AHC: Germany without Nazis starts World War II

How would Germany with a government not led by and not including any member of the NSDAP start World War II?

Bonus points if that government does not include Communists.
 
Probably through a war with Poland as per OTL, though it's an interesting question of whether or not Revanchist-Weimar would be allied with the USSR in a joint Soviet-German revanchist bloc.....
 
None of the likely German political leadership outside of Hitler was willing to risk a new world war. Without Hitler it would be hard to get the diplomatic crises of 30's.

You want a war without Hitler then your next likely choice is Stalin but then the question is what version of Stalin?

Michael
 

mowque

Banned
Any new German state has to deal with the fact that Germany felt that it was unfairly treated after WW1 and this needed changing. The tiny army, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor and especially the tiny army and navy. All of this was challenged and would be aggressively challenged by any German state, left, right or center.
 

MSZ

Banned
Any new German state has to deal with the fact that Germany felt that it was unfairly treated after WW1 and this needed changing. The tiny army, the Rhineland, the Polish Corridor and especially the tiny army and navy. All of this was challenged and would be aggressively challenged by any German state, left, right or center.

Very likely so, though not necessarily as early as 1938/1939, as the nazis were pretty much the only party willing to bring the German economy to a point of almost collapsing it for the sake of war. A 'vanilla' fascist Germany, or even a Weimar Germany could start the war, provided it happened to have Nazi-grade fools in charge. And the most likely way for it to happen would be by Germany starting a 'localised' small conflictfor which it believed it had western concent and being proven wrong. The Corridor, Sudetenland, Memelland and Liechtenstein even could become hot-spots.
 
If you want a causus belli you can take your pick; union with Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, or even France. The Germans felt they had been wronged in World War One and had a lot of score to settle. You do not even necessarily need a fascist state to take over.

As peaceful as the Wiemar Republic was even they refused to consider their eastern borders as permanent. They were also breaking the military restrictions of Versailles BEFORE Hitler became Chancellor. As ancient Athens and the Romans proved; republics could be warlike.

They would have been more cautious and would not have acted until their military had been rebuilt and they had allies. Wiemar Germany was the only real friend the USSR had back in the early thirties and it is easy to see them growing closer as they both remained international pariahs. If England and France were to oppose Mussolini's ambitions in the Mediterranean and Ethiopia he might be drawn closer to Germany.

With Italy and the USSR as allies a re-militarized Germany might be willing to start a war with either Poland or Czechoslovakia which could touch off World War II.
 
well... there's always the possibility of stalin starting something in the mid 40s. you dont just let the worlds largest army and the military production sit idle. so non nazi germany would have to be fast with their military buildup to start it all.
 
well... there's always the possibility of stalin starting something in the mid 40s. you dont just let the worlds largest army and the military production sit idle. so non nazi germany would have to be fast with their military buildup to start it all.

Not true, Stalin was always enormously cautious about how he initiated conflicts, he always waited until the world was either distracted by fears of someone else or just outright minimized conflicts he feared could turn into something nasty. The man knew a war with the West was going to be long and in the long-term the Soviet Union would probably lose, he knew the world feared the USSR, he knew that there were plenty of right-wing maniacs out there who would have their dreams come true fighting alongside a united Allied front against the Bolshevik menace.

More likely a more pro-Soviet German regime plays ball with them to satisfy its own territorial demands.

I can see a series of regional wars being a very easy outcome, whether or not any of these become a world war is another story. Places like the Balkans will suddenly become very, very important and up for grabs by a lot of different people in this kind of situation.
 
None of the likely German political leadership outside of Hitler was willing to risk a new world war. Without Hitler it would be hard to get the diplomatic crises of 30's.

You want a war without Hitler then your next likely choice is Stalin but then the question is what version of Stalin?

Michael

No version of Stalin. Hitler was the one of the two that liked big, risky gambles because he got into power that way, had all his big, major successes that way, and this was his political secret. Stalin was methodical, hard-working, worked long hours, and paid careful attention to detail. Stalin would not be Hitler's Captain Ersatz, not in this kind of situation.
 
No version of Stalin. Hitler was the one of the two that liked big, risky gambles because he got into power that way, had all his big, major successes that way, and this was his political secret. Stalin was methodical, hard-working, worked long hours, and paid careful attention to detail. Stalin would not be Hitler's Captain Ersatz, not in this kind of situation.

Oh Snake you did not need to do that...

I am just barely resisting the temptation to go on TV Tropes for that, not sure if I can hold out.

If it's any consolation I totally agree with your point.
 
