I feel like, without Hitler, the chance of the Nazis coming to power is basically nill. Great Man Theory is generally bunk, but, in this case, HItler more-or-less created the Nazi Party. He rewrote their manifesto, he was one of the people really pulling for the Beer Hall Putsch, and he even came up with the term "National Socialist". While it's possible one of the other Nazis could have replaced him (someone like Goebbels or Himmler), I doubt it. Both those guys were competent in their own right, but they didn't have Adolf's sheer charisma that allowed him to basically take over the party for himself. While there's, obviously, still gonna be racism and anti-semitism in a non-Nazi Germany, I doubt it'll be ANYTHING on the scale of the Holocaust, and any far-right regime probably won't be as expanoist as Hitler was. Now, with how dysfunctional the Weimar Republic was, i'm fairly certain some extremist ideology will rise, but it might be one on the other end of the spectrum: There were a lot of left-wing activists in Germany who blamed the country's troubles on the failure of capitalism, and did battle against a Right-wing convinced the immigrants were at fault. Without Hitler's charisma, it's possible the left-wingers win instead, especially since Stalin notably ordered German Communists not to oppose Hitler or ally with more moderate socialists, in hopes Hitler could be useful to him. So it's possible we could see either a Left-wing regime coming to power, or the country just straight-up dissolving into civil war between the two. Now, this will obviously trickle to other events: For instance, without Hitler funneling money to Franco over in Spain, it's possible the Leftists win THERE too. We also might not see Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia, since that was supposedly motivated out of fear Hitler's quick expansion would make him look bad by comparison. Japan is probably still gonna invade China, but, without the Axis, it's entirely possible that conflict remains purely regional. If there is a second World War still, i'd bet on Mussolini starting it, if anyone. He was expansionist, fairly clever, and, of course, invented Fascism. Without Hitler, he might even do better, since one of the major reasons Fascist Italy failed in the Second World War was because Mussolini kept letting Hitler goad him into more and more expensive wars for purposes of pride. Italy might still conquer North Africa, but I doubt they'll be able to conquer Europe like the Nazis did: Even without Hitler to goad him, the Italian Army just wasn't up to snuff compared to the Allies. Now, assuming there is no General European War in this timeline...Well, that's not entirely a good thing. For one thing, without the war, Mussolini may not be overthrown, leaving Italy stuck in Fascism until the 50s or 60s at least, which may, in turn, embolden other authoritarian movements. Also, while the British and French Colonial Empires were pretty much inevitably doomed after World War I, World War II was the real death blow, so we may see more colonial exploitation. Most of the African colonies will probably be given independence eventually (they were black holes of soldiers and money), and, indeed, may even turn out better in the long run if Britain and France now have the time to actually leave some self-sustaining infrastructure and legal systems, rather then just pulling out at their first chance and leaving the locals to pick up the pieces. However, Asia is gonna have a bad time. France isn't giving up Indochina without a fight, nor is Britain giving up India. IOTL, they ended up cutting ties more or less out of necessity, as the war left them without the money, materials, or manpower to keep holding on. Without a General European War distracting them...Well, the Asian colonies may still get independence, but I expect it to be a lot more...Bloody, ITTL, and it was already pretty bloody to start. Between this, and the fact that the Sino-Japanese War is almost-certainly gonna proceed on schedule, Hitler or no, East Asia is gonna be a bad place to be for a while. On the other side of Asia, the Middle East. Specifically, Israel. That's gonna be a mess and a half here. At this point, the Palestinian Mandate given to Britain from the Ottoman Empire after World War I is still a sort of "caretaker colony", whom Britain will, in theory, give independence when they're ready for it, as Britain determines. Now, by this point, there was already unrest caused by Jewish and Arab independence groups fighting the British occupying forces, themselves, and each other. That, a lack of natural resources, the cost, and the good PR of giving the Jews a homeland right after the Holocaust caused the modern Israeli state to exist. Without that, we could see Israel stay a British protectorate, or, at least, a Commonwealth nation (The Star of David over top of a Union Jack...), or, on the other end, we could see an independent Palestine with a significant, agitating, but overall tolerated Jewish minority, along the lines of where things were back when the Ottomans were in charge....Hm. And, of course, none of this is getting into the massive butterfly effect of 70-85 million people who died in OTL in the War/the Holocaust, but may not in this one.
Last edited:
