PDA

View Full Version : If Hitler didn't exist, would the Holocaust have happened? [Moved from Story Experts]


Noir
03-07-2011, 11:09 AM
In my story a time traveler goes back in time to kill Hitler... the story then revolves around him living the past out without Hitler. In my very limited knowledge of WWII, it seems like it still would have happened but not at that scale.

Was there a commander/general/second-in-command that would've taken the helm and went ahead with the Holocaust?

Nick Blaze
03-07-2011, 01:53 PM
No. Or yes. It depends on when Hitler was killed. While I could go into specifics, if certain people were not put into power by Hitler and/or certain plans were not put into motion, it would not have happened.

If Adolf were killed as a baby, then a VERY different outcome would have happened. The holocaust as it is in history would never have happened. That does not mean smaller outbreaks of terrible oppression would not have. For instance, Himmler described the camps originally as being used for "political" prisoners.

But also note that the presence of concentration camps does not determine whether a holocaust would happen. Many other countries, including Spain, have used them... Hitler was able to move a country against a particular people, whether it was his goal or not, but most ringleaders are not so successful.

P.S.-- I would also like to note how amazingly difficult it would have been to murder Hitler unless he was an infant or in prison. While it might be interesting to see how it could be done (perhaps years of being a nazi and finally being a general and being a trusted aide), it is not terribly simple.

Dandroid
03-07-2011, 01:59 PM
be pretty easy when he was studying architecture and art in austria...or incredibly easy during WWI

false identity
03-07-2011, 03:03 PM
I think that the notion that the Holocaust wouldn't have happened without Hitler is giving in to the Nazi ideology of the superman. This is a product of Nazi propaganda, and the fact that so many people believe it shows how powerful propaganda can be, even to decent liberal minded folk. This is rather scary.

I think your story might be more interesting if you focus on the members of the Nazi party that thought Hitler was too liberal, and trying too hard to placate the Americans with his 'Show-Camps'. Many thought the Jews should not be used as slave labour, but simply exterminated, and that it was the Slarvic people that should be in the work camps. This is what fueled the Valkyrie rebellion, and not human decency - like the film suggests.

PorterStarrByrd
03-07-2011, 03:26 PM
No. Jews were hated by many pretty much everywhere in the world, the same as any other religion that separates itself from the rest of the people they live with. Mormons are a good example, even Rajneesi's in Oregon much more recently.

For Hitler, who felt the jews 'sold out' Germany after WWI, in which he was gassed and temporily blinded, they were at the top of his list for retribution. Gypsies were not far behind, though I don't know his history with them.

What worked for him in dealing with them, fueled by 'mob mentality' of his friends he put into office, encouraged him to deal with all of his enemies in the same manner.

The superman Neitsche (sp) concept was a strong factor but many populations developed that egocentric stance on a national basis without thinking to come up with the holocost. (the middle east there now? some African powers within their own country?)

Japan came close in WWII, but my knowledge as to how much of that might have been inspired by Hitler's actions is weak. It would have been interesting to see the conflict between those two had the axis won in WWII. Extremely different philosophies, already successful coming head to head with everybody else out of the way?

Without deep though thought I imagine Germany would have used US manufacturing to tilt the board in their favor over a weakened Japan. Interesting that neither had much in the way of natural resources at the beginning of the war. THAT would have been factor to watch as a developing strategy.

shaldna
03-07-2011, 04:03 PM
If it wasn't Hitler then it would have been someone else. It might not have beent he Jews, but it would have been someone.

There have been many charismatic leaders who incite others to do awful things, history is full of them. The Holocaust as we know it might not have happened if Hitler had been killed, but as others have mentioned, it really depends when and how he was killed.

I think it might be interesting if someone went back, killed him, and then the Holocaust happened anyway,.

DrZoidberg
03-07-2011, 06:02 PM
The Weimar republic was in crisis and people had lost faith in the German democratic system (for a variety of reasons). If it hadn't been Hitler and the Nazis it'd be something else fairly similar. Politicians having a go at the Jews in Germany at that period was a bit like throwing a tennis ball in a wind tunnel. Jews were increasingly persecuted (offically or unoffically) all over Europe and America. Even if it was the worst in Germany and Russia, these places were not unique by far. There's been loads of reasons offered to why this could have been.

I recommend the "Eichman in Jerusalem" aka "The Banality of Evil" by Hannah Arendt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem

Here's a facoid. The Nazi movement/party grew from the Thule Society. This society was initially not anti-Semitic, but as the movement grew in popularity it became increasingly anti-semitic, because that's what people wanted. It's founder was kicked out for that reason alone. It's comforting to see the holocaust as a top down thing, because then we can blame Hitler and everybody else is morally in the clear. But this is a lot more complicated than that which goes to the roots of human behaviour and fears at the time. It's almost impossible to point fingers at any one group or people. It was the zeitgeist.

If Hitler had been killed during the war there is good reasons to speculate that the holocaust would have been stopped purely for economic reasons. It was expensive and took resources desperately needed to fight the war. Unlike what many think, the holocaust was only a financial loss for Germany. That's how market economy works. If you remove a segment from the market, everybody loses, even if you redistribute the assets from the removed segment. This is what happend to Uganda when Idi Amin kicked out the Indians. The holocaust made Germany weaker in every sense and it's likely that there were plenty of anti-semitic Germans at the top who realised this.

Maxx
03-07-2011, 06:13 PM
In my story a time traveler goes back in time to kill Hitler... the story then revolves around him living the past out without Hitler. In my very limited knowledge of WWII, it seems like it still would have happened but not at that scale.

Was there a commander/general/second-in-command that would've taken the helm and went ahead with the Holocaust?

Rather than killing him, it would perhaps have been more useful to have seen that the Papal plot to have the army take over in 1941 worked out.
A German Army working for the Pope (even a pope as anti-semitic as Pius the XII) almost certainly would not have sent millions of people to death camps or even starved 3 million Russian POWs to death. Plus with the help of the Pope, Germany could have easily taken over the world and imposed a kinder, gentler post-Colonial world by 1950.

It's odd that the only evidence for Pope Pius's anti-Hitler plot comes from an anti-Pope Pius book (well, who isn't anti Pius the XII?) called (oddly enough) Hitler's Pope:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Hitlerspope.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/Hitlerspope.jpg)

PeterL
03-07-2011, 06:18 PM
There's only one way to know for sure: take your time machine back and murder him before he got into politics.

waylander
03-07-2011, 06:39 PM
How come you are writing a story about Hitler if you have very limited knowledge of WWII?

