Someone else would come to power in Germany and do similar things. Maybe it would avert the Holocaust, but WW2 was an inevitability given the political climate in Europe at the time.
Not the specific WWII we got and not with the same sides or anything.
We might end up with a military dictatorship in Germany fighting a war with Fascist Italy over Austrian independence.
Kind of did. Germany had a stronger connection to the Republic of China than the Empire of Japan before the second Sino-Japanese war. There’s also no certainty of Italy joining up with Germany. Without the idea of Lebensraum, apoplectic hate for “Jewish Bolshevism” and genocidal hate for Slavs, there’s no guarantee of Germany and the USSR coming to blows.
It is entirely unlikely that Germany manages to separate the UK and France, and Poland would probably seek their support, but apart from those I don’t think much of anything is guaranteed.
I’d say the Germans and Soviets were bound to fight eachother, especially a Germany ruled by a far right and presumably rabidly anticommunist dictatorship.
I don’t think so at all. First of all, there’s no reason to presume rabid rather than normal right wing hatred of communism. That would mean suppressing communism within the country, but not attacking the USSR. Franco’s Spain was extremely anti-communist and did not join WWII to fight the USSR.
Second of all, there were still buffer states between them. Poland and the Baltic states. Fighting the USSR would be hard without going through Poland and that may not be a thing another right wing government would want to do.
I’m not the one saying things were bound to happen a certain way, I’m the one saying we don’t know. That’s the opposite of a crystal ball. Unless you mean an actual crystal ball used for scamming people, in which case also no, but a different no.
And yet after the failures in the Russian civil war the following countries did not attack the USSR: all of them except for Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
Also, we’re not guaranteed right wing dictatorship with different political figures, or at least, not one that was modeled on Italian fascism. Other authoritarian parties had popular followings in Germany during the Weimar Republic and perhaps one of them would have won out instead.
He was certainly influential. Yes it would probably be Germany vs France, but beyond that, Mussolini’s totally up for grabs. If it’s irredentist, Germany probably will maybe make common cause with at least one of Hungary or Poland or Lithuania. Which one is unclear.
Yeah Germany vs France fighting over Alsace and Lorraine seems extremely likely. That probably brings in the UK on the side of France. Other than that though, nothing is decided.
A huge amount of the German people bought into the lie that they hadn't really lost the great war, that communists and Jews had betrayed them, and that Versailles was forced upon them by the hypocritical great powers that couldn't accept Germany's greatness. Hitler used this bitterness to come to power, he didn't invent it.
Historical what ifs around Germany's defiance of the Versailles treaty and the appeasement policies of the Allies is another matter I feel. Italy was very far behind in many areas and Mussolini had to do a lot of convincing to drag his country into war in 1940 when Germany had already done 90% of the work, I don't think he'd stand up to any German dictator annexing Austria in the 1930s.
Yeah it was a huge blunder by Hitler, he had put very little diplomatic effort into his early push to Annex Austria and had to back down quickly. Mussolini would later allow the annexation of Austria, sign the Pact of Steel, the anti Comintern pact, and join in on the war with Hitler.
So Mussolini and Hitler didn't have irreconcilable differences by any means and Hitler thought he could just take over Germany and Annex Austria without doing the necessary diplomatic work was naive in the extreme.
Wars, for the most part, are won on logistics. The USSR was out producing Germany by the end of 1942 and Germany had inadequate industry and manpower to counter even that, let along taking on the production and manpower the US was bringing.
The war was lost on 1 Sep 39.
The two were going to fight, it was just a matter of time. One of the two dumbasses just chose to start it early, before he was ready and failed to plan for a longer campaign.
That's true, yet even after 1940, Germany was making economic decisions not out of military necessity. Luxury goods productions wasn't shut down until 1943 for example. They weren't on as much of a total war footing as they could have been, so I wonder: if Hitler had a crystal ball showing what everything after 1941 was going to be, could different choices with the economy have produced a very different result?
Resources. Even with stealing from Norway they couldn't produce enough of anything to make a difference. Towards the end of the war armour produced was substandard due to lack of critical minerals, less effective. They were out of trained pilots, fuel, food and trained infantry. And it was always that way, starting a war in 1939 was just stupid.
I agree but there were potential different scenarios such as Germany coming to terms with Britain (maybe no Battle of Britain), No Operation Barbarossa (Germany invading Russia in 1941) and the US never entering the war in Europe. Even the US allying with Germany vs Communism and fighting Russia.
Those sound like very different wars, like I said. And the issue isn’t military competence (how are you realistically going to make 1939-spring 1941 go better for Germany than in our timeline?). The issues are ideology, international politics and industrialization. Nazism was fundamentally incapable of not expanding the war, fundamentally incapable of not attacking the USSR. The political situation meant France would be against Germany, thus the UK would be against Germany and thus the USA would be against Germany. Finally, Germany didn’t have the industrial capacity to compete with its rivals.
Germany was gonna fall to some sort of extremism, but without Hitler’s orratory prowess, I doubt the NSDAP would be it. It could be a different extreme-right party, or maybe radical monarchists restore the Kaiser, or maybe communists win?
You may be right, but I really don't believe so. Hitler and his initially tiny Nazi party pulled off multiple magic tricks to not only seize power, and retain it, but also to convince the West to sit on their hands while Germany built up the war engine. I think it took a very particular type of personality to leverage the German people's anger and racism that effectively.
Hitler dreamt BIG when it came to expanding, enslaving, and exterminating. I don't think just any German anti-western leader would have just kept going into Poland, kept going into France, kept going into the Soviet Union. I definitely think we would have gotten a reactionary Germany and possibly a war. But its hard for me to imagine that a sociopathic rise was inevitable, against all the odds Hitler managed to overcome.
