So Hitler dying in the Beer Hall Putsch is a very common point of divergence in alternate history (as well as all the other opportunities for Hitler to die or vanish, such as in WWI, but I find the BHP one more interesting), and probably for understandable reasons. It is a very easy and obvious divergence, just making one of the bullets fired at the putschists in 1923 hit him instead of someone else, and it has immediate and enormous ramifications because of just how influential Hitler was to world history. There's a few timelines about the idea, and plenty of threads about it - but I personally feel like that the potential of the divergence is rather underused.
What I mean is that generally, as far as I've seen, timelines/proposals with this divergence follow one of two directions:
Hitler, obviously a horrible and disgusting individual, was, at least, uniquely gifted for the role he ended up playing in history, and achieved something that few of his accomplices could have achieved - keeping the German far right unified under a single leader and shaping into a vaguely common ideology which could then take power. At the same time, however, not everything in the rise of the NSDAP originated from Hitler's persona - Nazism did not reach the strength it did for no reason, it represented a niche. It represented the anxieties of the middle class radicalized by attempted socialist revolutions and the Great Depression that found the traditional liberal representatives of the middle class worthless and the DNVP too aristocratic - it was then joined by other radicalized demographics such as Protestant peasantry which found itself disappointed by the DNVP, nationalist working class voters, and upper class business or Junker elites who saw in Hitler a unifier of the political right and a gravedigger of the Weimar Republic... all of these demographics would still exist in similar shape and form. Hitler's death would not prevent the Great Depression, nor the downfall of the DNVP in 1924-1930 that arose from its internal infighting and inability to balance its sectional interests. The niche which was filled by the Nazis would still exist, and these voters - potentially millions of them - would not simply vanish after Hitler's death.
The middle ground that I am thinking of, and one that is somewhat missed out on, is Nazism as a pervasive, heterogeneous far-right current which threatens the Weimar Republic and contributes to its instability.
Ok, some explanations.
Nazism After Hitler
The Beer Hall Putsch was a watershed moment for the NSDAP (a weird thing to write now that I look back, but whatever.). It marked a complete turn in the party's strategy - Hitler, who had previously seen himself as an agitator for another strongman such as Ludendorff, was uplifted by the enormous press interest during his trial that he decided to make the gamble of going independent and trying to become that leader of the far right - which he succeeded at, but in 1925, it was an insane move to make. The NSDAP abandoned its previous goal of bringing forth a putsch in an alliance with conservative-reactionary forces and instead decided to subvert the Republic from within by participating in electoralism.
By 1923, Hitler had impressed the far right enough that he managed to unify them around himself after his release two years later in spite of being severed from politics during that time. In a timeline where he dies during the Beer Hall Putsch, he'd understandably be revered by the entire far right as its progenitor and martyr, but he would obviously be unable to shape Nazism in the direction he wants.
So, instead, Nazism would continue with the direction it went during the "Verbotzeit", the period between the Beer Hall Putsch and Hitler's release from Landsberg Prison. In this period, the NSDAP essentially divided itself into three directions:
Even with Hitler, the divergences between the two main groups, DVFP/NSFP and GVG, became effectively official in mid 1924, when the former decided to officially merge the Nazi Party with Graefe and Ludendorff's movement into the National Social Freedom Movement (NSFB) and the latter refused to follow. Without Hitler to return and restore the original Nazi Party, these two halves would permanently break off.
So, Nazism splits into three, each one with a different approach on how to achieve "Hitler's vision".
Nazi Leaders After Hitler
I've already basically hinted at who would be the likely main leaders of Nazism after Hitler's death, but I have a bit more to say here.
There is a trend I notice of assuming that Hitler, if he were to die in 1923, would be replaced by one of his famous lieutenants from his OTL regime - but this is putting the cart before the horse. It is true that most of them (Goebbels would be the major exception) were already involved with the Nazi Party before 1923 and had made a name for themselves in the party, but them rising to power during Hitler's leadership absolutely does not mean that they would be equally able to rise without him.
