PC: Hindenburg Retires = No Nazi Germany = No WWII?

[John Fredrick Parker]

Let's say, in 1932, Hindenburg decided to not run for re-election as Reichsprasident. What are the effects? My thoughts on how this plays out:

1. The "stop Hitler" movement will still rally around somebody else (who after all only really has to do second place or better in the first election so that he can beat Hitler in the runoff). I've heard that Hugo Eckener is the most likely candidate here, but wouldn't be surprised if there were other potential candidates.
   
2. Whoever (other than Hitler) wins the Presidency in 1932, he is likely to survive his seven year term. (Granted, whoever the Germans elect, is likely going to dodge an assassination attempt or two before his terms done, but I think we can safely assume he beats them, so long as he's in good health.)
   
3. As long as there is a living Reichsprasident who is not Hitler, the Nazis cannot get a secure hold of power -- even with the Reichstag's OTL makeup, the President has the power to hire or fire a Chancellor at will, and can create a cabinet sidestepping the Reichstag if necessary.
   • (Though some might disagree, I wouldn't exactly call this outcome a "dictatorship", considering the man the government answers to is still elected; given Germany's political circumstances, I wouldn't blame the government for deferring to a "strong executive", so long as elections still happen as scheduled and political parties, KDP and/or NSDP aside, aren't outlawed.)
4. If Hitler does not come to power in Germany, "WWII" as we know it won't happen -- by this, I mean simply that no more wars with over a million casualties on the European continent will occur, at least for the remainder of the 20th Century.
   
5. In this sense, the Great War (1914-18) really does go on to become "the war to end all wars".

So what are your thoughts? I know a number of these points have been disputed in previous threads, but I thought they could use a spot for real debate.

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

1. Yes, Hugo Eckener would be one candidate and likely be elected in the second run.

2. If it is Eckener he will likely survive.

3. The 1932 elections would not take place, thus preventing the success of Hitler in July. This is crucial. In November the situation became much better economically and thus would mean losses for the NSDAP. This party would be soon after bankrupt and Hitler a mere privatier, who had to fear a tax supervision.

4. Brüning will likely stay as chancellor for some time longer, as Papen would not be chosen. Thus also no Preußenschlag.

5. This does not stop the chaos in the Reichstag soon, but without the NSDAP and even with a slightly bigger KPD the democratic parties would still get enough votes. If the SPD accepted the duty to form a government, is open. One has to see, the SPD had left the coalition, as some wanted to reform the party in the opposition at the worst possible moment in 1930. Thus there will be wing fights within the SPD, but that's nothing new or unusual.

6. WW2 might still happen though.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

6. WW2 might still happen though.

OK, let's see if I can elaborate on my thoughts here -- AIUI, the crucial idea/interest/motive behind Germany's aggressive acts was Lebensraum, or "living space" for the German people. Now admittedly, this idea did crop up in the Kaiserich's war aims as the Great War dragged on, so it has some precedent, and no doubt there are non-Nazis in Germany who were pushing the idea; however, it was far from universally understood in the Weimar Republic to be a crucial interest.

This is because behind the nationalist reasoning wasn't some kind of cold, hard realpolitik, but a romanticism of rural Germany populated by small farmers; absent a complete control of the political atmosphere (made possible by Nazi Totalitarianism) it would prove very hard, if not impossible, to get the vast "urbanist" population of Germany to go along with a war for Lebensraum. A German government -- even one operating by executive decree under the Reichsprasident, advised by Junkers -- is going to deal in foreign relations with this knowledge in mind, making it less aggressive toward France and Britain overall.

 

[Blackfox5]

Any WWII would be totally different and not occur until many years after OTL's war. Rearmament would be much slower. Hitler was a gambler and took many risks. Without him, there is no 1936 march into the Rhineland, no Austrian anschluss, and no Munich criss. Instead, Germany looks for opportunities to revise Versailles whenever possible, but through normal diplomatic means.

Unless the far right (not necessarily Volkisch) takes power at a time when Germany's economy was strong and they were able to build up a large army, and the international politics allowed the prospect of a "safe" attack on a less powerful country, I don't see Germany ever starting a WWII. That probably won't occur for several decades.

It would be interesting to speculate on a WWII in the 1960s after extrapolating the state of Europe and the world without OTL's war, but it would require a lot of assumptions.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Any WWII would be totally different and not occur until many years after OTL's war.

Would the board agree that delaying such a war this long significantly decreases the likelihood of it happening at all?

 

[sciscisciortino]

I think expansionist war was the safety valve of German internal politics at that point.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I think expansionist war was the safety valve of German internal politics at that point.

By 1932? That's an odd claim, considering Germany made did not aggressive push toward expansionist war OTL until 1938 (or 35 if you really want to stretch the definition).

 

[sciscisciortino]

How else are you going to shore up the German economy at that point except through massive rearmament and once your debts are getting called in, invasion? Nothing else is going to salve the seething class and ideological tensions in the country.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

How else are you going to shore up the German economy at that point except through massive rearmament...? Nothing else is going to salve the seething class and ideological tensions in the country.

Wait, unless I'm mistaken, didn't Nazi Germany OTL waited a few years before it started building its military, focusing initially on public works and the like (the Autobahn comes to mind)? I had thought those first few years of recovery had as much in common with the American New Deal; I do know the economist in charge of German economic policy in the first few years of Nazi rule actually opposed to rearmament.

Of course, all this is (AIR) OTL; I won't dispute that similar recovery efforts under an alternate government aren't necessarily going to happen, meaning German recovery from the Depression may not be as quick as OTL.

