WWII without Germany.

I always find it interesting the amount of people who think that, just because Stalin was a power mad despot who murdered millions, that for some reason he would try to conquer Europe if Hitler wasn't around :p

Stalin wasn't mad, he might have been evil, but not mad. He wanted to Rule Russia, and keep Russia safe. Starting a War with all of Europe is something that does NOT fit with his personality.

As to some of the other responses, I also find the amount of dispute on Japan interesting. That the discussion of weather Pearl harbor would still happen is something hotly debated.
 
Fascism was big in the day, and Germans have as much revanchism as Italians and Hungarians. It might take off pretty well in Germany. However without a strong Nazi Germany to bind them together, they're unlikely to buddy up with all their conflicting interests.

Here's an interesting thought, Japan as the big bad? Can they get European allies to back up their Pacific ambitions?

EDIT: Another interesting thought, Japan as the defender of Asia supplying, training, and organizing armed revolts all over Asia. Too far-fetched?
 
Last edited:
Given the state of physics research by 1938 I'd think the development would be very slow. The US started the 1930s a generation behind Europe and was in no position for such a project by 1938. Neither really was any other nation. The expertise was scattered and research focused on tiny aspects of the atomic question. Without the Brits bringing together a significant number of physicists under the Maud committie and the Tube Alloys project the near term practicality of either nuclear weapons or power would have remained obscure. It required a further concentration of expertise in the Manhatten project to actually move the thing forward.

AFAIK... it was the Frisch–Peierls memorandum in Spring 1940 that represented the jump from university theoretical research to "uhoh, this might actually be viable", and by December 1940 it was believed that a uranium bomb was inevitable.

Now that's two years after 1938, and it can easily be argued that war in Europe may have accelerated some of these details. But I suspect that as soon as it's decided that a bomb is inevitable, then a government would have to start working towards it, out of fear that other countries would be doing the same. Even if Europe is at peace, then the world is still unstable. 1950 is probably too soon for the first bomb, but 1955 seems entirely credible.
 
I'd have to say the old cliche that even if you get rid of Hitler its likely someone else would pop up in his place. He wasn't really anything special and Germany was a mess.

Assuming Germany remains quiet....it seems likely Stalin would try something at some point.
 
I'd have to say the old cliche that even if you get rid of Hitler its likely someone else would pop up in his place. He wasn't really anything special and Germany was a mess..

That.. is not really true.. Hitler wasn't just special, he and 'Mein Kampf' were KEY to Nazi Germany.

Without Hitler a series of events unfolds.
*Money: Without "Mein Kampf", a seizable amount of Revenue is denied to the fledgling Nazi Party.
*Policy "Mein Kampf" also became a policy bible to the Nazi party, again without it, the Party is denied a more populist message.
*The Krupp intervention Even with the money form Nein Kampf, in the OTL the Nazi party nearly went Bankrupt in the mid 20's. It survived only though an eleventh hour salvation from money from the Krupp COmpany due in large part to the companies son, Alfred Krupp. Joining the party early on. It is recorded that what entranced Alfred about the Nazis was in large part, the charisma of Aldof Hitler.
*Charisima Hitlers charismatic nature was also key in winning over many important part members. He knew how to manipulate the media and radio. Without him many key figures would not have joined.
*Accession to Chancellorship When the time came, could you imagine anyone else other then Hitler convincing Heidenberg to turn over the keys over power so fully?

Sure, you can say there could be some other "mad man" or "tyrant" to try and move into Germany, but none of them would have the very long list of requirments, as well as special circumstances that lead to Hitlers rise to power.
 
The other 'special' thing about the Nazi's is they ride to power (as did Musso) on the backs of a largely working class revolutionary socialist movement and then Hitler has the ability to decapitate the leadership of the movement forge a power relationship with the capitalist and military classes.
 
That.. is not really true.. Hitler wasn't just special, he and 'Mein Kampf' were KEY to Nazi Germany.

Without Hitler a series of events unfolds.
*Money: Without "Mein Kampf", a seizable amount of Revenue is denied to the fledgling Nazi Party.
*Policy "Mein Kampf" also became a policy bible to the Nazi party, again without it, the Party is denied a more populist message.
*The Krupp intervention Even with the money form Nein Kampf, in the OTL the Nazi party nearly went Bankrupt in the mid 20's. It survived only though an eleventh hour salvation from money from the Krupp COmpany due in large part to the companies son, Alfred Krupp. Joining the party early on. It is recorded that what entranced Alfred about the Nazis was in large part, the charisma of Aldof Hitler.
*Charisima Hitlers charismatic nature was also key in winning over many important part members. He knew how to manipulate the media and radio. Without him many key figures would not have joined.
*Accession to Chancellorship When the time came, could you imagine anyone else other then Hitler convincing Heidenberg to turn over the keys over power so fully?

Sure, you can say there could be some other "mad man" or "tyrant" to try and move into Germany, but none of them would have the very long list of requirments, as well as special circumstances that lead to Hitlers rise to power.
It doesn't need to be a mad man. A fairly standard authoritarian leader would do the trick for pushing for the liberation of German lands in Poland, restoring national pride, etc....
Not to mention the threat of the communists.
Its hard to imagine things going well for peace in Europe once the depression hits and Germany's recovery goes off the rails.
 
