AHC/WI: Nazis take power, but don't get a world war

[Avitus]

Not sure if this has been done to death already, but I was wondering if, following the Nazis' rise to power in Germany, there was any chance of averting WWII, by either having more conciliatory allied powers (not sure if there was anything they could give that could make Hitler stop, but the allies didn't try very hard IOTL either), poorer alliance prospects (maybe keep Italy friendly with the allies), or a war that doesn't spiral out of control like it did IOTL (basically one that grinds to a halt on the French border like WWI).

I'm curious as to how Europe would turn out in a world where Germany is still a dangerous mad dog nation in the 40s and going forward into the 50s and maybe even to the 60s, but where nothing on the scale of OTL happens and the Nazi regime fizzles without major outside intervention.

What happens to Eastern Europe with USSR and Germany still vying for dominance in the region? Are the Jews any better off without a war to bring them under German rule and serve as a smokescreen for their elimination? Is nationalism a stronger force in Western Europe without Nazi Germany as an example of nationalism gone horribly wrong? How much better do the British and French colonial empire's do without the war? Does Japan do better or worse without tying itself to Germany? Where does all of that leave America?

So yeah, how could the Nazis rise and fall relatively quietly, and what would be the consequences?

 

[Delta Force]

One of my professors who worked for an intelligence agency once said that he was surprised by how German actions caught everyone off guard. They were spending massively on rearmament and taking out large loans to do so. At the same time, because of the move towards military spending the wider German economy was starting to suffer shortages and otherwise starting to sputter. Because they weren't growing their economy and were taking on debt, they would have defaulted on their loans and undergone an economic crisis within a few years.

Modern policy analysis would have flagged Germany as being a developing threat. Even casual contemporary analysis revealed Germany as a threat. France considered going to war with Germany in 1936 after Germany remilitarized the Rhineland, but a combination of lack of money, a fragile franc, and lack of public support doomed the idea.

The European situation of the 1930s was a disaster waiting to happen. I doubt Germany would have simply sat back and gone out with a whimper by defaulting on its loans and entering another economic crisis had it entered into the 1940s without provoking a war. At the same time, no one else had the money or the popular support to fight Germany until Poland stood up and fought back. The unfortunate thing is that Germany could have been defeated if the European powers had stood up to Germany in 1936 or 1938, but they didn't. Hitler wrote in his diaries that he was amazed he had gotten away with Munich Agreement, remarking that he had overplayed his hand and still came away with more than he thought he would going in.

 

[Michel Van]

It's a unrealistic Senario under Hitler and Co
Hitler wanted expansion war and invasion of USSR
also War with France as revenge for lost of WW one

But let assume Hitler and most top leader died in bomb attack in Munich on 8. November 1939.
The new NSDAP leaders have a problem
Hitler rearmament program has bring the Reich on edge of bankruptcy

so a Third Reich not commit a War now, will goes bankrupt and with all resulting problems for Germans
it's realist that Germany has civil war: common people vs NSDAP.

 

[Avitus]

Fair enough. What about a war that gets localized to Eastern Europe by stronger French resistance? Basically anything to limit the scope of the war to 1-2 theaters rather than the whole world, and have it end without any unconditional surrender scenarios.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

One of my professors who worked for an intelligence agency once said that he was surprised by how German actions caught everyone off guard. They were spending massively on rearmament and taking out large loans to do so. At the same time, because of the move towards military spending the wider German economy was starting to suffer shortages and otherwise starting to sputter. Because they weren't growing their economy and were taking on debt, they would have defaulted on their loans and undergone an economic crisis within a few years.

Modern policy analysis would have flagged Germany as being a developing threat. Even casual contemporary analysis revealed Germany as a threat. France considered going to war with Germany in 1936 after Germany remilitarized the Rhineland, but a combination of lack of money, a fragile franc, and lack of public support doomed the idea.

The European situation of the 1930s was a disaster waiting to happen. I doubt Germany would have simply sat back and gone out with a whimper by defaulting on its loans and entering another economic crisis had it entered into the 1940s without provoking a war. At the same time, no one else had the money or the popular support to fight Germany until Poland stood up and fought back. The unfortunate thing is that Germany could have been defeated if the European powers had stood up to Germany in 1936 or 1938, but they didn't. Hitler wrote in his diaries that he was amazed he had gotten away with Munich Agreement, remarking that he had overplayed his hand and still came away with more than he thought he would going in.

That's the thing, German behavior was understood, its just that the French were too weak to do anything on their own and the British were actively courting the Germans to fight Stalin. So nothing really caught them off guard, its just that the powers that were were too weak to really stand up to them and were trying to use them against a mutual enemy; Chamberlain really didn't want to fight over Poland, its just that the political situation in Britain was that if he didn't he would be toppled by a vote of no confidence:
http://www.amazon.com/Low-Dishonest...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1245276579&sr=8-1

Britain was in fact actively helping finance German rearmament through ensuring loans for them, partly because guys like Chamberlain were personally invested in companies like IG Farben and were getting rich off of Hitler's policies, while were also loving Hitler's anti-communist position and were hoping to get him to fight Stalin.

