No Hitler, No Stalin, No Mao

Scenarios involving "No Hiter" or "No Stalin" or also "No Mao" have been proposed quite a number of times. But, what would the 20th century look like without all of it's three principal thugs? So my idea is, in one way or another, all three are killed in this TL long before they can assume power in their respective countries.

What happens now?

(Note: I'm well aware that they all were born before 1900, but since this is primarily focused on the 20th century, I decided to post it in the after 1900 section)
 
Okay, the first question is who would have filled this roles played by each of these characters. Figure that of the three, Stalin is the one that emerges earliest.

Without Stalin, Leon Trotsky probably gets the nod as Lenin's successor. Trotsky isn't a Stalinist monster, although his shoot all deserters attitude in the Red Army and his political views were not as moderate as some claim today. Under Trotsky, the Soviet Union emerges as a left-wing dictatorship that has an axe to grind against followers of the old order, but without the pure hatred and terror that Stalin brought to power. Trotsky, however, is a true internationalist. He would not miss opportunities like Bela Kun rising in Hungary--indeed, Trotsky might be a worse leader than Stalin in terms of his desire to spread Socialism around the world. Less thuggish but More internationalist, I can imagine the Cold War starting very early on with Trotsky in control.

Meanwhile, Mao is essentially on the fringe of Chinese politics until after the Chinese Civil War. Zhou Enlai, as Moscow's "man" in china, might emerge as a Trotskyite ally against Chiang Kai Shek. With more vigorous support from Leon Trotsky in Moscow, its an open question who much the balance of power shifts against the Nationalists at any time. Chiang is probably faring worse than historically, probably because the Soviets are doing more meddling in China. Japan and the Soviets might agree to partition China, in which case Chiang is doomed. More likely, however, Japanese Expansion into Manchuria is opposed by the Soviets, possibly leading to a rematch of the Russo-Japan war.

In Weimar Germany, a small fringe party--The National Socialist German Worker's Party--never transitions to the political right. Instead, dominated by the Strassor Brothers and other left-leaning elements, it becomes one of the many forces joining the German political left. Unfortunately for the Weimar Republic, the political right remains divided and the political center is polarized. Against a more or less unified KPD, a motley assortment of monarchist, conservative and fascist parties emerge, some of them led by people who would have been Nazis had a small political party found a great speaker to lead them. The German Political Right clings to power until 1934, when president Hindenburg dies in office. But the extremely unpopular Kurt von Schliechter and his predecessor Franz von Papen lack the real means to energize the political right, which finally loses control to the state--into the hands of Ernst Thallman.

What emerges from the ascendancy of these characters is an incredible three power alliance--Germany, the Soviet Union, and China. Right wing revolutionaries might gain power in the face of these threats, such as Mussolini and Mexetas, but the Commintern would be much more expansionist and outgoing then ever before.

What follows is an a reversal of the 1940s situation--Communist Imperialism, where Western Democracies have to swallow their pride and team up with right-wing strongmen to win the war. And the Communist threat scores incredible victories. First, in Spain, Juan Negrin Lopez succeeds in defeating Franco, due in large part to major intervention from the leftist world powers. But the world drive to Communism would achieve a greater victory. With an electorial victory in Germany, Trotsky can begin to move in Eastern Europe. The Baltic States annexation into the Soviet Union was a naked threat of force. The Finnish annexation into the Soviet Union was a naked use of Force. The German Revolutionary government of Ernst Thallman was hell-bent on spreading socialism around the world, and this is exactly what they tried to do. Local Strongman Engelbart Dolfuss would be their first choice for elimination, but this would bring the Germans into a fight against Italy and Hungary. Meanwhile, the Soviets moves against Romania were likely to provoke a war from Poland as well.

It is in the face of these actions that Winston Churchill--a loud anti-communist leader--becomes the Prime Minister of the UK. This is not to say that the UK has been treading an easy line on these leaders. Neville Chamberlain had laid the framework for alliances with right wing dictators, working with Mussolini to keep the peace in Austria. Churchill, however, was far more willing to fight.

It's a fight of an entirely different nature, between the UK, France, Italy and Germany, and the three way fight in East Asia would not be easily resolved. Ultimately, the allies tried to patch up relationships between Japan and China and hope that Enlai and the Zet Armiya could not seize control. It would lead to an entirely different aftermath as well, with a world filled with right wing dictators and democracies attempting to appeal to leftist revolutionaries for support...
 
Possibly because these characters rode a wave of power that was in the wings anyway, and still would have led to serious problems in any situation.

It would take an incredible leader NOT to have the Soviet Union develop as a terrible monstrosity. Lenin's views on people were very dark and very cold. He might have created a new government, but he leaves a system very likely to abuse its own people and attempt to expand into other nations. Even before the Death of Lenin, the Soviets had attempted to move into Poland. Stalin ultimately sought to withdraw into his own country before heading abroad--but the momentum would have been to continue to export revolution.

