StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In another board I sometimes go to a discussion came up about what would have happened in Germany if Hitler had not gotten involved in politics. If --for whatever reason-- he'd been uninteredted or disgusted by it all, or maybe he left the country to pursue his art studies-- whatever. The hows and whys weren't important so much as the notion that he stays out of it.

It was pretty much agreed that the abcense of Hitler does nothing to stop World War 2, there were too many other things in motion, socially and politically, to stop the coming storm. But without Hitler as the rising star of the NSDAP, who is their leader? Ernst Rohm was arguably the most powerful man in the organization, but his homosexual activity was, I believe, fairly well known and would have been unpalatable to the nation at large, nor was he able to harness the charismatic draw the Hitler was able to achieve in front of large crowds. He could bully Hindenburg, perhaps, but not as far and not as effectively.

I was thinking that without Hitler galvanizing the Party elite, the NSDAP is one more of many Nationalist parties crusading against Communism and the like. A Nationalist coalition might have pushed the borders and gotten pretty far, but would they have backed down before Britain and France's ultimatum over Poland? Or would they have sued for peace after the Sitzkrieg period, then negotiated with the Allies for support (or at least no interference) while trying to take on Russia?

In my view I saw a less dynamic, less focused Germany, which was 'merely' Nationalist rather than 'fully Nazi'. They would have been able to pick a few fights but gotten beat a bit more quickly and been more willing to capitulate-- or alternatively a frothing anti-Communist crusading force that went for the USSR's throat while France and Britain looked the other way. But then I'm one of those folks who admits I know a lot more about how the war was conducted more so than the social concerns that immediately preceeded it.

Without Hitler, the conservatives remain in power. The Kaiser tries to get back the throne and might be more successful. In the end, no war happens for the next decades. The real trouble would be Poland - a pretty much aggressive, unstable country that might kick off the next war.

Germany might take over part of it when the inevitable Polish-Soviet war happens. Still, it is highly unlikely Germany would start a world war without Hitler. A limited Polish war, maybe. But Britain will not be as hostile to Germany without Hitler, indeed they will most likely see it as a balance to France.

Without Hitler Germany remains pretty toothless and ineffectual; the Army and everybody else was pooping itself with terror at even remilitarizing the Rhineland.

Germany slowly rearms and avoids conflict as much as possible, if a WWII happens it'll be somebody else starting it.

Is Hitler really that crucial for Nazism's rise? If so, why? Wouldn't societal trends have put them in control of the government with or without that single person? If not, then why not? What makes Hitler so damn important?

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Is Hitler really that crucial for Nazism's rise? If so, why? Wouldn't societal trends have put them in control of the government with or without that single person? If not, then why not? What makes Hitler so damn important?

Look at the sequence of events that lead to the Nazi's rise to power. How many broken links would it take to divert the course of history?
I'll go through some points that IMO are important.
Money. How important was Hitler's royalties from Mein Kamp in helping start and keep the Nazi party up and running at the beginning? Given that the party was essentially a "start-up", even a small amount of extra funds would help keep things rolling.

Charisma. Who else in the Nazi regime was as charismatic - both in person and in writing - as Hitler? Maybe Goebbels but I don't recall him being personally charismatic. He was just an evil fucker who knew how to manipulate the media, especially the newer varieties - film and radio. Also, wow many voters in Germany were voting for the Nazi party or voting for Hitler? Given that the Nazi party was not a long entrenched party, I'd expect the number of personal votes to be much higher than exists in a normal democracy. Look at the US - a sizable number of voters would vote GOP or DEM even if their candidate was a donkey.

Direction/Policy. Without Hitler's Mein Kampf as almost a policy bible, would a successful Nazi party have taken as vile a course or just ended up as a nasty little fascist dictatorship like Italy?

Access to the German power structure. Parts of the Nazi success was the ability to either co-opt or make alliances with the German power structure - industrialists and Army/ex-Army. These were often very personal deals. So who else could do them.

