WI no USSR

There would be some fear of "reds" and revolution even without the USSR.

Hitler did feel that slavs were inherantly inferior and might still have invaded Russia.

One factr against Hitler emrergin absent the USSR is that the people who became the German Communist party would NOT be taking orders from Stalin
 
The Nazis were clearly right wing.
To argue otherwise is to argue about the fundamental flaws in left/right wing.
As things stand though with the system where it is they're far right.
The Soviets (particularly Stalin era)...Now they're more debatable.
 
There is a revisionist current of thought which attempts to portray the Fascist and Nazi regimes as somehow left-wing, a notorious example of which being Jonah Goldberg, who argues that Fascists were really liberals. Needless to say this is done with obvious ideological ulterior motives, namely to let radical right-wingers off the hook for that brand of totalitarianism. It's just as disingenuous as saying that since the Soviet Union was hawkish on defense, exalted patriotism and was openly hostile to 1960s-era counterculture, it wasn't really left-wing.

And you're doing the same thing with your deliberately ambiguous statement about Democrats supporting certain Nazi projects. You could play the same game with Republicans, and come up with much more relevant comparisons (such as invading other countries on phony pretexts).
Okay I gotcha I understand and your correct I should have included the GOP in that as well.
One thing presuming you mean the Invasion of Iraq under Bush Jr. that was justified, if only by technicality, he said WMDs while they did find mostly useless samples of bio weapons which were close to their expiration Iraq did under Saddam, and used them against our troops, have missiles whose ranges did qualify them as weapons of mass destruction :D Yes I know its a technicality.
And Leej no they weren't pure right wing, they were socially left to say however that they were purely either is somewhat flawed.
 
Okay I gotcha I understand and your correct I should have included the GOP in that as well.
One thing presuming you mean the Invasion of Iraq under Bush Jr. that was justified, if only by technicality, he said WMDs while they did find mostly useless samples of bio weapons which were close to their expiration Iraq did under Saddam, and used them against our troops, have missiles whose ranges did qualify them as weapons of mass destruction :D Yes I know its a technicality.
And Leej no they weren't pure right wing, they were socially left to say however that they were purely either is somewhat flawed.

Rounding up and exterminating minorities is not left wing, its the very definition of really, really far right.
 
And Leej no they weren't pure right wing, they were socially left to say however that they were purely either is somewhat flawed.
There were "left" Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism), early Robert Ley, etc. and they played a role during NSDAP ascent to power. But Hitler himself wasn't anywhere near "left" by any definition, and got rid of most of them as soon as it was politically safe. So, Nazis as they were at their heyday are pretty much as socially conservative as they come.
 
Rounding up and exterminating minorities is not left wing, its the very definition of really, really far right.
hahahhahahahhaha
Extreme left wingers do this as well, despite what you may have been told.
Right, uhm hate to break it to you but the lefts very definition is Radical, its why we call the rights conservatives. :p
here I show youhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Leftism
Communism is left wing thereby the NKVD and its brothers and descendants are a perfect example of rounding up Persona non grata
 
There were "left" Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism), early Robert Ley, etc. and they played a role during NSDAP ascent to power. But Hitler himself wasn't anywhere near "left" by any definition, and got rid of most of them as soon as it was politically safe. So, Nazis as they were at their heyday are pretty much as socially conservative as they come.
um no not wholly HItler did hold some left, anti capitalism, beliefs, plus full social programs, admittedly those were for full Germans, but you do have a point there were indeed more left wing National Socialists
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Error - National SOCIALISTS. They were SOCIALISTS. That's left wing in any book. Calling nazis right wing is a mistake made common for who knows why, but they advocated a number of programs that socialists and even the modern Democrat Party in the USA now advocate.

James

Poor sap, your life most be hard, if you believe everything people tell you, by the way I have a proposal, I own this brigde, I will sell it cheap just to you, but you must hurry before I get another offer, you can contact me on anothersuckeronthehook@bridge.se.
 
Last edited:
um no not wholly HItler did hold some left, anti capitalism, beliefs, plus full social programs, admittedly those were for full Germans, but you do have a point there were indeed more left wing National Socialists
Yes, he built autobahns (which may look vaguely keynsian, but wasn't at least goal-wise), supported KdF which, except for the whole Volkswagen debacle and cooked books in general, worked (but was financed mostly by the workers themselves, which makes it look much more impressive than it really was.) And of course, Hitler speechified about the virtues of True Aryan Worker.

But wages were falling during his regime, unions gutted at the first complaint by the industrialists, even NSDAP-run ones, and all social programs were more like bone thrown to proletariat than something vital for the regime. What Hitler really wanted had little to do with "social" in socialism, unlike for Strasser brothers, who considered sicial program vital and integral to their other policies. And they were assasinated on Hitler's orders. Precisely because of that.

So, on the balance... no, Hitler's version of NSDAP was just NDP. Even by 30's standards.
 
Last edited:
Fasicem does not fith in with the right wing, sorry. It was masse based anti-elitist and anti capitlist. The teory that fasisem was/is the last defence of capitalism is absurde.
On the other hand, it does not fit in with the traditional left either (if one means late 1800 early 1900 sosial demorcay). It was nasionalistc, militaristc, anti intelectual (hmm this is not really true either, but) pro private property (vs farmers at least) anf fircly anti communist. It quite often was sosicaly conservativet but so was communisem an annything but pro freemarked and democratic.

