A slightly more patient, slightly less reckless Hitler

[robertp6165]

Let's say that on a certain night in late July, 1888, Alois Hitler stumbles on a loose rug in his living room while on his way to bed. He nearly falls, but catches himself, and arrives in his bedroom three seconds later than he did in OTL. As in OTL, he makes love with his wife, Klara, and a son is conceived. The sperm which unites with Klara's waiting egg is nearly identical to the one which did so in OTL. The boy which results on April 20, 1889 is named Adolf, and this ATL Adolf is nearly identical to the OTL version. Same appearance, same interests, dislikes, and general psychological makeup. In all respects, it is the identical person, with one exception...he is a bit more patient and a bit less reckless than the OTL Hitler.

History unfolds identically up until October 1938. After German troops march into the Sudetenland, this more patient and less reckless version of Hitler decides to scrupulously abide by the terms of the Munich Agreement until 1946 in order to give his military buildup time to be completed. He does not occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, and does not make threatening gestures toward Poland later that year. He does not invade Poland in September 1939. This brings to mind some interesting questions.

Even if Hitler does nothing to provoke the Western powers after October 1938, can war be avoided until the German buildup is completed in 1945-46, as planned? Will Stalin attack Germany?

If Germany does have time to complete it's buildup, what might it's military forces look like? Would the completion of Plan Z give Germany the ability to carry off a version of Operation Sealion, for example? How advanced would it's tanks and aircraft be by 1946?

Does Japan attack the U.S. in the Pacific? If so, does it happen in 1941? Or later?

Any others y'all can think of?

 

[Susano]

This alld epends on which economcial theory about the Third Reich youre gonna believe. Accoding to the most prelevant one, Hitler so indebted Germany with his arment program that war was needed so that the debts could be repaid with war loot. If this is right, then Hitler simply couldnt have waited until 1946.

Still, it was of course a bad move to first make an agreement with Czechoslovakia, and then immidatly break it and occupy the country. Hitler focusing on Polanbd without annexing Czechia would maybe already be sufficient...

 

[Wozza]

. Accoding to the most prelevant one,

That theory is not the most prevalent, most historians have rejected the notion of 'crisis' in the pre-war German economy.
Hitler's purse is not going to match his ambitions though. That is the problem.

 

[Neroon]

@Susano & Wozza:
I think the real question is, what happens 1st:
1. Hitler running out of money for his ambitions.
2. Stalin attacking one of his neighbours before Hitler does. Which in turn with Hitler being percieved as trustworthy would open up all sorts of possibilities. Something akin to the "Shattered World" scenario might develope here.

 

[merlin]

Either way, he would still have gone at the very least 'irrational' in the mid-forties due to the effects of the syphlis he had.
Naturally, not many people in the Nazi party new about this, in part his condition was aggravated rather than helped by the medication he was getting from his doctor - but Himmler for one - did know.
So doubt he would have made 1946, if still alive, probably driven insane by then!!

 

[bill_bruno]

Changes occurred before then

If he has more patience and less reckelessness, then you can't start the changes in his actions in 1938. Perhaps he doesn't botch his schooling as a rebellion against his father. Perhaps he can buckle down and do the prepatory work needed in order to get into architecture school. Does it affect his war record?

Assuming none of these are the case, it certainly suggests that he doesn't attempt the Beer Hall Putsch. So, he doesn't become a national figure because of his trial; leftists don't notice the discrepancy between his light sentence and the executionof Spartacists in Berlin in 1919, etc.

 

[Dan1988]

If he has more patience and less reckelessness, then you can't start the changes in his actions in 1938. Perhaps he doesn't botch his schooling as a rebellion against his father. Perhaps he can buckle down and do the prepatory work needed in order to get into architecture school. Does it affect his war record?

Or even go into university? How does Dr Hitler sound to people, instead of the person that he became?

If Hitler ever improved his artistic ability he could potentially be one of the great artists of the 20th century. I think he would've been better off as an artist. I don't know how this would impair his war record, but if he is found to have collaborated with the Austrian government he could potentially be blacklisted.

 

[robertp6165]

If he has more patience and less reckelessness, then you can't start the changes in his actions in 1938.

