Would the Nazis have still come to power in Germany *without* a prior Bolshevik Revolution in Russia?

[Futurist]

Such as if Lenin and Trotsky would have been killed in two separate accidents back in 1916, which in turn would have ensured that there wouldn't have been a Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

[wm]

Without the revolution Poland couldn't be reconstituted in any meaningful way and Germany wouldn't lose any Eastern territories - this means less angst among the Germans, and less opportunities for the Nazis.

As the Russian Provisional Government wouldn't surrender to the Germans as the Soviets did, the German defeat would be more rapid and more convincing making the stab-in-the-back myth much less believable.

Post-war Russia would be a part of the global economy, contributing to its stability - the Great Depression would be less likely.
In Russia, economic opportunities for Western investors would be enormous, maybe leading to a global economic boom and the Great Depression wouldn't have happened at all - this would be very bad news for the Nazis.

[Sheldrake]

Hmm.

Jan Bloch , in his book "Is war Impossible" postulated that a prolonged European war would result in revolutions by socialist or anarchist movements (p356). The Bolsheviks were models for, but not the cause of, the revolutions in Germany and Hungary, or social unrest across Europe. Nor did they cause the nationalist uprisings after the collapse of the austro-hungarian and ottoman empires.

The Russians were at the point of collapse by the Russian revolution of March 1917 and no government could have sustained the fight.

[Futurist]

Without the revolution Poland couldn't be reconstituted in any meaningful way and Germany wouldn't lose any Eastern territories - this means less angst among the Germans, and less opportunities for the Nazis.

Didn't the Russian Provisional Government already agree to Polish independence in early 1917, though?

As the Russian Provisional Government wouldn't surrender to the Germans as the Soviets did, the German defeat would be more rapid and more convincing making the stab-in-the-back myth much less believable.

Disagreed; after all, Germany's armies would probably still be outside of Germany's borders at the end of World War I in this scenario, including in the East.

Post-war Russia would be a part of the global economy, contributing to its stability - the Great Depression would be less likely.
In Russia, economic opportunities for Western investors would be enormous, maybe leading to a global economic boom and the Great Depression wouldn't have happened at all - this would be very bad news for the Nazis.

Aren't you significantly overestimating Russia's power and influence in the global economy back then, though?

[Futurist]

Hmm.

Jan Bloch , in his book "Is war Impossible" postulated that a prolonged European war would result in revolutions by socialist or anarchist movements (p356). The Bolsheviks were models for, but not the cause of, the revolutions in Germany and Hungary, or social unrest across Europe. Nor did they cause the nationalist uprisings after the collapse of the austro-hungarian and ottoman empires.

OK.

The Russians were at the point of collapse by the Russian revolution of March 1917 and no government could have sustained the fight.

Disagreed. After all, instead of launching an offensive against Germany in 1917, Russia could have either (with the help of Britain, France, and the U.S. Navy) launched an offensive against the Ottoman Empire in 1917 or adopted a simple strategy of defense and retreat (as in, retreating all of the way east of the Urals if necessary while waiting for the Western Allies to defeat Germany in the West).

[Carl Schwamberger]

Would the Nazis have still come to power in Germany *without* a prior Bolshevik Revolution in Russia?

I'm guessing this is the question for this thread? The answer depends in part on where you think the NSDAP got the bulk of its votes. Its true the middle class & upper classes were concerned about the left. & they did provide financial support out of that fear. However the core message of the NSDAP was not the threat of Bolshivik revolution in Germany. It was a combination of racial/socio economic threat from inferior races & supppresion of Germany by other European nations. Bolshivism or the left in general were a symptom or manifestation of the core problem of inferior races destroying superior German culture. That message was very appealing to significant blocks of the middle class & working class, the lack of Communist boggy men in the closet may not have lost the NSDAP that many votes.

But lie a couple others who have posted here, I am questioning that the absence of a Bolshivik Russia would automatically eliminate the Communits as a factor in German politics. The revolutionary left had been rioting in Europe for many decades and scaring the hell out of the middle class & wealthy. Thats not going to stop because there is no Communist state to inspire fear.

[Sheldrake]

The Russians were at the point of collapse by the Russian revolution of March 1917 and no government could have sustained the fight.

