Let's Kill Hitler

[vintageTink]

Then why not mention Stalin and Mao? They are of that era. If we are discussing the ramifications/what if of killing Hitler, why not discuss the ramifications/what if of taking out different political leaders? It is historical politics.

But I'm bowing out now before I get in hot water. :lol:

 

[LizzieMaine]

Then why not mention Stalin and Mao? They are of that era. If we are discussing the ramifications/what if of killing Hitler, why not discuss the ramifications/what if of taking out different political leaders? It is historical politics.

But I'm bowing out now before I get in hot water. :lol:

I did. I discussed both of them, in both my original speculation and in the second one. In the first, without WW2 as a unifying factor, the Soviet Union is unable to sustain itself and collapses in the mid-1940s, and Mao's rebels are crushed by the Nationalists in China. In the second, without Stalin, the Soviet Union becomes a Trotskyite state and dissolves into a mass of feuding factions unable to defend itself when it's overrun by the European Axis in 1942. Mao and Chiang unite -- as they did in real life -- to try and fight off the Japanese invasion, but with Japan roaring unchecked across Asia, they and their forces are slaughtered by the invaders.

If someone wants to speculate on any leader -- what if the bullet had gone thru Teddy Roosevelt's notebook in 1912, what if Winston Churchill was run over by a bus in 1926, what if Richard Nixon had accepted the office of Baseball Commissioner when it was offered to him in 1965 -- they're free to start a thread and do that.

 

[Edward]

We discuss historical events here all the time, and always have. It'd be a pretty dull place if all we did was prate on and on about zippers.

My original post was speculation based on how historical events might unfold with Old Nasty deleted from the picture. I don't see any way in which that relates to current politics -- you'll note that my projection reaches no further than the early 1970s, and I avoided a number of possible outcomes that might possibly relate to the current political scene. (A lot of what has happened in and since the 1980s would likely not occur, for example, under my No-Hitler scenario.)

I've also offered a second speculation based on the removal of Mr. Dzhugashvili from the picture, again based on what I think is a plausible progression of events down to the 1950s. Anyone else is free to post a progression of their own based on their own speculation and their own understanding of early-to-mid 20th Century history. That's the point of the discussion.

As far as the initial target of my historical deletion is concerned, well, "Killing Hitler" is and has always been the classic alternative-history trope. I didn't make it up, I just ran with it.

Precisely. The objection was to the introduction of *contemporary* politics.

 

[HudsonHawk]

We discuss historical events here all the time, and always have. It'd be a pretty dull place if all we did was prate on and on about zippers.

My original post was speculation based on how historical events might unfold with Old Nasty deleted from the picture. I don't see any way in which that relates to current politics -- you'll note that my projection reaches no further than the early 1970s, and I avoided a number of possible outcomes that might possibly relate to the current political scene. (A lot of what has happened in and since the 1980s would likely not occur, for example, under my No-Hitler scenario.)

I've also offered a second speculation based on the removal of Mr. Dzhugashvili from the picture, again based on what I think is a plausible progression of events down to the 1950s. Anyone else is free to post a progression of their own based on their own speculation and their own understanding of early-to-mid 20th Century history. That's the point of the discussion.

As far as the initial target of my historical deletion is concerned, well, "Killing Hitler" is and has always been the classic alternative-history trope. I didn't make it up, I just ran with it.

I'm with you. I think it can be an interesting discussion, even though it's by definition "political" in nature. This is similar to a topic you see in every beginning philosophy class...if you had a chance to drop a bomb and kill 100 people, but one of those people happen to be a young Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or whomever, would you do it and why/why not?

 

[HudsonHawk]

Then why not mention Stalin and Mao? They are of that era. If we are discussing the ramifications/what if of killing Hitler, why not discuss the ramifications/what if of taking out different political leaders? It is historical politics.

But I'm bowing out now before I get in hot water. :lol:

l think you could, it's just that this particular topic was about Hitler specifically. But there's no reason one couldn't run the same exercise on anyone who greatly influenced historical events from Julius Caesar to JFK.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm with you. I think it can be an interesting discussion, even though it's by definition "political" in nature. This is similar to a topic you see in every beginning philosophy class...if you had a chance to drop a bomb and kill 100 people, but one of those people happen to be a young Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot or whomever, would you do it and why/why not?

There's the old joke they used to tell in Brooklyn:

Q -You're in a room with Hitler, Stalin, and Walter F. O'Malley. You have a gun with two bullets. What do you do?

A - You shoot O'Malley twice.

 

[HudsonHawk]

There's the old joke they used to tell in Brooklyn:

Q -You're in a room with Hitler, Stalin, and Walter F. O'Malley. You have a gun with two bullets. What do you do?

A - You shoot O'Malley twice.

There's a similar joke that has to do with a bad guy and his lawyer, but the punch line is similar.

 

[sheeplady]

In the second, without Stalin, the Soviet Union becomes a Trotskyite state and dissolves into a mass of feuding factions unable to defend itself when it's overrun by the European Axis in 1942.

