Alternative Racist Genocidal Dictator of the Century: If not Hitler, than Whom?

[whitecrow]

I was just thinking about the prevalence of Hitler and W.W.2 in alternative history fiction even if the POD makes Hitler’s rise to power very unlikely.

However, W.W.2 and Holocaust was important for discrediting certain political movements & raciest ideas and to a great extent shaped the 20th century.

So if someone wanted to write an alternative history TL and wanted to avoid the “Hitler’s Time Travel Exemption Act” but not alter the social development in the TL too drastically, who could take Hitler’s infamous place? Who else could have risen to power and started something like the Holocaust?

Note: the person is NOT required to be the Führer of Germany or target Jews, but is required to be a genocidal racist willing to implement an ethnically based “Final Solution”.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I had a sort of "Hitler w/o Hitler" thread some time ago, and it was agreed by many that w/o Nazis, the Communists (particularly Stalin) would fill the "brand evil" void

 

[MerryPrankster]

The Empire of Japan, maybe?

Without Hitler to overshadow them, they'd have the Rape of Nanking, biological weapons, and generally nasty behavior.

Heck, in OTL one million Vietnamese starved because the Japanese took away so much food. That's a mini-Holodomor there.

 

[whitecrow]

I had a sort of "Hitler w/o Hitler" thread some time ago, and it was agreed by many that w/o Nazis, the Communists (particularly Stalin) would fill the "brand evil" void

Yes, but Soviets never had anything quite like the Holocaust and their ideology did not assume one ethnicity is superior to another & superior ethnic-groups should wipe-out/enslave the other groups.

IMO, Hitler's actions contributed much to discrediting such ideologies in 20th century.

 

[Wolfpaw]

The Fascist-supported Ustashe in Croatia.

Mussolini's own extensive butchery and experimentations with ethnic cleansing and apartheid in Africa might get more coverage.

Things could have gotten really nasty in Poland. It was pretty dicey in the '30s, and there could be some serious Polish-Ukrainian violence down the road.

 

[Osakadave]

I had a sort of "Hitler w/o Hitler" thread some time ago, and it was agreed by many that w/o Nazis, the Communists (particularly Stalin) would fill the "brand evil" void

Exactly. Stalin or Mao probably, at first thought. Although it really depends on the POD and the effects. Without Hitler, Mao may never take power, for example. If Japan still does nasty things in China a la Nanjing, the "Special Research Units", and the like, maybe Hirorito or Tojo claim the prize. And there's always room for some relative unknown to do those Very Bad Things(tm).

 

[The Oncoming Storm]

Pol Pot for the sheer insanity of his regime, Mao would also be a strong contender on account of the Great Leap Forward and The Cultural Revolution.

 

[whitecrow]

Exactly. Stalin or Mao probably, at first thought.

But neither Stalin's nor Moa's ideologies were explicitly racist as far as I know. They did not assume that Georgians/Russians or Han Chinese were the "master race".

And there's always room for some relative unknown to do those Very Bad Things(tm).

That is what I'm primarily interested in. Who do we know of with a racist ideology and potential for committing enacting a "Final Solution" but who in OTL failed to gain much support/power?

 

[Wolfpaw]

North Korea's Juche ideology is racist, though its victims are mostly its own people.

 

[Wolfpaw]

The British gassing people in Iraq, pulling concentration camps in Kenya, and starving millions of Bengalis is enough to show Churchill for what a monster he was to brown people.

Romania's Iron Guard and other fascist movements were getting pretty murder-y towards Roma and Jews, and things were really tense with Hungary.

Again, Mussolini's tendency to ethnically cleanse was pretty extreme, even for the time.

 

[MerryPrankster]

The British gassing people in Iraq, pulling concentration camps in Kenya, and starving millions of Bengalis is enough to show Churchill for what a monster he was to brown people.

I just took a look at the Wikipedia article on the Bengal famines expecting a British Holodomor and although the British are hardly innocent (taking fishermen's boats so the Japanese couldn't use them and then not supplying the fishermen with food), the worst sinners seem to be the local governments who due to a reorganization in the India government couldn't be dictated to as much by the central government as before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

The headline makes reference to "the Churchill role," but Churchill isn't actually mentioned in that section.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Yes, but Soviets never had anything quite like the Holocaust and their ideology did not assume one ethnicity is superior to another & superior ethnic-groups should wipe-out/enslave the other groups.

IMO, Hitler's actions contributed much to discrediting such ideologies in 20th century.

If you're looking for a master-race mentality, the Japanese had that too regardless of their "Asia for the Asiatics" propaganda.