Also Britain and France overestimated German power and thought they weren't rearmed enough to fight Germany in 1936 or 1938, so were also playing for time to modernize their militaries and fight; even in 1939 they weren't really ready and were planning on waiting for 1941 to go on the offensive, while letting their blockade cripple the German economy.

As to the 1936 situation, this is a pretty good analysis of why fighting Germany over the Rheinland wouldn't have necessarily been winnable:
http://firedirectioncenter.blogspot.com/2013/03/decisive-battles-rhineland-1936.html

 

[Look More Closely Later]

1936

...As to the 1936 situation, this is a pretty good analysis of why fighting Germany over the Rheinland wouldn't have necessarily been winnable:
http://firedirectioncenter.blogspot.com/2013/03/decisive-battles-rhineland-1936.html

Interesting piece. If I understand the writer correctly he suggests that if the French pushed back into the Rhineland, to drive the Germans out in 1936, the Germans might have been able to hold them up long enough to score some serious propaganda coups and maybe for other nations to tell the French to back off.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Interesting piece. If I understand the writer correctly he suggests that if the French pushed back into the Rhineland, to drive the Germans out in 1936, the Germans might have been able to hold them up long enough to score some serious propaganda coups and maybe for other nations to tell the French to back off.

Assuming the French had the money; they didn't have the funding to mobilize and fight an extended campaign IOTL, which is why they didn't resist, because they expected it to get bogged down and drag out, which international markets and Britain wouldn't tolerate. Its not a question of maybe, rather when they would tell the French to give up, not just verbally, but also economically by withdrawing investments.

 

[Zaius]

As to the 1936 situation, this is a pretty good analysis of why fighting Germany over the Rheinland wouldn't have necessarily been winnable:
http://firedirectioncenter.blogspot.com/2013/03/decisive-battles-rhineland-1936.html

Assuming things do go well for Germany and the initial French push stalls at first (an idea that hadn't occurred to me before - thanks for the link, it's an interesting one), I wonder how decisive Polish involvement (which was offered to France, but in OTL Paris did not even reply to the offer) might have been, especially in terms of boosting French morale and keeping France in the war longer.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Assuming things do go well for Germany and the initial French push stalls at first (an idea that hadn't occurred to me before - thanks for the link, it's an interesting one), I wonder how decisive Polish involvement (which was offered to France, but in OTL Paris did not even reply to the offer) might have been, especially in terms of boosting French morale and keeping France in the war longer.

That is the question; does the German army actually go through with their claimed plot to topple Hitler if the French fight? Do the Polish act despite their non-aggression pact with Germany? Of course the main problem is still not address: how do the French fund their move without any money? Their economy would collapse if they suddenly devalued their currency; it took time to free float their currency after the Rheinland crisis IOTL to enable mobilization and rearmament later on. Also how do the French get over their mental block about fighting a protracted battle in Germany?

 

[Johnrankins]

Here is one.
1) In 1933 Hitler get named Chancellor as OTL.
2) In 1936 Hitler slips on some soap in the shower cracking his head open, killing him. The Nazi Party does a lot of infighting.
3) in 1937 The infighting gets so bad there are various factions of the Nazi Party shooting each other on the street. Fed up the Heer stages a coup and takes over.

The Nazis took over in TTL, they just didn't last long enough.

 

[sloreck]

Hitler wanted a war, he believed that war/conflict strengthened a race. One of the platforms he rode to power was Germany getting back territory it lost in WWI, and of course Lebensraum. With rejection of the Treaty of Versailles as illegitimate, the desire for Anschluß, and wanting the Sudentenland war of some sort was inevitable. If Hitler dies, it depends on who takes over, even the "normal" right wing conservatives and military were all for rearmament, and also dealing with Polish corridor, etc. Under right wing but non Nazi government, war might not have been inevitable.

 

[Delta Force]

Hitler wanted a war, he believed that war/conflict strengthened a race. One of the platforms he rode to power was Germany getting back territory it lost in WWI, and of course Lebensraum. With rejection of the Treaty of Versailles as illegitimate, the desire for Anschluß, and wanting the Sudentenland war of some sort was inevitable. If Hitler dies, it depends on who takes over, even the "normal" right wing conservatives and military were all for rearmament, and also dealing with Polish corridor, etc. Under right wing but non Nazi government, war might not have been inevitable.

Even if the German conservatives tired of the Nazis and removed them from power, they would be facing an untenable economic situation due to the economic mismanagement, brain drain, and politicization of science, industry, and other sectors that had been going on for years. By the time things have progressed to the point where the conservatives would take over, things will have already gotten quite bad in Germany.

 

[rubix]

The only hope the Nazis had for a soft landing is if Hitler gets killed off and his replacement immediately tries to frantically get peace at whatever stage in the war they are at. I'd draw a comparison between Hitler and Saddam Hussein in that they were both off the rails, so to speak. It was only a matter of time before either the Brits or the Americans dropped a nuclear weapon on Berlin and then it would be game over from there. That is assuming the Soviets weren't already in Berlin.