Would WWII have happened minus Hitler?

If Hitler had stopped a bullet during WWI would someone else have done what he did over the next couple of decades? If not, what would have happened to the politics of Europe during that time period?
 
it's not inevitable, but it's certainly possible... there were a lot of unresolved issues left over from WW1, and all those Germans outside of but right next door to Germany's borders. That's a flashpoint waiting to happen...
 
I agree some sort of war is still likely.
I think the circumstances have more to do with creating Hitler than Hitler creating the circumstances
 
If Hitler had stopped a bullet during WWI would someone else have done what he did over the next couple of decades?

No. Hitler was a very unusual combination of abilities, beliefs, and intentions.

If not, what would have happened to the politics of Europe during that time period?

That's hard to say, of course, However, it does seem very probable that there would have been another "Great War", probably designated World War II. Japan's militarism developed without much influence from Germany, as did Fascist Italy and the USSR. All of these nations armed heavily and tried to advance their perceived interests by aggressive war.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

Well, there's a lot of DNVP politicians that had objectives similar to Hitler's in the sense of reclaiming "lost territory" and overturning Versailles. The Weimar Republic may fold due to the Great Depression, then it's a case of whether a democratic or fascist government comes to power. Who knows how it would play out, but my gut is that the communists wouldn't have enough popular support across the nation to win out. A DNVP heavy Cabinet of Barons with some General/Field Marshall as a figurehead, essentially Hindenburg Mk II, might come out of it to wage War to unite the nation.

There may well be a WWII-style European conflict, but probably without the holocaust. The NSDAP might exist, but probably as a fringe movement heavily in favour of the conflict, but excluded from government.
 

Deleted member 1487

Not as we know it. In fact without Hitler it is unlikely that the Germans would be able to get away with rearmament like they did or expand without Allied response, as the alternative to a Hitler dictatorship was a military one, something the rest of the world is unlikely to tolerate.
 

Deleted member 94680

...In fact without Hitler it is unlikely that the Germans would be able to get away with rearmament like they did or expand without Allied response

How would that be? AFAIA Hitler was considered a "good chap" by the WAllies (French aside I suppose) because he was obviously anti-communist. That and the guilt of the heavy handedness of Versailles allowed him leeway. A hard-line German government sans Hitler would be able to play those cards as well.

as the alternative to a Hitler dictatorship was a military one, something the rest of the world is unlikely to tolerate.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it like that, I must admit. A military government isn't the only alternative to Hitler, mind. I'm pretty sure that most of the German political establishment knew that as well though, and the WAllies didn't seem to mind Hindenburg as President even if he was "out of uniform". Any right-wing German government would probably know to cloak their leaders in civilian attire, Heer leadership or no. Officers could always 'retire' upon taking up a political role, after all.
 
Short answer in my opinion is no. Hitler was the singular vision behind the series of wars that he saw as a stepping stone path to world conquest and it was his focus to commit the extermination of both Slavs and Jews despite the background of anti-Semitism and anti-bolshevism in Europe as well as the right-wing passion to redress Versailles. Without him as lightning rod we do not get Germany moving as it did, the various plots before the Sudenten crisis show that the Generals were rather sober-minded despite assuming war was likely the only way to gain back the lost territory and regain the top spot in European politics. The German patriots might want very badly to end reparations and get back the lost territory, Pan-Germanism was pulling to bring the German minorities into Germany along with Austria, but I do not see any of that pushing for the war without Hitler's vision. Hitler was a gambler and had a predator's nose for weakness, he played a very risky game and I do not see anyone else in his seat. Now I might suggest that longer term the tensions would be mounting, especially between a rather chauvinist Poland and a very insulted Germany, the ethnic Germans likely would continue to add heat to Czechoslovakia, but that friction was ready to get redressed as the memory of WWI faded and new eyes looked to put Germany back into the family of Europe. The wild card is the USSR, we tend to overlook that Stalin had a similar drive to restore the Empire's borders, he went at Finland and I think he still would, before that he went as Poland and likely would again, he had pieces on the edges like Bessarabia, and until Germany recovered from the depression and the Allies get stronger Stalin harbored dreams of bringing his rule to all of Europe. We might have gotten a war yet, but not the one we know.
 
