WWII without Hitler

Deleted member 1487

Not really, Hitler was the driving force behind the war going by the biography of him by Ian Kershaw. Certainly he had a lot of support within the Nazi Party and German military, but the officer class in general seemed to think they would lose another war. Plus Stalin didn't trust the German generals or traditional conservatives in Germany so a deal with him would be off the table, which means likely a two front war, which was the bane of the existence of the general staff.

However you might potentially see a war if a military Junta took over due to something like a civil war or major uprising, say if Hitler was assassinated in 1932 during the elections and von Schleicher somehow seized power; the Poles were apparently adamant that they'd invade remove any military regime that came to power in Germany because of the certainty that the Prussian officer corps would be dead set on border revisions and breaking up Poland.
 

Garrison

Donor
A war is certainly possible but something on the scale of WWII is unlikely. No one else is going to be the inveterate gambler Hitler was, or as driven by his vision of Lebensraum and anti-Semitism.
 
Personally, I believe that Germany's trajectory towards becoming a military dictatorship was very likely, even before the Great Depression (the fragility of Weimar's economy was bound to cause the country to be hit hard by an economic downturn, that would in turn cause Germany's underlying social issues to burst forth). Not inevitable, but very likely.

And I think that a German military dictatorship would have sought the redrawing of borders in Europe. This would lead to a great deal of tension with the Soviet Union, and given the latter's industrialization, the German military probably would have faced a similar race against time that the Nazis did. They probably would have stumbled into it since they would have been much less eager than the Nazis, and it probably would have been shorter and less bloody without the sort of insanity leading them into oblivion. But I think that a form of World War II was very likely to happen ever since the end of World War I.

Although who knows? If Germany waited to go to war until nuclear weaponry came onto the scene, World War II might have become more devastating than IOTL.
 
Last edited:
A WWII without Hitler is more likely to be a WWII against the Soviets. I remember hearing Trotsky was way more radical and fanatical than Stalin in spreading communism. So if the POD is Trotsky succeeding Lenin, then Trotsky would support German Communists, which were a very strong group even in OTL when Stalin abandoned them. Let's say this makes Germany shift to communism, then likely a coup happens or Hidenburg cracks down on them, whatever the case this prevents Hitler from becoming chancellor.

With Hitler gone, the only enemy for Europe is now Trotsky, if he continues supporting communism in other countries and makes some bold moves, then it is possible we can see WWII play out as some sort of European alliance against the Red Scare.
 
Depends on when Hitler is out of the picture. I think if Germany rearms and militarizes as OTL they're going to have to do something to avoid economic catastrophe such as invading Poland splitting the spoils with Stalin. In which case there is still a general European war.

If he's removed before the Nazis take power and turn Germany into a one-party dictatorship then a lot of different things can happen to avoid a second world war.
 
Even without that Nazis take power WW2 is possible but not very plausible and it would be very different. I think that it could happen with next ways:

1. Lenin is succeeded by someone who wants spread Communism and begins WW2 sometimes in 1930's. Altough this is ratherly USSR vs. rest of Europe so hardly would be called as WW2.
2. Germany is recovering in 1930's and France is still extremely revanchist and goes war against Germany. Altough not sure if this escalates very much and hardly even this war is called as WW2.

There might be other ways too but you need much of preparatons for this.
 
Even without that Nazis take power WW2 is possible but not very plausible and it would be very different. I think that it could happen with next ways:

1. Lenin is succeeded by someone who wants spread Communism and begins WW2 sometimes in 1930's. Altough this is ratherly USSR vs. rest of Europe so hardly would be called as WW2.
2. Germany is recovering in 1930's and France is still extremely revanchist and goes war against Germany. Altough not sure if this escalates very much and hardly even this war is called as WW2.

There might be other ways too but you need much of preparatons for this.

Unless the rest of Europe can't handle the USSR and the US intervenes. Bear in mind an expansionist Soviet leader (specially Trotsky) would not make the purges that destroyed the officer corps, so this means that the Red Army would be even more powerful than it was OTL.
 
