Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×
  • Art Print
  • Canvas
  • Photo
Download JPG 2206 × 1552



Details

Submitted on
April 5, 2012
Image Size
3.1 MB
Resolution
2206×1552
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
21,491 (6 today)
Favourites
127 (who?)
Comments
126
Downloads
216
×
What is this Germany you speak of? by 1Blomma What is this Germany you speak of? by 1Blomma
“At the end of the 2nd World War, many plans existed on how to deal with the German question. Some argued Europe without Germany could not sustain itself economically and should be de-Nazified and rehabilitated. Others, fuelled by revenge for the damage caused by her, argued for the total extermination of the German state and people. The final plan was more like the latter than the former. “The warmongering German people” should pay for their crimes with territorial concessions to their neighbours, forced sterilisation of all adults deemed to be Nazis, and naturalisation of the remainder. To lower the population even further, Germans were denied food rations that were instead being sent to the remaining European population. It is estimated that between 15.000.000 and 20.000.000 Germans starved in the first five years after the end of the war.
Politically, Germany ceased to exist as a state in 1946, when it was divided between its neighbouring countries. Schleswig-Holstein, with the addition of Hamburg and the island of Rügen, became Danish. Prussia was incorporated as a republic in the Soviet Union. Mecklenburg, Pomerania, Brandenburg, Saxony, Thuringia, Danzig and the eastern, Polish populated part of Silesia was added to Poland. Czechia was extended with Bavaria to the west and Silesia to the north while Slovakia was made independent. Belgium annexed the Central Rhineland, and the Netherlands annexed Hanover and the Ruhr area. The remainder was annexed by France.
The controversial plan for the total annihilation of the German State and People was at the time seen as a necessity. However, historians today are beginning to look at it as the single greatest mistake of the 20th century. Some even go as far as to say that “Europe without a prosperous Germany is like America would be without the entire Midwest.” These theories are often looked down upon by stating that in less than 20 years, the GDP levels of Central Europe are already beginning to reach their pre-war level.
Supporters of the decision state that “an important factor that has to be taken into consideration is that humanity is saved from a potential Third World War, since there is no Germany to worry about”. – “A Brief History of the German People;” Adam S. Thompson: 1963


Life in all of these zones was harsh, in some zones possibly even harsher than it had been during the actual war. In the Polish and French zones the death rates were highest and most anyone could be put in jail, killed, or sterilised for even minor actions. Witnesses report that public executions occurred in both the French and Polish zones, though these claims are quite dubious. The death rates and living conditions nonetheless led to the German Exodus of 1948. About 10.000.000(of which only three quarters survived) migrated to Austria due to the “lenient” policies adopted by the American occupational authority there. The population of Austria is as of today more than twice as large as it was in 1945.
The inhabitants in the Dutch and Danish zones were quite lucky compared to this. A scheme was designed by the Danish government to determine which subjects to forcibly sterilise and which to neutralise (a similar scheme was adopted by the Dutch some time later). Could the person in question prove that they either actively opposed the Nazi government during the years 1933-1945, spoke another language than German as their first language or even had relatives living in Denmark (for the Dutch in the Netherlands) they escaped sterilisation.

The task of repopulating former Germany was solved differently by each nation. Poland, having lost a sizeable portion of its eastern territories to the Soviet Union resettled refugees from the East in the West. The first few years in the French zone looked quite dark, but when African nationalism rose in the mid-50s, the Pied-Noirs (French nationals living in Africa, primarily Algeria) were urged by DeGaulle to come home to the continent. Should they choose to settle in Swabia, Hesse, Franconia or the Palatinate they were given large benefits as opposed to “Old France”. The Belgian government chose to let most Germans stay, eventually creating a trilingual nation (French, Dutch and Saxon*). Denmark and the Netherlands, as stated above, naturalised large parts of the German population while sterilising and deporting only a few. Czechia could only be described as a mix of the other nations’ policies. In Prussia, the Old Prussian language was resurrected (together with lots of Lithuanian and Russian influence) and imposed on all Germans.

*Saxon is the Belgian version of German. It shares great similarities with Low German and Luxembourgish, with some French loanwords. It was imposed on everyone who did not wish to convert to Dutch or French.

