HOME | DD
TiltschMaster β CoA Nazi Imperial Germany (Central Victory)
#arms #central #coat #empire #fictional #germany #heraldry #imperial #national #nazi #socialism #victory #war #world #althistory #embleme
Published: 2016-06-13 11:35:47 +0000 UTC; Views: 17906; Favourites: 129; Downloads: 171
Redirect to original
Description
I did this coat of arms for the Central Victory wiki, hope you enjoy!Credits: Elements taken from wikimedia commons.
Related content
Comments: 42
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Wonderful and interesting work !!
The idea behind this Coat of Arms (that of mixing the Second and Third Reich) is actually something quite original, although it doesn't really make much sense, considering that in any timeline where the Central Powers win, there simply does not exist environment that encourages the appearance or rise of the Nazis to power.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, first of all: Thank you 
π: 0 β©: 1
First of all: You're welcome!
Second of all:
In reality, what made the Great Depression so severe for Germany was strongly the fault of the Treaty of Versailles and its war reparations that had not been paid even when the Depression took place.
In almost any realistic Alternative Timeline, who would suffer for the "Alternative Versailles Treaty" would definitely be France, while the German Empire and other Central Powers that survive the Great War should not suffer the massive territorial and population losses that they suffered OTL which technically would mean that the effects of the Great Depression should be made easier for Germany and allies.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, but in Jake's timeline, the war isn't "deciseively won" by anyone. The US doesn't join and so the German Sprin Offensive succeeds in pushing further twoards Paris, causing the French to surrender, but not the British. A Peace Treaty is then drawn up where France and Serbia a severely punished by the Germans, but the British and the Germans also hammer out a treaty of mutual reparations, simply because neither truely won or lost the war, they just grinded themselves to near collaps and both wanted it to end. The Kaiser also has to give away power to a more consitutional style monarchy, so there is a parliamentary system in place simmilar to that of the Weimar Republic. And while Versaille heavily punished Germany, the mutual reperations of ATL's treaty are enough to make economic damage severe and political dissatisfaction boil over.
To me, that sounds at least plausible, and more can usually not be done by Alternate History. We don't have magic powers of premonition after all
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, what happens to Austria-Hungary in that ATL?
Did I also implode in multimples smaller nation-states like OTL? Or did A-H managed to hold together under the Dual Monarchy or the Monarchy fell and was replaced by a kind of "Danube Federation"?
Because it happens that if Austria-Hungary implodes as did in OTL, then it is highly probable that the Post-WWI German Empire will annex the German-speaking regions together with Bohemia and Moravia and with this they would have a huge increase in population and natural resources that should help to mitigate the Post-War situation.
Also, what about the Brest-Litovsk Treaty?
Because if the Central Powers had won, then they would have had the Baltic Countries, Belarus and Ukraine under their tutelage / sphere of influence and along with these, their populations, their natural resources plus a huge amount of arable land available to them alone.
Shouldn't he have all that arable territory / land and labor under his control to allow the Central Powers to shove the cost of war?
π: 0 β©: 1
So, first things first, Austria-Hungary: Austria survives World War I, but is remodelled along the "United States of Greater Austria" line, but tensions in the country remian high and them annexing Montenegro doesn't take any of the strain away. Austria falls to Austro-Facism like in OTL, but the country soon after collapses due to the advent of World War II (more on that later).
Yes, the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk holds, but I think you overestimate how great that would be for the Germans and the Austrians. Yes, those countries have ressources and populations that would come in handy to the Central Powers, but they also need to be controlled, which puts their economies and militaries under constant pressure. Ukraine especially is highly volatile in the beginning and it only stabilizes shortly before World War II errupts, so the benefits aren't all that great. A bread basket in constant chaos isn't realy useful for feeding people.
And, because Brest-Litovsk happens, the "Axis" of this TL's WWII is between France and the USSR. France wants revenge for WWI and the Soviets want the lands back that they lost at Brest-Litovsk, so they invade the states of the former Russian Empire, starting with Ukraine and the Baltics. Ths Germans can hold the Soviets off in Poland, but the Austrians fail to stop the advancing Red Army from penetrating Galicia and under the pressure the Austro-Hungarian Empire disintigrates, leaving Germany to take over the German speaking ereas and Italy to take all the Italian speaking areas.
But honestly: Just read the wiki. It might still be under construction, but Jake is doing a great job of putting things together.
π: 0 β©: 1
First of all: Interesting outcome for a surviving Austro-Hungarian, although it is not fully explained why Austrofascism arises even though they won the war.
Second: Why exactly would Ukraine or the Baltic countries be volatile?
As far as I understand, at least the inhabitants of the Baltic states supposedly resisted the Germans as a kind of liberators, although I cannot say the same of the ethnic Poles.
Third: I wonder what will happen to Portugal and Spain in this timeline ... will they follow the same historical path that we know or undergo a great change?
Finally: I just read the link, but the timeline does not reach beyond the Victory of the Central Powers, it does not even include a map to see how Europe's borders changed!