War was being planned since the early 1920s. The Polish Soviet war spooked enough of the Reichswehr leadership -so as to initiate rearmament in 1928.

The defence minister Groner bullied military into accepting that -as things stood - If Poland chose to attack, the Reichswehr would have to lay down its arms after just a week of fighting and surrender. To halt such an attack, a mobilized force of 21 divisions was established plus munitions for several weeks of fighting. However this was just to counter Poland .....fighting France would require a lot more. More important Groner warned that any military action Germany undertook, would likely trigger a "wider European war" and Germany needed to have a "reasonable chance" of wining such a war before it began.

Beck , Groner & Hjalmar Schacht established a three 5 year phased plan to build up the German economy for total war involving a "WW-I" sized army with 75-85 mobilised divisions and 44 brigades. The primary aim was defence against a combined Franco-Polish invasion, however the emergence of NAZI emboldened the military . The plans expanded to defence against a simultaneous Franco-Polish attack , with enough reserve forces to drive these invaders out. It didn't take long before pre-emptive attack on one or both of these enemies -was included in the planning , finally topping of with plans for "preventative war" against one or more enemies. That capability was in planning stages when Hitler took power but Schacht was warning the leadership the expansion of the economic base through out the Baltic/Balkans was taken longer than planned -well into the 1940s. Offensive may have to wait until the mid 1940s or later.

War was coming to Europe -one way or another.
 
Last edited:

Cook

Banned
I remember hearing Trotsky was way more radical and fanatical than Stalin in spreading communism.

Trotsky wasn't more fanatical than Stalin concerning the spread of Communism internationally, after Lenin's death the accepted party doctrine was "Socialism in One State", and Trotsky always adhered rigidly to the party line until his exile. Besides which, despite it being a recurring theme of Alt-history, Trotsky simply did not have any chance of becoming the leader of the Soviet Union; although his speeches made him popular with the rank and file, he was hated by senior party members because of his arrogance - he always considered himself to be the smartest person in the room and left everyone else there in no doubt as to his opinion. In addition to that he simply wasn't a sociable person; he didn't join in the late night parties amongst the core Bolsheviks, which were almost compulsory and where Stalin, with his beautiful singing voice, shone. Trotsky also never did anyone favours. And if all that wasn't enough, he was also Jewish, which really was still a significant thing in the Soviet Union in the 1920s - 1930s.

So if the POD is Trotsky succeeding Lenin, then Trotsky would support German Communists, which were a very strong group even in OTL when Stalin abandoned them.

Sans the rise of Hitler the German Communist Party would not have been outlawed. They also would never have gained power in Germany without the support of the Socialists either.
 

Anchises

Banned
Unless the rest of Europe can't handle the USSR and the US intervenes. Bear in mind an expansionist Soviet leader (specially Trotsky) would not make the purges that destroyed the officer corps, so this means that the Red Army would be even more powerful than it was OTL.

If the Soviet Union is expansive and really dumb enough to attack Germany through Poland, it is going to lose badly.

With open lines of trade connecting Germany with the global markets, a Reichswehr dictatorship in control and possible western help, any attacking Red Army is toast. Even without the purges.
 
I disagree with those who say that a German initiated WW2 was inevitable.

To my that smacks too much of "it happened in OTL" so how do we still make it happen within the criteria set.

In OTL WW2 was not inevitable and could have been prevented.

Action in anyone of the major nations could have made this happen.
 
I would advise reading H. G. Well's The shape of things to come. In this book (written before Hitler came to power) he postulates a new world war, starting with a german invasion of Poland in January 1940. The causes lay in a combination of a worldwide economic depression with the seething sentiments in Germany caused by the treaty of versailles.
 
he didn't join in the late night parties amongst the core Bolsheviks, which were almost compulsory and where Stalin, with his beautiful singing voice, shone

That is an aspect of Bolshevik politics I had never heard about, that’s fascinating!
 
