Would a non-antisemitic Germany have won WWII?

It would be longer for the United States, but to say the Germans would be the first to produce the nuclear bomb and use it just is impossible.

After some digging for a thread on SpaceBattles War Room, someone posted the situation Germany was in and they were in no position to try and produce something they had no means to create. If you want the source, here's the link to the PDF to the German reaction of the nuclear bombs being dropped.


The United States had the resources and economic capacity, but the Germans didn't.

Wasn't Einstein the one who convinced the American government to start the Manhattan project in the first place though? If the Nazi don't launch mass anti-Semitic attacks in 1933 like they did OTL the US government might not view the atomic bomb as a real military concern and focus on conventional weapons instead.
 
Taking away anti-demotion changes the very core of Nazism, and hence fascism. Without it these Notzis are a thoroughly changed group.

But overall, no. They are starting from too far behind, against too many enemies.
I always wonder how we would off-hand state that Germany in a radically changed situation could not ever have advanced 50 km further in 1941.
And a POD that could replace Nazis with more “traditional” fascism, might not antagonize the US.
Would French Indochina be annexed by the Japanese? TTL germans might stay pro-China and de facto US allies in Far East Asia.
So in 1942, SU crumbles and the US stop the pointless underwriting of British Bonds. TTL could easily be very different.
 
The United States had the resources and economic capacity, but the Germans didn't.

The atomic bomb project was smaller than many projects then the Allies or the Germans did do. Some projects that were comparable were the V2, the German artificial oil and the German war industry. When Speer pulled the plug on the project it was not for the lack of the money or the resources but the lack of time.
 
The sort of German regime that could have won the Second World War would not have got involved in a World War in the first place.
 
I think it's totally plausible for a German fascism to have emerged without such virulent antisemitism, seeing as that happened in Italy and Spain.

But such a fascism would not be Nazism, nor would its leadership overlap with Nazism, nor would its regime make the same decisions in the interwar as Nazism, nor would it have got into the same set of conflicts as the Nazis.

I'm not being facetious by saying that different things are different. Antisemitism and pseudoscientific racism is so intrinsic, so inherent to all aspects of the Nazi philosophy in government that to ask what non-antisemitic Nazis would be like is meaningless.

Now, if you want to ask about alternative German right-wing authoritarian regimes? Perfectly interesting question. Whether it's a successful Kapp putsch, or some flavor of Strasserism, or a mere junta, these could all be interesting scenarios.

But you need to go back to first principles and look at those regimes themselves, starting in the early thirties at least before you can ask about how they'd behave in a war.

For example, a German junta would be much saner than the Nazis- but it might also get away with much less before the Entente gave up on appeasement, simply because it would be so much more recognisable to Paris and London as a continuation of the hated 'Prussian militarism' of Ludendorf and Hindenburg.

Ultimately, I think Maeglin is right: any German government level-headed enough to make all the 'right' decisions in a war against the UK, France, the USSR, the USA et al is a government who would never embark on such a foolish war in the first place.
 
What if antisemitism had not been a part of Nazism? No resources spent in genocide, no exodus of Jewish intelligentsia, perhaps less support for war in Europe in America? Would any of this been enough to tilt the scales?
Nazism without Anti-semitism would be far less popular, without blaming Jews for defeat they would only be minor parties, while antisemitic parties would gain their votes.

And support for war would be Greater. Jewish and allied leaders keep Holocaust secret because many Americans hostile to Jews. Without antisemitism, Nazism would be hard to differentiate from other socialist movements.
 
What would the impact on Manhattan project been?

Might waive away the 'MANHATTEN' Project as we know it. Tracing through the refugees from anti sememtic Europe and their contribution it looks like Allied research might have not led so directly to it. But this is where the connection to German anti semticism fails to connect. Several very key physicists were not German but Hungarian Jews, or like Fermi Italian. Hungary parralled Germany in antisemticism inter war and ran off their educated Jews much like Germany. Its not certain that would be waived away were the nazis not pushing Jews off the sidewalk, or terminating their academic careers.

It was British influence that pushed the US atomic bomb research, & they were in turn influenced by refugee scientists rescued from France in 1940, who in turn were from assorted nations.

The USN did start a atomic power research project in 1939. That seems to have been aimed at mechanical power production, but its difficult to say where that could have gone had it not been rolled into the MANHATTEN project in 1942. Like others have guessed the lack of German refugee physicists may delay development of atomic weapons.

There was a massive amount of potential manpower and resources wasted in executing the Holocaust. If this manpower reserve was never killed but related fairly, joining the military in similar er numbers to the general German population along with not wasting resources on the Holocaust but instead putting the money and materials into the war effort how long could they extend the war?

It helps, but does not resolve the depth of the resources problem, and limits on industrial capacity.

Nazism without Anti-semitism would be far less popular, without blaming Jews for defeat they would only be minor parties, while antisemitic parties would gain their votes. ...

There was the virulent anti Communist aspect, something the other major parties lacked. I've seen arguments that without the Bolshivik bogeyman the nazis would have gone nowhere. Have my own thoughts on this, but am amused by the contradiction of the two groups that argue for the importance of one hate target over the other.
 
