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

[Futurist]

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.

Actually, this point of yours appears to be debatable:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_Poland#Notes

"Sources agree that after the fall of the January Uprising in 1864, the autonomy of Congress Poland was drastically reduced. They disagree however on whether the Kingdom of Poland, colloquially known as Congress Poland, as a state, was officially replaced by Vistula Land (Privislinsky Krai), a province of the Russian Empire, as many sources still use the term Congress Poland for the post-1864 period. The sources are also unclear as to when Congress Poland (or Vistula land) officially ended; some argue it ended when the German and Austro-Hungarian occupying authorities assumed control; others, that it ended with the creation of the Kingdom of Poland in 1916; finally, some argue that it occurred only with the creation of the independent Republic of Poland in 1918."

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.

Because having Poland keep these territories will make Germany weaker and thus less threatening than it would have otherwise been?

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.

Breaking the Hindenburg Line and knocking all of Germany's allies out of World War I was unconvincing?

Source, please?

For example: Underconsumption theories.

Thanks; I will certainly make sure to take a look at this article.

[ljadw]

The Communist revolution in Russia was irrelevant for Hitler obtaining power in Germany .

[wm]

"Sources agree that after the fall of the January Uprising in 1864, the autonomy of Congress Poland was drastically reduced. They disagree however on whether the Kingdom of Poland, colloquially known as Congress Poland, as a state, was officially replaced by Vistula Land (Privislinsky Krai), a province of the Russian Empire,

I suppose the Russian Czar had no doubts whatsoever, and he ran the show there.

Because having Poland keep these territories will make Germany weaker and thus less threatening than it would have otherwise been?

It would be easier to annex them outright and be done. For the good of the Poles, so they didn't have to cross any borders visiting their families.
In 1939 the Ukrainians and the Belorussians were granted similar benefits after all...

Actually at the end of 1916, when everything was going to shambles the Czar promised Poland would be reconstituted, without giving any details. But it was an obscure declaration even then. It was easy to forget about it.

Breaking the Hindenburg Line and knocking all of Germany's allies out of World War I was unconvincing?

It can be explained away It happened because they had been back-stabbed already. They were on the roll, defeated the mighty Russia and suddenly:

[Futurist]

"Sources agree that after the fall of the January Uprising in 1864, the autonomy of Congress Poland was drastically reduced. They disagree however on whether the Kingdom of Poland, colloquially known as Congress Poland, as a state, was officially replaced by Vistula Land (Privislinsky Krai), a province of the Russian Empire,

I suppose the Russian Czar had no doubts whatsoever, and he ran the show there.

I am talking about in an official sense, though.

Because having Poland keep these territories will make Germany weaker and thus less threatening than it would have otherwise been?

It would be easier to annex them outright and be done. For the good of the Poles, so they didn't have to cross any borders visiting their families.
In 1939 the Ukrainians and the Belorussians were granted similar benefits after all...

You mean have Russia keep Poland and then annex these territories to Poland, correct?

Actually at the end of 1916, when everything was going to shambles the Czar promised Poland would be reconstituted, without giving any details. But it was an obscure declaration even then. It was easy to forget about it.

Couldn't Woodrow Wilson hold Tsar Nicholas II (or Alexander Kerensky, or whomever) accountable to this promise of his, though?

Breaking the Hindenburg Line and knocking all of Germany's allies out of World War I was unconvincing?

It can be explained away It happened because they had been back-stabbed already. They were on the roll, defeated the mighty Russia and suddenly:

Well, I certainly will admit that the defeat of Russia in early 1918 probably helped increase the popularity of the Stab-in-the-Back Myth in Germany later on.

[wm]

I am talking about in an official sense, though.

Official sense needs officials, an official body "to keep the score". At that time they didn't have such a thing, i.e. the UN, or League of Nations.
Of course there were various status quos guaranteed by interests of the great powers.
The problem was the great powers, especially Britain and France were falling over themselves to accommodate every possible Czar's wish and keep Russia in war. They even promised him Dardanelles if I'm not mistaken.

You mean have Russia keep Poland and then annex these territories to Poland, correct?

Something like that, it should be remembered that with more luck Russia would have got those territories (especially the district of Poznań) in 1815, by the grace of the Congress of Vienna.

