I remember watching a documentary/interview program about Hitler and Germany during the Third Reich a few years ago. One of the Germans interviewed suggested that if Hitler had died at the end of 1938, he would have gone down in history as one of the world's greatest statesmen, and not as a "monster", or so controversial figure as he is today.
What do you think?
If Hitler did die in 1938 - after the Anschluss of Austria, after the Sudentenland was taken - who would have succeeded him?
Would Hitler's early death have meant the end of the Third Reich or would it have continued ? Would National Socialism survived him long?
Finally, would World War II have taken place with a German-dominated Axis in Europe versus England, USA, USSR Allies?
If Hitler Died in 1938?
-
The Desert Fox
- Member
- Posts: 475
- Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 10:35
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Hitlers early death and effect on history.
A good question. I definitely wonder whether war would have eventuated if Hitler had died in 1938. The political idea of living space in the east, and eventual war in the east would not have occured without the driving passions of Hitler. His passion rode heavily over all the doubts held by the German military of pursuing war.
Therefore without his force of personality, war would have been doubfull in the short term. National socialism as an political idealogy would have had a longer shelf life, not unlike facism in Spain which survived for 30 odd years. Such tolitarian political idealogies usually need the destruction of war to bring about change.
The looming threat to world peace would have been the ambitions of comrade Josef Stalin.
regards
The Desert Fox
Therefore without his force of personality, war would have been doubfull in the short term. National socialism as an political idealogy would have had a longer shelf life, not unlike facism in Spain which survived for 30 odd years. Such tolitarian political idealogies usually need the destruction of war to bring about change.
The looming threat to world peace would have been the ambitions of comrade Josef Stalin.
regards
The Desert Fox
Re: If Hitler Died in 1938?
If Hitler had died in 1938, the German people would have mourned the loss of a 'great statesman and popular leader' - and a month later would be gaping in astonishment and horror as the Nazi government rapidly dissolved into utter anarchy and chaos.
Hitler threw down the constitution of the Weimar Republic, and deliberately did not replace it with a Nazi constitution - he was the Fuhrer, not the first servant of the state but its absolute master. There was no written procedure of any kind at the top level of the Nazi government - the procedure was whatever Hitler said it was.
Hitler deliberately set up rival security services and ministries with interdepartmental cross-boundaries, which put them and the Nazi hierachy into direct competition with each other for Hitler's whimsical favour. This ensured that no-one would ever be in a position to threaten Hitler himself, as their rivals would fall on them and rip them to pieces if they tried. A classic case of the Roman principle of 'divide and rule' in party politics.
The order of succession to the position of Fuhrer was never written down - only the appointment of Hess as Deputy Fuhrer gave any indication of who the next in line was, and this was hardly a legally binding arrangement.
What does this mean? After Hitler's death, Hess would assume the position of Fuhrer - but Himmler and Goering would not have accepted it. Hess had a much weaker power base than either of his two rivals, and would not have lasted long. Goering and Himmler, who hated each other even more than they revered Hitler, would be locked in a struggle for power, first low-key and behind closed doors, later in open opposition and naked strife and ambition. Himmler lacked the leadership ability to hold the corrupt Nazi government together by force of personality, while Goering would never be able to control Himmler or the SS. There would soon be covert assassination attempts left, right and centre. The Nazi Party would fragment as its members supported one contender or another. The Nazi Party was bound together by Hitler, and only by Hitler.
(This is exactly what happened when Alexander the Great died - his loyal followers, the Diodachi, fought among themselves for the right to take the throne of the Macedonian-Persian Empire.)
The Wehrmacht and the German people would soon become disillusioned with the squabbling Nazis - due to the Messiah-like reverence given to Hitler, none of the other top Nazis could ever have replaced him in the eyes of the German people. They would have been recognised for what they were - a gang of ruthless and corrupt 'golden pheasants' fighting among themselves to be the master of Germany - a position which none of them deserved.
Most of the German people were not true Nazis, they were 'Hitler-followers'. Without Hitler, their link to the Nazi Party and its leaders would have been broken. The 'magic' of Hitler's Germany would have vanished like a dream. The German people would have shaken their heads, woken up, and realised what was really going on in Germany.
The process of advancing Germany's economic power and international standing would be forgotten as the Nazi Party consumed itself from top to bottom in internal power struggles. If Goering was assassinated and Himmler implicated, the army generals would have been forced to intervene. A split between the SS and the Wehrmacht would have resulted, and a military coup considered, and possibly attempted, by the anti-Nazi generals. A brief but bloody civil war would have been a possible result! I don't know which side would win, but my bet would be with the army.
