Would Hitler rise to power in the event of a CP victory?

A Central Powers victory perhaps makes a German dictatorship less likely than OTL's Versailles Treaty, but it does not make it impossible. In the case of a CP victory Germany might prolongue the economic difficulties it had in the war by retaining the state's control measures over the economy. The German government might also feel forced to retain very large armed forces, intervene in the wars of the newly created states in Central Europe or to start administrating Germany's colonies again (which nearly all lost Germany money) and prepare them for the next war. All of this combined might mean that pre-war levels of prosperity are not reached and remain, so to speak, out of sight. This might lead to radicalization of the workers on the Left and of other segments of the population on the Right.

I didn't read OP's scenario, so I don't know when/how they win. I do agree that a late German victory combined with inept handling of the peace by Kaiser Bill and Co. could very well radicalize politics for both the Left and the Right. General Strike/riots? Sure. Non-Nazi Rightist dictatorship? If things get bad enough, yes. Full-on Communist revolution? I don't know. Possible, but the ruling class will really have to outdo themselves in screwing up.

An early CP victory is always best for the subsequent peace. The earlier, the better.
 
YES

I know I'm a very little minority here. But my answer is YES.
Also Kaiser Willhelm II could nominate Hitler or a Hitler-like chancellor after a victorious war. I say it because of German's cultural trends of 1910's and 1920's, which paved the way of Nazism.
In Economics, Nazism is simply a branch of Socialism. And Socialism dominated German's economic thinking in the first half of the Century: they experienced Bismarck's authoritarian Socialism, Spd's opposition Socialism and Rathenau's war Socialism during WW1.
In Metaphysics, Nazism is a form of Mysticism. And Mysticism dominated German's academies during the 1910's and 1920's (see Nietzche and Jung).
In Ethics, Nazism was an extreme form of Social Darwinism, which was the most diffused sociological theory in Germany (and not only in Germany). Anti-semitism was very diffused all over Europe and Russia; Eugenetic policies were applied in Sweden just before Nazi takeover.
In Politics, the idea of a single, monopolistic Party leading the State was theorized well before WW1. But I don't know if it could be possible without the striking exemples of party/states in Russia and Italy.
In International Relations, the ideal of an enlarged Germany in Eastern Europe born with Bismarck and not with Hitler. A victorious Germany after WW1 could radicalize and enslave Slavs: this scenario is plausible, given the dominant ideals above.
Last but not least: Nazism was not a direct consequence of the "humiliation" in Versailles. It took power in 1933 (14 fourteen years after), as a direct reaction to the economic crises. Hitler decided to start his political career after the defeat. Could a victory prevent him? I don't know, but I don't think. Nazism is the coherent and extreme application of German's ideals of that time. It could rise after any crisis or political polarization, with or without Hitler.
How could be possible to avoid Nazism? I think that only an invasion of Germany and an Entente's policy of reconstruction in 1919-1920 (economic, spiritual and educational reconstruction like the after-1945) could have prevented a Hitler and a WW2.
 
Last edited:
I know I'm a very little minority here. But my answer is YES.

Well then, let me explain why that is, with all due respect, nonsense.

Also Kaiser Willhelm II could nominate Hitler or a Hitler-like chancellor after a victorious war. I say it because of German's cultural trends of 1910's and 1920's, which paved the way of Nazism.

This is a fallacy, because Germany's trends would look drastically different in the face of a victory in the Great War. You forget what a traumatic event the (perceived) sudden defeat was. You'll also notice that almost all top Nazis were members of the "lost generation" who were either teenagers or in their early 20s when the Great War ended, who were traumatized by the defeat.

In Economics, Nazism is simply a branch of Socialism. And Socialism dominated German's economic thinking in the first half of the Century: they experienced Bismarck's authoritarian Socialism, Spd's opposition Socialism and Rathenau's war Socialism during WW1.

I won't even start to comment on that. You're producing an ideological hodge-podge there that doesn't make sense. The Nazis weren't "Socialists" (despite that "Socialist" in the name of their party), neither was Bismarck for that matter.

In Metaphysics, Nazism is a form of Mysticism. And Mysticism dominated German's academies during the 1910's and 1920's (see Nietzche and Jung).

Nietzsche... Mysticism?! Are you posting from the same timeline as I do, because, have you ever read anything that Nietzsche wrote? :eek:

In Ethics, Nazism was an extreme form of Social Darwinism, which was the most diffused sociological theory in Germany (and not only in Germany). Anti-semitism was very diffused all over Europe and Russia; Eugenetic policies were applied in Sweden just before Nazi takeover.
In Politics, the idea of a single, monopolistic Party leading the State was theorized well before WW1. But I don't know if it could be possible without the striking exemples of party/states in Russia and Italy.
In International Relations, the ideal of an enlarged Germany in Eastern Europe born with Bismarck and not with Hitler. A victorious Germany after WW1 could radicalize and enslave Slavs: this scenario is plausible, given the dominant ideals above.

