Hitler Eats an Arty Shell in WWI, can Germany win WWII?

Exactly as it says on the tin. Assume the Butterfly trap is in effect until after Versailles is signed.
 
Exactly as it says on the tin. Assume the Butterfly trap is in effect until after Versailles is signed.

WWII, if it happens at all will be quite different w/o Hitler and his "vision" for the National socialist Party and Germany to drive events during the '20s, '30s & '40s. Perhaps an alternate WWII in this TL will be a war between democracy (including a Germany which has pulled itself back together following the humiliation of Versailles and the social and political strife which followed) and communism.
 

Penelope

Banned
Actually it's questionable if WWII would happen at all, but if it did, I'm pretty certain that Germany wouldn't be able to organize it's self properly to Blitzkrieg the nations of Europe. I imagine it would be a lot similar to WWI, maybe with the exception of Poland getting occupied by the Germans before a failed invasion of France...

*goes to write a timeline*
 

Nikephoros

Banned
I don't really know how you can apply a "Butterfly trap", so I won't.

Basically, no Hitler, no Nazi Germany. Could a worse regime arise? Yes, although you really can't get much worse than Hitler's Germany.

A bad regime WILL arise. IOTL, unlike the myth that Hitler was a dumb brute, he was actually VERY eloquent. Those that closely knew him remarked at how cultured he was. That doesn't take away from his evil, in fact, it makes his evil feel even more evil. The other myth is that he somehow "fooled" the German people. No, that is false. By and large, the average German believed much of what he said. While many Germans were nowhere near Hitler's level of evilness, they definately were inspired by him, and had no problem helping his rise to power.

So basically, an evil regime will arise, but will it be as brutal as the Nazis? Possibly, but that would be quite hard to match Hitler's actions.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I suppose it's possible that, without Hitler, a Röhm-Strasser coalition of right-wing paramilitary groups could have taken over Germany. Not democratically of course, but in a bloody coup.

A Röhm regime, though, would in all likelihood be beset with corruption and incompetence. He probably would have tried to purge the military, like Stalin, and make his Brownshirts the official German army. This would probably lead Germany to a pathetic defeat against Poland or France or the Czechs or whoever they would but heads with.
 

Typo

Banned
Hitler was not really that unique, there were plenty of disgruntled right-wing veterans in post-war Germany. And some of them are bound to be charismatic and crazy...
 
I don't know, German Revanchism seems pretty inevitable after Versailles was signed.

Not necessarily. There was a Revanchinist feeling but what really gave the final push was the great depression. However I do not see how this POD would butterfly that.

But as said already Hitler does not need to be the figurehead for Revanchism in Germany. Even if he dies who says there won't be someone who might have been better suited for the job.
How about German fascism without Nazi / racist ideology.
This places many very important Jews in Germany's side, (including those essential for developing the A-bomb). And many valuable resources are not wasted in trying to eliminate the Jews.

I can't see why Hitler is essential for a German WWII victory.
 
Hitler was not really that unique, there were plenty of disgruntled right-wing veterans in post-war Germany. And some of them are bound to be charismatic and crazy...

Crazy isn't needed. I'm not looking for another Hitler, I want to know if a revaunchist leader other than Hitler could lead a resurgent Germany to victory.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Victory against who? Because without Hitler, the Germans probably would have re-armed for a match against France and Britain instead of focusing on Poland. What's the situation here? If Lebensraum isn't an issue, Germany may never turn East and take on the Soviets.
 
Exactly as it says on the tin. Assume the Butterfly trap is in effect until after Versailles is signed.

Without Adolf Hitler the small Deutscher Arbeiter Partie continues to be a discussions group for bitter, right-wing war veterans. In Germany there were hundreds of these parties/clubs - but nowhere did The Leader show up to take the power (just as IOTL, but without Hitler).

Without a Hitler and his NSDAP people like Göring, Himmler, Röhm and Speer never leave their professions and become "politicians" or involved with politics. Butterfly away!

For Germany it would mean misery, revanchism, social strife, left-wing extremism, a lot of bitter veterans and millions of germans abroad - just as OTL. But without Hitler and NSDAP I predict that
a) the potential nazis would on a individual basis join/support the classical conservative/nationalist parties and with time mellow/drink themself to death/lose interest in politics
b) the parliament wouldn't be blocked with two extremist parties that both had an interest in overthrowing Weimar Germany, which would make the politicians work easier
c) The communists would still be strong and dangerous, but without a Nazi parti as "perfect opponents" less attractive and dangerous. Weimar Germany would still have Reichwehr and the freikorps (which were separate from the Nazi movement) that had crushed communistic revolts earlier and would do it again.

Weimar democracy would probably survive. No one in power had any real interest in creating a dictatorship, if only because on one was strong enough to be certain to be the winner.

Based on above a Germany without Hitler would not start WW2. Sometimes during the early 30s the Versailles treaty would be renegotiated. The german citizen as well as government would be revanchistic, but just as France and UK during OTL 30s afraid of a new, bloody war. So Germany wouldn't begin WW2.