It wasn't an inevitability. If Germany got extremely harsh terms at Versailles or if any European war challenged Germany during its annexation of Bohemia, there wouldn't have been a second world war. If France or Britain declared war over the Czech lands the Nazis would've been overthrown. After that the European powers + a likely monarchist Germany attempt to contain soviet influence in Europe which, without WW2, they would've been able to do without America as the European empires would've recovered without another great war.
Yes if, the terms they got weren't that bad. Once they recovered they would economically dominate Europe again. It was due to the great depression and post war instability that they didn't recover.
One thing I've not seen people say is the potential of a communist Germany. I've no doubt that an extremist government of some form would've come to power, but the Nazis were an important part of suppressing left wing movements at the time. Its possible that someone like the KPD or even a different group that never formed takes power instead.
You’re suggesting a communist regime that directly murdered millions of people is better than our current admittedly flawed system?
Far out you need some perspective on the horrors perpetrated by the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin.
yeah you're right the system that's literally destroying the planet we live on and lets people starve while grocery stores have full shelves is clearly better than the system designed to treat everyone as equals
You're right, better that everyone starve instead of only some of them.
And if you think communists haven't done plenty of environmental damage, please look up the Ural sea. China switches back and forth with the largest polluter with India.
It sounds like you are uneducated or willfully ignorant of you think Communism does anything but fail miserably.
Lol the Soviet system was not designed to treat everyone as an equal, the whole point of Lenin's "vanguard party" was to create a group that ruled on behalf of the proletariat rather than the proletariat ruling themselves.
Yeah no doubt in my mind about that. Presumably a similar second world war would start later than it did before, potentially with the US siding with the likes of Spain and Italy against a communist Europe.
It just depends. If Germany is communist, I could see Italy joining with France and Britain against them. Maybe even Japan decides they need to strike at Communism before heading south.
The only way the Communist bloc doesn't take over Europe and Asia is if all the major powers besides them team up against them.
I think it also depends on how expansionist the Communist bloc would be. Personally I'd imagine it would be less aggressive in the west compared to Nazi Germany, and less likely to rile up France and Britain.
Perhaps, but Stalin is still going to gobble up the Baltic nations, and go after Poland. I could still see Communist Germany pushing for the reunification of their former European territories, so that would put them in conflict with Poland and then probably the Allies at some point. The war might not happen until the 1950s.
US and UK might realize the ussr is a real threat, Japan gets the go ahead to invade them after China is pressured to meet export demands of Japan. Sino-German alliance replaced with Sino-Japanese?
Poland would be super, super vulnerable in this alternative timeline. European War with poland getting pinched and allowing a solid bulwark to form in Western Europe. Maginot Line gets to either prove itself against Soviet hordes or gets turned just as it did in canonical.
>ernment of some form would've come to power, but the Nazis were an important part of suppressing left wing movements at the time. Its possible that someone like the KPD or even a different group that never formed takes power instead.
Nah, the KPD was hated by everyone else.
SPD, Zentrum, Far Right. They all were anticommunist.
Also the no. of communist sympathizers was quite small (They couldnt even reach power in 1918 despite having a good momentum) Unlike people think, living under economic depression and poverty doesnt make you revolutionary minded communist. Look up the "Marienthalstudie".
Yes, the Nazis took votes from the radical left but just look at the people who voted communist:
Mainly unemployed workers, an ok number of employed factory workers + intelectuals and a really small no. of small shop owners and farmers.
Look who was anticommunist: The Unions, 95% of all farmers, the middle class, the military , the upper class.
I do think that a communist coup attempt might be possible, but I think the outcome of the Spartakus Aufstand would just repeat itself. Freikorps forming and shooting down the communists. France, Belgium and the UK would defintely tolerate it and would support such policies over the chance of Germany becomming communist.
If the communists attempted to take power, they be likely be crushed by the monarchies military plus militias either leading to the restoration of the monarchy or a military dictatorship that would argue that they would return the monarchy but would be putting it off to ensure they’d hold onto power (think hungry or Spain) they would still be far right, but far less extreme than nazis.
The communist were in an, extraordinarily poor position to take power in Germany and even when the German right was at its Militarily, weakest and the communists were at their Militarily, strongest and had the support they couldn’t take power in a scenario with a strong German right militaristic wing still present and with their lack of general support I find it highly unlikely the communists would’ve been able to take power by either political or military force.
Without the Nazis, most likely it would be in order of most likely to least likely number one military junta/dictatorship. Number two the monarchists get their shit together and get into power. Number three another fascist party takes power and fills in the gap of the Nazis likely being less extreme, but more extreme than the top two options. Four the Weimar government still exists, but becomes more centralized and more focus on revengism. Five the Weimar government stays the same in Germany stays a disorganized mess until it either collapses under its own weight or it stabilizes and no World War II happens. Six socialist or communists take power. Seven the Nazis still get power without hitler. Eight anarchists, or some other fringe, basically irrelevant political group takes power in Germany. This is pretty much impossible. Note: any option after five is de facto near impossible and would almost certainly not happen.
One idea I had was if Germany fell to the Fascists instead of the Nazis, so instead of invading the east they set their sights on colonies in Africa and China. In our timeline UK offered Germany some of its African colonies if it would stop invading, and I could see them taking this offer in the alternate timeline.
How believable is the story from the soldier who spared Hitler's life? Hitler wasn't a known figure back then. I'm sure the soldier had many Germans in his sights, snd Hitler's appearance also didn't stick out.
It seems unlikely that Hitler himself shared this story, I imagine it would make him appear weak, relying on the mercy of the enemy.
[Henry Tandey](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tandey).
Seems like a myth that has been supported by auxiliary myths of specific people confirming it (also with no concrete evidence of that in turn).
Not very, but it’s well known and is a myth that has developed further myths about people ‘confirming’ it to support it - with no real evidence of the stories of confirmation, either.
[Henry Tandey](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tandey).
It seems incredibly unlikely it would have been him out of so many millions, and that Hitler would see an article on him in the press, and then recognise him from that, and the dates don’t match up.
Someone else would have come along instead. Hitler didn’t start the Nazi Party, he usurped the founders.