Last but not least: Nazism was not a direct consequence of the "humiliation" in Versailles. It took power in 1933 (14 fourteen years after), as a direct reaction to the economic crises. Hitler decided to start his political career after the defeat. Could a victory prevent him? I don't know, but I don't think.

The key issue you are overlooking is that Hitler's aim was to overthrow the existing order which he perceived as a humiliation. In a CP victory TL, there's no need for that, on the contrary.

Nazism is the coherent and extreme application of German's ideals of that time. It could rise after any crisis or political polarization, with or without Hitler.

The Nazis ideas weren't "Germany's ideals of the time", they were offbeat, radical ideas and far from mainstream in most respects. Especially, the ideology as we know it is virtually impossible to appear in it's (especially revanchist, scapegoat attitude) in a CP victory scenario. There is no need for revenge, no need for scapegoats if there's no defeat, especially the masses have no need for voting a demagogue into power if they have no need for one. You also very clearly quite uninformed about the immediate aftermath of WWI in Germany and the origins of Nazism.

How could be possible to avoid Nazism? I think that only an invasion of Germany and an Entente's policy of reconstruction in 1919-1920 (economic, spiritual and educational reconstruction like the after-1945) could have prevented a Hitler and a WW2.

That sounds... familiar... :rolleyes:
 
I know I'm a very little minority here. But my answer is YES.
Also Kaiser Willhelm II could nominate Hitler or a Hitler-like chancellor after a victorious war. I say it because of German's cultural trends of 1910's and 1920's, which paved the way of Nazism.

But, to return to an old favourite, the butterflies? And the Kaiser, remember, wasn't an autocrat, and the war only lessened his power in relation to the military-industrial complex. You have to make *Nazi-ism appealing to a substantial part of the population and a substantial part of these elite classes, as happened OTL. This is not impossible, but there will be butterflies. Adolf Hitler himself is almost certainly out of the running, I believe, and Nazi doctrine was shaped in some part by his own lunacy.

In Economics, Nazism is simply a branch of Socialism.

The can positively judders with the writhing of worms, but this is per-itty debatable.

And Socialism dominated German's economic thinking in the first half of the Century: they experienced Bismarck's authoritarian Socialism, Spd's opposition Socialism and Rathenau's war Socialism during WW1.

This is all highly dubious. Bismarck made some welfarish concessions, but didn't touch the bosses. The German economy in the 20s was actually cartelised. War economies are special, surely?

In Metaphysics, Nazism is a form of Mysticism. And Mysticism dominated German's academies during the 1910's and 1920's (see Nietzche and Jung).
In Ethics, Nazism was an extreme form of Social Darwinism, which was the most diffused sociological theory in Germany (and not only in Germany).

How many people cast votes, or exercise quiet military-industrial complex influence, based on such abstract philosophical notions? And there's a fairly substantial leap from "social darwinism" without nobs and locking people up in camps and invading Poland (yes, yes, butterflies...).

Anti-semitism was very diffused all over Europe and Russia;

But their anti-semitism wasn't what got them into power. It was embraced by some, especially in the middle classes, and tolerated by the rest, but I see no reason a *Nazi party without anti-semitism (which is of course unlikely, given that nasty side to German nationalism of the day) shouldn't have taken over OTL.

Eugenetic policies were applied in Sweden just before Nazi takeover.

"No Nazis = credible eugenics for much longer is a pretty" generally accepted fact. We think of eugenics as a Nazi thing because they discredited them. You're actually arguing against yourself by showing that eugenics were pretty general in pre-Nazi times.

In Politics, the idea of a single, monopolistic Party leading the State was theorized well before WW1. But I don't know if it could be possible without the striking exemples of party/states in Russia and Italy.

There was certainly such a current in German thought, which deserves reflection in this scenario. However these "organic" notions by themselves cannot usher a Nazi regime into power. I repeat, I don't say it can't happen, but you're saying it can't not.

In International Relations, the ideal of an enlarged Germany in Eastern Europe born with Bismarck and not with Hitler.

The essence of what you're saying about Mitteleuropa is true, but this is false. Bismarck wanted to keep a conservative and friendly Russia on his border, the deal sealed by mutual Pole-stompage. The "Drang nach Osten" meme actually arose in large part from WW1 itself.

A victorious Germany after WW1 could radicalize and enslave Slavs: this scenario is plausible, given the dominant ideals above.

There were some pretty nasty plans for Poland kicking around, and we saw what they were up to in the Baltics, obviously. This much is true.