Disagreed. After all, instead of launching an offensive against Germany in 1917, Russia could have either (with the help of Britain, France, and the U.S. Navy) launched an offensive against the Ottoman Empire in 1917 or adopted a simple strategy of defense and retreat (as in, retreating all of the way east of the Urals if necessary while waiting for the Western Allies to defeat Germany in the West).

Sure, with hindsight, it would have been sensible for the Entente powers to remain on the defensive throughout 1917 and wait for Uncle Sam to mobilize. The Allied strategy for 1917 was for a concerted attack in Spring 1917. During that year the Russian, French and Italian armies all became "fought out" and by the end of the year the British political leaders refused to support further offensive action.

However fun they may be, counter-factuals cannot prove anything. It is fantasy to believe an offensive in any direction in 1917 would have resulted in anything but the historic result - i.e. further heavy losses and the collapse of the Russian army. Neither the British nor French had any appetite for re-opening a sideshow against the turks and the US had no resources. It is an extremely tenuous argument to claim that the Bolshevik Revolution was an essential precursor for the rise of Hitler!

[wm]

The Russians didn't need to fight, it would be like with the guy Napoleon. They didn't win by fighting, they defeated him by not fighting.
Russia had Britain, France, the US and Japan on her side. They didn't have to be afraid of the consequences of any eventual German advance into Russian territory.
But the Germans still would have to commit lots of resources and soldiers in Russia, so there wouldn't be any transfers to the West, and the Ludendorff Offensive would be impossible.

Didn't the Russian Provisional Government already agree to Polish independence in early 1917, though?

As far as I know it's true, they agreed to independence although without defining any borders. Mr Kerensky was a nice guy, this is why nobody listened to him btw, so he agreed. But the general and strong sentiment there was that Mother Russia was indivisible and her borders were sacred.
This means Poland would be reconstituted "outside" Russia, on the territories of German and Austrian partitions.
Such a tiny Poland would not be able to defend the most contentious, angst generating territories like Upper Silesia and the Province of Posen. They were won by popular uprisings but it wasn't enough - without support from a sufficiently strong Poland Germany would win them back.

Disagreed; after all, Germany's armies would probably still be outside of Germany's borders at the end of World War I in this scenario, including in the East.

It doesn't matter. The story was: we defeated Russia and we were winning in the West when they stabbed us on the back. Without the victory in Russia there would be no those (phony) victories in the West.

Aren't you significantly overestimating Russia's power and influence in the global economy back then, though?

It's not about influence, it's about opportunities for growth.
One of the reason given for the Great Depression was that the post-war global economy was overbuilt: lots of investment money, lots of products but no good market outlets.

[wm]

But lie a couple others who have posted here, I am questioning that the absence of a Bolshivik Russia would automatically eliminate the Communits as a factor in German politics. The revolutionary left had been rioting in Europe for many decades and scaring the hell out of the middle class & wealthy. Thats not going to stop because there is no Communist state to inspire fear.

The Soviets did a lot to destabilize countries all around the world. Comintern, Profintern - professional stab-in-the-back, worming from inside to the top organizations would be nothing but names without Soviet money and resources.

[Sheldrake]

The Russians didn't need to fight, it would be like with the guy Napoleon. They didn't win by fighting, they defeated him by not fighting.
Russia had Britain, France, the US and Japan on her side. They didn't have to be afraid of the consequences of any eventual German advance into Russian territory.

That is a gross misreading of the histyory of the 1812 campaign and the cost to Russia. For a start the Russians lost 210,000 dead in the 1812 campaign. They raised an army of C 900,000 including militia. The western districts were stripped of agricultural resources.

In 1914 Russia was a rapidly industrializing country with much of its industry in the West. We take for granted the relocation of Soviet industry in 1941 to the Urals. Imperial Russia lacked the capability - or the totalitarian power that Stalin exercised.

[wm]

That is a gross misreading of the histyory of the 1812 campaign and the cost to Russia. For a start the Russians lost 210,000 dead in the 1812 campaign. They raised an army of C 900,000 including militia. The western districts were stripped of agricultural resources.

Many of those soldier died in the battle of Borodino. Borodino didn't really have to happen. The Russian commander didn't want to fight that and any other defensive battles, but the Czar lost his cool.

In 1914 Russia was a rapidly industrializing country with much of its industry in the West. We take for granted the relocation of Soviet industry in 1941 to the Urals. Imperial Russia lacked the capability - or the totalitarian power that Stalin exercised.

