No Hitler No War?

Without Hitler there would have been no NSDAP because Hitler named the party so the answer to your first question is that Nazis could not take power without Hitler. ( I also believe Hitler himself made the party program more or less ).

 

So with no Hitler, no Nazis so who could have won out? And could Germany now build the bomb?

 

”Even if there was no Hitler the question is could the Nazis still take power? If yes then Germany would not have. And if no I don't know bit of a tricky one or so what impact that would had on America? would they still be in the position to build the bomb and drop it on Japan?”

The chain, or leap, of events appears to a bit fatalistic here. e.g. If there was no Hitler there would have been someone else who did everything as Hitler did in the same way at the same time. When Hitler was sent along to report of the Workers Party they were only about 40 strong. If he did not join and mould them, where is there anything to suggest someone else was poised to do this, and in the same way?

If there was anyone in the German government with that degree of authoritarianism, and the ability to enforce it, then surely they would have acted to disempower Hitler and the rising nazis which they would have seen as a threat to their own plans? I cannot see events unfolding exactly as they did ‘with or without Hitler’, which in turn has a direct bearing on the escalation of events, the course the events took, and the events themselves, i.e. the Spanish Civil War, Mussolini’s territorial forays and the course of the China-Japanese war.

No.9

 

With no Hitler on the Scene could the Communists have won out?

 

With no Hitler No9 I do not believe that the socialist movement would have come to power in Germany as the Nazi party. I also do not believe that when and if someone came to power the same chain of events would have transpired.

Germany was in a devestated economic state. There was high unemployment, exponential inflation and a huge feeling of resentment against the administrator nations of the Versailles Treaty against Germany. In addition to this a very large part of the unemployed ranks was made up of the men of the German Army. When the Versaille Treaty ended WWI the German Army was still the largest army in Europe. They had been defeated at a level that left them with the feeling that they were still stronger than the other countries forces.

This set of circumstances was begging for someone to come to the forefront and take power. Things would have changed in unimaginable ways. Without the anti-semitism of the Nazis there may not have been a huge migration of Jews from the country. Einstein was a German patriot who only left to escape the persecution of the Jews.

Richard42 mentions the possibility of the communist party winning. I think this is very real! This large group of discontented people were obviously ready for some form of revolutionary change. If not Nazi Socializm, why not Communism? With Stalin backing a Communist government in Germany and looking to spread the faith into other countries how much longer would it have taken for the German Communists to want to rejoin all the German peoples fractured from the Fatherland by the Versaille Treaty back together? What next? There is a good chance that if Communism rather than Socialism had come to power in Germany in the 1930s that we would be looking at an European communist block that stretches from the Pacific to the Atlantic, the North Sea to the Med and the Red Sea. Communism could have formented from within and countries willingly joined with Russia, then how would the British or Americans stop them?

 

Bigice, I had never thought of that. What you say is entirely within reason! Frightening, isn't it?

Something that Germany was not lacking was a bunch of right-wing organizations or parties. Most likely one or a fusion of several would come up. Same for the Left, the Communists were divided along a number of factions. And let's not forget about that large force, the Social Democrats too.

Names in case AH did not exist? Well, I can think of prominent careers for the likes of Strasser (Gregor and Otto), Röhm, Bormann, Göring, Goebbels, etc.

 

The case you put forward for a nazis substitute, i.e. ”… a bunch of right-wing organisations or parties…….Same for the Left, the Communists ……………….that large force, the Social Democrats “, is very plausible Rodi. However, you could put forward the same examples to argue a prediction of civil war.

With Hitler, and Stalin, if you ask whether either was the prime factor or a frontman, IMHO, I think the answer is very definitely prime factor in both cases. In addition, both were extremely wary of leadership in others which may have gone on to manifest into usurpment, while Stalin was utterly paranoid of citizens who displayed any qualities of influence over others, at even the lowest levels or most benign situations.