Couldn't Woodrow Wilson hold Tsar Nicholas II (or Alexander Kerensky, or whomever) accountable to this promise of his, though?

He didn't promise anything to Wilson and actually it was rather a vague declaration. Germany, Austria-Hungary did the same. They were hoping for lots of willing Polish cannon fodder. In the end the cannon fodder was unwilling so no prize. It was easy to weasel out from such promises.

[michael mills]

It is an extremely tenuous argument to claim that the Bolshevik Revolution was an essential precursor for the rise of Hitler!

The Communist revolution in Russia was irrelevant for Hitler obtaining power in Germany .

To the contrary, the fear created by the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia and the proclamation of the new Bolshevik rulers that their aim was World revolution was absolutely crucial to the foundation of the National Socialist Party and Hitler's eventual rise to power.

Bear in mind that Hitler got his start in politics through being selected and trained as one of the propaganda officers whose task was to counter Communist subversion among the soldiers of the Bavarian Army. Without the existence of the Bolshevik regime in Russia fomenting revolution in Germany through the Communist Party that was controlled by the Comintern, there would have been no need for the German military to have anti-Bolshevik propaganda officers, or to sponsor the creation of anti-Bolshevik parties such as the German Worker's Party, or to create Freikorps to combat the Bolsheviks in the East. In that situation, Hitler would have been discharged and gone back to being a marginal character scratching a living by selling paintings. There would have been no National Socialist Party.

The concept that the Jews were plotting to conquer the World through fomenting revolution was also a product of the Bolshevik seizure of Power in Russia. Although the concept had existed before the First World War, expressed in such propaganda works as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", it was the establishment and consolidation of Bolshevik rule in Russia, with its substantial number of Jews in the highest positions of power, that seemed to demonstrate its truth. Many conservative leaders in the west, such as Churchill, firmly believed that Bolshevism was created and propagated by Jewish revolutionaries. It was the concept of Jewish Bolshevism, and the widespread paranoia created by the consolidation and expansion of Bolshevik power in the immediate aftermath of the German surrender, that created the political environment in Germany that allowed an agitator with an anti-Bolshevik and anti-Jewish message to become established.

A good book to read on the subject is this one:

Michael Kellogg, "The Russian Roots of Nazism : White Emigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917-1945", published by Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Kellogg shows how anti-Bolshevik refugees from Russia, personages such as Rosenberg and Scheubner-Richter, had a decisive influence on the formation of Hitler's ideology in the period 1919-23, and how White émigré organisations provided the logistic support for the infant National Socialist party. Without the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia, those anti-Bolshevik refugees would not have been present in Germany, and there would have been no nightmare threat in the East for Hitler and other anti-Bolshevik agitators to combat.

[Futurist]

To the contrary, the fear created by the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia and the proclamation of the new Bolshevik rulers that their aim was World revolution was absolutely crucial to the foundation of the National Socialist Party and Hitler's eventual rise to power.

Bear in mind that Hitler got his start in politics through being selected and trained as one of the propaganda officers whose task was to counter Communist subversion among the soldiers of the Bavarian Army. Without the existence of the Bolshevik regime in Russia fomenting revolution in Germany through the Communist Party that was controlled by the Comintern, there would have been no need for the German military to have anti-Bolshevik propaganda officers, or to sponsor the creation of anti-Bolshevik parties such as the German Worker's Party, or to create Freikorps to combat the Bolsheviks in the East. In that situation, Hitler would have been discharged and gone back to being a marginal character scratching a living by selling paintings. There would have been no National Socialist Party.

The concept that the Jews were plotting to conquer the World through fomenting revolution was also a product of the Bolshevik seizure of Power in Russia. Although the concept had existed before the First World War, expressed in such propaganda works as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", it was the establishment and consolidation of Bolshevik rule in Russia, with its substantial number of Jews in the highest positions of power, that seemed to demonstrate its truth. Many conservative leaders in the west, such as Churchill, firmly believed that Bolshevism was created and propagated by Jewish revolutionaries. It was the concept of Jewish Bolshevism, and the widespread paranoia created by the consolidation and expansion of Bolshevik power in the immediate aftermath of the German surrender, that created the political environment in Germany that allowed an agitator with an anti-Bolshevik and anti-Jewish message to become established.

