How would the Nazis be remembered without the Holocaust?

Even without the Holocaust, you're still looking at a regime that is undemocratic and totalitarian, makes ample use of political violence towards dissidents, oppresses its citizens it deems "undesirable" for bigoted reasons, wages wars of expansion against its neighbours for irredentist reasons, and so on. It probably wouldn't have the reputation as being one of the evilest regimes in all of history, but it's hard to see anything other than a strongly negative legacy. Hitler wouldn't be a Napoleon.

So, maybe a far-right counterpart to Stalinist Russia in those ways, then?
 
So, maybe a far-right counterpart to Stalinist Russia in those ways, then?
That's not a bad comparison. My initial thought was one of his fellow fascists like Mussolini or Franco, but even a non-genocidal Hitler is still much worse. Like you said, Stalin's a good point of comparison.
 
Yeah, looking at the other fascists is probably the way to go. The scenario is presumably that Hitler is more like Mussolini in his domestic political agenda, but remains more talented, aggressive, and lucky. Indeed, if the answer isn't going to be either that WWII doesn't happen or Germany loses it quickly, he probably has to be more politically talented than the historical Hitler, not just more politically talented than Mussolini; the anti-semitism thing helped the real Hitler give his regime focus. So imagining this producing a more successful WWII for Germany is probably ASB territory, despite the benefits Germany would gain from the talents of its Jewish population. But probably most versions of less/non racist fascism would also be at least a little less expansionist, so there are probably lots of scenarios for a Germany that makes minor territorial gains and has a long lasting fascist regime, with nothing like our timeline's WWII.
 
As Notzis?
Exactly. The Nazis are evil by default because their entire mission statement was "kill the groups I don't like because muh racism". It says a lot on how monstrous the ideology is when Doctor Who's Daleks are basically just "Nazis, except replace "hate most people" with "hate everyone besides ourselves"
 
Probably the same way we view Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

Evil, that's why we fought them (I don't think we've ever fought someone without calling them evil). But better than the current situation/the situation that developed e.g. Communist domination over Eastern Europe.

Swastikas would also be a viable anti-communist symbol in Western countries.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
It pains me to say this but If nazis were probritish then maybe anglosaxon historians would be much kinder to them despite their genocidal anti slavic policies
 
It pains me to say this but If nazis were probritish then maybe anglosaxon historians would be much kinder to them despite their genocidal anti slavic policies

Hitler *was* an Anglophile.

Anyway, I agree with the idea that the Nazis without the Holocaust just aren't the Nazis. I mean, you could have the French curbstomp Germany in the Rhineland, thereby fatally compromising Hitler's regime before it can start the Second World War, let alone the Holocaust, at which point Hitler becomes a weird little nonentity, but once the War proper starts, some attempt at exterminating the undesirables is inevitable.
 
Probably still reviled, but with a focus towards their use of slavery. OTL it was pretty expansive but is understandably overshadowed in popular knowledge by genocide. With genocide not as a target, chances are that they would lean into the slavery bit more.
 
The final solution was unbelievably horrible, but that's not the only reason we condemn Nazi Germany. The defeat of Nazi Germany reorganised the world into its current balance of power and in some ways it's the founding myth of modern western liberal democracy (in the sense that it justifies who we are and is regarded as the utmost expression of our virtues - the triumph of democracy, equality, peace, etc. over totalitarianism, eugenics, war, etc.). If there was no holocaust we'd probably just emphasise the other many horrible aspects of Nazi Germany - it's not like we're starved for choices.
 
You need to refine the question. The Final Solution was, in many ways, a logical conclusion to a process of increasingly radical outcomes of violence and terror. It is difficult to imagine a Final Solution (or something close to it) not emerging as a result. The destruction of the European Jewry is inextricably bound to Nazi ideology, and to Hitler’s own personal beliefs.

The idea that Nazi anti-Semitism was somehow “normal” without the Holocaust is a myth that not only misunderstands Nazi ideology, but misunderstands the wide spectrum of anti-Semitic ideologies and the differences between them.

I think if a different far-right ideology took power, or if different people took hold of the Nazi Party and steered it in a different direction, this may be possible. But honestly, the phrasing of this question problematises potential answers.
 
If there was no holocaust we'd probably just emphasise the other many horrible aspects of Nazi Germany - it's not like we're starved for choices.
The atrocities of Stalin would emerge as the most horrific of the first half of the century. If the Germans were anti-Russian, the acts of the less genocidal Nazis would be less emphasized.
 

aenigma

Banned
i bet in such a scenario people wouldnt be banned from naming their kids hitler ect making the name reasonable popular among neo nazi groups
 
The atrocities of Stalin would emerge as the most horrific of the first half of the century. If the Germans were anti-Russian, the acts of the less genocidal Nazis would be less emphasized.

I'd ask if Stalin might still wind up eclipsed by Mao in the second half of the 20th Century (in terms of absolute numbers of victims, at least), but would he still emerge victorious and still carry out calamitous policies similar to OTL?
 
A germany that doesn't do genocide but still does a suicidal two-front war is one that lasts long enough to lose 10-20 cities to allied nukes in 1947 or 1948.

I've wondered about this for a while. Is it the general historical consensus that if there was no Holocaust the Nazis would be able to fight on for two years longer?
 
I'd ask if Stalin might still wind up eclipsed by Mao in the second half of the 20th Century (in terms of absolute numbers of victims, at least), but would he still emerge victorious and still carry out calamitous policies similar to OTL?
Stalin getting eclipsed by Mao would even further dilute the anxiety against German hard-line authority. Since in OTL, Khrushchev and Brezhnev tried to de-emphasize the work of Stalin, the hatred against him might be less. As leaders in lesser developed countries resorted to less disciplined practices, developed countries might feel more forgiving against old generation tactics that disappeared. Mussolini might have settled back and become less authoritarian. Had he become another Franco, his actions in later years would be seen as archaic, if not unlikely given the tourist appeal of Italy.
 
Okay, no intent to kill. No death camps, just the occasional ghetto
The ghettos were just places where the Jews died slowly from starvation and disease. There's also the 3 million Soviet POWs the German murdered, the untold hundreds of thousand who died of starvation when the Germans basically seized their food supply and then all of those who died as slave labourers and the victims of the Einzatsgruppen. The Nazi's were monstrous and you aren't going to buff their reputation by getting rid of Auschwitz.

I've wondered about this for a while. Is it the general historical consensus that if there was no Holocaust the Nazis would be able to fight on for two years longer?

No, because without the genocidal tendencies they can't come up with the food or labour to keep their industries going. In the latter stages of the war it was only by conscripting massive amounts of slave labour and cutting off food supplies to 'useless eaters' that they were able to keep going.
 
Last edited:
Top