Last but not least: Nazism was not a direct consequence of the "humiliation" in Versailles. It took power in 1933 (14 fourteen years after), as a direct reaction to the economic crises. Hitler decided to start his political career after the defeat.

Yet all causes have causes have causes. This seems to be to be assuming that defeat/victory is the only changed variable. Everything about the German body politic has changed drastically, and as I said, I don't consider the change favourable to a populist mass-movememnt in the Nazi mould. It's, once again, far from impossible, but you're talking about predestination, which is silly. And why should there have to be an economic collapse at the same time, of the same magnitude?

Could a victory prevent him? I don't know, but I don't think. Nazism is the coherent and extreme application of German's ideals of that time. It could rise after any crisis or political polarization, with or without Hitler.

To imagine the existence of "German ideals" is to perpetrate an error dear to the Nazis themselves. People have ideals, not blobs of ink on maps.

How could be possible to avoid Nazism? I think that only an invasion of Germany and an Entente's policy of reconstruction in 1919-1920 (economic, spiritual and educational reconstruction like the after-1945) could have prevented a Hitler and a WW2.

To compare Germany in 1919 and in 1945 and draw the same conclusion is pretty absurd. I proscribe "Holding Out For a Hero: Gustav Stresemann Survives".

That sounds... familiar... :rolleyes:

Easy on, witchsmeller pursuivant! :p
 
I know I'm a very little minority here. But my answer is YES.
Also Kaiser Willhelm II could nominate Hitler or a Hitler-like chancellor after a victorious war. I say it because of German's cultural trends of 1910's and 1920's, which paved the way of Nazism.

Please specifiy. Two decades are a long time and cultural trends are subject to change. Even more so when something as important as a World War occurs, don't you think?

In Economics, Nazism is simply a branch of Socialism. And Socialism dominated German's economic thinking in the first half of the Century: they experienced Bismarck's authoritarian Socialism, Spd's opposition Socialism and Rathenau's war Socialism during WW1.

I'm a member of the SPD, therefore I'm likely to become a Nazi, since both are based on Socialism? Reductio ad absurdum.

In Metaphysics, Nazism is a form of Mysticism. And Mysticism dominated German's academies during the 1910's and 1920's (see Nietzche and Jung).

Again, the war raged durng the 1910's and the 1920's will be strongly affected by the outcome. Therefore it doesn't follow that these trends are like OTL, much less worse than OTL.
Also it's Nietzsche.

In Ethics, Nazism was an extreme form of Social Darwinism, which was the most diffused sociological theory in Germany (and not only in Germany). Anti-semitism was very diffused all over Europe and Russia; Eugenetic policies were applied in Sweden just before Nazi takeover.

Yes, a very, very extreme form. Something very drastic has to happen before the National Socialistic "race hygiene" policies might be implemented. Like losing a World War and suffering from the Great Depression.

In Politics, the idea of a single, monopolistic Party leading the State was theorized well before WW1. But I don't know if it could be possible without the striking exemples of party/states in Russia and Italy.

Well, it was possible for Italy and Russia without a striking example, now wasn't it? That being said, however, the situation in Germany after a victory is quite different from the situation in Russia and Italy.

In International Relations, the ideal of an enlarged Germany in Eastern Europe born with Bismarck and not with Hitler. A victorious Germany after WW1 could radicalize and enslave Slavs: this scenario is plausible, given the dominant ideals above.

No. It's quite a stretch, actually. The plausibility hinges on a lot of variables which all have to come together. And that's not very likely.

Last but not least: Nazism was not a direct consequence of the "humiliation" in Versailles.

This defeat gave the Nazis a lot of emotional arguments to pursue their goals. How will they do against the Kaiser, who won the war and is not the hated republic?

It took power in 1933 (14 fourteen years after), as a direct reaction to the economic crises.

This crisis might be butterflied away (or become less severe for Germany) if Germany won the war early.

Hitler decided to start his political career after the defeat. Could a victory prevent him? I don't know, but I don't think. Nazism is the coherent and extreme application of German's ideals of that time. It could rise after any crisis or political polarization, with or without Hitler.

The coherent and extreme application of German's ideals of that time? I rather doubt that.

How could be possible to avoid Nazism? I think that only an invasion of Germany and an Entente's policy of reconstruction in 1919-1920 (economic, spiritual and educational reconstruction like the after-1945) could have prevented a Hitler and a WW2.

Wow, determinism much?
 