Agreed about the exceptionally poor and diminishing standard of living in Germany post W.W.I. ice, but things were bad for most of the Western world in the interwars Depression. I appreciate the enhanced appeal of Communism and its ‘Workers of the World Unite’ theme at this time, but I find more differences than parallels with western counties and 1915 Russia. If things are coming to the boil, any country’s aristocracy (or alternates), and those who own the country will always side with the party or parties that best ensures their survival. Under Communism both will become extinct. In 1920’s Italy it was the middle classes – the factory and land owners – who financed the fascist movement, to restore order and productivity, and, prevent expansion of far left ideals. Neither far right or far left were first choice of the upper classes and aristocracy, but to support the left was suicide.

I think it highly unlikely the Communists could have been elected to power in Europe, including Germany, though agree that in this event they would have been substantially supported by Stalin.

No.9

 

The idea of cival war among the factions in Germany is something I had not thought of. I guess it could have turned into another conflict like the Spanish Cival War with two or more different outside supporters of the different factions. The German people don't seem to have a history of this kind of event as far as I can remember. They were fuedal for a long time, but once unified they seemed to be able to stay that way.

 

I agree withyou, No.9. When you say "...in this event they would have been substantially supported by Stalin." I agree also, but simply with the intention to through a large spanner in the workings of the capitalist world, as I'm sure Stalin wouldn't care less about the Germans Workers fates! He was interested only in developments in his own Russia (forget about Georgia, S. inside felt he was Russian and did his utmost to erase that other portion). Moreover, he was interested in his own power in his own very large backyard. I have my doubts Stalin was a Communist after all...

As for a civil war in Germany, well, there were several occurences of minor civil wars. The Nazis had their own SA we all know about, but these did not exist in isolation: all the other parties had their own street-fighting militias, including the 'lilly white' Social Democrats (SPD)!! Read this for a primer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartacist_League
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_republic

Politics in Post WWI Germany were a messy, bloody business. You could also read Thomas Mann The Black Obleisk for period feel.

 

Another thing I think we should remember:

Without excellent financing Hitler could never have done what he did. The German industrialists ( Schacht for example who later realized the mistake they did ) gave him the money to get to power and stop the communists in Germany. It seems to me that money came to Hitler from several sources ( abroad as well ) so it wasn´t just a "battle of ideology" as Hitler received plenty of help to keep communism out. And quite free hands to do it I believe.

 

I suppose the line can easily blur when distinguishing between a ‘Civil War’ and a ‘Revolution’. In classic definition, perhaps for a Civil War you have a nation roughly divided over one or more fundamental differences, whereas in a Revolution it would be the non ruling class against the ruling class. In both cases the outcome is to see who gets to impose their will on the others. So, how do you define events where the popular movement is to depose the ruling class while those taking part are battling among themselves to see who will replace them?

I have to excuse myself for my comment at the end of my last post saying; ”I think it highly unlikely the Communists could have been elected to power in Europe, because mentally I separated Spain from the rest of Europe until ice’s reminder. The agendas behind the Spanish Civil War are still debated because the actual motives and intentions of some of the factions involved are still debated. However, as Rodi expresses his view that Stalin’s objectives did not accurately or fully conform to Communism, (which I agree with – ego the SU being regarded as more ‘Pink’ than ‘Red’), so I would say it can be said that the Spanish government at the time of their Civil War were not truly Communist, nor Franco’s opposition truly fascist. But, in considering the actions and declarations of both, I would say the government was more Communist than Franco was fascist.

No.9

 

Sorry, No 9,

you said it before me about the financing so I was reading the lines too fast...

-----------

Anyway, the social democrats and communists in Germany might have beaten the nazis by co-operation in Germany,right? But maybe they did not think Hitler as a threat that big to consider this?

In Stuart Kahan´s book The Wolf of the Kremlin it is mentioned that Stalin said in 1930 that Hitler´s best moment was there and then and soon he´d be forgotten. Stalin considered the social democrats as their main enemy. other views?

 

Joseph Goebbels,

yeah dude, i agree, you need your a$$ kicked.

 

One of the most profound statements ever made in this forum, surely.