Finished on April 5th, 2012
Add a Comment:
 
:iconcheeseburgertom:
Interesting that Austria would avoid this fate.  You would think in the face of this savagery that regions near Switzerland would try to be annexed as new cantons before they could be annexed by France.
Reply
:iconkris8171:
ahh yes, medevial (is that how you spell it?) eras germany, or the states that forms it today
Reply
:iconghost-of-the-past:
Yeah for a murderous people that sounds like a really easy treatment - they got off the hook
Reply
:iconsouffrances:
Souffrances Dec 20, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Mein zu Hause ist weg :V !
Reply
:iconwupto:
wupto Nov 4, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Oh no, I would speak french then :O Well made map!
Reply
:iconfiction-writing:
fiction-writing Oct 20, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
There's something very European about this concept, in that

1. It assumes that governments can do just whatever they want.    and
2. That Europe is in control of all that happens.

One factor left out of all of this is the United States. Very strange, as the US was the only major power at the end of the war.

A demographic fact of life that Europeans don't seem to want to accept: Anglo-Saxons haven't been a majority in the US, or even a plurality for quite some time. The largest ethnic group of European origin in the US was the German one, until recently, those of English descent being a distant third. So, let's see how a supposed holocaust of the German people would have played out in real life.

People are not going to be OK with the slaughter or even the forced sterilization of their own relatives. If Washington had agreed with this scheme, and that's hard to imagine, it would have been rewarded for the boldness of its vision with a civil war. As the Germans settled predominantly in the Midwest, also known as the part of the US where most of the food is grown, that's the part of the country that would have seceeded. First. This takes two of the nation's railhubs (Chicago and St. Louis) out of federal hands, immediately, leaving all shipping between the West (where most of the mineral resources were) and the East (where most of the factories were) passing through the remaining two hubs in Memphis and New Orleans. "Ah, French New Orleans", somebody in Europe might have been thinking at that point. "Surely they will approve, so all will be well.

Ummm. No. Time for another one of those demographic tidbits. The "French" in New Orleans have a solid German component to their population. Further, French settlement in the US came heavily from the Germanic eastern part of France, especially Alsace. So, New Orleans isn't likely to be all that OK with the idea, and in the era in question, the first US Civil War is only 80 years in the past. The allegiance of the South starts out shaky, and now Washington is going to be a participant in a series of atrocities. Take New Orleans out of the picture for Washington, for sure, and Memphis, probably. This now leaves the presumably loyal East Coast deprived of food, and probably of raw materials for its soon to be failing industries.

Washington loses the Second Civil War, the starving population of the East Coast capitulating within the year. Then things start getting really interesting. Much too interesting, from my point of view.




Realistically, no other country on Earth was going to have nuclear weaponry soon enough, and victors in violent revolutions are not noteworthy for their sense of restraint. Also, Americans of French descent are only the 7th most common ethnic group in the US, and a widely (and openly) despised one, at that, even in our timeline. In yours, their relatives overseas are trying to exterminate the relatives of the most common ethnic group in the US. Their status would hardly be improved by this.

In response to actions taken against the relatives of Americans overseas, Paris, London, Prague, Copenhagen, and Warsaw would go up in mushroom clouds, and the countries that were a party to this plan would probably be bombed, day and night, even after they surrendered. As for the former federal government of the US that had so imprudently agreed to this plan, back when such a city as Washington existed ... telling which fragment of bone had belonged to which government official would be a thankless task for which there would be few, if any, takers, what's left of the Congress looking more a lumpy mass of strawberry jam splattering the debris littering the site of the capital dome than it would anything recognizably human. The mold growing over the puree after a few days wouldn't make the task any more pleasant. Probably, nobody would have volunteered.

Fast forward to the 21st century. A battered Germany, sadder but wiser, having learned from it mistakes vows, as it did in our timeline, to never repeat them. But no such redemption will be available for the few survivors remaining in what used to be France, England, Denmark, Poland and Czechoslovakia, the vengeful forces of the new American military not caring about such fine distinctions as the ones between Czechs and Slovaks. Both peoples, if not already extinct, would be well on their way to extinction, and there would be nobody would ever be quite sure, again, exactly where the Arc de Triomphe. Ironically, in trying to rid of the world of the atrocities associated with Naziism by committing ... ummm, more atrocities ... the Europeans, in their folly, would have brought about its resurrection, in the form of a nuclear armed America that would, in practice if not theory, have become something not so very different from the state it helped overthrow. From there, things get kind of dark.

