How would Hitler deal with the Tsar?

  • Russian Empire signs a none aggression pact with Germany, and invaded Poland

    Votes: 18 35.3%
  • Russian Empire signs a none aggression pact with Germany, But doesn’t invade Poland

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Russian Empire does not sign a none aggression pact with Germany

    Votes: 1 2.0%
  • Germany does not invade Russian Empire

    Votes: 2 3.9%
  • Germany invades Russian Empire

    Votes: 12 23.5%
  • Russian Empire joins Allies

    Votes: 18 35.3%
  • Russian Empire joins Axis

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    51
In an alternate scenerio, the Tsar Nicholas II and his Family flees to England, and the Whites win the Civil War, restoring the monarchy as a constitutional monarchy, whers the Tsar has limited power.
Many white army generals, such as Kolchak, Denikin, and Ungern, return to Russia. The country begins to industrialize under the Duma.

Countries like the Baltic’s and Finland, Poland breaks off, but Ukraine, Belarus, Central Asia, are reintegrated

In 1936, Tsar Nicholas II dies, and Alexei, kept in safe conditions due to his Hemophilia, at the age 31, is crowned Tsar Alexander II

Hitler and the Nazis still rises, due the various other Communist Revolutions in Germany.

How would Hilter deal with the Russian Empire?
 
Last edited:
1. Nazis would be butterflied away. Without USSR rise of Nazism would be impossible. Perhaps some authotarian right-wing state but hardly Hitler.
2. Alexei's hemophilia was so serious level that he wouldn't live long enough becoming tsar. He hardly even would see his 20th birthday. And his regnal name would be Alexei II not Alexander III who was anyway Nicholas II's predecessor.
 
So let’s assume grand duke Michael gets the crown? Will he bend on polish independence? Assuming fascism does still arise, perhaps the Duce try’s to enlist Russian support for his irredentist claims in Trieste, and Albania.
 
I am thinking of different scenario. How about Nicholas II lives until 1952. He is succeeded by his young grandson Tsar Paul II. (Just a name I picked.). The Tsarevitch Alexei marries young, The Imperial family is well aware of the delicate health issues of Alexei, thus they arrange a marriage for him at age 22 with a cousin, (you pick one), and he dies not too long after the birth of his son, the Grand Duke Paul Alexyvich around 1927. The young Tsar Paul II succeeds his grandfather at the age of 25. His negative experiences under his grandfathers conservative and short sighted reign lead him to be an enlightened monarch who will be succeeded in 1974 by his oldest son, also afflicted by the dreaded bleeders disease. This son is named Nicholas III. He reigns a short 3 years before dying in 1977, and is succeeded by his younger brother Grand Duke Alexei, now Alexei II. It is this young Tsar who begins his reign at the age of 21 and who must now lead his Empire into the modern nuclear era. He is an enlightened nationalist, like his father Paul II, and a very religious Orthodox church believer like his older brother, Nicholas III, but he is also an internationalist who believes in the European Union with a slightly "Eastern European" influence.
 
Well.. If there is a civil war its already too late . Remember what year Niki was killed. If the whites win.. And mikhail or someone else gets the throne, and I find that a tad off base as most were fighting for themselves at that point, than nazi Germany is by no means a probable outcome.

Now this isn't to say that communism was popular in Germany as well. Since it was, so you different layers of socialists in Germany.

On the polish question. Poland was a grand duchy, if its by 1922, than I'm not sure if Poland is coming back if palduaski is still running things. So Poland stays free.

The Baltic may rejoin the empire as a duchy. Ukraine will not be given a choice nor Belarus.

Finland may also rejoin But again the longer they are free, the less likely.

You have massive butterfly's here.

You may avert or it takes place later a market crash and some form of a depression.

Weimar Germany will be on decent terms with this Russia to some degree, but on the same token may find it is prudent to be buddies with Poland
 
I wouldn't say impossible. It just depends on how the ideology changes. Nazism was a mutable ideology. If Russia had resisted Communism, it might change the racial ideas and of course make the ideology less anti communist. Or even if the racial ideas are there they could be ignored, like some of Germany Balkan allies. Could see Nazism lurch leftwards in some areas without the Communists, thought it still needs to be somewhat right wing to be supported by the anti left Right and moderates. Or go down a different path of support to victory.

There are other issues. A reborn Russian Empire, won't be a international pariah, and thus not working with Germany before on arms limitations. But they are likely somewhat annoyed at their old allies helping the breakaway states. But still working with Germany who let Lenin in seems a bit too far.

Even with a Duma, it would still be unstable to a large degree. And foreign policy wise it is still going to be feared by all the break away regions. Could still see Poland unsuccessfully try to create a bulkward of alliances against Russia. Nazi Germany did work with Poland for a bit, but there is the issue of Danzig and other German issues. But they have to pick one, and I think there is somewhat less tensions between Germany and Poland, then Russia and Poland.

I could see it go multiple ways. Germany could be halted earlier by a non pariah Russia which wants to keep Germany down. Germany could get away with the early stuff, but then it and Poland end up allied against Russia and the war be limited to just them. The Western allies don't have as much issue to get involved. Russia could intervene against the German invasion, and Germany is essentially fucked. Or Germany and Russia split Poland like OTL. So I didn't pick a poll option, because most of them are possible.
 
1. Nazis would be butterflied away. Without USSR rise of Nazism would be impossible. Perhaps some authotarian right-wing state but hardly Hitler.

