If Hitler died in WWI, would there have still been a Führer?

Jun 2015
5,620
UK
#31
Oh he was... 4 years in the army during a war and he makes it to corporal only... then a failed and disgruntled artist in Vienna.... then wrote a garbage book... and then of course we know how his political stint ended

"hypnotic in his ability to get others to do what he wanted without them fighting back or often even getting upset" .... some said the same about Stalin... this sounds like an excuse for not standing up to these bullies.... Plus many german generals report some very tough discussions with Hitler, with him going hysterical... what, his hypnotic powers faded ?

Superb speaker ? Really ? We have videos, and there is nothing suberb about his speaking...Anyone trying that today would be laughed off the stage.. Lots of smoke and mirrors , so its really the guys who directed/staged this who are the geniuses for making this guy appear great... Remember with the right set up teen age girls will throw their panties at the likes of Justin Bieber.... and even Mussolini got his moments....
He signed up as an enlisted man. why would he become an officer? ONly the German aristocracy become officers, and even in Britain it worked on a similar process. It's only these days that officer ranks are chosen largely on merit and not status.
 
Mar 2015
813
Europe
#32
He signed up as an enlisted man. why would he become an officer? ONly the German aristocracy become officers, and even in Britain it worked on a similar process.
Yes, but the glass ceiling lay between sergeant and ensign, not corporal and sergeant.
Was promoting Hitler from corporal to sergeant ever considered? And does the lack of such a promotion tell anything about Hitler?
 
Dec 2014
385
Wales
#33
Oh he was... 4 years in the army during a war and he makes it to corporal only... then a failed and disgruntled artist in Vienna.... then wrote a garbage book... and then of course we know how his political stint ended

"hypnotic in his ability to get others to do what he wanted without them fighting back or often even getting upset" .... some said the same about Stalin... this sounds like an excuse for not standing up to these bullies.... Plus many german generals report some very tough discussions with Hitler, with him going hysterical... what, his hypnotic powers faded ?

Superb speaker ? Really ? We have videos, and there is nothing suberb about his speaking...Anyone trying that today would be laughed off the stage.. Lots of smoke and mirrors , so its really the guys who directed/staged this who are the geniuses for making this guy appear great... Remember with the right set up teen age girls will throw their panties at the likes of Justin Bieber.... and even Mussolini got his moments....
As far as I'm aware no-one has ever questioned Hitler's genius as an orator and self-propagandist. Even his enemies reported his skill, some even going so far as too claim being mesmerised by him. He could sway people, especially mobs, with real ability. The use of symbolism and effects would have been useless if the talent hadn't been there in the first place.
 
Jan 2018
70
Iowa
#34
I don't think what happened in Germany depended entirely on Hitler. An Authoritarian/Fascist government was likely to take over at some point. The details like the Final Solution and some of the other atrocities likely change depending on what the group in control looks like. If it involved Himler, Gobbles and Goering - it was going to look alot like Hitler even if it was not Hitler as the leader.

But WW2 was going to happen in Europe. Timing of events could certainly change as well.
 

Poly

Ad Honorem
Apr 2011
6,692
Georgia, USA
#35
Would Ernst Roehm (I assume I have the correct non-umlaut spelling there) have led the Nazis had Hitler not survived WWI ?

A former army officer, he might have understood that the generals needed to make the tactical decisions.
 
Jul 2016
8,471
USA
#36
Would Ernst Roehm (I assume I have the correct non-umlaut spelling there) have led the Nazis had Hitler not survived WWI ?

A former army officer, he might have understood that the generals needed to make the tactical decisions.
Not charismatic enough. He was a notorious brute, thug. Rank and file freikorps and SA Brown Shirts loved him because he'd actually wade into a street battle to lead from the front. But he wasn't a unifier, not somebody that other power elite opposing the Marxists and Socialists could say "He might be reasonable enough to ally with" (which Hitler appeared in the beginning). Also a homosexual in a county with quite a bit of homophobia.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
8,471
USA
#37
I don't think what happened in Germany depended entirely on Hitler. An Authoritarian/Fascist government was likely to take over at some point. The details like the Final Solution and some of the other atrocities likely change depending on what the group in control looks like. If it involved Himler, Gobbles and Goering - it was going to look alot like Hitler even if it was not Hitler as the leader.

But WW2 was going to happen in Europe. Timing of events could certainly change as well.
In 1933-1934, the choice was bad or worse, depending on which side you were on. Either a Marxist takeover of Reimar govt. Or else somebody extreme enough to stop them. That happened to be German National Socialists, who expounded enough socialist dogma to enthrall the lower classes liking the idea of axwelfare state that caters to their ethnicity (German), promoting traditional German qualities of dominence, efficiency, order, power, prestige, respect, militarily and economically, while acting as a counter to the Left to court the support of the traditional right, the industrialists, monarchists, military officer class, to rally behind.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,508
#38
In 1933-1934, the choice was bad or worse, depending on which side you were on. Either a Marxist takeover of Reimar govt. Or else somebody extreme enough to stop them. That happened to be German National Socialists, who expounded enough socialist dogma to enthrall the lower classes liking the idea of axwelfare state that caters to their ethnicity (German), promoting traditional German qualities of dominence, efficiency, order, power, prestige, respect, militarily and economically, while acting as a counter to the Left to court the support of the traditional right, the industrialists, monarchists, military officer class, to rally behind.
There simply was no prospect of a Communist take over. When push came to shove the SPD was willing to use force to put down the communists (as it did in 1919) as all other parties were willing to unite against the communists they would never have enough electoral support. The Nazis only got up because other parties were willing to work with them1, to hand them some power, and they did a deal with the Army, none of these tings were possible for the communists.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,508
#39
I don't think what happened in Germany depended entirely on Hitler. An Authoritarian/Fascist government was likely to take over at some point. The details like the Final Solution and some of the other atrocities likely change depending on what the group in control looks like. If it involved Himler, Gobbles and Goering - it was going to look alot like Hitler even if it was not Hitler as the leader.

But WW2 was going to happen in Europe. Timing of events could certainly change as well.
While there were a large prospect of teh an Authoritarian regime, it was unlikley to be anywhere near as extreme as the Nazis. And alomost certiany more cautious and less reckless.

The Nazis don't unify without Hitler and remain a fringe group,.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
15,709
SoCal
#40
While there were a large prospect of teh an Authoritarian regime, it was unlikley to be anywhere near as extreme as the Nazis. And alomost certiany more cautious and less reckless.

The Nazis don't unify without Hitler and remain a fringe group,.
Interestingly enough, I could see a non-Nazi authoritarian German regime starting a war with Poland over the Polish Corridor if Britain and France will refuse to fight on Poland's behalf. Still, in the grand scheme of things, I agree with you that a non-Nazi authoritarian German regime would have been more cautious--for instance, there wouldn't have been the desire to acquire the Sudetenland, or an occupation of Czechia (Bohemia and Moravia), or an invasion of the Soviet Union.
 

Similar History Discussions