany, that was the racist card being played: the Jews were the strawman.

Which leads to another perspective: could a regime, or state order, that brings racism and its own racial supremacy into the game, really be expected to stay passive?

England and France wanted to believe Hitler meant peace, everybody was eager to hope that the first world war would have been the first and last of its kind. The best symbol of this naivety, was Chamberlain's trip to Munich, and the euphoria the worthless piece of paper unleashed that he waved in his hand when he returned and left the plane. Yes, England and France would have stayed neutral on Germany if Germany would not have struck first. And England was not really best prepared for war with germany anyway. Thats why the Germans brought them close to the brink of defeat.

By equipment, Germany was not really best prepared as well, France initially had better and heavier tanks for example. But the Germans were determined, brave, and executed courageously new, unproven tactics and strategies that were still held in doubt, in England and France, at least had not convinced all commanders and generals.

[STEED]

Well within the question I would go with a cold war starting more early.

[Eichhörnchen]

Well then in a Nazi State where Lebensraum was not an issue, you might ask whether things might have been influenced by his treatment of the Jews and others deemed "undesirable" among his own people; those who 'didn't fit' would surely have been massively oppressed, as in any dictatorship (whatever his foreign policy) so you have to ask whether or not other nations might have intervened. Back then, I'd say the answer would have been a definite and resounding "NO". There was no ethos of humanitarian intervention back then as far as I am aware, so I'd say the answer to your question is yes, Germany would have been left to its own devices.

[Aktungbby]

You guys are overlooking the similarity of WWI to the North Korean situation...not WWII. Prior to WWI the Royal Navy seized three German mail boats in the winter of 1899–1900 off East Africa without any explanation or legitimization. Three German ships, the Bundesrath, Herzog and General bound for a neutral port were forced into port and searched for any Boer war-materiel, with negative results. This provoked a diplomatic crisis between the German Kaiserreich and Great Britain. The vessel were released but the lesson sank in: The German leadership felt severely disrespected by the British policy, and as a consequence, feelings of being inadequately recognized erupted in German society. As a result, the German leadership embarked on a new naval act, The First Fleet act of 1897 and second more ambitious act of 1900; which in turn intensified the naval antagonism between the German Empire and Great Britain in the years to come-culminating in 1914 and Jutland. North Korea is similarly disrespected and is substituting nuclear ballistic missiles for dreadnoughts. Substitute the megalomaniac Kaiser for 'fat boy' of N. Korea and the nationalist ego issues are remarkably similar. N. Korea is obeying Von C's rule: "Whenver possible, increase firepower"....

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Eichhörnchen

Well then in a Nazi State where Lebensraum was not an issue, you might ask whether things might have been influenced by his treatment of the Jews and others deemed "undesirable" among his own people; those who 'didn't fit' would surely have been massively oppressed, as in any dictatorship (whatever his foreign policy) so you have to ask whether or not other nations might have intervened. Back then, I'd say the answer would have been a definite and resounding "NO". There was no ethos of humanitarian intervention back then as far as I am aware, so I'd say the answer to your question is yes, Germany would have been left to its own devices.

"Back then", you said. But the same way of going is happening today, too. Venezuela. Maduro in fact turns it into a dictatorship. Democracy is dead, the leading opposition poltician was sacked by the police this morning. Columbia said it will not respect the new constitution, but will it go to war with Venezuela?

Dictatorships are not difficult to decypher. In the end they simply extend pragmatic opportunism into the realm of "enforcment by brutality".

[mapuc]

I can see using NK as a parallel to former Nazi-Germany was a in a way wrong-Why I picked NK, was due to what some of you have written about NK in our thread about NK and what I have read, seen and heard on news and documentary about NK.

I think Eichhörnchen is or could be right in his statement.
The problem is, none of us really know-´cause it's a alternative history that didn't happened-We can only speculate.

Therefore, any statement what would happen in Germany from June 1939 and forward(alternative history line starts) and how the other countries(those who was directly or indirectly part of the WWII-from the correct history line)acted according to Germany, if they stayed home and minded their own business, can be seen as valid

Maybe there wouldn't be a WWII as we know it or there would be a regional war.
Maybe WWII started 5-10 years later, but without Germany as the one who starts the war but maybe get involved in one way or other.

The Second question I also ask myself is-as part of this What-If Germany... would any of these technical invention that came due to the war have happened any way, but some year later or would we still today be flying in plane without jet engine and still using propel....
(I know this was somehow of topic)

Markus

[Eichhörnchen]

Wars always accelerate technology... the need for faster fighters brought on jet development at an exponential pace; although we would have had jet travel eventually, it probably would have taken much longer (passenger transport by air was often by flying-boat pre-war, and it was the development and building of runways for bombers which, so I read somewhere, moved passenger air-transport over to land planes rather than sea planes).

