Did Hitler's unique Personality precipitate the disaster of WW2 on the world
- Thread starter hammo1j
- Start date
The post war settlement was unique and fundamentally flawed. It was a peace made against the two great powers of central and Eastern Europe, Germany and Russia. It was inevitable that one or both would recover in whatever political form they took, and would challenge the post war settlement. A non Hitler less racist regime such as a more authoritarian nationalist or monarchist regime may still pursue similar ambitions and therefore war against its neighbours, leading to another world war.
Hitler was fanatical and ideologically driven (as many people and political leaders are) but he wasn’t mentally ill. To answer your question if Hitler didn’t take charge of Germany in 1933 for one reason or another there certainly wouldn’t have been as large of a war or anywhere near as many atrocities. Hitler didn’t magically do this all by himself of course. He had Himmler, Goering, Goebbels etc along with the support of the majority of the German population and the Wehrmacht but it’s hard to imagine a regime as evil and conquest obsessed as Nazi Germany taking control if Hitler and the Nazi Party faded into obscurity for one reason or another. Very few political entities have come close to the Third Reich in terms of scope, scale, ideology and intent.
I think you are near the mark. A smarter leader of an authoritarian and openly antisemitic regime could pursue similar goals in terms of rearmanent and regaining lost German lands. Possibly with a better economic and diplomatic performance.
Whether that leads to a world war is less in my view uncertain. A clever Notzi Germany could possibly avoid a war on two fronts. Maybe even get Anglo-French neutrality in a war against Communism?
Garrison
Donor
Problem with that is Versailles was being undone well before Hitler, WWII was the product of Hitler's obsessions and I seriously doubt any other authoritarian regime would have been so reckless.
They wanted Versailles undone, but they don't seem to have particularly wanted *war*. Indeed quite the reverse.
When war appeared imminent in 1938, Goebbels noted (disapprovingly) the general mood of depression among the German public. Much of Hitler's popularity rested on his initial success in getting concessions *without* war.
Last edited:
Garrison
Donor
As @Mikestone8 pointed out the German public were depressed by the prospect of war in 1938 and every bit as elated by the Munich Agreement as the British public. In the aftermath of Munich many senior figures in Germany were declaring that it was time for a period of consolidation and to rebalance the economy to boost the civilian sector and export industries. Only Adolf Hitler was disappointed that war hadn't come and in 1939 there was no political or economic reason for Germany to go to war outside of Hitler's warped world view. Had Germany stuck to its promises after Munich there would have been no war.
Lucius Verus
Banned
Just the minor issue that the unsteady and mismanaged Nazi economy required looting to sustain and most people in power wanted a strong military.
Garrison
Donor
Not so much in 1938, the very same people who had been willing to go along with expedients like MEFO bills to finance rearmament and felt that it was imperative to restore some semblance of financial normality while they still could. Now Germany might have been heading for an economic crisis either way but they certainly weren't in favour of any military adventures that would just make matters worse.
Lucius Verus
Banned
And they were promptly shown the door in a display of how little power they had. 1938 was when they had to pay in cash, so they choose the dumb plan of exports to earn cash and still breakneck military production.
While it is true that the people (besides Hitler) who realized that rearmament would be economically ruinous in a few years time and advocated for rearmament to be scaled back were either sidelined or canned, that doesn't mean the remaining German leadership (again, besides Hitler) regarded going to war as a prudent measure. Most in the Nazi Hierarchy and the Wehrmacht leadership wanted to take Munich as the final triumph in the restoration of German greatness and cash in. Embarking on a war was not a gamble they were willing to make without a charismatic leader utterly devoted too it leading them into it by the nose as Hitler did.
You are correct that removing Hitler in late-'38 would not remove the problems that Germany suffered from, but it does remove most of the will to resolve those problems through an extremely risky war. The belief that war was a valid way to solve problems was widespread among the German leadership, but the belief that Germany could win it was not. That being the case, a bevy of senior people were always going to advise - strenuously - against a war regardless of the prevailing economic situation, and without a leader as driven as Hitler, it's likely the political leadership of Germany would have backed off.
Last edited:
WWI had the strange effect of strengthening Germany’s position in Europe.
Britain and France were weaker than Germany in 1914 and on the decline relative to Germany demographically. Even without lands lost after WWI, Germany had about the same population vis a vis France in 1938 (before annexing Austria) as it did in 1914. As a result even after losing to their alliance in WWI, Germany still had the potential to defeat Britain/France in WWII.
Russia had been on the rise faster than Germany, but they lost more land than Germany from WWI, Russia had far more death than Germany from WWI spill over, Poland created a buffer from Russia, and Communism left Russia fairly isolated.
Austria-Hungary was gone and the smaller states could be dominated by Germany. Italy fell into Germany’s lap over Ethiopia. Spain is more likely to align with any Germany Monarchy or generic Fascist regime than with France.
All the while Versailles was coming undone gradually. Austria was annexed without a fight to give Germany a nice little powerup. The Sudetenland and Memel came to Germany without a fight.
