Hitler dies in WW1

[unmerged(16585)]

The Weimer republic had been experimenting with the tank almost before the ink was dry on Versailles. After the war Britian, for some reason that I do not understand, allowed a paper that it had commissioned to be released. This document contained a plan to end the war by 1919 in a final offensive that relied on Armoured Fighting Vehicles (Tanks), and using them to cut off enemy infantry. The Germans got ahold of this and, seeing as they had no land that the Allies could not observe, approached the reds (the other Pariah state) about training in this new area, the Germans would provide the equiptment, the Russians the land, and the two could experiment with a new form of warfair. This is also how Russia got some of its Armoured tactics and technology.

In other words, Germany had been preparing for round two from the beginning, Hitler just made use of what was available to him.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

I duno. The Civil War in Spain and a possible Civil War in Germany would have gone alot differently. No Germany support for Franco and the Republic is in already much better position. Especialy if you consider, German planes flew Franco to Spain.

 

[Jove]

Originally posted by AlexanderG
I duno. The Civil War in Spain and a possible Civil War in Germany would have gone alot differently. No Germany support for Franco and the Republic is in already much better position. Especialy if you consider, German planes flew Franco to Spain.

Franco got a lot more support from Italy than Germany. In 1935, Italy was considered stronger than Germany. A lot larger army, massive navy. But just the worst in logistics and leadership.

 

[phelbas]

Originally posted by Jove
Franco got a lot more support from Italy than Germany. In 1935, Italy was considered stronger than Germany. A lot larger army, massive navy. But just the worst in logistics and leadership.

If the far-right never takes hold in Germany then the reaction of Britain to Italy might be different. With a growing, possibly hostile Germany Britain was still trying to appease Musolini, but without a German threat she might have taken stronger action against the Italians when they invaded Abyssinia.

 

[Darkrenown]

Originally posted by phelbas
If the far-right never takes hold in Germany then the reaction of Britain to Italy might be different. With a growing, possibly hostile Germany Britain was still trying to appease Musolini, but without a German threat she might have taken stronger action against the Italians when they invaded Abyssinia.

I don't know, I doubt the League of Nations would have taken any stronger action without Germany since the decisions that made it near powerless were made before Germany became a problem. I also doubt the UK would go against the LoN's decision since Chamberlin was commited to support them and avoid wars.

Without Hitler I think that the Wiemer republic would have survived and rearmed moderetly since Uboat production and Tank research had resumed before the Nazi's gained power. I doubt Germany would have turned communist, the reds attempted an uprising in Berlin after the war (Which is why the Government moved to Wiemer), but it didn't get much support and the army stamped on it. Germany may well have got some of it's lost land back peacefully since many in Britain and France were saying Versailles had been too harsh on Germany in the 20's and 30's.

Possibly the USSR would make a move on Poland resulting in an Europe vs USSR war sometime in the 40's.

 

[phelbas]

Originally posted by Darkrenown
I don't know, I doubt the League of Nations would have taken any stronger action without Germany since the decisions that made it near powerless were made before Germany became a problem. I also doubt the UK would go against the LoN's decision since Chamberlin was commited to support them and avoid wars.

But the League was dominated by the UK and France, if the UK had decided to act other would have fallen in behind, plus if the UK closed the suez canal to the Italians they were in trouble. France, Turkey, Greece and Yugoslavia said they would back the UK if it took action against Italy, but concern about driving Italy into the arms of Germany detered any action.

 

[StephenT]

I kind of get the impression that Chamberlain regarded the League of Nations much the same way the current US administration regards the United Nations - a waste of time, but you can't actually say so in public because lots of people still support it. Remember Chamberlain practically invented modern summit diplomacy- flying off to speak directly to the leaders of foreign countries, instead of going through ambassadors or Geneva.

As for Italy, the British Foreign Office did a policy study in the early 1930s which came to a very clear conclusion: "We're facing war with Germany, Italy and Japan, and we're not strong enough to fight all three at once. We must reduce our potential enemies, and make a lasting peace settlement with at least one of these countries." This was the motivation behind the Appeasement policy.

 

[Allenby]

Originally posted by StephenT
As for Italy, the British Foreign Office did a policy study in the early 1930s which came to a very clear conclusion: "We're facing war with Germany, Italy and Japan, and we're not strong enough to fight all three at once. We must reduce our potential enemies, and make a lasting peace settlement with at least one of these countries." This was the motivation behind the Appeasement policy.