Last edited:
It's very simple: no CP defeat in WWI, no "Dolchstoßlegende"
Admittedly, if the Central Powers win, there will be no "Dolchstoßlegende" or "Stab in the Back-legend" in the exact sense that we know this myth from our timeline. In our timeline, this myth was first spread by the German Supreme Army Command to cover up its own mistakes and that of the Imperial Governments and the Kaiser himself. It claimed that Germany's Army had not been defeated in the field, but that the defeat was the result of a betrayal of Jews, Socialists and 'Bolsheviks'. If there is no defeat, there is of course no need for a myth to "explain" the defeat "away" and shift the blame to some one other than the supreme leadership.
But this does not mean that other, very similar myths might not arise, that blame Jews or other groups for problems other than Germany's defeat, for which the groups blamed were not responsible either and which may even have been caused by the people spreading these myths. Of course this type of scapegoating is not restricted to Germany or to right wing politicians. As far as I know, socialist politicians were forever blaming "spies" and "saboteurs" of the West for socialism's inherent problems, and in those places where they are still in power, they may still be doing so.

no economic hardship due to the treaty of Versailles
If the treaty of Versailles does not exist, it cannot cause any hardship, true enough, but there may be plenty of other problems for Germany in this timeline.

Some of those problems might even be the obvious result of Germany's having won the war. The Weimar government had many problems, but paying for an air force (apart from a few clandestine machines) or for a large army or navy or for any colonial administration was not one of them, very much in contrast to what German governments have to pay for in most 'CP victorious' scenarioes. The same of course goes for involvement in the various of wars of Central Europe.

Some problems might also be the result of winning the war, but in a counter-intuitive way. Let's say the French widget industry produces widgets of the same quality as the German industry but at only three-quarters of the price. In order to protect its own widget industry the German government slaps prohibitive tariffs on widget imports from France, without having to fear French retribution, which the peace treaty expressly forbids. The cost of living for the part of the German populace which needs widget for its daily sustenance rises accordingly, as do the costs of the German widget processing industry, which due to the German government's measure suddenly has to fear being outpriced by its British, Swedish and Swiss competitors. French widget exports to Germany have, unsurprisingly, plummetted, and since 17,5 % of France's exports to Germany have consisted of widgets, the value of the Franc against the Mark plummets too. Which makes French gadgets, some of which were only barely competitive before the imposition of the widget tarifs, very competitive. The German government is rapt in contemplation what to do in order to protect the German gadget industry. Then it suddenly has a bright idea: without having to fear French retribution, which the peace treaty expressly forbids...

Then of course there are all sorts of economic problems that might occur in many timelines in many countries during the time that Hitler lived, such as an equivalent to the Wall Street crash in 1929. And of course there are any number of problems that are typical of Germany of the time (or possibly even later eras), which have nothing to do with Versailles or WW I. Let's say the coal seams in the Ruhr are too small to allow the mining companies to compete with American coal, the farms in Germany's South West are way too small, and the land owners in the North East are way too conservative to innovate in time to stay competitive ... and probably many more real life problems, that might, in combination with mistaken government measures cause an economic crisis in a victorious Germany. The best solutions will probably look somewhat abstract to the average German and will probably involve not just the distribution of wealth but also the creation of more wealth. The easiest to understand 'solutions' are those offered by Hitler or by a Hitler equivalent: 1. Take it from the Jews 2. Take it from the Eastern Untermenschen
(Of course, an alternate Hitler equivalent does not neccessarily have the same groups as intended victims, but in order to qualify as a right-wing radical, he must have, among other things, a similar 'we will get rich by taking it away from the enemy group' ideology)
there is no "treacherous" democratic government around which signed said humiliating treaty
I assume that history abounds with nationalists of the most diverse countries who blame their supposedly weak-kneed government for "treacherously" "squandering" hard won victories by not imposing much harsher terms on the countries they have just defeated. A Hitler who blames a government of whatever stripe for "only" taking Longwy-Briey from France and apart from that "only" making Belgium a vassal state (on top of the Central European vassal states of course) and besides "only" realising the "Mittelafrika" colonial project, such a Hitler is very easily imaginable. If Germany happens to be wealthy in this timeline (the victory is no guarantee for that) he will not have many listeners for his crackpot theories, but if Germany has big financial problems, there will be many, and he has good chances of getting power in Germany.<br>
there's no need for revanchism (remember, Alsace-Lorraine, Posen and West Prussia will all be still part of Germany), and there's nobody around to forbid the Austrians from joining Germany (in the case that Austria-Hungary falls apart in a CP victory).

Therefore, would Hitler rise to power? The answer is NO.
To describe Hitler as a revanchist is to describe him much too mildly. In Mein Kampf he called those Germans who wanted "only" to restore Germany to its pre-1914 position "criminals", because, in his view such a Germany would not be able to survive. A type like Hitler would always see the well-being of his own country dependent on its ability to dominate, possibly even to exterminate, other countries. No matter how big Germany actually is, he would always want it to become bigger, because for him that's the only way to thrive. If the Germany he lived in was wealthy, he would have relatively few adherents, but a victory in World War I would not have guaranteed Germany wealth and in any Germany with deep economic problems he would have had a following that made him a force to be reckoned with.
 
