NationStates Jolt Archive

Time for one of my all-time favourite things: Alternative history. The good thing about it is not only that it's fun to think about, but that good alternative history actually does a good job of explaining what really happened as well.
Like this one.

http://www.johnreilly.info/wwi.htm
[...]

Weimar culture would have happened even if there had been no Weimar Republic. We know this, since all the major themes of the Weimar period, the new art and revolutionary politics and sexual liberation, all began before the war. This was a major argument of the remarkable book, RITES OF SPRING, by the Canadian scholar, Modris Ekstein. There would still have been Bauhaus architecture and surrealist cinema and depressing war novels if the Kaiser had issued a victory proclamation in late 1918 rather than an instrument of abdication. There would even have been a DECLINE OF THE WEST by Oswald Spengler in 1918. He began working on it years before the war. The book was, in fact, written in part to explain the significance of a German victory. These things were simply extensions of the trends that had dominated German culture for a generation. They grew logically out of Nietzsche and Wagner and Freud. A different outcome in the First World War would probably have made the political right less suspicious of modernity, for the simple reason that left wing politics would not have been anywhere nearly as fashionable among artists as such politics were in defeat.

[...]

It's a bit of a long article, but well worth it.

So read it, and then tell me: Do you agree? Would something like the Nazi Party still have come to power in Germany?

What do you think the world would have been like?

Germany would be REALLY different, obviously.

The Nazi party came to power due to the terrible economic conditions in Germany. There would be no such crisis if Germany and its allies controlled virtually all of Europe, so no.

Can people please take the time and read the article first?

So read it, and then tell me: Do you agree? Would something like the Nazi Party still have come to power in Germany?

What do you think the world would have been like?Something like the NSDAP? Who knows how powerful the Dolchstoßlegende was to discredit the leftists.

Can people please take the time and read the article first?

I'm sorry; I'm not too big on rambling discourses about alternative history based on flimsy and insubstantial assumptions. The proper answer to any such question is: who the fuck knows?

I'm sorry; I'm not too big on rambling discourses about alternative history based on flimsy and insubstantial assumptions.
Well, you were quite quick to assert your own view though, weren't you.

Let me make this clear: The Nazis did not come to power because the economy was in the crapper. People often don't have a timeline in their heads, but the famous hyperinflation and all that stuff...it was all over by 1930 or so. The Nazis only came to power three years later!

By then the French had realised that they wouldn't get anything more out of Germany, so they stopped their bullying. Most of the reparations had been either cancelled or put off until future times.

It was two things that allowed the Nazis to come to power: the incompetence of the political establishment to get a working government together, and the "Weimar culture".

The article makes the point that the first reason wouldn't have mattered, because rather than a shaky democracy a militaristic autocratic government would already have existed, and the second would have occured anyways.

Those are not flimsy or baseless assumptions. If you don't believe in them, it would be up to you to properly disprove them.

I'd chose to demur here. Even if we posit that the fun stuff that preceeded the takeover of the Nazi party, they wouldn't have been able to get away with much of their shenanigans (coups would be looked down upon) and they would be missing an integral part of the Nazi party platform - namely, that the Jews caused them to lose the war. Without that, we wouldn't recognize them, Hitler would be a more moderate person, and there would have most likely not been a second world war. Hitler would have either have been coopted into a more moderate line or disregarded as a lunatic. Now, the French would be itching for another war, especially if they treated them like shite and there wasn't much of a resolution to the war, but that's another topic.

Germany would've probably became the most dominant power in the world, sort of like replacing Britain. Or at least rivaling Britain. In such a case it would probably lead to an eventual second world war anyways, just not with Nazis or the holocaust. America would eventually fight Japan, If America didn't get involved with the first world war, then its unlikley they'd fight Germany too, but if they did, then they'd probably help Britain battle Germany around the world. France would have probably been forced into a peace on Germany's terms, Central Europe would have much more power and would probably join the war when threatened by communism in Russia. Russia would probably end up conquering these Central European nations. Ottoman Empire would still fall. Germany would probably then collapse kind of like in the real world war two, but much much less devasting and bloody.

IIRC, Hitler fought in WW1. he was in a hospital when he heard the news of the German defeat, and Wrote Mein Kamph while being treated for chemical burns.

Whether or not the Nazis could have taken dictatorial power: I doubt it.

whether they would have been a political party: probably

Hitler was voted into power, and (as far as we know) his cronies burned the Reichstag and blamed it on the communist party. The rest of the nation believed him because, well: they had to have somebody to blame. Hitler declared emergency powers and started ruling as a dictator.


as far as alternatie history goes: say what you will about art and culture, it's Individuals who define eras. Hitler was the focal point of this movement, and the change in history you describe (WW1 having a different winner) had a significant impact in his life, and in his desire and ability to take control.

the bottom line: no. I don't think National Socialism would have taken the hold that it did. I do think that it would have been a political player, but neutered, compared to the way it is now.

