WI hitler died

For the Wehrmacht, a Goering takeover would have been better than Hitler surviving; Goering was one of their own, a Prussian and of the officer class.

Goering was officer class, more or less, but not "Prussian".

His father was a Rheinlander, and he was born and raised in Bavaria.
 

Cook

Banned
Goering was officer class, more or less, but not "Prussian".

His father was a Rheinlander, and he was born and raised in Bavaria.
Yes your right, his becoming the President of Prussia had me thinking he was origionally from there.
 
Yes but if the new dictator is not the monster Hitler was there is no final solution. jJews are second class citizens but are not slaughtered.

This is difficult to say without citing whole journal articles or sounding like a nutcase, however...

The final solution was not some monstrous scheme born of a single mad man. Unlike many other aspects of Nazi ideology, the fact that Jews had no right to live within German borders, or anywhere within Europe, could not be brushed aside by a new leader. Hitler rose to power as someone who would save Germany from becoming a Jewish colony, or at least that was the myth that had become established by 1938. It was based on decades of racial "science", which in turn rested on centuries of prejudice across Europe. Absolutely nowhere wanted to take in the quantities of Jews who wanted to leave Germany.

The final solution was the last in a line of proposed solutions. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were being transported to the East, supposedly to be resettled on the worst land. At the same time, the authorities in occupying zones were in competition to keep down the numbers of Jews in their area, and to do the best job of creating German order from Slavic chaos. Only a small proportion are suitable for forced labour. It was suggested that women and children could be driven into the marshes, but that's something of a medieval, inefficient solution.

I'm going to stop there because this isn't exactly easy to talk about. My point is that most Holocaust research over the last ten years or so points to it having been a more or less inevitable outcome of the dominant ideology(/ies), governing structures and the situation on the ground. Removing Hitler realistically makes little difference to this.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
You'd need a much earlier Israel. But would Germany even be able to get away with it. I mean if Goring is in charge he isn't going to be controlling most of Europe and so can't keep everything under wraps. Especially the Giant death camps.
 
Last edited:
War was inevitable, whoever was at the helm.

Why? I can understand a deterministic view of history, but why would Germany be headed towards a war no matter whom runs the country?

I can agree that a war is likely, especially for most potential successors, but inevitable?
 
This is difficult to say without citing whole journal articles or sounding like a nutcase, however...

The final solution was not some monstrous scheme born of a single mad man. Unlike many other aspects of Nazi ideology, the fact that Jews had no right to live within German borders, or anywhere within Europe, could not be brushed aside by a new leader. Hitler rose to power as someone who would save Germany from becoming a Jewish colony, or at least that was the myth that had become established by 1938. It was based on decades of racial "science", which in turn rested on centuries of prejudice across Europe. Absolutely nowhere wanted to take in the quantities of Jews who wanted to leave Germany.

The final solution was the last in a line of proposed solutions. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were being transported to the East, supposedly to be resettled on the worst land. At the same time, the authorities in occupying zones were in competition to keep down the numbers of Jews in their area, and to do the best job of creating German order from Slavic chaos. Only a small proportion are suitable for forced labour. It was suggested that women and children could be driven into the marshes, but that's something of a medieval, inefficient solution.

I thought this was debated, irc Robert Gellately argued that Anti-Semitism was not a vote winner for the Nazis, and then questions the degree of popular Anti-Semitism in the German population.
 
Why? I can understand a deterministic view of history, but why would Germany be headed towards a war no matter whom runs the country?

I can agree that a war is likely, especially for most potential successors, but inevitable?

I meant no matter which member of the Nazi hierarchy takes over from Hitler. Whether for expansionist or economic reasons, to "secure Germany's borders", because too many people in the party wanted to scrub out the shame of losing the first world war, or because another country (Russia?) saw Hitler's death as an opportunity to strike first, avoiding war throughout the 1930s and 1940s would have been pretty difficult. Nothing's completely set in stone, of course, but I'd put a follow-up conflict involving Germany within 25 years of WWI up there with death and taxes.
 
I thought this was debated, irc Robert Gellately argued that Anti-Semitism was not a vote winner for the Nazis, and then questions the degree of popular Anti-Semitism in the German population.

You're right. The level of anti-Semitism among the general population is still a matter of debate (and always will be) and Gellately does show quite effectively that there were far more important reasons why people supported the regime, and more effective strategies for encouraging collusion. That said, ridding Germany of Jewish influence (and other influences "foreign" to their view of German-ness) remained one of the core goals of the party. For me, the fact that such staggering levels of man-power and resources were channeled into achieving this, in the middle of a war, would prove its importance as an aim even without the surviving written evidence.
 