An interesting TL I though of, but will never actually do, would be called "The Apple Falls Close to the Tree". Have one of Bismark's grandchildren takes the reins post-WWI and takes Germany to a WWII scenario minus Nazis. Uber Nationalism with perhaps historically relevant racial undertones but not explicit like OTL and certainly not the driving ideology. Not sure any of his grandchildren were up to the task but on my very limited reading, they werent totally lightweights either. You could also call it "The Good German". Part of the reason why I'll never do it though is I feel like it would almost legitimize German nationalistic ambitions and conveniently ignores some inconvenient truths about Germany and Europe. It feels like the "Hitler had some good ideas but went about it the wrong way" sentiment, which I dont like. But if you can find your way around that, Bismark minus the Nazi's...
 
Part of the reason why I'll never do it though is I feel like it would almost legitimize German nationalistic ambitions and conveniently ignores some inconvenient truths about Germany and Europe. It feels like the "Hitler had some good ideas but went about it the wrong way" sentiment, which I dont like. But if you can find your way around that, Bismark minus the Nazi's...

Would there be a way of doing this that would still show how it’s wrong? Like journalists revealing cultural genocide/outright suppression of the Poles in Germany, other issues like that?
 
Would there be a way of doing this that would still show how it’s wrong? Like journalists revealing cultural genocide/outright suppression of the Poles in Germany, other issues like that?

I would think so. It's interesting but not so much that I want to do it. But run with it if you want.
 
Hypothetically round 2 might have occurred with the Franco/Belgian occupation of the Ruhr 1923-24. The civil actions & riots were not abating. Some demagogue could have incited a general civil revolt in the Ruhr. If this snowballs before the French can organize a face saving withdraw it could turn into a war. Kline-Albrandt estimated from interviews with Reichwehr era officers that around 300,000 armed and trained reserves of the 'black Reicheswehr ' could have been mobilized, to supplement the nominal 100,000 of the legal army. That he estimated was actually 120,000 to 150,000. So about seven well armed infantry divisions and another group of lighter armed divisions, with a hefty pool of well trained infantry replacements. On paper the Franco Belgian armies towered over this, but every corps mobilized was another blow to the economy and the French or Belgian treasuries.

At the international level this revived war or German revolt would rather embarrass the former Entente members of Britain, Italy, and the US who had given little support to the French for enforcing the Versailles Treaty.
 

Anchises

Banned
Hypothetically round 2 might have occurred with the Franco/Belgian occupation of the Ruhr 1923-24. The civil actions & riots were not abating. Some demagogue could have incited a general civil revolt in the Ruhr. If this snowballs before the French can organize a face saving withdraw it could turn into a war. Kline-Albrandt estimated from interviews with Reichwehr era officers that around 300,000 armed and trained reserves of the 'black Reicheswehr ' could have been mobilized, to supplement the nominal 100,000 of the legal army. That he estimated was actually 120,000 to 150,000. So about seven well armed infantry divisions and another group of lighter armed divisions, with a hefty pool of well trained infantry replacements. On paper the Franco Belgian armies towered over this, but every corps mobilized was another blow to the economy and the French or Belgian treasuries.

At the international level this revived war or German revolt would rather embarrass the former Entente members of Britain, Italy, and the US who had given little support to the French for enforcing the Versailles Treaty.

This would be a giant clusterfuck. A TL to really fuck up Europe prior to WW1.

Lets just say that a few radical nationalists (maybe Schlageter) kill some French soldiers and bureaucrats in a guerillaesque fashion.

The French army, like most armies at the time, would have been completely overwhelmed. This would have likely caused heavy handed actions hurting and killing civilians. IOTL 137 civilians died, lets just say ITTL this number is higher. 700-800 Germans are summarily executed only stiffening the resistance.

Reichswehr and paramiltitary formations start operating and the death toll on both sides rises. Sure, the Germans don't have the munition supplies for a serious campaign but they have the necessary reserves and manpower to turn this whole affair into something equivalent to a war.

Neither Great Britain nor the USA would help the French, especially not if the civilian casualties are steadily rising.

What are France and Belgium supposed to do? Send their armies deeper and deeper into a hostile Germany?
 
Top