The exact argument I used to earn me a first in my exam earlier this year.

Few seem to remember Chamberlain's prudent economic policies when he was Chancellor of the Exchequor in stark contrast to the autarkic structure developed by Hermann Goering. When it came to war, the British economy was in a strong position whereas the German one was reliant on imports from Sweden, not to mention the plundering of Eastern Europe.

Chamberlain ought to be accredited for the time he gave to the development and building of fighter aircraft - in a time when Stanley Baldwin's assertion of 'the bomber will always get through' gave many people the reason to think that building fighters was pointless.

So while Chamberlain is maligned for failing to stop the Second World War, or see that Hitler was an evil so-and-so, his time as Prime Minister did ensure that Britain was at least adequately prepared for war.

 

[unmerged(5367)]

I'm actually with UBoatMan on this one. Given the situation in Germany in the early 1930s, the Weimar republic was doomed, and with it the political center. Either the far left (the communists), or the far right (the army, the nazis, the monarchist), were going to come to power.

I just don't think it's feasible that the Weimar republic could have survived the depression.

or then fallen into something that would make albania look affluent..

 

[w_mullender]

People still do name their kids Adolf in Austria and Germany too.

Dont think so. Rudolf or the likes yes.

 

[pithorr]

Possibly the USSR would make a move on Poland resulting in an Europe vs USSR war sometime in the 40's.

I don't think Stalin would risk a war alone against whole Western world which would unite for sure against "menace of communism"...

 

[unmerged(3902)]

I don't think Stalin would risk a war alone against whole Western world which would unite for sure against "menace of communism"...

Why not? There's fairly good documentry evidence that he was considering a post-war invasion for the late 1950s which his death prevented. Likewise, it didn't stop him from touching off the Korean war. And both those events were against a far more unified west than he'd have gotten absent WW II.

Stalin was more than willing to touch off a war if he thought he'd win it.

 

[pithorr]

Why not? There's fairly good documentry evidence that he was considering a post-war invasion for the late 1950s which his death prevented. Likewise, it didn't stop him from touching off the Korean war. And both those events were against a far more unified west than he'd have gotten absent WW II.

Stalin was more than willing to touch off a war if he thought he'd win it.

Yes, but in 50s there was quite another situation to that one we are discussing in this thread... Whole Europe was devastated during the war while Soviet war machine was just extremely thrived. Only american presence stopped Stalin to go west.

 

[Yakman]

The right would have come to power in Germany anyways. Not that Hitler wasn't important--he shaped the terms that the Right used, and advanced Germany's "return to greatness." But the Army was always planning to come back, and the german people were dissatisfied with the failure of the weimar republic. The communists weren't going to do it, because the middle class and the army would have moved against them.

I see a rightist republic, dominated by a pro-Army party. It would institute some of Hitler's social reforms [state-domination of the economy, croneyism, etc.] and rebuild the army. But it was Hitler's personal charisma and audacity that precipitated the re-militarization of the Rheinland, and the Anschluss. The Army was too cautious to do these things.

As for the USSR.... Stalin was concerned with controlling the country. He would have kept the officers in prison and the Ukrainians in graves until he died. It was WW2 that 'saved' the Soviet Union because it meant that the resources of the country were directed at something other than one Georgian's megalomania.

 

[unmerged(23360)]

TO put mroe of a spin on things, I'd be interested to see what happened if Hitler died in ww1, but Polands, "dictator" Pilsudski hadn't passed of cancer. I tihnk that would have cause a conflict between Poland and USSR. It wouldda been an interesting scenario to observe. If WW2 never happened, I am almost certain something woullda happened between Poland and USSR.

 

[unmerged(18269)]

Maybe. Although depending on when it happend I think the Western countries would have stayed out and Poland would be occupied by the Soviets.

And Yakman is probably right. Some sort of right wing dictatorship backed by the Army would have happend one way or the other. It just wouldnt be that active, although a war with Poland or with the USSR wouldnt be out of the question.

 

[unmerged(14338)]

The right would have come to power in Germany anyways. Not that Hitler wasn't important--he shaped the terms that the Right used, and advanced Germany's "return to greatness." But the Army was always planning to come back, and the german people were dissatisfied with the failure of the weimar republic. The communists weren't going to do it, because the middle class and the army would have moved against them.