Not as we know it. In fact without Hitler it is unlikely that the Germans would be able to get away with rearmament like they did or expand without Allied response, as the alternative to a Hitler dictatorship was a military one, something the rest of the world is unlikely to tolerate.

Even before he took power, HItler was notorious as a wild man, a radical with extravagant ambitions and brutal methods.

OT1H, his boldness in re-asserting German sovereignty and pushing ahead with re-armament may have allowed Germany to "get away" with more than under a more moderate government. And France and Britain did not "respond" with force, because what good would that do? France didn't want another fiasco like the Ruhr occupation.

But OTOH, a "conventional" authoritarian regime in Germany would be less alarming to France and Britain, and would probably be able to conduct limited re-armament without much opposition.

For instance, suppose with the absence of the Nazis, many of the Sturmabteilung join the KPD instead, and so by 1933 there is real danger of a mob uprising by the Reds. OTL, Hitler was seen as a lesser evil then Reds. A clique of generals would be less alarming. Then Germany proposes to expand the Reichswehr from 100,000 to 500,000 men - still a much smaller army than France or Poland. Germany establishes the Luftwaffe, but only builds single-engine fighters for defense against enemy air raids.
 
Last edited:

NoMommsen

Donor
About the rearmament issue :
The Reichswehr had OTL already plans to expand the Reichswehr and their ideas for the final form (End-Ausbau) were quite similar to what was the goal in 1935/36 : 30 to 33 divisions peacetime footing.
But on a much longer time scale. Hitler 'just' vastly accelerated this growth. The plan of the reichwehr of early 1932 planned for a 21 divisions 'Field Army' made of the slightly enlarged 7 divisions of the VV-treaty army supplemented by militia-type trained 'reserves'. This field Army was meant to be ready in 1938 ! according to the then Reichwehr plans.
(source mainly : "Ursachen und Voraussetzungendes Zweiten Weltkrieges"; Deist, Messerschmidt, Volkmann, Wette)

IMO the first important POD, with the potential to change the fate of the Weimar Republic and the further development would be be : no beerhall putsch => much less 'anger' about the Cuno goverment for bashing the communist uprisings with the Reichswehr in 1923 but not Hitler => Cuno stays chancellor with Streseman 'only' foreign minister => better 'performance' of the middle-right parties and worse performance of SPD and KPD in the 1924 elections and - especially - the 1928 elections.
 
Last edited:
Unlikely as I can't see anyone else being such a reckless gambler as Hitler. Germany would doubtless continue to roll back the terms of the Versailles treaty and some sort of military conflict in Europe is likely given the ongoing territorial disputes but it's probably going to be smaller and much more regional than WWII.
 
If Hitler had stopped a bullet during WWI would someone else have done what he did over the next couple of decades? If not, what would have happened to the politics of Europe during that time period?
Problem is the Treaty of Versailles; it is either too harsh (encouraging a sense of German grievance) or not harsh enough (encouraging said grievance, whilst leaving Germany potentially strong enough to some day come looking to settle scores).
And this against a backdrop where (at least in the UK) there was a promise that WW1 was 'a war to end all wars', and there were strong pacifist undercurrents against ever getting involved in anything like that again.
Edit:
So, Germany's going to be trying to reverse the losses of the Treaty of Versailles, and at least in the UK, there's not likely to be much stomach to try and stop that militarily (when it would be easiest to do so)...
 
With no NSDAP or Hitler, we have here a two way scenario for dying Weimar Republic:
both can let to War but different to OTL WW2

One: conservative and Imperial Germans wins
They want Revenge for Versaille and there former borders and colony back, so they start rearm the Reichswehr and build a Luftwaffe
what let sooner or later to war with France and Great Britain about this.

Two: Communist wins
Germany becomes early version of GDR and looks for connection to USSR, but Poland is in way.
while France and anti communist Britain opposing GDR and USSR getting control over Poland
what let sooner or later to war of France & Great Britain vs Germany & Soviet union...
 
A general European war may not have been inevitable, but some kind of conflict relating to Germany and its borders and its internal structure may have been. Would Germany stabilize and accept the Versailles boundaries, or would it try to destabilize these?
 
Top