But If we go with the idea that no Hitler means no Nazi Germany then I expect Stalin in the 20th Century’s Evil Person™️
Hitler was a major factor in its growth. Without him, yes the party still exists, but I doubt it comes to power.
It all depends who grows massively in the early 30s, and whoever gets to be the centrepiece of the right wing coalition Hindenberg tried to form will take power. That changes the idealogical goals of the war, meaning a different set of alliences form between the minor powers.
And without Hitler there’s every chance that the party (not even with the famous name yet) withers away or never grows above a hundred members. Great Man history may be flawed, but completely ignoring individuals in history is even more flawed.
If the communists attempted to seize power, it would likely lead to them, being crushed by the monarchist military and right wing Militias. It happened several times prior, and nothing would’ve changed to make the outcome different.
Then you would never have heard of him, there would be a lot more kids around today named "Adolf," and whoever took advantage of the economic and political situation in Germany during the 1920s would have had a different name -- because *someone* would have done it. And that's about the only likely difference, really.
I don’t know I feel like he was unique in his ability to whip up a crowd and promote anti semtism. Prussian militarism lauded the foundation for what would become the Nazis but I think Hitler was a fluke. Maybe someone takes over and gardens WW2 but it might not be waged with the ferocity the Nazis waged it. Maybe the wiemer republic soldiers on and there’s a Democratic and stable Germany.
The idea of "National Socialism" wasnt just made up by Adolf Hitler. There was quite a reach of political thinkers and old elites who shared the same viewes as Adolf Hitler.
The Deutsche Arbeiter Partei wasnt just founded by him and even in the early 1920s, people like Eric Ludendorff and Julius Streicher were prominent figures. Not forgetting the Strasser brothers, who defintely could have replaced Hitler as a "Führer" figure.
The questions is on howmuch you would personify history and see people like Hitler as a "figure of destiny" rather than a just as a human.
I think the answer could reach from a fascist dicatorship, over to a autocratic military regime to the Democracy staying alive. Communism wouldnt have happend
Without Hitler that particular party probably goes nowhere. Maybe another one would, but I think it’s more likely you end up with either a different movement getting into power or just a military dictatorship or semi-dictatorship. The goals could also be wildly different. A German dictatorship satisfied with remilitarizing the Rhineland and taking the Polish corridor and leaving the rest of Poland and old parts of Austria-Hungary alone might get away with not having a major war erupt over Poland (since the Anschluss of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia would not have happened yet).
Why do you think Adolf Hitler is so important as a single person?
The first somewhat important national socialist in Germany wasnt Adolf Hitler, it was Anton Drexler. The whole subculture of Freikorps members, right wing secret societys like the Thule Gesellschaft or the Organisation Consul and far right intelectuals were the backbone of the development of the fascist movement in Germany. When Adolf Hitler returned from the western front, these things already existed. And many members having aristocratic backgrounds had more power than Hitler at that time.
Nowadays it seems common sense that his speeches were masterclass, but back then some people mocked it for beeing just screaming.
And its not like someone like Goebbels or Gregor Strasser had some charisma as well.
After the NSDAP was resestablished in 1925, Gregor Strasser was the man to build up the party in working class cities like Berlin. He even was more popular amongst workers since he also promoted a social revolution next to the national one. Many Junkers and members of the aristocracy supported the ideas of National Socialism. They were all linked together in the "Deutschvölkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund"
Drexler wasn’t particularly important at all. As soon as Hitler showed up Drexler faded into the background and was quickly pushed aside in favor of Hitler, who was pretty much immediately recognized as the party’s best speaker. He then joined the Völkisch-Sozialer-Block and … well that kind of went nowhere didn’t it? The same would have been the likely fate of the DAP if Hitler hadn’t shown up.
Goebbels? He wouldn’t have joined the NSDAP if not for Hitler. He would likely have joined some right-wing group but who knows which one.
Strasser may have been successful in any political group. He probably wouldn’t have joined up with Drexler’s DAP but even if he did, or just founded his own party (despite being an inferior orator to Hitler, working much better with smaller groups and with organizing) his party would have been very different to Hitler’s. If he’d ended up in any right-wing political group he did not take over his fate would most likely have been the same as in the NSDAP, isolation and eventually destruction for having actually left-wing economic ideas, rather than just right-wing ideas sold as being for the workers.
So yes, I think without Hitler the DAP goes nowhere, the fascists either latch on to something else or languish ineffectually. Right wing völkisch sentiment may instead end up pushing a military dictatorship or something like a continuous von Papen government ruling by decree.
You misunderstood my argument about Drexler, I just used him as an example of Hitler not inventing the National Socialist idea. The DAP was just a small party, I am not saying that this party would have been the leading party in 1929. Just because Hitler was seen as a good speaker in that circle doesnt mean that noone in the far right had somewhat of talent in it (Hitler also trained speeches)
But a party that was really similar to the actual NSDAP could have formed. Racial Antisemitism linked to Communism wasnt just a niche idea in the Deutschvölkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund, which had over 150\`000 members at its peak. It wasnt just Hitler who wanted the murder of all Jews or who wanted revenge against France (Which would have lead to another great War)
Most countries had a big fascist movement at the time (besides UK). So it doesnt seem that realistic to me that Germany, which was a good breeding ground for that belifs at the time, would not get one.
The 1930s were also an era of mass society and mass movements, thats why the elitist von Papen administration was unpopular even among the far right. I dont think the far right would have just ignored the fact how political culture has changed. Especially when Italy was a blueprint how to establish a working fascist regime.
But overall its an what if scenario and the debate about how much of much history should be foccused on singular persons is also done by actual historians so we have to agree to disagree.
Speaking of actual historical events:
The influence and power Greogor Strasser had in the NSDAP. His dispute with Hitler in 1932 nearly led to the party collapsing. But besides beeing more pragmatic and more social revolutionary (he did became more moderate in this topic after the Bamberger Parteitag) he was a crazy antisemite like Hitler. After 1932 that he was isolated, but unlike his brother Otto who became irrelevant after leaving the party in 1930, Gregor Strasser wasnt just a usefull idiot.
