Sure, Hitler's going to believe that.

Good for him.

But in order to gain power he has to convince the rest of Germany to go along with that.

There is a fair amount of evidence the nazi parties core support was racially motivated. Germany had its share of racial exceptionalists, bigots, ect... The idea of a superior German race did not start with Hitler. It existed and was popular long before, & was part of the back story of the formation of the new Reich & empire in the 19th century. The emphasis on the anti Communist line came relatively later in the nazi history and was aimed at mollifying the wealthy and upper middle classes.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
core support

There's your problem. Core Support doesn't mean wide support. Even OTL the Nazis had popularity problems. They were losing popular support in 1933 and likely would have lost big in the next election.

The only reason why Hitler came to power in 1933 is because Hindenburg and the Conservatives were fearful of what would happen if they didn't work with the Nazis (i.e. a Communist take over). Without a big communist state to act as a boogeyman, that fear will be much less ITTL. OTL Hindenburg really didn't like Hitler and the Nazis, but better the brutes that won't shoot you in the back of the head than the ones that might.
 
Thats all correct, but the core support is what got them to the position to form that coalition and then seize power. The working class voters who were attracted to the nazi party in the 1920s were strongly racist, seeing the Slavic migrants to the urban employment as unworthy competition. That attitude goes far back into the 19th Century. the ethiinc tensions in the growing industrial centers of that era are well documented. The Jewish issue was fairly strong among the middle class & wealthy.

The thing about the 'Bolshivk Menace' is the socialist and working class roots of the NSDAP party (National SOCIALIST WORKERS Party) sort of lacked interest in that aspect. The nazi party grew in part at the expense of the Communist & other leftist parties as it attracted former members of those who lost sympathy with their doctrines. The internationalist aspect of the Communists & Socialists and acceptance of Jews and other 'non Germans' caused a portion of the membership to jump ship for the racist/Aryan line of the nazi party.
 
I have to agree with @B-29_Bomber here, the core support of the Nazus is not enough to warrant coalition from anyone, nor does it directly translate to wider support. Unless they tone down/modify their ideology a bit, which is something they might be willing to do imho.
 
Axis victory in Europe, defeat in North Africa, and an Asian theater that can go either way.

In Europe, the Germans win, even if they do invade Russia. If it is in such a weak state, it will collapse and the Germans will conquer basically all of European Russia, and probably push down to the Caucasus, take Stalingrad and Baku, and exploit the massive oil fields there. If they do invade Russia, their forces will be a bit stretched but they will have a massive pool of natural resources and slave labor to exploit. If not, they will still have access to plentiful labor and resources in Western Europe and they can focus their full might on Western Europe. It was the Red Army's taking away the vast majority of German manpower that made the Allied invasion of Western Europe possible. The Germans won't take the UK, which will become a fortress with a heavy American presence, but the main action will be in the air and sea. The Germans will be able to focus the bulk of their manpower, including their air force, and will be exploiting the labor and resources of the countries they occupy, while the Allies enforce a tight blockade on Europe. Both sides will be bombing each other until a lot of urban areas in Britain, Germany, and occupied Europe lie in ruins until eventually a cease-fire, though not a permanent peace is signed.

In North Africa, Allied naval superiority means that, as in OTL, the Allies ultimately win the Battle of the Mediterranean, cut the supply line to Axis forces in North Africa, and win the North African Campaign.

In the Pacific, Japan is still massively outclassed by the United States. It will still likely invade China, but where it goes from there is not certain. Of course, with such butterflies, it's possible the Japanese invasion of French Indochina, which led to the US embargo that ultimately resulted in Pearl Harbor, never happens, but even if the US does eventually impose such an embargo, Japan may have other options. If Russia is in such a weak state, if the brief Soviet-Japanese border war that leads to the Japanese defeat at Khalkin Gol never happens, Japan might invade Russia in tandem with Germany to make a go for the natural resources there. Alternatively, it might make a lunge for British and Dutch colonies, which it can take, but if it takes on the US, it's screwed, though if war starts in circumstances other than those like the Pearl Harbor attack, which causes enormous outrage among the American public, and especially if the US fires the first shot, it's strategy of wearing down the US might have effect, and it might come out at the end with a negotiated peace rather than an unconditional surrender/occupation, though it is still defeated.
 
First, fascism is butterflied away. There might be some fascists, but the conservatives and reactionaries will not be attracted by fascism without the threat of a communist rebellion supported by the Soviet Union.

Second, no Red Scare in the US, meaning that Socialism might become on the mainstream parties (Socialism means usal reformism and trade-unionism, nothing really radical).

Third, leftist will be more succesful because they will be able to adapt to their local circumstances without being dominated by the Comintern.

Essentially WWII as we know it is butterflied away. I suspect that in this scenario, the Treaty of Versailles is peacefully revised step by step, but Japan will still cause chaos in Asia. But Japan is very unlikely to attack Britain and the US without Germany fighting against at least one of these great powers.
Nah - doesn't explain Mussolini for example. He grew out of the Socialist party.

Fascism as an ideaology will still be attractive as with or without the collapse of Russia the perception that the "establishment" lost it all in WW1 will be a powerful argument in many places in Europe. So populist Fascist-like leaders will get support. Whether it goes the whole hog and develops into Fascist states is debatable but to be honest I can't see Italy's trajectory changing much.

Also remember that Populist Fascism and Revolutionary Socialism are not really that far apart in whom they appeal to in the electorate (even now!).

If WW2 is caused by a major power (Germany, France, Russia or Great Britain) falling to Fascism then I'm not sure it's butterflied away. Changed without doubt but not completely gone.
 