Take Göring, for example. Commander of the SA at time of the Putsch and with a charm of his own, who later became Hitler's second in command and, for a time, his designated successor. Most likely completely irrelevant in this scenario. Missed the party reformation period entirely and had few contacts among the post-Putsch parties, so he was only reinstated to influence after Hitler's return and takeover of the party. If he ever manages to return to Germany, he could still end up in the Reichstag somehow, but he isn't going to get very high, in my opinion.
The likely leading figures in the Nazi movement after Hitler are those figures who were more independent of Hitler's control and who had their own followings, separate from Hitler. It won't be the figures who entered the party because they were enamoured by Hitler specifically and became his blind followers - they would be those, such as Strasser or Rohm, who weren't completely sold by his allure and who retained their own agendas.
I've already mentioned a few. Gregor Strasser, Julius Streicher and Ernst Rohm might be, in my opinion, the most likely ones. Ironically, if you want to look at it from a weird character study perspective (though still keeping in mind that everyone here are, well, Nazis) Strasser and Streicher are almost foils of one another - a very capable and personally affable, if a bit dull and unintellectual administrator and manager who worked best as the organizer to a more capable agitator, whose ultimate downfall came because of his rather odd dedication to working with the reactionary right and thus severe miscalculation, versus a loud-mouthed, toxic agitator who used to hold a fanatical following much like Hitler had, yet was despised by almost everyone outside of his circle, and who had all of Hitler's taste for political gambles yet none of his acumen or senses.
Of course, that's not everyone. Fritz Sauckel and Artur Dinter, who built up their own fairly notable following in Thuringia independently of the Nazi boiler in Bavaria, might end up propelled to relevance, and the North German Directory, without being choked out by Hitler in early 1925, would probably also make some splash in the overall Nazi constellation.
Nazism After Disintegration
These different currents would fight amongst themselves, merge and splinter based on personalities and differing interpretations of National Socialism throughout the 1920s. Most notably, in my opinion, I feel Strasser's alliance with Ludendorff and Graefe would prove short lived even without Hitler - the rift between him and Ludendorff had already become very wide by 1925, and while he had become one of the most influential men in the NSFB, Ludendorff was completely incompetent in electoral politics and botched his 1925 election bid. It's fairly realistic that at that point, Strasser would choose to either take over the party, bolt, or unify with another far-right constellation, taking much of the former Nazi Party with him. He'd have several options - perhaps find a working relationship with Rohm, or work with the North German Directory (the gauleiters who came from there would end up a core part of his 1926 revolt against Hitler, so they could historically cooperate).
It wouldn't necessarily have to be him in charge. It's possible to imagine Wilhelm Frick, or even something weird like Fritz Sauckel or Adalbert Volck, to hold the leading position with Strasser as party administrator and power holder. Such a constellation, if it holds the activists which Strasser recruited OTL, like Himmler and Goebbels, would be fairly capable - not as much as Hitler's NSDAP, but it could pack a punch in the Reichstag.
Alternatively, the NSFB's defeat in the 1924 December elections and Ludendorff's crash in the 1925 presidentials could convince Rohm that electoralism is a doomed path and abandon previous cooperation with the electoralists, instead forming some sort of antiparliamentary front with Streicher and Esser. Pulling the Directory to their side, and maybe aligning other far-right paramilitaries like the Wehrwolf or Bund Wiking, would form a fairly strong extremist, revolutionary alliance (an unstable one, sure, but still).
Or neither of those things can happen.
Whatever the direction, the Great Depression would still be an enormous boon to the far right and the Nazi organizations as well. Without Hitler and without party unity, there's no chance for them to repeat the enormous 1930 election result - but that is not the point. Even an election result a bit under 10% of the vote between all Nazi parties (which is possible - a lot of radicalized voters who weren't interested in the KPD or DNVP to go around) would still be by far the most successful result for the Nazi movement in its history and bring thousands into their ranks.
