No Hitler, Replacements?

Let's say Hitler was drowned in a bathtub, or killed in the trenches, or enrolled by the Vienna Arts Academy...

If do not believe in the "great men" theory of history, and see people as the product of their times, who, then, would do his "work" IOTL, to play the role of a fascist, totalitarian dictator, to initiate a war, and ultimately a genocide?
 
On the Red side of things, Stalin, on the Nazi side of things assuming you desire them to still come about there's the founders of the ideology, it's not like Hitler was the first one. There were all sorts of totalitarian movements in the era to look into, as well.
 
If do not believe in the "great men" theory of history, and see people as the product of their times, who, then, would do his "work" IOTL, to play the role of a fascist, totalitarian dictator, to initiate a war, and ultimately a genocide?

One does not have to believe in the "great men" theory of history to believe that without Hitler there wouldn't have been a war and genocide. The whole "great man" vs "product of their times" is a false dichotomy.
 
Let's say Hitler was drowned in a bathtub, or killed in the trenches, or enrolled by the Vienna Arts Academy...

If do not believe in the "great men" theory of history, and see people as the product of their times, who, then, would do his "work" IOTL, to play the role of a fascist, totalitarian dictator, to initiate a war, and ultimately a genocide?

Hitler was almost entirely responsible for world war two, he was the scary correct mix of charisma, daring and ambition with a huge dose of crazy. He also was the nucleus for the Nazi ideology and without Hitler Germany is a completely different beast. The entire far right element of German politics changes without the Nazis. You could maybe have the Weimar Republic stumble along and eventually get its shit together (hard) , you could still have very different far right or far left factions (probable) take power but without Hitler and the Nazis you probably won't see mass genocide and other self destructive policies that characterized the Third Reich.
 
Hitler was almost entirely responsible for world war two, he was the scary correct mix of charisma, daring and ambition with a huge dose of crazy. He also was the nucleus for the Nazi ideology and without Hitler Germany is a completely different beast. The entire far right element of German politics changes without the Nazis. You could maybe have the Weimar Republic stumble along and eventually get its shit together (hard) , you could still have very different far right or far left factions (probable) take power but without Hitler and the Nazis you probably won't see mass genocide and other self destructive policies that characterized the Third Reich.

I agree totally, it is interesting to imagine who would come out on top. Personally I think it would be either Kurt von Schleicher or one of the Strasser brothers.
 
I know that Strasser was considered to be on the "left wing" of the Nazi party (to the extent such a thing could exist) insofar as he favored more explicitly pro-working class economic policies. Would he have been likely to take the anti-Semitism and racism to the extremes that Hitler did?
 
I know that Strasser was considered to be on the "left wing" of the Nazi party (to the extent such a thing could exist) insofar as he favored more explicitly pro-working class economic policies. Would he have been likely to take the anti-Semitism and racism to the extremes that Hitler did?
Not really. The Strassers raised a different argument for Anti-Semitism, based on the grounds of economic and cultural opposition (The fabled "Jewish Financial Capitalism") rather that sheer racialist hatred. They also supported an alliance with the Soviet Union, whom they saw as allies against France and Britain.

A Strasserist Germany would be a whole different thing that OTL Nazi Germany. At worst, I'd see them kicking the Jews into Eastern Poland, chowing up the land they had on Pre-1914 borders plus some extra land, while letting the Soviets handle the rest via Surprise Partition. That said, considering it means leaving them to the "tender care" of Joseph Stalin, expect them (and the Poles) to get the usual treatment: "You want more rights, comrade? Haha. You're funny. Go to Gulag."

So... Likely we get a more... protracted Holocaust...
 

thorr97

Banned
It's difficult to say now who else could've risen to power and national control in Germany during the Weimar Era because the NSDAP was so effective at eliminating its competition. There may well have been other charismatic and capable individuals in one of those other parties or groups that could've handled it. But, thanks to the success of the Nazis, they never got the chance.

From what I've read, the NSDAP without Hitler would never have amounted to much. He was just too big a draw for them and without him the NSDAP wouldn't have had the followers or the political power and thus just been one among many virulently nationalist extremist parties in Germany at the time.

Of those other parties, they essentially melted away as the NSDAP "sucked up all the air in the room" with its rise to power. There simply wasn't enough support left over to keep them viable and they either collapsed or threw in with the Nazis. Or were literally crushed by a few visits from the kindly lads of the SA.

A better answer to this would have to come from someone with a very deep knowledge of what other parties were out there and who the leading figures of the day were - aside from Hitler and the NSDAP guys who got all the press.
 
A better answer to this would have to come from someone with a very deep knowledge of what other parties were out there and who the leading figures of the day were - aside from Hitler and the NSDAP guys who got all the press.

I once did a little bit of research on some of the major party leaders from that time period. Here's what I can remember:

Otto Wels (Social Democrats) - Mostly remembered, I gather, for having the nerve to speak against the adoption of the Enabling Act in the Reichstag. One source characterized him as a bit wishy-washy and lightweight compared to other socialist leaders - this might have been the same source talking about how the SDP supported some of Hitler's rearmament plans and were making an effort to sound more "patriotic." (I don't know if this source had any particular axe to grind.)

Heinrich Bruning (Centre) - Presided over a very difficult economic period as Chancellor, but was removed from office (I think by President Hindenburg) before he had a chance to implement the final stage of his plan, which he thought could have turned things around. He did lobby for the Centre Party to oppose the Enabling Act but later voted for it to respect party discipline.

Kuno von Westarp (German National People's Party) - Seems to have been a more moderate leader of the DNVP compared to Hugenberg - might have been more reluctant to cooperate with the Nazis.
 

Wallet

Banned
Without the nazis, the communists could have gotten to power.

But I do believe war was inevitable between Russia and Germany, despite who controls them. They won't form some communist international. Sure, propaganda in both countries would talk of unity, but these countries are just to strong and neither wants to be the junior partner. They would cooperate, hell hitler and Stalin did OTL right up until the invasion.

Just like Russia and China, the two communist powers will fight.

Unless the British and French intervene before the communist take power, but I don't see them doing this after 1922 and especially after 1930.
 
The rise of the OTL Nazis to power was an outlier event.

Any re-roll of the dice with any change, we're highly likely to see less of an outlier event.
 
Top