I meant no matter which member of the Nazi hierarchy takes over from Hitler. Whether for expansionist or economic reasons, to "secure Germany's borders", because too many people in the party wanted to scrub out the shame of losing the first world war, or because another country (Russia?) saw Hitler's death as an opportunity to strike first, avoiding war throughout the 1930s and 1940s would have been pretty difficult. Nothing's completely set in stone, of course, but I'd put a follow-up conflict involving Germany within 25 years of WWI up there with death and taxes.

I can agree with that, but if an Munich Agreement analogy still goes into effect, Germany would have settled most of its territorial demands. Would a new ruler(s) gamble said gains? Especially if the new boss(es) has an unstable hold on power? I believe we would see some type of troika/collective body ruling at least at the start, something akin to the post-Lenin Soviet union, rather than a new Fuhrer arising.

I would also be interesting who we would view Hitler as a historical figure in this atl.
 
That said, ridding Germany of Jewish influence (and other influences "foreign" to their view of German-ness) remained one of the core goals of the party. For me, the fact that such staggering levels of man-power and resources were channeled into achieving this, in the middle of a war, would prove its importance as an aim even without the surviving written evidence.

Sure, it was an important goal, there is no question about it. But in this senario we are in 1938, and that means no Wannsee yet. That option is not yet sett in stone is it?

It all rather depends on who will rule Germany, and how important the Jewish question is to them. Based on what i have read, it always looked as a important point for the hard core Nazis idelogs, and not for the rank and file supporters.
 
I meant no matter which member of the Nazi hierarchy takes over from Hitler. Whether for expansionist or economic reasons, to "secure Germany's borders", because too many people in the party wanted to scrub out the shame of losing the first world war, or because another country (Russia?) saw Hitler's death as an opportunity to strike first, avoiding war throughout the 1930s and 1940s would have been pretty difficult. Nothing's completely set in stone, of course, but I'd put a follow-up conflict involving Germany within 25 years of WWI up there with death and taxes.

Yes, there were some Germans who wanted to avenge the defeat of 1918.

And there were some Germans who wanted to annex territory.

And there were ten times as many Germans who thought starting another war was a horrible idea. Germany lost over two million dead in WW I. Despite defeating Russia and driving deep into France, Germany lost. For all the chatter about dolchstoss, no one seriously argued that the German army in 1918 could have held the line, much less advanced.

At the top level, the strategists in the Generalstab saw clearly that Germany had no hope of breaking Britain's strategic blockade - which in World War I had strangled Germany. Nearly everyone was afraid of what strategic bombing could do.

Yes, there were Germans who wanted to rearm, and reassert Germany's place as a major military power. But there was a big step from that to starting a war. Goering was one of that "Wilhelmine nationalist" crowd, and in 1939, he bent every effort to avoiding war (on Germany's terms, of course).

But Hitler was in charge, completely - and he was reckless.

Which is not to say that some other country might not start a war that would involve Germany - probably the USSR.
 

Kongzilla

Banned
There will be no attack 1938-1945 because the Red Army wouldn't be able to Handle it. But with Stalin still around the USSR will attack on his terms. And won't do so unless all the cards are in his favor.

But the longer it takes for world war 2 to happen, the more likely it is to happen since new generations will be in power and the only thing of the "Great War" they know of is the story's of their Grandfather.
 
No World War II in Europe and probably not in the Pacific either. tThis means massive butterflies.

The war in the Pacific's beginning can be reasonably placed in 1937, with the Marco Polo Bridge incident. Hitler dying in 1938 might change the outline of the conflict, but it can't make it go away.
 
And there were ten times as many Germans who thought starting another war was a horrible idea. Germany lost over two million dead in WW I. Despite defeating Russia and driving deep into France, Germany lost. For all the chatter about dolchstoss, no one seriously argued that the German army in 1918 could have held the line, much less advanced.

At the top level, the strategists in the Generalstab saw clearly that Germany had no hope of breaking Britain's strategic blockade - which in World War I had strangled Germany. Nearly everyone was afraid of what strategic bombing could do.

The point about the Dolchstosslegende is that it was a myth. No, it probably wasn't seriously argued by anyone qualified to plan military strategy, but the idea still had power. People weren't rationally assessing Germany's chances in a repeat of the First World War, but were looking for territorial gains in the East, as well as a few easy victories against supposedly racially-inferior Slavs, to bring Germany closer to its natural place in the world. The British Navy was still to be feared but then Britain was also seen as exhausted by war and unlikely to get involved in small-scale European matters, especially as they would recognise that the German people were only claiming what was rightfully theirs.
 
Top