How would Nazism look like without USSR?

[Yankeewolf]

Failure of the Bolshevik revolution somehow would make Baltic German racism towards their Slavic and Finno-Ugric neighbors disappear? Or it will make freshly independent Baltic republics more willing to keep German former nobility around for reasons?

German exodus from the Baltic states was not connected to existence or non-existence of the Soviet Union. It was connected to break up of Russian Empire and locals lack of patience towards former privileged groups that ruled over them (which included German colonists).

You're not getting plans for mass enslavement or extermination if the guys you're fighting are literally Russian Nobility(aka german nobility).

If the guys behind the Russland division or the Danish Waffen SS are still in positions of prominence in Russia, then you've already *got* the prototypical ideal of GPO!

 

[mjwebb76]

The NSDAP as we know would not exist and if it did exist it would never attain power. My argument is as follows: the most important aspect of Nazi ideology was preventing another November 1918. I would suggest this was even more important their racial insanity.

November 1918 was a direct result of the October (1917) Revolution in several ways. Thus, let us imagine that the October 1917 Revolution does not occur (assume Lenin is shot in the July days). This almost certainly means that the Russian army hangs and continues to muddle along. Furthermore the constituent assembly will happen in Nov 1917 and will likely lead to a Left SR government which will again try to continue the way in some ways. This will continue to consume troops in the east and make the spring 1918 offensive even less successful (fewer troops). This will likely lead to a quicker and more complete collapse of the German Army in 1918 such that allied and perhaps even Russian soldiers are able to invade Germany. Recall that IOTL the end of the way occurred when revolution broke out in Germany, the Kaiser abdicated and the Germans sought an armistice so that they could get their troops back to Germany to keep the far left from taking over. Given the example of what had happened to Russia the year before, the allies also favored this outcome. If the allies do not have the mortal terror of communism taking over in Germany, chances are greatly increased that they press a true victory and thus the stab in the back theory never occurs. Hitler and his ilk know and grudgingly accept they there were defeated in 1918.

Even if something like Nov 1918 occurs or some other "lost cause" type myth emerges that forms the basis of a similar NSDAP it will never gain power without the USSR. A key factor that allowed the NSDAP to come to power was the fact that KDP (German Communist Party) acting on orders from Moscow would not form a coalition or in other ways support other left-wing parties. In 1925 for example, Wilhelm Marx (of the Centre party) would have won the Presidential Election if the KDP had supported him. In the 1930 Parliamentary elections there were obvious center-left coalitions (if the KDP would participate). Without the KDP there was basically no stable coalition possible. Without a USSR it seems likely the KDP will be smaller (no example to point to) and that it will likely cooperate with normal democratic procedures. Thus, the NSDAP never comes to power in the early 30s.

 

[The Banker]

You're not getting plans for mass enslavement or extermination if the guys you're fighting are literally Russian Nobility(aka german nobility).

If the guys behind the Russland division or the Danish Waffen SS are still in positions of prominence in Russia, then you've already *got* the prototypical ideal of GPO!

wait so was Nazism simply a wish to restore the pre 1918 days of German noble dominance over slavs?
was that an under the hood motivation for Nazism?

 

[The Link]

My take is the racial threat would be further developed. The nazi movement did not originate the racial views it pushed. Slavs were seen by many Deutch folk as both inferior and a threat. The tensions between the Germans and Cezchs in Bohemia is one example of this. To understand this we can take a look at the nazi propaganda line directed at the US. Instead of Jewish dominated Bolshivik slavs the US population were Jewish dominated racially mongrel wage slaves in a exploitive capitalist economy. Not like the Germans where proper Aryan Socialism took care of the working classes and middle classes.

So, the threat would not be Communists but a horde of Slavs here'd along by a corrupt and inbred aristocracy controlled by Jewish bankers or some such nonsense..

we also need to remember Hitler did not just describe a bolshivik threat in the east. He told a story of Germany surrounded by enemies. The French were not Communists but usually dominated by conservative governments. Absent a Communist USSR nothing changes in other directions. Jewish controlled enemies lurk in the form of the British and French empires.

Good points. The Germans viewed the Slavs as the inferior primitives turned into weapons by their judeo-bolshevik overlords. Despite all big talk about supposedly fighting only against the bolsheviks, the Germans were commiting the unspeakable atrocities upon the common Slavs as well, hating them with a passion. It wouldn't be hard to see the inhabitans of non-communist Russia being presented in a similar way.

The III Reich presented the western powers as the powers led by the jewish bankers who had pushed them into a war against Germany back in ww1. And as much as the typical "western races" weren't demonized, the western societies were presented as the tools used by the international jewry against Germany. And the Slavs would also be presented as manipulated by the jewry, but in more hateful way: as the primitives whom the Jews plan to turn against the Germans. It would simply be viewed as "less direct control" than in OTL: as the Jews diplomatically inciting the Slavs, rather than directly ruling them through commisars.

 

[kham_coc]

With a Tsarist or Liberal Russia, it's much more likely that France will have a powerful and committed ally on the continent though. With Russian support, they'd probably be more proactive in countering German revanchism.

Unless you are just handwaving the entire russian war effort, No.
Any Russia that emerges, is going to be revanchist, and not at all interested in maintaining the Versailles order.

This almost certainly means that the Russian army hangs and continues to muddle along.

Again, no, the collapse in the army wasn't dependent on the revolution - after the Kerensky offensive it was done. When the Bolsheviks tried to extend the war in OTL, the army simply melted away.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Unless you are just handwaving the entire russian war effort, No.
Any Russia that emerges, is going to be revanchist, and not at all interested in maintaining the Versailles order.

