Without the Nazis, Might WWII Still Have Happened?
- Thread starter Amadeus
- Start date
Well the Pacific theater would have, since the Black Dragon regime was pissing off America and generally acting like brutal assholes in China and Korea. The original draft of WWII for America was War Plan Orange, with “Orange” referring to Japan.
And if the rest of Europe gets really pissed off at Stalin, it’s a possibility that it happens anyway albeit with a likely different outcome given that the Soviets were not going down anywhere close to easily.
And if the rest of Europe gets really pissed off at Stalin, it’s a possibility that it happens anyway albeit with a likely different outcome given that the Soviets were not going down anywhere close to easily.
My two cents is that it depends on what kind of regime/leader takes power instead of Hitler. The consensus seems to be that without Hitler, a right wing military dictatorship would've taken power in 1933. The policy of Eastward expansion, plus reversing Germany's 1919 losses weren't exclusive to Hitler and the Nazis. Lebensraum had been a geopolitical goal of German militarists since the early 20th century. So it's possible that World War II happens provided that the non-Nazi regime sets its sights on Poland, and/or any other territories that would push Europe to war.
However, this regime wouldn't have the same racist motivations shared by the Nazis high command and the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. If war does break out, millions more Eastern European Slavs would live. It's also worth noting that these non-Nazi militarists would still rearm Germany and attempt to regain Germany's pre-1918 strength. Thus people like Churchill would still be calling for rearmament in Britain. The geopolitical situation in the late 1930s would still be tense to a certain degree, although events may unfold differently than under Hitler.
However, this regime wouldn't have the same racist motivations shared by the Nazis high command and the Holocaust wouldn't have happened. If war does break out, millions more Eastern European Slavs would live. It's also worth noting that these non-Nazi militarists would still rearm Germany and attempt to regain Germany's pre-1918 strength. Thus people like Churchill would still be calling for rearmament in Britain. The geopolitical situation in the late 1930s would still be tense to a certain degree, although events may unfold differently than under Hitler.
Last edited:
This is a bit of a generalization. A German-dominated Grossraum was sought by the Kaiserreich in WWI, especially as it became clear that Germany would be competing with the US. However, their idea of this Grossraum was like a more one-sided European Union - a collection of states in an economic union, but under heavy German domination. The idea that Germany should directly annex European Russia (and beyond) and brutally starve or slaughter its inhabitants (which is what comes to mind when Lebensraum is mentioned) was held by very few.
RousseauX
Donor
Yes but it would have being more of a medium-scale border war between France/UK/Poland and Germany, not some attempt to conquer all of Russia
And it probably would never have been attempted without the Nazis. So it's possible that a hypothetical World War II started by non-Nazi militarists wouldn't have even involved Russia. Meaning that Western armies would be forced to take on a much greater share of casualties in order to defeat Germany. Yet Stalin's Russia wouldn't have become the superpower that it was by 1945.
Honestly . You could still get a war . Maybe against the ussr . Or Japan gone wild .
Germany doesn't have to be the bad guy.
The only other power on the continent with any might is the Soviet Union, but Stalin isn't stupid. He would have to go for the Atlantic or bust.
Italy.. Who are they going to fight really?
A Germany that makes it past hindenburg is likely to remain a stable nation.
Poland after 1930 isn't attacking the soviets
Poland may snuggle up with the Germans, so the. The soviets are not going to eye Poland.
So honestly.. No... No Nazis.. No wwii
You could have had no German empire and WW1.. But ww 2 required the Nazis
Germany doesn't have to be the bad guy.
The only other power on the continent with any might is the Soviet Union, but Stalin isn't stupid. He would have to go for the Atlantic or bust.
Italy.. Who are they going to fight really?
A Germany that makes it past hindenburg is likely to remain a stable nation.
Poland after 1930 isn't attacking the soviets
Poland may snuggle up with the Germans, so the. The soviets are not going to eye Poland.
So honestly.. No... No Nazis.. No wwii
You could have had no German empire and WW1.. But ww 2 required the Nazis
That's what I was thinking. Germany's goal would be to reverse the losses of Versailles: Alsace-Loraine, Sudetenland, parts of Belgium and maybe the Polish Corridor. Since the establishment of Poland was a reversal of the 18th century partitioning, they would probably honor divisions along linguistic lines in the Slavic regions. As for the UK, getting colonies back might be an issue, but the conflict would be very different from OTL WW2.
I cant see anything but regional wars for the next several decades. The China Incident may not even escalate with the Europeans undistracted by a resurgent Germany. The Soviet threat is misunderstood and overrated. I've been looking at Soviet military growth in the 1930s. Much of it was in belated response to German resurgence & the organization & size of the Soviet Army of 1939 was way short of a instrument of aggressive expansionist policy. In the 1940s the Depression is behind Europe, and for the next couple decades economic growth globally would discourage all but the crazies from war. Absent some other wild card like Hitler, or a perfect storm of foreign policy incompetence as occurred in 1914 there not much chance of anything beyond relatively small regional wars.
Of course, without Hitler’s willingness to gamble as big on absurd risks, the Germans are not likely to take the sort of gambits he did. That means they likely achieve less in any major war they do get into, if they get into a major war (which itself is a major risk their not likely to go with). On the other hand, they might not drive Germany’s rep into the ground as Hitler did so if/when things go south their in a better position to try for a compromise peace that might let them keep at least some gains.