Accession to Chancellorship. Would Heidenberg have been willing to turn over the keys to power to anyone other than Hitler?

Like it or not, Hitler was a vital factor in both getting the Nazi's to power and directing them at the conquest of Europe and the extermination of "undesirables".

Didnt Hitler add the National Socialist to the the German Workers Party?

without Hitler do Ernst Roehm and Goebbels even join the (NS)DAP ?

even if they do, they probably align with Gregor Strasser and create a more even handed "Nazi party" - one that hates communists AND capitalists.

in that scenario they dont make as much electoral headway as the Middle class and rurals peasants wont see them as an effective protector agaisnt the Left.

Germany probably ends up a monarchist-military dictatorship with the Kaiser being reinstalled and the Army having final say in all decisions.

probably something like Japan actually.

xerex wrote:Germany probably ends up a monarchist-military dictatorship with the Kaiser being reinstalled and the Army having final say in all decisions.

probably something like Japan actually.

Doubtful, because the army had a lot of democrats in them who even rose to very high ranks.

Jalinth wrote:

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Is Hitler really that crucial for Nazism's rise? If so, why? Wouldn't societal trends have put them in control of the government with or without that single person? If not, then why not? What makes Hitler so damn important?

Look at the sequence of events that lead to the Nazi's rise to power. How many broken links would it take to divert the course of history?
I'll go through some points that IMO are important.
Money. How important was Hitler's royalties from Mein Kamp in helping start and keep the Nazi party up and running at the beginning? Given that the party was essentially a "start-up", even a small amount of extra funds would help keep things rolling.

Charisma. Who else in the Nazi regime was as charismatic - both in person and in writing - as Hitler? Maybe Goebbels but I don't recall him being personally charismatic. He was just an evil fucker who knew how to manipulate the media, especially the newer varieties - film and radio. Also, wow many voters in Germany were voting for the Nazi party or voting for Hitler? Given that the Nazi party was not a long entrenched party, I'd expect the number of personal votes to be much higher than exists in a normal democracy. Look at the US - a sizable number of voters would vote GOP or DEM even if their candidate was a donkey.

Direction/Policy. Without Hitler's Mein Kampf as almost a policy bible, would a successful Nazi party have taken as vile a course or just ended up as a nasty little fascist dictatorship like Italy?

Access to the German power structure. Parts of the Nazi success was the ability to either co-opt or make alliances with the German power structure - industrialists and Army/ex-Army. These were often very personal deals. So who else could do them.

Accession to Chancellorship. Would Heidenberg have been willing to turn over the keys to power to anyone other than Hitler?

Like it or not, Hitler was a vital factor in both getting the Nazi's to power and directing them at the conquest of Europe and the extermination of "undesirables".

It hinged on a LOT of things like that. The Nazi party had an eleventh hour salvation from bankrupcy by Krupp money at one point, and that was probably due to the family chief's son Alfried Krupp joining the Nazi Party early on.

Once the Nazis were in power again it was Hitler driving the events that set Germany up to be so dangerous during WWII; militarizing the Rhineland, the Anschluss, annexing Czechoslovokia, these were all events that would not have happened without Hitler. Certainly the Army and the "normal" government officials were shitting their pants each time and would not have done them on their own.

xerex wrote:Germany probably ends up a monarchist-military dictatorship with the Kaiser being reinstalled and the Army having final say in all decisions.

probably something like Japan actually.

I'd expect more of a constitutional monarchy. There's no cult of the divine Emperor in Germany, so purely autocratic government with an imperial figurehead doesn't work as well. There'd be some kind of elected legislature; it just wouldn't have very much power. You'd be looking at something more like a continuation of the Second Reich.

Simon_Jester wrote:

xerex wrote:Germany probably ends up a monarchist-military dictatorship with the Kaiser being reinstalled and the Army having final say in all decisions.

probably something like Japan actually.