What really matters here, keeping this in mind, is that Nazism would be much more revolutionary in this scenario. Not "socialist" revolutionary, but "seeking to violently overthrow the state" revolutionary. You would have at least a large fraction of the movement which rejects parliamentary politics and seeks to overthrow the state without a Hitler to force them into the path of legality, and you would have a fully independent Frontbann, which, much like Rohm imagined, would pursue the agenda of state overthrow.
And that would be bad news for the Weimar Republic. Now, to be clear, the rise of the Nazi Party was anything but peaceful in our timeline - street clashes, murders and assaults were a weekly occurrence, and actively destabilized the state. However, this would be heterogeneous, multipolar movement dedicated specifically to hastening state overthrow. I'm personally picturing something like the Years of Lead (which, granted, Weimar Germany did resemble), against a persistent far-right movement.
...
Jesus, this post was too long.
I suppose, what do you think? Do you have any ideas, thoughts, issues, or anything else to add?
What I mean is that generally, as far as I've seen, timelines/proposals with this divergence follow one of two directions:
- Someone else from Hitler's entourage takes his mantle and leads the Nazi party to victory, sometimes even repeating the same method with which he took power in our timeline (which is particularly questionable, since so much about the 1929-1933 period was shaped by the kind of person Hitler was - a person who always rested his career, movement and later whole regime on massive live-or-die gambles and constantly tested his luck - which wouldn't necessarily be repeated by another person)
- The NSDAP disintegrates and completely vanishes, and is written off in favour of another outcome for Germany entirely, whether democratic or authoritarian. More often the latter, it seems, but that's beyond the scope of this topic.
Hitler, obviously a horrible and disgusting individual, was, at least, uniquely gifted for the role he ended up playing in history, and achieved something that few of his accomplices could have achieved - keeping the German far right unified under a single leader and shaping into a vaguely common ideology which could then take power. At the same time, however, not everything in the rise of the NSDAP originated from Hitler's persona - Nazism did not reach the strength it did for no reason, it represented a niche. It represented the anxieties of the middle class radicalized by attempted socialist revolutions and the Great Depression that found the traditional liberal representatives of the middle class worthless and the DNVP too aristocratic - it was then joined by other radicalized demographics such as Protestant peasantry which found itself disappointed by the DNVP, nationalist working class voters, and upper class business or Junker elites who saw in Hitler a unifier of the political right and a gravedigger of the Weimar Republic... all of these demographics would still exist in similar shape and form. Hitler's death would not prevent the Great Depression, nor the downfall of the DNVP in 1924-1930 that arose from its internal infighting and inability to balance its sectional interests. The niche which was filled by the Nazis would still exist, and these voters - potentially millions of them - would not simply vanish after Hitler's death.
The middle ground that I am thinking of, and one that is somewhat missed out on, is Nazism as a pervasive, heterogeneous far-right current which threatens the Weimar Republic and contributes to its instability.
Ok, some explanations.
Nazism After Hitler
The Beer Hall Putsch was a watershed moment for the NSDAP (a weird thing to write now that I look back, but whatever.). It marked a complete turn in the party's strategy - Hitler, who had previously seen himself as an agitator for another strongman such as Ludendorff, was uplifted by the enormous press interest during his trial that he decided to make the gamble of going independent and trying to become that leader of the far right - which he succeeded at, but in 1925, it was an insane move to make. The NSDAP abandoned its previous goal of bringing forth a putsch in an alliance with conservative-reactionary forces and instead decided to subvert the Republic from within by participating in electoralism.
By 1923, Hitler had impressed the far right enough that he managed to unify them around himself after his release two years later in spite of being severed from politics during that time. In a timeline where he dies during the Beer Hall Putsch, he'd understandably be revered by the entire far right as its progenitor and martyr, but he would obviously be unable to shape Nazism in the direction he wants.