I see a rightist republic, dominated by a pro-Army party. It would institute some of Hitler's social reforms [state-domination of the economy, croneyism, etc.] and rebuild the army. But it was Hitler's personal charisma and audacity that precipitated the re-militarization of the Rheinland, and the Anschluss. The Army was too cautious to do these things.

I second this. We would have seen a re-rise of the Prussian Junker-class. Alltough i doubt that we would have seen a holocaust.

 

[unmerged(2005)]

I think this is precisely one of the things dealt with in the book "Military What Ifs". It maintains that none in the entourage of Hitler had anything like the demonic genius of Hitler. Hitler really was a singular world history altering person. Alas, with the worst consequences. Pity he didn't die. He should have. He was a very reckless soldier seeking danger.

Germany might have nonetheless turned authoritarian in the thirties, just like most European countries. Or might have not. In any case, without Hitler, we'd probably have got a traditionally conservative government, perhaps the restauration of monarchy. The German conservative revolutionaries might have had a field day (which later strongly influenced neocon ideology, btw). We'd have probably seen some border readjustments and finally the union of the Reich and Austria. At some point, there'd have then been a stronger shift to parliamentarism.

Today, Germany would be a parliamentarian monarchy, encompassing Austria and perhaps also the Sudetenland, Danzig, the Memel territory and have settled border disputes with Poland.

There'd probably be a European customs union, but not anything like the European Union.

In the thirties and fourties, the Soviet Union was the prime threat to the European order, but faced by an strong anti-Comintern its agression tapered out.

In the seventies and eighties colonial peoples increasingly demanded independence. Decolonialization started to kick in, partly sponsored by the Soviet Union (world revolution) and the USA (for "free trade"). However, to this day, parts of Africa are dominions and autonomous parts of the Union Francaise, the Commonwealth and "German Union".

Oh yeah, the US never got too involved in European affairs, but has been very active in the Western hemisphere and in the Far East. While the Economic Number One, Europe as a whole is ecomically stronger than the US.

English and German are the world's leading languages. Honourable mention goes to French.

Oh yeah, some time in the fifties the nuclear bomb was invented. Concerned with this development, the failed League of Nations (many had left the organization in the thirties) was substituted by the UN, which this time included the USA. The headquarters are in Geneva.

Ah well, that's my take!

 

[Yakman]

In the seventies and eighties colonial peoples increasingly demanded independence. Decolonialization started to kick in, partly sponsored by the Soviet Union (world revolution) and the USA (for "free trade"). However, to this day, parts of Africa are dominions and autonomous parts of the Union Francaise, the Commonwealth and "German Union".

Oh yeah, the US never got too involved in European affairs, but has been very active in the Western hemisphere and in the Far East. While the Economic Number One, Europe as a whole is ecomically stronger than the US.

English and German are the world's leading languages. Honourable mention goes to French.

Oh yeah, some time in the fifties the nuclear bomb was invented. Concerned with this development, the failed League of Nations (many had left the organization in the thirties) was substituted by the UN, which this time included the USA. The headquarters are in Geneva.

Ah well, that's my take!

I agree that Austria and Germany would be united during the thirties, Hitler or no... after all the Anschluss was extremely popular within Austria. I don't agree with you on other things though:

Germany lost its colonies after Versailles. They wouldn't get them back, so none of Africa would be part of the "German dominion."

I don't see anyone inventing a nuclear bomb for a long time. The impetus for its creation was WW2, and the particular conditions for creating it [notably the expatriate scientists gathered in the US and FDR's personal interest in the project].

I don't see why German and English would be the world's leading languages. What wrecked the French Empire was WW2--it was doomed before, after the Great War--but nonetheless, it was the German invasion and occupation that killed it. Algeria would probably still be French, for instance.

The big question, of course, is what to do with the USSR... would a German-Soviet War still occur? What about the 'international communist revolution'? Would Eastern Europe capitulate to the Germans or try to side with the Soviets? China would almost certainly go the same road as it did--Japan invaded Manchuria before Hitler was in power, and went into China proper in 1937. I see the Far East much as it is today... with possible British possessions in Sarawak.

 

[Jove]

China would almost certainly go the same road as it did--Japan invaded Manchuria before Hitler was in power, and went into China proper in 1937. I see the Far East much as it is today... with possible British possessions in Sarawak.

Oh I think that Japan would never have attacken France, Britian or Dutch possessions if Germany had not been fighting them. Even if they did, than the Allies without the war in Europe would have fought them off rather easily.

So I would think much of othe colonial possessions would have been held.