I'd expect more of a constitutional monarchy. There's no cult of the divine Emperor in Germany, so purely autocratic government with an imperial figurehead doesn't work as well. There'd be some kind of elected legislature; it just wouldn't have very much power. You'd be looking at something more like a continuation of the Second Reich.

Not much power? The legislature of the second Reich was extremely powerful.

Well how would the German communists have faired in this scenario? I’m thinking that they would have received more support from the Soviet Union, at least during the period where the Nazi Soviet pact would have occurred. I am unsure however how important the Nazi party was in opposing communism. A major component of the Nazi’s appeal was their appearance as a defence against communism, as opposed to the old conservative groups who appeared ineffective in opposing the growing far left movement.

So my prediction is that without Hitler we either get a popular fascist though not necessarily Nazi like movement in Germany that holds power either on its own or jointly with the older conservative groups, Or we get the Socialist German Republic.

spaceviking wrote:Well how would the German communists have faired in this scenario? I’m thinking that they would have received more support from the Soviet Union, at least during the period where the Nazi Soviet pact would have occurred. I am unsure however how important the Nazi party was in opposing communism. A major component of the Nazi’s appeal was their appearance as a defence against communism, as opposed to the old conservative groups who appeared ineffective in opposing the growing far left movement.

So my prediction is that without Hitler we either get a popular fascist though not necessarily Nazi like movement in Germany that holds power either on its own or jointly with the older conservative groups, Or we get the Socialist German Republic.

The problem with a socialist Germany is that, as you noted, people tended to sympathize more with the right-wing militias than the communists. Any attempts democratically would run into the problem that the communists and socialists only held small proportions of the Reichstag, as compared to the center parties. Meanwhile, the same problems that discredited the Social Democrats historically would still be there without Hitler, and so the Nationalists and small right-wing parties would get most of the votes that historically went to the Nazis in the fifth Reichstag, and thusly take power, as Thanas said. Ultimately, the communists' downfall would be the same as history; their violent methods unnerved the German people, and people ultimately preferred law and order over a workers' revolution.

Thanas wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:I'd expect more of a constitutional monarchy. There's no cult of the divine Emperor in Germany, so purely autocratic government with an imperial figurehead doesn't work as well. There'd be some kind of elected legislature; it just wouldn't have very much power. You'd be looking at something more like a continuation of the Second Reich.

Not much power? The legislature of the second Reich was extremely powerful.

I was thinking in terms of the extreme autocratic limit of this alternate Third Reich. Something with less of a legislature, but not so little that it could not plausibly have evolved from the Second Reich by some continuous process. Though that would involve bucking the general trend towards democratization so... never mind.

Your point is acknowledged; I didn't intend to contradict it.

Thanas wrote:The real trouble would be Poland - a pretty much aggressive, unstable country that might kick off the next war.

Out of interest, could you elaborate? I never thought of them as being the agressors, but then again I don't know much about Poland during the 20's and 30's.

wautd wrote:

Thanas wrote:The real trouble would be Poland - a pretty much aggressive, unstable country that might kick off the next war.

Out of interest, could you elaborate? I never thought of them as being the agressors, but then again I don't know much about Poland during the 20's and 30's.

Well, long story short, the most well-known and obvious example - Poland grabbed a huge chunk of Czechoslovakia in 1938 when Hitler invaded the latter, and it also had a lot of "Greater Poland" nutters in the military. However, they didn't fully control the political course of Poland, I'd say, so it's not as if entire Poland constituted a problem - merely some of the more agressive juntist elements in the Polish state (and of course, it all depends on how efficient they'd be at controlling Poland). Pezook could tell more about that, and I'm sure Thanas also has something to say about it too.

wautd wrote:

Thanas wrote:The real trouble would be Poland - a pretty much aggressive, unstable country that might kick off the next war.

Out of interest, could you elaborate? I never thought of them as being the agressors, but then again I don't know much about Poland during the 20's and 30's.