Last edited:
The German prewar and wartime economy was, to a certain degree, funded by confiscated Jewish assets (https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/1.5136723).

Take away the anti-Semitic element, and you must also take away the resulting cash infusion that created the tools of the blitzkreig.
It is difficult to see Germany doing better than OTL.
 
Germany in the 1930's - 1940's is a Great Power capable of winning some war of some kind against some kind of opponent.

Nazi Germany in the 1930's and 1940's is stupendously unlikely to win their war against their opponents.

If you tweak the timeline then sure, it's possible for some sort of victory to arise in this time-frame. But if you're tweaking them enough for this to be the case, you're not talking about Nazi Germany and you're not talking about a recognisable World War 2. At that point you're discussing a full-blown ATL with rather radical divergences, which makes any conclusions about Nazi Germany and OTL's WW2 fall flat.
 
A more rational Germany has better odds of beating the Soviet Union in Nazi Germany’s position in 1941, but is not likely to push things that far or have Nazi Germany’s luck.
 
I always wonder how we would off-hand state that Germany in a radically changed situation could not ever have advanced 50 km further in 1941.
And a POD that could replace Nazis with more “traditional” fascism, might not antagonize the US.
Would French Indochina be annexed by the Japanese? TTL germans might stay pro-China and de facto US allies in Far East Asia.
So in 1942, SU crumbles and the US stop the pointless underwriting of British Bonds. TTL could easily be very different.
That's a whole of of determinism. France falling was not a likely event, and without someone like Hitler to order the advance through the Ardennes it likely wouldn't have happened. Its more likely that a fascist Germany starts a war a couple years later than the Nazis did, only to find that it couldn't catch up and being swatted by the British and French forces.

Or if this Germany is totally focused on the USSR (unlikely), they would have waited longer to invade, letting the chaos of the purges and changing Soviet positions be worked out, and get swatted.

Germany was in a bad position going into the 1930s. Its economy was in shambles, its military tiny, etc. Those aren't kinks that can be worked out overnight. It would take many, many years to do so, in which case the geo-political landscape looks completely different. Or they follow a similiar pattern that Hitler did, which leads them right back to square one.

Hell, even advancing 50 more km in 1941 is largely meaningless since reaching Moscow in winter 1941 isn't going to inherently remove the city from Soviet use. Given how awful fascist government always are, there's more or less zero chance the US sides with them over the Allies.

There was a massive amount of potential manpower and resources wasted in executing the Holocaust. If this manpower reserve was never killed but related fairly, joining the military in similar er numbers to the general German population along with not wasting resources on the Holocaust but instead putting the money and materials into the war effort how long could they extend the war?

Not very. The resources required to carry out the murders of the Holocaust don't amount to much compared to the overall German resource use, and has to be balanced against the massive amounts of slave labor and confiscated capital that were gained through the Nazis monstrous policies.
 
Take out racial theory from Nazism and it’s nothing more than extreme German nationalism, and if the Nazis’ methods for enforcing it are the same, they’re still going to devote massive amounts of resources to enforcement of their beliefs, they’re still going to exterminate millions, and they’re still going to have horrific concentration camps. Look at North Korea for what a regime can do to dissidents, and what the Nazis would do wouldn’t be all that different with the possible exception of not coming up with the whole three generations thing.

And they will lose, because Hitler will have to direct his hate-boner somewhere. And the Nazis will be remembered as a horrific regime that murdered people for their beliefs, and that’s barely any better than ethnic cleansing - both are way across the moral event horizon.
 
That's a whole of of determinism. France falling was not a likely event, and without someone like Hitler to order the advance through the Ardennes it likely wouldn't have happened. Its more likely that a fascist Germany starts a war a couple years later than the Nazis did, only to find that it couldn't catch up and being swatted by the British and French forces.

Or if this Germany is totally focused on the USSR (unlikely), they would have waited longer to invade, letting the chaos of the purges and changing Soviet positions be worked out, and get swatted.

Germany was in a bad position going into the 1930s. Its economy was in shambles, its military tiny, etc. Those aren't kinks that can be worked out overnight. It would take many, many years to do so, in which case the geo-political landscape looks completely different. Or they follow a similiar pattern that Hitler did, which leads them right back to square one.

Hell, even advancing 50 more km in 1941 is largely meaningless since reaching Moscow in winter 1941 isn't going to inherently remove the city from Soviet use. Given how awful fascist government always are, there's more or less zero chance the US sides with them over the Allies.
I disagree that France could only fall in the way it did IOTL, although it was very fast. You mention other butterflies that are also possible, that could have let to a worse performance than OTL and that is also possible.
Advancing to and capturing Moscow in 1941 was by no means impossible, and it is just one example of a situation were the Germans were close to reaching a strategically important point. Not interfering in Greece could be another point? Not attempting BOB which was rather meaningless?
These are all independently significant, but if they lead to a better performance in the SU in 1941 which they might and might not, that in turn translates into a collapse in 1942, then the war is a lot different from OTL.
I was simply disagreeing with the implied determinism of the initial replies in the thread.
 
Top