So, instead, Nazism would continue with the direction it went during the "Verbotzeit", the period between the Beer Hall Putsch and Hitler's release from Landsberg Prison. In this period, the NSDAP essentially divided itself into three directions:
- Those who continued the pre-putsch policy of cooperation with the conservative-nationalist right and opted to unify the disparate Nazi elements with the reactionaries, specifically the Deutschvolkische Freiheitspartei (DVFP) led by Erich Ludendorff and Albrecht von Graefe. This was the direction which Gregor Strasser went towards, positioning himself as Hitler's deputy and trying to pull as much of the Bavarian NSDAP into a Volkisch-Social Block with the DVFP - this was where other future high-ranking Nazis like Hess and Frick went as well. The DVFP was an odd entity that encapsulates the difficult transition from pre-war old school far-right to the modern fascist far-right during the 1920s - it was a party led by old parliamentarians who were much more accustomed to personality-based politics of the Imperial era, yet their membership was staffed by violent activists who cared little for such "parties of dignitaries" or bloodlines and desired action. Ultimately, it floundered, but it gained some ground in the 1924-1925 timeframe, before Hitler's return.
- Those who abandoned electoral politics and cooperation with the conservative-reactionary right. This was the Großdeutsche Volksgemeinschaft (GVG) led by Julius Streicher and Hermann Esser, who loudly proclaimed loyalty to the ideas of Hitler and anti-parliamentarism, painted their agitation with a bit more red, and aimed to build a tight-knit national revolutionary movement which could serve as Hitler's loyal backing after his return. Streicher and Esser were not particularly liked, both rather toxic and unlikeable personalities even beyond being, well, Nazis, and so it wasn't particularly prominent. However, after his release, Hitler primarily relied on them to rebuild the Nazi Party - GVG leaders such as Franz Xaver Schwarz, Philipp Bouhler or Max Amann were awarded key positions in party management.
- Those who abandoned partisan politics entirely. Ernst Rohm went to this direction. The SA, refounded as the Frontbann, may have cooperated with Ludendorff's presidential campaign and with the DVFP (later the NSFP) in parliamentary elections, but it was essentially an independent Nazi organization and Rohm intended to keep it this way. Without Hitler to bow him into surrendering control over the paramilitary and thus subsequently push him to exile, nobody else would really be able to convince him to give up his control over the Frontbann or the idea of its operational independence, so it would stay as such.
Even with Hitler, the divergences between the two main groups, DVFP/NSFP and GVG, became effectively official in mid 1924, when the former decided to officially merge the Nazi Party with Graefe and Ludendorff's movement into the National Social Freedom Movement (NSFB) and the latter refused to follow. Without Hitler to return and restore the original Nazi Party, these two halves would permanently break off.
So, Nazism splits into three, each one with a different approach on how to achieve "Hitler's vision".
Nazi Leaders After Hitler
I've already basically hinted at who would be the likely main leaders of Nazism after Hitler's death, but I have a bit more to say here.
There is a trend I notice of assuming that Hitler, if he were to die in 1923, would be replaced by one of his famous lieutenants from his OTL regime - but this is putting the cart before the horse. It is true that most of them (Goebbels would be the major exception) were already involved with the Nazi Party before 1923 and had made a name for themselves in the party, but them rising to power during Hitler's leadership absolutely does not mean that they would be equally able to rise without him.
Take Göring, for example. Commander of the SA at time of the Putsch and with a charm of his own, who later became Hitler's second in command and, for a time, his designated successor. Most likely completely irrelevant in this scenario. Missed the party reformation period entirely and had few contacts among the post-Putsch parties, so he was only reinstated to influence after Hitler's return and takeover of the party. If he ever manages to return to Germany, he could still end up in the Reichstag somehow, but he isn't going to get very high, in my opinion.
The likely leading figures in the Nazi movement after Hitler are those figures who were more independent of Hitler's control and who had their own followings, separate from Hitler. It won't be the figures who entered the party because they were enamoured by Hitler specifically and became his blind followers - they would be those, such as Strasser or Rohm, who weren't completely sold by his allure and who retained their own agendas.