Germany would not have been a threat to the rest of Europe until this internal conflict had been resolved, one way or the other. Whether WWII would have taken place is dependant on which faction emerged in control of Germany. The army generals wanted to restore the German borders of 1914, but without a major war. So they would have left the Czech remnants alone and turned on Poland after getting the Sudetenland. Unlike Hitler, the generals would have backed down if Britain and France had guaranteed the Polish borders. Whether the Allies would have issued that guarantee without Hitler and without an occupation of Czechslovakia, is another matter.
Hitler threw down the constitution of the Weimar Republic, and deliberately did not replace it with a Nazi constitution - he was the Fuhrer, not the first servant of the state but its absolute master. There was no written procedure of any kind at the top level of the Nazi government - the procedure was whatever Hitler said it was.
Hitler deliberately set up rival security services and ministries with interdepartmental cross-boundaries, which put them and the Nazi hierachy into direct competition with each other for Hitler's whimsical favour. This ensured that no-one would ever be in a position to threaten Hitler himself, as their rivals would fall on them and rip them to pieces if they tried. A classic case of the Roman principle of 'divide and rule' in party politics.
The order of succession to the position of Fuhrer was never written down - only the appointment of Hess as Deputy Fuhrer gave any indication of who the next in line was, and this was hardly a legally binding arrangement.
What does this mean? After Hitler's death, Hess would assume the position of Fuhrer - but Himmler and Goering would not have accepted it. Hess had a much weaker power base than either of his two rivals, and would not have lasted long. Goering and Himmler, who hated each other even more than they revered Hitler, would be locked in a struggle for power, first low-key and behind closed doors, later in open opposition and naked strife and ambition. Himmler lacked the leadership ability to hold the corrupt Nazi government together by force of personality, while Goering would never be able to control Himmler or the SS. There would soon be covert assassination attempts left, right and centre. The Nazi Party would fragment as its members supported one contender or another. The Nazi Party was bound together by Hitler, and only by Hitler.
(This is exactly what happened when Alexander the Great died - his loyal followers, the Diodachi, fought among themselves for the right to take the throne of the Macedonian-Persian Empire.)
The Wehrmacht and the German people would soon become disillusioned with the squabbling Nazis - due to the Messiah-like reverence given to Hitler, none of the other top Nazis could ever have replaced him in the eyes of the German people. They would have been recognised for what they were - a gang of ruthless and corrupt 'golden pheasants' fighting among themselves to be the master of Germany - a position which none of them deserved.
Most of the German people were not true Nazis, they were 'Hitler-followers'. Without Hitler, their link to the Nazi Party and its leaders would have been broken. The 'magic' of Hitler's Germany would have vanished like a dream. The German people would have shaken their heads, woken up, and realised what was really going on in Germany.
The process of advancing Germany's economic power and international standing would be forgotten as the Nazi Party consumed itself from top to bottom in internal power struggles. If Goering was assassinated and Himmler implicated, the army generals would have been forced to intervene. A split between the SS and the Wehrmacht would have resulted, and a military coup considered, and possibly attempted, by the anti-Nazi generals. A brief but bloody civil war would have been a possible result! I don't know which side would win, but my bet would be with the army.
Germany would not have been a threat to the rest of Europe until this internal conflict had been resolved, one way or the other. Whether WWII would have taken place is dependant on which faction emerged in control of Germany. The army generals wanted to restore the German borders of 1914, but without a major war. So they would have left the Czech remnants alone and turned on Poland after getting the Sudetenland. Unlike Hitler, the generals would have backed down if Britain and France had guaranteed the Polish borders. Whether the Allies would have issued that guarantee without Hitler and without an occupation of Czechslovakia, is another matter.
Interesting theory about the power struggle between Himmler & Goering. Where do you think Goebbels would fit in? He was an ambitious thing himself and it's often said that he was second to Hitler in his speach-making ability. Do you think he would have made a grab for the throne himself or supported one of the other two?
-
The Desert Fox
- Member
- Posts: 475
- Joined: 05 Aug 2002, 10:35
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
Fuhrer Goebbels
Yes Geli I think it would be stupid not to take into account the power base of Goebbels. Any man with the power over the media he had, would have a strong tool to pursue either the leadership himself, or promote another candiate.Geli wrote:Interesting theory about the power struggle between Himmler & Goering. Where do you think Goebbels would fit in? He was an ambitious thing himself and it's often said that he was second to Hitler in his speach-making ability. Do you think he would have made a grab for the throne himself or supported one of the other two?
