Let's Kill Hitler

Shangas said:

As I said, I don't believe removing Hitler from the equation would prevent a war. A war would still happen. I just think that it would be a different type of war.

Would Japan have invaded the rest of Asia? Possibly. That's if the Allies didn't act fast enough to bolster up colonial defenses. Which the British were slow to do, because they were busy fighting the Germans.

Click to expand...

The British were slow even before Germany declared war on them. They didn’t have the forces to protect them half way around the world and Japan knew it. Pure genius of them and us to reduce their militaries after WWI.

As they say, the best defense is a good offense.

jamespowers said:

In that scenario you miss the fact that the US had to get dragged kicking and screaming into war by being attacked. We were isolationist and no threat from Germany would move us out of that without Churchill and the like on the horizon. If you assume no threat from Germany then you have to assume that we would remain neutral until attacked by Japan. Would Japan have attacked the US if they knew they would get no support from Germany? Some say they attacked us to force Germany into the fray. Stuart Goldman makes that point in Nomonham 1939.

Click to expand...

There was a *lot* of anti-Japan sentiment in the US in 1937-38 -- real, palpable outrage over the invasion of China just breathes from the popular media of the time -- and I think that's a reasonable gauge of what the ordinary American in the street was thinking. While this sentiment stopped short of a demand for military action, the idea of government and international sanctions against Japan was very strongly supported by the public. The dominant mood of the day was isolationist in the sense of not wanting to go off and fight another foreign war, but the idea of completely detatching the US from any involvement in world affairs wasn't at all as dominant.

I think the presence of Hitler is what drove a lot of that mid-thirties isolationism -- he represented not just the danger of another war, but the danger of the same war we got "bamboozled into" twenty years before. Practically all of the "let them keep it over there" stuff you'll read in editorials and commentaries from the period revolves around Europe. But there's just as much demand that something, somehow needs to be done to stop what's happening in China. Remove Hitler from the equation -- and the picture might very well change.

That's why I think the US might well have resorted to the League of Nations in trying to work toward some kind of international resolution against Japan, especially since Cordell Hull was an outspoken, staunch believer in the League. Without Hitler around to make it look foolish and ineffectual, the League might well have been a far more meaningful organization in dealing with the issues of the mid-thirties than it turned out to actually be.

scottyrocks said:

I don't think I agree with this. Oft times it takes just that one 'right' charismatic character to push events one way or another. Someone above suggested that without the Hitler-nut-personality (my term) embodied in that person, things could have, and probably would have been very different.

Click to expand...

well, I still maintain that rthe world Depression allowed thso e"charismatic" folks to take hold. The high unemploymebnt and lack of food helped convince the germans that the jews were to blame. If the Depression were not there, jobs, food, money, etc would be plenty and the Jews wouldn't be an issue, nor would Hitler. Same in Russia, same with Japan.

jamespowers said:

Very good then. I will give it some thought and add my own progression through the 1950s as to what would happen if Hitler had been killed later this evening. I hope you know how to speak German my friend.....lol lol

Click to expand...

Ich spreche Deutsch ein biscon, aber es ist night sehr gut... Ich brauche die untertitlen en Englisch, bitte!

cchgn said:

well, I still maintain that rthe world Depression allowed thso e"charismatic" folks to take hold. The high unemploymebnt and lack of food helped convince the germans that the jews were to blame. If the Depression were not there, jobs, food, money, etc would be plenty and the Jews wouldn't be an issue, nor would Hitler. Same in Russia, same with Japan.

Click to expand...

In times of great uncertainty, people across Europe have historically tended to vote for extremists. Bear in mind also that in Germany, the return to authoritarianism with Hitler was what was culturally familiar: the Weimar Republic was just a little over a decade old when Hitler's success effectively killed it - ordinary German folks seem to have consider this democracy lark a failed experiment in the climate of depression and wounded national pride still smarting following the Versailles Diktat. Not dissimilar to the Chinese experience with Mao triumphing in 1949 - again there democracy was an unfamiliar way of doing thongs, and they returned to an authoritarian model for the state. Certainly, Hitler's charisma helped, but it seems to me that a return to authoritarianism was on the cards anyhow, without Stresemann or anyone of his calibre around to sort it and maintain faith in the Weimar system.

