During the course of study in the book "All Quiet on the Western
Front", a thought came to me. What if the CP's had won WW1 right after
Russia pulled out of the war and right before the Americans mustered their
forces. Decidedly, the world would be a differnt place. But would it be better?
Worse? Or just... different?
Thoughts on this would be welcome, concerning short-term and long-term effects.
Germany would have to spend a very long time creating a navy to even touch
Britain and America. Therefore, they could only conquer mainland Europe for the
time being. But, they may step up their naval production after beating France
and Russia.
Now, we know that in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Germany was harsh on Russia
yet did not conquer all of it. Germany wanted 6000 million marks in reparations.
Russia also lost quite a lot of land.
Therefore, I would believe that the same would be applied to France. Reparations
and land taken.
The thing is though, should American troops arrive in Britain and Britain and
America launched a double attack on Germany, with the fresh American troops, the
Allies should win. This would be like in World War 2 when Germany conquered
France and then D-Day happened. Of course, it will all be trench warfare, so
would the American and British effort be able to punch through?
The main concern is of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. Had this not occured,
America wouldn't have joined the war. If the America didn't join the war, France
and Britain had potential to be in all kinds of trouble, especially when German
troops were arriving from the East and being trained as Stormtroopers.
Quote by FluxinatorThe main concern is
of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. Had this not occured, America wouldn't have
joined the war. If the America didn't join the war, France and Britain had
potential to be in all kinds of trouble, especially when German troops were
arriving from the East and being trained as
Stormtroopers.
The reason for american was not the unrestricted submarine warfare or the ally
with Mexico. Woodrow Wilson had wanted a piece of action for years, isolationist
congress held me in. It was merely a tool that the president converted into a
cause for mobilization.
US Media at that time was largely neutral, unlike WWII, where before it
participated, the mainstream supported France/England. So, essentially, US could
go join on both sides. It is just unfortunate that German telegram was
intercepted, instead of French.
Quote by FluxinatorThe main concern is
of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. Had this not occured, America wouldn't have
joined the war. If the America didn't join the war, France and Britain had
potential to be in all kinds of trouble, especially when German troops were
arriving from the East and being trained as
Stormtroopers.
The reason for american was not the unrestricted submarine warfare or the ally
with Mexico. Woodrow Wilson had wanted a piece of action for years, isolationist
congress held me in. It was merely a tool that the president converted into a
cause for mobilization.
US Media at that time was largely neutral, unlike WWII, where before it
participated, the mainstream supported France/England. So, essentially, US could
go join on both sides. It is just unfortunate that German telegram was
intercepted, instead of French.
The Americans were bombarded
by British propoganda after the Germans invaded Belgium. Even before the
telegram was sent, a whole lot of Americans were not happy with the Germans. One
of the reasons the Germans sent that telegram was because the Americans kept on
trading with the Allies while not trading with the Central Powers.
a lot of american companies have connections with Axis, FORD, obviously the
company that comes to mind, also IBM, JP Morgan, also houses significant AXIS
accounts.
I often find myself wondering, if Manfred von Richtoffen (The Red Baron) had not
died during WWI, would he have risen to leadership of Germany? Would WWII have
been averted by a different leader? Or would Richtoffen have been no better than
Hitler?
Quote by tanteikunThe reason for
american was not the unrestricted submarine warfare or the ally with Mexico.
Woodrow Wilson had wanted a piece of action for years, isolationist congress
held me in. It was merely a tool that the president converted into a cause for
mobilization.
US Media at that time was largely neutral, unlike WWII, where before it
participated, the mainstream supported France/England. So, essentially, US could
go join on both sides. It is just unfortunate that German telegram was
intercepted, instead of French.
"Wilson spent 1914, 1915, 1916, and the beginning of 1917 trying to keep
America out of the War in Europe.
When Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917 and made a
clumsy attempt to get Mexico as an ally (see Zimmermann Telegram), Wilson took
America into the Great War as a 'war to end all wars.'
This provided the basis of Wilson's Fourteen Points, which were intended to
resolve territorial disputes, ensure free trade and commerce, and establish a
peacemaking organization, which later emerged as the League of Nations.
I don't think Woodrow Wilson wanted to join the war. But if, saying you were
correct, I still think that Unrestricted Submarine Warfare was what brought
America into the war:
Think of it this way. A student wants to get better at Mathematics. Therefore,
he/she puts more time into it. The result is better Maths grades.