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, it does. Click yourself through the "Recently changed" tab or just use the categories on the bottom of the page. The wiki has much more to offer then it seems at first
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, I'm seeing that the page actually has more than I expected, but I think it lacks some details and I still can't help thinking that the idea that fascism or Nazism can really get the amount of support they received in OTL despite a victory of the Central Powers is somewhat redundant to put it in some way.
π: 0 β©: 0
So basically it will be like what happened to Italy after ww1
π: 0 β©: 1
Can you make one for Romania ruled by the Iron Guard but still has the monarchy? As they were an ultra-monarchist fascist party.
π: 0 β©: 0
Interesting idea to mix the two Reichs together. It just becomes very busy.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, but I actualy like the look
π: 0 β©: 0
This is so interesting, I would never think of mixing up the 2nd and the 3rd Reich together, However as I was reading the alternate central powers wiki, I still didn't understand why Hitler came to power in a timeline that Germany won the war, Why didn't Petain or Mosley rise in France and Britain respectively. What I mean is that in a timeline where Kaiser Wilhelm II remains in power, why would the Nazis seize power? Seeing that no mayor tragedy shook Germany.
π: 0 β©: 1
Because the Great Depression still happened and the political system collapsed, just as it did in OTL and ofr the same reasons. The political system was instable, the population split and the economic crisis devestating. As for France and Great Britain: I can't say. That part of the timeline has not yet been flashed out by the creator, you'd have to ask him about that 
π: 0 β©: 1
It's so interesting though, Thanks
π: 0 β©: 0
TRIGGERED
Nah I'm joking, fantastic job as always
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh now come on. Hitler and the NS movement hierarchy were all anti-monarchy, fascistic republicans.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes and no. It is true that many of the prominent Nazis were anti-monarchists, but several others were not. Kaiser Whilhelm II himself was a grreat sympathizer and seeing how the fascists in Italy handled the monarchy it is completley understandable why. In a timeline where the monarchy stayed in place after a central powers victory in World War I it is completley logical to assume that the Nazis would act just like the Italian fascists did and keep the monarchy in place and just strip it of it's power.Β
Read up on the timeline (that I did not create, by the way, I just support it's creator because I love the concept) here:Β central-victory.wikia.com/wikiβ¦
π: 0 β©: 1
I just read that alternate history. Not so much counter-factual history as it is dream-history.
π: 0 β©: 1
As a history student I must disagree heavily. Why so angry? Has this coat of arms realy hurt your inner monarchist so much?
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah I'm a history student as well, so don't preach. Lol.
Does it hurt your inner socialism that the Nazis were both republicans and socialists?
The facts on this the theory are all wrong. The Nazi's were anti-monarchy, they would never have tolerated monarchy. But the truth is that under a Central Powers victory, there would have been no discontent, no defeat reparations and no "stab-in-the-back" theory for the Nazis to trade off electorally. In short if Germany has won WW1 there would have been no Nazi Party.
π: 0 β©: 1
First of all: I am a communist. So that the German fascists copied elements of socialism, only to make them exclusive for pureblooded members of the Volksgemeinschaft doesn't bother me one bit. What bothers me is how people think that that makes Nazis socialists or lefties
Second: Yes, our National Socialists were (in parts) anti-monarchy. However, there are several facts you can not deny. First of all: If the monarchy had survived, the national socialists would have had to disestablish the monarchy themselves. They would have had to push through such legislation in the face of a very pro-monarchy military wich support they would have needed, against the ideology of other right-wing groups they used to rise to power and probably against large chunks of the population. Just like the fascists in Italy it would have been completly logical to just keep the moanrchy in place nominaly but to strip them off power. After all the fascists in Italy were anti-monarchy and "socialist" themselves, so there is no logical flaw in the timeline here.Β
Third: The major reason the Nazis rose to power in Germany were not the stab-in-the-back nor the reparations, but the economic crsis of the stockmarket crash. This would have happened no matter the outcome of World War I, it happens here, so the Nazis could definetley still rise to power. Their first major electoral successes came in 1930 when the economic crisis hit Germany and Hindenburg started to rule through Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, both of wich happen in this timeline) although the autocratic period of Hindenburg in this TL is enacted by the Kaiser and his Chancelors, not the Weimar President). Another major factor of their rise to power was the fragile political situation in the Weimar Republic that also happens in this TL, just with a monarch at the top and not a President. The party system of a constitutional German monarchy would have been just as big a clusterfuck as that of Weimar Germany. The policiy of exclusion of fringe parties like the NSDAP and the KPD, wich led to the major escalattions of political violence during the last three years of the Weimar Republic also happen.Β
All cleared up?Β
This timeline is as realistic as a Central Powers victory timeline can get.
π: 0 β©: 2
1. The Nazi's believed in a controlled economy; they believed an the abolition of nobility titles; they were anti-clerical/church; they believed in state controlled labour-forces and unionisation. These are not things right wing regimes or conservatives believe in.