I think it would have been worth him making a grab for the leadership himself. He was a quite intellegent man and had the skill essential to any politician, a gift of the gab.
regards
The Desert Fox
-
Leibstandarte
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 15 Jul 2002, 08:45
- Location: California
Great question.......
Let's not forget the Army....they were not especially fond of the Nazis. They had sworn an oath to Hitler as Fuhrer and Chancellor but it ended there. No Hitler no oath and freedom of manoeuvre. I somehow doubt they wd have idly stood by while Germany descended into the chaos of assassination and counter-assassination.
I think Goering would have tried to win over the Army High Command and installed himself as Chancellor and maybe Fuhrer of a purged NS Party.
The SS was at this stage relatively weak - little more than a few thousand strong - and no real threat from a military standpoint to the Wehrmacht. The SA had been emasculated in the '34 bloodbath and would not have been capable of doing anything as Victor Lutze owed his whole position to Hitler and only him.
Just consider the irony that a dead Hitler in 1938 may have been looked upon as a "Great Statesman"....food indeed for thought. Brings to mind a quote attributed to Robert C. Edwards who wrote...
I know what a statesman is. He's a dead politician. We need more statesmen.
All in all a very interesting question you have posited.
Leibstandarte
Let's not forget the Army....they were not especially fond of the Nazis. They had sworn an oath to Hitler as Fuhrer and Chancellor but it ended there. No Hitler no oath and freedom of manoeuvre. I somehow doubt they wd have idly stood by while Germany descended into the chaos of assassination and counter-assassination.
I think Goering would have tried to win over the Army High Command and installed himself as Chancellor and maybe Fuhrer of a purged NS Party.
The SS was at this stage relatively weak - little more than a few thousand strong - and no real threat from a military standpoint to the Wehrmacht. The SA had been emasculated in the '34 bloodbath and would not have been capable of doing anything as Victor Lutze owed his whole position to Hitler and only him.
Just consider the irony that a dead Hitler in 1938 may have been looked upon as a "Great Statesman"....food indeed for thought. Brings to mind a quote attributed to Robert C. Edwards who wrote...
I know what a statesman is. He's a dead politician. We need more statesmen.
All in all a very interesting question you have posited.
Leibstandarte
Good point ... without Hitler, would Goring have been strong enough to control the army high dommand. I think not. Goering, for all his flair, was not as iron willed as Hitler.
So, do we still have WWII? Perhaps on a smaller scale.
I don't think Germany under Goering would have invaded Poland in 1939. Perhaps we delay WWII for a few years (say 1942).
So, do we still have WWII? Perhaps on a smaller scale.
I don't think Germany under Goering would have invaded Poland in 1939. Perhaps we delay WWII for a few years (say 1942).
OK, let me add to the question:
Would we still have had the war and/or the Holocaust --
*If Goering assumed the leadership?
*If Himmler assumed the leadership?
*If Goebbels assumed the leadership?
I think a Goering-led Germany would have been a peaceful Germany, because I read that when Hitler took steps that dared other countries to declare war on him, Goering had a "let's quit while we're ahead" attitiude.
Himmler and Goebbels both seemed more fanatical about the racist aspects of National Socialism, and it's likely that measures against "undesirables" would still have been undertaken by both of them. But the real mass killing was a result of the war itself, so would those two men have led the country into war?
Would we still have had the war and/or the Holocaust --
*If Goering assumed the leadership?
*If Himmler assumed the leadership?
*If Goebbels assumed the leadership?
I think a Goering-led Germany would have been a peaceful Germany, because I read that when Hitler took steps that dared other countries to declare war on him, Goering had a "let's quit while we're ahead" attitiude.
Himmler and Goebbels both seemed more fanatical about the racist aspects of National Socialism, and it's likely that measures against "undesirables" would still have been undertaken by both of them. But the real mass killing was a result of the war itself, so would those two men have led the country into war?
1) Goering was incompetent as a strategic commander but quite an astute politician. He did not want war with Britain or France, but was prepared for war with Czechoslovakia alone if diplomacy failed. Like Hitler, he wanted Poland to become an Axis satellite - if Poland refused, he was prepared for war with them as long as the West stayed neutral. Goring was much more likely to back down in 1939 than Hitler, and took Britain's guarantee to Poland more seriously. Goring was less likely to secure a Nazi-Soviet pact than Hitler - to the Soviets Goring looked like a classic imperialist. Goring also wanted war with Russia, again, as long as the West stayed neutral.