Sure I can. It's my thread, and that's the POD I chose. The real point of this discussion is supposed to be what if Hitler had waited until 1946 and completed his buildup, and what if he had acted in a somewhat trustworthy manner from the time of the Munich accords until then. This is something that I don't see the OTL Hitler doing by any stretch of the imagination, therefore I posit a slightly different, but nearly identical Hitler instead. The "slightly less reckless and slightly more patient" part is simply a means to that end.

Perhaps he doesn't botch his schooling as a rebellion against his father. Perhaps he can buckle down and do the prepatory work needed in order to get into architecture school. Does it affect his war record?

Assuming none of these are the case, it certainly suggests that he doesn't attempt the Beer Hall Putsch. So, he doesn't become a national figure because of his trial; leftists don't notice the discrepancy between his light sentence and the executionof Spartacists in Berlin in 1919, etc.

Or even go into university? How does Dr Hitler sound to people, instead of the person that he became?

If Hitler ever improved his artistic ability he could potentially be one of the great artists of the 20th century. I think he would've been better off as an artist. I don't know how this would impair his war record, but if he is found to have collaborated with the Austrian government he could potentially be blacklisted.

All of which might make excellent PODs for another thread, perhaps.

 

[robertp6165]

Either way, he would still have gone at the very least 'irrational' in the mid-forties due to the effects of the syphlis he had.
Naturally, not many people in the Nazi party new about this, in part his condition was aggravated rather than helped by the medication he was getting from his doctor - but Himmler for one - did know.
So doubt he would have made 1946, if still alive, probably driven insane by then!!

The syphilis theory, although supported by a lot of circumstantial evidence, is unproven. So, for the purpose of this POD, we will assume he doesn't have it and his irrationality was due to another cause.

 

[robertp6165]

This alld epends on which economcial theory about the Third Reich youre gonna believe. Accoding to the most prelevant one, Hitler so indebted Germany with his arment program that war was needed so that the debts could be repaid with war loot. If this is right, then Hitler simply couldnt have waited until 1946.

That theory always seemed kind of nonsensical to me. After all, why would a government create a rearmament plan in preparation for going to war...for which purpose Hitler's rearmament was clearly intended...if the only way you can fund the plan is by going to war before the plan is completed?

No, the more logical theory is that Hitler invaded Poland because he honestly believed that the Western Powers would not go to war, not because he was forced to by some financial crisis. The fact that war came when it did was a grand miscalculation on Hitler's part. Being opportunistic, he took advantage of the situation when it occurred and gobbled up Western Europe. But I don't think there is a lot of evidence that he actually intended to go to war in 1939.

Still, it was of course a bad move to first make an agreement with Czechoslovakia, and then immidatly break it and occupy the country. Hitler focusing on Polanbd without annexing Czechia would maybe already be sufficient...

The problem with that scenario is that much of the equipment with which the Germans conquered Poland, and later Western Europe, was captured Czech equipment. If Germany doesn't seize the Czech army's equipment basically intact, along with the factories for producing said equipment, Germany has a much more difficult time in Poland, and may well lose in France. The Czech 38t tank was arguably the best tank in Hitler's army in 1940, for example.

No, it would be better to wait until 1946, complete your own buildup, seize Czechia and it's military equipment at that time, and then invade Poland.

 

[robertp6165]

@Susano & Wozza:
I think the real question is, what happens 1st:
1. Hitler running out of money for his ambitions.
2. Stalin attacking one of his neighbours before Hitler does. Which in turn with Hitler being percieved as trustworthy would open up all sorts of possibilities.

Possibility #2 could be interesting. For one thing, Hitler always hoped to get Britain into an anti-Communist alliance with Germany. If Stalin starts attacking his neighbors while Hitler is being a good boy and adhering to his treaty commitments with Britain over Czechoslovakia, that might well happen.

 

[Paul Spring]

In this scenario Britain and France wouldn't have had any reason to go to war with Hitler, but if Germany kept increasing the size of its armed forces then the British and French could not have completely ignored it. I can imagine the British being very uncomfortable watching the German navy build itself up, including aircraft carriers.