 

[Wolfpaw]

I just took a look at the Wikipedia article on the Bengal famines expecting a British Holodomor and although the British are hardly innocent (taking fishermen's boats so the Japanese couldn't use them and then not supplying the fishermen with food), the worst sinners seem to be the local governments who due to a reorganization in the India government couldn't be dictated to as much by the central government as before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

The headline makes reference to "the Churchill role," but Churchill isn't actually mentioned in that section.

It happened because Churchill decided that feeding British troops was more important than feeding millions of Bengalis, and instituted Stalinist collectivization tactics to procure food for the military.

And I don't know why you keep using the phrase "Holodomor;" that is an extremely loaded (and pretty artificial) term.

 

[BlondieBC]

I just took a look at the Wikipedia article on the Bengal famines expecting a British Holodomor and although the British are hardly innocent (taking fishermen's boats so the Japanese couldn't use them and then not supplying the fishermen with food), the worst sinners seem to be the local governments who due to a reorganization in the India government couldn't be dictated to as much by the central government as before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

The headline makes reference to "the Churchill role," but Churchill isn't actually mentioned in that section.

The biggest decision was removing 60% of the Merchant shipping from the Indian Ocean, and using much of the remaining 40% for military operations. After these actions, there was little shipping to bring in food. It is not so much directly starving them, as deciding other things were more important. Burma was the food issues.

Burma exported food to India, so when Burma fell, Bengal had issues. Britain could have feed India, but it would have hurt the war effort.

 

[MerryPrankster]

It happened because Churchill decided that feeding British troops was more important than feeding millions of Bengalis, and instituted Stalinist collectivization tactics to procure food for the military.

And I don't know why you keep using the phrase "Holodomor;" that is an extremely loaded (and pretty artificial) term.

Sources? The culprits in the famines according to the article were the governments of the Provinces (this was capitalized for some reason) who had food but refused to allow it to be exported.

"Holodomor" rolls easier off the tongue than "mass starvation in Ukraine and elsewhere caused by Stalin taking away all the food for export to get the money needed to import industrial equipment."

And why do you care? The use of the term "Holocaust" or "Shoah" isn't innately offensive to Germans, nor should it be.

 

[Napoleon53]

I don't see "racist" as part of the question. There were lots of little racist wingnuts all over in the 20th century. Genocidal Dictator is what we're going for here. In which case it would be Mao, the bloodiest dictator in history. I don't care if they're white or whatever, many millions died in the Great Leap Forward. In a way, it's actually worse to do it to your own country than foreigners; not only does it make you a demonic murderer like Goo Ol' Mr. Schiklgruber, it also makes you a traitor. My listing has always been: #1: Mao. #2: Stalin. #3: Hitler. #4: Pol Pot. #5: Saddam Hussein. #6: Some Bolshevik Leaders tied with the 90'S Balkan Genocidals

 

[LouisXIV]

Despite Stalin's ethnicity, the Soviet Union is known for strong racist tendencies. If you were not true Russian then your chance of high rank in the Soviet armed forces was negligible. This went to the point that many of the non-Russian units in WWII were commanded by Russian officers.

You also get situations where the Ukranians had their crops taken and were left to starve so that central Russia could be well fed. Thus Bielorussians, Ukranians and other peoples welcomed the German forces as "liberators."

Look into the pre-war purges and see what percentage of the victims were non-Russian.

 

[Alternatehistoryguy47]

Hmm... tough call. I can't really think of anyone (perhaps Stalin) that was so over-the-top evil as Hitler.

 

[Napoleon53]

Mao! He just doesn't get attention because he's not Western.

Despite Stalin's ethnicity, the Soviet Union is known for strong racist tendencies. If you were not true Russian then your chance of high rank in the Soviet armed forces was negligible. This went to the point that many of the non-Russian units in WWII were commanded by Russian officers.

You also get situations where the Ukranians had their crops taken and were left to starve so that central Russia could be well fed. Thus Bielorussians, Ukranians and other peoples welcomed the German forces as "liberators."

Look into the pre-war purges and see what percentage of the victims were non-Russian.

In Soviet Russia, you welcome Nazi Army as Liberator. That's like saying "Gee, it's Attila the Hun! Hurray! We're free!"

The Ukrainian Starvation is one of the blackest pages in history. I watched a documentary about it not long ago and then read about it. Sick stuff.

 

[LeX]

The thing is that while you do have people like Stalin, Mao, or the Japanese militarists, their actions either affected people that the "West" didn't really care about, and also, they didn't start a massive war that involved, well, the whole world. That's what Hitler is truly remembered for: not only did he kill 6 million Jews and millions of others, but we (the WAllies, USA in particular) defeated him and in doing so had to rile up our entire society. yes, we did fight against the Japanese who were committing atrocities in China and SE Asia, and while we did take some issue with that the fact remains that they were outside the Western cultural sphere and so didn't seem quite as shocking as the Holocaust in Europe.