In this analogy, the thought is wanting to get better at Maths. The thought
influences the decision made by the person but does not trigger the result to
take place. The trigger, the way the student puts more time into it is an
attempt at getting better. The result, better Maths grades, comes from the
trigger.
In this way, if Woodrow Wilson really wanted to go to war, that is the thought.
It does nothing but influences what action he takes on the trigger. The trigger
was the telegram and Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. If they went missing from
the chain, the result, America joining the war, cannot take place.
Therefore, even IF Woodrow Wilson had wanted to join the war, it was
Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and the Telegram that brought America into the
war.
Let's go with a patricide. The Dad is first thinking the Son loves him. When the
Son tries to kill the Dad, the Dad acts in self-defense. In this, the Dad isn't
acting upon the trigger because of his thought. Instead, he is worried about his
own death, the result.
I can think of numerous reasons why Woodrow Wilson may have went to war in 1917.
Perhaps he wanted to increase his approval rating. Perhaps he thought it had
gone on for too long. Perhaps he wanted the war over quick so that peace could
follow.
Quote by zoku88One of the reasons the
Germans sent that telegram was because the Americans kept on trading with the
Allies while not trading with the Central Powers.
That wasn't entirely America's fault, though; the British had established a
blockade of Germany, cutting it off from overseas trade.
Quote by bwebI often find myself wondering,
if Manfred von Richtoffen (The Red Baron) had not died during WWI, would he have
risen to leadership of Germany? Would WWII have been averted by a different
leader? Or would Richtoffen have been no better than
Hitler?
Why would Richthofen, of all people, have risen to power following the war had
he survived? While he may have been a dashing flying ace, a war hero and all
that, after the war Germany had plenty of those. He would have had to prove he
would have been better at the top than Hindenburg, which was a tall order. There
were other war heros in the mix, too. The only undefeated German general of the
war, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, wasn't able to block Hitler's rise to power, and
Hitler was a mere corporal in the war; why would the Red Baron succeed where he
failed?
This further assumes that had he survived the war, Richtofen would have survived
the peace long enough to rise to leadership. As a pilot, he could have joined a
commercial firm after the war and died in a plane crash, which is what happened
to his brother Lothar.
On the other hand, being the leader of the Flying Circus might well have
translated into political power. Afterall, the person who eventually took over
after Richthofen's death was a guy named Hermann Goering.
Hitler may have still come to power, but if there was a WW2, the Germans
probably wouldn't have started it. Maybe the other countries wanted revenge for
unjust terms imposed by the Germans?
I suggest reading a book called "What if?" google it...it's basically
an essay type book on the events of history if they turned out differently and
the effects it would have had on our lives...very interesting. I think it
touched on WWI having a different outcome.
My personal opinion, WW2 would still have happened as remaining uninvaded
countries would have stilled formed the "allies" and attacked Germany,
thus Treaty of Versailles created still....leading to Hitler's rise in power and
eventually WW2. Just that it would have happened 5 or 6 yrs later.
Quote by davew30My personal opinion, WW2
would still have happened as remaining uninvaded countries would have stilled
formed the "allies" and attacked Germany, thus Treaty of Versailles
created still....leading to Hitler's rise in power and eventually WW2. Just that
it would have happened 5 or 6 yrs later.
If Germany had won WW1, Britain would be by itself. France would have been
conquered and a large slab of land would have been taken from them. They
wouldn't be able to go to war because of harsh punishments made by Germany.
America wouldn't have cared as it was in a state of isolationism. Russia had
already left the war.
There would be no-one to counter-attack. The allies would not have been formed.
The Treaty of Versailles would never have existed.
I think WWII would had happen regardless who won the war back in 1914 -1918.
Yes, Germany would have aquired more lands from France, Spain, Portugal and the
rest of W.E. Made their push toward England (Great Britian) and destroy the
English way of life. The thought of both France and England under German rule
would have been the killing grounds for the Germany S.A. ( armed militia.(The
precursor to the much hated S.S.). WWII may have ended differently, with a much
enhanced Germany. This would have allowed the Nazis to gain a far greater
"death grip" on Western Europe. England would have to go on
a"heighten alert" status. The U.S.A would have not gotten involved,
considering President Woodrow Wilson stance on U.S. "isolationism"
unless the attack was directly at the the U.S.A.
The Jewish folk would have been "liquidated" alot sooner, therefore
fueling the Nazis state of Germany in preparation for WWII in a much more vile
way. Suppose the the Nazis had attacked the U.S.A. by using submarines to launch
torpedoes or even rockets (such as the "V-2" or perhaps
a"V-numeric") against American cities. At that time, the U.S. was not
prepared to fight directly.
