|
Post by Ben Burgess on Jan 4, 2005 10:05:06 GMT -5
'What If?' can be considered one of the most popular questions in modern history. In fact, this question is so popular that it has virtual spawned its own subject, that of the 'alternative' history. It is for this reason that the long awaited second debate focuses on what is perhaps the biggest 'What If?' of the last century. What if Hitler had died? When?A) 1918 It is no stretch of the imagination to speculate that the would-be Fuhrer may have died in the trenches of the First World War. Had he done so where would Germany have found itself after the war? Surely the 1920's would have been the same? Would a different party have taken the place of the Nazis? Would Anton Drexler have become an inexclibably stronger character and led the German Workers Party to victory all the same? And perhaps more importantly, had Adolf Hitler not survived the First World War would there even have been a Second? B) 1934 1933, Hitler is 'elected' and declares that the Nazis will never be removed from power alive. Already intense rivalry is prevalent within the ranks of the NSDAP. Concentration camps have been in use throughout Germany for over a year as the party ruthlessly attempts to destroy any remaining opposition to the regime. And the Brownshirts are at the peak of their power. 1934. Hitler is assasinated by German communist revolutionaires as he leaves the Reichstag building in central Berlin. The event shocks Germany, leaving anti-Nazi opposition groups with the opportunity to strike. As well as this, Ernst Roehm, who has recently fallen foul of the Fuhrer and has been known to suggest 'counter-revolutionary' activities himself, finds the 4.5 million man army he created entirely in his own hands. Whilst Heinrich Himmler similarly inherits total, unquestionable control of the SS with highly trained men already positioned in every area of German life and the respected title of Reichsfuhrer SS already confered upon him. With Rudolf Hess nominated as Hitler's successor and the ambitious Martin Bormann immediately under him there are any number of possible outcomes to Hitler's death at this time. Although some may be considered more plausible than others. C) March 1941 The Hossbach Conference is finally coming to fruition. In just three months time that which Adolf Hitler claimed to be his 'unalterable will' and his political testament will begin. The great armies of the Third Reich will invade Russia. The operation, however, is ill concieved and disliked by many of Hitler's staff. They predict the vast nature of the country will result in the armies downfall, especially with wars to fight on other fronts. Surely they should just call off the advance and return their efforts to Sea Lion, the Operation dedicated to removing Britain from the war? Had Hitler not been around to give the order for Barbarossa in 1941 or, in fact, had he not been able to meddle in the campaigns which followed, how likely do you think it would be that the Second World War would have been entirely different, perhaps even down to the side which emerged victorious? Suggested links for research: Was Hitler Resposible for the Second World War? www.yoursites.co.uk/4.htmHitler: The Political Approach (1925) www.yoursites.co.uk/new_page_5.htmHitler and The Night of the Long Knives www.yoursites.co.uk/the_night_of_the_long_knives.htmHitler's involvement in Barbarossa www.yoursites.co.uk/5.htm
|
|
|
Post by Robert Kol on Jan 4, 2005 13:31:00 GMT -5
"What if" questions do not belong to the art of history, history is an art that strives to be a science. However, it never is going to achieve this aim. The "waht if" questions are of the pseudo--history sort and belong in the sciencefiction and not in the main stream history. If Hitler died during the attempt on his life late during World War II, it could possibly put countries like Poland, Czech Republic, or Slovakia under the German rule for a long time. However, we will never know. The Soviets were not too eager to fight once they reached area about 200 miles east of the Polish capitol of Warsaw. They knew very well that Poles would be against Communism not because they, for the most part, 'only' disliked the Communist ideals, but because they, for the most part, hated Russians (the Polish--Bolshevik War of 1919-1920 and the Russian participation in the September Campaign on the Nazi side agaisnt Poland -- NOTA BENE: Poland has never been overrun by a single enemy. I fully understand that the Germans could have done it on their own. However, they were forced to ask the Soviet Russia for help after instead of 7 days-parade through Poland, they experienced 17-days of bloody fighting, and their propaganda was unable to answer questions of the families who were asking: "Why did my relative die on the field trip to Poland?" The only time Poland was nearly overrun by a single enemy was when Sweden took nearly all of Poland except for one monastry and the high lands. The Grand Dutchy of Lithuania did try to leave the Federation with the Polish Kingdom, but was unable beacuse the medium--money nobility and a few priences bandded together and helped the Kingdom).
