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.
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.
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.
None of the likely German political leadership outside of Hitler was willing to risk a new world war.
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.
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.
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.
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