Lizzie, Forgive my selective editing -- no sinister Stalinistic rewriting of history intended -- I just reordered your hypotheticals for clarity of my response.

LizzieMaine said:

-- Without the fear of Hitler driving its actions thru the 1930s, the Soviet Union turns inward, becoming more and more isolated as unrest builds in the outlying component republics. Without the experience of the Great Patriotic War in the 1940s, there is less and less to hold the USSR together, and there is less reason for a paranoid fear of external enemies. The USSR finally collapses under its own weight before the end of the 1940s, leaving a disunited and squabbling conglomeration of independent or semi-dependent states to battle among themselves. Focused on its own internal dissension, the rump Russian state pays little attention to the outside world. There is no Cold War. There is no postwar Red Scare in the United States, and Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy of Wisconsin is defeated in his bid for reelection in 1950 when it is revealed that he had lied about his wartime military record.

-- With the death of Lenin in 1924, a fierce struggle erupts between rival Bolshevik factions, ending with the icepick murder of Josef Vissarionovich Stalin by agents of Leon Trotsky. The Trotskyite regime pushes for mass industrialization during the early 1930s, but dissension continues among the Politburo over the leader's arrogant, condescending personality. Factions form within the government and back-door Kremlin intrigue becomes the hallmark of the regime. Dissension among the various Soviet states leads to the use of military force under the direction of Moscow to keep them in line, even as the Trotsky regime continues to thunder about the need for global revolution, causing much concern among the Western powers.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure a fear of Nazi Germany was the driving force of Soviet foreign policy in the 1930s, per se. Rather, the driving force behind Soviet foreign policy both under Lenin and Stalin was the same hubris that drove the Czars for centuries: a Russian national desire to dominate Eastern and Central Europe. Russia has long been colonizing, imperial power, and this did not change in the Soviet or post-Soviet era.

In order to save the budding Bolshevik state from destruction in WWI, Lenin signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918. As a result of this treaty with Imperial Germany, Russia lost massive amount of territory. In the wake of Brest-Litovsk and the Russian Civil War, independent nations emerged in the Baltic region, the Caucuses, Poland, Finland, and elsewhere. Throughout the 1920s and ‘30s, the ultimate goal of Soviet foreign policy was to regain lost territories -- both through diplomacy and force of arms!

By the dawn of WWII, the U.S.S.R. had gobbled up the majority of former Czarist holding, the two most notable exceptions being Poland and Finland. It was in furtherance of the ultimate goal to control Central and Eastern Europe that Stalin “courted” the western democracies with the hope of isolating and marginalizing the emerging Nazi Germany.

Given this historical context, I don’t believe that the destiny of the Soviet Union would have been much different, although the rhetoric under a Trotskyist regime would certainly have had a more radical in character. However, regardless of which magnate inherited power -- Bukharin, Kamenev, Stalin, Trotsky, or Zinoviev -- purges were bound to occur in order to secure the new leader’s powerbase. Such was the character of Bolshevik internal politics (“back-door Kremlin intrigue” has always been the hallmark of Russian regimes!). If anything, Trotsky’s popularity within the Red Army, which he founded, would have allowed him to solidify his power within the Soviet sphere of influence much quicker than Stalin and thus centralize Moscow’s power at a more rapid pace.

Thus, with a bombastic, aggressively revolutionary Trotsky at the helm, the U.S.S.R. would likely have expanded it’s imperial holdings earlier.

LizzieMaine said:

-- There is no Civil War in Spain. An insurrection led by Francisco Franco is crushed by Loyalists, and Franco is executed in 1937.

Click to expand...