I've already mentioned a few. Gregor Strasser, Julius Streicher and Ernst Rohm might be, in my opinion, the most likely ones. Ironically, if you want to look at it from a weird character study perspective (though still keeping in mind that everyone here are, well, Nazis) Strasser and Streicher are almost foils of one another - a very capable and personally affable, if a bit dull and unintellectual administrator and manager who worked best as the organizer to a more capable agitator, whose ultimate downfall came because of his rather odd dedication to working with the reactionary right and thus severe miscalculation, versus a loud-mouthed, toxic agitator who used to hold a fanatical following much like Hitler had, yet was despised by almost everyone outside of his circle, and who had all of Hitler's taste for political gambles yet none of his acumen or senses.
Of course, that's not everyone. Fritz Sauckel and Artur Dinter, who built up their own fairly notable following in Thuringia independently of the Nazi boiler in Bavaria, might end up propelled to relevance, and the North German Directory, without being choked out by Hitler in early 1925, would probably also make some splash in the overall Nazi constellation.
Nazism After Disintegration
These different currents would fight amongst themselves, merge and splinter based on personalities and differing interpretations of National Socialism throughout the 1920s. Most notably, in my opinion, I feel Strasser's alliance with Ludendorff and Graefe would prove short lived even without Hitler - the rift between him and Ludendorff had already become very wide by 1925, and while he had become one of the most influential men in the NSFB, Ludendorff was completely incompetent in electoral politics and botched his 1925 election bid. It's fairly realistic that at that point, Strasser would choose to either take over the party, bolt, or unify with another far-right constellation, taking much of the former Nazi Party with him. He'd have several options - perhaps find a working relationship with Rohm, or work with the North German Directory (the gauleiters who came from there would end up a core part of his 1926 revolt against Hitler, so they could historically cooperate).
It wouldn't necessarily have to be him in charge. It's possible to imagine Wilhelm Frick, or even something weird like Fritz Sauckel or Adalbert Volck, to hold the leading position with Strasser as party administrator and power holder. Such a constellation, if it holds the activists which Strasser recruited OTL, like Himmler and Goebbels, would be fairly capable - not as much as Hitler's NSDAP, but it could pack a punch in the Reichstag.
Alternatively, the NSFB's defeat in the 1924 December elections and Ludendorff's crash in the 1925 presidentials could convince Rohm that electoralism is a doomed path and abandon previous cooperation with the electoralists, instead forming some sort of antiparliamentary front with Streicher and Esser. Pulling the Directory to their side, and maybe aligning other far-right paramilitaries like the Wehrwolf or Bund Wiking, would form a fairly strong extremist, revolutionary alliance (an unstable one, sure, but still).
Or neither of those things can happen.
Whatever the direction, the Great Depression would still be an enormous boon to the far right and the Nazi organizations as well. Without Hitler and without party unity, there's no chance for them to repeat the enormous 1930 election result - but that is not the point. Even an election result a bit under 10% of the vote between all Nazi parties (which is possible - a lot of radicalized voters who weren't interested in the KPD or DNVP to go around) would still be by far the most successful result for the Nazi movement in its history and bring thousands into their ranks.
What really matters here, keeping this in mind, is that Nazism would be much more revolutionary in this scenario. Not "socialist" revolutionary, but "seeking to violently overthrow the state" revolutionary. You would have at least a large fraction of the movement which rejects parliamentary politics and seeks to overthrow the state without a Hitler to force them into the path of legality, and you would have a fully independent Frontbann, which, much like Rohm imagined, would pursue the agenda of state overthrow.
And that would be bad news for the Weimar Republic. Now, to be clear, the rise of the Nazi Party was anything but peaceful in our timeline - street clashes, murders and assaults were a weekly occurrence, and actively destabilized the state. However, this would be heterogeneous, multipolar movement dedicated specifically to hastening state overthrow. I'm personally picturing something like the Years of Lead (which, granted, Weimar Germany did resemble), against a persistent far-right movement.
...
Jesus, this post was too long.
I suppose, what do you think? Do you have any ideas, thoughts, issues, or anything else to add?
Dull was perhaps not the most correct choice of words, but Strasser was, as stated here before even, much more of a political operator, and far from the risk-driven ideologue that Hitler was.