I read that article before. I find it interesting and quite probable, personally, that the Nazis would have arisen regardless of victory or defeat. What many people don't realize is that a lot of the economic damage was done during the war, not after it. Germany was sending fifteen year olds to the front lines by 1918, for the world's sake.

IIRC, Hitler fought in WW1. he was in a hospital when he heard the news of the German defeat, and Wrote Mein Kamph while being treated for chemical burns.
No, he wrote it while in prison after his first coup attempt (and it's spelled "Mein Kampf").

Having read the article, I believe the author puts too little weight on the economic and social pressures that spawned the Nazis and their supporters.

For instance, had Germany won WWI, I have little doubt that they would have imposed punitive "reparations" upon both Britain and France. But even if they had not, they still would not have been forced to PAY the reparations they were in reality; nor would they have had their most productive industrial zone, the Ruhr, occupied by France for no good reason for months. The ultimate result of this would have been that the Great Depression of 1928 would have hit much less hard than it did, ergo, no hyperinflation, no total loss of confidence by the banks in the Weimar government (one British banker aid he "wouldn't lend Bismarck my pocket change"), no complete loss of confidence in their government by the German people.

Further, had Germany won, while they might well still have deposed Kaiser Wilhelm II, they also might not have wound up with the ugly, badly designed governmental system they slapped together in 1919. They might even have created a Constitutional Monarchy. Either way, the poorly conceived government that proved so easy to subvert from within for Hitler could have been a much more stable form of democracy.

Radical solutions appeal to people in radical situations. If the German people had not been forced into a radical position by the short-sighted, stupid policies of the French and British, they would not, I think, have embraced the radical politics of the far right.

Can people please take the time and read the article first?
I wont read it but, no.

If Germany had won Keiser Wilhelm would have still held the German throne so no i don't believe it would have happened.

The Nazi's would not have been in power that is for sure.

No, he wrote it while in prison after his first coup attempt (and it's spelled "Mein Kampf").

gotcha, but the point still remains:

I doubt he would have even attempted a coup in the first place had he not become disenfranchised with the current Gov. losing the war.


[edit] just looked it up: he was admitted to an army field hospital after suffering temporary blindnesson October 15. the Armistice was declared on November 11.

Without the loss of faith in the political establishment caused by the war, I doubt the Nazis would have come to power.

Though, admittedly, Japan and Italy suffered no such defeat.

If you don't believe in them, it would be up to you to properly disprove them.

Actually the burden of proof is on both you and MeansToAnEnd. You both made claims therefore both of you need to prove your claims. Also, you're both pretty much screwed because you can't prove it one way or the other since you can't go back in time and somehow make Germany win WWI and see who, if either of you, is correct.

While the cultural effects or lack thereof are an interesting point, I don't think Hitler could have come to power in a battered Second Reich begining to rebuild itself. The government would have been the government that had smashed France in 1815 and 1915: there would be no need for a "stab in the back" theory since the entente had been stabbed in the front. It would've been an innately conservative political environment, not an ideal place for a madman with good public speaking and some armed goons to seize power.

I probably made a mistake in making the thread (and poll) sound a certain way.

Rather than "would the Nazis have come to power", I should have said "would someone like the Nazis have come to power".

We'd all be speaking Polish.

The downfall of democracy was caused of the weak governments, which couldn't handle the economy, and not by losing WW I.

In the treaty of Versaille, Germany had to pay huge reparations. But in fact, the former allies didn't enforce this. The payements Germany did weren't so high, and it wasn't a burden for the economy. And as long the economy was stable, the right wing parties weren't very powerful, even with the "Dolchstoßlegende".

The reason for the depression was a crisis in the USA. After this, American buissnessman took back all the money they have invested in Germany, so the economy broke down in Germany as well. This would happend, even if the Germany had won WW I.

But perhaps, Germany would still be a monarchy. So if there would be a crisis in the government, the people wouln't go to the right. I think a communistic Germany would be much more probable in this case.

I read it all. I reamain unconvinced.

I will say that if Germany had had a better result, WW II would certainly have been different.

The key to the whole argument seems to be this:
Weimar culture would have happened even if there had been no Weimar Republic.

Granted, to some extent. But the whole article hinges on the idea that Weimar culture sans the exact political background of a humiliated Germany would have had virtually the exact same result. I can't buy that.