What if Hitler had never been born or had been assasinated

@Alan McDougall,

Hi James (and Paul of course)

I have no gripe with this thread going in any direction is destiny takes it and your posts make fascinating reading. As they are rather long and detailed I need some time to give an adequate response.

I was a little boy at the end of the war and my late dad was the source of much of my historical information as far as the war goes

I do have in my personal library some extensive books on the subject, one them even has a copy of Germany;s surrender document. It is a hastily typed out document with some written inclusions in the top paragraph and the hour changed to 0800 hrs. in the second paragraph.

Instrument of surrender

of

All German armed forces in Holland, in

northwest Germany including all islands

and in DENMARK

The above is an exact copy of the surrecter title

It is made up of seven short paragraphs Signed by B L Montgomery
(Field Marshal) 4th May 1945 I cant make out the 5 German surrender signatures they are scawls really.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

As a Hong Konger, I have to say, although Hilter might be the most hateful war criminal that had ever been living on the world, without his mad massacure and crazy invasion in Europe, would those spineless western politicians willing to help Chinese people and Hong Kongers frighting against Jap? No! As their benefits weren't offended. Jap invade our land since 1931 in the North East (and war oubreaked officially in 1937 when Beijing was attacked; from 1931 to 1937 Chiang kei-shek tried asking for peace but failed finally). But when did American sent their troops to help us? After 1941 when half part of the mainland was invaded by Jap, when millions of Chinese men were killed and millions women were raped by Jap! These evidences told us that without the alliance among Hilter, Mussolini and Hideki Tojo, who would care of the battlefieds in East Asia?

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Hasn't that always been the case Patriarch, no-one will get invovled unless it's a benefit to them and that has been the problem.

0 Replies

@patriarch,

patriarch;76763 wrote:

As a Hong Konger, I have to say, although Hilter might be the most hateful war criminal that had ever been living on the world, without his mad massacure and crazy invasion in Europe, would those spineless western politicians willing to help Chinese people and Hong Kongers frighting against Jap? No! As their benefits weren't offended. Jap invade our land since 1931 in the North East (and war oubreaked officially in 1937 when Beijing was attacked; from 1931 to 1937 Chiang kei-shek tried asking for peace but failed finally). But when did American sent their troops to help us? After 1941 when half part of the mainland was invaded by Jap, when millions of Chinese men were killed and millions women were raped by Jap! These evidences told us that without the alliance among Hilter, Mussolini and Hideki Tojo, who would care of the battlefieds in East Asia?

I understand your anger but did it not go something like this?, If your home and that of your neighbour are attacked you try to first defend your own home before helping your neighbour

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Criticising or attempting to change super powers aggressive actions has and is a sensitive and dangerous activity.look at the world now and certain countries are occupying others territories illegally but the world in general can do nothing about it.Only when democracy is the currency can we attain true freedom.Tibet has not asked to join china,should we invade china because of their aggressive action?

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

There was one military force in a position to help China, Manchuria, and Korea against Japan, and it was the Soviet Union. The USSR and Japan had been fighting before WWII began in Europe. General Zhukov won a decisive battle against Japan at Khalkin Gol, but this was not converted into a more generalized offensive -- and good thing because if the USSR had committed to a campaign in mainland Asia they would have been obliterated by the Nazi invasion (and would have ended up being defeated by Japan anyway).

I don't see how the US or Europe could have really helped the Manchurans, Koreans, or Chinese. The USSR DID resume hostilities against Japan -- in Aug 1945 -- and therein imposed their own brutal influence.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Quote:

you can even argue that the idealogical differences between Bolshevism and Fascism were mainly cosmetic -- both fascist and communist societies centralized political and economic power, and had massive internal police enterprises.

Yep, communism and fascism definitely have more in common than most people would like to believe. All of which makes America's foreign policy after the Second World War - propping up fascist regimes around the world in defiance of communist ones, in some cases even removing democratically elected leaders and replacing them with their own puppets - less justifiable.

Quote:

If you've ever read War and Peace, you can see that Tolstoy took great exception to the towering mythologization of Napoleon. He spends great attention, especially in the last chapter of the book, to deconstruct the idea of "exceptionalism", i.e. the idea of one person's superhuman influence, when they are merely the spearheads of far larger movements.

Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Hirohito, Churchill, Chamberlain and Roosevelt probably were just 'spearheads' of larger historical movements, as you say, they were otherwise not 'exceptional' individuals; however their individual actions, agendas and policies were what nonetheless drove these developments. They had a significant impact on history. If Chamberlain for instance had not been such a statuesque symbol of British appeasement, Hitler would probably have not gotten far in his designs on Europe; thus the War in the East, the Holocaust and the wider atrocities of the European war would all have been out of the question. If Stalin hadn't been so complacent about Nazi Germany, or put up a better defense, the War in the East might have taken a different direction. If Molotov and Ribbentrop hadn't signed the perfidious Nazi-Soviet Pact, Russia, Britain and France might even have formed a 'Great Alliance' in 1939, like that which existed in the Great War, strong enough to deter Hitler from war altogether. (This notion was brought up by Churchill in his four volume opus The Second War, an intriguing possibility.) Under a more liberal-minded Bolshevik such as Kamenev, who along with Trotsky was an equally as likely contender for Lenin's throne in 1924 (Kamenev was the Head of State), the Soviet Union would have taken a different direction. And so on, and so on.

Quote:

So fascism, of which Nazism was but one particularly brutal example, was FAR above and beyond Hitler's persona or influence. The potential energy that drove the rise of extreme political parties was the same energy that drove Europe towards war.

Yes, but Hitler's ambition and ideological obsession were significant factors in the nature of the war that came about in 1939. There were deep underlying factors in Europe that made war a likelihood, and a war might have happened regardless of Hitler, but not necessarily the war that happened. As I pointed out in my previous post. But fascism is not a monolithic notion or ideology, there are many different forms of fascism - German fascism was very different from Italian fascism, although they did share some common features - and movements and governments are always affected by individuals.

Quote:

If you've ever read War and Peace, you can see that Tolstoy took great exception to the towering mythologization of Napoleon. He spends great attention, especially in the last chapter of the book, to deconstruct the idea of "exceptionalism", i.e. the idea of one person's superhuman influence, when they are merely the spearheads of far larger movements.

I don't think there is such a thing as a 'superhuman' person, there are some individuals who are more intelligent, more driven, more focused than others; but it is never a given that they will rise to prominence. And both Hitler and Stalin came from humble backgrounds, they were not necessarily destined for success. History chooses the movers and shakers, and their actions make them great; however it is a common theme that most of the great individuals throughout history (Napoleon for one) have an inflated idea of their own importance. Ego and ambition, it seems, count for more than anything else.

1 Reply

@james gravil,

Observing history i wonder do the individuals we hold responsible drive history or are they a product of history.Who actually writes the script.
I have met many who have been involved in many of ww2s major and minor events, they became part of that turbulent horrific story.The individual efforts all contributed to those momentous events and its their stories that enthrall me.
From the Dutchman who fought at Stalingrad,the Lithuanian on the Russian border,the Chindit fighting behind Japanese lines,friends who fought at Arnhem and Pegasus bridge, my father who fought in europe and enthralled me with stories as a child.The American retelling his experiences on the Normandy beaches.All are treasured memories.A million stories every one beyond our comprehension.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;76771 wrote:

Tibet has not asked to join china,should we invade china because of their aggressive action?

A few items to ponder:

The Dalai Lama has openly discussed the possibility of Tibet being a Chinese territory.

The United States did support the armed Tibetan resistance against the Chinese Communist occupation. Not unlike the Cubans abandoned at the Bay of Pigs incident, the Tibetan resistance was left waiting for a US supply drop that never came.

Already, Chinese policy has been successful in reducing the ethnic Tibetans to a minority in their own nation. Setting aside all of the pragmatic problems of securing Tibet as a sovereign nation for the Tibetan people, is the concept of Tibetan independence still valid?

2 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;76787 wrote:

A few items to ponder:

The Dalai Lama has openly discussed the possibility of Tibet being a Chinese territory.

The United States did support the armed Tibetan resistance against the Chinese Communist occupation. Not unlike the Cubans abandoned at the Bay of Pigs incident, the Tibetan resistance was left waiting for a US supply drop that never came.

Already, Chinese policy has been successful in reducing the ethnic Tibetans to a minority in their own nation. Setting aside all of the pragmatic problems of securing Tibet as a sovereign nation for the Tibetan people, is the concept of Tibetan independence still valid?

I would suspect if you gave the majority Chinese the opportunity for democracy they would grasp it.Sovereignty may be diluted by implanting a majority Chinese population but the principles still apply.With democracy maybe the influx of exiled Tibetans could again bring them into the majority again.Also if democracy became a reality, independence may not be so attractive and being part of democratic union of Chinese peoples appear advantageous.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;76787 wrote:

A few items to ponder:

The Dalai Lama has openly discussed the possibility of Tibet being a Chinese territory.

The United States did support the armed Tibetan resistance against the Chinese Communist occupation. Not unlike the Cubans abandoned at the Bay of Pigs incident, the Tibetan resistance was left waiting for a US supply drop that never came.