Sadly, as much as I'd like to have seen Stalin dead before the henious acts he committed (second only to Hitler), I do think that without Stalin the Nazis would have advanced into Russia like you said.

Having typed that, however, makes me almost want to vomit. Defending Stalin's existence is like defending the devil.

Care to list a few examples? I'm genuinely curious.

For me, it is any modern "leader" who kills his own people. Unfortunately there are still a ton of cruel genocidal dictators out there. We don't seem to run out of those.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Having typed that, however, makes me almost want to vomit. Defending Stalin's existence is like defending the devil.

Well, it's like Mr. Churchill said. "If Hitler had invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

One of the fascinating things about WW2 and history in general is that it's not simply matter of white hats vs. black hats. Alliances are based on pragmatism, not on idealism, and always have been. Such is life.

 

[Steven180]

This is why I love this forum and the content and quality of its topics...

LizzieMaine, you just made my top five people I'd like to have a dinner discussion with.

Best, M.

 

[Otter]

http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?11895-EVERYONE-MUST-READ-POLITICS-BANNED

Seems pretty close to me.

http://www.debate.org/debates/War-is-the-continuation-of-politics-by-other-means./1/

 

[scottyrocks]

This is why I love this forum and the content and quality of its topics...

LizzieMaine, you just made my top five people I'd like to have a dinner discussion with.

Best, M.

It took you this long? haha

 

[jamespowers]

Precisely. The objection was to the introduction of *contemporary* politics.

Very good then. I will give it some thought and add my own progression through the 1950s as to what would happen if Hitler had been killed later this evening. I hope you know how to speak German my friend.....lol lol

 

[sheeplady]

Well, it's like Mr. Churchill said. "If Hitler had invaded Hell, I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons."

One of the fascinating things about WW2 and history in general is that it's not simply matter of white hats vs. black hats. Alliances are based on pragmatism, not on idealism, and always have been. Such is life.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

[jamespowers]

A world without Hitler.

The Treaty of Versailles is signed and the German people are beside themselves just as when Hitler was alive. Germany is weakened and feel vulnerable. They have no military to speak of. They have a huge level of unemployment. Land has been taken from them that they cannot get back. The Coalmines of Saar are given to France and Germany feels cheated out of natural resources.

The German Weimar Republic is in trouble. Nothing is getting done as neither the communists on the left nor the Nazis on the right have a majority to do anything with the government. There is stagnation.

Finally on January 30, 1933 Hindenburg relents and appoints former chancellor Baron Franz von Papen back into office. Papen immediately uses the same emergency powers, intimidation, and violence to secure a degree of control his predecessors had never come close to achieving just as Hitler did.

Papen manages to obtain a level of complete control of the German government without blaming any German for their problems. Instead he directs all public disdain to the Treaty of Versailles. He militarizes the government in violation of the treaty.

Papen moves slowly and regains the Polish Corridor, which separated East Prussia from the rest of Germany. There is a small skirmish over it but it is soon under control.

Mussolini and Papen meet and form an alliance. They slowly and under cover of treaty and time militarize and move forward.

Communist Russia fearing a united front against them within Western Europe put even greater controls on its people and since the incident at Nomanhan in 1939 are wary of border incursions. Stalin sends an emissary to Papen and Mussolini. A treaty of non-aggression is signed but Stalin is still concerned.

Mussolini and Papen befriend Franco in Spain and help him attain power. Franco, Mussolini and Papen are now the heads of three of the most militarized countries in Western Europe. What will they do with all this military might the rest of Europe wonders and ponders.

Japan smarting from the defeat at Nomanhan also expresses interest in the fascist regimes in Europe developing. However they are turned away with not much thought for the moment by The Three Fascists.

The Depression in the US has steadily gotten worse as the unemployment rate hovers between 17 and 25%. Nothing FDR has done has alleviated the problem. In fact, monetary policy has made it worse as a slight dip in 1937 climbs back up in the following year 1938. The US manufacturing might is not being tapped to make military equipment for Europe---yet.
The three fascist begin to move now. They invade France and divide the spoils. They enter Paris and meet The Vichy French that they have been cultivating for a year now.

To be continued.....

 

[Shangas]

I was hoping to have something meaningful to say about this 'what if...' scenario. But I'm now feeling that my contributions will be mediocre at best. I'm only a humble History major. Please don't shoot me.

I agree with those who say that removing HITLER from the equation would not prevent WWII. I don't think it WOULD prevent WWII. And it wouldn't prevent it because before WWII started, as most think, in 1939, the Japanese were already fighting China in 1937.

So one way or another, the world is going to war.

In the late 1920s, Germany is slowly recovering. The Hyperinflation Crisis of 1922 is over. The Crash of '29 hits the world in the nuts. Hitler is gone. But someone else might take his place. Whether or not that leads to war, I wouldn't know, and I wouldn't hazard a guess.

Let's look at China.

Now what would be the effect of Japan fighting China?

