• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

What if the had been no HItler?

crookeddy

Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
The other Hitler thread, (not to mention the intro video for Red Alert) got me thinking about what would have happened had Hitler not come to power. First of all, Germany probably would have stayed in it's Great Depression far longer then the rest of the West, and probably would have become irrelevant in the Western World.

Meanwhile, Stalin would have completed the full industrialization of the Union, and would have invaded Finland (as he did anyway) There is no reason to believe that this war would have gone any better then it did in real history.

What would have Stalin's next move been? Would he still try to build his iron curtain? Without troops motivated by the looming threat of Nazism, I think he'd have a lot more difficulty creating the unstoppable force that the Union was by the end of WWII.

If the Soviets somehow found a way to get their huge force motivated, and moved West, at what point would Western Europe try to stop them, if ever?

And what would happen to Japan? My history knowledge is lacking on the subject of the level of cooperation between Germany and Japan. Would Japan have been as strong without Germany? I am not sure, so I will not even speculate on this one.

Overall, do you think the world would have been a better, or worse place had there been no Hitler, and no Nazi Germany.
 
There might have been a successful communist revolution in Germany in the mid 1930's. That would have created a radically different dynamic in Europe. Japan might have concentrated on taking over China and consolidating power there rather than attacking Pearl Harbor and the colonies of the western powers.
 
It would have been like Command & Conquer: Red Alert. Stalin would be the big threat.
But Stalin had trouble conquering Finland at that time. I am not sure he'd have the support of his cannon-fodder troops, had there not been some external threat to motivate them.

However a communist Germany might have still militarized, and would have become a strong ally of the Soviet Union. That would have been extremely dangerous.
 
But Stalin had trouble conquering Finland at that time. I am not sure he'd have the support of his cannon-fodder troops, had there not been some external threat to motivate them.

Without the detraction of the main event, I think the non-communist powers would have come to the aid of Finland or Poland.

However a communist Germany might have still militarized, and would have become a strong ally of the Soviet Union. That would have been extremely dangerous.

I think there would have been no appeasement of a communist Germany. It would have received a pasting by Britain and France had it tried to re-enter the Rhineland. It wouldn't have tried to annex territories with German populations as that wouldn't have been consistent with the socialist dialectic. They'd have been more likely to try and export revolution by proxy. Perhaps they wouldn't even have been close allies of the USSR if their founders happened to be followers of Trotsky.

I'm wondering if Stalin might have been more tempted to have a go at Japan to limit their encroachment in the east.
 
I am trying to see if there was actually a way to prevent a giant war in that time period. Was the world so screwed up that a giant war was inevitable? Is Hitler just the personification of the troubles of the time, instead of the devil he is seen as nowadays? (Although Hitler did a lot of horrible things not directly related to the war) Basically, I wonder if there was a way to have the world end up a better place under ANY circumstances in the late 30s.
 
I am trying to see if there was actually a way to prevent a giant war in that time period. Was the world so screwed up that a giant war was inevitable? Is Hitler just the personification of the troubles of the time, instead of the devil he is seen as nowadays? (Although Hitler did a lot of horrible things not directly related to the war) Basically, I wonder if there was a way to have the world end up a better place under ANY circumstances in the late 30s.

Not without radical change to the way in which all the European nations viewed themselves, their neighbours, and issues of patriotism, militarism and the like. And of course such wide scale change is always near impossible, so no, I don't think avoiding a war would be realistic.
 
I can't imagine the German people being fired up by dorks, dweebs, thugs and creeps like Himmler, Hess, Bormann and Goebbels. Without Hitler and Nazi Germany, there probably wouldn't have been the industrialised genocide of European Jews and the foundation of Israel. The British empire would probably have crumbled just the same.

Without the war economy to reinvigorate the US out of its depression and its continued isolationism, the USSR might have emerged as the global superpower in the 50's once Stalin was dead. I don't really believe that expansion by conquest would ever have been the USSR's aim in Stalin's time. It was vast and difficult enough to control centrally as it was.