Last edited:
To describe Hitler as a revanchist is to describe him much too mildly. In Mein Kampf he called those Germans who wanted "only" to restore Germany to its pre-1914 position "criminals", because, in his view such a Germany would not be able to survive. A type like Hitler would always see the well-being of his own country dependent on its ability to dominate, possibly even to exterminate, other countries. No matter how big Germany actually is, he would always want it to become bigger, because for him that's the only way to thrive. If the Germany he lived in was wealthy, he would have relatively few adherents, but a victory in World War I would not have guaranteed Germany wealth and in any Germany with deep economic problems he would have had a following that made him a force to be reckoned with.

I wasn't refering to Hitler as a revanchist (I agree it's an understatement), I was refering to the mood of Germans post-WWI as revanchist. But you see, in essence, there's a plethora of complex reasons why Hitler came to power in OTL with exactly the profile he had, and it's utterly implausible for a recognizable Hitler to come to power in a CP victory - the butterfly effect alone forbids this. The key example is: would there be a Beer Hall Putch, would it fail as in OTL, would Hitler go to jail and write "Mein Kampf"?! It's ridiculous... :rolleyes:
 
Great, my post gave birth to a lot of virulent criticism. This is precisely what I wanted :D.
But I'm not a troll, don't equivocate. I'm serious. I'm only challenging a tendence in history which explain the birth of any ideological monstruosity (as Nazism) as the reaction to some other's actions. This is only poor sociologism: any totalitarian movement is not only a reaction to something, it grows in bad ideas. If you suffer from a defeat you can react in many ways: you can become a pacifist or a revanchist, a democrat or a totalitarian, a terrorist or a non-violent. It depends on your ideas. After the WW1 defeat and the 1929 economic crisis German people freely choose Nazism. Why? Because they thought it was the right answer. Because they actually had a philosophy which legitimated Nazism. And so, Nazism is not a product of some other's actions: it was the choice of Germans. It could birth also after a CPs victory, of course, after any crises or after a political radicalization. If you want to see something, you see it, in any case. Behind an economic stagnation, or frustration, you can see your personal, ideological, philosophical enemy: the Jewish, the capitalists and so on.
I see that many of you are scared of my definition of "Socialism". Yes, Nazism was actually a self proclaimed National Socialism. It was not a lie, not at all. Socialism means: the government controls (or plans) the economy for the sake of the collectivity, against egoistic interests. Nazi's economy was a government controlled economy = Socialism. It doesn't metter if you want a socialist system good only for your Nation (as in Fascism and Nazism) or for the entire mankind. It's alwas a government controlled economy.
Someone think that Nietzsche was not a mystic. His philosophy is absolutely based on Oriental mysticism, it's not a mystery.
My core argument is: Nazism is not at all a reaction to a defeat. Nazism is an ideology made by a sum of German mainstream ideas. Idealism+Mysticism+Social Darwinism+Socialism = Nazism.
Could this movement take power after a CPs victory. Yes, it could, because that particular mix of ideas was very strong before and after WW1. A Hitler (or a Hitler-alike chancellor) after a CPs victory could be an interesting worst-nightmare scenario: an almost unstoppable powerful and evil regime. Sadly this is not ASB.
 
I wasn't refering to Hitler as a revanchist (I agree it's an understatement), I was refering to the mood of Germans post-WWI as revanchist.
It's good thing that we can agree on at least one thing.

But you see, in essence, there's a plethora of complex reasons why Hitler came to power in OTL with exactly the profile he had, and it's utterly implausible for a recognizable Hitler to come to power in a CP victory - the butterfly effect alone forbids this. The key example is: would there be a Beer Hall Putch, would it fail as in OTL, would Hitler go to jail and write "Mein Kampf"?! It's ridiculous... :rolleyes:
Of course a CP victory would have all kinds of butterflies. The strategy which brought about the CP victory might very well have Hitler's death in combat as a consequence, but then of course it might not. A CP victory might have made Germany wealthy and thus unfriendly to any ideas of more war, but then again the victory might bring Germany only more problems.
As far as I remember, no one ever spoke of bringing Hitler to power in exactly the same way as in OTL. There are many ways Hitler might have acceeded to power in a 'CP victorious' timeline. Perhaps Wilhelm II does not promise making the chancellor responsible to parliament, as he did late in the war in OTL, and thus retains effective control over the chancellorhood. During quieter times he already had a strongly anti-semitic court preacher Adolf_Stoecker.
It does not strike me as impossible at all that Wilhelm II makes an even more radical anti-semite his chancellor in a time of crisis. (And, at the risk of repeating myself several times over, victory in WW I does not exclude major economic crises for Germany). The German_Crown_Prince Wilhelm did support Hitler in OTL for a considerable time.
Alternately, Wilhelm II might be deposed after a severe economic crisis in the Nineteen-Twenties, and might at first be followed by a government backed by moderate parties like the SPD or the Catholic Center Party. But when these parties repeatedly fail to solve Germany's problems, or are only perceived to fail, more radical forces like the Nazis might come to power. Quite possibly they might not be called "Nazis" in this timeline, but they might very well have an agenda of conquest and extermination similar to the Nazis of our timeline.

