WI- A MAGA Hitler instead of genocide

[Georgie Washington]

I should say MGGA instead of MAGA. But here's my question- what would happen if instead of September 1939 invasion of Poland, Hitler focused on economics and soft power. Could Hitler, without ASB, pull off something along those lines and make Germany at least the world power it was under Bismark? Or even relatively stronger than Bismarkian Germany compared to the Britain of each era.

What I was thinking is that Germany could do the transition from the early 20th century's Mahan's "coaling stations and colonies" to what Supreme Allied Command Admiral Stavridis says replaced them in the 21st century- "forward bases and alliances" (in his 2017 book Sea Power). My thoughts are that Germany could concentrate on funding projects within Germany building the economy, and to deal with the prevailing theory that the best way to deal with large number of single young unemployed males is to send them off to the military (to keep them from revolts and such activities) Germany could gain through alliances bases around the world to station them, and minor disputes to "peace keep"; such as the Sino-Japanese War. While stoking xenophobia and antisemitism, could Hitler hold power with his base while simultaneously denouncing particular attacks "just enough" to keep people like Einstein from fleeing? Could Germany, especially with Hitler's love of "big projects", and without the repudiation of "Jewish physics" then go on to develop nuclear power first? (controlled in power plants, not nec. a bomb at first, though of course also developing that) With the fear of the Soviet Union, over time a "miracle" Germany that is defying the Great Depression and has these unique amazing new power plants and jobs at Volkswagen, and jet engines, a V2 aimed not at Britain but at putting the first satellite in orbit, and a first-class road system; could the central European nations like Poland, Hungary, Romania, along with Turkey decide to allow forward bases of Germany aircraft and army? Hitler could invest in other nations claiming "yes, German money is being spent in the Philippines, but those Asians are then using that money to buy Germany industrial equipment to build their infrastructure, so it is our money coming home to create jobs, and we get military bases there as well" (The Philippines would be independent by the end of 1945 per the Tydings-McDuffie Act's 10 year period of being a commonwealth since no intervening War in the Pacific). We could see Germany not only be first in space, but take the lead in Antarctic and Arctic exploration, and renew its previous strength in archeaology which could be used as soft power in places like Greece, Turkey, and Iran.

ASB or any of this possible?

 

[James Ricker]

Nazi economic theory was not long term sustainable. In 1939 the German economy was getting ready to crash, only the looting of neighboring countries prevented total disaster.
Unless the Nazis adopted a different economic theory , the economy crashes in Germany gets rid of the Nazis

 

[Alanith]

And nothing of value is lost!

 

[KuboCaskett]

I think you need someone that's not Hitler be in charge of the Reich sometime after 1933 and before 1939 to accomplish this.

 

[KazuyaProta]

MAGA Hitler?

That would be just Generic Right Wing Dictatorship. It certainly would lead to a very different world, but Germany wouldn't be especially important.

 

[Chris Triangle]

No you woudln't say MGGA, you'd say MDWG.

For Trump, the whole "making America great again" act was easy because America already was most of the things he said; he just needed to repackage the message right, spin his narrative, and bank on the economy not completely crashing while in office. Compared to 1930's Germany, 2016 America was highly politically stable with strong democratic norms, no possibility of a coup, no lingering unavenged military defeats etc... 1930s German nationalists were a hell of a lot harder to satisfy than Trump's disgruntled base because they had more specific and less realistic demands as to what constituted making their nation "Great Again", the bare minimum being a return to the territorial size and relative military power that it enjoyed in 1914. Economic progress was not going to cut it for these kinds of radicals and the Nazis won't keep them happy forever by spinning the same narrative and lying about the results of their unrealistic economic promises (they also have no booming stock market to take credit for). When things don't magically go back to the promised levels of greatness and the map has not been redrawn, they either get thrown out or they gamble on a war. But since the preparations for war in this scenario were put off in favor of dubious economic goals, the chances of successfully waging a war grows extremely slim and the confidence in the Nazis to deliver anything at all gets smaller. Even blaming the Jews and concocting outlandish conspiracy theories would stop working when Hitler and his circle of toadies own incompetence and impotence becomes undeniable.

You're going to have a hard time getting the kind of cunning and more pragmatic nationalism that would have been possible in the past. At least, in the context of this time period.

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

No you woudln't say MGGA, you'd say MDWG.

