Quiz - Modern World with no Second World War

[Norman]

For some reason, maybe Adolph Hitler doesn't come into power in Germany, and as a result World War II doesn't happen.

What would the world of 2005 look like?

What would it look like politically, economically and socially.

 

[Dave Bender]

WWII will still happen

Adolph Hitler doesn't come into power in Germany, and as a result World War II doesn't happen.

There were a lot more reasons for WWII then just Adolph Hitler. Japan, Italy, Poland, and the Soviet Union all had governments just as bad as Germany. We need to do some serious rewriting of the 1920s and 1930s to prevent a major war in the 1940s.

 

[Norman]

Adolph Hitler doesn't come into power in Germany, and as a result World War II doesn't happen.

There were a lot more reasons for WWII then just Adolph Hitler. Japan, Italy, Poland, and the Soviet Union all had governments just as bad as Germany. We need to do some serious rewriting of the 1920s and 1930s to prevent a major war in the 1940s.

True, but as has been posted on other threads, without Europe and Hitler the wars may not become World Wars. For example, without the EUropean Wars, Japan might not have attacked Pearl Harbor or started anything in the Pacific.

So what you might get would be a series of smaller wars, such as Italy vs. Greece or Ethiopia, the USSR attacking Finland, and maybe eventually a German French War.

But they might not grow to be World Wars and without a World War you have some 50 million or so more Europeans, you have no GI Bill in the USA, and I question whether the USSR becomes a World power in the 50's.

So what would the probable course of history be?

 

[Nicole]

If I remember correctly, Stalin wasn't too popular among most of the West, and many supported Finland- Hitler basically put the stop to a intervention in Finland though, by threatening an invasion of Sweden if Sweden allowed troops to pass through.
So perhaps without Hitler the Winter War becomes a World War?

 

[Dave Bender]

Without Hitler the Winter War becomes a World War

I'd give this a pretty high probability. WWII will consist of Britain, France, and Germany vs the Soviet Union.

 

[Faeelin]

I'd give this a pretty high probability. WWII will consist of Britain, France, and Germany vs the Soviet Union.

Err, why?

Stalin invaded Finland because he knew that the Western Allies were preoccupied with other things, like the Third Reich conquering Poland.

Absent that, he probably stays home.

 

[Nicole]

But Stalin wanted Finland. It was formerly a part of the Russian Empire, and had escaped the revolution, for one, and also note how close the Karelian Isthmus (formerly Finnish) is to the important Soviet city of St. Petersburg.

 

[Mike Stearns]

I think the only way to stop World War II from happening is to somehow defuse or lessen the impact of World War I.

 

[Tyr]

I too will go with a red alert styled west vs. soviets.
WW2 really bolstered the soviet people behind Stalin. The USSR could fall apart rather early on if something doesn't happen to replace the great patriotic war.


The world could really be a better place. The British empire's back regions would be decolonized in a far more orderly fashion leaving us with some stable developing democracies in Afirca rather then the mess there actually is. The mentioned soviet collapse. No holocaust. Fascism still just regarded as something to ridicule and not a major threat to world peace. The USA throwing its weight around a lot less.

 

[Nicole]

Fascism may be regarded as a viable political form. Fascism will probably last on in Italy and Austria, and perhaps in Spain.

 

[MarkA]

Without Hitler there would be no World War II. The conflict was as a direct result of his agressive warmongering.

What does all this expansionist USSR stuff come from? Do they still teach this Cold War propaganda as history?

EVERY SINGLE territorial acquisition by the SU from 1939 to 1941 was because of the threat posed by Nazi Germany against the USSR. The Treaty between Berlin and Moscow was signed because the western powers failed to act competently to secure a treaty with Stalin and to seriously negotiate a collective security agreement. Britain and France openly talked about about letting the USSR and Germany 'slog it out' while they stayed secure behind the Marginot Line and left their allies (not Russia's) in Poland and Czechoslovakia go to hell.

Eastern Poland was occupied by the Soviet Union when the state had already been defeated by the Nazis. The USSR did not attack Poland - the fighting had stopped. The Baltic States were absorbed by treaties between them and the Soviet Union - no Red Army troops invaded any Baltic State. Bessarabia and other territorial adjustments in the Balkans were negotiated and implemented by treaties not war.

Finland was the key to the defence of Leningrad from the north. A Finland allied to Germany was impossible for the USSR to accept. A Finland invaded and occupied by Germany (this was Hitler's stated, public claim in 1940) was unacceptable to the USSR. Negotiations between the Finns and the Soviets almost reached agreement whereby the USSR would gain territory in the area around Leningrad while Finland would be compensated by gaining Soviet territory adjoining their northern and eastern borders. Negotiations broke down probably because Soviet intelligence got information about secret talks between the Finns and Nazis about military aid and the use of Finnish military bases. This is exactly what the border adjustment talks were designed to prevent. War broke out in 1940 because of these threats.