|
|
|
Post by Ben Burgess on Jan 4, 2005 13:34:01 GMT -5
In response to recent comments regarding alternative histories I must say I agree with you insofar as they are obviously not factual accounts of past events. However, the research of 'What If?' essays is equally as intense as that of normal presentations as often one has to look deeply into the events surrounding the 'What If?' situation in order to produce an accurate and understandable thesis with relevant conclusions. Whilst producing alternative histories is obviously not something one would want to do if writing for a text book it has been seen as a pass time for many a serious and accomplished historian as it allows an insight into what might have been. These types of debate can also produce interesting discussions of existing fields of interest, allowing people to learn more about periods and the people which lived during them. If we are to ignore these valuable pieces of speculation as science fiction then we should also ignore the work of the science fantasists John Keegan, Alistair Horne and AJP Taylor, as all have had valuable inputs into this area of study during their careers. It also raises questions as to why war colleges replay major campaign battles to see what might have been. They may as well be playing Warhammer. As can be seen from your own excellent summation, not only are the ones worth reading based entirely upon fact but they also provide interesting asides for the serious historian. Afterall, it never hurts to speculate what might have been. Regards as always, Ben
PS LET US NOT SPEND ANY MORE TIME DEBATING THE RIGHTS AND WRONGS OF ALTERNATIVE HISTORIES (SEE THE GENERAL BOARD FOR THAT EXACT ARGUMENT!) RATHER, LET US DEBATE THE ISSUE AT HAND ;D)
|
|
andrew
Long Term Member
Senior Contributor
Posts: 66
|
Post by andrew on Jan 4, 2005 16:05:20 GMT -5
Well, first is my response to alternative histories. Everyday since the beginning of the first Empire Intelligence Agencies have had huge impacts on the course of history. They have won battles, wars, revolutions, etc. but how do countries put information to work for them. WELL, I'm glad you asked. First, they consider the historical significance of the situation they must make a decision about. Then their intelligence agents gather various secret information about current subject. Then, here comes the big leap, they postulate about the historical and the current given facts and they estimate the most probable course of action of the subject. In Essence, they guess on a probable future which is very similar to guessing on a probable past. HA
OK Ben, now...
If Hitler dies in '18 is too much for me. I don't feel I have enough background on the socialists or the democrats to see how they would struggle with Ernest Rome.
In 1934, there would still be hope for peace. Only because Germany was not as armed and their industry not capable of the numbers turned out during the later war years. I would hope that Goebbels or other equally evil men would not seize the thrown and continue down Hitler's path. But it is very likely that another Nazi would reign.
In March 1941, I would think that even if a peaceful replacement took power they would still hold enough Nationalism to continue the War for Germany. But they could still avoid the war with Russia. With all those divisions freed up they could plan to prepare for Operation Sea Lion, however it would be wise to do what England did to Germany in WWI. Send an assualt on British Colonies and sea-lanes. Quadruple Rommel’s forces, assault Gibraltar, attack the Royal Navy with the Luftwaffe. Put an Luftwaffe squad and the southern tip of Africa to make the British Convoy's go even further south. Develop a 4 engine bomber and eliminate the British Radar stations. Then invade!