Already, Chinese policy has been successful in reducing the ethnic Tibetans to a minority in their own nation. Setting aside all of the pragmatic problems of securing Tibet as a sovereign nation for the Tibetan people, is the concept of Tibetan independence still valid?

Soon the world will consist of a Chinese majority and the rest of the world minority where everyone on earth will have at least one Chinese neighbour

This is my world without Hitler

1) No world war 2

2) No Cold war

3) No Atomic bomb and subsequent bombing of Japan

4) No Moon landing in 1969 (would happen much later)

5) No Israel

6) No Arab Israel conflict

7) No 9/11

You can dispute this change or add and subtract from it

8) .................?

9).....................?

10).....................?

2 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

One of the millions of Jews murdered could have solved the cold fusion problems.
One of the millions killed could have be an imminent doctor and found the cure for cancer.
One of the millions killed could have been even more evil than Hitler.
I for one would almost certainly not be here trying to imagine this world without him.

1 Reply

@xris,

xris;76796 wrote:

One of the millions of Jews murdered could have solved the cold fusion problems.
One of the millions killed could have be an imminent doctor and found the cure for cancer.
One of the millions killed could have been even more evil than Hitler.
I for one would almost certainly not be here trying to imagine this world without him.

A really really great post xris short and precise

The Jewish folk have a disproportion of remarkable people, take just Einstein and Jesus, how many great minds were blotted out because of him.? not just Jewish, think of the 60 million who died and all the off spring from them that were never born because of him?

I don't think you could get anyone who was/is more evil than Hitler although some say Stalin achieved this awful status

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall;76794 wrote:

This is my world without Hitler

1) No world war 2

2) No Cold war

3) No Atomic bomb and subsequent bombing of Japan

4) No Moon landing in 1969 (would happen much later)

5) No Israel

6) No Arab Israel conflict

7) No 9/11

You can dispute this change or add and subtract from it.

What became the Cold War already existed before the Nazi rise to power, let alone WWII. In fact if Germany had been a bereft, weak state, then Stalinist Russia might have sought a greater hegemony over central and eastern Europe.

But back up a bit -- while James is 100% right that Germany's prosecution of WWII would have likely been different without Hitler, you simply cannot give Hitler sole (or even dominant) credit for the rise of Germany to power again.

The weak leader of the Weimar Republic, Hindenburg, was the de facto military dictator of Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm; and he and his buddy Erich Ludendorf were the two war heroes of WWI. They'd have loved nothing better than a re-militarized Germany, and Ludendorf was sympathetic to the nationalistic fervor in Germany (though not with all the racial crap from the Nazis). The nazi party had plenty of other potential leaders in its early days, Goehring and Rohm and Hess, etc.

The invasion of the Soviet Union was something that Hitler dreamed about and designed, but it's hard to imagine that a fascist (if not Nazi) Germany would NOT have come into conflict with the USSR.

There was just too much bad blood. There was territorial dispute over Poland. There was German alliance with Finland, which was a mortal enemy of the USSR in the late 1930s. There was idealogical opposition. There was great bitterness over the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

So I don't think that we can safely conclude that even a single thing on your list would have come to pass absent Hitler.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes i agree, I did ask ,are those leaders a product of their time or did they write the script?Certain times produce certain men.The consequences of history run and run till we have events that no one can control.The unresolved conflicts and brooding hatreds create events we see time and time again but we ignore histories lessons and carry on like brash ignorant teenagers.

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

When a person is starving to death, it is easy to control that person if you give him food; he becomes dependent on that person who gave him nourishment. Now we must examine the motives behind he that is so "generous". If it is truly a unrequited gift, then both become friends and it is in that relationship where "2 heads are better than 1" , means something. On the other hand if that gift is a means that will allow the giver to control another, it becomes sinister, malevolent and evil creating the master/slave relationship. It is my belief trying to find a divine purpose in this as to it's justification in the world is what, among other things known and unknown, drove Nietzsche mad, IMO. (and perhaps Hitler too, as it is speculated he was a fan of Nietzsche)

Power has always fascinated me. Where does it come from? What sustains it? Who is it that has power? and why? Who granted that power? I have concluded it is all about the master/slave dualism that is ripping our world apart and it all started with those religious interpretations that illustrated the ultimate master/slave relationship to that of god/man. God being the master and man being the slave. Then I thought, 'no wonder"! It all began making sense to me when I began questioning the inanity of this assumed dualism and the horrendous plague it has beset on humankind as it efforts to reach any goodness to our being. All philosophy's, at least most, are centered around understanding this relationship and the creationist interpretation it renders that "god created us in his image" that offers to man a piety that justifies his effort to control his fellow man. The rest is history, and a bloody one to boot.