If you need to be defeated in World War I to get a fascist dictator in your country, how in the world did Mussolini or Tojo get into power?
 
GAfter the WW1 defeat and the 1929 economic crisis German people freely choose Nazism. Why? Because they thought it was the right answer. Because they actually had a philosophy which legitimated Nazism. And so, Nazism is not a product of some other's actions: it was the choice of Germans.

of Course A humiliated Germany would turn to something promising them dreams of glory and power.


but a victorious germany, freash from proving they are in fact just as good as the Old world powers of the UK, France and Russia?
I doubt it.

It could birth also after a CPs victory, of course, after any crises or after a political radicalization. If you want to see something, you see it, in any case. Behind an economic stagnation, or frustration, you can see your personal, ideological, philosophical enemy: the Jewish, the capitalists and so on.

OK, most of the pre-WWI JEwish Persicution was in Russia and Austria-Hungary.

and you would need one Hell of a crisis to do all of the following at once: Somehoe over throw the monarcy, find a way to blame the Jews and whoever else, create a faulty Democracy, and let someone like Hitler rise to power, in the event of a CP victory.


I see that many of you are scared of my definition of "Socialism". Yes, Nazism was actually a self proclaimed National Socialism. It was not a lie, not at all. Socialism means: the government controls (or plans) the economy for the sake of the collectivity, against egoistic interests. Nazi's economy was a government controlled economy = Socialism. It doesn't metter if you want a socialist system good only for your Nation (as in Fascism and Nazism) or for the entire mankind. It's alwas a government controlled economy.

Nazism mostly embraced the politics of the Far-right politics, i.e Monarchism, fascism, Conservitive, religious fundementals.....

Socialism is considered left Politics.

so really, dispite it's name, it is not truely a socialist government.

and it seems like you're trying to argue with "as long as it says so in the name, it is."
in that case, the DPRK is obviously a Democracy, and the HRE was Holy, Roman and an Empire.

Someone think that Nietzsche was not a mystic. His philosophy is absolutely based on Oriental mysticism, it's not a mystery.

and what Oriental mysticism is that?

My core argument is: Nazism is not at all a reaction to a defeat. Nazism is an ideology made by a sum of German mainstream ideas. Idealism+Mysticism+Social Darwinism+Socialism = Nazism.

Idealism= from a Battered, Humilliated country looking for a way to gain new glory and power.

Mysticism: I would like to point out, the Thrule society and DAP rose to prominace after World war one, not before it.
a Victorious Germany would affect membership, and how wide spread the ideals spread.

as a result, if the DRP forms, it may take a radicaly different path than in OTL.

Could this movement take power after a CPs victory. Yes, it could,

Would it be successful?
very doubtful.

because that particular mix of ideas was very strong before and after WW1. A Hitler (or a Hitler-alike chancellor) after a CPs victory could be an interesting worst-nightmare scenario: an almost unstoppable powerful and evil regime. Sadly this is not ASB.

The Kaiser would have to appoint the Hitler/expy.
I highly doubt he would.
Judging by What Kaiser Wilhelm did in OTL, he wants some a Yes-man, not someone who persues hi own goals, and tries to do something other than what the kiser wants.
 
If you need to be defeated in World War I to get a fascist dictator in your country, how in the world did Mussolini or Tojo get into power?

Italy felt they got ripped off in the Treaty of Saint-Germain.

Japan is a whole other ball game. mostly from the Meiji Restoration, and displaced Samurai going into politics.
 
Great, my post gave birth to a lot of virulent criticism. This is precisely what I wanted :D.

Enguard, sir! :p

But I'm not a troll, don't equivocate. I'm serious.

As I said to him, EQ was being a bit McCarthyist with that remark. If no-one challenged accepted positiosn, where would we be?

I'm only challenging a tendence in history which explain the birth of any ideological monstruosity (as Nazism) as the reaction to some other's actions.

But I see Nazi-ism not as a reaction to one thing. I see it as the fateful intersection of tends in German political thought going back to WW1 and Bismarck (not the only trends, mind), of economic disaster, of a vigorous and innovative propagnda campaign, of backing from the high and the mighty, of mistakes by Hindenberg and his crew, and all the rest. To say that Nazi-ism was a reaction to Versailles is wrong. You can have Nazi-ism without it, or no Nazi success despite it.