KQ800
03-07-2011, 07:17 PM
In my story a time traveler goes back in time to kill Hitler... the story then revolves around him living the past out without Hitler. In my very limited knowledge of WWII, it seems like it still would have happened but not at that scale.

Was there a commander/general/second-in-command that would've taken the helm and went ahead with the Holocaust?

Weeeeell, the holocaust is not one simple thing that came out of nothing. It was not something that Adolf one decided one day over coffee with the guys.

What you have to keep in mind is that Jews, gypsies, tattare, homosexuals, and all the other groups murdered in the camps were universally reviled. Not just by the Nazis. Not just in Germany. All over europe, less in some areas, most in the east.

Google the concept of POGROM and GHETTO. For hundreds of years throughout the entire continent jews were forced to live in specific areas and subject to specific laws. And every once in a while crowds of upstanding decent citizens would descend on them to assault, lynch and plunder them.

This was not something that ended with the middle ages. My grandfather once remarked that the area in the city of Lund where my mother grew up, "Nöden", was the poorest district in town, where only travellers, jews and "Those honest people that could not afford better" lived.

Google EUGENICS and RACIAL HYGIENE. The holocaust was not motivated by hate, it was thought throughout Europe that weeding out the misfits would produce a stronger people. Jews were believed to be of an inferior race and should therefore not be allowed to procreate.

The idea of concentration camps was to separate men and women. and then use them as labor for the good of society.

Note that none if this started with the nazis, nor did it end with the nazis. Swedens forced sterilization program of "unfit" people didn't end until 1976. The US was the first to start a compulsory sterilization program in 1907 and it did not end until 1983, with the last actual sterilization in 1981.

If you wonder what that has to do with anything, the groups that were forcibly sterilized were homosexuals (ironically enough), roma, travellers, atheists, jews, "troublemakers", "promiscious persons", groups that were later systematically murdered.

"Human heredity and Racial Hygiene" by Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer, and Fritz Lenz was the name of a book that Hitler read in prison and which impressed him incredibly. I recommend that, and The SS-state by Eugen Kogon.

The holocaust background is a convoluted and foul web of authoritarianism, fascism, pseudoscientific rationalization, racism and greed.

movieman
03-07-2011, 07:25 PM
One way to prevent the Holocaust would be to have a negotiated peace between Britain and Germany before America could enter the war; then you probably wouldn't see the same level of economic pain in Germany that lead to the Nazis becoming so popular. Unfortunately that's likely to be hard for a time traveller to pull off.

That said, the ideas of eugenics and death camps for unpopular minorities seem to have been popular among left-wing intellectuals at the time, particularly in Britain (I seem to remember Bernard Shaw talked openly about gassing those who wouldn't go along with his socialist programs). So perhaps something similar would have happened elsewhere.

SaraFMC
03-07-2011, 07:39 PM
Another thing to consider - at that point in history, Communism and Fascism were the two big ideas, both of them with powerful movements behind them, and both of them ended up taking over more countries than Germany. Many people felt they had to pick one, and there were a lot of organizations, movements, propaganda efforts, and strong emotions around it all. There's a thick biography of the Mitford sisters that gives a good cultural overview of how it all went (upper class UK sisters with the full range of individual political opinions, including apolitical).

Hitler was popular among some British upper class supporters who were more afraid of Communism (which threatened to destroy their way of life, and traditional control of their societies). To the point of being a sex symbol.

And the German High Command seems to have supported the Ottoman mass killings of Armenians, and possibly gotten some ideas from them (Germany was very involved in that region, built the train system)...

I don't think you can lift one man out of history and change everything, there are always so many long term forces and factors involved. Strong leaders are vital and influential, and removing one would seriously alter history, but I don't know if you could say it would completely prevent something like the Holocaust.

Ari Meermans
03-07-2011, 08:11 PM
Weeeeell, the holocaust is not one simple thing that came out of nothing. It was not something that Adolf one decided one day over coffee with the guys.

What you have to keep in mind is that Jews, gypsies, tattare, homosexuals, and all the other groups murdered in the camps were universally reviled. Not just by the Nazis. Not just in Germany. All over europe, less in some areas, most in the east.

Google the concept of POGROM and GHETTO. For hundreds of years throughout the entire continent jews were forced to live in specific areas and subject to specific laws. And every once in a while crowds of upstanding decent citizens would descend on them to assault, lynch and plunder them.

This was not something that ended with the middle ages. My grandfather once remarked that the area in the city of Lund where my mother grew up, "Nöden", was the poorest district in town, where only travellers, jews and "Those honest people that could not afford better" lived.

Google EUGENICS and RACIAL HYGIENE. The holocaust was not motivated by hate, it was thought throughout Europe that weeding out the misfits would produce a stronger people. Jews were believed to be of an inferior race and should therefore not be allowed to procreate.

The idea of concentration camps was to separate men and women. and then use them as labor for the good of society.

Note that none if this started with the nazis, nor did it end with the nazis. Swedens forced sterilization program of "unfit" people didn't end until 1976. The US was the first to start a compulsory sterilization program in 1907 and it did not end until 1983, with the last actual sterilization in 1981.

If you wonder what that has to do with anything, the groups that were forcibly sterilized were homosexuals (ironically enough), roma, travellers, atheists, jews, "troublemakers", "promiscious persons", groups that were later systematically murdered.

"Human heredity and Racial Hygiene" by Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer, and Fritz Lenz was the name of a book that Hitler read in prison and which impressed him incredibly. I recommend that, and The SS-state by Eugen Kogon.

The holocaust background is a convoluted and foul web of authoritarianism, fascism, pseudoscientific rationalization, racism and greed.


This.

But I believe the Holocaust as we know it would not have happened without Hitler. You have to remember (know) that Hitler was by all accounts quite charismatic in person and he spent years building his inner circle, his platform. Add to that the times and his oratory skills and he was the match to tinder.

Maxx
03-07-2011, 08:40 PM
How come you are writing a story about Hitler if you have very limited knowledge of WWII?

It's the time machine thing. And even Quintin Terrantino has thought of
altering history and killing Hitler, so it is certifiably almost a total cliche.

So why not see if it might be a useful thing a time machine could do?

PinkAmy
03-07-2011, 08:40 PM
Very interesting hypotheses.
Holocausts have happened with other populations in other places and they have been horrific, just not 6 million people dead horrific. The exact same holocaust might not have happened.
Other interesting scenarios...
What if Hitler was born in the USA instead of Germany ? (or any other country)
What if Hitler had nurturing,loving, supportive parents and grew up feeling cherished?
What if Hitler was born in the 21st century?