If the successor did continue with Operation Barbarossa then one point is needed. Listen to your Generals! That little piece of advice might have changed the war even for Hitler.
and again to alternative histories, they make room for creativism in a factual subject. Have a good day, Andrew
|
|
|
Post by Jan Hyrman on Jan 5, 2005 2:47:03 GMT -5
Hello everyone, It's nice to see the 'what if' questions draw so much attention - and they are good questions, too. Like Andrew said, few of us can probably compete with Ben's knowledge of many particularities related to the subject - and Robert's knowledge of Poland's history Question A is really too far-fetched for any successful guesswork - anything could happen. Most probably, the initial stages of post-WWI history would develop the same as they actually did, creating the same conditions which, in reality, gave rise to Nazis. Perhaps they would be somewhat weaker without Hitler (here's when my lack of expert knowledge about NSDAP's history comes in ;D), maybe another, more powerful leader would emerge, someone more political, who would give more space to his generals' advice... From here, it really is hard to guess. Question B is also quite obscure. As Ben puts it, a likely result would be a civil war in Germany, resulting from a loss of the all powerful Hitler. Military back-up for some figures of the Nazi party could seriously influence the debate and lead to an internal struggle rather than to creating another Nazi leader. Question C would probably be the most influential regarding actuall WWII history - if Questions A & B would turn out slightly 'wrong' for the Nazis, there might have been no WWII. Releasing the immense strength of Wehrmacht divisions and Luftwaffe squadrons massed for Barbarossa to fight in campaigns in other theatres could have a serious effect on, if not the outcome, the length of WWII in Europe. Another question is whether Nazis and Communists could live together in peace indefinetely... Question D What if Heydrich was not assassinated in 1942? What chances did he have to become an even more prominent figure in the Nazi hierarchy? Would his unscrupulousness and tough leadership make him Hitler's successor? The architect of the industrial holocaust of Jews, Heydrich was getting increasingly popular with Hitler and the ruthlessness of the retaliation for his death equalled only that of his own nature . Have fun!
|
|
|
Post by Ben Burgess on Jan 5, 2005 9:22:12 GMT -5
Jan,
Your Heydrich question is an interesting one and I imagine it would be interpreted differently by a lot of different groups. I personally believe that Heydrichs immediate superior, Heinrich Himmler, whilst always tolerating Heydrich recognized him as a developing threat to his own power. Indeed, it has been speculated by many historians that the 'state within a state' which Himmler created in the form of the SS was eventually destined to supplant the Nazi regime itself. Certainly Himmlers actions even prior to January 1933 when the regime was set in place go some way towards suggesting this.
As I partially stated in my previous '1934' synopsis, Himmler had not only used the SS to create numerous and varied organizations, the Waffen SS, the SD and the Gestapo being only a few, but had also expanded (especially by the end of the war) in investments, education and economics. Had a chance occured, therefore, no figure in the Third Reich was more perfectly poised to assume power at a moments notice.
This raises the question, therefore, of how far such a reserved yet ambitious character would have allowed Heydrich to rise. Indeed, history shows us numerous occasions on which Himmler actively sought to keep Heydrich from interacting with the Fuhrer. The historian Gitta Sereny, for instance, comments on Heydrichs promotion to Reich Protector of Bohemia and Moravia with some reserve, stating that 'in 1941, Himmler, eager to put some distance between his ambitious subordinate and the centre of power in Berlin, persuaded Hitler to name Heydrich Reich Protector...'
It cannot be doubted, however, that Heydrich was a charismatic and efficient man. While his equals in the Ukraine and other occupied Eastern terroritories were busy creating mass hatred for the Nazi regime it is actually quite surprising how successful Heydrich was in gaining at least some small support from the population. That is not to say that anywhere near the majority of people supported the regime, although by comparison it can be argued that in this respect he was the most successful of all Nazi officials in the Protectorates.
Similarly it cannot be doubted that Reinhard Heydrich was an influential man, carrying favour with a number of respected and high ranking ministers. His chairing of the Wannsee conference certainly did many favours for his position (if not his ego) and his own position as Himmlers number two gave him immense, existing power. However, when analyzing the situation in context, it seems reasonable to conclude that had Heydrich not be assasinated he would have continued as Himmlers number two until the final days of the war, never being able to cede his quietly ambitious master.