That doesn't say that Japan, Soviet Union, Italy or someone else starts WW2 - but it would be a very different WW2.
 
I don't know, German Revanchism seems pretty inevitable after Versailles was signed.

Well, certainly everybody hated Versailles, but there was a large group of people advocating a policy of reconciliation with the Anglo-French Entente allowing Germany toc over its back and settle its scores in central Europe. This may lead to an altogether unrecognisable WW2, or none at all. For a superb timeline on this premise, check out "Holding Out For a Hero" buy Faeelin.[/marketing]

Actually it's questionable if WWII would happen at all, but if it did, I'm pretty certain that Germany wouldn't be able to organize it's self properly to Blitzkrieg the nations of Europe. I imagine it would be a lot similar to WWI, maybe with the exception of Poland getting occupied by the Germans before a failed invasion of France...

*goes to write a timeline*

If the (sane) Germans can occupy Poland, they've pretty much won, since rather than forcing it into exile before waging total war against the Ententte, they can just signa harsh peace with it. Now what are Britain and France actually fighting for? This was a great many people in the Entente favoured ditching Poland. The reason we eventually stuck up from them despite their being a lot more unsavoury than CZS and Germany's grievances being more valid was that he had to stop the Nazis.

I don't really know how you can apply a "Butterfly trap", so I won't.

It's hwne we limit butterflies, such as "America is the same until 1492" (a very common one) or in this case "one less German has no effect on the course of the war and the treaty".

Basically, no Hitler, no Nazi Germany. Could a worse regime arise? Yes, although you really can't get much worse than Hitler's Germany.

You just contradicted yourself.

A bad regime WILL arise. IOTL, unlike the myth that Hitler was a dumb brute, he was actually VERY eloquent. Those that closely knew him remarked at how cultured he was. That doesn't take away from his evil, in fact, it makes his evil feel even more evil. The other myth is that he somehow "fooled" the German people. No, that is false. By and large, the average German believed much of what he said. While many Germans were nowhere near Hitler's level of evilness, they definately were inspired by him, and had no problem helping his rise to power.

So basically, an evil regime will arise, but will it be as brutal as the Nazis? Possibly, but that would be quite hard to match Hitler's actions.

SIIIIIIGH.

As an honorary member of the Germans, I think i'm untitled to blow my top at this moment in time:

VE'LL SCHOW HYU EN EEFFIL REGIME! HA!

We all know perfectly well about Hitler's dark charisma, one of the many reasons why, by an absurd series of flukes, his madmen came to power. Now, the German people (and remember that most of them would fall into the "not agains, not an active zealot" category) wanted somebody to make their nation great again and to restore their economy. To shamelessly plug Faeelin again, they might under slightly changed circumstances gotten Gustav Stresemann to do those things for them. But nobody in Germany outside the inner Nazi cabal considered exterminating the Jews and launching a war of national suicide to be electoral issues.

I suppose it's possible that, without Hitler, a Röhm-Strasser coalition of right-wing paramilitary groups could have taken over Germany. Not democratically of course, but in a bloody coup.

A Röhm regime, though, would in all likelihood be beset with corruption and incompetence. He probably would have tried to purge the military, like Stalin, and make his Brownshirts the official German army. This would probably lead Germany to a pathetic defeat against Poland or France or the Czechs or whoever they would but heads with.

No Hitler: no SA: Roehm is probably in Bolivia.

Hitler was not really that unique, there were plenty of disgruntled right-wing veterans in post-war Germany. And some of them are bound to be charismatic and crazy...

Well, we can just have some guy called Albrecht Heidler come to power an not change anything, but why would we waste a perfectly good PoD?

Victory against who? Because without Hitler, the Germans probably would have re-armed for a match against France and Britain instead of focusing on Poland. What's the situation here? If Lebensraum isn't an issue, Germany may never turn East and take on the Soviets.

No, no, no! This is precisely not the case! Even Liberals and socialists in interbellum Germany were not exactly keen on Poland. Germany had very real issues to settle with Poland such as Danzig. The whole point of pre-Hitlerian foreign policy was reconciliation west, re-assertion east. Some people act asthough failing to guarantee the Polish frontier in Locarno was a mistake or flaw: no, it was the whole point!

Without Adolf Hitler the small Deutscher Arbeiter Partie continues to be a discussions group for bitter, right-wing war veterans. In Germany there were hundreds of these parties/clubs - but nowhere did The Leader show up to take the power (just as IOTL, but without Hitler).

Without a Hitler and his NSDAP people like Göring, Himmler, Röhm and Speer never leave their professions and become "politicians" or involved with politics. Butterfly away!

For Germany it would mean misery, revanchism, social strife, left-wing extremism, a lot of bitter veterans and millions of germans abroad - just as OTL. But without Hitler and NSDAP I predict that
a) the potential nazis would on a individual basis join/support the classical conservative/nationalist parties and with time mellow/drink themself to death/lose interest in politics
b) the parliament wouldn't be blocked with two extremist parties that both had an interest in overthrowing Weimar Germany, which would make the politicians work easier
c) The communists would still be strong and dangerous, but without a Nazi parti as "perfect opponents" less attractive and dangerous. Weimar Germany would still have Reichwehr and the freikorps (which were separate from the Nazi movement) that had crushed communistic revolts earlier and would do it again.

Weimar democracy would probably survive. No one in power had any real interest in creating a dictatorship, if only because on one was strong enough to be certain to be the winner.

Based on above a Germany without Hitler would not start WW2. Sometimes during the early 30s the Versailles treaty would be renegotiated. The german citizen as well as government would be revanchistic, but just as France and UK during OTL 30s afraid of a new, bloody war. So Germany wouldn't begin WW2.

That doesn't say that Japan, Soviet Union, Italy or someone else starts WW2 - but it would be a very different WW2.

Congratulations! We are honoured to present you with the Knight's Cross of the AH Cross with Pens and Oak Leaves as a reward for being the only one here who seems to know what he's talking about!
 
Last edited:
What about a left-right cross-front like that which General Schleicher attempted to create?
It would probably be more leftist but less anti-semitic than the Nazis.

Also without Hitler might we see a more mysticist National-Socialism in Germany, much like the Legionary Movement in Romania, but with Aryan neo-paganism or germanized "positive Christianity" instead of Christian Orthodoxy like in Romania?
 
What about a left-right cross-front like that which General Schleicher attempted to create?
It would probably be more leftist but less anti-semitic than the Nazis.

What about the Social Democratic Party of Germany?

Anyone?

Also without Hitler might we see a more mysticist National-Socialism in Germany, much like the Legionary Movement in Romania, but with Aryan neo-paganism or germanized "positive Christianity" instead of Christian Orthodoxy like in Romania?

Why? This seems exactly the opposite of a logical upshot. Hitler was the nutty occultist. Why does killing him promote nutty occultism?
 
What about the Social Democratic Party of Germany?

Anyone?



Why? This seems exactly the opposite of a logical upshot. Hitler was the nutty occultist. Why does killing him promote nutty occultism?

The Social Democartic Party of Germany is unlikely to wage to wage war on the Soviet Union, this scenario could have the best result for Eastern Europe with the German anti-communist crusade defeating Soviet Russia ,but Germany being defeated by the Anglo-Americans.This would result in Europe beign freed at the same time from both German and Soviet expansionism.

Hitler wasn't actually that mysticist as others, he mocked both neopaganism and Rosenbergs positive Christianity.
"We will not allow mystically-minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else—in any case something which has nothing to do with us." (Speech in Nuremberg on 6 September 1938)

Without Hitler, National Socialism might become more thightly bound to positive Christianity, and more mystical racial doctrines.
 
The Social Democartic Party of Germany is unlikely to wage to wage war on the Soviet Union, this scenario could have the best result for Eastern Europe with the German anti-communist crusade defeating Soviet Russia ,but Germany being defeated by the Anglo-Americans.This would result in Europe beign freed at the same time from both German and Soviet expansionism.

Alternatively, a sane and peaceful Germany coudl resultin no German expansionism and no war, with the Soviets staying in their place and Finland, Romania, Poland, and the Baltics looked after. This would surely be the best for all concerned.

How did the Americans suddenly get involved? Where are the French? Why would they even attack reasonably san eanti-communist Germany?

Hitler wasn't actually that mysticist as others, he mocked both neopaganism and Rosenbergs positive Christianity.

Without Hitler, National Socialism might become more thightly bound to positive Christianity, and more mystical racial doctrines.

Hmm. I'd always thought he's been fascinating y that stuff. We'll, you're the man with the sources.
 
It's possible a Hitler-free Germany in the 1930's could try to create an Anti-Soviet alliance with the countries closest to Russia.
At the time many of the Eastern European countries were frightened by the Soviets. Unfortunately each country in the area basically hated their neighbour, so no one was willing to step up and offer a real alliance. So if a fairly strong and resurgent Germany came and offered them all an alliance they may go for it.
In this case Stalin may decide to attack, or hunker down and fortify. In either case Germany would come out looking like a hero or a martyr. If Stalin fortified, Germany would have kept the peace, hurray. If Stalin attacked, Germany and its allies would either win, in which case Germany is a hero. Or they would lose, and Germany becomes a martyred nation leading the fight for freedom.
In this case Germany would be seen in a far better light.
 

Markus

Banned
Exactly as it says on the tin. Assume the Butterfly trap is in effect until after Versailles is signed.

Without Hitler there will be no WW2. The general German desire to flush the ToV down the toilet and regain the territorry lost to Poland was NOT strong enough for anyone to risk a second world war. Even Hitler was not that crazy, his madness was the think he could attack Poland and France and the UK would not declare war. So who but him could be that crazy?
The German military was not war mongering but afraid of war: Rhineland, Austria, Sudetenland ... they always warned against going ahead for fear of western intervention.

Regarding the fate of the Republic of Weimer I agree with superkuf´s analysis.
 
Top