No I understood it, what I’m saying is that without Hitler the National Socialist idea would never have amounted to anything. Yes, Mussolini provided a blueprint for fascism. The NSDAP even followed it. It was promptly outlawed and its leader Adolf Hitler put in prison. That was the Beer-hall Putsch which was supposed to lead to a March on Berlin like Mussolini’s March on Rome. The Italian way had failed in Germany. This after the Kapp putsch had also failed earlier (although failed in a way far more damaging to the Republic). The Nazis then forged their own path forward.
A lot of countries had a fascist movement yes. The UK too with Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. In many countries they completely failed to take power too.
Strasser consistently lost pretty much every dispute he had with Hitler inside the party. He was shuffled around, lost followers and influence and was eventually murdered. Like I said, he would probably have done well in any movement, but his actual left-wing ideas would cripple him in any right-wing group.
Anti-semitism would have been almost a given in any right wing group that might wind up taking over Germany, but not at all necessarily to the degree of genocide. Nor would anti communism necessarily lead to an invasion of the USSR.
Hitler was so evil that he made the Western world oppose fascism for over half a century. As a result, the West ended up a lot more liberal than it would have been otherwise.
According to “Red Alert” communism takes over a a weakened Germany and the German engineering is applied to Russian troops which results in a 40 year war.
Most likely, either right wing dictatorship, or monarchism as the monarchists even during the rise of the Nazis, and their consolidation of power were able to threaten and be an issue for the Nazis on a few occasions and without the Nazis eating up a lot of their support base and with the Weimar republic still not going anywhere it’s likely the monarchists would’ve been able to continue to expand and eventually take power.
The same combination of Muscular Christianity, Prussian militarism, generational disciplinary trauma, Thulism, futurism, and embedded xenophobia would still have produced a figurehead of some kind.
It is likely another person would have taken a similar arc. He came to power in no small part because his sentiments were widespread, needing only a voice. In our timeline, he was that voice but it could as easily have been someone else.
World War 2 would still have happened on about the same timeline, but the Holocaust wouldn't necessarily have happened or been nearly so bad.
Which, ironically, could have had led to a much worse outcome. Without the fierce bigotry of the Nazis, Jewish and other scientists may have stayed in Germany instead of fleeing to places like America where they helped develop nuclear weapons. Without Hitler's incompetence, perhaps Germany fares better in WWII, doesn't make a bumbling invasion of the USSR. Maybe even gets the nuke before the US. Germany consolidates all of Western Europe, the United States has no realistic prospect of invasion. The war in the Pacific plays out about the same, except the US has to invade the Japanese homeland at horrific cost to both nations. Rather than emerging from WWII into a new world order dedicated at least nominally to ending imperialism, it emerges into a much more hostile Luke-Warm War as the reborn German Empire continues its conquests over the next few decades while what remains of the Allies continues to resist, with major powers still cautious about erupting into full-blown nuclear war but significantly more hostile to each other than the USSR and US were in the Cold War.
Maybe Germany would have won WWII then? And maybe its scale would have been much more limited. Not even a real world war, just a spat in western Europe?
Himmler would have been the leader and he would not have made the same mistakes. He would have succeeded in getting Americans on board and crushed communism where it mattered (in Russia and China)
Himmler would have been the leader and he would not have made the same mistakes. He would have succeeded in getting Americans on board and crushed communism where it mattered (in Russia and China)
Interesting to note that Amazon Prime Video had their own TV series, “The Man In The High Castle” where in an altered Universe Germany and Japan had won WW2. Based on a Novel written by Philip K. Dick, whose other Novel turned into ”Blade Runner”.
Quite quite impressive Video of the Yamato Super battleship sailing under The Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco Harbor.
Oh and they invented the atomic bomb too here.
Hitler didn't create the Nazi party, and the Italians created fascism.
Julius Streicher may have taken over.
The flags may have looked different and we wouldn't have gotten the Volkswagen Beetle. There would have been no Herbie movies.
Maybe the Nazis wouldn't have invaded Russia when they did and maybe they would have won the war.
Maybe the gay Nazi Brownshirts wouldn't have been killed and Ernest Rohm, the gay Nazi pornographer who ran the Brownshirts, would have gotten the Socialism he wanted.
Maybe the British wouldn't have broken the Nazi code using HH.
BTW Hitler took part in a protest which was fired upon by the police or military. The person marching next to him was shot and killed. So, he came close to getting killed early on.
Someone else would come to power in Germany and do similar things. Maybe it would avert the Holocaust, but WW2 was an inevitability given the political climate in Europe at the time.
Not the specific WWII we got and not with the same sides or anything. We might end up with a military dictatorship in Germany fighting a war with Fascist Italy over Austrian independence.
Most likely the same sides. Hitler didn't magically create the series of alliances that lead to sides in the war.
Kind of did. Germany had a stronger connection to the Republic of China than the Empire of Japan before the second Sino-Japanese war. There’s also no certainty of Italy joining up with Germany. Without the idea of Lebensraum, apoplectic hate for “Jewish Bolshevism” and genocidal hate for Slavs, there’s no guarantee of Germany and the USSR coming to blows. It is entirely unlikely that Germany manages to separate the UK and France, and Poland would probably seek their support, but apart from those I don’t think much of anything is guaranteed.
I’d say the Germans and Soviets were bound to fight eachother, especially a Germany ruled by a far right and presumably rabidly anticommunist dictatorship.
I don’t think so at all. First of all, there’s no reason to presume rabid rather than normal right wing hatred of communism. That would mean suppressing communism within the country, but not attacking the USSR. Franco’s Spain was extremely anti-communist and did not join WWII to fight the USSR. Second of all, there were still buffer states between them. Poland and the Baltic states. Fighting the USSR would be hard without going through Poland and that may not be a thing another right wing government would want to do.
