Hitler without the Soveit Union

I think it is still possible that the nazis would have seized power without the soviet union.

He clearly felt slavs were inferior and Germans 'ought' to have 'living space' there
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
His own opinions probably won't change that much, but the lack of a Red bugbear means that many a German voter won't turn to the Brownshirts for answers, assuming the Nazis are anything more than a footnote in a "No USSR" scenario.
 
No 'Red Menace' means the Nazis don't get seen as a shield for Europe. As such they probably get squished by the Allies.
 
Well there will always be some sort of Russia to German east. Surviving Russian empire, or republic, whatever the case might be, would draw German ire in the same way Poland and France did IOTL. However, without the threat of communism how willing would French be willing to tolerate radical and militarist regime. Furthermore, would Nazi ideology gain such widespread acceptance in Germany without 'specter of communism' in Europe. :confused:

Which brings the question how did 'no USSR' situation come about? Did revolution fizzle? Fail? USSR collapsed in Civil war? Point is whether credible threat of Communist takeover of a major country exist or is it viewed as an exotic utopian ideology without any base in real world?
 
Probably a lot of people who joined them early on might not join here. There was a significant overlap with other right wing, völkisch groups and movements. Except others were (a bit) more respectable to join. Himmler was shocked with Bavarian uprising, remove that and he might not join Nazis.
 
Guys

The other point is that if Russia isn't red then its likely to be a) reasonably powerful and b) an accepted member of the community of nations rather than a pariah. The combination of the two means its likely to be willing to work with the western powers against German expansionism and be accepted as such.

The only exception might be if a Czarist Russia survived WWI so successfully that it seem to be a threat to the security of the rest of Europe, rather like the Soviets were after 1945. In that case then there's an outside chance that an Hitlerian Germany might both still occur and be able to re-militarise although when it starts attacking neighbours things get complex. Especially since in such a TL the other powers won't have disarmed as much as they did OTL.

Steve
 

Jason222

Banned
Well there will always be some sort of Russia to German east. Surviving Russian empire, or republic, whatever the case might be, would draw German ire in the same way Poland and France did IOTL. However, without the threat of communism how willing would French be willing to tolerate radical and militarist regime. Furthermore, would Nazi ideology gain such widespread acceptance in Germany without 'specter of communism' in Europe. :confused:

Which brings the question how did 'no USSR' situation come about? Did revolution fizzle? Fail? USSR collapsed in Civil war? Point is whether credible threat of Communist takeover of a major country exist or is it viewed as an exotic utopian ideology without any base in real world?

Three ways could happen one Russian did lot better World War I or least supplied better. That Island that UK failed to take they successful in would might been enough keep Russian allies side. Or Russia won against Japan in that battle also had effect as well. Another possible World war I end lot sooner. Third Czarist decide to take UK model government for some reason. In that case something like house lords and commons.
However in either case Nazi Germany take all Russia or nothing. Short civil war be out come still Russia big and more military read fight Red Russia was.
 
The other point is that if Russia isn't red then its likely to be a) reasonably powerful

Just a short nitpick to say that Soviet Russia was "reasonably powerful", which is one of the reasons it was feared in the first place. You don't get to be a bugbear like that without having some bite...
 
In Up With the Star Hitler becomes a major proponent of anti-Russian politics, but his brand of boorish militarism and cutthroat politics means he never rises to power until after WWII and he then proceeds to horribly bungle de-colonization and single-handedly leads to the decision to make the Chancellor responsive to the German people, not the Kaiser.
 
If an explicitly anti-Bolshevik victory happens in Russia, I could see much of the German right actually being pro-Russian, against the democratic west, a return to Bismarcks vision of the Drei Kaiser Bund in modern form. Hitler may dabble in politics, but would be long forgotten by now.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
No 'Red Menace' means the Nazis don't get seen as a shield for Europe. As such they probably get squished by the Allies.

Agreed. But it is even more than that.

Without the Reds in Russia, Russia is at the ToV conference, and everything afterwards is different.
 
Just a short nitpick to say that Soviet Russia was "reasonably powerful", which is one of the reasons it was feared in the first place. You don't get to be a bugbear like that without having some bite...

ObssesedNuker

That's why I gave two conditions and then said the combination of the two.;) You need both factors for the point I was making about Russia then being in combination with the western allies against German revanchment.

Steve
 
I think it is still possible that the nazis would have seized power without the soviet union.

He clearly felt slavs were inferior and Germans 'ought' to have 'living space' there

Well, first you have to explain why there is no USSR. We'll guess that the Germans decide not to send Lenin to Russia, so no October Revolution.

Can WW I still play out mainly as OTL? Yes.

The Germans don't have to have a Brest-Litovsk treaty to treat the Eastern Front as over, shift troops west, attempt MICHAEL, and lose.

Meanwhile, Russia more or less dissolves, with anarchists, Social Democrats, monarchists, radical Socialists, reactionaries, and ethnic nationalists battling one another. It may sort out in the early 1920s, or fester like China, until some faction puts down the rest.

What does this mean for Germany? No "Red Scare"... The Bolshevik Revolution was the first success for the revolutionary left since France in 1848 - and that was half-assed. It inspired numerous attempted imitations, including the Spartacist uprising in Berlin in January 1919.

OTL - in Germany, there was a major split between the established SPD (social democratic) and the new KPD (Communist). The SPD was a major player in Weimar politics - holding office much of the time. The KPD openly disdained politics, refusing to join any government. (The crisis of 1932 was that the KPD and NSDAP had between them over half the seats in the Reichstag.)

ATL - No Sparts, no KPD. The SDP remains united and stronger. The Nazis may make a stronger appeal on the left side, getting more support from the most disaffected proletarians. However, they remain a very small forces, maybe 5%-8% of the vote until the Depression. (Even that is about double their OTL vote.)

Come the Depression, Nazi radicalism will gain them a larger block of support... but less than OTL, IMHO. They cannot pose as the defenders of order against Bolshevism. Their own radicalism and violence (which put off a lot of people OTL) is even more troubling because it has no parallel. They get less funding from wealthy people fearing Communism (none?).

The NSDAP vote would peak at under 25%, and the political establishment would never let Hitler into the government. Once unemployment started to drop, even moderately, and it was clear that the NSDAP was a political dead end, it would crumble.
 
a 'red menace' and fear of the far left did not need a soviet union

No, but without the Bolshevik triumph, it's far less acute.

1) With a Great Power under Red control, the Revolution had a huge base operations. Hairy conspirators in garrets are a lot less threatening when they aren't backed by a government with lots of money and a big army.

2) The Bolshevik Revolution caused a lot of socialists to reject electoral politics for revolutionary violence. If Lenin could do it in Russia, then they could do it in their countries...
 
I think it is still possible that the nazis would have seized power without the soviet union.

He clearly felt slavs were inferior and Germans 'ought' to have 'living space' there
The answer to this question is quite simple. Without the successful October Revolution in Russia there will be no revolutions in Germany, thus Wilhelm II will not abdicate. This butterflies most of chaos of the Weimar Republic away. That includes that Hitler is ordered to spy on the German Workers Party.
 
does a surviving ww1 russia mean no poland and baltics?

if it survived the red revolution it would still brew with revolutionaries for decades.
 
That really depends on the conditions of the truce in the East.
If there is no October Revolution then there will be no Treaty of Brest-Litowsk, which led to the independence of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Poland in OTL. But the whole situation in Russia was very unstable after the February Revolution, so I believe that even a Russian Republic or a surviving Russian Empire will be forced to release those 'provinces' into independence.
And if the white Russians win the civil war, they would not be able to rescind that treaty.
 
Top