My philosophy of history, one might say, is Tolstoyan: "Gosh, this is complicated." :D

This is only poor sociologism: any totalitarian movement is not only a reaction to something, it grows in bad ideas. If you suffer from a defeat you can react in many ways: you can become a pacifist or a revanchist, a democrat or a totalitarian, a terrorist or a non-violent. It depends on your ideas.

But if you're theory is that the bad ideas alive in Germany before the war mixed with defeat in a poisoned brew, aren't you rather saying that it was a reaction to defeat?

Anyway, I think you're making people too collective, too absolute, too simple. Differnat people in differant countries have differant opinions, and circumstances can change their opinions and votes. Most people voted for Hitler based less on some coherant militarist-mysicist philosophy they shared with him than on his charisma and his promise of three acres and a cow.

After the WW1 defeat and the 1929 economic crisis German people freely choose Nazism. Why? Because they thought it was the right answer. Because they actually had a philosophy which legitimated Nazism. And so, Nazism is not a product of some other's actions: it was the choice of Germans.

But to continue with my Tolstoyan view of history, stuff causes other stuff. The "philosophy" of your early 30s voter can be changed by a lot of things, and winning the war brings some pretty major changes. What of Hitler? Does he go into politics? Does he achieve prominence? One can overstate the role of his personal charisma, but one can understate it too.

It could birth also after a CPs victory, of course, after any crises or after a political radicalization. If you want to see something, you see it, in any case. Behind an economic stagnation, or frustration, you can see your personal, ideological, philosophical enemy: the Jewish, the capitalists and so on.

I repeat that I accept the possibility: I'm not saying that nasty intelectual memes didn't exist or that they couldn't have been whipped into a fascist populism by crisis. But one cannot possibly suggest that the rise of the Nazis was fated. That's determinism.

I see that many of you are scared of my definition of "Socialism". Yes, Nazism was actually a self proclaimed National Socialism. It was not a lie, not at all. Socialism means: the government controls (or plans) the economy for the sake of the collectivity, against egoistic interests. Nazi's economy was a government controlled economy = Socialism. It doesn't metter if you want a socialist system good only for your Nation (as in Fascism and Nazism) or for the entire mankind. It's alwas a government controlled economy.

The problem is differant definitions of socialism. We can argue semantics all day and achieve nothing, and were this merely a semantic question I would agree to disagree, but you're atcually using two differant definitions of socialism to argue that "socialism" was prevalent in Germany since Bismarck, which is flawed, obviously. The Nazis gave the economy firm nudges, but they clearly didn't give half a shit about worker's rights and aspirations, what with how they flattened trade-unionism and so on. Whereas Bismarck implemented a limited welfare state, but was pretty laissez-faire. Is socialism a directed economy, or some concern, real or pragmatic, for the working man? Choose one.

Someone think that Nietzsche was not a mystic. His philosophy is absolutely based on Oriental mysticism, it's not a mystery.

But not every German is Nietzsche, or reads him, or likes him.

My core argument is: Nazism is not at all a reaction to a defeat. Nazism is an ideology made by a sum of German mainstream ideas. Idealism+Mysticism+Social Darwinism+Socialism = Nazism.

I have no idea quite what you mean by idealism, and I think the philosophy and pseudoscience wasn't half as mcuh of a vote-winner as less abstract policies. In any case, the intellectual tributary streams of a movement still existing doesn't mean the movement will still succeed, must still succeed, in radically changed circumstances.

Could this movement take power after a CPs victory. Yes, it could, because that particular mix of ideas was very strong before and after WW1. A Hitler (or a Hitler-alike chancellor) after a CPs victory could be an interesting worst-nightmare scenario: an almost unstoppable powerful and evil regime. Sadly this is not ASB.

Could, would: differant words. Could I can't fault, but I find fault in determinism. Nothing is inevitable until it happens.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
Someone think that Nietzsche was not a mystic. His philosophy is absolutely based on Oriental mysticism, it's not a mystery.

You've never read my namesake at all, have you? Nietzsche was about as atheist as one can get. If anything, Nietzsche was the Proto-Dawkins. Hitler's appreciation of Nietzsche was only so far as it could get him the vote of the knowledgeable. I.E, cherry-pick the bits he agreed with and threw out the rest.

For you forget that Nietzsche said that the Jews were the "Greatest race to ever come about in Europe", and any mocking of them was done in true jest & satire, not some anti-semitism(which he loathed to the point of basically disowning his sister for her being and marrying one).
 
I think the nature of the post is more or less an alternate biography of Adolf Hitler in the circumstances of an Central Powers victory. Instead, as usual, everyone seems to be concentrating solely on the Victory itself.