Smiling Ted
03-07-2011, 08:43 PM
No. Jews were hated by many pretty much everywhere in the world, the same as any other religion that separates itself from the rest of the people they live with. Mormons are a good example, even Rajneesi's in Oregon much more recently.


Actually, you've got the order of things reversed. Jewish segregation in Europe before the 20th Century was imposed by the Christians, not created by the Jews. Jews might have used their own butcher shops and graveyards, but it was the Christians who created the ghettoes, built the walls, and instituted Jewish "Jim Crow" laws.

The wave of anti-Semitism that swept Europe in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries was actually a reaction to Jewish assimilation, not Jewish separatism. This was particularly true in France after its defeat in the Franco-Prussian War and in a united Germany under the Kaiser.

Max Vaehling
03-07-2011, 09:20 PM
As has been stated above, the basic ideas and social problems that fed into fascism (eugenics, anti-semitism, the depression) were already there. You have to remember that Hitler wasn't the brains of the Nazi movement - he was the mouthpiece.

There's a possibility that without his talent as a public speaker, the Nazis wouldn't have gained that kind of momentum, but maybe it would just have taken them longer. Also, I'm pretty sure they'd have found somebody else. Once in power, maybe they'd have approached things differently. Maybe they'd have stuck to their original deportation plans for the Jews instead of killing everybody. Hard to tell.

Your protagonist would have to kill Hitler early, preferrably before the attempted putsch in 1923. This lead to his imprisonment, where he wrote Mein Kampf, and also contributed to the mythical figure he became. After that, killing him would have made him a martyr. And duriing the war, killing him would probably even helped the Germany win the war because according to some strategists, it was Hitler's WWI mind, along with his delusion that he could take on all sides at once, that hindered Germany's efforts.

PrincessofPersia
03-07-2011, 11:05 PM
I hate to break it to people who said no, but there had been holocausts already against the Jews by the Catholic Church. Hitler's is just the most well known and the most efficient. It would have happened again until something as absurd as THE Holocaust happened.

movieman
03-07-2011, 11:06 PM
And duriing the war, killing him would probably even helped the Germany win the war because according to some strategists, it was Hitler's WWI mind, along with his delusion that he could take on all sides at once, that hindered Germany's efforts.

Only if they did it early.

Once Hitler declared war on America I'd say they were pretty much doomed... America had far too much production capacity and was essentially immune to attack from Germany so long as they were throwing most of their effort into fighting the Soviet Union. Once America entered the war Britain knew it could hold out, thereby holding down Nazi troops in France which could have been used in Russia, and large amounts of US hardware was soon on its way to support Stalin.

While Hitler did stupid things after that point, Nazi defeat was really just a matter of time.

Drachen Jager
03-07-2011, 11:14 PM
Hitler was just the front man. If it hadn't been him it would have been someone else, worse or better, but comparable. The holocaust and WWII were caused by long standing historical grievances and the excessive reparation payments Germany had to pay after WWI.

Maxx
03-07-2011, 11:22 PM
I hate to break it to people who said no, but there had been holocausts already against the Jews by the Catholic Church. Hitler's is just the most well known and the most efficient. It would have happened again until something as absurd as THE Holocaust happened.

So bumping off Hitler would not have hindered Holocaust number 73? I'm not so sure holocausts are like pressure in a nozzle; they probably have some historical contigency (after all if in your theory they are modulated, then one modulator could be Hitler or his absence).

Also, I'm not so sure that the traditional antisemitism of the Church (or of Christianity or of The Gospel of John or other olde antisemitic conconctions) is really exactly the same thing as whatever propelled the holocausts of the 1940s.

DavidZahir
03-08-2011, 12:15 AM
Of course it depends on when you kill Hitler. Kill him in 1940 and you might save some victims of the Holocaust, because it is possible the new regime wouldn't put as much emphasis on the death camps (the whole thing seriously hindered Germany's war efforts by diverting manpower and resources). But by that time it was an established policy of the Third Reich and had a momentum of its own. It also depends upon who ended up in charge.

Goring (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_G%C3%83%C2%B6ring) for example was no ideologue. He went along with killing Jews because the Fuhrer wanted it done, but other than the chance to loot Jewish property didn't seem to care very much otherwise. For Himmler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler), though, it was a raison d'etre (Himmler was also a major league weirdo who would have had to be very lucky to keep power if he'd managed to grab the top spot). More than one alternate history has suggested things might have gone much worse for both Allies and the victims of the Holocaust had Reinhard Heydrich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Heydrich) ended up in power, a man with the ruthless efficiency of Goring but the fanaticism of Himmler. The Allies were so worried about him they authorized his assassination in 1942. The town where he was killed was murdered and every single building destroyed.

But in many ways the Nazis were a symptom of what was wrong with Germany at the time, including the fact that Germans simply did not believe they'd been defeated in the first World War. Rather than accept such a thing, they fastened upon the notion they were betrayed by an internal enemy. One should remember that none of the officials who signed the German Armistice at the end of WWI escaped being murdered. And for that matter the only reason the Nazi Party got as many votes as it did was that so many voters liked what they were hearing.

Methinks one of the few things that could have prevented the Holocaust (to a large degree) would be if the Allies had lost the first World War--which almost happened.

But once the Nazis were in power, some form of the Holocaust was virtually inevitable. At least IMHO.

Drachen Jager
03-08-2011, 12:45 AM
I agree to an extent David. I think the Allies could have won without setting the stage for WWII by simply not enacting such harsh reparations on Germany after the war. Note that in the second war the allies actually worked to re-build Germany and the German people were grateful, eventually becoming some of the strongest allies of their former enemies.

blacbird
03-08-2011, 01:22 AM
Google the concept of POGROM and GHETTO. For hundreds of years throughout the entire continent jews were forced to live in specific areas and subject to specific laws. And every once in a while crowds of upstanding decent citizens would descend on them to assault, lynch and plunder them.

All too true. But what sets the Nazi Holocaust is the planning, the industrial-scale methodical extermination machine for which Adolf Hitler was the central instigator. He was Chairman, and put in place Heinrich Himmler, to be CEO of the operation. And Himmler was damn good at his job.

I can't really come up with a truly parallel instance of this kind of thing, at this level, in human history. Certainly there were despots like Stalin who actually are accountable for even greater numbers of murders, but none that I know of so efficiently organized an effort to single out particular groups of people as fodder for the machine.

So, no, I don't buy into the idea that "if it hadn't been Hitler, it would have been someone else." Not for the concept and structure of the execution industry that was established.