- Let me know what you think
Ben
|
|
|
Post by Jan Hyrman on Jan 5, 2005 9:39:57 GMT -5
Well, Ben, I'm really no match in this and maybe it's the Czech in me when I'm thinking like this, but what makes you think Heydrich had any support in Bohemia or Moravia? He declared martial law virtually upon his arrival, threatening to have anyone shot should he or she venture into the streets after sundown...
The Heydrichiad, as we call the brutal repressions following his assassination, was practically only an acceleration of what he did when he was alive - what I think is that if he succeeded in achieving anything, it must have been because he had the ability to strike fear in the hearts of people.
Maybe I am a bit overreacting on this - I really don't have the facts at hand, so I may be incorrect. Also, I am a bit sensitive around the subject...
|
|
andrew
Long Term Member
Senior Contributor
Posts: 66
|
Post by andrew on Jan 5, 2005 11:48:20 GMT -5
Another reasonable candidate would have to be Albert Speer. Although, he became more popular towards the later years of the war, his influence in undeniable. In fact, he turned out to be one of the most patriotic Germans by un-ordering Hitler’s order to blow up all manufacturing facilities. He also increased Germany's war munitions production significantly. If Hitler was killed anytime after '43 I believe he would sue for peace, and that was Germany's only hope to save the B-24's and such.
But if Hitler died in '41 Speer might have been able to conduct the war in as an efficient manor as his other activities.
The other person we didn't consider would have to be Hess. If Rudolph Hess hadn't flown to England and Hitler died in '41 would he have been appointed. He was a Glamour child of the Party and might have been chosen to be a puppet. I don't see Hess seizes the position for himself but perhaps another figure would try to use him as a stooge. Like Hindenburg try to do to Hitler.
Last but not least. With the German High Command very powerful I could see a German Field Marshal marching on Berlin in the event of Hitler’s death in '41. To many possibilities who it would be but I would think many German Generals would have the ability to run the war much more successfully than Hitler.
Chew on that!
Andrew
|
|
andrew
Long Term Member
Senior Contributor
Posts: 66
|
Post by andrew on Jan 5, 2005 11:48:59 GMT -5
Hey Ben Can I have Some stars? They look so sweet! Andrew
|
|
|
Post by Ben Burgess on Jan 5, 2005 14:38:19 GMT -5
I return from the Yahoo Military history group where my suggested 'What If?' question has caused somewhat of a stir Actually I don't think 'stir' is the word, it's more a case of the entire group calling 'all those novices who even contemplate participating in these terrible falsifications the uneducated call 'Alternate Histories'' fools and telling them to leave the group. Apparently people like ourselves would be better writing novels than discussing the 'science of history.' Well, my friends, history is a speculative subject and as pompous as you sound you cannot convince us that you are experts in the field merely by attacking the historical speculation of others. Simply looking at our 'predictions' and analytical writings shows how 'uneducated' we are. Thank you! ;D That said let me return to the debate at hand. 1) Heydrich in Bohemia and Moravia - Jan, obviously I make no suggestion whatsoever that Heydrich ever held popular support in his 'Protectorate' although by comparison with the other occupied territories he was easily more successful than his peers. Again, I do not mean to state that Heydrich found his support amongst the nations population, more that he used the nations existing apparatus and found support within the existing structure of power. Again I will return to the Austrian historian (and Albert Speer biographer as I will mention) Gitta Sereny for an example of this. Sereny herself even states that it was the sheer success of Heydrichs time in Czechslovakia (for the Germans) that prompted his assasination and not his horrendous treatment of the population. Heydrichs brief governorship, during which he managed to persuade a surprising number of Czechs to co-operate with him, was triumphantly successful. Indeed, so much so that on 27 May 1942, two young Czechs were sent from London to assasinate himYou are most likely correct in stating that most of this success came about because of his ability to create fear although we should not ignore the fact that the charisma and intelligence of this evil and appauling figure of 20th Century History also had its parts to play. 2. My Opinions of Albert Speer and his ability as the 'next Fuhrer'As a passion of mine, research into the characters which made up the upper echelons of the Third Reich have seen me return to Albert Speer more than most. As 'the Good Nazi' it has been hard not too. During my time researching this period