None of the likely German political leadership outside of Hitler was willing to risk a new world war.

Michael

I quite agree with you. But then even Hitler did not WANT a second world war, right up to the last minute he believed Great Britain and France would not honor their obligations to Poland. He was fully aware that there was a risk of a general war but believed he could keep it localized.

In the same manner I think a re-militarized Germany with an alliance with the USSR and possibly Italy as well might think they can go to war with Poland without the west getting involved. That could start World War Two even if the Germans don't deliberately want to.
 
No version of Stalin. Hitler was the one of the two that liked big, risky gambles because he got into power that way, had all his big, major successes that way, and this was his political secret. Stalin was methodical, hard-working, worked long hours, and paid careful attention to detail. Stalin would not be Hitler's Captain Ersatz, not in this kind of situation.

Stalin was willing to push under certain circumstances, Baltics, Finland and Romania show that. Yes he was much more calculating than Hitler. I have read a number of different things about Stalin, the one common thread was the mans absolute ruthlessness.

If some type of distraction occurs in the West then Stalin would make a move against near by countries if he liked the odds. Of course nothing to say Stalin doesn't miss judge the situation, that nearly happened with Finland. Some in the UK wanted to declare war over that but government stomped on that as I recall.
 
Last edited:
Stalin was willing to push under certain circumstances, Baltics, Finland and Romania show that. Yes he was much more calculating than Hitler. I have read a number of different things about Stalin, the one common thread was the mans absolute ruthlessness.

If some type of distraction occurs in the West then Stalin would make a move against near by countries if he liked the odds. Of course nothing to say Stalin doesn't miss judge the situation, that nearly happened with Finland. Some in the UK wanted to declare war over that but government stomped on that as I recall.

Hitler

In all three cases he did something very different than Hitler: 1) he had the M-R Pact as a shield and WWII as his shield, the Allies were more focused on Hitler than he was. 2) He did not continue the Finnish war and reinforce failure perpetually, and he learned from his mistakes. 3) Stalin always picked on smaller, far weaker countries than his own. Hitler, by contrast, was a reckless gambler who was extremely successful at reckless gambling.
 
In all three cases he did something very different than Hitler: 1) he had the M-R Pact as a shield and WWII as his shield, the Allies were more focused on Hitler than he was. 2) He did not continue the Finnish war and reinforce failure perpetually, and he learned from his mistakes. 3) Stalin always picked on smaller, far weaker countries than his own. Hitler, by contrast, was a reckless gambler who was extremely successful at reckless gambling.

1) Hitler had the M-R pact also
2) Stalin wore down the finns and won his objectives.
3) Yes Hitler was a gambler and yes he didn't know when to walk away from the table.

My point was is that Stalin didn't just sit there. He was willing to act. Again if something comes up that provides a distraction Stalin would odds are make use of said distraction.
 
Stalin was a good judge of character, and of the political scene in general. For instance while it seemed that he was playing chicken with a nuclear west for most of the late 1940s and early 1950s in reality he always knew when to pull back and when his opponents would fold before he did. The Korean War is a good example of him pushing the West while knowing they wouldn't push back harder unless he or Mao overdid it.
 
1) Hitler had the M-R pact also
2) Stalin wore down the finns and won his objectives.
3) Yes Hitler was a gambler and yes he didn't know when to walk away from the table.

My point was is that Stalin didn't just sit there. He was willing to act. Again if something comes up that provides a distraction Stalin would odds are make use of said distraction.

1) And at the point of 1939 Stalin got more from it than Hitler did. Stalin got an easy gain of territory the USSR had wanted since 1939 and a free hand to reclaim all successful breakaways from the Russian Civil War, Hitler was forced into a war with the UK and France he had no preparation whatsoever for and where his victory was far from assured. A set of Nazi mistakes and the Soviets are the real winners of the General European War of 1939, having gained territory and a much better strategic position for no real loss whatsoever.

2) Yes and no, he won them but at such a prohibitive cost even he was forced to begin rehabilitating the very concepts of war the purges did so much to weaken and attempted to destroy outright. Stalin was far too cautious to initiate or start a general war, but he's likely to be one of the ones that finishes said general war.
 

whitecrow

Banned
None of the likely German political leadership outside of Hitler was willing to risk a new world war. Without Hitler it would be hard to get the diplomatic crises of 30's.

You want a war without Hitler then your next likely choice is Stalin but then the question is what version of Stalin?

Michael

OP said no Nazis - it never said no Hitler ;)
 
Top