Poland was the most aggressive country during the 20s, an autocratic dictatorship that started several wars within the period of less than a decade. Among those they went to war with was Germany, The Soviet Union, Ukraine etc.

Out of curiosity, how influential were ethnic German officers in the Polish government like von Rommel and Anders in pushing Polish foreign policy? I don't mean to be overgeneralizing, but it seems that a disproportionate amount of outspoken nationalists in the interwar period belonged an ethnic minority of their country. Like Edward Werner in Poland, Arthur Seyss Inquart in Austria (his Czech ancestors changed their name) and Ludendorff in Germany (Ludendorff's mother had Polish ancestry).

Pelranius wrote:Out of curiosity, how influential were ethnic German officers in the Polish government like von Rommel and Anders in pushing Polish foreign policy?

I have no clue, but I would note that names alone do not mean squat when talking about loyalties. Or otherwise one could make the argument that the Soviets were driven by German officers as well. Do not forget that Germans emigrated in huge waves east since 1250, so almost everybody in the east is guaranteed to have some German ancestry, while many have German names.

Stas Bush wrote: Well, long story short, the most well-known and obvious example - Poland grabbed a huge chunk of Czechoslovakia in 1938 when Hitler invaded the latter, and it also had a lot of "Greater Poland" nutters in the military.

Dude, Zaolzie had a total land area of 805 square kilometres - I wouldn't call it a "huge chunk"

Though if anything, it serves to underscore the point even better: Polish leadership of the 1920s-1930 was really big on the whole "Great Polish Restoration" thing, to the point they were willing to antagonize an obvious regional ally against Germany over a fucking scrap. Some of their decisions were just plain insane, born out of fear of another partitioning mixed with desire to become one of the great powers NOWNOWNOW!

Stas Bush wrote:However, they didn't fully control the political course of Poland, I'd say, so it's not as if entire Poland constituted a problem - merely some of the more agressive juntist elements in the Polish state (and of course, it all depends on how efficient they'd be at controlling Poland). Pezook could tell more about that, and I'm sure Thanas also has something to say about it too.

It depends on the time period and your definition of "efficiency of control". Pilsudski was in de facto autocratic control of Poland, especially after the May Putsch, thanks to his insane personality cult. You'd probably get beaten up for suggesting it here, but he was somewhat similar to Hitler and Mussolini in the way he could play to public opinion.

It certainly didn't help matters that Poland was recreated barely twenty years before WWII and had literally no parliamentary institutions for the last 150 years, so the political climate was horrible, and governments could rise and fall overnight, so people weren't exactly confident in the democratic state. Which is probably why the May Putsch went over so well, relatively speaking, with hardly any resitance from the populace.

Pelranius wrote:Out of curiosity, how influential were ethnic German officers in the Polish government like von Rommel and Anders in pushing Polish foreign policy? I don't mean to be overgeneralizing, but it seems that a disproportionate amount of outspoken nationalists in the interwar period belonged an ethnic minority of their country. Like Edward Werner in Poland, Arthur Seyss Inquart in Austria (his Czech ancestors changed their name) and Ludendorff in Germany (Ludendorff's mother had Polish ancestry).

Just as anything in interwar Poland, ethnicities were a complicated matter. I wouldn't say anyone with a Germanic name was an "ethnic German". Even foregoing the fact Poland was a crossroads for thousands of years, it was under occupation by Prussia, Austria and Russia for one and a half century. In fact, we are still trying to sort out property matters of Prussian land owners! (who came to Polish lands under occupation and sometimes married Polish women and then raised their kids as Polish patriots, to make things even funkier)

The driving ideologues of the Sanacja (Cleansing) nationalist movement came from all over: to take an obvious example, you had Pilsudski who was born in Lithuania and was just about as far removed from German roots as possible. Roman Dmowski was born in a minor noble family, etc, so it's not like Poland's interwar policy was born out of some Germanic agression.