I agree that the forces of radical traditionalism and conservative army officers would’ve joined forces in Spain to rebel against the Popular Front government in 1936. However, even without German aide, the civil war would have been long and drawn out.

The importance of the German and Italian intervention in Spain is overestimated, in my view. The Luftwaffe / Regia Aeronautica airlift of the Army of Morocco is certainly famous, but the lion share of Moroccan regulares and Spanish legionaries actually arrived in Spain via seaborne conveys, on Spanish ships. Similarly, famed fascist foreign units such as the Legion Condor and the “volunteer” Corpo Truppe Volontarie are well known, but their strategic importance was actually pretty marginal. Much more vital to the Francoist war effort was Detroit iron to move troops, Standard Oil petroleum to power truck, and unlimited credit to pay for it all, complements of the democratic world’s financial institutions.

That said, without aide from Hitler and Mussolini in the form of artillery and munitions, the Nationalists would have lacked the offensive power to carry out its “Reconquista Nuevo”. Therefore, I suspect the result would’ve been a protracted, bloody, tragic, but ultimately indecisive civil war . . .

Guttersnipe said:

Given this historical context, I don’t believe that the destiny of the Soviet Union would have been much different, although the rhetoric under a Trotskyist regime would certainly have had a more radical in character. However, regardless of which magnate inherited power -- Bukharin, Kamenev, Stalin, Trotsky, or Zinoviev -- purges were bound to occur in order to secure the new leader’s powerbase. Such was the character of Bolshevik internal politics (“back-door Kremlin intrigue” has always been the hallmark of Russian regimes!). If anything, Trotsky’s popularity within the Red Army, which he founded, would have allowed him to solidify his power within the Soviet sphere of influence much quicker than Stalin and thus centralize Moscow’s power at a more rapid pace.

Click to expand...

Well said.

We actually had a tutorial when I was at uni doing a paper on this period of Russian history asking the question what would have happened if Stalin hadn't have assumed power or had been eliminated, and the conclusion was the same. The machinations within Russia of how the State controlled the populace and held sway would have been largely the same irrespective of the actual personality of who was perceived as leader. Along with your astute view of Trotsky and his popularity with the Red Army, Trotsky could have been perhaps for the West a far more dangerous leader. Communism and Marxist theory was already experiencing fairly wide-spread popularity outside of much of Russia, and the idealistic and energetic Trotsky could have arguably been a far more "likeable" face for socialist revolution than Stalin who was often perceived as a dullard and far less energetic.

Very interesting discussion, thanks to all.

HudsonHawk said:

Care to list a few examples? I'm genuinely curious.

Click to expand...

I wish I could list a few names, but then it would bring things into play that are strictly not allowed here on the Lounge. I can say with just a hint, if you think hard, you can imagine who I would place on that list.

Edward said:

In times of great uncertainty, people across Europe have historically tended to vote for extremists. Bear in mind also that in Germany, the return to authoritarianism with Hitler was what was culturally familiar: the Weimar Republic was just a little over a decade old when Hitler's success effectively killed it - ordinary German folks seem to have consider this democracy lark a failed experiment in the climate of depression and wounded national pride still smarting following the Versailles Diktat. Not dissimilar to the Chinese experience with Mao triumphing in 1949 - again there democracy was an unfamiliar way of doing thongs, and they returned to an authoritarian model for the state. Certainly, Hitler's charisma helped, but it seems to me that a return to authoritarianism was on the cards anyhow, without Stresemann or anyone of his calibre around to sort it and maintain faith in the Weimar system.

Click to expand...

IMo, since the Magna Carta, the people realized that they had power. The birth of the USA confimed that exponentially. History shows that when the people are hungry and can't produce( jobs, commerce), they reject the current leadership and attach to any new prospect that promised food and jobs, regardless of the other consequences. When they were well fed and had jobs, they were happy and no change was needed.