I said German revanchism. If France has a powerful ally on the continent, they'll be much fore confident in confronting the Germans and won't be as reliant on British support.

 

[kham_coc]

I said German revanchism. If France has a powerful ally on the continent, they'll be much fore confident in confronting the Germans and won't be as reliant on British support.

Yes, Russia isn't going to care about German revanchism.
They are going to want their lands back and beyond that who cares?
Lets be clear here, any 'white' regime that emerges out of the civil war isn't going to pay a Ruble of the Czarist debt, isn't going to be interested in maintaining a Versailles order that screwed them just as much as the Germans, and is going to be a lot more interested in going to war with Poland than fight Germany on behalf of France again.
Just as the USSR largely acted as the Russian empire would (in Geo-politics) any post Czarist regime is going to act like the USSR did, because they are going to be mostly the same people, facing the same national and strategic concerns.
The only real difference is that there isn't any ideas of spreading the revolution, but other than that, it's going to be, re-aquire a buffer to Petrograd, (Finlands and the Baltics) re-acquire their land (Belarus, and Ruthenia). They are simply far, far more likely to ally with Germany than with France.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Yes, Russia isn't going to care about German revanchism.
They are going to want their lands back and beyond that who cares?
Lets be clear here, any 'white' regime that emerges out of the civil war isn't going to pay a Ruble of the Czarist debt, isn't going to be interested in maintaining a Versailles order that screwed them just as much as the Germans, and is going to be a lot more interested in going to war with Poland than fight Germany on behalf of France again.
Just as the USSR largely acted as the Russian empire would (in Geo-politics) any post Czarist regime is going to act like the USSR did, because they are going to be mostly the same people, facing the same national and strategic concerns.
The only real difference is that there isn't any ideas of spreading the revolution, but other than that, it's going to be, re-aquire a buffer to Petrograd, (Finlands and the Baltics) re-acquire their land (Belarus, and Ruthenia). They are simply far, far more likely to ally with Germany than with France.

You're not understanding. I'm talking specifically about France. OTL, France's only major ally was Britain and they were reliant on British support to confront Germany. With Russia as an ally, they'll be in a stronger position and the French will be more willing to confront Germany if they try to throw off their Versailles restrictions. And no. Russia isn't going to ally with Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany is likely to be anti-Russian at it's core. Germany would be a much bigger threat to them.

 

[kham_coc]

With Russia as an ally,

But Russia would not be their ally. That's my point.

Russia isn't going to ally with Nazi Germany. Nazi Germany is likely to be anti-Russian at it's core. Germany would be a much bigger threat to them.

That might very well be true - But Russia is still not going to sign up to die for France to maintain an order that screws them just as much as the Germans.
If we go by OTL, they will strike the "Fuhrer-Vozhd" pact gobble up about the same territories, and then get scared when Germany trashes France.
Just think about it, why would Russia act in a different manner to Russia?
It's mostly the same people making about the same analysis based on about the same preconceptions and strategic considerations.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

But Russia would not be their ally. That's my point.

That might very well be true - But Russia is still not going to sign up to die for France to maintain an order that screws them just as much as the Germans.
If we go by OTL, they will strike the "Fuhrer-Vozhd" pact gobble up about the same territories, and then get scared when Germany trashes France.
Just think about it, why would Russia act in a different manner to Russia?
It's mostly the same people making about the same analysis based on about the same preconceptions and strategic considerations.

It's more likely that the Central European states end up on the chopping block. The reason France allied with them was as a check on Germany. Having a unified Russian Empire in the east as an ally is preferable. Self-determination was an American project anyways.

 

[The Link]

I think you're forgetting the fact that in OTL the formations of post-war borders of Eastern Europe (except for the territorial losses of Germany of course), had been happening completely separately from the conversations in Versailles, the conversations which were exclusively about Germany and Germany alone. So setting up the uncomfortable conditions for Germany does not contradict trying to be at good terms with Russia.

The main problem here would be Poland, toward which the French had bilateral feelings in OTL. On one hand, France enjoyed the reemergence of Poland as a new way to keep Germany in check, as a replacement for Russia. But on the other hand France still hoped that the Soviets might lose the Russian Civil War, and the French pressured the Poles to militarily support the whites, something Poland was not willing to do because of whites refusing to recognize independent Poland. If Russia doesn't turn communist, then France will be definitely favoring the Russians over the Poles in the role of anti-german ally in the east... But then again, Poland would be necessary to weaken Germany by cutting East Prussia out of the rest of Germany. I suppose that the French could try to pressure the Poles to give away some lands in the east to Russia, in exchange for more gains at the cost of Germany in a more radical Treaty of Versailles. Remember, Poland is only beginning to form her borders, so the Poles would see the concessions in the east not as any shameful giving up the lands, but merely as not trying to get them in the first place. The main polish politician representing the Poles in Versailles, Roman Dmowski, largely supported the concept of "Piast Poland" and saw the east as something secondary for the polish interests, so he could mediate in such deal. He always saw Germany as a far bigger threat and opted for cooperation with Tsarist Russia.

 

[thaddeus]

this scenario is like a jigsaw puzzle with 1,000 pieces (and no picture on the box), what exactly is the government of Russia and what is the status (and extent) of Poland? the answer to those two questions would determine any Nazi Party.

it seems to me there would be a parallel to the Warlord Era China within the historical USSR, and Poland would be somewhat enlarged (akin to their greatest advances during the historical Polish-Soviet War.) if we are just going to handwave a Russian Republic into stability, then of course France would favor that (or rely on that) over Poland however if chaos and instability occur (my vote), that might not be an option for most of the interwar period.