At least, that would be my guess. As a Jew of partially French descent, I'm not enjoying this scenario, and am more than slightly glad that it never unfolded. I am also more than slightly contemptuous of the posturing taken by a particular French philosopher of the era who seemed supportive of this sort of plan, having argued that since the Germans had always been free to choose to die in the fight against Hitler, that the entire German people should be punished for his crimes. This, our hero said, in spite of there not being so much as one shred of evidence that he ever had anything to do with the French underground. I guess that the duty to die is one that only falls on the less cerebral among us?




Why did this not happen? I could start by pointing out that America, having largely been settled by the victims of some kind of persecution or another in Europe, has never approached a European level of savagery. Washington would not have stood for such a plan, even if it didn't have the previously mentioned demographic issues to worry about. It wouldn't have had the stomach for it. And then there's that pesky second amendment. Again, to be realistic, as impressive as the 400,000 man US army looks, and is, there are over 100 million gun bearing adults in the US, I'm told. This, in the case of a would be military coup, works out to over 2,500 partisans to each US soldier, in a country in which no attempted coup has ever found widespread support in the military. Maybe one could have the sailors come on shore, but the numbers wouldn't look more promising, even if they did.

2500 to 1 represents hopeless odds. That would be like the population of the UK, vs. the population of a small suburb. Even if every single US soldier was loyal to the would be leaders of a coup, the army, with a supply line to nowhere, facing those odds, would be wiped out in a matter of weeks. This is why the second amendment exists: so that the line "the government rules by the consent of the people" will be more than a line. Washington, from the very beginning, has known that there are things that it simply can not do, and so wouldn't even dream of trying.

So, this is the far less dramatic alternate timeline that we'd really be much likelier to see.


De Gaulle: "... and so, we will make the Germans pay for what they have done, every one of them."

Einsenhower: "Sit down and shut up, Charles, or we'll stuff and mount Petain's corpse, and have him represent France at these talks."

De Gaulle: (silence)


and so it ends, with one group of hotheads never heard from, because another group of hotheads on the other side of the ocean had to hear the word "no." C'est la vie.

By the way, I notice that you left Sweden on the map. For all of the collaborating your countrymen did with the Germans, that hardly seems likely, in the unlikely scenario you describe.
Reply
:iconfiction-writing:
fiction-writing Oct 20, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
"In response to actions taken against the relatives of Americans overseas, Paris, London, Prague, Copenhagen, and Warsaw would go up in mushroom clouds"

Of course, in order to get London destroyed by an American nuclear device, we need to cook up a completely unrealistic scenario like this one. It's rather difficult to picture Winston Churchill supporting the scheme described above. It really comes across as more of a globalist fantasy - the dissolution of one of the largest historical cultures in the West, more 21st century than 20th, and not really a good fit for the ideology of anywhere in the Anglosphere I know of, at any point post 1900.

The argument offered by the unnamed narrator in the story above is a Utilitarian one, and Utilitarianism, as a philosophy, sells very poorly in the English speaking world. Maybe that's one of the reasons why the first two countries in the modern era to enjoy political liberty both spoke English, democracy spreading from them to the supposedly more "progressive" countries on the European continent. This is a point that a Swede is unlikely to get, I suppose. The English, presented with an argument that the atrocities described would serve the greater good, simply would not care about the alleged greater good. At least, most of them wouldn't; it's a cultural norm.

For the scenario described to unfold, then, we would need to have Germany get wiped off the map by ... who? The Soviet Union? Even if the UK and US were cold blooded enough to sit by and let that happen, they'd be losing a major strategic advantage by doing so - the difficulties the Russians have long had in finding warm water ports for their ships. The Soviets would have gotten one warning before the bombs started to fall, and they had already lost 20 million people. They didn't need another war. This leaves us with France (aka the country that couldn't defend itself against Italy), the low countries, Poland and Czechoslovakia to come in for the kill, with no support coming from the UK or the US.