The Weimar Republic was failing, and it didn't help the people running it were incompetent and incapable. Historically, the Nazis were seen as the lesser evil to the rising power of the communist party. But without Hitler, does the Right really have anyone leading it besides Papen and Schilechter? I don't think it would be unifed with this kind of meddling about. Add in Trotsky throwing in massive support to the KPD and a left wing dictatorship is rather likely.

The real problem is that while these three people were highly evil, they didn't entirely create the second war on their own. The Soviet Union is still a monster in the corner, and radical ideologies sprouted from the Depression, not because of these evil people. In addition, Stalin and Hitler wasted much of their energies in a gigantic war against each other. Mao, despite a lack of reason and a reliance on zeal, managed to hold on in the face of the Japanese, and finished the fight against Chiang. With more support and a smarter leader in charge, Chiang loses all that much faster--perhaps even during the Japanese occupation.

And to be fair, several bad things DID NOT happen without these people. Trotsky, after breaking up the old order throughly and punishing aristocrats, leaves a measure of human rights in the country--avoiding Stalin's great terror and Gulag labor system. While Thalmann's election in 1934 might lead to grave issues in Germany, with a large number of businessmen and others fleeing the country, there is no holocaust and no desire to exterminate the lesser peoples of Europe. Without Mao, insane ideas like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution are heavily moderated.

This is a BETTER world without the three than with them, but its still one with horrendous war and leaving a painful legacy--The likes of Mussolini and Tojo really have expanded their empires, with the forced acceptance of the Allies, who need Italian and Japanese support to destroy Communism. Of course, this still creates a Cold War of sorts--"New Rome" and "East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" are the new Warsaw Pact of our day, and the future would show this kind of reversal.

I just don't think the world can so easily avoid great suffering, death and destruction in the wake of the depression and Versailles.
 
Ever thought about the possibility of the following scenario:

- Weimar does not fall
- Soviet Union collapses mid-30s due to mismanagement?

A boring TL, yes, quite possibly? It's like Thande said about post-WWII Germany: "Sixty years of peace are nice to live in, but boring to read about in history books."
 
Ever thought about the possibility of the following scenario:

- Weimar does not fall
- Soviet Union collapses mid-30s due to mismanagement?

A boring TL, yes, quite possibly? It's like Thande said about post-WWII Germany: "Sixty years of peace are nice to live in, but boring to read about in history books."
It'd be interesting to read about the different collapse of the Soviet Union.
But, bah, one can make sixty years of peace interesting!
I shall endeavour to prove that, at a future point!:D
 
Ever thought about the possibility of the following scenario:

- Weimar does not fall
- Soviet Union collapses mid-30s due to mismanagement?

A boring TL, yes, quite possibly? It's like Thande said about post-WWII Germany: "Sixty years of peace are nice to live in, but boring to read about in history books."

Soviet Union collapsing strikes me as somewhat unlikely, at least this early on. Stalin was a very negligent leader--more interested in continuing his delusions than actual day to day running of the country. He might have had the bureaucratic touch, but lets face it, the Soviet Union outlived him by a pretty good margin as well.

What might be possible is problems at the periphery of the Soviet Union--trouble in dealing with Ukraine and the Caucasus. But Trotsky is still too much of a strongarm type to deal with these things in a liberal fashion--the army moves in and the issues are settled by force of arms. If the Soviet Union can outlive Stalin's abuses and mismanagement, it's sturdy enough to handle a more capable leader's maneuverings--at least in this time frame.

Weimar not falling is doable, but it would need a different attitude from the West and better political leaders to keep the state alive. This is a good bit more than were are supposing from the original timeline. (Removing Hitler isn't enough to keep Weimar alive, IMO.) If we suppose that the West sees the rising power of radicals in Germany as signs that moderates in Germany need help, rather than try to milk Germany until she faints, perhaps the support is sufficient. It would leave a bitter taste in France's mouth, but this would be a more productive move than building fortifications against Germany--the resources surely exist. In addition, Heinrich Bruning and his successor need to be much more capable to preside over the 1930s. If they are, they probably weather the storm, which is not as grave as OTL.

The problem is that even if Weimar survives, we've got a Red Alert situation on our hands. With Germany artificially weakened by Versailles, the Soviets still have a green light to expand Communism. This would be an enemy that Neville Chamberlain would be willing to fight, but France, under Leon Blum, might not be able to stand firm. Indeed, one possible outcome is a Leftist takeover in France with Soviet military successes.

I still think that the Allies are going admit Japan and Italy into their circle to handle the Red Threat. In any case, we need a lot more than the loss of three nasty people to prevent WW2. I'd suggest a soft adjustment to the stock market in 1925 to head off the depression, and a recognition that global trade averts global war. This MIGHT be enough to achieve some interesting changes:

Japan's civilian government might be strong enough to keep the army under control.
Weimar never falls. Interestingly, Poland and Austria remain unstable but slowly adjusting democracies.
Economic pressure against Mussolini forces his removal by King Immanuel III after the invasion of Ethiopia, which leads to trade embargoes that are actually very painful for the country.
The Soviet Union, although content to send spies abroad, doesn't take the next step and send troops.

Cold War, 1925...
[Are these changes that you wanted to implement, Q?]
 
Last edited:
Top