And for Trump the whole "making America great again" act was easy because America already was most of the things he said; he just needed to repackage it right, put on a big show and ride his luck with the growing economy that he inherited as far as that can take him. Compared to 1930's Germany, 2016 America was highly politically stable with strong democratic norms, no possibility of a coup, no lingering unavenged military defeats etc... 1930s German nationalists were a hell of a lot harder to satisfy than Trump's disgruntled base because they had more specific and less realistic demands as to what constituted making their nation "Great Again", the bare minimum being a return to the territorial size and relative military power that it enjoyed in 1914. To satisfy the fire-bellied radicals who made up his own base, Hitler had to restore a country that actually had fallen substantially in prestige and power, which had lost large territories and which had a shameful military defeat that had gone unavenged. Economic progress was not going to cut it, and ultimately, only winning another world war could. It's just an inherently much stronger revanchist component than Trumpism ever had or ever will have. Worse, your German nationalists are inheriting a country that had limited global influence and was an unstable, fragile mess - the exact opposite of what Trump inherited. Of course they will not be able to keep their base happy forever by spinning the same narrative and lying about the results of their unrealistic economic promises (they also have no booming stock market to take credit for). When things don't magically go back to the promised levels of greatness and the map has not been redrawn, they either get thrown out or they gamble on a war. But since the preparations for war in this scenario were put off in favor of dubious economic goals, the chances of successfully waging a war grows extremely slim and the confidence in the Nazis to deliver anything at all gets smaller. Even blaming the Jews, that reliable Nazi pastime, would stop working if Hitler and his circle of toadies own incompetence and impotence becomes undeniable.

Disillusion with Hitler and his regime leads the masses to turn towards leftism/Communism, which Hitler represses violently. The repression works until Hitler can't pay the army, the people around him lose confidence, or he gets old/in poor health enough that people are worried about what happens once he's gone. The Communists take over, but that doesn't work either, and you get a series of coups and revolutions while Germany gradually gets poorer and anyone who can leaves. All in all, it still beats OTL.

 

[Aisha Clan-Clan]

goering takes over after hitler chokes on a pretzel in summer of '39. between the economic crisis as Goering and Speer have to gear the German economy towards a peacetime footing, Hitler is remembered as the leader who restored Deutchsland.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

The Nazis wouldn’t have gained power in ‘33 by promising to revitalise the economy. The only thing that made them a halfway viable political concern was their violent rhetoric and promises of regaining lost territory. Plenty of other candidates or parties put economic works front and centre of their platforms and were consigned to the also-rans of Weimar politics.

 

[Michele]

Nazi economic theory was not long term sustainable. In 1939 the German economy was getting ready to crash, only the looting of neighboring countries prevented total disaster.
Unless the Nazis adopted a different economic theory , the economy crashes in Germany gets rid of the Nazis

I agree with the above - provided that the assumption is that the government still wants those bloated, unpaid-for armed forces.
That's not a given, unless you want to embark on a campaign of swift imperial aggrandizement.

 

[elkarlo]

MAGA Hitler?

That would be just Generic Right Wing Dictatorship. It certainly would lead to a very different world, but Germany wouldn't be especially important.

If Germany doesn't wreck it's self via a massive war, then it would become an economic powerhouse of Europe. It'd be like Germany now but with more people and more industries that weren't wrecked

 

[elkarlo]

The Nazis wouldn’t have gained power in ‘33 by promising to revitalise the economy. The only thing that made them a halfway viable political concern was their violent rhetoric and promises of regaining lost territory. Plenty of other candidates or parties put economic works front and centre of their platforms and were consigned to the also-rans of Weimar politics.

The Nazis had levers to pull. No more payments to the Wallies, and reoccupation of the Rhineland would help. Plus if they can just create stability, that goes much further than you'd think. Stability breeds economic success. Or at least creates a fertile ground that it can be grown in.

 

[Michele]

The Nazis wouldn’t have gained power in ‘33 by promising to revitalise the economy. The only thing that made them a halfway viable political concern was their violent rhetoric and promises of regaining lost territory. Plenty of other candidates or parties put economic works front and centre of their platforms and were consigned to the also-rans of Weimar politics.

The Nazis also had economic promises in their list; they really were a something-for-everyone party. That said, yes, they did promise to redress Versailles, and they had a violent rhethoric to their stuff - but that doesn't mean that Hitler's successor in 1939 (I agree with those who think you can't carry out a brain transplant on him) actually has to deliver on the promises that got the party into power.

However, that doesn't lead truly to a "greater" Germany. Yes, by 1939 they have remilitarized the Rhineland, annexed Austria and the Sudeten. But, because of the economy, if they don't want to go to war they now have to cut military spending according to Schacht's harsh advice, cancel projects, send officers and NCOs home, and so on. That will already be bad; but on top of that, it's likely some economic slump will follow (albeit not the complete meltdown they'd have if they kept the military spending going as if there were no tomorrow, and not used the steel to rob someone else's gold). Cut the military projects and the industries have to lay off workers; don't go to war and you'll have to redeem the 1940 bonds; don't take the Czech gold reserves and you'll end up yours, etc.