KQ800
03-08-2011, 02:09 PM
That said, the ideas of eugenics and death camps for unpopular minorities seem to have been popular among left-wing intellectuals at the time,

Erhh. No. The support for eugenics was not limited to, nor more prevalent among "left wing intellectuals" than those on the right.

E. G. would you consider Sir Francis Galton, Sir Winston Churchill, John Keynes, Charles Davenport, Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie or Calvin Coolidge to be "left wing"?

The truth of the matter is that eugenics, like racism, patriotism or other forms of elitism, offers something for all. To quote faqs.org: "Proponents of eugenics often play on nationalist fears of a diluted racial stock, combined with the idealism of building a better society. // Social progressives saw eugenics as a tool for social improvement and reform,while conservatives saw eugenics as a tool for limiting the lower income groups and the cost of caring for them."

KQ800
03-08-2011, 02:16 PM
Also, I'm not so sure that the traditional antisemitism of the Church (or of Christianity or of The Gospel of John or other olde antisemitic conconctions) is really exactly the same thing as whatever propelled the holocausts of the 1940s.

How do you mean?

KQ800
03-08-2011, 02:26 PM
All too true. But what sets the Nazi Holocaust is the planning, the industrial-scale methodical extermination machine for which Adolf Hitler was the central instigator. He was Chairman, and put in place Heinrich Himmler, to be CEO of the operation. And Himmler was damn good at his job.

I can't really come up with a truly parallel instance of this kind of thing, at this level, in human history.

Agreed. However, the notion of removing population segments and placing them under incarceration to stop them from breeding, while at the same time utilizing them as slave labor was widespread.

If Himmler, Heydrich and Hitler had been removed, perhaps there would be no Treblinka or Belzec, but certainly some Dachau and Mauthausen where the inmates were not deliberately exterminated, but simply used up and when no longer productive, disposed of.

Max Vaehling
03-08-2011, 05:09 PM
There are many people in history who might have done interesting things, if they had lived longer, and there are people whose earlier deaths probably would have changedhistory, conside Jesus...

MAD TV already did that. In a Terminator parody.

Maxx
03-08-2011, 05:18 PM
Agreed. However, the notion of removing population segments and placing them under incarceration to stop them from breeding, while at the same time utilizing them as slave labor was widespread.

If Himmler, Heydrich and Hitler had been removed, perhaps there would be no Treblinka or Belzec, but certainly Dachau and Mauthausen where the inmates where not deliberately exterminated, but simply used up and when no longer productive, disposed of.

According to a recent reassessment (Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction ), the idea of extermination by various means was more fundamental to the aims of the Nazi regime than slave labor or even military or economic rationality. For example, 3 million Russian POWs were allowed to starve when they would have been happy to work and Treblinka (mostly a pure killing camp) was running full blast before Auschwitz (where there was some slave labor) and Leningrad was supposed to be starved and leveled rather than captured.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/aug/12/featuresreviews.guardianreview16

KQ800
03-08-2011, 05:34 PM
According to a recent reassessment (Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction ), the idea of extermination by various means was more fundamental to the aims of the Nazi regime than slave labor or even military or economic rationality. For example, 3 million Russian POWs were allowed to starve when they would have been happy to work and Treblinka (mostly a pure killing camp) was running full blast before Auschwitz (where there was some slave labor) and Leningrad was supposed to be starved and leveled rather than captured.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/aug/12/featuresreviews.guardianreview16

Yes. I made my remark with that in mind. The upper echelon of nazis with the troika of H:s were not rational about their racism.

However. Even with that taken into account the general support for the idea of ethnic cleansing was strong and widespread so, as I said; EVEN IF you removed the three most driven murderers, the camps would have been put into effect and used, killing people slowly through slave labor rather than outright executions.

Don Allen
03-08-2011, 05:43 PM
No, if you read and account for the rise of the Third Reich, there is no question that Hitler set upon gaining power by blaming Jews for the woes of the nation. His in power only fueled his obsession to destroy the race.

There are several accounts in which top military advisors tried to persuade him that this obsession was expending to many resources, and hurting the expansion of the Reich.

Also, it helped him considerably that his closest advisers were criminally insane and took great pleasure in carrying out his orders... It don't happen without Hitler.

Maxx
03-08-2011, 06:36 PM
Yes. I made my remark with that in mind. The upper echelon of nazis with the troika of H:s were not rational about their racism.

However. Even with that taken into account the general support for the idea of ethnic cleansing was strong and widespread so, as I said; EVEN IF you removed the three most driven murderers, the camps would have been put into effect and used, killing people slowly through slave labor rather than outright executions.

I don't think so. I think the dynamic of a paranoid ruler is necessary to really get death camps or purges going. You can have genocide and ethnic cleansing without paranoid rulers, but to reach Stalin-Hitler-Pol Pot levels of mass murder you need a Stalin or a Hitler or a Pol Pot.
Italy would be the counter-example: a Fascist regime with plenty of murder, but no death camps. As Paxton argues in Anatomy of Fascism,
the Nazi regime was not classically Fascist, but a weird thing engineered by Hitler.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/books/the-original-axis-of-evil.html

WalkingContradiction
03-08-2011, 06:52 PM
If L. Ron Hubbard didn't exist, would there be Scientology?

Hitler didn't completely make up something. He catalyzed pre-existing sentiments of anti-semitism and nationalism. So obviously the issue isn't as black and white as it is with Scientology. But still, I disagree with Tolstoy: extraordinary men / events can hugely influence history. The Nürnberger racial laws might probably have happened without Hitler. The second world war would probably have happened too (it wasn't just Germany anyway). Some deportations and even killings maybe too. But a large-scale holocaust, the systematic extermination of an ethnicity? I highly doubt it.

I think the important thing here is that killing Hitler doesn't suddenly make everything a wonderful world. Hitler wasn't some allpowerful antichrist and things would have been pretty bad without him. On the other hand, saying Hitler had no influence whatsoever is beyond absurd too. The right answer is somewhere in between, and in order to estimate the exact outcome, extensive historical study needs to be done.

GeorgeK
03-08-2011, 07:08 PM
Hitler was just the front man. If it hadn't been him it would have been someone else, worse or better, but comparable. The holocaust and WWII were caused by long standing historical grievances and the excessive reparation payments Germany had to pay after WWI.

Hitler's main ability was in being charismatic, initially in convincing wealthy baronesses to finance his political aims and later in swaying the nation to his goals. That said, what would have happened if Hitler's assassination lead to the SA's taking over before the SS could wipe them out?