...and once your debts are getting called in, invasion?

Not sure how to respond to this just yet; care to elaborate as to why a dispute over German reparation repayment invariably (or even OTL) means that Germany will invade somebody?

 

[PsihoKekec]

Nazis were rearming from the beggining, expanding upon Weimars secret programs, their efforts only became more blatant later. However, in the ''guns or butter'' dilemma, Hitler tried to go ''guns and butter'' way, with lot of dual purpose spending.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Nazis were rearming from the beggining, expanding upon Weimars secret programs, their efforts only became more blatant later. However, in the ''guns or butter'' dilemma, Hitler tried to go ''guns and butter'' way, with lot of dual purpose spending.

Now that you mention it, the "dual purpose" of the programs is how I remember it. So I think we can agree rearmament's continuation (as under the Weimar) and/or expansion is likely.

I'm still not convinced this means that Germany is going to get itself into a large scale European War, or even that it remains a strong possibility unless it accompanies an aggressive foreign policy (which I see as unlikely here, for reasons stated above). Of course, even if Germany isn't aggressively pursuing an expansionist conflict (a la the Nazis), technically they could still blunder into one as they did in the Great War... though I'm going to say that's highly unlikely.

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

OK, let's see if I can elaborate on my thoughts here -- AIUI, the crucial idea/interest/motive behind Germany's aggressive acts was Lebensraum, or "living space" for the German people. Now admittedly, this idea did crop up in the Kaiserich's war aims as the Great War dragged on, so it has some precedent, and no doubt there are non-Nazis in Germany who were pushing the idea; however, it was far from universally understood in the Weimar Republic to be a crucial interest.

This is because behind the nationalist reasoning wasn't some kind of cold, hard realpolitik, but a romanticism of rural Germany populated by small farmers; absent a complete control of the political atmosphere (made possible by Nazi Totalitarianism) it would prove very hard, if not impossible, to get the vast "urbanist" population of Germany to go along with a war for Lebensraum. A German government -- even one operating by executive decree under the Reichsprasident, advised by Junkers -- is going to deal in foreign relations with this knowledge in mind, making it less aggressive toward France and Britain overall.

No, I didn't mean that. I meant, WW2, excluding Holocaust and race shit and "Lebensraum", could happen. Meaning a war between Germany on the one side and Poland, France and Britain on the other, likely in the 1940s.

 

[Tom Colton]

Mitteleuropa thought might still be lingering in the minds of German conservatives, especially if you've got (for whatever reason) a more aggressive Soviet Union - maybe a version of the Winter War would prompt retaliation by Germany, regarding the Baltic SSRs a necessary target to making a buffer zone between themselves and the Soviet Union.

 

[Mikestone8]

Wait, unless I'm mistaken, didn't Nazi Germany OTL waited a few years before it started building its military, focusing initially on public works and the like (the Autobahn comes to mind)?

The autobahns would have been built at about the same time whoever was Chancellor. 90% of the land for them had been acquired by Jan 1933 - just nicely for Hitler to take the credit.

 

[Ravenflight]

I think expansionist war was the safety valve of German internal politics at that point.

Well, a 1950's or 60's developement of 'the Bomb' and many of Germany's physicists staying in Germany would possibly result in even worse things (a limited nuclear war) due to not having as big a post WWII anti-war sentiment.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

No, I didn't mean that. I meant, WW2, excluding Holocaust and race shit and "Lebensraum", could happen. Meaning a war between Germany on the one side and Poland, France and Britain on the other, likely in the 1940s.

Ah gotcha; see my point is, without "Lebensraum" as official German policy, I'm less clear how this war breaks out, absent some second blunder similar to the Great War. Though speaking of which...

Mitteleuropa thought might still be lingering in the minds of German conservatives, especially if you've got (for whatever reason) a more aggressive Soviet Union - maybe a version of the Winter War would prompt retaliation by Germany, regarding the Baltic SSRs a necessary target to making a buffer zone between themselves and the Soviet Union.

I often see the Soviet Union being more aggressive in "No Hitler" ATLs, but it's never been clear to me why this is assumed to be the case. Stalin was really paranoid and "conservative" OTL, making any attempts at taking on a united Europe to reclaim Russian territory seem out of character (at least as I understand him).

 

[Tyr Anazasi]

Stalin was very cautious and would likely not have acted in case of the lack of another great war. Here I still think Danzig and the Corridore were still too hot topics neither side would accept compromises. At least I can hardly see that. Or perhaps Poland attacking Lithunia for not signing a treaty accepting the loss of Kaunas for all times, in which Germany comes Lithunia to aid, which means France declaring war on Germany...

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Stalin was very cautious and would likely not have acted in case of the lack of another great war. Here I still think Danzig and the Corridore were still too hot topics neither side would accept compromises. At least I can hardly see that. Or perhaps Poland attacking Lithunia for not signing a treaty accepting the loss of Kaunas for all times, in which Germany comes Lithunia to aid, which means France declaring war on Germany...

Maybe; but it's also important to remember that OTL, WWI was still fresh in everyone's minds, and even with Hitler basically extorting land and throwing caution to the wind, Europe was reluctant to go to war. I still think if the government of Germany was less insane, a stronger peaceful solution would most likely be found.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

A 2nd World War is still possible, give the strong German revanchist movement, but not guaranteed and could evolve in a radically different direction compared to OTL. It also might not happen at all.

 

[What if]

I could still see a pacific war breaking out between the European powers (Holland, Uk, France) and the US allied vs Japan as Japans actions were largely independent of the NAZIs.