So they'll have a muddling-through Germany, not a "great-again" Germany, with the exception of the territorial successes already accomplished in 1933-38.

Still better than what they got by 1945, of course.

Lots of people will dislike all of that, including the Nazis' own power base, and the army. But by 1939, it's a full-fledged dictatorship, if the new man is solidly in the saddle, they can handle that.

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

Lots of people will dislike all of that, including the Nazis' own power base, and the army. But by 1939, it's a full-fledged dictatorship, if the new man is solidly in the saddle, they can handle that.

That's a pretty big if, since Hitler didn't designate a successor and tended to play his subordinates off against one another. A more likely scenario is for conflict over the succession to get violent, leading to either full-fledged collapse and civil war or one person consolidating power and purging his rivals. This person is going to have very strong incentives not to cut military spending,so you're likely to see an invasion of Poland as soon as the internal opposition is cleared up.

 

[Michele]

That's a pretty big if,

Yes, that's why it's written like this.

since Hitler didn't designate a successor and tended to play his subordinates off against one another. A more likely scenario is for conflict over the succession to get violent, leading to either full-fledged collapse and civil war or one person consolidating power and purging his rivals. This person is going to have very strong incentives not to cut military spending,so you're likely to see an invasion of Poland as soon as the internal opposition is cleared up.

A possibility, yes.

 

[Braden Anderson]

Would MAGA Hitler still anschluss Austria and take the Sudetenland? If that's all he does in terms of expansion, then I guess he'd be remembered like Bismark.

In HOI4 there's a focus called "Danzig for Slovakia" wherein Czechoslovakia is partitioned between Poland and Germany, and Poland gives Danzig to Germany.

Perhaps Hitler could befriend Poland and form a mutual defense pact against the Soviet Union? Perhaps Finland signs as well?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Would MAGA Hitler still anschluss Austria and take the Sudetenland? If that's all he does in terms of expansion, then I guess he'd be remembered like Bismark.

Up until 1940, when the economy implodes in his face that is.

In HOI4 there's a focus called "Danzig for Slovakia" wherein Czechoslovakia is partitioned between Poland and Germany, and Poland gives Danzig to Germany.

Which historically the Poles would go for over their dead bodies.

 

[Braden Anderson]

Up until 1940, when the economy implodes in his face that is.



Which historically the Poles would go for over their dead bodies.

Why 1940?

Also, suppose that he is able to start a war with the soviets. In this timeline, the soviets never invaded Finland or Poland, and lack a lot of the experience they had when Barbarossa started in OTL.
I would think that the Axis (with Poland) could beat the Soviet Union, assuming the Allies don't get involved. Maybe the war starts because the USSR invades one of the Baltic countries, making them the aggressors.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Why 1940?

Because that's when the credit crunch will strangle the German economy. The real world isn't HoI4: you usually don't pay for things by shipping out a civilian industry but with foreign currency. By '39 OTL, the Germans had kicked things back as long as they could: trying to go for autarky as much as possible with synthetic technology, the giant ponzi scheme that was the MEFO bills, import/export exchange bargaining. All of those had started coming apart by '39. The last gasp was when Hitler released Germany's strategic reserves of materials, which helped push production through to 1940, but once that was exhausted there was nothing left.

Historically, the Germans only managed to avoid this crunch by clotheslining the French and securing a dominant position in Continental Europe, which allowed it to simply take or extort most of the resources it would need to fuel it's war industries for the next four years.

Also, suppose that he is able to start a war with the soviets. In this timeline, the soviets never invaded Finland or Poland, and lack a lot of the experience they had when Barbarossa started in OTL.
I would think that the Axis (with Poland) could beat the Soviet Union, assuming the Allies don't get involved. Maybe the war starts because the USSR invades one of the Baltic countries, making them the aggressors.

Without the resources looted from Western Europe, a broke Germany with a inert arms industry is not going to be beating the Soviet Union any time soon. The Polish and French campaigns also taught the Germans some valuable experience which won't be applicable IATL. Without the western countries distracted with already tearing into each other, the Soviets aren't invading anyone. Their too cautious for that. Instead, they'll continue to pursue their rearmament and reform campaigns to get the Red Army into shape by '42/'43. Similarly, the Anglo-French's own rearmament programs started prior to Munich were already sailing past the Germans by the end of '39 in terms of productivity and would have been overwhelming by '41. So if Hitler does respond to the economic collapse by trying to start a war in 1941, he's gonna get hammered.

 

[Aloha]

Well, there's a TL about Hitler being born in the US and becoming president there.