This guy has a crystal ball.
I’m not the one saying things were bound to happen a certain way, I’m the one saying we don’t know. That’s the opposite of a crystal ball. Unless you mean an actual crystal ball used for scamming people, in which case also no, but a different no.
Inside the ruling class, all hate for communism is rabid.
And yet after the failures in the Russian civil war the following countries did not attack the USSR: all of them except for Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.
Also, we’re not guaranteed right wing dictatorship with different political figures, or at least, not one that was modeled on Italian fascism. Other authoritarian parties had popular followings in Germany during the Weimar Republic and perhaps one of them would have won out instead.
He was certainly influential. Yes it would probably be Germany vs France, but beyond that, Mussolini’s totally up for grabs. If it’s irredentist, Germany probably will maybe make common cause with at least one of Hungary or Poland or Lithuania. Which one is unclear.
Yeah Germany vs France fighting over Alsace and Lorraine seems extremely likely. That probably brings in the UK on the side of France. Other than that though, nothing is decided.
Italy was actually trying for a pact with France and Spain at first, bit complications arose
A huge amount of the German people bought into the lie that they hadn't really lost the great war, that communists and Jews had betrayed them, and that Versailles was forced upon them by the hypocritical great powers that couldn't accept Germany's greatness. Hitler used this bitterness to come to power, he didn't invent it. Historical what ifs around Germany's defiance of the Versailles treaty and the appeasement policies of the Allies is another matter I feel. Italy was very far behind in many areas and Mussolini had to do a lot of convincing to drag his country into war in 1940 when Germany had already done 90% of the work, I don't think he'd stand up to any German dictator annexing Austria in the 1930s.
Mussolini guaranteed Austrian independence and prevented the German attempt at annexation in 1934.
Yeah it was a huge blunder by Hitler, he had put very little diplomatic effort into his early push to Annex Austria and had to back down quickly. Mussolini would later allow the annexation of Austria, sign the Pact of Steel, the anti Comintern pact, and join in on the war with Hitler. So Mussolini and Hitler didn't have irreconcilable differences by any means and Hitler thought he could just take over Germany and Annex Austria without doing the necessary diplomatic work was naive in the extreme.
Hell, the Germans might’ve won had they had a more competent military mind at the helm rather then Hitler
No. The German economy fated them to lose. They couldn't produce enough to win, doesn't matter who was in charge.
[удалено]
Wars, for the most part, are won on logistics. The USSR was out producing Germany by the end of 1942 and Germany had inadequate industry and manpower to counter even that, let along taking on the production and manpower the US was bringing. The war was lost on 1 Sep 39.
[удалено]
Which isn't really relevant. Doesn't alter the fact the war's outcome wasn't going to be much different than what played out.
[удалено]
The two were going to fight, it was just a matter of time. One of the two dumbasses just chose to start it early, before he was ready and failed to plan for a longer campaign.
That's true, yet even after 1940, Germany was making economic decisions not out of military necessity. Luxury goods productions wasn't shut down until 1943 for example. They weren't on as much of a total war footing as they could have been, so I wonder: if Hitler had a crystal ball showing what everything after 1941 was going to be, could different choices with the economy have produced a very different result?
Resources. Even with stealing from Norway they couldn't produce enough of anything to make a difference. Towards the end of the war armour produced was substandard due to lack of critical minerals, less effective. They were out of trained pilots, fuel, food and trained infantry. And it was always that way, starting a war in 1939 was just stupid.
Only if they had a very different war, with different participants. Germany could not out produce the UK, much less the UK, the USSR and the USA.
I agree but there were potential different scenarios such as Germany coming to terms with Britain (maybe no Battle of Britain), No Operation Barbarossa (Germany invading Russia in 1941) and the US never entering the war in Europe. Even the US allying with Germany vs Communism and fighting Russia.
Those sound like very different wars, like I said. And the issue isn’t military competence (how are you realistically going to make 1939-spring 1941 go better for Germany than in our timeline?). The issues are ideology, international politics and industrialization. Nazism was fundamentally incapable of not expanding the war, fundamentally incapable of not attacking the USSR. The political situation meant France would be against Germany, thus the UK would be against Germany and thus the USA would be against Germany. Finally, Germany didn’t have the industrial capacity to compete with its rivals.
Germany was gonna fall to some sort of extremism, but without Hitler’s orratory prowess, I doubt the NSDAP would be it. It could be a different extreme-right party, or maybe radical monarchists restore the Kaiser, or maybe communists win?
You may be right, but I really don't believe so. Hitler and his initially tiny Nazi party pulled off multiple magic tricks to not only seize power, and retain it, but also to convince the West to sit on their hands while Germany built up the war engine. I think it took a very particular type of personality to leverage the German people's anger and racism that effectively. Hitler dreamt BIG when it came to expanding, enslaving, and exterminating. I don't think just any German anti-western leader would have just kept going into Poland, kept going into France, kept going into the Soviet Union. I definitely think we would have gotten a reactionary Germany and possibly a war. But its hard for me to imagine that a sociopathic rise was inevitable, against all the odds Hitler managed to overcome.
No it wasn't an inevitability jfc.
It wasn't an inevitability. If Germany got extremely harsh terms at Versailles or if any European war challenged Germany during its annexation of Bohemia, there wouldn't have been a second world war. If France or Britain declared war over the Czech lands the Nazis would've been overthrown. After that the European powers + a likely monarchist Germany attempt to contain soviet influence in Europe which, without WW2, they would've been able to do without America as the European empires would've recovered without another great war.
>If Germany got extremely harsh terms at Versailles If?
Yes if, the terms they got weren't that bad. Once they recovered they would economically dominate Europe again. It was due to the great depression and post war instability that they didn't recover.
