What if Hitler had never been born or had been assasinated

At one point there was a dozen or more political party's fighting for power in Germany. The Nazi Party was a very small party in the 1920's that many viewed as weak at best. Even in the Nazi Party itself Hitler was one of many who could have risen to be the leader of the party

So lets debate a little further
1. Would the Nazi party have been as powerful without Hitler as it's leader?
2. What other party would/ could have gained power?
3. If Hitler had not joined the party, who would have been the most likely leader?
4. Would war have been inevitable without the Nazi Party in power?
5. What would Europe and the world look like today if the Nazi Party had never risen to power?
6) Would the NAZI party have disintegrated without Hitler's influence?

I have to agree with you on this. When you greatly outnumber and have more resources at your disposal, then by all rights you should win. While you can't ignore the bravery and skill of the Finnish military during this conflict, when the larger more powerful nation loses, it's always in part due to there own errors.

Let's not forget that the Germans lost the Winter War against the Soviets (if you can use the word 'lost' - they still made tremendous gains, but they failed to achieve their main objective, the capture of Moscow) for the same reasons that the Soviets lost against the Fins. In 1941 the Wehrmacht had the impetus of a swift advance, a disorganized opposing army, a hapless leadership, and superiority in equipment and numbers (poignantly about 2,000 airplanes - more than a quarter of the Red Army's air force - was destroyed on the ground in the first week.) But they were defeated by the sheer size of Soviet territory, which was a natural obstacle to any invading foe, partisan activity behind the lines, and ultimately by the harsh Russian climate.
In the Finnish war the Soviets, like the Germans later on, had the superiority in equipment and numbers (tanks against horses!), and worse still were overconfident and almost assured of victory - a deadly cocktail which must have inebriated the German leadership in the last days of 1941 too, after more than a thousand miles of rapid advance on all fronts. But the stubborn resistance of the Finnish defenders, determined leadership, and the fact that the Finns were better equipped and trained to fight on their homeland territory (which consisted mainly of swamp, forest and mountainous terrain, proving a severe burden to any mobile force, such as tanks) was too much.

Proof, as I argued in a post some time ago, that a well acclimatized, well led, and well prepared defending army can triumph over a large, boisterous, and cumbersome one any day.

If Hitler hadn't been born some other psycho would've taken over, it was the right climate, the masses follow.

I simply can not accept your comment, a truly evil entity like Hitler is extremely rare in history. Although I admit the 20th Century had its fare share in others like Stalin

That's what i mean Alan, maybe not as nuts or as extreme but a psycho none the less!

That point, valid as it seems, makes this whole thread rather redundant. And it takes us back to the intractable philosophical problem, which I mentioned before, of whether men make history, or whether individuals like Hitler and Stalin just happen to come along at the right time.

In my view, there is no easy answer for that problem. I agree with Alan McDougall that individuals such as Hitler are historically rare, the exception to the rule that history is usually governed by larger and wider developments, beyond the influence or control of mere mortals, not solely by the whims of people. Yet the opposite argument also holds true that, had Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, Napoleon Bonaparte, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great - in effect, pretty much any "great" person in history - come along at any other time, they would almost certainly have been consigned to the footnotes, or more likely not remembered at all. Intelligence, power, and ambition are not qualities that are in short supply - to put it in some perspective, billions of men have walked this earth, and only a few of those have ever risen to the ranks of "greatness" - but it takes opportunity, the will to power, the right conditions and the right means to exploit them, to accomplish anything meaningful. That is what all these men did - all of them were driven, focused, ambitious individuals; but why did they succeed where others, no less gifted, failed? Why did Hitler rise to become the head of the Nazi Party, and not drift into ignominious oblivion in the bars and restaurants of Vienna? Why did Stalin after Lenin's death ascend to become the leader and Grand Marshal of the Soviet Union, the supreme pontiff of international Marxism, and not fade into the background, or even return to his old vagabond ways?
Because they were opportunists, they were possessed of no small amount of patience, and they did not hesitate to seize their moment when the opportunity arose.

