How would history have differed if Hitler had never existed?

[Alan McDougall]

How would history have diffred if Hitler had never existed?

 

I put in a few of my own

 

The Cold war would never have happened

 

The Second World War would never have happened

 

There would never have been a space race

 

?

 

?

 

?

[CaptainPanic]

I disagree. European countries were still at each other's throats, and especially the German people/govt. was rather upset with the humiliating way that WWI had ended. So, in one way or another, WWII would have started anyway. Also, fascism was developed in Italy, not Germany. Hitler did not develop the ideas.

 

What you mean is "How would history have differred if fascism was never developed, and if WWII had not broken out?".

 

Also, the USSR was already communist, and that view clashed heavily with the capitalist ways of the USA. It was no surprise that these powers clashed. WWII made them the only two large superpowers, that's true. But communism and the rest of the world were going to clash anyway.

 

Also the atomic bombs were (at least conceptually) already in development, and were developed without Hitler anyway.

 

I think you accredit far too much to Hitler himself. He became the figurehead of the nazis and took the leadership, but he was by no means unmissable for the entire history of the 20th century.

[StringJunky]

I think you accredit far too much to Hitler himself. He became the figurehead of the nazis and took the leadership, but he was by no means unmissable for the entire history of the 20th century.

 

What about the formation of Israel? This was a consequence of Hitler's actions.

[CaptainPanic]

My main point is that Hitler did not act individually. There were more nazis: Eichmann, Himmler, Goebbels, to name some of the worst. I object that the whole thing is attributed to only Hitler, because then we overlook the fact that he had followers, and that there were also other leaders.

 

At the same time, it is true that all the things mentioned here are a result of things that happened before. That is how the world works: everything that happened after WWII was influenced in some way or another by WWII.

[StringJunky]

My main point is that Hitler did not act individually. There were more nazis: Eichmann, Himmler, Goebbels, to name some of the worst. I object that the whole thing is attributed to only Hitler, because then we overlook the fact that he had followers, and that there were also other leaders.

 

At the same time, it is true that all the things mentioned here are a result of things that happened before. That is how the world works: everything that happened after WWII was influenced in some way or another by WWII.

 

Ok.

[Leader Bee]

i'm pretty sure it would have happened like this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABDm2JcnTPs

 

They even captured it on film, hows that for evidence?

[JohnB]

There were far more influential people than Hitler throughout history.

[Sergeant Bilko]

What about the formation of Israel? This was a consequence of Hitler's actions.

 

 

What?? Did you not hear about the Balfour declaration?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

[StringJunky]

What?? Did you not hear about the Balfour declaration?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration

 

From your own link:

 

British opinion

 

British public and government opinion became increasingly less favorable to the commitment that had been made to Zionist policy. In February 1922, Winston Churchill telegraphed Herbert Samuel asking for cuts in expenditure and noting:[28]

 

In both Houses of Parliament there is growing movement of hostility, against Zionist policy in Palestine, which will be stimulated by recent Northcliffe articles. I do not attach undue importance to this movement, but it is increasingly difficult to meet the argument that it is unfair to ask the British taxpayer, already overwhelmed with taxation, to bear the cost of imposing on Palestine an unpopular policy.[/i]

 

Would Israel have actually been formed in the absence of the Holocaust that generated so much sympathy?

Edited July 9, 2012 by StringJunky

[Severian]

If Hitler hadn't existed then maybe Germany would have had a competent war time leader, who didn't make silly mistakes like invading the USSR. Maybe we would all have been speaking German by now.

[DJBruce]

Had Hitler never existed I have strong feeling that there would still have been some sort of armed conflict in Europe. Germany in the late 1920's and early 1930's was quite a mess in many ways. Politically the Weimar Constitution was I believe in the long term untenable due to its inefficiencies caused by it representation system and how it delegated powers. Economically Germany was unstable, and suffered from numerous set backs and hardships. Socially the Weimar period was very tumultuous in that it was a time during which there were many competing forces trying to shape the culture of the Germany in drastically different ways. When taken in total I high doubt that Germany would have escaped the 1930's or 1940's without some sort of drastic change. I easily could invasion a revolution replacing the Weimar Republic with some other sort of government, and with how tenuous the peace was such a revolution could easily have caused an armed conflict with either Germany invading after a more conservative hardline government begin implemented, or France invading out of fear of a new government. Regardless, I doubt this would have escalated to anywhere near the level of World War II. It took Hitler roughly six years to form a strong enough national identity to rally the German people to fight. I doubt without the presence of a long term unifying force that German would have the will to engage in a long war.

 

Obviously this prediction suggests other predictions regarding things like the state of technology and global standing, however, I doubt really feel like playing the what if game much further than my above thoughts.