The Great Depression was so severe, folks were dying of hunger and were desparate, all over the world. The field was ripe for harvesting.
However, Japan, China and Russia are different ( and can't be included- apples and oranges)than the rest of the world because of their systems. They really had no choices.

LoveMyHats2 said:

I wish I could list a few names, but then it would bring things into play that are strictly not allowed here on the Lounge. I can say with just a hint, if you think hard, you can imagine who I would place on that list.

Click to expand...

Don't be so hard on either of them, Dick or the Actor. They both had their good points.

Personally, I'm on the side of the structuralist school regarding history, so like Shangas I think there would still have been a war. It'd have been a different war and possibly at a different time, but the general gloominess and belief that the Western civilization was heading for its Ragnarök would still have produced extremist politics and in the end, an armed conflict, I think. Fascism would definitely still have had its day without Nazism.

I'm going to mull over a possible scenario and get back later on.

Flicka said:

Personally, I'm on the side of the structuralist school regarding history, so like Shangas I think there would still have been a war. It'd have been a different war and possibly at a different time, but the general gloominess and belief that the Western civilization was heading for its Ragnarök would still have produced extremist politics and in the end, an armed conflict, I think. Fascism would definitely still have had its day without Nazism.

I'm going to mull over a possible scenario and get back later on.

Click to expand...

I think the most interesting possible scenario from an American point of view is what happens if Giuseppe Zangara shot and killed FDR instead of Cermak in 1933.

President John Nance Garner would not have been up to the task of dealing with the collapse of the banking system, and I believe quite firmly that without FDR there would have been some sort of armed revolution in the United States by the end of the year. Whether it would be Fascist or Communist is the only question -- or some bizarre Huey Long amalgamation of the two. All the ingredients were already in place -- the Coughlinite lunatic fringe, the Howard Scott technocrats, mobs of armed and angry farmers and laborers, and of course Huey himself. My own thought is that it would have been a lurch rightward -- the peak of the Popular Front in the US didn't come until 1936-38, and there simply weren't enough Communists around in 1933 to go up against the potential force of a corporate-backed Fascist takeover. Garner himself was quite a bit further to the right than Roosevelt -- he was a ballot sop to conservative Democrats -- and was quite frustrated with his limited influence as vice president. With him as President there would have been no New Deal, and no resurgence in public confidence that kept the panic from spreading during the crucial months of March and April. And if the panic continued, well, I think the overall impact on history would have been even more substantial than that resulting from the deletion of Adolf der Tapezierer from the record.

vitanola said:

Don't be so hard on either of them, Dick or the Actor. They both had their good points.

Click to expand...

And this is why we don't do 'modern' politics. Thanks for baiting the hook, LMH2. :rolls eyes:

I fond it interesting to consider what might have happened had the position of Currency Commissioner been given to, say Josef Schumpeter or the Freiherr Von Weiser rather than Hjalmar Schacht.

The German industrial economy may not have experienced the hyperinflation of 1921-24, but would instead have slowly deflated due to collapsing demand. The Allies would have had even more difficulty squeezing their reparations out of the country. I imagine France occupying the Rhineland for an extended period, until they were paid off by the Americans, and Germany becoming something akin to China in the 1990's, a desperately poor country providing cheap manufacturing labor for American interests. The remnants of the old-time Republican supporters of the American System would have prevented the wholesale export of jobs by re-erecting the pre-war wall of tarriffs. As Germany did not produce sufficient food to feed its own population, and her industrial system would have been sorely constrained by the pro-cyclical policies of the Reichsbank, which would not change in response to changing conditions, she would be utterly dependent on foreign food aid, which would at best have provided starvation fare.

The German economy could conceivably have been crucified on the cross of Economic Theory, for both of these men were typical of their school, disdaining empiricism and mathematics in favor of an over-arching theory, which because beautiful must be true. Under such conditions German could never have developed the strength to re-arm. If France and Britain played their cards properly, the judicious use of economic incentives could conceivably assisted in the break-up of the nation into its constituent pricipalities, (a stated goal of some of the French politicians), ensuring that Germany would never again threaten the peace of Europe.