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

You guys are overlooking the similarity of WWI to the North Korean situation...not WWII. Prior to WWI the Royal Navy seized three German mail boats in the winter of 1899–1900 off East Africa without any explanation or legitimization. Three German ships, the Bundesrath, Herzog and General bound for a neutral port were forced into port and searched for any Boer war-materiel, with negative results. This provoked a diplomatic crisis between the German Kaiserreich and Great Britain. The vessel were released but the lesson sank in: The German leadership felt severely disrespected by the British policy, and as a consequence, feelings of being inadequately recognized erupted in German society. As a result, the German leadership embarked on a new naval act, The First Fleet act of 1897 and second more ambitious act of 1900; which in turn intensified the naval antagonism between the German Empire and Great Britain in the years to come-culminating in 1914 and Jutland. North Korea is similarly disrespected and is substituting nuclear ballistic missiles for dreadnoughts. Substitute the megalomaniac Kaiser for 'fat boy' of N. Korea and the nationalist ego issues are remarkably similar. N. Korea is obeying Von C's rule: "Whenver possible, increase firepower"....

Thanks this was interesting, i know about the seizing of other german ships by England prior to WW1 (and other civilian ones in neutral harbours during WW1), but not those mentioned above.
But I do not agree with the "megalomanic Kaiser", especially in comparison with King Leopold from Belgium, other princes, kings, or the ambitions of the British Empire.. and William 2nd was much more reasonable than Kim

[Aktungbby]

^C'MON! even accounting for a post 1918 'victor's justice' view of history, it was 'Germany's place in the sun' vs 'The sun never sets on the British empire' and an unstable 'Kaiser Willi' keeping up with 'cousin Georgie'. https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-secret-german-scheme-to-invade-america-before-the-f-1628063060

Germany was a latecomer to the world scene by the time the 19th century came to a close. The country only came into existence in 1871 when its various provinces were unified at the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian War. At the time, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck adopted a policy of Realpolitik. It was a practical means to position Germany as a mediator of European affairs. But it was a policy that wasn't meant to last; soon after Kaiser Wilhelm II took over, the young nation became feverishly nationalistic, adopting the militarily aggressive and opportunistic Weltpolitik as way to expand the German Empire into a world power. German Foreign Secretary Bernhard von Bulow in a statement to the Reichstag in 1897: "[In] one word: We wish to throw no one into the shade, but we demand our own place in the sun." Indeed, the upstart nation was jealous at the success of its rivals, namely Britain, France, and the United States.

Willi's use of the title 'Supreme War Lord' is indicative(pun intended) of a severe Y-chromosome(seven offspring notwithstanding) deficiency similar to the Supreme Donald's currently (No American gal wants to Be 'first lady') Thank god for the Monroe Doctrine-even as US sanctions are imposed on Venezuela this week! required reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venezuelan_crisis_of_1902%E2%80%9303 Talk about Teutonic 'gunboat diplomacy' here: SMS Panther.

In January 1903, as the blockade continued during the negotiations, the German SMS Panther attempted to enter the lagoon of Maracaibo,a centre of German commercial activity. On 17 January it exchanged fire with the settlement of Fort San Carlos, but withdrew after half an hour, as shallow waters prevented it getting close enough to the fort to be effective. The Venezuelans claimed this as a victory, and in response the German commander sent the Vineta, with heavier weapons, to set an example. On 21 January the Vineta bombarded the fort , setting fire to it and destroying it, with the death of 25 civilians in the nearby town.

Two rules of world politics not grasped by Germany: the Atlantic is an English speaking lake and no one messes with or gets close to the Panama Canal:

As a result, the crisis produced the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, described in Theodore Roosevelt's 1904 message to Congress. The Corollary asserted a right of the United States to intervene to "stabilize" the economic affairs of small states in the Caribbean and Central America if they were unable to pay their international debts, in order to preclude European intervention to do so.(incl the Cuban missile crises?) The Venezuela crisis, and in particular the arbitral award, were key in the development of the Corollary.

[Catfish]

So William 2nd adopted a policy every other country already pursued.. sure he must have been megalomanic.

"Two rules of world politics not grasped by Germany: the Atlantic is an English speaking lake and no one messes with or gets close to the Panama Canal:."

Which only underlines megalomania and arrogance
And not so: german civilian ships and trade of that time were on international standard and their fleets huge, their ships sailed all over the world. Also there was a real atmosphere of departure from the bad old times, science and technical innovations becoming the new ideal.

William 2nd may have been a flaring monarch, but he was not the only one. You just do not find much in the official history books, until you begin to dig a bit deeper.. e.g. France had enough political and military leaders to fill asylums, and they only waited for a chance to get Gremany to its knees. The first world war put an effective end to this time of innovation, so for the old powers it was "mission accomplished", and William took the blame.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Which only underlines megalomania and arrogance

William 2nd may have been a flaring monarch, but he was not the only one. . The first world war put an effective end to this time of innovation, so for the old powers it was "mission accomplished", and William took the blame.

Not entirely! They were all 'bright up to the tops of their boots".... meets up with (would be hopeful) Seoulmates 107 years later: