Aug 1939 status quo Reich

[tom]

Suppose Hitler were sane enough (maybe this should be ASB) to be satisfied with what he had in Aug 1939, while still trying to make the Reich "Judenrein" by any means he could and using his military as a defensive club. Or maybe he was assasinated that month...would his successor be sane enough to follow this policy? Could the Reich survive until now?

[B_Munro]

Suppose Hitler were sane enough (maybe this should be ASB) to be satisfied with what he had in Aug 1939, while still trying to make the Reich "Judenrein" by any means he could and using his military as a defensive club. Or maybe he was assasinated that month...would his successor be sane enough to follow this policy? Could the Reich survive until now?

No invasion of Poland? Well, quite likely Germany might avoid a war...but that "defensive club" is going to have to be pared down fairly soon. Germany was spending beyong it's means with the military buildup, and in 1940 would face either economic crisis or serious budgetary cutbacks. Either the government loses quite a bit of it's popularity with the military, or with the general public, or perhaps both if the economy is mishandled badly enough. Hitler might manage to hold onto power until his death, but I expect the Nazi regime proper would not long survive him. OTOH, we might still have the Nazis as the main right-wing party in germany today, albiet with that antisemitism thing carefully forgotten.

Of course, much depends on 1.) who gets the atom bomb first, and 2.) the level of daring among Stalin's successors: under various circumstances, we might see either the Wehrmacht occupying the radioactive rubble of Paris, or the Red Flag over the Reichstag...

best,
Bruce

[Properganda]

I agree with B_Munro.

However, the other alternative that springs to mind is that Nazi Germany (possibly via Italy) would launch a colonial conquest of some of Africa or Arabia. Though not much was unclaimed by other European powers.

[Ivan Druzhkov]

I agree with B_Munro.

However, the other alternative that springs to mind is that Nazi Germany (possibly via Italy) would launch a colonial conquest of some of Africa or Arabia. Though not much was unclaimed by other European powers.
Or even Latin America. The Germans and the Americans were scuffling over the Caribbean for quite a while before WWI, and there were some close contacts between the Nazis and any number of Latin American leaders. Of course, the Nazis would have to deal with the United States, which is bound to get quite hissy at another cat moving into it's litterbox.

[Redbeard]

I agree with B_Munro.

However, the other alternative that springs to mind is that Nazi Germany (possibly via Italy) would launch a colonial conquest of some of Africa or Arabia. Though not much was unclaimed by other European powers.

I believe Italy took the last bite when she fell over Ethiopia in 1935, and she only avoided war with the British because the British found themselves very unprepared for war. After 1935 a colonial conquest will set off the British much before in OTL. The French already were anxious, but in this TL the British won't say: "let's see if we can talk to this guy".

Besides, even if Germany would get away with snatching some bites, they are unlikely to pay off in time (if ever) to avoid the comming economical collapse of the Third Reich.

Actually the German policy of the OTL 1930's of not provocing British interests appear quite clever and worked splendidly until the Battle of Britain.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

[Grimm Reaper]

It is probable that some border adjustments would be in Germany's favor, particularly at Poland's expense, especially if 'satisfied' Germany allows the remnant Czechoslovakia to survive. Beyond that, economic restructuring and an alliance dominating central Europe and the Balkans might leave Germany in a very happy mood.

Additionally a point might be made that time was not on Germany's side, a major impetus in Hitler's eagerness for war. Given another year or two, we would have seen much of the damage done by Stalin's purges repaired while the French deployed a full eight panzer divisions and the British Army and RAF also became much more formidable.

[Wendell]

It is probable that some border adjustments would be in Germany's favor, particularly at Poland's expense, especially if 'satisfied' Germany allows the remnant Czechoslovakia to survive. Beyond that, economic restructuring and an alliance dominating central Europe and the Balkans might leave Germany in a very happy mood.

Additionally a point might be made that time was not on Germany's side, a major impetus in Hitler's eagerness for war. Given another year or two, we would have seen much of the damage done by Stalin's purges repaired while the French deployed a full eight panzer divisions and the British Army and RAF also became much more formidable.
Where might this leave Denmark?

[Nicole]

Where might this leave Denmark?
Did the Reich really care about Denmark? Hitler didn't seem to care that the Danes got North Schleswig, and I believe the main reason he invaded Denmark was to invade Norway.

[MarkA]

I believe Italy took the last bite when she fell over Ethiopia in 1935, and she only avoided war with the British because the British found themselves very unprepared for war. After 1935 a colonial conquest will set off the British much before in OTL. The French already were anxious, but in this TL the British won't say: "let's see if we can talk to this guy".

Besides, even if Germany would get away with snatching some bites, they are unlikely to pay off in time (if ever) to avoid the comming economical collapse of the Third Reich.

Actually the German policy of the OTL 1930's of not provocing British interests appear quite clever and worked splendidly until the Battle of Britain.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

Britain did not want Abyssinia in the League in the first place. It really had no serious objections to Italy taking it over. Public opinion was against it but not government attitudes. Indeed, the UK offered Italy a deal whereby a readjustment of French and British holdings in the area could occur to allow a more contiguous Italian zone.

[Valamyr]

Germany was overspending to a point but merely scaling back the arms buildup somewhat would suffice to keep her afloat many, many years. Hitler purposely painted a worse economic picture than it truly was to rouse his generals for war, and it seems his picture stuck as fact for many. Germany's economy was pretty solid, and her industry superb. The Nazis were not particularly corrupt for a totalitarian regime, at least in 39.

The real problem was really that Germany had a large trade deficit (like the US today), unwillingness to export what it could, a desire to expand armed forces at a rate that she could not sustain, and that many interesting markets were partially closed to her for ideological reasons. None of these problems couldnt be solved by a more peaceful approach past-Munich.

If Hitler avoids destroying the rest of Czechoslovaquia after Munich, he will retain more goodwill in the west. Economically and militarily, post-Munich Czechoslovaquia could have easily been turned into a client state; in the winter of 38/39 the Czech factories were already selling tanks to the Werhmacht. Invading the place was unwise, economically, politically and even racially.

So if we remove that blunder, along with say, Kristalnacht for good measure; Germany will not become a pariah state, and could remain Nazi for decades to come. Fachism and racism would never be discredited and could become the major ideological progressions of the 20th century (Given that they manage to contain communism, which is likely.)

In the shorter-term, Germany could probably extract some final concessions in the East (Restoration of its polish provinces somewhere between 40 and 45) and some token colonial compensations to put the last nail in the coffin of Versailles.

Without a hostile Germany, WW2 as we know it would never happen, and Europe would remain the center of the world much longer. I suspect more localized conflicts would occur instead, in the pacific and in Eastern Europe.

[Wendell]

Did the Reich really care about Denmark? Hitler didn't seem to care that the Danes got North Schleswig, and I believe the main reason he invaded Denmark was to invade Norway.
If he doesn't invade Poland, there could be advantages to pressuring Denmark to cooperate with him.

[bill_bruno]

Germany considered the KMT an important anti-Communist ally. Might a non-warlike foreign policy involve closer cooperation with Chiang against the Chinese? With no WWII, there is no Germany-Japanese alliance and Germany might go full throttle in terms of equipping Chiang. Presumably, he is looking at a diplomatic offensive towards the South American republics as well, perhaps via Spain.

[MarkA]

Here we go again! The essence of Nazism - its raisons d'etre - was racist exclusiveness, anti-Bolshevism and living space in the east for the Master Race.

Hitler simply could not be anything but an agressive, racist war-monger. Anything else is not Nazism. It was not a rational ideology nor was it ameniable to persuasion or compromise.

[wkwillis]

Hess was deputy fuhrer. If he chose good advisors like Todt, Germany might have stopped at the Sudetenland. He might still have had to fight Stalin, though. Maybe a joint defence treaty with all of Nonsoviet Europe?