WWII may had ended alot differently and more in all... ended in Nazi Germany's
favor. Instead of a victorious win over the Axis nations, the United States and
it's allies may be "killing grounds" for it's population. Adolph
Hitler and his henchmen would have enslaved the world and "Open the Gates
of Hell itself".
Quote by PrairieDogGuy2006I
think WWII would had happen regardless who won the war back in 1914 -1918. Yes,
Germany would have aquired more lands from France, Spain, Portugal and the rest
of W.E. Made their push toward England (Great Britian) and destroy the English
way of life. The thought of both France and England under German rule would have
been the killing grounds for the Germany S.A. ( armed militia.(The precursor to
the much hated S.S.). WWII may have ended differently, with a much enhanced
Germany. This would have allowed the Nazis to gain a far greater "death
grip" on Western Europe. England would have to go on a"heighten
alert" status. The U.S.A would have not gotten involved, considering
President Woodrow Wilson stance on U.S. "isolationism" unless the
attack was directly at the the U.S.A.
The Jewish folk would have been "liquidated" alot sooner, therefore
fueling the Nazis state of Germany in preparation for WWII in a much more vile
way. Suppose the the Nazis had attacked the U.S.A. by using submarines to launch
torpedoes or even rockets (such as the "V-2" or perhaps
a"V-numeric") against American cities. At that time, the U.S. was not
prepared to fight directly.
WWII may had ended alot differently and more in all... ended in Nazi Germany's
favor. Instead of a victorious win over the Axis nations, the United States and
it's allies may be "killing grounds" for it's population. Adolph
Hitler and his henchmen would have enslaved the world and "Open the Gates
of Hell itself".
You paint what tries to be a disturbing picture, but one built on very weak
foundations. You assume that World War II would have been inevitable following
World War I; this is possible. However, you seem to be operating under the
premise that Nazi Germany was just as inevitable, which it wasn't.
The Nazis were a product of Germany's defeat in World War I, the Versailles
Treaty, and the Weimar Republic. Without the defeat, there would have been no
Versailles (or it would have been Germany imposing it, not the Entente), and the
Kaiser would still have his thrones. In such a situation, there wouldn't have
been any need for the Nazi Party; a victorious Germany wouldn't have needed its
greatness restored, and there wouldn't have been a demand for a Third Reich if
the Second Reich still stood. Adolf Hitler would have been just another Bavarian
corporal, nobody who could have challenged the entrenched Prussian officer class
that dominated Germany. This also means that there would have been no SA and no
"killing fields" for them. And no Holocaust.
A twice defeated and humiliated France is another matter, though. Your picture,
however, seems to be assuming that Germany would have annexed the entire
country, along with Spain and Portugal, which German troops had never come close
to during the war, and Great Britain, which would have required the destruction
of the Royal Navy an amphibious invasion to accomplish. This is great
overestimation of Germany's capabilities, its strategic aims, and its very
nature. Imperial Germany was very different from Nazi Germany; it didn't go
around seeking to destroy a country's way of life like you're
describing.
Your argument is, quite frankly, ridiculous and anyone who had studied the
history of the World Wars could tell you as much. Why you bothered to post it,
and almost five months after the last post, is anyone's guess.
Lord Styphon san, what I "paint" of the question posed before me is
only a "What if ?", I am only decribing what could happen. I believe
that Germany would have taken the advantage, granted, Germany under the Second
Reich. No matter what the outcome would have been, The Third Reich would have
come, perhaps an "internal struggle ?" Believe me, the rise of the
Nazis state would have happen, "dictators and madmen rise as opportunists
!" Adolph Hitler was such an opportunist.
My "painting of a disturbing picture" as you describe, Humanity would
not stood for peace very long. The masses would have called for a change. Maybe
not Adolph Hitler would have come to the forefront, someone would have come to
the "plate" and "jack one out of the park !"
Granted, I am not a "writer of alternative history", like Henry
Turtledove", I do like reading stories of "Alternative history".
Regarding the amount of time of when someone responds to the question posted
above, I consider it "A priviledge to respond to it !" Whether a day
or five weeks ago, it does not matter. At least someone like me took the time to
respond to it.
I, at least thank U for your response, Lord Styphon san.
Why should I believe you when you say that Nazi Germany would have arisen?
