AHC: WWII w/out Nazi party

If Hitler had been shot in WWI and the Nazis hadn't grown to the size they had in OTL, would WWII have eventually happened? If so, what would be different about it?
In my opinion, Germany was in such bad shape after WWI that something needed to give hope to its people, even if it was false hope.
 
Personally I believe a WWII is possible without the Nazis involved (though stuff with the USSR starting it doesn't count); all it would take is some powderkeg in an unstable region where two powers are involved and/or some unstable person fans the flames. I covered that in a map I made where a WWII happens in the 2010's.
 
Personally I believe a WWII is possible without the Nazis involved (though stuff with the USSR starting it doesn't count); all it would take is some powderkeg in an unstable region where two powers are involved and/or some unstable person fans the flames. I covered that in a map I made where a WWII happens in the 2010's.
Gee I am suprised. On your map Czechoslovakia still exists wit long Ruthenian tail at East.
 

thorr97

Banned
Hmm....

No Nazis is usually taken to mean the Spartacists would've been proportionately stronger in Weimar Germany. Perhaps even leading to Germany "going Red" and allied with the Soviet Union.

It would be no small feat for the political mess that was 1920s Germany to avoid that without going autocratic in order to fend off the Soviet influence.

Assuming that the Weimar Republic did, somehow, manage to navigate through the horrendous mess Germany's loss created and simultaneously avoided falling to the Nazis AND falling to the Spartacists would mean the resulting state would be far less radicalized and far less easily manipulated into an aggressive foreign policy in the 1930s.

That, in turn, would make a WWII much more unlikely. At least one which was otherwise recognizable as what happened in OTL.

Without the Nazi's rearmament policies, Germany would not be as militarily strong by the late 30s. On the flip side, without the fiscal insanity of the NSDAP, Germany's economy would be far more robust and stable. Thus it wouldn't need to conquer its neighbors to plunder their wealth just to keep things going back home.

The further along you get from the Great War without some new tyrant or tyrannical movement coming to power in Germany, the less likely the German people would be to support such a thing. Particularly if there's overall economic improvement for all Germans.

Again, this'd be no small feat.
 
Some Stalin-esque figure takes control of Germany after a successful spartacist takeover, and allies with Stalin proper.
If WW2 happens ITTL, it shall be a bit different -- the german justification would be "spreading the revolution" rather than "achieving vital space", and there wouldn't be a Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Agression Pact, but, rather, full-on military cooperation (if Stalin doesn't pull a reverse Barbarossa, that is).
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Hmm....

No Nazis is usually taken to mean the Spartacists would've been proportionately stronger in Weimar Germany. Perhaps even leading to Germany "going Red" and allied with the Soviet Union.
Not happening as long as France and Poland are both alert and kicking! :D

If Hitler had been shot in WWI and the Nazis hadn't grown to the size they had in OTL, would WWII have eventually happened? If so, what would be different about it?
In my opinion, Germany was in such bad shape after WWI that something needed to give hope to its people, even if it was false hope.
Have Germany become a right-wing dictatorship in the 1930s and then spark a war over the Polish Corridor (together with the Soviet Union, who wants eastern Poland for itself) whenever France becomes distracted by events in Vietnam and/or Algeria. However, to the Germans' surprise, Britain and France declare war on Germany (albeit not on the Soviet Union) for its war against Poland.
 
If Hitler had been shot in WWI and the Nazis hadn't grown to the size they had in OTL, would WWII have eventually happened? If so, what would be different about it?
In my opinion, Germany was in such bad shape after WWI that something needed to give hope to its people, even if it was false hope.

Not unless you change something else. No other prospective leader was quite so aggressive in pushing for war and while you likely would have seen the rise of a revanchist, militaristic Germany without Hitler it would probably be one that flinches away from the risk of a general European war... not out of any sort of morality, but out of recognition that a general European war is one their likely to lose.
 
I'm of the opinion that the 1934 is the latest date possible for the nazis to come to power since, after that, the natural recovery from the depression would steer the votes from the dissatisfacted masses back to the traditional parties and german politics would return to normalcy. The government would most likely rearm, as the foundation of rearmament was laid before Hitler came to power. The possibility of an actual armed conflict instigated by authoritarian forces is very low and by democratic forces, almost inexistent.

I was one of those people who thought the Weimar Republic was doomed from the start but, after reading more and more and observing election trends of the time and in similar though times, I'm of the opinion that nazis were very lucky (and very well organized to fully exploit the situation).
 
Some Stalin-esque figure takes control of Germany after a successful spartacist takeover, and allies with Stalin proper.
If WW2 happens ITTL, it shall be a bit different -- the german justification would be "spreading the revolution" rather than "achieving vital space", and there wouldn't be a Molotov-Ribbentrop Non-Agression Pact, but, rather, full-on military cooperation (if Stalin doesn't pull a reverse Barbarossa, that is).

What do you mean by a reverse Barbarossa? Do you mean the Soviets would try to conquer Germany? I was wondering what diplomatic relations between a communist Germany and the Soviet Union would be like. As we know from observing Sino-Soviet relations OTL, communism alone isn't enough to allow for perfect relations.
 
Hmm....

No Nazis is usually taken to mean the Spartacists would've been proportionately stronger in Weimar Germany. Perhaps even leading to Germany "going Red" and allied with the Soviet Union.

It would be no small feat for the political mess that was 1920s Germany to avoid that without going autocratic in order to fend off the Soviet influence.

Assuming that the Weimar Republic did, somehow, manage to navigate through the horrendous mess Germany's loss created and simultaneously avoided falling to the Nazis AND falling to the Spartacists would mean the resulting state would be far less radicalized and far less easily manipulated into an aggressive foreign policy in the 1930s.

That, in turn, would make a WWII much more unlikely. At least one which was otherwise recognizable as what happened in OTL.

Without the Nazi's rearmament policies, Germany would not be as militarily strong by the late 30s. On the flip side, without the fiscal insanity of the NSDAP, Germany's economy would be far more robust and stable. Thus it wouldn't need to conquer its neighbors to plunder their wealth just to keep things going back home.

The further along you get from the Great War without some new tyrant or tyrannical movement coming to power in Germany, the less likely the German people would be to support such a thing. Particularly if there's overall economic improvement for all Germans.

Again, this'd be no small feat.

But could a communist Germany have led to a different version of the Cold War? For instance, Germany might be more likely to send troops to fight for the Communists in the Spanish Civil War.
 
Maybe Bukharin's moderate rule improves the lives of the people and spreads communism across the world. He then goes crazy at the last second and declares war on America.
 
Top