A good book to read on the subject is this one:

Michael Kellogg, "The Russian Roots of Nazism : White Emigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917-1945", published by Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Kellogg shows how anti-Bolshevik refugees from Russia, personages such as Rosenberg and Scheubner-Richter, had a decisive influence on the formation of Hitler's ideology in the period 1919-23, and how White émigré organisations provided the logistic support for the infant National Socialist party. Without the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia, those anti-Bolshevik refugees would not have been present in Germany, and there would have been no nightmare threat in the East for Hitler and other anti-Bolshevik agitators to combat.

Very interesting and good points, Michael!

However, I would like to make a couple of points of my own here:

1. While Winston Churchill certainly blamed some Jews for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, he (unlike Adolf Hitler) was actually smart enough to avoid making hasty generalizations about the Jews (like Hitler made); indeed, this 1920 article by Winston Churchill helps illustrate my point here:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Zionism_ ... Bolshevism

2. Both the idea that the Jews are to blame for socialism and the idea that Germany needs Lebensraum have already existed in Germany before the start of World War I; indeed, this 1912 proto-Nazi book by Heinrich Class helps illustrate my point here:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=219588

Thus, even without a Bolshevik Russia, can't Adolf Hitler eventually become interested in far-right wing politics (perhaps at least in part due to his own lack of economic success; after all, Hitler never appears to have been very successful as a painter), make contact with some far-right German anti-Semites (perhaps members of the Pan-German League), and still become rabidly anti-Semitic, rabidly anti-Socialist, and vehemently in favor of having Germany acquire Lebensraum (perhaps in the East--after all, ethnic German expansion previously occurred in the direction of the East during the Medieval Ostsiedlung)?

Any thoughts on what I wrote here, Michael?

[wm]

1. While Winston Churchill certainly blamed some Jews for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, he (unlike Adolf Hitler) was actually smart enough to avoid making hasty generalizations about the Jews (like Hitler made); indeed, this 1920 article by Winston Churchill helps illustrate my point here:

Not much of improvement there:

International Jews
- world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality,
- a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution,
- the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century,
- gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

[Futurist]

1. While Winston Churchill certainly blamed some Jews for the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, he (unlike Adolf Hitler) was actually smart enough to avoid making hasty generalizations about the Jews (like Hitler made); indeed, this 1920 article by Winston Churchill helps illustrate my point here:

Not much of improvement there:

International Jews
- world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality,
- a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution,
- the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century,
- gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Not that I approve of everything that Churchill wrote in that 1920 article of his, but at least Churchill didn't make hasty generalizations about all Jews like Hitler and the Nazis did. Plus, unlike Hitler and the Nazis, Churchill appears to have believed that at least some "bad" Jews can be "redeemed."

[wm]

Still the failure was the same - a superficial view of events, uncritical acceptance of false but attractive, simplified memes. Only the memes were slightly different.

[Futurist]

Still the failure was the same - a superficial view of events, uncritical acceptance of false but attractive, simplified memes. Only the memes were slightly different.

Oh, I certainly agree that Winston Churchill makes hasty generalizations about Jews in this 1920 article of his. Indeed, I can point out a couple such hasty generalizations if necessary.

On the bright side, though, at least Churchill appears to acknowledge that some Jews appear to have become Communists as a result of the oppression and discrimination that they have previously faced:

"In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race."

Indeed, it would certainly make sense for Jews (as well as other ethnic and/or religious groups) who are/were previously oppressed to join revolutionary groups which demand and want to implement radical change (such as the Bolsheviks/Communists).

[ljadw]

It is very dubious that some Jews became communist as a result of the discrimination that they faced as Jews .

Certainly it was not so for Marx,who was very criticical about the Jews .

[Futurist]

It is very dubious that some Jews became communist as a result of the discrimination that they faced as Jews .

Certainly it was not so for Marx,who was very criticical about the Jews .

Weren't many Communist Jews and/or their ancestors from countries which were very anti-Semitic, though?

[Futurist]

After all, I haven't heard of many, say, Italian Jews or Greek Jews becoming Communists.

[ljadw]

The Rosenbergs were communists,although there was little antisemitism in the US in 1950 (much less than today).