You've offered no reasoning to support that position other than the assertion
itself, and the evidence that has been presented contradicts it. You say Hitler
that Hitler was an opportunist who would have seized an opportunity to take
power; Germany's defeat in World War I and the upheaval that followed it *was*
Hitler's opportunity. Without it, there wouldn't have been an DAP for Hitler to
use as his vehicle, since it was founded as a consequence of the Armistice and
the rise of the Weimar Republic. If there is no Weimar Republic, there's no DAP,
pure and simple.
All of which still leaves Hitler as a foreign-born corporal in the Bavarian army
who, to take power, would have had to have gone up against the entrenched Junker
class that dominated Germany before the war and, had Germany won, would have
still been entrenched in power.
An established system is a lot harder to displace than one that is trying to
establish itself. The system Hitler displaced wasn't an established one, and had
Germany won, wouldn't have existed for him to displace in the first
place.
If you're so desperate to find fascism rising from the ashes of World War I,
promising national redemption, maybe you should look, as alternate history
writers do, to the nations that would have needed redeeming in the first place,
namely the defeated ones. A twice-defeated and twice-humiliated France would
have been the perfect place to find people promising national redemption.
Instead of a Third Reich, a Third Empire or Third Kingdom.
When you inevitably respond to this, do remember that threads that haven't been
replied to in several months are generally considered dead, and that it's best
to leave them be; nobody likes necromancers. Second, if you're going to tell me
the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich was inevitable, regardless of the outcome
of World War I, try telling me why; you've singularly failed to do
that.
And stop littering your posts with quotation marks.
During the course of study in the book "All Quiet on the Western Front", a thought came to me. What if the CP's had won WW1 right after Russia pulled out of the war and right before the Americans mustered their forces. Decidedly, the world would be a differnt place. But would it be better? Worse? Or just... different?
Thoughts on this would be welcome, concerning short-term and long-term effects.
Germany would have to spend a very long time creating a navy to even touch Britain and America. Therefore, they could only conquer mainland Europe for the time being. But, they may step up their naval production after beating France and Russia.
Now, we know that in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Germany was harsh on Russia yet did not conquer all of it. Germany wanted 6000 million marks in reparations. Russia also lost quite a lot of land.
Therefore, I would believe that the same would be applied to France. Reparations and land taken.
The thing is though, should American troops arrive in Britain and Britain and America launched a double attack on Germany, with the fresh American troops, the Allies should win. This would be like in World War 2 when Germany conquered France and then D-Day happened. Of course, it will all be trench warfare, so would the American and British effort be able to punch through?
The main concern is of Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. Had this not occured, America wouldn't have joined the war. If the America didn't join the war, France and Britain had potential to be in all kinds of trouble, especially when German troops were arriving from the East and being trained as Stormtroopers.
The reason for american was not the unrestricted submarine warfare or the ally with Mexico. Woodrow Wilson had wanted a piece of action for years, isolationist congress held me in. It was merely a tool that the president converted into a cause for mobilization.
US Media at that time was largely neutral, unlike WWII, where before it participated, the mainstream supported France/England. So, essentially, US could go join on both sides. It is just unfortunate that German telegram was intercepted, instead of French.
The Americans were bombarded by British propoganda after the Germans invaded Belgium. Even before the telegram was sent, a whole lot of Americans were not happy with the Germans. One of the reasons the Germans sent that telegram was because the Americans kept on trading with the Allies while not trading with the Central Powers.
a lot of american companies have connections with Axis, FORD, obviously the company that comes to mind, also IBM, JP Morgan, also houses significant AXIS accounts.
I often find myself wondering, if Manfred von Richtoffen (The Red Baron) had not died during WWI, would he have risen to leadership of Germany? Would WWII have been averted by a different leader? Or would Richtoffen have been no better than Hitler?
"Wilson spent 1914, 1915, 1916, and the beginning of 1917 trying to keep America out of the War in Europe.
When Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare in early 1917 and made a clumsy attempt to get Mexico as an ally (see Zimmermann Telegram), Wilson took America into the Great War as a 'war to end all wars.'
This provided the basis of Wilson's Fourteen Points, which were intended to resolve territorial disputes, ensure free trade and commerce, and establish a peacemaking organization, which later emerged as the League of Nations.
For his peacemaking efforts, Wilson was awarded the 1919 Nobel Peace Prize."