Here is how I like to look at any historical problem:

CONDITION+REASON+CAUSE = EFFECT

Every event, big or small, needs a condition, a reason, and a cause. The "condition" is the gunpowder, and in some cases the most important factor of all - it is rarely simple or one-sided. The "reason" is the cannon, if you will, and the "cause" the match that sets the whole thing in motion. Hitler's reasons for starting a war are clear enough - the pursuit of power; the redressing of past perceived wrongs; racial and ideological fanaticism; the complementary goals of lebensraum and racial extermination; last of all the desire to build a "great" Germany, a Thousand Year Reich to rule over its traditional enemies to the West and the "inferior" peoples to the East. As for the causes, they are more complex, but I believe the "match" that started the fire - that catapulted Hitler into the Reichstag, in effect - was the burning of the Reichstag in 1934, by supposed "Communist" agitators, which led swiftly to the Enabling Act granting Hitler near-dictatorial powers, and the banning of the Communist and SD parties, further increasing the Nazis' share of the popular vote, and ensuring them a victory in the next election. But for that cause, it is uncertain whether Hitler and the Nazis would have become as popular and as powerful as they did; certainly it sealed the deal. Now the "match" that started the Second World War was, of course, the invasion of Poland, and the failure of the Allies (Britain and France) to react to Hitler's intentions earlier - they had already granted him the Sudetenland, the Rhineland, and Austria, and had turned a blind eye to his military build-up, in spite of obvious and repeated warnings. The absence or replacement of this crucial "spark" - say, a more disciplined opposition, in Britain, the US and France, to German ambitions - could have meant the end of Hitler's ambitions long before 1939.

That just leaves the conditions, which I believe are the most important factor here. The absence of even one of these "conditions" could, in theory, have stalled or prevented Hitler's rise to power altogether - with significant and resounding consequences. One may subscribe to the view that Adolf was merely a "cipher" of history, the agent of events and not their master; equally, however, there can be no denying the fact that he, personally, was a tremendous influence on the course and outcome of those events. The conditions for WWII, the Holocaust, even the Cold War, were present long before Hitler's rise to power - the Versailles Treaty, and the suspicion it aroused between the European nations; nationalist fervor, deepened rather than dissipated by the ashes of 1918; the inherent weakness of the nascent Weimar Republic, its unpopularity and its failure to respond to the crises of the 1930s; the belief of the German people, validated by Versailles, that they had been the "victims" of circumstance, defeated in 1918 not in the proper sense but rather by a "stab in the back" back home; their consequent determination to recapture this squandered glory, a dream which took shape in the grandiose figure of Adolf Hitler; the fragile structure of Europe post-1918, further undermined by the vacuum left by the collapse of the old Habsburg and Ottoman Empires, and by the growth of a dominant super-state to the East (the Soviet Union); the relative decline (predating even 1914) of the dominant imperial Powers, Britain and France, and the ascendancy of the US and Germany; the widespread growth of anti-semitism and the rise of "radical" political regimes and ideologies throughout Europe; the Great Depression, and in Germany especially its damaging effect on an entire generation of youth; a simultaneous and almost worldwide "culture of violence", created it seems by the aftershock of 1914, and fuelled by the dreams of despots such as Stalin; the corroding influence of communism in Western Europe, and the ideological hatred of capitalism fostered by the certainty that they were predestined to collide; the long-held territorial ambitions of nations such as Germany, which even before Hitler had desired to reclaim Austria, its perceived "birthright", as well as the USSR, whose plans were less clear, but certainly included the annexation of Poland, to serve as a "buffer zone" against the West; and various other factors, too numerous to list here.