Yeah, but Pezook, Pilsudski died quite some time before World War II, right - in 1935, actually? So he couldn't really influence Poland at that time. In fact, he died fairly quickly after the Nazi rise to power and barely managed to make a few agreements with them. And I doubt his successors had that much power and sway.

Stas Bush wrote:Yeah, but Pezook, Pilsudski died quite some time before World War II, right - in 1935, actually? So he couldn't really influence Poland at that time. In fact, he died fairly quickly after the Nazi rise to power and barely managed to make a few agreements with them. And I doubt his successors had that much power and sway.

That's a fair point ; His nominated successor was Rydz-Smigly, and he was just a much weaker personality, though people from Pilsudski's clique tried to prop him up as the "Great Leader" (I shit you not, that's a literal translation) of Poland nominated by The Marshall himself. His leadership during the september campaign was really substandard, and I doubt he'd have been able to pull as much weight as Pilsudski - more likely, he'd have become a pupper of Pilsudski's clique, but they wouldn't necessarily keep power: in 1935, you had the April Constitution come into power, the parliament began to regain lost power and the political process was in general becoming more civilized, so...well, anything could've happened. Another May Putsch was unlikely, though.

Still, the partitioning of Czechoslovakia showed that the attitude which made Pilsudski popular was still present: I mean, come on. Zaolzie brought literally no strategic benefit to Poland. None. It added some population and was a horribly dickish move to resolve a minor border dispute, in exchange of adding hundreds of kilometres of border from which Nazi Germany could launch their later attack.

So while The Marshall himself was dead, his spirit seemed to live on. It's not clear if Poland would've civilized its politics on its own or not if given another twenty years, though: much of what happened in the interwar period could be called an "Independence High". In fact, Poland behaved kinda like the US post-war of indepence, expanding, throwing its weight around, etc, except the US could expand westwards, while Poland had neighbors it had to pick fights with.

It is interesting to see that Hitler really WAS that important to the raise of Nazi and WWII> It is scary to think that removing ONE man from history would have literally changed the face of the world.

That said I am curious, Lets say Hitler did exit the picture early on. What would have happened with Japan? Would they have stil attacked America and gone to war in the pacific?

Crossroads Inc. wrote:It is interesting to see that Hitler really WAS that important to the raise of Nazi and WWII> It is scary to think that removing ONE man from history would have literally changed the face of the world.

That said I am curious, Lets say Hitler did exit the picture early on. What would have happened with Japan? Would they have stil attacked America and gone to war in the pacific?

Considering the joke that was Japanese strategic decision making, they probably would have just gotten into the China quagmire without any roadmap and then run into serious trouble when the US embargoes their economy (I can't see think of any compelling reason why FDR would not impose the trade bans on oil and steel that he did in OTL in a Hilter-less world). And given that Tokyo remains out of touch with reality and common sense as they did, they'll either attack us (meaning America) or go for the European colonial possession, which I don't think is going to end too well for them.

Japan would have never attacked the US or British without a war in Europe involving the USSR raging. Without the USSR distracted Japan cannot spare the troops to try anything outside of the China theater. Japan was not THAT out of touch with reality to think it could beat the US and British with no other distractions, and while it also had a fully armed Soviet army to look out for. If the Japanese widen the war at all, it would be to invade the USSR and hope that they can bottle up the Russians along the transiberian for years.

I think Japan would've gone to try and conquer China, and at the same time, try massive attacks on Midway and European colonial posessions. After provoking most of Europe and the US and facing a long war with China, now probably being supplied by the US and Europe, plus the USSR, and a war with some of the biggest powers at the time. The war would probably run close to how 1943-1945 went in the Pacific theatre, only in a much shorter timeframe, given the undivided attention that would be focused at crushing them. Hell, Britain may offer to give Germnay some colonies in the Pacific if they help crsh Japan!