What would have happened if the time traveller had assassinated Winston Churchill before he could sink the Lusitania and blame it on the Germans during WWI? What if the time traveller had arranged for a German fishing fleet to be standing by to save the rich Americans who died during the sinking of the Lusitania?

BigWords
03-08-2011, 07:53 PM
This (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ptitlekz83hawz) might answer a few questions.

movieman
03-08-2011, 08:42 PM
E. G. would you consider Sir Francis Galton, Sir Winston Churchill, John Keynes, Charles Davenport, Alexander Graham Bell, Andrew Carnegie or Calvin Coolidge to be "left wing"?

Well, Churchill gave half of Europe to the communists, so if he wasn't left-wing he was certainly their best friend on the right. If that's the same Keynes who invented Keynesian economics then yes. I can't really comment on the others since I don't know much about them.

The truth of the matter is that eugenics, like racism, patriotism or other forms of elitism, offers something for all.

Everyone who believes in authoritarianism, probably. However, the Fabians and their fellow travellers seem to have been particularly devoted to the idea; I do vaguely remember Churchill talking about eugenics, but I don't remember him advocating mass gassing as Shaw did.

MeretSeger
03-08-2011, 08:44 PM
MAD TV already did that. In a Terminator parody.

Oooh, I remember that... The Greatest Action Story Ever Told, lol!

But it was Judas Ahnold was killing before he could betray Jesus, who wanted him to betray Him.

That could be an interesting take: rather than offing Hitler before he got all important, how about someone who affected him? Have him find out about his (alleged) Jewish father? And twist it by ending with someone else getting twisted like Hitler because of the change in Hitler.

Maxx
03-08-2011, 09:07 PM
Mao was responsible for more deaths than any other human, but I don't think that he was paranoid in the way that Hitler was.


Well, you could probably kill Mao and you would still get a revolutionary overthrow of the Chang-Kai-Shek regime and probably just as much demographic loss (the deaths attributed to Mao and Stalin are calculated
from what the size of the population would have been if it had grown
at a normal rate versus what actually happened during the period 1920 to 1980 -- China and Russia both come up many 10s of millions short of what would have happened in a perfect world).

On the other hand, the mass killings of the Nazi regime can be much more clearly delineated in terms of timing and numbers.

MeretSeger
03-08-2011, 09:13 PM
re: Eugenics.

Hitler didn't invent it. The Holocaust was the worship of eugenics, imo, and it would have happened whether Hitler died in WWI or not.

It was very popular in the US and around the world pre-WWII. If you have ever read the explosive opinions of Margaret Sanger, among many others, you get a hint of where it could have gone here. If the Nazis had not shown the logical end-point of eugenics, would the US have disavowed its implementation? If not, what would have happened her? Blacks were first on the 'list', Jews, Mormons, the poor, Native Americans, etc. And the 'feeble-minded' and mentally ill were tops on the list of everyone (google Hadamar trials for that little-known horror)

There was so much more than one little evil man to work with in that era. Hitler did not create the evil, he just facilitated its implementation. So many actively involved...jmho.

KQ800
03-09-2011, 01:23 AM
re: Eugenics.
If the Nazis had not shown the logical end-point of eugenics, would the US have disavowed its implementation?

While I agree with you on your other points,if you think the US eugenics ended after -45. It did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

If you mean that without the nazis as a bad example the us would have kept its apartheid laws longer than it did, then I agree.

MeretSeger
03-09-2011, 01:53 AM
While I agree with you on your other points,if you think the US eugenics ended after -45. It did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

If you mean that without the nazis as a bad example the us would have kept its apartheid laws longer than it did, then I agree.

It seems to have petered out as a mass movement, but generally, we are in agreement.

Personally, I think the returning African American war veterans were the core of the end of the racist laws. It just took time.

Nivarion
03-09-2011, 09:55 AM
Edit: I've just noticed that this has been said before. I hope the way I said it can shed a bit more understanding on the specific viewpoint.

From what I can say, is that undoubtedly yes.

It might have not been germany, it might not have been jews, but somewhere at some point were were going to have a mass genocide.

The "Sciences" such as eugenics were unfortunately in practice in the US, Great Brittian, Canada, Australia and others. In some places smaller camps for "Undesirables" were created, but nothing on the scale of Hitlers Nazi Germany.

But it wouldn't have been long if he hadn't shown up. Civil unrest in the US, Cultural in the far east, and economic in Europe. It was only a matter of time before some nutjob who followed that "science" like a zealot got in power somewhere. And for all we know, that nutjob might have been more careful than Hitler.

This might sound pro Nazi, but trust me its not.

For all the evil Hitler committed, it brought a lot of stability back into the world, and he took most of the rest of us off the path because he ran ahead of us.

The old cliche is that if you put a frog in cold water, and heat it up, it'll stay in till it dies. If you put it in hot, it'll get out immediately. Hitler and the Nazi's were the human race's splash of hot water.

Without him, we probably wouldn't blink twice at sending undesirables to a camp to be "Taken care of."

Smiling Ted
03-09-2011, 11:06 PM
For all the evil Hitler committed, it brought a lot of stability back into the world, and he took most of the rest of us off the path because he ran ahead of us.

The old cliche is that if you put a frog in cold water, and heat it up, it'll stay in till it dies. If you put it in hot, it'll get out immediately. Hitler and the Nazi's were the human race's splash of hot water.

Without him, we probably wouldn't blink twice at sending undesirables to a camp to be "Taken care of."

The Nazis killed six million Jews and four million Gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners, and other "undesirables" (counting only non-combatants). Let us know when the number of people potentially saved by this splash of hot water reaches 10 million - and don't forget to deduct the victims of genocide in the Balkans, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur, all slaughtered post-1945.

Priene
03-09-2011, 11:25 PM
If Hitler didn't exist, would the Holocaust have happened?

The vast majority of Jews killed in the Holocaust lived outside Germany, coming from countries occupied by the Wehrmacht during WW2. So reckless German military expansionism was a prerequisite. If an alternative German leader, even one fanatically anti-Jewish, had taken the route of consolidating his own internal power without risking it on external campaigns, the Holocaust on our scale could not have happened.

Other fascist leaders such as Mussolini and Franco were nowhere near as anti-semitic as Hitler, so our alternative leader would have had to be violently anti-semitic as well as fascist, and to have had an equal interest in eugenics, to have been as charismatic as Hitler, and as content to commit genocide. Our alternative German leader would need to share so many of Hitler's characteristics that it's difficult to believe he would have emerged.

World War Two probably would have happened, though. I've read several interwar novels where the characters regarded it as a certainty.