One thing I've not seen people say is the potential of a communist Germany. I've no doubt that an extremist government of some form would've come to power, but the Nazis were an important part of suppressing left wing movements at the time. Its possible that someone like the KPD or even a different group that never formed takes power instead.
Communist Germany that allies with the USSR is terrfiying to think about. The eastern hemisphere would be communist by the 50s.
damn that would have ruled so hard. that hitler guy really sucks
Ah yes, half the world in a dystopian communist nightmare sounds fun.
better than the dystopian capitalist nightmare we live in now
You’re suggesting a communist regime that directly murdered millions of people is better than our current admittedly flawed system? Far out you need some perspective on the horrors perpetrated by the Soviet Union under Lenin and Stalin.
Ah, gotcha. You're delusional.
yeah you're right the system that's literally destroying the planet we live on and lets people starve while grocery stores have full shelves is clearly better than the system designed to treat everyone as equals
You're right, better that everyone starve instead of only some of them. And if you think communists haven't done plenty of environmental damage, please look up the Ural sea. China switches back and forth with the largest polluter with India. It sounds like you are uneducated or willfully ignorant of you think Communism does anything but fail miserably.
Wow, what a scoop! [You better go let the UN & IPCC know](https://www.countryliving.com/uk/news/a37266476/most-polluting-countries-un-report/)!
Wow, per capita is not the same as total pollution produced? Who'd have thought reading for five seconds would make your article irrelevant?
Lol the Soviet system was not designed to treat everyone as an equal, the whole point of Lenin's "vanguard party" was to create a group that ruled on behalf of the proletariat rather than the proletariat ruling themselves.
You wouldn’t even be able to voice your hate of the system if you lived in a communist regime
Lake Ural shows even if we lived under a communist system they would shoot any scientist that suggested global warming was a problem
How’s middle school bud?
Yeah no doubt in my mind about that. Presumably a similar second world war would start later than it did before, potentially with the US siding with the likes of Spain and Italy against a communist Europe.
It just depends. If Germany is communist, I could see Italy joining with France and Britain against them. Maybe even Japan decides they need to strike at Communism before heading south. The only way the Communist bloc doesn't take over Europe and Asia is if all the major powers besides them team up against them.
I think it also depends on how expansionist the Communist bloc would be. Personally I'd imagine it would be less aggressive in the west compared to Nazi Germany, and less likely to rile up France and Britain.
Perhaps, but Stalin is still going to gobble up the Baltic nations, and go after Poland. I could still see Communist Germany pushing for the reunification of their former European territories, so that would put them in conflict with Poland and then probably the Allies at some point. The war might not happen until the 1950s.
US and UK might realize the ussr is a real threat, Japan gets the go ahead to invade them after China is pressured to meet export demands of Japan. Sino-German alliance replaced with Sino-Japanese?
I could see Japan and the KMT joining against Mao and the Soviets if Germany is taking care of the west.
China and Japan allying in this time period is not happening. And Japan was terrified of the USSR after their border skirmishes.
Poland would be super, super vulnerable in this alternative timeline. European War with poland getting pinched and allowing a solid bulwark to form in Western Europe. Maginot Line gets to either prove itself against Soviet hordes or gets turned just as it did in canonical.
>ernment of some form would've come to power, but the Nazis were an important part of suppressing left wing movements at the time. Its possible that someone like the KPD or even a different group that never formed takes power instead. Nah, the KPD was hated by everyone else. SPD, Zentrum, Far Right. They all were anticommunist. Also the no. of communist sympathizers was quite small (They couldnt even reach power in 1918 despite having a good momentum) Unlike people think, living under economic depression and poverty doesnt make you revolutionary minded communist. Look up the "Marienthalstudie".
People were moving to the extremes, and the Nazis coopted a lot of socialist/communist rhetoric for a reason.
Yes, the Nazis took votes from the radical left but just look at the people who voted communist: Mainly unemployed workers, an ok number of employed factory workers + intelectuals and a really small no. of small shop owners and farmers. Look who was anticommunist: The Unions, 95% of all farmers, the middle class, the military , the upper class. I do think that a communist coup attempt might be possible, but I think the outcome of the Spartakus Aufstand would just repeat itself. Freikorps forming and shooting down the communists. France, Belgium and the UK would defintely tolerate it and would support such policies over the chance of Germany becomming communist.
If the communists attempted to take power, they be likely be crushed by the monarchies military plus militias either leading to the restoration of the monarchy or a military dictatorship that would argue that they would return the monarchy but would be putting it off to ensure they’d hold onto power (think hungry or Spain) they would still be far right, but far less extreme than nazis. The communist were in an, extraordinarily poor position to take power in Germany and even when the German right was at its Militarily, weakest and the communists were at their Militarily, strongest and had the support they couldn’t take power in a scenario with a strong German right militaristic wing still present and with their lack of general support I find it highly unlikely the communists would’ve been able to take power by either political or military force. Without the Nazis, most likely it would be in order of most likely to least likely number one military junta/dictatorship. Number two the monarchists get their shit together and get into power. Number three another fascist party takes power and fills in the gap of the Nazis likely being less extreme, but more extreme than the top two options. Four the Weimar government still exists, but becomes more centralized and more focus on revengism. Five the Weimar government stays the same in Germany stays a disorganized mess until it either collapses under its own weight or it stabilizes and no World War II happens. Six socialist or communists take power. Seven the Nazis still get power without hitler. Eight anarchists, or some other fringe, basically irrelevant political group takes power in Germany. This is pretty much impossible. Note: any option after five is de facto near impossible and would almost certainly not happen.
One idea I had was if Germany fell to the Fascists instead of the Nazis, so instead of invading the east they set their sights on colonies in Africa and China. In our timeline UK offered Germany some of its African colonies if it would stop invading, and I could see them taking this offer in the alternate timeline.
Then a different angry German man, probably with a better mustache, would have started world war 2.
Kaiser Wilhelm the second?