Nah - doesn't explain Mussolini for example. He grew out of the Socialist party.

It very much does explain Mussolini. The rise to power of the Italian Fascists is not conceivable without the threat of a leftist take over in Italy. On the contrary, the Fascist fighting troops were formed to fight the Italian communists after WWI. Mussolini might still go Fascist ITTL, but I doubt Fascism will gain much popularity with the conservatives if there isn't the threat of communism.

Also remember that Populist Fascism and Revolutionary Socialism are not really that far apart in whom they appeal to in the electorate (even now!).

Most voters of Fascist parties were members of the middle class. There was a substantial number of workers who voted for Fascists, but they never formed a majority.
 
It very much does explain Mussolini. The rise to power of the Italian Fascists is not conceivable without the threat of a leftist take over in Italy. On the contrary, the Fascist fighting troops were formed to fight the Italian communists after WWI. Mussolini might still go Fascist ITTL, but I doubt Fascism will gain much popularity with the conservatives if there isn't the threat of communism.

Most voters of Fascist parties were members of the middle class. There was a substantial number of workers who voted for Fascists, but they never formed a majority.

Well historically Mussolini signed a pact with the Socialists (of whom he was a party member until 1916) in the Summer of '21 to allow him to move on his Nationalist opposition. He then broke this agreement in the winter of '21 and organised the march on Rome to depose a Liberal prime minister who was allowing a Nationalist rival of Mussolini to prepare a rally.

Mussolini's power base was the petit bourgeoisie not the wealthy elites (who he later annoyed with his corporate state)
 
How whites won? Denikin offensive was succesfull? Thats mean whites somehow achieved agreement with Poland. And also means:
-better relations between Poland and Russia (unlike Bolsheviks whites would not be able to attack Poland soon, so no analogue for OTL Polish-Bolshevik war. Whites would not be so effective as reds in controlling the country-they were not homogenous force-from monarchists to moderate socialists, only thing that kept them together were Bolsheviks, and they would not use large scale terror like reds did (that does not mean they never used terror at all). Cossacs would want to return to their farms. And they would not be motivated by ideology.
Also, Poland was not the most important direction of Imperial Russia-South with "warm seas" not West was more interesting. IOTL ideologically driven Soviets were obsessed with western expansion due to their hopes of German workers joining communist revolution, something that Stalin hoped for even after ww2.
-weaker Russia-Civil war would be longer, Central Russia, Russian hearthland held by Bolsheviks would need to be reconquered, thus more devasted than IOTL.
-Lack of Weimar/Soviet cooperation.
-Better Polish-Czechoslovak relations-dispute over Teschen is likely decided by plebiscite.
 
Left-wing politics wasn't just about "Communism" - indeed, Lenin and the Bolsheviks clamped down on the workers as soon as they could.

The idea of "Soviets" would still exist but more as semi-organised localised workers' councils more on the line of the Paris Commune than Communist Russia.

As others have said, it's hard to imagine Fascism without Communism at least in the form we know but whether the post-WW1 democratic institutions of Central and Eastern Europe would have survived anyway is debatable. Tendencies toward nationalism and authoritarianism, arguably exacerbated by the events of 1918-20, would still have existed and presumably the injustices of Versailles and Trianon, real or imagined, would still have existed.

It's not hard to imagine a drift way from democracy toward this form of nationalism and authoritarianism in the 1920s and 1930s even without Communism and it's also not to think there would have been conflict between, say, Hungary and Romania over Transylvania at some point.

The bigger question is whether the central and eastern European states could have survived as independent states as Germany and Russia revived after 1918 - yes, it might take both a generation but by 1940 it could look very different with (perhaps) Britain and France guaranteeing support for states like Czechoslovakia against a new Russo-German alliance.
 
The bigger question is whether the central and eastern European states could have survived as independent states as Germany and Russia revived after 1918 - yes, it might take both a generation but by 1940 it could look very different with (perhaps) Britain and France guaranteeing support for states like Czechoslovakia against a new Russo-German alliance.
Russo-German alliance is unlikely, more likely is British-German alliance against French-Russian alliance. From British POV it would be good to achieve some sort of German-Polish reconciliation, or rather vassalisation, altough it depends who is in charge where and how and when white victory was achieved. It is definitely impossible with Hitler.
 
Russo-German alliance is unlikely, more likely is British-German alliance against French-Russian alliance. From British POV it would be good to achieve some sort of German-Polish reconciliation, or rather vassalisation, altough it depends who is in charge where and how and when white victory was achieved. It is definitely impossible with Hitler.
There is just too much bad blood between the Germans and the Poles for that. You need at least a plebiscite in Danzig for any sort of reapproachment.
 
There is just too much bad blood between the Germans and the Poles for that. You need at least a plebiscite in Danzig for any sort of reapproachment.
City of Danzig was not part of Poland, it was League of Nations protectorate, after port of Gdynia was build Danzig was not that important for Poland. Agreement could be reached about that issue.
 
I should have phrased it better: I meant the whole corridor.
Poland would not be interested in reconciliation with Germany until Russia became a serious threat (if Russia became threat at all! It depends who is in charge-say it is Wrangel in Russia and Dmowski in Poland-then Polish Russian reconciliation is very likely and Poland doesn't need to care about particulary good Relations with Germany) which will not happen soon-whites would need more time to finish the reds than vice versa. . By this time (no earlier than late 1930s, possibly later) there is no way for Germans to win fair plebiscite in Corridor. Sane German leader should understand it.
 
Top