I can see war in the East, with Poland as the aggressor, taking East Prussia in its entirety, and attempting to take parts of Posen, West prussia and the remnants of Silesia which were left to Germany (or rather Prussia after the break-up). Poland may possibly have been restrained by the British and French, acting through the League of Nations but neither country would have been willing to commit to a military response. The rape of Prussia by Poland might however, have awakened interest in the League by the very American forces that opposed it, leading as it did to the disruption of business interests in what had effectively become an American manufacturing colony. The possibilities are indeed intriguing.

scottyrocks said:

And this is why we don't do 'modern' politics. Thanks for baiting the hook, LMH2. :rolls eyes:

Click to expand...

Excuse me, Scotty. I was merely attempting to gently suggest that Mrs. LMH2, who is a rather new poster here, was venturing onto dangerous territory. I fear that rather than dancing gently up to the line in my clumsiness I had crossed it myself.

LizzieMaine said:

I think the most interesting possible scenario from an American point of view is what happens if Giuseppe Zangara shot and killed FDR instead of Cermak in 1933.

President John Nance Garner would not have been up to the task of dealing with the collapse of the banking system, and I believe quite firmly that without FDR there would have been some sort of armed revolution in the United States by the end of the year. Whether it would be Fascist or Communist is the only question -- or some bizarre Huey Long amalgamation of the two. All the ingredients were already in place -- the Coughlinite lunatic fringe, the Howard Scott technocrats, mobs of armed and angry farmers and laborers, and of course Huey himself. My own thought is that it would have been a lurch rightward -- the peak of the Popular Front in the US didn't come until 1936-38, and there simply weren't enough Communists around in 1933 to go up against the potential force of a corporate-backed Fascist takeover. Garner himself was quite a bit further to the right than Roosevelt -- he was a ballot sop to conservative Democrats -- and was quite frustrated with his limited influence as vice president. With him as President there would have been no New Deal, and no resurgence in public confidence that kept the panic from spreading during the crucial months of March and April. And if the panic continued, well, I think the overall impact on history would have been even more substantial than that resulting from the deletion of Adolf der Tapezierer from the record.

Click to expand...

Fascism would have taken Western Europe as the Fascist Triumvirate would run roughshod. As America went the way of fascism as well when FDR couldn’t get the country out of The Depression without a World War to wake our industrial might. Fascists took over the government under Joseph McCarthy.


They concluded a treaty of nonintervention with Germany and obtained numerous military contracts from the Triumvirate that gradually pulled America out of the Depression without firing a shot.


England falls without any support at all. Their old enemy France rides into London flags flying along with those of the Triumvirate flags. The Duke of Windsor is appointed Under Fuhrer of England. Chamberlain is hung from a lamppost and beaten by his own people.


Portugal is absorbed into Spain as the Triumvirate countries grow along with the rest in land mass and military might.


Japan now has allies with the US and Europe. They also have arms and the troops to use them. Their leadership is somewhat wonky in structure and their generals take liberties with their orders. Again they fight on two fronts with Russia and China. This time they have the A-bomb first as German and American scientists have been working together on it. Japan uses the A-bomb first on Moscow on German supplied V2 rockets. One hour later Peking is hit with an A-bomb. Both China and Russia form an alliance against Japan. At this point the Triumvirate and America get involved due to a mutual protection Agreement.


The 2 years war ravages Russia and China. They are a smoking ruins that is uninhabitable due to nuclear fallout. There really is no one left to surrender either country and their land is now useless. Japan has fortunately allied with Korea and Taiwan. Their march across the Pacific encompasses the Philippines and most of the Pacific Islands. America keeps Hawaii as it was a possession before the war and a gift for their help.