Last edited:
No Nazis and Germany probably still goes revanchist and wants land/power back. However without the extreme policies of the Nazi's ( grabbing the wealth of Jews, Slav's and other enemies, forced labor etc ) , its unlikely to have the military might of OTL. It also is, by almost certainly being Junker/Prussian in nature, going to alarm the rest of Europe quicker than the Nazi's did. So by ATL Munich at the latest, France/Britain do not back down and are militarily stronger compared to Germany. This might lead to a German climb down and a more radical, inward looking Germany fuming even more at supposed slights, likely to lash out unpredictably ( think North Korea ). Not a stable situation but probably not a general war.
Other butterflies are an Italy aligned against Germany ( non shared ideology means Italy will keep seeing Austria as in its sphere of influence ) , the situation in the Balkans being different ( fascist movements looking to Italy not Germany ) and Spain could be partitioned or an ongoing mess. Stalin would still be looking more at internal enemies ( and be less likely to come to an arrangement with Germany since its leadership would be seen as more class based than OTL ).
Other butterflies are an Italy aligned against Germany ( non shared ideology means Italy will keep seeing Austria as in its sphere of influence ) , the situation in the Balkans being different ( fascist movements looking to Italy not Germany ) and Spain could be partitioned or an ongoing mess. Stalin would still be looking more at internal enemies ( and be less likely to come to an arrangement with Germany since its leadership would be seen as more class based than OTL ).
Empra
Banned
By 1942/43 you have a sick crazy murderous megalomanical psychopath in control of over 200 million+ people with 30 000+ tanks, 40 000+ aircraft and an army of 10 million men. This man is also a Communist who believes in the world revolution (socialism in one country was a temporary flash of realpolitics). On the other side you have a Japan exhausted by half a decade of war in China, a far less militarised Germany/UK than OTL and Communist party´s and cells spread from Central China to Germany and Spain - all under your control. Some version of WW2 happening under these circumstances is a near certainty
If this non-Nazi but still militarist and revanchist Germany is that hell bent on retaking the Polish Corridor, then WWII still happens. Albiet differently.
Oh no. No one saw any great conflict between Hitlerian militarism and traditional "Prussianism". Certainly Hitler was not viewed as more restrained than the Kaiser had been. And in terms of military efficiency - the Nazi regime seemed to be working just fine with the Prussian-descended German military establishment.
Henry Ashby Turner has argued that with a non-Nazi conservative/authoritarian/military government Germany might get involved in a war with Poland but not in a world war. I once summarized his arguments (from Hitler's Thirty Days to Power) as follows:
***
...(2) There very likely would have been another war, but only with Poland. The generals had no great desire for Alsace-Lorraine--the Alsatians and Lorrainers had from their viewpoint made very poor Germans from 1871 to 1918. Nor were the generals much interested in Austria and the Sudetenland. Finally, they did not dream of Lebensraum in the East and did not harbor hostility to the USSR. In fact, they had been working with the Soviet military for years to circumvent the disarmament clauses of the Versailles Treaty.
(3) With respect to Poland, things were different. The generals, like most other Germans, did want the Corridor back, and the Poles were unlikely to yield on this. So a German-Polish war was likely. But it is doubtful that this would have been a *world* war. A great deal of prior provocation on Hitler's part was necessary to have Britain and France issue guarantees to Poland. By holding on to limited demands (which it could justify on grounds of self-determination, especially for Danzig and much of the Corridor), Germany could probably avoid British or French intervention. Soviet intervention would be avoided, as in OTL, by giving the USSR eastern Poland (or if you prefer, western Ukraine and western Belorussia). But in order to avoid western intervention, the Germans would allow a Polish state to remain (shorn of some territories, such as the Corridor). Essentially, everyone would be satisfied with the results except the Poles--and even they of course would fare much better than in OTL.
(4) As mentioned, he doesn't think a triumphant Germany would turn on the Soviet Union. He doesn't devote much attention to the other possibility--the USSR invading Germany--but this seems unlikely. This would involve military conflict not only with Germany but potentially with Britain and France as well (which in this TL enjoy reasonably good relations with Germany).
(5) Without a war in Europe, Turner also doesn't think there would be a Pacific War. China was not sufficient to cause such a war. It was only after Hitler had defeated the Dutch and French, greatly weakened the British, and forced the USSR to concentrate its troops in Europe that Japan became sufficiently emboldened to strike against the Western powers, including the United States...
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...s-over-in-193ps-germany.413448/#post-14516643
I would agree with you till your point about Italy. The german-italy alliance OTL was not based on ideology but on foreign policy. Italy was condemned for its ethiopoan war by France and Brittain and received support from Germany. Thats what made them allies. I dont think this would go any differently in ATL. Italy would still be condemned by the western powers and its common sense for Germany to reach an agreement with Mussolini at this pont.
So I would say the Anschluss still happens. München might be much less favourable to the germans than the OTL treaty but I still think that they would receive at least part of the Sudetenland. Remember that the reasons of the appeasment policy are still there on the western side. The thing is that with a more resonable german leadership it will achieve less for the germans however it might work in avoiding a war. I dont think anyone beside Hitler would be so consistent in breaking any diplomatic promise he made and that would make working with the german regime possible.
Last edited:
Frankly i think that, with a early to mid 30s PoD preventing the rise of Nazis, the most likely start of a great war would be east asia, Stalin is just too careful to invade Europe - at least in the 40s i guess, it may happen in the 50s -
The chinese civil war will still happen, japan will still invade china, and without germany Stalin may very well want to insist after this timeline's equivalent of khalkhin gol, you could see a decently large land war in asia - that ends with a soviet victory naturally.
I still have problem seeing how this could translate into a world war though.
The chinese civil war will still happen, japan will still invade china, and without germany Stalin may very well want to insist after this timeline's equivalent of khalkhin gol, you could see a decently large land war in asia - that ends with a soviet victory naturally.
I still have problem seeing how this could translate into a world war though.