Source: Woodrow Wilson and World War One
I don't think Woodrow Wilson wanted to join the war. But if, saying you were correct, I still think that Unrestricted Submarine Warfare was what brought America into the war:
Think of it this way. A student wants to get better at Mathematics. Therefore, he/she puts more time into it. The result is better Maths grades.
In this analogy, the thought is wanting to get better at Maths. The thought influences the decision made by the person but does not trigger the result to take place. The trigger, the way the student puts more time into it is an attempt at getting better. The result, better Maths grades, comes from the trigger.
In this way, if Woodrow Wilson really wanted to go to war, that is the thought. It does nothing but influences what action he takes on the trigger. The trigger was the telegram and Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. If they went missing from the chain, the result, America joining the war, cannot take place.
Therefore, even IF Woodrow Wilson had wanted to join the war, it was Unrestricted Submarine Warfare and the Telegram that brought America into the war.
Triggers can be triggers, but without a directive, they went unused. When Germans first sunk the US ship in 1914, nothing materialized.
It depends on the circumstance.
Let's go with a patricide. The Dad is first thinking the Son loves him. When the Son tries to kill the Dad, the Dad acts in self-defense. In this, the Dad isn't acting upon the trigger because of his thought. Instead, he is worried about his own death, the result.
I can think of numerous reasons why Woodrow Wilson may have went to war in 1917. Perhaps he wanted to increase his approval rating. Perhaps he thought it had gone on for too long. Perhaps he wanted the war over quick so that peace could follow.
That wasn't entirely America's fault, though; the British had established a blockade of Germany, cutting it off from overseas trade.
Why would Richthofen, of all people, have risen to power following the war had he survived? While he may have been a dashing flying ace, a war hero and all that, after the war Germany had plenty of those. He would have had to prove he would have been better at the top than Hindenburg, which was a tall order. There were other war heros in the mix, too. The only undefeated German general of the war, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, wasn't able to block Hitler's rise to power, and Hitler was a mere corporal in the war; why would the Red Baron succeed where he failed?
This further assumes that had he survived the war, Richtofen would have survived the peace long enough to rise to leadership. As a pilot, he could have joined a commercial firm after the war and died in a plane crash, which is what happened to his brother Lothar.
On the other hand, being the leader of the Flying Circus might well have translated into political power. Afterall, the person who eventually took over after Richthofen's death was a guy named Hermann Goering.
Here's a question to bring this conversation in another direction. Would there have been a WW2 if the Germans had won WW1?
Probably not. Germans would be united. Treaty of Versailles wouldn't exist. No-one would need Hitler.
Hitler may have still come to power, but if there was a WW2, the Germans probably wouldn't have started it. Maybe the other countries wanted revenge for unjust terms imposed by the Germans?
I suggest reading a book called "What if?" google it...it's basically an essay type book on the events of history if they turned out differently and the effects it would have had on our lives...very interesting. I think it touched on WWI having a different outcome.
My personal opinion, WW2 would still have happened as remaining uninvaded countries would have stilled formed the "allies" and attacked Germany, thus Treaty of Versailles created still....leading to Hitler's rise in power and eventually WW2. Just that it would have happened 5 or 6 yrs later.
If Germany had won WW1, Britain would be by itself. France would have been conquered and a large slab of land would have been taken from them. They wouldn't be able to go to war because of harsh punishments made by Germany. America wouldn't have cared as it was in a state of isolationism. Russia had already left the war.
There would be no-one to counter-attack. The allies would not have been formed. The Treaty of Versailles would never have existed.
I think WWII would had happen regardless who won the war back in 1914 -1918. Yes, Germany would have aquired more lands from France, Spain, Portugal and the rest of W.E. Made their push toward England (Great Britian) and destroy the English way of life. The thought of both France and England under German rule would have been the killing grounds for the Germany S.A. ( armed militia.(The precursor to the much hated S.S.). WWII may have ended differently, with a much enhanced Germany. This would have allowed the Nazis to gain a far greater "death grip" on Western Europe. England would have to go on a"heighten alert" status. The U.S.A would have not gotten involved, considering President Woodrow Wilson stance on U.S. "isolationism" unless the attack was directly at the the U.S.A.
The Jewish folk would have been "liquidated" alot sooner, therefore fueling the Nazis state of Germany in preparation for WWII in a much more vile way. Suppose the the Nazis had attacked the U.S.A. by using submarines to launch torpedoes or even rockets (such as the "V-2" or perhaps a"V-numeric") against American cities. At that time, the U.S. was not prepared to fight directly.