 

[mikegold]

What if Hitler coerces the Czech state post-Munich into unequal "friendship" (puppet) treaties, demanding the Skoda war materiel so critical to the Germans as well as Prague's acquiescence in the Reich's foreign policy? Effectively, a larger Slovakia- but to the willfully blind this is not the same betrayal as OTL's occupation of Prague.

Next- still September of '39- Hitler makes demands on Poland. How do the allies respond?

 

[robertp6165]

In this scenario Britain and France wouldn't have had any reason to go to war with Hitler, but if Germany kept increasing the size of its armed forces then the British and French could not have completely ignored it. I can imagine the British being very uncomfortable watching the German navy build itself up, including aircraft carriers.

I can agree with that. I would imagine that something of an arms race might result...unless, of course, Stalin starts grabbing territory and Britain ends up looking to Germany as a bulwark against Communist aggression.

Also, it should be pointed out that the German Plan Z probably would not have placed Germany in a position to effectively compete with Britain, although it could make Germany a match for France. So Britain might not consider it as big a threat as one might think.

 

[robertp6165]

What if Hitler coerces the Czech state post-Munich into unequal "friendship" (puppet) treaties, demanding the Skoda war materiel so critical to the Germans as well as Prague's acquiescence in the Reich's foreign policy? Effectively, a larger Slovakia- but to the willfully blind this is not the same betrayal as OTL's occupation of Prague.

Next- still September of '39- Hitler makes demands on Poland. How do the allies respond?

Well, assuming, of course, that the allies have not given any guarantees to Poland...which, in OTL, they did when Hitler broke the Munich accords and gobbled up the rest of Czechoslovakia, so this might work...then they probably protest, but don't declare war. This could have several possible consequences.

If Hitler has not made a pact with Stalin by this point...also possible, if no guarantees have been given by the Western Powers to Poland...then Britain, France, and Russia form an anti-Nazi alliance, along with most of the other still independent smaller states of eastern Europe (as, indeed, Churchill urged in OTL, but was rejected by Chamberlain). Hitler finds himself stymied, and a "Cold War" settles on Europe.

If, on the other hand, Hitler and Stalin have made their OTL pact and then divided up Poland, the Western Powers will find themselves in a bad situation. If they get involved, they might find themselves at war with both Germany AND the Soviet Union. If they don't, and decide to allow the dictators to fight it out between themselves...which will certainly happen within a few years if the Western Powers don't get involved...then whoever emerges victorious is going to be a deadly, and quite possibly unbeatable, threat to the West.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Either one of two things happen:

1. Germany falls into economic ruin in 1941-1942 time frame, OR
2. Stalin decides to bring communism to all of Europe via hordes of tanks in the 1942-1944 timeframe.

If the former, well... kind of difficult to tell what happens.

If the latter, Hitler becomes a instant ally with Britain, France, and(possibly) the United States.

 

[Wozza]

Well, assuming, of course, that the allies have not given any guarantees to Poland...which, in OTL, they did when Hitler broke the Munich accords and gobbled up the rest of Czechoslovakia, so this might work...then they probably protest, but don't declare war. This could have several possible consequences.

If Hitler has not made a pact with Stalin by this point...also possible, if no guarantees have been given by the Western Powers to Poland...then Britain, France, and Russia form an anti-Nazi alliance, along with most of the other still independent smaller states of eastern Europe (as, indeed, Churchill urged in OTL, but was rejected by Chamberlain). Hitler finds himself stymied, and a "Cold War" settles on Europe.

If, on the other hand, Hitler and Stalin have made their OTL pact and then divided up Poland, the Western Powers will find themselves in a bad situation. If they get involved, they might find themselves at war with both Germany AND the Soviet Union. If they don't, and decide to allow the dictators to fight it out between themselves...which will certainly happen within a few years if the Western Powers don't get involved...then whoever emerges victorious is going to be a deadly, and quite possibly unbeatable, threat to the West.

It is hard to see why there would be any sort of Hitler-Stalin pact - the western policy of appeasement has after all, apparently worked in this scenario. Anyway the two powers share no border, considerable complicating sustained economic exchange.

