Adolf Hitler Killed in Action

What I want to know is the outcome of those 3 separate wars, not the probabilities of the wars starting.

Okay. Italy gets stomped trying to take on France and Britain by themselves.

Japan gets stomped trying to take on the British Empire and US without an European War.

Stalin, you'd probably see carving up slices of Poland, Romania and Finland and eating up the Baltic states almost OTL. Really would depend on Germany, who's in charge and what kind of state of armament they're in.

Without Hitler and a belligerant Germany, the balance of power is very different. Italy was more firmly in France and Britain's camp before Hitler rose to power, they likely would remain so. This means no adventures in the Balkans and such.

Japan is still going to be faced with the dilmenia of Go North or Go South as OTL, but South's gonna look a heck of a lot stronger.

If Stalin starts rattling is sabre in Eastern Europe, you likely could see all the great powers in Europe ally against him, which makes the North look like the better option in Japan's book.
 
Japan starts its pacific occupation, and attacks pearl harbor, U.S.A. declares war on Japan, but remains neutral to wars in Europe.
Without Nazi Germany running rampant, & the subsequent U.S. support of Britain, Japan will not attack Hawaii. She'd have no reason to.
I don't know if the Empire of Japan would attack the European holdings in Asia if they didn't have the war in Europe to serve as a distraction. A war between the Anglo-French Alliance and Italy just isn't enough to give Japan the chance it needs. I assume Japan is still up to its armpits in China? If so, I guess it depends on whether or not the oil embargo goes into effect.
Japan would not attack. She took advantage of the weakness of France & Britain in the face of German aggression. Without it, not. "The oil embargo" thus never arises. Unless you mean to argue for PotUS, & Congress, being much more inclined to Asian adventures & going to war over Panay...?
 
Absent Hitler, it is very unlikely you get the Nazis in power in Germany.The Weimar Republic goes right/conservative when the economy falls apart during the depression, you get some German re-armament & gradual disintegration of some of the Versailles provisions - which were almost universal aspirations across the spectrum except for the Communists. "Social" antisemitism continues, but the racial antisemitism and extremes don't happen.

The German shift to the right, and desire to regain "great power" status as well as end many aspects of Versailles were more or less inevitable, the Nazis were not. Without Hitler, the forces within the NSDAP that could fracture it will win out.
 
Without Hitler, the forces within the NSDAP that could fracture it will win out.

If indeed it ever gets big enough to matter.

Iirc the Nazis received many overtures in the 1920s to ally with other nationalist groups, but Hitler always insisted that these must simply join the NSDAP. It had to be annexation, not federation. Without him, at some point the Nazis are probably absorbed into some other Nationalis grouping.

More generally, the biggest result is likely to be no Holocaust. That, afaics, was Hitler's unique contribution. Even a rightist (and quite likelyantisemitic) government under some German equivalent of Mussolini ot Franco, is unlikely to go so far.
 
If indeed it ever gets big enough to matter.

Iirc the Nazis received many overtures in the 1920s to ally with other nationalist groups, but Hitler always insisted that these must simply join the NSDAP. It had to be annexation, not federation. Without him, at some point the Nazis are probably absorbed into some other Nationalis grouping.

More generally, the biggest result is likely to be no Holocaust. That, afaics, was Hitler's unique contribution. Even a rightist (and quite likelyantisemitic) government under some German equivalent of Mussolini ot Franco, is unlikely to go so far.
Wasn't the Holocaust made inevitable by the food crisis in German-occupied Europe at the beginning of 1942?
 
Germany would probably continue as the Wiemar Republic and gradually move beyond the aftershocks of WW1. It seems plausible that Stalin might want to expand into Eastern Europe. The only thing that I have issue with in all of this is why Mussolini would try to invade the Balkan States. I think he might have placed more focus on colonialism in Africa against Eithiopia, perhaps even joining an alliance against Stalin in an attempt to gain whatever spoils of war there might be from the aftermath of such a conflict.

Agree with what you're saying about Mussolini. Depending on how much stock you put in Shirer (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) Mussolini didn't want to get into a European war until '44 or '45 at the earliest. Hoping to get a piece of the spoils he jumped (very ineffectively) into France in '40 only when he saw that Germany had pretty much steam-rolled the French, British, and Belgians.
 
The Weimar Republic goes right/conservative when the economy falls apart during the depression, you get some German re-armament & gradual disintegration of some of the Versailles provisions - which were almost universal aspirations across the spectrum except for the Communists.

If I can butt in, the KPD were actually for the abrogation of Versailles.

vertrag.jpg


I had another picture of a poster from the Ruhr crisis with 'Nieder mit Versailles!' on it, but that's on my home computer.

Thalheimer wrote some interesting articles on that crisis which I've only glanced over. There's a passage in one of them:

The proletarian revolution in Germany would restore the unity of the nation (which was only partially achieved by Bismarck. German-Austria being excluded), and secure “democratic self-determination” (which has not yet been achieved), but it would thereby put an end to the bourgeoisie and their dream of restored Imperialist power. (link)

Freeing Germany from the imperialism of the Entente powers was a prime aim of the German Communists.
 
Why does every Nazi-less TL need to have a Soviet invasion of Eastern Europe? Stalin was an opportunist and that is not the act of an opportunist, certainly not with Germany against him as the OP requires. It is a huge undertaking, risky if made with German cooperation - and they would probably only agree to a joint invasion of Poland - and suicidal if made with German enmity.

The Italian and Japanese actions make even less sense. They happened in OTL for a reason, you eliminate those reasons and history will not repeat its course. The Italian attack on Greece happened because of the swift fall of France; that on Yugoslavia happened because of the setbacks in the war with Greece, the coup in Belgrade and the certainty of German aid. Pearl Harbor happened because of the oil embargo, which happened because of the Japanese occupation of Indochina, which also happened because of the swift fall of France. Guess which OTL event absent in your TL was crucial in all these?
 
Have you a cite for that - preferably a reputable mainstream historian?
Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction, and specifically the chapter "Labour, Food and Genocide".
Thalheimer wrote some interesting articles on that crisis which I've only glanced over. There's a passage in one of them:

The proletarian revolution in Germany would restore the unity of the nation (which was only partially achieved by Bismarck. German-Austria being excluded), and secure “democratic self-determination” (which has not yet been achieved), but it would thereby put an end to the bourgeoisie and their dream of restored Imperialist power. (link)
Interesting -- I wasn't aware that the Weimar-era KPD were supporters of Anschluss...
 
Top