I have amassed a number of useful books on Speer in particular and as a collector of soughts I can still remember the day I managed to acquire his autograph via an historian who used to correspond with him from Heidlberg during the late 70's. Yes, I suppose you could say that Albert Speer interests me. But how far do I believe that he was ever likely to succeed Hitler? And if I can bring myself to suppose that he did, how capable do I think he would have been? In the series of battles for approval that made up the inner court of Adolf Hitler you would be hard pressed to find many times in which Albert Speer fought for the Fuhrers attention. His biggest enemy, it seems, was Martin Bormann and his persistance in getting between Hitler and his subordinates. The reason I feel that Albert Speer had very little competition in the fight for Hitlers attention is that from the first day he had spoken to Hitler in person the two had formed a bond more akin to friendship than the dogmatism practised so avidly by the rest of Hitlers circle. Certainly until 1941 this persisted. When Albert Speer came knocking at Fuhrer HQ or appeared at the Obersalzberg he wasn't their to discuss tank formations, he was their to lecture the leader in architecture. And that was the difference, from day one Hitler had seen Speer as an equal, perhaps even a superior. Speer was the man Hitler had wanted to be. However, Speers position until the middle years of the war was still one of city planning, he was Hitlers 'man in Berlin.' Speers organization was responsible for construction, especially that of the reconstruction of Berlin. And Albert was hands on in his work, so much so that apart from his occasional meetings with Goebbels (with whom he worked closely in the early days) he rarely associated with other party members. My argument at this stage, therefore, would be his ability to gain allies or support had Hitler been killed. Certainly Hitler liked Speer always as a friend but other, more powerful, Nazis envied Speers closeness (certainly Bormann who, after Hess' flight was to try time and again to sabotage the relationship between Hitler and Speer). Hitlers death at this time, even if a testament confirming Speer as successor could have been found, would have found nothing more than a promising young architect, armed only with building plans and backed by an army of painters and decorators to contend with the might of many of the most influential party members. 1941 also presents an interesting question in terms of Speers career. At this point he was still an architect although his power and influence had grown considerably. We most not forget, however, that it was not until 1942 that he became more influential as he was given charge of Organization Todt (named after its founder Fritz Todt) which gave him his official title as Minister for Armaments. Obviously this may have given him considerable influence should Hitler have been killed at this point although I would still doubt its ability to give him enough leverage to assume power. Had power been assumed, however, Speers undying, blinkered commitment to winning the war would almost certainly have seen its continuation. We should not forget that this 'Good Nazi' was himself an avid support of concentration camps for 'lazy workers' and supported the mass abduction of foreign civilians for work in German munitions factories. However, as well as this Speers control would have allowed him the industrial freedom to impliment several 'war winning' strategies he had been considering for most of the early 1940's. For one, women would have to be brought into the factories to free up men for the eastern front. He had suggested this time and again to Hitler after the British had implemented it years earlier and had been constantly refused. Also, the german military effort would have to abandon its research into the V1 and V2 rockets. After using Organization Todt to assign small amounts of 'restricted materials' to scientists in Berlin years earlier Speer was informed in 1944 that nuclear weapons were plausible, but would be at least 2 years in the making. Speer had support this idea since his introduction to it and would surely have pursued it more had he gained power. To briefly conclude this, therefore, although I believe Speer would have been a greatly interesting and perhaps useful choice for Hitlers successor I believe he never really carried significant support to pull it off. Had he achieved power, however, his plans, intellect and knowledge of foreign policy (something hitler lacked to no small extent) may have proven significant in the survival of fascist Germany. Ben PS I'll look into the stars, currently they're only for moderators but I'll see what I can do
|
|
|
Post by Antonia on Jan 5, 2005 19:25:17 GMT -5
Right, in the face of highly learned intellectuals, I shall dare to take the plunge and (gasp!) reply!