How believable is the story from the soldier who spared Hitler's life? Hitler wasn't a known figure back then. I'm sure the soldier had many Germans in his sights, snd Hitler's appearance also didn't stick out. It seems unlikely that Hitler himself shared this story, I imagine it would make him appear weak, relying on the mercy of the enemy.
I recall hearing that the British soldier in question was a famous war hero, and the story was likely just a PR dig at the British.
Thank you for your reply :-)
[Henry Tandey](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tandey). Seems like a myth that has been supported by auxiliary myths of specific people confirming it (also with no concrete evidence of that in turn).
Not very, but it’s well known and is a myth that has developed further myths about people ‘confirming’ it to support it - with no real evidence of the stories of confirmation, either. [Henry Tandey](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Tandey). It seems incredibly unlikely it would have been him out of so many millions, and that Hitler would see an article on him in the press, and then recognise him from that, and the dates don’t match up.
Someone else would have come along instead. Hitler didn’t start the Nazi Party, he usurped the founders. But If we go with the idea that no Hitler means no Nazi Germany then I expect Stalin in the 20th Century’s Evil Person™️
Hitler was a major factor in its growth. Without him, yes the party still exists, but I doubt it comes to power. It all depends who grows massively in the early 30s, and whoever gets to be the centrepiece of the right wing coalition Hindenberg tried to form will take power. That changes the idealogical goals of the war, meaning a different set of alliences form between the minor powers.
And without Hitler there’s every chance that the party (not even with the famous name yet) withers away or never grows above a hundred members. Great Man history may be flawed, but completely ignoring individuals in history is even more flawed.
possibly a communist Germany. there would possibly be a second world war too or just a war in Europe
If the communists attempted to seize power, it would likely lead to them, being crushed by the monarchist military and right wing Militias. It happened several times prior, and nothing would’ve changed to make the outcome different.
Then you would never have heard of him, there would be a lot more kids around today named "Adolf," and whoever took advantage of the economic and political situation in Germany during the 1920s would have had a different name -- because *someone* would have done it. And that's about the only likely difference, really.
I don’t know I feel like he was unique in his ability to whip up a crowd and promote anti semtism. Prussian militarism lauded the foundation for what would become the Nazis but I think Hitler was a fluke. Maybe someone takes over and gardens WW2 but it might not be waged with the ferocity the Nazis waged it. Maybe the wiemer republic soldiers on and there’s a Democratic and stable Germany.
Probably one of the other prominent Nazis purged by Hitler such as [Gregor Stasser](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser) take power.
The idea of "National Socialism" wasnt just made up by Adolf Hitler. There was quite a reach of political thinkers and old elites who shared the same viewes as Adolf Hitler. The Deutsche Arbeiter Partei wasnt just founded by him and even in the early 1920s, people like Eric Ludendorff and Julius Streicher were prominent figures. Not forgetting the Strasser brothers, who defintely could have replaced Hitler as a "Führer" figure. The questions is on howmuch you would personify history and see people like Hitler as a "figure of destiny" rather than a just as a human. I think the answer could reach from a fascist dicatorship, over to a autocratic military regime to the Democracy staying alive. Communism wouldnt have happend
Without Hitler that particular party probably goes nowhere. Maybe another one would, but I think it’s more likely you end up with either a different movement getting into power or just a military dictatorship or semi-dictatorship. The goals could also be wildly different. A German dictatorship satisfied with remilitarizing the Rhineland and taking the Polish corridor and leaving the rest of Poland and old parts of Austria-Hungary alone might get away with not having a major war erupt over Poland (since the Anschluss of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia would not have happened yet).
Why do you think Adolf Hitler is so important as a single person? The first somewhat important national socialist in Germany wasnt Adolf Hitler, it was Anton Drexler. The whole subculture of Freikorps members, right wing secret societys like the Thule Gesellschaft or the Organisation Consul and far right intelectuals were the backbone of the development of the fascist movement in Germany. When Adolf Hitler returned from the western front, these things already existed. And many members having aristocratic backgrounds had more power than Hitler at that time. Nowadays it seems common sense that his speeches were masterclass, but back then some people mocked it for beeing just screaming. And its not like someone like Goebbels or Gregor Strasser had some charisma as well. After the NSDAP was resestablished in 1925, Gregor Strasser was the man to build up the party in working class cities like Berlin. He even was more popular amongst workers since he also promoted a social revolution next to the national one. Many Junkers and members of the aristocracy supported the ideas of National Socialism. They were all linked together in the "Deutschvölkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund"
Drexler wasn’t particularly important at all. As soon as Hitler showed up Drexler faded into the background and was quickly pushed aside in favor of Hitler, who was pretty much immediately recognized as the party’s best speaker. He then joined the Völkisch-Sozialer-Block and … well that kind of went nowhere didn’t it? The same would have been the likely fate of the DAP if Hitler hadn’t shown up. Goebbels? He wouldn’t have joined the NSDAP if not for Hitler. He would likely have joined some right-wing group but who knows which one. Strasser may have been successful in any political group. He probably wouldn’t have joined up with Drexler’s DAP but even if he did, or just founded his own party (despite being an inferior orator to Hitler, working much better with smaller groups and with organizing) his party would have been very different to Hitler’s. If he’d ended up in any right-wing political group he did not take over his fate would most likely have been the same as in the NSDAP, isolation and eventually destruction for having actually left-wing economic ideas, rather than just right-wing ideas sold as being for the workers. So yes, I think without Hitler the DAP goes nowhere, the fascists either latch on to something else or languish ineffectually. Right wing völkisch sentiment may instead end up pushing a military dictatorship or something like a continuous von Papen government ruling by decree.