The problem is that the Nazis rose to power largely because of Germany's defeat in WWI. In WWI Germany was a lot like Hillary Clinton and her supporters, they were told that they were going to win, it looked like they were going to win, until all of a sudden they lost. That radicalized a lot of people. There were a lot of nationalists in Germany who wanted a round two.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The problem is that the Nazis rose to power largely because of Germany's defeat in WWI. In WWI Germany was a lot like Hillary Clinton and her supporters, they were told that they were going to win, it looked like they were going to win, until all of a sudden they lost. That radicalized a lot of people. There were a lot of nationalists in Germany who wanted a round two.
Please keep current politics out of ALL Forums except Chat.

Thanks
 
An old post of mine:

***

... (2) While the Nazi party did come to power during the Great Depression, they came to power only with the aid of German conservatives who feared that the Depression might otherwise lead Germany into "Bolshevism." Without the fear of Communism generated by the existence of the Soviet Union, German politics in the 1930's might have been very different, *even assuming* that Hitler would still be leading a mass movement.

(3) In any event, while the NSDAP grew dramatically during the 1930's, it did not come out of nowhere. The party did first have to exist in 1919-29 and Hitler become a well-known figure for it to grow in the 1930's. And the early history of the NSDAP simply cannot be separated from the fear of Bolshevism. In fact, anti-Bolshevik emigres from Russia (including Baltic Germans) played a critical role in formulating the NSDAP's ideology linking Jews to Bolshevism. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/groups/scr/kellogg.pdf There are also indirect effects. For example, it is quite likely that without the Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler would never have come to power, both because of the publicity he got at his trial, and because the failure of the Putsch convinced him that the NSDAP must seek a "legal" path to power. Now the Putsch was modeled after Mussolini's March on Rome (or a misunderstood version of it). So without Mussolini's success, Hitler's eventual success might have been impossible. And what made Mussolini's success possible was in part his role in opposing the factory occupations that were largely inspired by the triumph of Bolshevism in Russia.

Or take the SPD-KPD split. It is true that the SPD originally split on the issue of the War, even before the 1917 Russian revolutions. Yet this split might have been temporary if not for the Bolshevik Revolution and the creation of the Comintern. An undivided SPD could have received 40 percent of the vote in 1928 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_1928 and might have served as the basis for a stable left-center government instead of the instability of the next few years in OTL. And that would obviously affect the prospects of the NSDAP--even assuming it would exist as we know it--coming to power.

Anyway, we don't even have to rely on such indirect effects. Bolshevism clearly had a large direct effect on Hitler personally. It is simply not possible to read *Mein Kampf* without seeing a genuine obsession of Hitler's on the subject of Bolshevism--one which was hardly unique to him. Yet we are asked to believe that German politics without a Bolshevik Russia will be unchanged--everything from Hitler's initiation in politics (as a German intelligence officer whose original task was to investigate the radical groups that had sprung up largely as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution) to his rise to power (where fear of Communism was a key part of his appeal) to his decision to invade Russia in 1941 (something advocated as far back as *Mein Kampf* on the ground that "the Jew" through Bolshevism had caused Russia's "decomposition" and made it ripe for conquest by *Lebensraum*-seeking Germany), etc. All this seems very implausible to me. I think that a world where the Whites won in 1918 or 1919 would in 1941 be so different from the world as we know it that talking about Hitler, Barbarossa, etc. would simply be meaningless.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...e-operation„barbarossa“.433527/#post-16279796
 
With White Russia around, 1939 would look completly different:
-White Russia is not politically isolated like USSR was. Russia is still allied to France (and France would sacrifice alliance with Poland & Czechoslovakia without hestitation if there is option of continuing alliance with Russia, so by 1939 Poland and Czechoslovakia without French support are likely Russian puppets at best) .
-German rearmament would not be tolerated ITTL. IOTL for a while Nazi Germany was seen in the West as "lesser evil" that would shield Europe from communism. Now there is no Soviet Russia so no need for bulwark against Communism. Attempt of rearmament could be easily crushed by France & Russia. Germany by starting new war would need to fight two front war from the very beginning.

So no matter how angry Germans are. They simply can't take revenge. Russia allied with the West changes balance of power completly.
 
The UK would probably reach some sort of understanding with whatever the ATL Germany is (it's almost certainly not going to be Nazis, since a White Russia means the industrialists and Junkers have no incentive whatsoever to ally with them, leaving the NSDAP in the position of the Arrow Cross in 1940, at the very most).
 
An old post of mine:

***

... (2) While the Nazi party did come to power during the.....16279796

The core weakness in this proposal is that without a Communist USSR the Communists are not active and not seen as a threat. The radical left was active and seen as a threat before the USR emerged & I don't see it evaporating because a large Communist state does not emerge.

Beyond that the 'Bolshivik Menace' was a lesser part of the core of Nazi ideology. Between racism and post war revanchism there was still a powerful appeal. Pleanty of other secondary items as well, to build on.
 
The core weakness in this proposal is that without a Communist USSR the Communists are not active and not seen as a threat. The radical left was active and seen as a threat before the USR emerged & I don't see it evaporating because a large Communist state does not emerge.

Beyond that the 'Bolshivik Menace' was a lesser part of the core of Nazi ideology. Between racism and post war revanchism there was still a powerful appeal. Pleanty of other secondary items as well, to build on.

There were just so many ways (which I elaborated on in my post) in which Bolshevik Russia directly and indirectly affected Hitler's career as well as German politics in general, and so many contingencies in Hitler's own rise to power that I simply do not think it realistic to posit a world in 1939 in which Russia is ruled by a Tsar and German history for the past twenty years has proceeded just as it did in OTL.
 
Top