Things look pretty easy for Germany to establish itself as the dominant power in Europe without a fight. If it gets greedy it can get Memel and the Sudetenland without a fight with hindsight. Germany can dominate Central Europe and the Balkans by offering protection from the Soviet Union and each other while offering trade. Southern Europe’s dictators have more in common with Germany than Britain or France. As long as Germany is an honest partner it can keep itself as the most important country In Central Europe, Southern Europe, and the Balkans. Western Europe will be content to have Germany as a shield from the Soviets as long as they seem satiated. WWI even strengthens Germany with long hindsight by removing it from future colonial conflicts.
Hitler’s initial success came in large part because most of Europe was ripe for the picking. A halfway capable statesmen will have Germany as Europe’s primary economic power and leader of its strongest continental alliance. No need to rock the boat from there. Even an aggressive leader can get Austria, the Sudetenland, and Memel without war along with a giant alliance and massive respect across Europe.
Hitler and the Nazi Party bear almost all responsibility for the war in Europe. Even Stalin and Mussolini thought they were making relatively safe moves with their early involvement. Hitler‘s pathologies and ideological obsessions caused the war and continued it long after Germany had conquered most of Europe.
Britain and France were weaker than Germany in 1914 and on the decline relative to Germany demographically. Even without lands lost after WWI, Germany had about the same population vis a vis France in 1938 (before annexing Austria) as it did in 1914. As a result even after losing to their alliance in WWI, Germany still had the potential to defeat Britain/France in WWII.
Russia had been on the rise faster than Germany, but they lost more land than Germany from WWI, Russia had far more death than Germany from WWI spill over, Poland created a buffer from Russia, and Communism left Russia fairly isolated.
Austria-Hungary was gone and the smaller states could be dominated by Germany. Italy fell into Germany’s lap over Ethiopia. Spain is more likely to align with any Germany Monarchy or generic Fascist regime than with France.
All the while Versailles was coming undone gradually. Austria was annexed without a fight to give Germany a nice little powerup. The Sudetenland and Memel came to Germany without a fight.
Things look pretty easy for Germany to establish itself as the dominant power in Europe without a fight. If it gets greedy it can get Memel and the Sudetenland without a fight with hindsight. Germany can dominate Central Europe and the Balkans by offering protection from the Soviet Union and each other while offering trade. Southern Europe’s dictators have more in common with Germany than Britain or France. As long as Germany is an honest partner it can keep itself as the most important country In Central Europe, Southern Europe, and the Balkans. Western Europe will be content to have Germany as a shield from the Soviets as long as they seem satiated. WWI even strengthens Germany with long hindsight by removing it from future colonial conflicts.
Hitler’s initial success came in large part because most of Europe was ripe for the picking. A halfway capable statesmen will have Germany as Europe’s primary economic power and leader of its strongest continental alliance. No need to rock the boat from there. Even an aggressive leader can get Austria, the Sudetenland, and Memel without war along with a giant alliance and massive respect across Europe.
Hitler and the Nazi Party bear almost all responsibility for the war in Europe. Even Stalin and Mussolini thought they were making relatively safe moves with their early involvement. Hitler‘s pathologies and ideological obsessions caused the war and continued it long after Germany had conquered most of Europe.
I think Hitler is the worst of both worlds: expansionist AND anti-Semitic. There were plenty of Germans who favored war to regain lost lands/gain new lands and there were plenty of Germans who hated Jews (and the other victims of the Holocaust) but Hitler was a horrible combination of both.
I don't think World War Two was set in stone by 1918, but didn't feel comfortable with any option but other.
Hitler's personality was hardly unique, but he did play a top role in causing the war. He possessed the exact right combination of political smarts, oratory skills, ideological conviction, luck, and capable subordinates which led Germany down the path of war.
I selected Other. My view is that a European conflict would have broken out at some point in the 30s or 40s, but not necessarily one started by a far-right revanchist Germany. The two most likely candidates in the absence of Hitler are Mussolini and Stalin; the former by his dream of Mare Nostrum; the latter likely by a conflict with Poland or another neighbor. If a non-Hitler/Nazi far right Germany arises, it is very unlikely that this alt WWII follows the exact same beats( e.g., as simple as listening to the Logistics officers of the Wehrmacht about the start-stop pattern that would plague Barbarossa's supply lines, and instead moving into a defensive posture against the Soviet Union. If a KPD led Germany like ala @The Red 's Our Struggle (minus communist Hitler) arises, a conflict with capitalist Europe may break out, although who the aggressor is I do not know. Another thing to consider; Japan, which will still likely invade China and the Asian colonies of the Europeans (include the American held Philippines in this category) due to IJA adventurism. The Pacific War will happen regardless of the situation in Europe; in the (unlikely) absence of a European conflict, one could argue that the Pacific War alone could satisfy the requirement of a "WWII" happening.
I think only Hitler really had both the Charisma to get into power and the brutality to really do all the awful shit. Goering was charismatic but not nearly as brutal and Himmler was brutal enough but was about as charismatic as a wet paper bag. Which goes for the vast majority of the Nazi Party I believe