These, then, are our conditions. Europe in the 1930s was an inherently unstable system, destined sooner or later to explode, or to collapse. It was by no means certain what would happen. Some say World War Two was inevitable; I choose, rather, to say that a conflict was inevitable, but not necessarily the conflict we got. History could have transpired in any of a number of ways - I have already suggested one, in my opinion the most likely, the rise and dominance of communism in Germany (which in 1930 the most serious contender for a communist revolution), and the subsequent "domino effect" on its neighbours, leading to a pseudo-Cold War in the heartland of Europe. Many other hypotheses might be devised. Yet, it fell to individuals like Hitler, and a few other contemporaries - men who, like Churchill, were not necessarily destined for greatness, but rather had greatness thrust upon them - to translate those conditions into reality.


Here is my conclusion, if you think such a philosophical conundrum is capable of receiving a conclusion. Men sometimes make history; but at the same time, it is often history that makes men. Well, that is as good a solution as I can contrive. Any better ones?

James, I have to disagree with you on one point. I don't believe that the conditions matter as much when it comes to these type of leaders. In most cases, the men and women that rose up to greatness (Washington, Hitler, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Tsar Catherine, etc) would likely be able to use any condition to their benefit. These men rose to greatness more so due to the "cause." The things that seperate these people from others who were just as talented and/or charismatic, is their force of will. These type of people are the ones who would gladly choose death while trying than giving up. It doesn't matter what the condition is, if the right man or woman isn't there to create the spark of change, then nothing will happen.

Hitler's success must be attributed to the susceptibility of post WW1 Germany to his own unique talents as a political leader. His rise to power was not inevitable and any change in a complex array and conjunction of circumstances might have relegated him to the obscurity and failure of his youth. Yet there was no one at the time who equalled his ability to exploit and shape events to his own evil ends

The power which he wielded was unprecedented both in its scope and technical resources at its command;but he made NO PERMANENT CONTRIBUTION, MORAL OR MATERIAL TO HUMANKIND. His originality and distinctiveness lay in his methods rather than his ideas and purposes, which were shared in the whole or in part by millions of German people and elsewhere

By the time he was defeated he had broken down the structure of the whole world in which he lived and due to him a new era with even greater potential of power and destruction was inaugurated, such as the Atom bomb and the USA and USSR becoming superpowers

His drive in my opinion was hate for most of his fellow human beings even his own people the only entity he seemed to show love and affection for was his German Shepard dog blondi

I should remind you that he was democratically elected.



Well we also obtained a new source of generating power from this technology as well. It has been demonized lately for some reason even though it is one of the most clean energy technology we have.



This is pure speculation. I think history and the feelings or emotions behind hitler have distorted and perhaps exaggerated just how things happened. Did hitler have a hatred for jews or was he acting on a common held contempt of the german culture at the time? Did he just take advantage of a racial clash seeking someone to blame for the country's economic crisis? Governments are always quick to blame the people for the problems of the country rather than the choices made by it's leaders.

I doubt the Germans who supported hitler early on had any idea that he would execute racial genocide. They were mislead by his charisma and intimidated by nationalism. All politicians use the same tricks, the only difference is, some are better at keeping their plans secret.

It is such an easy card to deal, using the hitler comment. I shouldn't even be responding to this thread. The whole thing is conjecture and quite frankly childish.

Respectfully Krumple, to say the thread is conjecture is true; but to say it is childish borders on disrespect, especially for an obvious historian like James.

It should be obvious by my posts in this thread that history is not one of my strong points and for this I deeply apologise

I initiated the thread so I am therefore a very childish old man, thank god for children that ask questions, philosophy is all about questions or am I wrong

Philosophy

The philosophy of the human person started when the methods of philosophy were applied to find answers regarding the questions and mysteries of human existence. The human person who is formerly and presently the inquiring subject, become simultaneously the inquired object.
us.geocities.com/philodept/diwatao/philosophy_of_human_...