Breaking away from that assumed "ideology" is not easy, for at some point we all assume those roles as master and slave through out our existence. We are slaves to our individual perceptions, and masters over those who can't defend theirs or fall contrary to the popular perceptions of the group we associate our "allegience" to. In either respect it leads to conflict as it relates to becoming friends, creating friction between the two in that one has to bend to the other, or "bow". The weaker bows to the stronger who is reinforced by the group and either becomes a part of that group or goes it's own way. I have succeeded in going my own way and seek to eliminate individual "group thinking" in lieu of "one group thought". Now let's look at some 'play on words' as we discuss these words that are so constituent in the forming of a group: Capital, interest, investment, profit, debt and power as it relates to the impact they have on humankind itself.

It is in the clear undertanding of what these words represent that will lead a better understanding of what defines power and the bloodshed that follows in it's wake as it passes from one generation to the next, IMO.

Capital: Immediately, one thinks of money, revenue or the center of a state or country. Assuming there are those who know better as it applies to the "different" capitals that make up our reality. They are:

1. Financial Capital
2. Natural Capital
3. Human Capital
4. Social Capital
5. Manufactured Capital

The only way we will understand a world that "could have existed" without Hitler,is it to understand that world that "created" Hitler. Unless we do that, there is no way any speculation will suffice and will just be an exercise in "mental masturbation", IMO as we continure to support those individual perceptions alleviating anyone from any culpability. Solving nothing for many were culpable in that global bloodbath.

I could be wrong, but I am of the opinion, the real culprits are behind the scenes who had the "financial capital power" to control the actions of groups to engage in that war to serve a nefarious agenda yet unknown to the world at large or too afraid to mention for the repercushions that would prevail. I think it is conceivable that a power such as this could take the individual ideologies of the different groups and with the financial power offered to some of these to build a fighting machine using their own ideology to fuel their desire to engage in war. We have discussed political agendas now lets take a look at what influences politics itself. Hmmmm?

Now, IMO, the reason I have the different "capitals" listed in the order that I have is the the influence the one at the top has on the other 4. In my opinion it is that "capital" and the influence of it that is the root cause of all the carnage and bloodshed that is world war 2.

Let's turn this into a thought experiment as we stop defending our individual perceptions and concentrate on the influence financial capital has on the other 4 capitals and I think we will discover that which created Adolph Hitler as we create a world that could have existed peacefully with Adolph Hitler in it. IMO, it is the very "inequity" that supports those who control "financial capital" that created that ever so bloody atrocity.

You are brillant young thinkers and researchers so do a little probing as to what financial capital along with it subsidiaries; debt, profit, interest, investment and power as it relates to the usurpation of the other four capitals and draw your own conclusions. I have done my research and have drawn mine. Then let's compare. You have a world of information at your fingertips; see what you can come up with.

I think this idea has everything to do with coming to that understanding of the causes of world war II, and reaching that understanding will allow us to critically think about how far such financial power will go to maintain that power regardless of the affect it has on the other four. For IMO, it is concentrating on the other four is what will allow use to use those "capitals" in such a way that will sustain our existence in the future. If not, I am afraid our existence is in serious peril.

William

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

The financial situation of interwar Europe is perhaps the best studied finacial era in all history, because of the Great Depression. Both the financial hardships of Germany and the financial recovery under the Nazi social programs are also well known. It's well known that Hitler employed blitzkrieg tactics specifically because Germany was unable to sustain a long war in WWI and he believed (quite rightly) that military ambitions could only be successfully realized with swift victories. His prioritization of the Ukraine after the invasion of the USSR was because this was the most fertile and productive land in the USSR -- not to mention it would give him control over ports on the Black Sea. In 1942 the reason he launched a campaign towards the Caucasus (culminating in Stalingrad) was again for economic purposes. He also modified the operations of the Holocaust after 1942 to emphasize forced labor rather than pure extermination.

So no one overlooks the financial causes and influences that surrounded Hitler.

That said, he was an extremist even within his own party and if you took even 1000 other Nazis and made them chancellor in 1933, I can't immediately assume that they would have made similar decisions.

William;76857 wrote:

I am of the opinion, the real culprits are behind the scenes who had the "financial capital power" to control the actions of groups to engage in that war to serve a nefarious agenda yet unknown to the world at large or too afraid to mention for the repercushions that would prevail.

Who specifically are the "real culprits" according to your theory?

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;76867 wrote:

Who specifically are the "real culprits" according to your theory?