Well thats just it, I don't think Europe is goign to be some paradise wihtout Hitler, Germany was rearming long before he rose to power.

The nation would very much go to war at some time, the point is, it was Hitler who had the crazed idea of Utter World Domination! Of first Europe and then the world! Without Hitler, well, Germany might still invade poland, and some other areas. But the total all out attack aginst every country in Europe AND the attack on the Soviet Union. Not a chance.

I'd debate more, but this is supposed to be one thread where Hitler Isn't the center of attention :p Mostly trying to work out how Ital, and especially Japan would react. So far it looks as though the indo-china war continues, although war aginst America looks remote.
 
Anything remotely like "our" WW2 can't happen without Germany. As others have said, Italy is unlikely to start anything on its own. Without the cover provided by the Ribbentrop Pact, it is unlikely Stalin would invade Poland on his own. It is not impossible to imagine limited wars in the 1940's involving European powers prompted by colonial conflicts in the Mediterranean, by possible Hungarian/Rumanian squabbles, or by the Soviet attack on Finland, but these conflicts would probably not involve the USA or qualify as World Wars.

Given Japan's China policy (which had nothing to do with the Tripartite alliance) war is still virtually inevitable between the US and Japan, possibly also including Britain, the Netherlands, and/or France. We would call that the Pacific War.

A war is also possible between the USSR and Japan. Had this happened in the context of the ramp up to the Pacific War, you could have something more interesting. It would still be limited to Asia/the Pacific and might actually be in essence two separate wars. Wars that Japan woud lose very quickly.
 
The prevailing Soviet belief was that, in a war against the West, it would lose. Indeed the prevaing fear from the 1920s onwards was that the capitalist powers would unite and crush the fledgling state. This is reflected in Soviet planning in the 1930s, which was entirely defensive in nature.

Would the Soviet Union confront the west in any way? Most likely not under Stalin. But expansion at the expense of Japan is very likely, especially without the threat of Nazi Germany. It should be remembered that for a long time Chiang, not Mao, was the greatest beneficiary of Soviet arms and advisers.
 
My answer is simple. Essentially, no Germany, no World War II.

Without a strong very charismatic figure like Hitler Fascism in Germany would not have grown as it did. Yes there would still have been Fascism in Germany but it would not have grown into the Nazi Germany we knew in our timeline.

What really started and made WWII in Europe the war we knew it as was Nazi Germany invading Poland on September 1, 1939 and Nazi Germany bombing London, England and taking over France. Without a strong Nazi Germany doing those things there essentially would have been no WWII in Europe.

Without a strong partner like Nazi Germany the other Fascist powers such as Italy would not have been as brazen as in our timeline. Mussolini (excuse poor spelling) was crazy but he wasn't stupid. Without Germany they would not have been so bold in the face of the Allied Powers of the UK, USSR, and USA. My sense is without a Nazi Germany WWII in Europe would have been much smaller, much more localized, and much shorter in duration.

That leaves the Pacific. Again I think a WWII that was primarily Japan in the Pacific would have been a much smaller shorter war than in our timeline. Without a major war in Europe the Allied Powers could have concentrated much more intensely on Japan right from the start and defeated Japan more quickly, and probably more easily.

Yes there were major outbreaks of violence such as The Spanish Civil War and Japan invading China, and such. But I really feel without the likes of Adolf Hitler and a strong Nazi Germany as we knew it, WWII would have been much smaller and shorter.
 
No Hitler does give the pan-German movement some push, you could eventually see much of OTL Germany, Austria, Poland, and parts of Czechloslovakia united as one country later in the century. I could also see some later authoritarian figure pushing for return of the lands "stolen" in Versailles but good luck getting farther than talk with that.
 
If you want the Soviet Union to "try something", the POD needs to be a different outcome of the struggle between Stalin and Trotski. It was Trotski who pushed for the "Union of Worldwide Socialist Soviet Republics" or some such,a nd it was Stalin who wrestled support within the Communist Party away from Trotsky on the idea of "building socialism in one country first". Later on, Stalin's paranoid nature split the German left and eased Hitler's rise to power. Problem is, even if Trotsky wins and Stalin is demoted/exiled/killed, Trotsky won't be able to consolidate the power in his hands the way Stalin did. He wasn't popular and only had a firm control over the army.
 
Well Altamiro, it is a good thing this alt isn't about the Soviet Union "trying something" ;):p

Really it looks like the consensus is rather what I had initially assumed, that there would be various wars similar to what we got, but not the same all encompassing "World War" that we got.

Germant would try a few things in Europe, and Japan would go after China and a few other places. At the most, they might get America involved, and if they did, things would end a Lot faster without having to worry about war with Germany.
 

katchen

Banned
France, by some accounts came within a whisker of going fascist in 1934 under the Alliance Francaise. Could France have coughed up a Big Bad if Germany hadn't?
 
Top