2.Β There is no such thing as 'this would have happened' anyway. The Nazi's had had nearly a decade of laying the groundwork leading up to the Stockmarket crash. They did not appear overnight, nor did their support.Β If you're theory is true, then why did not France or Great Britain, which also suffered from the crash, not fall to fascist-socialist dictatorship.Β
3. A communist? Really? They rank amongst the worst human right abusers in history.
π: 0 β©: 1
Some of us did, yes. Those who corrupted our theory into something barely resembling marxism at all. Although if you wanted to meassure human rights abuse dicks monarchys have several centuries of crusades, slave trade, imperialism, genocide, war and feudalism ahead of "us" so please don't start this debate
As to your other points: Ofcourse they did not appear out of no where. But no one took them seriously until the 1930's when they started to gain electoral success because of the Great Depression.
As to Britain and France: The British Union of Fascists actualy gathered a large following in the wake of the Great Depression, but several factos not present in the UK that were in Germany prevented it's rise to power. First of all Britain was not used to the kind of antisemitism the BFU started to focus on after 1935 and so declined rapidly. In Germany, antisemitism was (sadly) more common, from the right to the far left. Second of all, the British government actualy took substantial steps to dismantle the BFU. Germany at that time didn't have a fucntioning government for some three years and parts of the conservative establishment sympathized with the Nazis, so the party was allowed to continue it's success.
In France fascists also gained prominence, even way before the Great Depression as part of the revanchist movement. I firmly believe that the political culture of France wich values freedom and democracy probably more than that of any other nation on earth prevented the rise to power of the leagues of the era. But still, you know that fascist riots also brought down one of the left-coalition governments in France in 1934, right? So it's not like Germany just happened to have powerful fascists and Great Britain and France just miraculously stayed unscarred by that trend.Β
And with your first point, there is a very easy counter that I already brought: This is an alternate timeline in wich the circumstances are different. This TL's Nazis would not be that anti-monarchy because the monarchy stayed in place. They would have had to work with that circumstance and act more like the Italian fascists. Also: They also shared many aspects with the monarchy, the overhyped nationalism, antisemitism, the believe in the superiority of a Nordic race, their hate twoards slavic races and others.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Wow, that pulled a heart string or two. But also let me be clear to our friend here. I am a second generation German-American. I serve in the military forΒ 6 years now, and the biggest irony of all, I am pro-monarchy myself. I have worked on this timeline with a microscope since 2009 with for the most part little to no outside help. I have redone the World War II era of my timeline a total of 4 times over the years. I personally hate the Nazi's and even letting them still exist in my timeline makes me ill let alone for as long as I have them.
Germany and its history are dear to me and I assure you I have read and re-read history surrounding World War II so many times I could quote you almost every leader down to diary entry of soldiers. The Nazi's continued existence is the logical conclusion, and yes their views on monarchy are different. From what I gathered Hitler, and by extension the Nazi's, hated monarchy for two reasons. 1, Kaiser Wilhelm II was viewed in Germany as the man who lost the war. Even the most hardened royalists in Germany didn't want him back. Had the monarchy returned it would have been under one of his sons. 2, Hitler wanted power for himself because he believed only he could save Germany and that he was destined for it. These two events clearly clash but like all politics compromises are made.
The old Kaiser is not viewed with distain but is a more humble man in his old age, this was true in real life I imagine it would be more so if he remained on the throne. Hitler a veteran would want the monarchy to continue because if he can control it and what it represents to the people he controls their hearts and minds and more importantly the Army. Nazi Germany in my timeline is not as obviously Nazi as in real life no. This has a lot to due with Wilhelm II's successors, Wilhelm III supports them and lets Hitler due what ever he wants. Louis Ferdinand however is partially why Nazi Germany falls in this timeline. A huge anti-Nazi who spends his reign digging in his heels to due what he can from the inside. I haven't worked out details yet and I may have then monarchy continue to present day, but he abdicates after invoking his constitutional authority and uses the Army to take control of the government. This was what he feels is his duty to free the people from the clutches of Fascism as well as the monarchy being tainted by its decades of complacency with it.
π: 0 β©: 1
Dont get me wrong, I am not challenging your right to come up with a story, but from a socio-cultural or political point of view, the timelime you created is merely fantasy, and goes against counterfactual historical theory. A victorious Germany would have had no need to call upon National-Socialism, indeed a German monarchy would have had to give ground to more democratic trends, not less democratic trends, because that is where Germany had been going in the decades before WW1.
π: 0 β©: 1
And that is where this Germany goes until the Great Depression hits and the flaws in the democratic system of the Weimar Republic/Constitutional Empire come to bare.Β
Italy for example also was a winner of World War I and still was the nation wich brought the blight of Fascism into this world. Being a War winner does not mean fascism can't become a reality.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Well Italy felt it had been cheated if you look at how they were treated. And they were a minor power, not a great one. Β
Imperial Germany would have been the dominant force in any Central Victory.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Of course they would, but that does not mean they wouldn't have problems. Their society would have been split along the same lines as Weimar Germany's would have been, their economy would have been devestated and their political system would have been just as flawed.
π: 0 β©: 0
No problem, man
π: 0 β©: 0
So you have "taqken" the stuff from wikimedia commons? xD
π: 0 β©: 1
I don't know what you mean since I never make mistakes and all I do is perfect. Look, it's written correctly and it has been all along!Β Β
π: 0 β©: 1
You are right! Am I sick or something?! xDDDD
π: 0 β©: 0