The British, not concerned with German aggression, would want to protect their Asian holdings. Singapore, India, Malaya, and Hong Kong. The Dutch would be worried about their colonies in the East Indies. The French would want to hold onto Indochina.

Churchill said that the Pacific could wait, and that defeating Germany was the most important task at hand.

If there isn't a Germany to defeat, then that means that the Allies could devote their time to strengthening their defenses in the Southeast Pacific, and protecting their colonial holdings, like Indochina, India, Singapore, Malaya and the East Indies.

China means a lot to the Western powers. They have interests in China. There are major foreign enclaves in all Chinese cities of note - Peking, Tientsin, Shanghai, Canton and Nanking, to name a few.

Without Germany to concern them, the Allies, made of the Americans, British, French, Dutch (and their colonies), and possibly, Germany and Russia, would go to China's aid. Although the British, French and Americans would probably have an ulterior motive.

They would want to protect their enclaves in China, protect foreign interests in China, and keep the Nationalists in power. The nationalists know the importance of Foreign presence in China - why else would they spend three months defending Shanghai, the center of western activity in China, when Peking was overrun in a matter of weeks?

For the Western powers, it would be a task of defeating the Japanese, but also the communists (something which the Americans had been helping the Chinese with for years, anyway). They would want to keep China nationalist, and prevent influence from Russia to the North.

...that's all I got. Whether or not it makes sense, I leave that up to you.

 

[jamespowers]

I was hoping to have something meaningful to say about this 'what if...' scenario. But I'm now feeling that my contributions will be mediocre at best. I'm only a humble History major. Please don't shoot me.

I agree with those who say that removing HITLER from the equation would not prevent WWII. I don't think it WOULD prevent WWII. And it wouldn't prevent it because before WWII started, as most think, in 1939, the Japanese were already fighting China in 1937.

So one way or another, the world is going to war.

In the late 1920s, Germany is slowly recovering. The Hyperinflation Crisis of 1922 is over. The Crash of '29 hits the world in the nuts. Hitler is gone. But someone else might take his place. Whether or not that leads to war, I wouldn't know, and I wouldn't hazard a guess.

Let's look at China.

Now what would be the effect of Japan fighting China?

The British, not concerned with German aggression, would want to protect their Asian holdings. Singapore, India, Malaya, and Hong Kong. The Dutch would be worried about their colonies in the East Indies. The French would want to hold onto Indochina.

Churchill said that the Pacific could wait, and that defeating Germany was the most important task at hand.

If there isn't a Germany to defeat, then that means that the Allies could devote their time to strengthening their defenses in the Southeast Pacific, and protecting their colonial holdings, like Indochina, India, Singapore, Malaya and the East Indies.

China means a lot to the Western powers. They have interests in China. There are major foreign enclaves in all Chinese cities of note - Peking, Tientsin, Shanghai, Canton and Nanking, to name a few.

Without Germany to concern them, the Allies, made of the Americans, British, French, Dutch (and their colonies), and possibly, Germany and Russia, would go to China's aid. Although the British, French and Americans would probably have an ulterior motive.

They would want to protect their enclaves in China, protect foreign interests in China, and keep the Nationalists in power. The nationalists know the importance of Foreign presence in China - why else would they spend three months defending Shanghai, the center of western activity in China, when Peking was overrun in a matter of weeks?

For the Western powers, it would be a task of defeating the Japanese, but also the communists (something which the Americans had been helping the Chinese with for years, anyway). They would want to keep China nationalist, and prevent influence from Russia to the North.

...that's all I got. Whether or not it makes sense, I leave that up to you.

In that scenario you miss the fact that the US had to get dragged kicking and screaming into war by being attacked. We were isolationist and no threat from Germany would move us out of that without Churchill and the like on the horizon. If you assume no threat from Germany then you have to assume that we would remain neutral until attacked by Japan. Would Japan have attacked the US if they knew they would get no support from Germany? Some say they attacked us to force Germany into the fray. Stuart Goldman makes that point in Nomonham 1939.

 

[Shangas]

Japan attacked America to try and knock out its naval force so that it could invade Southeast Asia unopposed by another major regional power. I think Pearl Harbor may still have gone ahead, since it wasn't related to the War in Europe.

 

[jamespowers]

Japan attacked America to try and knock out its naval force so that it could invade Southeast Asia unopposed by another major regional power. I think Pearl Harbor may still have gone ahead, since it wasn't related to the War in Europe.

It might have but would it have had the same result? Would it have even been on the same day? That might have been inevitable but why wake a sleeping giant?

I believe they would have but I also believe that Germany would still be on the warpath with someone other than Hitler at the helm. Papen replacing Hitler as he is the one that connived to get Hitler in as his puppet but that didn’t work out well.

 

[Shangas]

As I said, I don't believe removing Hitler from the equation would prevent a war. A war would still happen. I just think that it would be a different type of war.

Would Japan have invaded the rest of Asia? Possibly. That's if the Allies didn't act fast enough to bolster up colonial defenses. Which the British were slow to do, because they were busy fighting the Germans.