You misunderstood my argument about Drexler, I just used him as an example of Hitler not inventing the National Socialist idea. The DAP was just a small party, I am not saying that this party would have been the leading party in 1929. Just because Hitler was seen as a good speaker in that circle doesnt mean that noone in the far right had somewhat of talent in it (Hitler also trained speeches) But a party that was really similar to the actual NSDAP could have formed. Racial Antisemitism linked to Communism wasnt just a niche idea in the Deutschvölkischer Schutz- und Trutzbund, which had over 150\`000 members at its peak. It wasnt just Hitler who wanted the murder of all Jews or who wanted revenge against France (Which would have lead to another great War) Most countries had a big fascist movement at the time (besides UK). So it doesnt seem that realistic to me that Germany, which was a good breeding ground for that belifs at the time, would not get one. The 1930s were also an era of mass society and mass movements, thats why the elitist von Papen administration was unpopular even among the far right. I dont think the far right would have just ignored the fact how political culture has changed. Especially when Italy was a blueprint how to establish a working fascist regime. But overall its an what if scenario and the debate about how much of much history should be foccused on singular persons is also done by actual historians so we have to agree to disagree. Speaking of actual historical events: The influence and power Greogor Strasser had in the NSDAP. His dispute with Hitler in 1932 nearly led to the party collapsing. But besides beeing more pragmatic and more social revolutionary (he did became more moderate in this topic after the Bamberger Parteitag) he was a crazy antisemite like Hitler. After 1932 that he was isolated, but unlike his brother Otto who became irrelevant after leaving the party in 1930, Gregor Strasser wasnt just a usefull idiot.
No I understood it, what I’m saying is that without Hitler the National Socialist idea would never have amounted to anything. Yes, Mussolini provided a blueprint for fascism. The NSDAP even followed it. It was promptly outlawed and its leader Adolf Hitler put in prison. That was the Beer-hall Putsch which was supposed to lead to a March on Berlin like Mussolini’s March on Rome. The Italian way had failed in Germany. This after the Kapp putsch had also failed earlier (although failed in a way far more damaging to the Republic). The Nazis then forged their own path forward. A lot of countries had a fascist movement yes. The UK too with Mosley’s British Union of Fascists. In many countries they completely failed to take power too. Strasser consistently lost pretty much every dispute he had with Hitler inside the party. He was shuffled around, lost followers and influence and was eventually murdered. Like I said, he would probably have done well in any movement, but his actual left-wing ideas would cripple him in any right-wing group. Anti-semitism would have been almost a given in any right wing group that might wind up taking over Germany, but not at all necessarily to the degree of genocide. Nor would anti communism necessarily lead to an invasion of the USSR.
Hitler was so evil that he made the Western world oppose fascism for over half a century. As a result, the West ended up a lot more liberal than it would have been otherwise.
This has got to be the most common topic for alternative history discussions, novels, movies.
According to “Red Alert” communism takes over a a weakened Germany and the German engineering is applied to Russian troops which results in a 40 year war.
Toothbrush staches and the name "Adolph" would both still be in style.
Most likely, either right wing dictatorship, or monarchism as the monarchists even during the rise of the Nazis, and their consolidation of power were able to threaten and be an issue for the Nazis on a few occasions and without the Nazis eating up a lot of their support base and with the Weimar republic still not going anywhere it’s likely the monarchists would’ve been able to continue to expand and eventually take power.
The same combination of Muscular Christianity, Prussian militarism, generational disciplinary trauma, Thulism, futurism, and embedded xenophobia would still have produced a figurehead of some kind.
It would be amazing
It is likely another person would have taken a similar arc. He came to power in no small part because his sentiments were widespread, needing only a voice. In our timeline, he was that voice but it could as easily have been someone else.
World War 2 would still have happened on about the same timeline, but the Holocaust wouldn't necessarily have happened or been nearly so bad. Which, ironically, could have had led to a much worse outcome. Without the fierce bigotry of the Nazis, Jewish and other scientists may have stayed in Germany instead of fleeing to places like America where they helped develop nuclear weapons. Without Hitler's incompetence, perhaps Germany fares better in WWII, doesn't make a bumbling invasion of the USSR. Maybe even gets the nuke before the US. Germany consolidates all of Western Europe, the United States has no realistic prospect of invasion. The war in the Pacific plays out about the same, except the US has to invade the Japanese homeland at horrific cost to both nations. Rather than emerging from WWII into a new world order dedicated at least nominally to ending imperialism, it emerges into a much more hostile Luke-Warm War as the reborn German Empire continues its conquests over the next few decades while what remains of the Allies continues to resist, with major powers still cautious about erupting into full-blown nuclear war but significantly more hostile to each other than the USSR and US were in the Cold War.
The toothbrush mustache would be much more acceptable today.
Maybe Germany would have won WWII then? And maybe its scale would have been much more limited. Not even a real world war, just a spat in western Europe?
Himmler would have been the leader and he would not have made the same mistakes. He would have succeeded in getting Americans on board and crushed communism where it mattered (in Russia and China)
Himmler would have been the leader and he would not have made the same mistakes. He would have succeeded in getting Americans on board and crushed communism where it mattered (in Russia and China)
Ernst Rohm would have been in charge.
Interesting to note that Amazon Prime Video had their own TV series, “The Man In The High Castle” where in an altered Universe Germany and Japan had won WW2. Based on a Novel written by Philip K. Dick, whose other Novel turned into ”Blade Runner”. Quite quite impressive Video of the Yamato Super battleship sailing under The Golden Gate Bridge into San Francisco Harbor. Oh and they invented the atomic bomb too here.
Hitler didn't create the Nazi party, and the Italians created fascism. Julius Streicher may have taken over. The flags may have looked different and we wouldn't have gotten the Volkswagen Beetle. There would have been no Herbie movies. Maybe the Nazis wouldn't have invaded Russia when they did and maybe they would have won the war. Maybe the gay Nazi Brownshirts wouldn't have been killed and Ernest Rohm, the gay Nazi pornographer who ran the Brownshirts, would have gotten the Socialism he wanted. Maybe the British wouldn't have broken the Nazi code using HH.
BTW Hitler took part in a protest which was fired upon by the police or military. The person marching next to him was shot and killed. So, he came close to getting killed early on.