Back too topic. If Russian can resume anny forme of pre WWI economical growth it will dwarf annything the soviet uinon did in RL. Fear of the reads was maby the most important reasons for the German french and Italian mass fasist movments. But a Russia will face manny difficult question, if democratic it needs time to foster a propper democratic tradition. The conflict between urban and rural, the old nobilety vs a emergent middle class and so forth.

If russia, even a rump russian can reacht it pre wwi growth levels, it would become one of the worlds strongets countrys, but this will take time and a bitt of luck
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
No, I don't see Hitler nor Mussolini in this TL. No Bolshevik threat would butterfly away them. Crazy nationalists in power in both Germany and Italy could still very well happen though. The Italians would still feel betrayed and the Germans would never accept Versailles.
 

JJohnson

Banned
True, the far right and the far left movement in Germany and USSR respectively did a lot of the same things, but that doesn't change the fact that fear ofthe latter did a lot to advance former

yes, true. The communists and fascists/national socialists in Germany fought over the ideologically similar ground and for the same followers. They labelled the other group with a variety of terms to smear them and draw supporters away. Though without a USSR here, I can wonder how effective the 'bogeyman' of communism would be without a state founded on it. If there's absolutely no Stalin here, a lot more people would be alive considering his purges did not occur here.

Somehow I think the Nazis might have a little more difficult time without the USSR as a scapegoat in winning supporters from uncommitted Germans. I don't doubt their dangerous ideologies would remain the same, but it may change the timeline of the war.

James
 
Never underestimate the complacency and sheer stupidity of the Romanovs. (Inbreeding and listening to Rasputin will do that to you) Also, Russia was insanely backwards at the time of WWI, and internal political strife was already happening without the Bolsheviks. Russia has enough problems, any industrialization that takes place would most likely be nowhere near the scale seen during Stalin's reign and hence not nearly enough to truly deter the Japanese... then again, what anyone would want with Siberia, I have no clue. (Yes I know natural resources and whatnot, but it's just so COLD). I would be interested to see though if Russia under the Tsars post WWI would move towards constitutional monarchy like so much of the rest of Europe did or had done. Would the Duma assert more power? Could it?

Reforms were taking place pre-First World War, via Franca industrialisation (notably railways) were being implemented. Russia's untapped natural resources means it is bound to industrialise anyway. Due to industrialisation already starting in 25 years I'm quite sure Industry will have picked up.
 
Well, had the Bolsheviks not come to power, Russia would have been at least a very liberal nation, because the Russian economy was on the verge of total collapse. The Russians were sick of the Romanovs; they were starving, and hated being in the Great War.

So, I would expect the liberals to control the Duma with a quasi-czarist regime, sort of like Britain. The Duma would have suspended Nicholas II's powers, and reduced him to a figure-head. I doubt that would have been an end to the Romanovs, however. I could also see Asian/Ottoman influence, since Russia went to war with Japan and the Ottoman Empire over territory. Eventually, the Romanovs would have died out, then I could see a Pole or German as the new czar of Russia.

A liberal Russia would have adopted an isolantionist policy. It was bankrupt to begin with. I also could see Russia following a welfare-state approach also like Britain and the Baltic Nations (Sweden, Norway, and Finland). This would put Russia into the realm of a closed China/Japan during the 1800s.
 
hahahhahahahhaha
Extreme left wingers do this as well, despite what you may have been told.
Right, uhm hate to break it to you but the lefts very definition is Radical, its why we call the rights conservatives. :p
here I show youhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Leftism
Communism is left wing thereby the NKVD and its brothers and descendants are a perfect example of rounding up Persona non grata

Don't be a dick.

These were examples of why the USSR wasn't so clear cut 'left wing'. In many ways it was just fascism (far right) with a spot of red paint.
'Left wing' mass murder is killing off the upper classes and that sort of thing. Extermination of minorities and rabid nationalism is very much the far right.
 
Last edited:
1) No cold war....big loss of income for McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman.

2) No 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

3) No Berlin Wall.

4) The US wins the Vietnam war with minimal casualities...or maybe no war to begin with.

5) Major effects as to who gets elected US president from 1950-1988.

6) No major defense buildup in 1980s......no President Reagan?

7) No movies about us getting nuked, invaded or taken over by the Soviets.

Now Russia alone could be a strong threat but not to the extent that the Soviet Union did...
 
Last edited:
This is a big change--no USSR.

The USSR was essentially considered the "bad guy" in the West, both by the leaders and by most of the people. Many Western politicians were succesful by playing off of the people's fears of the USSR and Communism. Without those fears, these politicians would not have been so succesful. As someone pointed out above, Hitler is one example of a politician who came to power largely due to voters' fears of the USSR. Without a USSR for people to be afraid of, Hitler would not have come to power.

The existence of the USSR created a rift in the global socialist/Marxist movement. Marxists had to decide whether they were allied with the Soviet Union or not. In most countries, the socialists split into two or more parties, usually the party supporting the USSR were called "Communists" while the party that did not support the USSR were called "Socialists". Without the USSR, these splits would not have taken place, and so the Socialist movement would have been more united, therefore more powerful, in Western Europe and in the United States.

The presence of the USSR gave opponents of socialism something to point to and say "that's what socialism is, you don't want that!" Without the USSR to discredit it, many people who in OTL were turned away from socialism might instead be attracted to it. This again would strengthen socialism, giving it more support and more voters. I don't think a socialist president of the United States is completely out of the question in such a timeline.

No USSR means no cold war, which means no arms race, and no space race. We probably do not land a man on the moon by 1969.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head.

KEVP
 
Top