Oy.

Anyway, I reject the notion that any butterflies make all famous OTL people boring and uninteresting in every other ATL imaginable.

Hitler was Austrian-born in the German army. In a CP victory world, perhaps he becomes a General brilliant at organization and planning but failing at strategy and tactics (a la George B. McClellan). Having limited experience in the First World War, when a resurgent France, a non-Imperial Russia, and an Authoritarian Britain come after Germany for revenge (as they're almost bound to do with German hegemony) perhaps it's Hitler who fucks up the war with his lack of strategic experience.

Otherwise, go with the revolution scenario in a Ludendorff Germany. Perhaps Hitler takes a more Lockean route and becomes a philosopher, completing some form of Mein Kampf that a new Germany eventually adopts for policy. Eventually Hitlerism becomes a philosophy for other nations which engage in purges of lesser races and begin expansion.

Vague, but interesting possibilities.
 
I agree that a CP victory won't make Hitler different (to a degree, see below), but it will make Germany different. And it may be impossible for Hitler to become popular in such an environment. After all, think about it, there was a number of traumatic events that happened to Hitler (notably, the Beer Hall Putsch, which lead to his imprisonment and him writing "Mein Kampf"), which very likely wouldn't have happened in a CP victory and therefore shaped Hitler into an entirely different path.

I also find the notion that the ideas of Nazism were very strong in Germany prior WWI absurd, because the Kaiserreich had a radically different mentally, and there was a different kind of people which was the elite. And this elite would still be in power in a CP victory scenario. The idea that Nazism was inevitable is something that people painted after World War II because they had to search for an explanation why this could happen. I find this teleological approach fundamentally flawed, because history never "works towards a goal".

Could this movement take power after a CPs victory. Yes, it could, because that particular mix of ideas was very strong before and after WW1. A Hitler (or a Hitler-alike chancellor) after a CPs victory could be an interesting worst-nightmare scenario: an almost unstoppable powerful and evil regime. Sadly this is not ASB.

There's too many "ifs" connected with that. Some people may get wet dreams from it, but this 'worst-nightmare scenario' is utterly ASB, because you take away basically all the reasons why the Nazi ideology came into existence anyways, let alone into power.

About the Jews, bear in mind that ten-thousands of them gave their lives for the Kaiserreich. Even with latent anti-semitism in Germany (like elsewhere in Europe), nobody can blame them for a defeat which never occured.
Likewise, what is the point of invading Poland and Ukraine and enslaving it's population if these are already satellites of Germany in a CP victory? It makes no sense.
 
problems facing the NSDAP in the Kaiserreich

I agree with the Emperor. :cool:

I can hardly imagine how the major part of the German electorate will vote for a massive restructuring of society and political shape if Germany remains a Kaiserreich.

A German victory removes Versailles. No reparations, no or little losses of territory (probably the colonies would still be gone, fortunately), no war guilt clause.

Also, the hyperinflation which destroyed the middle classes and made it ripe for political extremism would hardly be this cass. It was not caused by the reperations, but they seduced German policy makers to let inflation happen (a- it proves that the Reich is unable to pay; b- it was easy to blame the damage done on Versailles). There would be some inflation (as in 1914-18), there would be higher taxes, but not a destruction of the value of all savings/government bonds (and Germans are fanatical savers :p). Also, Germany would not pay reparations (I repeat myself, I think) but on the other hand might receive some (depends on the victory).

If there is no november revolution, then the SPD electorate would be less torn due to the civil unrest/civil war and the alliance between the SPD and those who shot on the working class. There would still be a communist party post-1918 (unless it would be forbidden, but the Kaiserreich funnily allowed forbidden parties to take part in elections:eek:).

If Hitler would still be inclined to enter politics, he would have a harder time. Such a scenario, a victorious and intact monarchy, would lessen the NSDAP's chances to gain financial support from the establishment/industry.
Even if he might still find some appeal in the electorate (anti-semitist parties gained up to 10% in Reichstags elections of the Kaiserreich, but never manged to reach beyond that), the Kaiserreich's election system was not representative (unlike the Weimar republic's). A breakthrough as in 1930 is hardly possible this way, the way to gain attention or seats would be rougher.

Until Jan 29th, 1933, Hitler as a person was totallly unacceptable as a chancellor for Hindenburg - Wilhelm II might have been even less inclined to give power to that guy.
If Germany would still get into a bad shape as in the Great depression and a "regime change" would be seen as a solution, then Willy would do it himself, resp. the military would do it. The 100,000-men Reichswehr would have liked to, but couldn't risk it - a military takover and an authoritarian monarchy would be far more realistic then handing the chancellorship to "the Führer".
 
Top