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

The problem with Africa is that, at some point, every side (except the people) has clearly, and definitively, wronged the other side. It is a continent of exacerbated ethnic, resource, social, health and historical issues with a good bit of stupid European imperial borders thrown in for good measure.

We did not "forget" Rwanda- charities, individuals got involved. We cannot hold the standard of the Holocaust to Africa, because we stopped the Holocaust as a side effect of destroying the Third Reich. We did not and do not intervene for human rights issues without some ulterior or ally motive- Libya, for example, is for Europe's oil. We won't take down Assad because our oil is not threatened, etc. We took down Hitler, and in the process halted the Holocaust.

Let us remember that, in the height of WWII, we turned back Holocaust refugees, most likely with prior knowledge of European atrocities, to the European camps. They too were forgotten, and the false standard of intervention is supported only by idealism and the half-assed crowing of the UN. The ICC is after-the-fact, and that is the way 'human rights' works.

The Holocaust, by and large, was stopped after-the-fact, just like Bosnia, Rwanda and every other atrocity of the 20th century. Expecting American or Western intervention without some unspoken ulterior motive for human rights alone is ridiculous.
 
Just out of curiosity-*why*, exactly, does the 20th Century require some big racist genocidal thug occupying power in a major country? Absolutely nothing pre-ordained that a genocidal thug had to rise to power anywhere in Europe with a WWI-era POD.
 

whitecrow

Banned
Just out of curiosity-*why*, exactly, does the 20th Century require some big racist genocidal thug occupying power in a major country? Absolutely nothing pre-ordained that a genocidal thug had to rise to power anywhere in Europe with a WWI-era POD.
Because of how WW2 & Holocost impacted social developments in 20th century. It is in OP.

@ Massa Chief - when we say Rawanda genocide and the like was "forgotten" it does not just mean nothing was done about it at the time, it also means it has not left an imprint on the public consciousness.
 
Guys, the world needs a certified nutter on the order of HItler to commit his crimes for his reasons specifically to permantly defame ideas such as Racism religious bigotry, genocide, fascism, Government overarching tyranny and agressive war.

WIthout that, there is nothing for people to point to and say, "See, THAT is why thus and so is wrong.
 
Because of how WW2 & Holocost impacted social developments in 20th century. It is in OP.

@ Massa Chief - when we say Rawanda genocide and the like was "forgotten" it does not just mean nothing was done about it at the time, it also means it has not left an imprint on the public consciousness.

Sure, but why is this a requirement in alternate history? Why are there fewer scenarios like my Up With the Star world where everybody in WWII has the kind of Grey and Grey issues seen in WWI, meaning neither side has either the will or the power to fight to the last ditch, nor does either side see a pressing necessity to do so?

Guys, the world needs a certified nutter on the order of HItler to commit his crimes for his reasons specifically to permantly defame ideas such as Racism religious bigotry, genocide, fascism, Government overarching tyranny and agressive war.

WIthout that, there is nothing for people to point to and say, "See, THAT is why thus and so is wrong.

But in AH terms, why is the rise of a Hitler at all predictable or necessary?
 
Sure, but why is this a requirement in alternate history? Why are there fewer scenarios like my Up With the Star world where everybody in WWII has the kind of Grey and Grey issues seen in WWI, meaning neither side has either the will or the power to fight to the last ditch, nor does either side see a pressing necessity to do so?



But in AH terms, why is the rise of a Hitler at all predictable or necessary?
SO THAT WORLD can enjoy the same benefits.
 
To repeat myself: why is there some kind of rule that a civilization's most fundamental failures would be fixed so that civilization benefits?
I don't know, but can you think of another way ot clearly and definativly show what happens when racism bigotry and religious oppression are allowed free reign?

That and I'm a nice lady, I don't like the idea of cursing other worlds to a permanent hellhole of tyranny and misery.
 
I don't know, but can you think of another way ot clearly and definativly show what happens when racism bigotry and religious oppression are allowed free reign?

That and I'm a nice lady, I don't like the idea of cursing other worlds to a permanent hellhole of tyranny and misery.

No, however the point I'm making is that in AH terms there is zero guarantee a Hitler figure would appear. Europe has had plenty of experience with would-be conquerors of a more banal sort. The rise of the Nazis or a movement like them is never a guarantee.
 