Honestly Paul, I don't know? That's what the thought experiment is all about. What you are saying that is 'well known' is, by many, not. It takes an enormous amount of money to engage in a war. There is no doubt in my mind it's all about money and when we can ascertain who has enough of it to control governments. might tell us what caused the great depression that was instrumental in creating a dire need to do what was necessary to "rebuild" that economy, even engage in a war we were not really wanting to engage in. But we truly had no choice at least from what I can gather. I know what is "commonly known", but there is alot of "new thought" out there that also makes a lot of sense as to how corrupt absolute power can be; and it is money that is the foundation of that power and always has been.

William

0 Replies

@Alan McDougall,

Expensive, but all the belligerents in WWII had total war economies, i.e. the virtual entirety of their GDP was put into war production. Some countries, like the USA ran up utterly enormous national debts (dwarfs our current one as a function of GDP). The Soviet economy was already nationalized, so it only needed to be redirected towar production.

Germany planned at first on a peacetime economy, because they banked on quick, decisive victories (i.e. blitzkrieg). This worked just fine until they lost the Battle of Moscow in 1941, and it was realized that they would need to create a total war economy, something Speer, Goebbels, and Goehring were instrumental in doing. This is also why Hitler the following year launched a campaign towards the resource-rich Caucasus.

Remember that Germany already had the largest economy in Europe before they went and occupied all of Eastern Europe and the western USSR, (whose resources and economies they commandeered so absolutely that people starved by the millions in Russia and Poland). The also had a vast slave economy, had expropriated the property of all the political prisoners and Jews from Germany, had expropriated wealth from the entire upper class in Poland (whom they summarily killed), and had a whole death camp economy of taking gold teeth and watches and jewelry, etc. It's no secret. Many modern companies, including Volkswagon and BMW and IG Farben were major beneficiaries of the German military-industrial complex (just as Mitsubishi was in Japan). The involvement of foreign companies and foreign financial institutions will never be completely know, but certainly a lot is.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;76889 wrote:

Expensive, but all the belligerents in WWII had total war economies, i.e. the virtual entirety of their GDP was put into war production. Some countries, like the USA ran up utterly enormous national debts (dwarfs our current one as a function of GDP). The Soviet economy was already nationalized, so it only needed to be redirected towar production.

Germany planned at first on a peacetime economy, because they banked on quick, decisive victories (i.e. blitzkrieg). This worked just fine until they lost the Battle of Moscow in 1941, and it was realized that they would need to create a total war economy, something Speer, Goebbels, and Goehring were instrumental in doing. This is also why Hitler the following year launched a campaign towards the resource-rich Caucasus.

Remember that Germany already had the largest economy in Europe before they went and occupied all of Eastern Europe and the western USSR, (whose resources and economies they commandeered so absolutely that people starved by the millions in Russia and Poland). The also had a vast slave economy, had expropriated the property of all the political prisoners and Jews from Germany, had expropriated wealth from the entire upper class in Poland (whom they summarily killed), and had a whole death camp economy of taking gold teeth and watches and jewelry, etc. It's no secret. Many modern companies, including Volkswagon and BMW and IG Farben were major beneficiaries of the German military-industrial complex (just as Mitsubishi was in Japan). The involvement of foreign companies and foreign financial institutions will never be completely know, but certainly a lot is.

Paul and others this post does not relate directly to all your well thought out contributions can I put this forward for consideration as well

Change Anything and you Change Everything

Can we look at this question from a different viewpoint? The fact is that the problem was not only that Hitler had control of the government of Germany, the problem was that there "existed a government that had so much control".

If Hitler had not been born the Earth would still circle the sun and the moon would still circle the Earth. None of that would change. But the people who live here would have changed.

I am sure you guys are familiar with the Chaos Theory or butterfly effect, taking that into consideration, every single person on this planet except for maybe a few very old people ,would not exist. Think about that for a while? Of course there would still be people but they would all be different people.

To me the absence of Hitler would be like, reshuffling a deck of cards that equated to human History. If you reshuffle you get a completely different hand, not one that's the same or similar

Hitler was around as far back as the first world war, maybe even then he effected history changed the future forever. Without him the WW1 aftermath my have differed ever so slightly and Chamberlain We will have peace in out time would ring true..
What if we or just one of us on the forum had done something slightly different 30 years ago would this forum exist?

How will the world be different if one of us never existed take me a minor player on the fields of History?. How my one life would affect effect human history, extrapolate that of the one life of a very influential albeit notorious person in the form of Adolph Hitler?
It is all about the knock on effect is it not?

Or is my logic wrong?

Peace not war Alan

0 Replies

What if Hitler had never been born or had been assasinated

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know