Now do you really want to eliminate the incompetent Hitler?

vitanola said:

Excuse me, Scotty. I was merely attempting to gently suggest that Mrs. LMH2, who is a rather new poster here, was venturing onto dangerous territory. I fear that rather than dancing gently up to the line in my clumsiness I had crossed it myself.

Click to expand...

No worries there. I always have a open ability to me so "mum" at times and shall never allow a guess to provoke anything new to develop over the pondering wonderment of thoughts about that entire topic.


If you tossed a few darts to come up with what you have so far, please practice more often BUT do not let us here know the score, please! LOL!

As the Lone Ranger would say, "You go into town, Tonto, and come back to report what you find out about the Bart brothers". We all know that Tonto always came back to see the Lone Ranger to report, without saying one single word, with at least a black eye and all tuffled up looking! lol!

jamespowers said:

Fascism would have taken Western Europe as the Fascist Triumvirate would run roughshod. As America went the way of fascism as well when FDR couldn’t get the country out of The Depression without a World War to wake our industrial might. Fascists took over the government under Joseph McCarthy.


They concluded a treaty of nonintervention with Germany and obtained numerous military contracts from the Triumvirate that gradually pulled America out of the Depression without firing a shot.


England falls without any support at all. Their old enemy France rides into London flags flying along with those of the Triumvirate flags. The Duke of Windsor is appointed Under Fuhrer of England. Chamberlain is hung from a lamppost and beaten by his own people.


Portugal is absorbed into Spain as the Triumvirate countries grow along with the rest in land mass and military might.


Japan now has allies with the US and Europe. They also have arms and the troops to use them. Their leadership is somewhat wonky in structure and their generals take liberties with their orders. Again they fight on two fronts with Russia and China. This time they have the A-bomb first as German and American scientists have been working together on it. Japan uses the A-bomb first on Moscow on German supplied V2 rockets. One hour later Peking is hit with an A-bomb. Both China and Russia form an alliance against Japan. At this point the Triumvirate and America get involved due to a mutual protection Agreement.


The 2 years war ravages Russia and China. They are a smoking ruins that is uninhabitable due to nuclear fallout. There really is no one left to surrender either country and their land is now useless. Japan has fortunately allied with Korea and Taiwan. Their march across the Pacific encompasses the Philippines and most of the Pacific Islands. America keeps Hawaii as it was a possession before the war and a gift for their help.





Now do you really want to eliminate the incompetent Hitler?

Click to expand...

Humans have waged some type of war one way or another since we found a way to make a rock roll down hill.

The only model that Hitler presents to us in what we could call a more modern time, was a renewed "action of hate and evil" against more than one class or ethnic background of people. There have been other ruthless killers fighting wars before Hitler's day. But for me at least, it seems no one in History was such a master of evil as he was.

cchgn said:

well, I still maintain that rthe world Depression allowed thso e"charismatic" folks to take hold. The high unemploymebnt and lack of food helped convince the germans that the jews were to blame. If the Depression were not there, jobs, food, money, etc would be plenty and the Jews wouldn't be an issue, nor would Hitler. Same in Russia, same with Japan.

Click to expand...

You are close in so many ways as to what we here in my home look and view upon on how in the world that Hitler made his case to the population of Germany. First thing he really knew he would have to do is, to make a common cause to unite the population. So by making the wealthy business owners (of the Jewish ethnic) the "enemy of the State", he gained ground in popularity. Next up, he needed to give a reason for taking over all the businesses and telling everyone he would "turn them over to the State" so that everyone....everyone would share the wealth. Next he promised all the people that he would have social programs that would take care of all their needs, including medical care, food, etc. Now Hitler did a great deal of other things that are horrible to say the least, but by openly making all these promises and offering the programs to the general masses of the population of Germany, everyone then felt it might not be such a bad thing to allow him to run the show. We all know what he did with everything. He spent it all on war. There is some deep thinking individuals that conclude, when the once powerful German Mark fell, and that no one wanted any more currency from Germany, it would have ended the war regardless of had Hitler stuck around. The End was already there.