Nivarion
03-10-2011, 03:04 AM
The Nazis killed six million Jews and four million Gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners, and other "undesirables" (counting only non-combatants). Let us know when the number of people potentially saved by this splash of hot water reaches 10 million - and don't forget to deduct the victims of genocide in the Balkans, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur, all slaughtered post-1945.

Remember, we're talking about something that altered the course of history. Trying to predict how many might have died had the whole world continued on eugenics is like trying to predict how many would have died had a driver not applied his breaks.

It might have been no one, it could have been a high fatality 20 car pile up.

GeorgeK
03-10-2011, 07:38 PM
The Nazis killed six million Jews and four million Gypsies, homosexuals, political prisoners, and other "undesirables" (counting only non-combatants). .

You forgot the approximately 7 million Catholics and another 7 million Lutherans who died in the camps because they were "collaborators" in hiding the Jews etc in their attics.

- and don't forget to deduct the victims of genocide in the Balkans, Cambodia, Rwanda, and Darfur, all slaughtered post-1945.

There were also Soviet death camps at the same time where probably more people died than in Hitler's camps. The problem is that normally history is written by the victor. Germany lost and so there are better records.

blacbird
03-10-2011, 11:58 PM
You forgot the approximately 7 million Catholics and another 7 million Lutherans who died in the camps because they were "collaborators" in hiding the Jews etc in their attics.

I know that non-Jewish collaborators were killed by the Nazis, but you really need to document these figures. 14 million? More Catholics than Jews? More Lutherans than Jews? I don't think so.

Smiling Ted
03-11-2011, 02:06 AM
You forgot the approximately 7 million Catholics and another 7 million Lutherans who died in the camps because they were "collaborators" in hiding the Jews etc in their attics.

So...six million Jews, but 14 million Gentiles hiding them. What did the Christians do? Take turns?

"It's Tuesday, I'll hide Chaim in my attic. Christopher, you get him Wednesday and Thursday, and Christine, you take him for the weekend."

alleycat
03-11-2011, 02:16 AM
Hold on, gang, while we take a little ride.

The discussion can continue in the P&CE forum.

billythrilly7th
03-11-2011, 02:32 AM
All too true. But what sets the Nazi Holocaust is the planning, the industrial-scale methodical extermination machine for which Adolf Hitler was the central instigator. He was Chairman, and put in place Heinrich Himmler, to be CEO of the operation. And Himmler was damn good at his job.

I can't really come up with a truly parallel instance of this kind of thing, at this level, in human history. Certainly there were despots like Stalin who actually are accountable for even greater numbers of murders, but none that I know of so efficiently organized an effort to single out particular groups of people as fodder for the machine.

So, no, I don't buy into the idea that "if it hadn't been Hitler, it would have been someone else." Not for the concept and structure of the execution industry that was established.

Agreed.

There's a difference between Hitler NEVER existing. And Hitler being killed at some point.

If he had never been born, there would never have been a holocaust IMO.

He was one of a kind monster.

And put together a very unique monstrosity.

Bravo
03-11-2011, 02:37 AM
this looks frighteningly similar to a writing related thread.

billythrilly7th
03-11-2011, 02:44 AM
writing related thread.

What are those?

Dandroid
03-11-2011, 02:56 AM
So...six million Jews, but 14 million Gentiles hiding them. What did the Christians do? Take turns?

"It's Tuesday, I'll hide Chaim in my attic. Christopher, you get him Wednesday and Thursday, and Christine, you take him for the weekend."

apparently gentiles were falling all over themselves to save the jews....

robeiae
03-11-2011, 03:09 AM
In my story a time traveler goes back in time to kill Hitler... the story then revolves around him living the past out without Hitler. In my very limited knowledge of WWII, it seems like it still would have happened but not at that scale.

Was there a commander/general/second-in-command that would've taken the helm and went ahead with the Holocaust?
There's no definitive answer here. Anyone that says it still would have occurred or would not have occurred is speculating. As has been noted, the circumstances that led to the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust would still exist.

As to "what-ifs," consider this: the time traveler assassinates Hitler, say, while Hitler is in prison (captive target, you know). Hitler becomes a martyr and Himmler takes over the Nazi party, rising from obscurity much earlier. And with him goes Reinhard Heydrich. Unlike Hitler, Himmler succeeds in actually defeating Hindenburg in the '32 election. Himmler and Heydrich begin preparing their answer to "the Jewish Question" much, much earlier.

Long and short: the Holocaust is ten times worse, Germany flattens the Soviets and never falls in WWII.

blacbird
03-11-2011, 03:19 AM
You could do another scenario: What if Heydrich hadn't been killed? He was by all accounts about as coldly ruthless as any of Hitler's inner circle. I've seen speculation that Hitler was secretly relieved once Heydrich was gone, not an unusual emotion from dictators who become leery of certain ambitious underlings (Castro and Che Guevara, Stalin and Trotsky, etc.). What if Heydrich lives, overthrows Hitler and becomes Führer?

robeiae
03-11-2011, 03:36 AM
That works, too. And it's Heydrich's nature that caused me to include him in my scenario. If Himmler and Heydrich had found common ground earlier on, they would have been even more formidable. Hitler's assassination could be such ground.

Zoombie
03-11-2011, 03:45 AM
You could do another scenario: What if Heydrich hadn't been killed? He was by all accounts about as coldly ruthless as any of Hitler's inner circle. I've seen speculation that Hitler was secretly relieved once Heydrich was gone, not an unusual emotion from dictators who become leery of certain ambitious underlings (Castro and Che Guevara, Stalin and Trotsky, etc.). What if Heydrich lives, overthrows Hitler and becomes Führer?

Been done already...kinda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_with_the_Iron_Heart)!

blacbird
03-11-2011, 03:48 AM
Ah! Many thanks, Zoomer. I didn't know of this novel. Now I gotta get a copy and read it.

Zoombie
03-11-2011, 03:54 AM
It was unrelentingly grim!

Maxinquaye
03-11-2011, 03:56 AM
Another scenario would be if the "career nazis" like Erwin Rommel and Karl Dönitz and such who were more nazis for expediency than for deep rooted ideological belief. They were a factor as well, as represented by the Stauffenberg attempt on Hitler's life. Though, I stress that even these people were pretty anti-semitic. Dönitz is known to have said that he'd "rather eat dirt than see my grandchildren grow up in the filthy, poisonous atmosphere of Jewry".

But it's all speculation. Europe wasn't, and isn't, like the US. The OP would have to study the interelationships under the surface - such as the close relations between the german royal family and the british. It's not so easy to say "if x happened, there would be no holocaust."