Goering was not as anti-Semitic as Hitler was. Under Goring the Jews would have been dispossessed and driven out of Germany, but there would have been no Final Solution, even in the event of war. Goring was not a murderer.
2) Himmler was incompetent both as strategic commander and as politician. He was also a total control freak. As Fuhrer, he would have wanted to create a totally Nazi military by disbanding the army, navy and Luftwaffe and turning them into the Waffen SS. That having been said, Himmler was quite likely to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938 without coming to an agreement with Chamberlain at Munich. To him it was inconceivable than the Anglo-Saxon English could possibly fight for the racially inferior Czechs against their Saxon brothers the Germans.
WWII would then have started in 1938. Czechoslovakia would have been defeated in 1938, but the German attack on the West in 1939 would have failed. This would have probably resulted in a stalemate and eventual German defeat.
Why? The German air force was stronger than the Allied air forces in 1938, but German tanks were much inferior to those of the Allies. Nearly all the German tanks were the light Pzkpw I & II, only a handful of Pzkpw III existing and no Pzkpw IV. Even the Czech light tanks were better than their German counterparts.
If the Panzers failed, then the Blitzkreig failed too. The Luftwaffe superiority would not have been able to compensate for this.
3) Goebbels would probably have made the same mistakes as Himmler, assuming the West was bluffing over Czechslovakia in 1938.
Goering was not as anti-Semitic as Hitler was. Under Goring the Jews would have been dispossessed and driven out of Germany, but there would have been no Final Solution, even in the event of war. Goring was not a murderer.
2) Himmler was incompetent both as strategic commander and as politician. He was also a total control freak. As Fuhrer, he would have wanted to create a totally Nazi military by disbanding the army, navy and Luftwaffe and turning them into the Waffen SS. That having been said, Himmler was quite likely to invade Czechoslovakia in 1938 without coming to an agreement with Chamberlain at Munich. To him it was inconceivable than the Anglo-Saxon English could possibly fight for the racially inferior Czechs against their Saxon brothers the Germans.
WWII would then have started in 1938. Czechoslovakia would have been defeated in 1938, but the German attack on the West in 1939 would have failed. This would have probably resulted in a stalemate and eventual German defeat.
Why? The German air force was stronger than the Allied air forces in 1938, but German tanks were much inferior to those of the Allies. Nearly all the German tanks were the light Pzkpw I & II, only a handful of Pzkpw III existing and no Pzkpw IV. Even the Czech light tanks were better than their German counterparts.
If the Panzers failed, then the Blitzkreig failed too. The Luftwaffe superiority would not have been able to compensate for this.
3) Goebbels would probably have made the same mistakes as Himmler, assuming the West was bluffing over Czechslovakia in 1938.
Geli wrote:OK, let me add to the question:
Would we still have had the war and/or the Holocaust --
*If Goering assumed the leadership?
*If Himmler assumed the leadership?
*If Goebbels assumed the leadership?
I think a Goering-led Germany would have been a peaceful Germany, because I read that when Hitler took steps that dared other countries to declare war on him, Goering had a "let's quit while we're ahead" attitiude.
Himmler and Goebbels both seemed more fanatical about the racist aspects of National Socialism, and it's likely that measures against "undesirables" would still have been undertaken by both of them. But the real mass killing was a result of the war itself, so would those two men have led the country into war?
Heydrich would have taken over the leadership of the SS under either Goering or Himmler as Fuhrer. Under Goering, Himmler could have been disposed of by Heydrich, thus convincing Goering of his loyalty. If Himmler was Fuhrer, Heydrich's appointment as Reichfuhrer SS would have been a natural progression.
Had Hitler died in 1938, Germany would've fallen into a similar situation as that of 1932-33 which led to the fall of Weimar republic. Most probably Goering would've taken over as he was the "crown prince designated" a good Politician he may have been, but he wouldn't have achieved the Total control that Hitler had. Himmler and Gobbels would've used all their means to get rid of him . Either it would've ended in a "Repeat of the Long Knives" or an Oppertunist like Franz Von Papen becoming the Chansellor.
No WW11 would've started at that time , but after Finland, Stalin would've tried something.
No WW11 would've started at that time , but after Finland, Stalin would've tried something.
Sam