On foot the Germans wouldn't travel far, and in Russia there was even less railway lines than in 1941.
Russia didn't need its not very impressive industry. The Allies were able to supply her. This time Japan wouldn't stood in the way, they were Allies too.

[Futurist]

The Russians were at the point of collapse by the Russian revolution of March 1917 and no government could have sustained the fight.

Disagreed. After all, instead of launching an offensive against Germany in 1917, Russia could have either (with the help of Britain, France, and the U.S. Navy) launched an offensive against the Ottoman Empire in 1917 or adopted a simple strategy of defense and retreat (as in, retreating all of the way east of the Urals if necessary while waiting for the Western Allies to defeat Germany in the West).

Sure, with hindsight, it would have been sensible for the Entente powers to remain on the defensive throughout 1917 and wait for Uncle Sam to mobilize. The Allied strategy for 1917 was for a concerted attack in Spring 1917. During that year the Russian, French and Italian armies all became "fought out" and by the end of the year the British political leaders refused to support further offensive action.

However fun they may be, counter-factuals cannot prove anything. It is fantasy to believe an offensive in any direction in 1917 would have resulted in anything but the historic result - i.e. further heavy losses and the collapse of the Russian army. Neither the British nor French had any appetite for re-opening a sideshow against the turks and the US had no resources. It is an extremely tenuous argument to claim that the Bolshevik Revolution was an essential precursor for the rise of Hitler!

Couldn't the U.S. Navy have already been used in combat in 1917, though?

[Futurist]

Didn't the Russian Provisional Government already agree to Polish independence in early 1917, though?

As far as I know it's true, they agreed to independence although without defining any borders. Mr Kerensky was a nice guy, this is why nobody listened to him btw, so he agreed. But the general and strong sentiment there was that Mother Russia was indivisible and her borders were sacred.

Wasn't Poland technically not a part of Russia but rather in personal union (or something like that) with Russia, though?

This means Poland would be reconstituted "outside" Russia, on the territories of German and Austrian partitions.
Such a tiny Poland would not be able to defend the most contentious, angst generating territories like Upper Silesia and the Province of Posen. They were won by popular uprisings but it wasn't enough - without support from a sufficiently strong Poland Germany would win them back.

Wouldn't Russia have ensured that Germany will not recapture these territories (Posen, Upper Silesia, et cetera), though?

Disagreed; after all, Germany's armies would probably still be outside of Germany's borders at the end of World War I in this scenario, including in the East.

It doesn't matter. The story was: we defeated Russia and we were winning in the West when they stabbed us on the back. Without the victory in Russia there would be no those (phony) victories in the West.[/quote]

The thing is, though, that Germany was actually losing in the West by November 1918:



Indeed, the Entente/Allies not only successfully broke through the Hindenburg Line by November 1918, but also knocked all of Germany's allies out of World War I by November 1918!

Aren't you significantly overestimating Russia's power and influence in the global economy back then, though?

It's not about influence, it's about opportunities for growth.
One of the reason given for the Great Depression was that the post-war global economy was overbuilt: lots of investment money, lots of products but no good market outlets.

Source, please?

[wm]

i.e. further heavy losses and the collapse of the Russian army.

The Russian Army although in bad shape was capable of a strategic withdrawal - as the Russian Army of 1812 did.

The Soviets didn't surrender to the Germans because the Russian Army collapsed. The did it because they wanted to consolidate their ill-gotten gains. They didn't do it for Russia they did for themselves.
The legitimate Russian Government of Alexander Kerensky didn't want to surrender, would not surrender.

Shortly afterwards, during the Russian Civil war both sides of that conflict were able to raise huge armies from the Russian population, there were lots of willing to fight people in Russia despite all the misery.

[wm]

Wasn't Poland technically not a part of Russia but rather in personal union (or something like that) with Russia, though?

It was. But after another Polish uprising it became an integral part of Russia. Too many uprisings for their taste I suppose.

Wouldn't Russia have ensured that Germany will not recapture these territories (Posen, Upper Silesia, et cetera), though?

Maybe, but why? From the goodness of their hearts? Russia didn't need an independent Poland for anything, an independent Poland would constantly foster discontent in the Russian partition.

The thing is, though, that Germany was actually losing in the West by November 1918

They were but unconvincingly, with Russia in fight it would be self evident even for an intellectually challenged German there was no hope.

Source, please?

For example: Underconsumption theories.