By WW II concentration camps were standard fare in Europe. You'd already had the extermination of the Don Kossacks by Lenin and Trotskij, and the fabricated famine in the Ukraine. You also had the armenian genocide. Even Britain had concentration camps in Cyprus, after WW II when they interned jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus_internment_camps) fleeing to Palestine.

maxmordon
03-11-2011, 04:00 AM
Reminds me a short story I wrote two years ago and posted on SYW.

In my story, Without Hitler the Holocaust would have happened but on the hands of the Soviets against undesirable threats to the URSS. (Russia had their fair share of anti-semitic feelings, just check out the Doctors' Plot), the Nazi Party, lacking such charismatic figure never had the strength as had in our world and WWII is known as the Anglo-Soviet War, basically consisting of UK and France allied with Italy and Spain to stop the URSS.

Oh, and the Jewish ended up founding a state in Manchuria... a proposal on the real world where Japan were trying to bring people to their colonies.

My knowledge of WWII is a tad sketchy, but I doubt my thoughts is very "far off".

BigWords
03-11-2011, 04:40 AM
It's somewhat frowned upon to provide links to other forums, but if it will make this thread die any quicker I invite you to all to check out a (rather detailed) chronology of history with Hitler removed (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=184589).

Slushie
03-11-2011, 08:04 AM
In my story a time traveler goes back in time to kill Hitler... the story then revolves around him living the past out without Hitler. In my very limited knowledge of WWII, it seems like it still would have happened but not at that scale.

Was there a commander/general/second-in-command that would've taken the helm and went ahead with the Holocaust?


Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but there a concept called the temporal paradox.

If you go back in time to kill Hitler, and everything goes to plan (no Holocaust), you then have no reason to go back in time and kill Hitler in the first place, so you don't go back in time and kill Hitler, and then history as we know it plays out, so then you do go back in time to kill him, are successful in stopping the Holocaust, and then there's no Hitler for your future self to kill Hitler, and so you go back... ad nauseum. I think this makes sense?

So I'm thinking the only way that plot works is if the character is unsuccessful in preventing a genocide that's so horrific it makes them want to go back in time and kill whoever is the head of the monster.


I think...

blacbird
03-11-2011, 09:35 AM
If you go back in time to kill Hitler, and everything goes to plan (no Holocaust), you then have no reason to go back in time and kill Hitler in the first place, so you don't go back in time and kill Hitler, and then history as we know it plays out, so then you do go back in time to kill him, are successful in stopping the Holocaust, and then there's no Hitler for your future self to kill Hitler, and so you go back... ad nauseum. I think this makes sense?

So I'm thinking the only way that plot works is if the character is unsuccessful in preventing a genocide that's so horrific it makes them want to go back in time and kill whoever is the head of the monster.


I think...

You just made my head hurt real bad . . . I think.

Where's my Talisker?

Maxx
03-11-2011, 05:38 PM
Another scenario would be if the "career nazis" like Erwin Rommel and Karl Dönitz and such who were more nazis for expediency than for deep rooted ideological belief.

When Rommel captured several hundred Jews in the First Free French Brigade after the epic defense of Bir Hachem, he disobeyed specific orders to single out the Jews and quietly insisted that all prisonners of war be treated as prisonners of war.

Max Vaehling
03-11-2011, 05:43 PM
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but there a concept called the temporal paradox.

If you go back in time to kill Hitler, and everything goes to plan (no Holocaust), you then have no reason to go back in time and kill Hitler in the first place, so you don't go back in time and kill Hitler, and then history as we know it plays out, so then you do go back in time to kill him, are successful in stopping the Holocaust, and then there's no Hitler for your future self to kill Hitler, and so you go back... ad nauseum. I think this makes sense?

You're assuming time, or more to the point, history only moves along one straight line. Imagine instead a multi-dimensional concept of time. Killing Hitler would make history change directions (or rather create a parallel timeline, going in the same direction, but in a diiferent spot in spacetime). Our time traveler comes from one timeline's future, moves back along his timeline, kills Hitler, then moves forward, along with everybody else, along the timeline this created. Of course, he could never come back home to his own future. But the thing is, he didn't actually destroy the future of his timeline, he just made it Not The Future They're Moving Toward.

That way, he wouldn't make himself unborn or destroy his reason for going back in the first place. It's all still there, in a future that's not going to happen but that he came from anyway. Heck, he could even marry his grandma without becoming his own grandpa. It would mean he'd never be born in this new timeline, but that won't matter for the one he came from.

Easy.

Maxx
03-11-2011, 05:46 PM
So...six million Jews, but 14 million Gentiles hiding them. What did the Christians do? Take turns?

"It's Tuesday, I'll hide Chaim in my attic. Christopher, you get him Wednesday and Thursday, and Christine, you take him for the weekend."

Wow. So there's now an urban myth that the Nazis killed 14 million German Christians?

Interesting since total German (civil and military) loses for the war are estimated at 7 million or so and that includes 6 million in military loses.
So each dead christian (about 1 mllion at the most) must have somehow been cycled through 14 camps to get the total up to a respectable 14 million.

donroc
03-11-2011, 05:55 PM
Murderous anti-semitism thrived in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and other eastern Euorpean places well into the 1930s and after WWII as well, as documented in Poland and Lithuania. If I remember correctly, in 1937, the Cardinal of Poland advocated converting one-third of its Jews, expelling one-third, and killing one-third. They were about 10% of the population. No surprise where the main death camps were located. Note that I left out the Serbs and Bulgarians.

There seems to have been a tide of History that no matter who became a leader somewhere in Europe, tribal hatred of non-members would have first led to massacres of Jews first, organized or not, and then other "inferior" ethnic groups.

Ah, German planning and efficiency.

Maxx
03-11-2011, 06:04 PM
Ah, German planning and efficiency.

If anything the Germans can be credited with being somewhat more fastidious than their fellow antisemites. Supposedly during the Arrow-Cross-flaming-Iron-Guard (greenshirt? I can't keep my fascists straight)
take-over in Roumania the hardened SS troops the Nazis sent in were
so sickened by what they supposedly wanted to witness that they intervened so that the slaughter would be conducted in a way less disturbing to the more professional and less purely enthusiastic sensibilities of the SS.

Slushie
03-11-2011, 10:45 PM
You're assuming time, or more to the point, history only moves along one straight line. Imagine instead a multi-dimensional concept of time. Killing Hitler would make history change directions (or rather create a parallel timeline, going in the same direction, but in a diiferent spot in spacetime). Our time traveler comes from one timeline's future, moves back along his timeline, kills Hitler, then moves forward, along with everybody else, along the timeline this created. Of course, he could never come back home to his own future. But the thing is, he didn't actually destroy the future of his timeline, he just made it Not The Future They're Moving Toward.