I am currently doing AS History and studying the Weimar years before 1933, so i shall only answer question A the best I can.
From what I've learned, Anton Drexler does not seem a particularly strong character. Reasonable, yes, but he had a diplomatic, democratic nature that Hitler (and many others) would have sneered at and would have been unwelcomly remeniscent of the current Weimar republic. Think about it. We have the Stab-in-the-back myth, the treaty of versailles, the loss of not only a Kaiser, but the traditional ruling system. These people are wounded, angry and above all, vulnerable. In this environment, there was a collective plea for strength, and therefore only those who promised definitive action were listened to, i.e the extreme left and right. As a result, so many fringe groups came about. Would a leader without Hitler's charisma really have stood out? If it wasn't for his magnetism, all those people wouldn't have joined.
Before the NSDAP, the KPD had the most propaganda in circulation; Their traditional revolutionary blood red posters glared all over the walls of Germany. Rather hard to ignore! They were also rather well organised, with their own Red Guard. Once Hitler started making his speeches, he attracted a lot of special attention, and was shown the ways of propaganda. Perhaps Drexler would not have received such attention? After all, that humble beer hall attracted a lower class of clientelle.
Although hated amongst the middle and upper classes, the communists were the natural choice amongst the working class, especially in the face of economic disaster, where it was all a matter of survival and seeing who served their best interests. Indeed, many people joined the NSDAP for the SOCIALIST element. Without the attention the GWP (NSDAP) drew from Hitler, where would all these socialists go? The SPD? Unlikely. The trouble with the Democratic Reichstag is that so much was debated, yet nothing could get done as the proportional representation electoral system allowed other parties to overrule the leading goverment. In a crisis, people would not want watered down compromise. They needed action! How about another fringe group? The trouble with the NSDAP was that it was truly unique - socialism went hand-in-hand with internationalism, due to it's fundamental belief that the working class man had more in common with the fellow working class man in another country, than the rich man from his own country. Where would that leave nationalism? And what was the point of having another party formed with the same beliefs? The KPD were the most prominent party with communist beliefs, and the furthest left. The largeness of the party would mean prominence, which would mean strength, which, coupled with the extremist nature of it's manifesto, would translate as the answer to the German people's vote for strength.
All throughout the 20s until 1933 the KPD averaged a strong 70-80 seats in the reichstag, and this was with the NSDAP for competition, with all their sabotaging of the Red Guards using the SA, and their anti-communist propaganda. During the Golden Years when Hitler lay low and the NSDAP were weak, in the face of economic stability when the cry for help had been calmed, they still had their 70s of seats. Naturally, with the coalition government of the WR relying on the American loans, and the great depression inevitable in America, the devastating effects of the great depression was unstoppable in germany too, and that was where both the NSDAP and the KPD prevailed. Without the NSDAP, the KPD would not have any such competition, and with socialism so popular, the natural party of choice would have been the strongest, in this case the KPD. I believe sooner or later the Weimar Republic would have been overthrown, and that Germany would be plunged into communism.
That's all folks!
|
|
|
Post by Jan Hyrman on Jan 6, 2005 2:19:11 GMT -5
Ben, Apparently you started a forum thread, but it turned out to be, in Eisenhower's words, an "essay contest" I must say that if the amount of information should be the measure, by now this thread could compete with almost any category of the History Project ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ben Burgess on Jan 6, 2005 8:59:38 GMT -5
Jan, Too true, so much so that I've even been looking into ways I could edit some of the posts together for the actual website Ben
|
|
|
Post by XIAOMING on Oct 9, 2006 1:58:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by REW on Oct 21, 2006 3:38:58 GMT -5
|
|