I agree with Alan. And might I add, as any philosopher or historian should know, these disciplines are not always so much about generating answers as about raising further questions! And many philosophical disputes are, by their very nature, conjectural - such as Plato's treatise on what the perfect government would or should be. Obviously there has never been a "perfect" government, or a society even remotely approaching a utopia, but it's always interesting to think about these ideas, isn't it? Likewise, we could never know what a world without Hitler would be like, unless we actually travelled to a parallel universe where he hadn't been born, but nonetheless it makes for a fascinating thought experiment.

I don't think the point of this forum is to produce concrete answers; it is, rather, to invoke more questions. That is why I am continuing to contribute, because it is always interesting to hear other people's ideas, especially their criticims. Nothing childish about that, is there, Krumple? Rather, to my mind, to refute a topic on the basis that it can't be answered - even though it may bring up a wealth of ideas - is the very essence of childishness.

Albert Einstein quoted if one needs to find a new field to research; pose the same type of questions little children ask, like what would happen if I could fly on a beam of light?, this one prime question led him to question the very physics that underpin the universe and reality (Theory of General Realitivity)

The reason why it is childish is because of how bent the perspective is on events. You can just as easily hypothesize that if the bomb were never created thus never used on Japan, that the war with Japan might have changed events dramatically. I am not implying the use was just, but the elements involved are too many. It becomes a game of, "What if the sky were yellow?" Change one little event and you never know, one of those people you saved might have turned out to be just another tyrant. It is impossible to speculate on just how clean and shiny things would be without wicked people around. Chances are high that another one would have just taken their place.

Japan might have remained a communist country. They might have never adopted any western ideology. Their current status might be drastically different. Perhaps similar to North Korea? Should we really play this game?

I bet there are dozens of evils in the world that goes undetected. Choices leaders make that effect the lives of millions yet go unnoticed. History doesn't record these events because they are not as obvious. Perhaps even some of these people called heroes while they should have been called something else.

There you go Krumple debating and adding to the topic even though you do not seem to be aware you are doing in it

Every statement you made is just a valids as everyone elses

If the sky became yellow maybe there is an erupting volcano nearby

Krumple - Japan could not have remained a communist country because they never were communist to begin with. Imperial Japan, recall?

This is another benefit of speculation - as we speculate, people add to the conversation their knowledge of events to fine hone the speculation. Through this process, we pick up on aspects of history we did not know in the first place.

No, he was NOT. In fact he never even stood for election! This is one of the most puzzling yet common misconceptions about him.

He was APPOINTED chancellor as part of a power-sharing agreement with Hindenberg after the Nazi Party won a plurality in the Reichstag (around 40% of the vote). And Hindenberg's hand was forced because the SD (the Nazi street armies) were more powerful than the national army and failure to appoint him chancellor would have nearly guaranteed either a coup d'etat or a civil war. Furthermore, the success of the Nazis in the 1933 election had in large part to do with the voter intimidation by the SD.

German election, March 1933 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It is not at all speculation, his writings, speeches, and personal communications are unambiguous.

Common prejudices existed, but Germany was the SAFEST country for Jews in all of modern European history up until the Nazi rise to power. Contempt for the Jews (and violence against them) was FAR worse and FAR more common elsewhere in Europe.

And considering the superlative nature of the Holocaust, it's hard to really lump Hitler's attitudes in with those of anyone else's -- except maybe the occasional other modern heads of state who have called for genocides.

And you apparently have not read Mein Kampf, which is a horribly written screed -- but in it he talks OPENLY about the development of his antisemitism and how it shaped his philosophy.

Both were true. He stoked hatred to get support. But then what was his excuse for trying to kill them all years and years later?

Yes Alan, I was teasing you with those comments. I wasn't really trying to be a critic or necessarily interested in such questions. I was just trying to show how silly the lines of questions can become.

There are A LOT of historical slants on that time period.

"

Again: wrong. Hitler never even ran for office. His party in its BEST performance won 43.9% of the popular vote.

By the time of the plebescite in 1934 he had already engineered a crisis, fully suspended democratic operations in Germany -- and now his street armies were unopposed. His 85% in that poll was about as legitimate as all of Saddam Hussein's elections.