Could world conflict have been avoided? My guess is that there would have been a confrontation between Japan and the USSR resulting in the establishment of communist China under Mao, and Japan forced out of Korea and back to its home islands.

The only question is -- would anyone have bothered to spend the vast amount of money needed to develop nuclear weapons?
 
If there had been no Hitler, I would not exist. For it was due to direct interaction between Hitler and my great-grandfather that prompted my grandfather to immigrate to the US where he met and later married my grandmother.
 
The name, "Adolph" would be a lot more common these days.

Really, Hitler is one of those figures so woven into the tapestry of history that to try to unwind his influence from the fabric and speak to what may have happened without him is just 99 percent inspired guessing.
-- It's possible the Communists could've taken over Germany, but that didn't happen in 1919-20, so why later? I suppose if they did, it's possible they could've allied with the USSR and WWII would've been an entirely different ballgame.
-- It's also possible that a counter-revolution in Germany would've taken advantage of the weaknesses of Weimar and reinstituted an authoritarian regime simliar to the one under the Kaiser in the 1890s, which may have slowly evolved into a parliamentary democracy over time. Or not.
-- It's just as possible that an authoritarian regime under a new Kaiser could've sought to remedy many of the perceived injustices of Versailles, and dragged the world into war, too. Or, they may have been able to stabilze Germany and negotiate better terms peacefully. Who really knows?
 
Last edited:
Well. "No Hitler" doesn't necessarily mean "no Nazis" or "no fascism in Germany". I don't know, I think I don't support the POV that Hitler was some miracle figure that couldn't be replaced by someone else.
Would history be different? Probably.
In what way? I have absolutely no clue.
 
there would've been a war between the allies and Italy - they refused to fight Musso over Abyssinia because they wanted him onside against Hitler.

there may well have also been a war in Asia, as the Western nations opposed the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in '36.
 
Without Hitler, History Channel stocks would sell for pennies and in the evenings they'd show wrestling.

Honestly, it's a hard call to make. I don't think it would've had much effect on the economic recovery of any country. A recent analysis shows that the only consistent link to recovery from the Great Depression was how soon each nation abandoned the gold standard. In all countries the party in power was thrown out. In all countries the party in power when it ended was given generational credit for ending the depression.
 
Alt-history is always fun, but ultimately pointless. Unless we've got some Time Lords kicking around, there's just no way to make heads or tails of all of the possible divergences in events. For every single change, there is a ripple of other changes that exponentially radiate from it throughout history. The 2nd World War was the result of such a tremendously labyrinthine confluence of events that changing even a few of them would result in an unrecognizable history. Taking something as inexorably central as Hitler's involvement in it out of that equation just results in nothing more than incongruous conjecture.

It's all just a bit too wibbly wobbly.

*All of that was, of course, an excuse for me to type "wibbly wobbly"*
 
*sighs* Why is it that people understand the Western side of World War II better than the Eastern Side?

Japan would have invaded China (they already pretty much had before Hitler invaded Poland). I don't think the US would have gotten involved until much later though. China would have crumbled pretty quickly with the civil war. Europe would have then have thrown all of their resources against Japan as Japan rolled over most of Asia into India. The US would have gotten involved as their colony of the Philippines was invaded. Australia would have been threatened.

Also the atomic bomb would have lagged far, far behind in development along with rockets. Essentially though Japan would have been easily crushed. China is a very...interesting scenario. Korea is too. I think we wouldn't see a Red China nor a Red Korea as the US and Europe pours aide into China to rebuild the country.
 
Germany could have become an authoritarian dictatorship for some time... but more in the mold of Franco's Spain than anything else.
 
* dons Timey Wimey hat *

kiwi, I think you're forgetting someone.

* points in a vaguely upward direction, salutes and does an impressively slow goosestep, believes Thespeckledkiwi
will get the reference and calmy removes Timey Wimey hat *
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top