Let's see ... the Germans blow a hole in the dikes. Wave goodbye to 60% of Holland for the duration because now, not only is it below sea level, it's below the sea. The Poles, at this point, are still trying to figure out where Warsaw went, even if no nuclear devices are dropped on the rubble. Hard to picture them doing much, especially since the Soviets have killed so many of their officers in the Katyn massacre and, at this point, are occupying Poland, which will soon become known as a satellite country. Did the OP really not remember that? Czechoslovakia is likewise out of the picture, occupied by a Soviet Union that will have been sternly warned off. This leaves us with France and Belgium, mighty Belgium. The country that collapsed after nine days when it was invaded by the army going around the Maginot line.

In conclusion, then, somebody not only didn't do his homework, he's failed to display basic cultural literacy. None of what I have mentioned is particularly obscure, and all of it should have occurred to him. This is the early 21st century, not the 22nd, and the Cold War is still in living memory.
Reply
:iconcasino1-1:
The only person who hasn't done their homework or displayed basic cultural literacy is you.

You have a very odd prediction of public reaction to this plan. Germany by this point had started two world wars, raped, pillaged, and murdered their way across European Russia, and killed more than 6 million people in death camps. The public was not sympathetic to Germany or Germans; in fact, there was considerable anti-German sentiment directed at German-Americans and feelings of revenge were undoubtedly high. The German-Americans wouldn't have raised a fuss either; they didn't say anything when America went to war with Germany, or when the allies bombed Germany day and night killing hundreds of thousands of German civilians, or even during WWI. German-Americans have consistently sided with America over Germany and chosen Anglicization over German heritage, which is why so few of them speak German today.

And you think that German-Americans would spontaneously revolt? When has a revolt by civilians against the federal government ever occurred in American history? Furthermore, why does your prediction of every German-American rising up somehow change to every single gun bearing adult rising up? Why should non-German Americans be sympathetic to their revolt?

The next problem is that you think that the American government wouldn't approve such a plan (because they don't posses the "savagery" of Europeans, I guess?). This is historically inaccurate; they seriously considered a post-war plan called the Morgenthau plan, which would have completely de-industrialized Germany, resulting in a famine that would have killed 20 million Germans. Roosevelt was on board with this plan. In fact, the main criticism of the plan was not the genocide that would have resulted, but rather the political instability that the Soviets would have been able to take advantage of. And a more moderate de-industrialization happened anyway, because, after starting two world wars, people really wanted to be sure that Germany could not start a third.

And then there are the little historical errors. Like Sweden "collaborating" with the Germans. All they did was carry on with business as usual; they were still a strictly neutral country. Or how America "has never approached a European level of savagery". I'm not sure exactly what you mean by savagery.  If you simply mean wars, America has engaged in plenty. If you mean genocide, America has engaged in plenty. If you mean genocide of ostensibly white people (Jews and Slavs), then I guess you're right.

The war you described America fighting on behalf of the Germans is just silly and I won't bother critiquing it. Suffice to say, America would not go to war with its former allies in order to save Germany, a completely defeated nation. Neither the government nor the public would support it.

The biggest problem, that pervades your entire reply, is your obsession with ethnicity. Like how you think German-Americans have some intense bond of kinship with European Germans that would cause them to revolt. Or how New Orleans would join in simply because they're apparently from Alsace! Or how you mention you're a "Jew of partially French descent" as if that has any relevance. Does it mean you have you have relatives in Israel and France and you have beloved relatives there, much like how you think all German-Americans have beloved relatives in Germany? Or how you think 1Blomma is a savage utilitarian Swede who can't possibly understand good old Anglo progressivism and loves the idea of German genocide.
Reply
:iconcheeseburgertom:
Few things:

Americans of German descent were assimilating in the US, and the world wars accelerated this.  German was the most studied second language in the US before WWI, but it never would be after.  In the interwar period you could still find many communities in the US where German was the daily language complete with daily newspapers in German.  This changed almost immediately after the US entry into WWII, and German was and has remained the daily language only of small insular religious minorities.

Citizen uprisings have happened in the US going all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion during Washington's administration.
Reply
:icon1blomma:
It's a fictional story, I don't think you should get so worked up over it
Reply
Add a Comment: