The rise of the Nazis far from being inevitable was the result of a great number of conflicting circumstances and a grave miscalculation of the ruling party in the reichstag. What would happen in a world where Hindenburg put his foot down firmly against the idea of Hitler becoming chancellor of Germany? what could we expect that world to look like into the 1940s and 50s? What is the potential fate of Germany and Europe in such a time-line?
Hitler never becomes Chancellor?
- Thread starter VictorVanBakker
- Start date
A more democratic Germany,possibly protecting itself from the Red Army in the 50's and not getting eaten up.
It depends how Hindenburg avoids appointing Hitler. Both the Nazis and the Communists refused to support a government they did not head, there weren't enough votes from other parties to form a majority coalition, and Hindenberg and Papen had tried and failed to govern without a working majority in the Reichstag.
I see three possibilities:
I see three possibilities:
- Hindenberg appoints Thalmann (head of the Communists) rather than Hitler as Chancellor. Thalmann will probably try to hijack the Wiemar Republic and replace it with a revolutionary Communist government, much the same way Hitler turned the Wiemar Republic into the Third Reich; I don't have a good feel for how likely he would be to succeed.
- Hindenberg and Papen execute a self-coup, dissolving the Reichstag and governing unconstitutionally. This could turn into a full-blown dictatorship (albeit a conservative one rather than Nazi or Communist), or they might back away from this and restore the constitution (or create a new republican constitution, as with the transition from the Fourth Republic to the Fifth Republic in France) once the crisis passes.
- The democrat parties somehow do well enough in the elections to form a majority coalition without Nazi or Communist votes.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
My favorite PoD is slightly earlier, but pretty similar otherwise.
Just noting that a President governing by dictate is consistent with the Weimar Constitution if no democratic majority can be formed; it wouldn't be the first time Hindenburg did this either, iirc.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Or, as noted above, you could simply have the President govern the country by decree, no military coup needed; the Nazis did worse in the OTL November 1932 election than July and were fast going broke, so it's just a matter of time before the fall below the hostage taking line, split, or break.
Even OTL, in late 1932 the Nazi Party came very close to breaking up over a power sharing deal proposed by Chancellor von Schleicher to Strasser; if Gregor hadn't fumbled and went on an ill timed Italian vacation, Hitler wouldn't be able to pull off the party purge isolating him and quite possibly might have made good on his threat to commit suicide. That would have changed things...
You probably know more about the period than I do, but what I've read seems to indicate that Hindenberg appointed Hitler IOTL specifically because he and Papen didn't think emergency decrees were viable any longer. I think it had to do with the ability of a majority of the Reichstag to overturn an emergency decree.
Is my understanding mistaken, or do you think Hindenberg and Papen misjudged their ability to sustain continued use of the emergency decree power?
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
It comes up in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
As I recall: December 1932, von Schleicher offered Gregor Strasser, number 2 man in the Nazi party and something of a rival to Hitler, the Vice Chancellorship and some other political offices. Strasser and Hitler feuded; the latter accusing the former of treachery, which was denied and responded with accusations of leading the party to ruin. At the time, the NSDAP was going bankrupt and had lost seats in the November Reichstag elections. Strasser and Frick wanted to work with the government; Hitler, Goering, and Goebells opposed it. Gregor ended up writing a letter resigning from the party (can't remember if he delivered it), then absconded to Italy to get away from things for awhile. While he was gone, Hitler went about booting key Strasser allies from the party (or from leadership positions... don't recall the details here). By the time Strasser returned, Schleicher's gambit at splitting the Nazi party had been thwarted; we all know what he ended up doing.
I think they blinked -- the Nazis, as mentioned, were going broke in the weeks after the November 1932 elections; even if the extremist parties continued to make emergency rule difficult, Hitler literally could not afford to withstand another election. This might, in effect, mean a period of illegal emergency rule, but of course that would be better than what OTL got.
See my post on Henry Ashby Turner's *Hitler's Thirty Days to Power* at https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.history.what-if/q_BF1kUdBHs/vE1thhuMqGcJ
I think that there would have been a war anyway :
- if Hitler became chancellor as OTL, Hitler would drive Germany to WWII.
- if Hitler did not become chancellor, there would be a civil war in Germany (just consider the number of SA and SS).
The Reichswehr was too small to stop paramilitary groups. The Reichswehr had only 100,000 men (plus another 15,000 for the Navy). The SA was about 2 million men strong.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
On the other hand, the SA was bankrupting the Nazi Party; so it depends on what the brownshirts do when Hitler stops paying them...
In a civil war situation the Nazis will be able to levy taxes, seize property, and do all sorts of things to raise money that they couldn't do as a political party.
If we're talking about a civil war situation then logically the Nazis would have to control territory. It wouldn't be all of Germany, but it would at least by some of it.
Someone said that if Hindenburg refused to let Hitler have power there would be a civil war. Clearly this civil war would be between the government and the Nazis (with the Communists as a probable third side). So I think you are missing something here.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
Right, somebody said there would be a civil war; then someone else said the SA would be put down; then you said the SA outnumbered the Reichswehr; then I said the Nazis were OTL starting to run into problems paying the SA; then you said (IIUC) that if the government and the Nazis were in a civil war, the latter would have access to control territory, levy taxes, raise money, etc, solving any issues they'd have paying their men; then I asked how they would do that without coming to power first; then you said... well, this is where I get confused
If Germany plunged into Civil War, while the SA/SS/Nazi's might have more men on paper, they'd lack the funds to sustain any kind of serious civil war (as in, an actual knock down, drag out fight, rather than a populist uprising). On top of that, a German Civil War would quickly turn into the Spanish Civil War 2: Electric Boogaloo; every Great Power in Europe would be throwing cash, guns, and "volunteers" at their favorite faction.
The Soviets would almost certainly back the Communists to the hilt, and that's where things get hairy. Either the Nazi's/SA/SS would decide that the a power sharing agreement is better than a Red Germany (depending on when this goes down, you might see the more moderate elements of the Nazi's off Hitler and purge the hardliners), or some other European power (likely Britain or France) throws their weight behind the Government/Reichswehr and we get a nice little proxy war.
Deleted member 1487
He had been doing that since 1930, but he still needed public consent and they were demanding some government that was at least popularly elected, which is why he dumped the unpopular Brunig. If he just dispenses with any Chancellor and governs by fiat he probably faced a coup. If not there is a chance of an external intervention, the Poles were talking about it if a military guy got in power (von Schleicher for instance)