That way, he wouldn't make himself unborn or destroy his reason for going back in the first place. It's all still there, in a future that's not going to happen but that he came from anyway. Heck, he could even marry his grandma without becoming his own grandpa. It would mean he'd never be born in this new timeline, but that won't matter for the one he came from.

Easy.


Okay, I think I see what you're saying. And the split to the new time line could happen just as soon as the character alters one tiny thing in the past, well before killing Hitler. So basically as long as the plot doesn't have the character go back to the original future, no problems.

Williebee
03-12-2011, 12:08 AM
John Jakes did a story like this, about the US Civil War. Can't remember the name.

Maxx
03-12-2011, 12:46 AM
John Jakes did a story like this, about the US Civil War. Can't remember the name.


Millions of Dead Confederates? That's a band name (MDC) or a hedge fund name (MEGACORPUSMDC)?

For the Union Dead? No, that's Robert Lowell?

Alternative Nazi Confederate Aliens? The Same Nazi Confederate Aliens? All New Nazi Confederate Aliens? That's Harry Turtledove, right?

I give up.

Mara
03-12-2011, 12:55 AM
Counterfactual history is kinda hard to do. What if, due to Hitler's absence, a particularly charismatic politician arose and happened to be opposed to anti-semitism? If he was a yes-man until he got into power, like Hitler, he could have slipped through and then used his influence to limit or prevent any Holocaust.

What if Hitler's absence allowed Ernst Rohm--I know my spelling is probably wrong, but I'm talking about the SA leader guy--to start a big rebellion, except that when the non-Hitler government put it down, they used it as an excuse to crack down on Nazism and public support turned toward liberal democracy or Communism?

No real way to say for sure. But anti-semitism and eugenics were definitely present before the Nazis.

Well, Churchill gave half of Europe to the communists, so if he wasn't left-wing he was certainly their best friend on the right.

He didn't "give" it to them so much as acknowledge the reality that they had it.


You forgot the approximately 7 million Catholics and another 7 million Lutherans who died in the camps because they were "collaborators" in hiding the Jews etc in their attics.



There were also Soviet death camps at the same time where probably more people died than in Hitler's camps. The problem is that normally history is written by the victor. Germany lost and so there are better records.

Er, got to quibble on both of those.

The 3-4 million non-Jews who died in the Holocaust includes the Catholics and Lutherans and quite a few others. There definitely weren't 14 million Christians killed in the Holocaust. There weren't even 14 million people killed total, according to most accepted numbers.

Very specific nuance here. Stalin's labor/death camps accounted for a lot of dead people, but I'm not sure they exceeded the number who died in Hitler's camps. (Not sure they didn't, either.) Stalin _did_ probably kill more people than Hitler, but a lot of that comes from other things like forced starvation in Ukraine and things like that.

Don
03-12-2011, 01:13 AM
Millions of Dead Confederates? That's a band name (MDC) or a hedge fund name (MEGACORPUSMDC)?

For the Union Dead? No, that's Robert Lowell?

Alternative Nazi Confederate Aliens? The Same Nazi Confederate Aliens? All New Nazi Confederate Aliens? That's Harry Turtledove, right?

I give up.
North and South (http://www.johnjakes.com/northandsouth.htm)?

Williebee
03-12-2011, 01:22 AM
Ok, my bad. It wasn't Jakes. It was Harrison, "A Rebel in Time".

blacbird
03-12-2011, 01:31 AM
Well, Churchill gave half of Europe to the communists,

???????????

Churchill didn't "give" the Russians anything. The war ended with them having military occupation of what had been the entire Eastern Front. Where exactly do you get the idea that Churchill (or Roosevelt, for that matter) "gave" them anything?

Zoombie
03-12-2011, 01:39 AM
Alternative Nazi Confederate Aliens? The Same Nazi Confederate Aliens? All New Nazi Confederate Aliens? That's Harry Turtledove, right?

I give up.

No, no, Turtledove did WWII with magic, WWII against the confederates, WWII against aliens, and The Civil War with Magic.

Don
03-12-2011, 01:41 AM
???????????

Churchill didn't "give" the Russians anything. The war ended with them having military occupation of what had been the entire Eastern Front. Where exactly do you get the idea that Churchill (or Roosevelt, for that matter) "gave" them anything?
Well, there's the Potsdam Conference.

gothicangel
03-12-2011, 01:41 AM
WWII would definitely still have happened, Germany's economic situation couldn't have held out much longer. There was a lot of resentment bubbling under the surface over the Treaty of Versailles.

blacbird
03-12-2011, 02:00 AM
Well, there's the Potsdam Conference.

Which was little more than a public recognition of a fait accompli.

DavidZahir
03-16-2011, 04:57 PM
Churchill and FDR didn't "give" Stalin Eastern Europe because neither of them had it. Hitler did. Stalin took it from him by force. What Churchill and FDR did was recognize that was going to happen and there was nothing they could do to stop it short of starting WWIII.

Yeah, lots of non-Jews died in the Holocaust. Maybe as many or slightly more. Maybe. But over twice as many? I want to see evidence of that, because those numbers are bigger than all of Soviet casualties in the entire conflict--and that includes the invasions of Poland and Finland.

Maxx
03-16-2011, 06:00 PM
WWII would definitely still have happened, Germany's economic situation couldn't have held out much longer. There was a lot of resentment bubbling under the surface over the Treaty of Versailles.

Germany would have been much better off to have let its money devalue in the early 1930s. This would have let them trade and upgrade their industrial and agricultural base.

Instead, they chose deflation and defaulting on their loans and going to war with a crippled economy.

See Adam Tooze: the Wages of Destruction:

http://www.hbs.edu/bhr/archives/bookreviews/82/rtilly.pdf

Alexandermerow
04-03-2011, 04:31 PM
How come you are writing a story about Hitler if you have very limited knowledge of WWII?

That`s a good question. It would be the same, if I would write a story about atom physics - and I don`t know anything about atom physics...

Mr. House
04-04-2011, 07:44 PM
Hitler is not the only person who has killed millions of people. Mao and Stalin are a couple of others. Nor is ethnic cleansing something Hitler invented. It has been going on for thousands of years and still continues.

Would the Holocaust have happened had Hitler not been born? Probably not. Would some other incident targeting an ethnic minority in Europe have happened instead? Most likely.