WWII may had ended alot differently and more in all... ended in Nazi Germany's favor. Instead of a victorious win over the Axis nations, the United States and it's allies may be "killing grounds" for it's population. Adolph Hitler and his henchmen would have enslaved the world and "Open the Gates of Hell itself".
If the CP won the war then we'd all be eating brautwurst with kraut.
You paint what tries to be a disturbing picture, but one built on very weak foundations. You assume that World War II would have been inevitable following World War I; this is possible. However, you seem to be operating under the premise that Nazi Germany was just as inevitable, which it wasn't.
The Nazis were a product of Germany's defeat in World War I, the Versailles Treaty, and the Weimar Republic. Without the defeat, there would have been no Versailles (or it would have been Germany imposing it, not the Entente), and the Kaiser would still have his thrones. In such a situation, there wouldn't have been any need for the Nazi Party; a victorious Germany wouldn't have needed its greatness restored, and there wouldn't have been a demand for a Third Reich if the Second Reich still stood. Adolf Hitler would have been just another Bavarian corporal, nobody who could have challenged the entrenched Prussian officer class that dominated Germany. This also means that there would have been no SA and no "killing fields" for them. And no Holocaust.
A twice defeated and humiliated France is another matter, though. Your picture, however, seems to be assuming that Germany would have annexed the entire country, along with Spain and Portugal, which German troops had never come close to during the war, and Great Britain, which would have required the destruction of the Royal Navy an amphibious invasion to accomplish. This is great overestimation of Germany's capabilities, its strategic aims, and its very nature. Imperial Germany was very different from Nazi Germany; it didn't go around seeking to destroy a country's way of life like you're describing.
Your argument is, quite frankly, ridiculous and anyone who had studied the history of the World Wars could tell you as much. Why you bothered to post it, and almost five months after the last post, is anyone's guess.
Lord Styphon san, what I "paint" of the question posed before me is only a "What if ?", I am only decribing what could happen. I believe that Germany would have taken the advantage, granted, Germany under the Second Reich. No matter what the outcome would have been, The Third Reich would have come, perhaps an "internal struggle ?" Believe me, the rise of the Nazis state would have happen, "dictators and madmen rise as opportunists !" Adolph Hitler was such an opportunist.
My "painting of a disturbing picture" as you describe, Humanity would not stood for peace very long. The masses would have called for a change. Maybe not Adolph Hitler would have come to the forefront, someone would have come to the "plate" and "jack one out of the park !"
Granted, I am not a "writer of alternative history", like Henry Turtledove", I do like reading stories of "Alternative history". Regarding the amount of time of when someone responds to the question posted above, I consider it "A priviledge to respond to it !" Whether a day or five weeks ago, it does not matter. At least someone like me took the time to respond to it.
I, at least thank U for your response, Lord Styphon san.
Why should I believe you when you say that Nazi Germany would have arisen? You've offered no reasoning to support that position other than the assertion itself, and the evidence that has been presented contradicts it. You say Hitler that Hitler was an opportunist who would have seized an opportunity to take power; Germany's defeat in World War I and the upheaval that followed it *was* Hitler's opportunity. Without it, there wouldn't have been an DAP for Hitler to use as his vehicle, since it was founded as a consequence of the Armistice and the rise of the Weimar Republic. If there is no Weimar Republic, there's no DAP, pure and simple.
All of which still leaves Hitler as a foreign-born corporal in the Bavarian army who, to take power, would have had to have gone up against the entrenched Junker class that dominated Germany before the war and, had Germany won, would have still been entrenched in power.
An established system is a lot harder to displace than one that is trying to establish itself. The system Hitler displaced wasn't an established one, and had Germany won, wouldn't have existed for him to displace in the first place.
If you're so desperate to find fascism rising from the ashes of World War I, promising national redemption, maybe you should look, as alternate history writers do, to the nations that would have needed redeeming in the first place, namely the defeated ones. A twice-defeated and twice-humiliated France would have been the perfect place to find people promising national redemption. Instead of a Third Reich, a Third Empire or Third Kingdom.
When you inevitably respond to this, do remember that threads that haven't been replied to in several months are generally considered dead, and that it's best to leave them be; nobody likes necromancers. Second, if you're going to tell me the rise of Hitler and the Third Reich was inevitable, regardless of the outcome of World War I, try telling me why; you've singularly failed to do that.
And stop littering your posts with quotation marks.
Good lord, why is this bumped after such a long time?
Closed