If Germany waits it simply won't have much of a military force, even by 1944. It will remain politically extremely difficult to move military spending much above 20% of GDP without moving to a full war economy, with no OTL move to 40% of GDP in 39-40 the German military will develop more slowly. There will also be no plunder and presumably no Soviet resources.

Germany will simply have lost its early lead, formely state of the art or ahead of the game equipment will now need replacing.
The western powers will also have real political problems with sustained rearmament, so do not expect anyone to wait too long.

 

[AMF]

The boy which results on April 20, 1889 is named Adolf, and this ATL Adolf is nearly identical to the OTL version. Same appearance, same interests, dislikes, and general psychological makeup. In all respects, it is the identical person, with one exception...he is a bit more patient and a bit less reckless than the OTL Hitler.

History unfolds identically up until October 1938. After German troops march into the Sudetenland, this more patient and less reckless version of Hitler decides to scrupulously abide by the terms of the Munich Agreement until 1946 in order to give his military buildup time to be completed. He does not occupy the rest of Czechoslovakia in March 1939, and does not make threatening gestures toward Poland later that year. He does not invade Poland in September 1939. This brings to mind some interesting questions.

Even if Hitler does nothing to provoke the Western powers after October 1938, can war be avoided until the German buildup is completed in 1945-46, as planned? Will Stalin attack Germany?

If Germany does have time to complete it's buildup, what might it's military forces look like? How advanced would it's tanks and aircraft be by 1946?

Of course war in Europe can be avoided. Britain and France were so cautious in OTL that they did hardly anything to help Poland. It would be suicidal for Poland to attack Germany on her own, and even Stalin is considered to be a much more cautious man than the OTL Hitler. Besides, Stalin would not even have a common border with Germany if Hitler does not attack Poland.
About the German forces being complete by 1946: Perhaps there are written records that prove that Hitler at some date believed that his forces would be "complete" in 1946. But the word "complete" is fairly meaningless in the context of an arms race. It is possible that in 1946 the German armed forces are exactly as big, or even bigger than, this more cautious Hitler wanted them to be when he made plans in, say, 1938. But this fact becomes relatively unimportant when, instead of, say, having 70 per cent of the numerical strength of his opponents in 1938, he now has only 50 per cent or less of the strength of his opponents, because France, Britain and Poland have a bigger combined industrial potential than Germany, which they just had not mobilized enough in 1938.
Some of Germany's aircraft might very well have been the most advanced in the world in this timeline's 1946. There would be prototypes of swept wing jet fighters powered by axial flow jet turbines. They would look like the best fighters used by both sides in the Korean war, the North American F-86 and the Mig 15. In our timeline there was one prototype, the Messerschmitt 1101, which was almost ready to fly at the end of the war in OTL which had the characteristics of the jets just mentioned. The models used by other nations might still be jet fighters with straight wings, like the slightly older planes used in the Korean conflict.
German tanks in this timeline's 1946, on the other hand, might be more old-fashioned than our timeline's 1943 Panther tank, because the design of this model was heavily influenced by combat experience with the Soviet T-34 - it has already been said by other people in this forum.
There probably would have been a very impressive looking and technically interesting multi-stage rocket developed from the V-2, which would be an even more massive waste of resources than the V-2 itself.

All in all Hitler's position to win a war in 1946 would probably not have been better than in 1938 and may very well have been worse, provided France, Britain and Poland make an effort to win the arms race against Germany - which is not an unreasonable assumption.

 

[ironram]

There is a chance Stalin won't attack Germany, but I'm fairly certain that even if there is no WWII (at least as we know it), poor old Finland is going to go up against the Soviets again, and probably capitulate this time. Following that, Stalin may even go after Sweden, who provided some eight thousand volunteer soldiers and resources to Finland during the Winter War. Of course, that is unlikely, but it makes for interesting AH. How would the western powers act (and Hitler, moreover) with communist Sweden and Finland? Surely Norway and Denmark are threatened, and with Germany's only naval supply route through the Baltic jeapordized, I can see a war sparking.

Sorry about the map, I was in a hurry.

 

[robertp6165]

A follow up question...

Assuming the scenario where Hitler abides by the Munich Accords until 1945-46, does the Manhattan Project get funded? Might Germany get a crucial leg up in the race for an atomic bomb?