No, however the point I'm making is that in AH terms there is zero guarantee a Hitler figure would appear. Europe has had plenty of experience with would-be conquerors of a more banal sort. The rise of the Nazis or a movement like them is never a guarantee.

Yeah, I know, but if not, then what?

Besides, I didn't start this thread, I'm just playing along.
 
That could become,...ugly.

Eh, not exactly. There was an act in the 1930s that made it inevitable with or without WWII. The problem is all the *other* colonies, which without the devastation of WWII means OTL de-colonization looks like a Sunday stroll in the park. We'd see a lot more failed colonial revolts like the Palestinian Revolt of 1936-9 than otherwise. Of course Japan will still in all probability be drawn into China no matter what happens in Europe, due to the economic and military factors (namely the alarming degree to which the Japanese high command could not rein in its own generals) that made its war there extremely improbable to forestall. That, however, is a colonial war of an overambitious sort on the part of Japan, not a genocidal clusterfuck like what Hitler unleashed.

Even Nanjing was not, strictly speaking, genocide so much as the concept of deterrence by terror that proved as much a failure in Asia as it did in Europe.
 
Eh, not exactly. There was an act in the 1930s that made it inevitable with or without WWII. The problem is all the *other* colonies, which without the devastation of WWII means OTL de-colonization looks like a Sunday stroll in the park. We'd see a lot more failed colonial revolts like the Palestinian Revolt of 1936-9 than otherwise. Of course Japan will still in all probability be drawn into China no matter what happens in Europe, due to the economic and military factors (namely the alarming degree to which the Japanese high command could not rein in its own generals) that made its war there extremely improbable to forestall. That, however, is a colonial war of an overambitious sort on the part of Japan, not a genocidal clusterfuck like what Hitler unleashed.

Even Nanjing was not, strictly speaking, genocide so much as the concept of deterrence by terror that proved as much a failure in Asia as it did in Europe.
If the U.S. does not get drawn int oa war, then how will they end the depression?
 
If the U.S. does not get drawn int oa war, then how will they end the depression?

They don't on an OTL-style basis. While Stalin's USSR will still be around, the Soviets relied on proxies and subversion, not major wholesale invasions intent on rape-loot-pillage for *their* attempt to globally rewrite the world in an ideological sense. Stalin without Hitler leads to a much murkier 20th Century more like the 19th Century Great Game than it does to Command and Conquer. That's an ATL for someone who can make intrigue interesting, requiring good writing.

And it's rather frightening to consider just how all-over-the-place the Soviet global intelligence network actually was. :eek: Though ironically if the USA doesn't get involved in a major war, the USSR actually may wind up in one as without Hitler or any appreciably "Europe is ours now" type in Germany, there's no reason for them to hold off against Japan, which already was attempting to invade the Soviet Union.
 
They don't on an OTL-style basis. While Stalin's USSR will still be around, the Soviets relied on proxies and subversion, not major wholesale invasions intent on rape-loot-pillage for *their* attempt to globally rewrite the world in an ideological sense. Stalin without Hitler leads to a much murkier 20th Century more like the 19th Century Great Game than it does to Command and Conquer. That's an ATL for someone who can make intrigue interesting, requiring good writing.

And it's rather frightening to consider just how all-over-the-place the Soviet global intelligence network actually was. :eek: Though ironically if the USA doesn't get involved in a major war, the USSR actually may wind up in one as without Hitler or any appreciably "Europe is ours now" type in Germany, there's no reason for them to hold off against Japan, which already was attempting to invade the Soviet Union.

Hmm very interesting.
 
Hmm very interesting.

Yes, I could actually see it starting from a continuation of the 1938-9 conflict, the USSR eventually deciding "It's time for revenge for 1904-5", and then the USA starts realizing around the time that the Soviet army, for all its weaknesses, is smashing its way through the even weaker in conventional terms IJA that "Oh shit the Soviets are about to get China".........which is not going to be enough *still* to get the USA involved in any kind of hot war with the Soviet Union, while Poland, Finland, Germany, the UK, and France are quite happy to have the Soviets handling Japan, which is a very obvious and potential menace to the empires of the latter and not using its army to potentially menace the former.
 
Top