Stalin had perverted Soviet society and was undoubtedly one of the worst dictators to have ever lived. What he did to his people was terrible. But don't fall for the United States sponsered rewriting of history designed to excuse post-war US interventions to prop up dictators and destroy democratic movements around the world by claiming the USSR was expansionist and needed to be contained.

 

[Nicole]

Negotiations between the Finns and the Soviets almost reached agreement whereby the USSR would gain territory in the area around Leningrad while Finland would be compensated by gaining Soviet territory adjoining their northern and eastern borders.

Do you have sources for this? If I recall what I've read, the Karelian Isthmus was one of the most industrialized and populated parts of Finland. I don't see them just giving it up.

 

[jolo]

We'd still have the war in China. We'd still have a Germany looking peaceful on the outside, but with masses of revanchists on the back benches. We'd have a more or less cold war between basically three different ideologies: fascism, democracy and communism. This would probably make every place tougher (think of the US shortly before WWII).

Germany would probably be pretty isolated: Not enough internal and external support for an alliance with the west, not enough fascism for an alliance with the south, not enough communism for an alliance with the east.

The borders in Eastern Europe were drawn in a very instable way by the winners of WWI (Anglo-Saxon countries appear to like that - just look at the middle east - maybe a balance of power thing). A more peaceful Germany might have stumbled into the one or other war more or less accidentally. Let's just assume they stay very limited.

With some very good chancellor coming to power, Germany might make many of the surrounding smaller nations their allies (parts of Skandinavia, the Baltics, Austria, Hungary and others). Also, the restrictions of the Versailles treaty would probably be lifted, though maybe a little bit slower, and with new but more acceptable treaties replacing them. Without an Austrian in charge of Germany, a peaceful unification with Austria would be rather unlikely. Instead, we might have the slow creation of a common market in Central Europe, which in turn might become some kind of Central European Union. After some time and cooling down of old wounds, even Poland might be accepted in this Union, which in turn could be used to allow individuals to claim their lost Land without a war, thus taking away arguments from the hawks. The Nazis were not the only ones in favor of reclaiming territory lost in WWI by force, if necessary.

After some time, a few reforms and modernizations might be considered appropriate - afaik, Germany after WWI was still dominated by Prussia, and Germany in turn would dominate (and alienate) the "CEU". Dividing Prussia in smaller states and uniting some of the smaller states would be a good solution - as in OTL. A few years afterwards, with the Germans considering the CEU their "Nation", the role of Germany might decrease, it might even be abolished as a nation or split into 4 or 5 states. This CEU, if it avoids losing big wars, would be pretty strong by today and may even become something similar to todays EU.

I do not believe that the creation of a strong Central Europe would be a cause for war - if the CEU acts with care.

After the independence of the colonies (60s to 70s), even countries like France might be tempted to join the CEU (despite no WWII as reason), which then would become (a more centralized) EU. On the other hand, with Europe being less pacifist, a larger Union might take some time.

With no big war in Europe, Japan would have a much harder time fighting against the European powers around China, which in turn would make Japan less inclined to fight the US in an open war. So that war would probably happen much later, if at all. Also, the nuclear race might start in Europe, with US and SU following (and eventually taking over the lead), and GB, France and others catching up later.

 

[Tyr]

Do you have sources for this? If I recall what I've read, the Karelian Isthmus was one of the most industrialized and populated parts of Finland. I don't see them just giving it up.

They were just going to give up 10 miles or so- just enough so Finnish guns were out of reach of St.Petes.

This was just a soviet ploy though, they were planning to invade Finland whatever happened. This would have just made it easier for them and the Finns realised it.


Dammit...I keep typing Swiss for some reason...

 

[MarkA]

Imajin, any competent history of the war or the build up to it will do as a source. Off the top of my head I suppose A World At Arms by Weinberg is one of the more recent ones.

LeeJ, you are entitled to come to that conclusion but you have to back it up with evidence or simply state it is your opinion. Negotiations between the Soviets and Finns were a complicated affair. Finland was going to do very well out of them so why did they break off the talks? There is no dispute that Hitler made overtures to Finland in regard to their nickel mines - trade weapons and allow German troops to occupy military bases as a prelude to an invasion of the Soviet Union. Britain and France were prepared to violate Norweigan neutrality to forestall German occupation so why is it expansionist if the USSR does the same thing to Finalnd?

jolo, even mainstream German democrats did not accept Poland's right to exist. I do not see how Poland would be accepted into any German initiated proto-EU. By the way the Soviet Union not only did accept Poland's right to exist it was prepared to join a collective security arrangement with France, Czechoslovakia and Poland to guarantee it.

No general European war and Japan would not have the capacity to fight the European powers in Asia, much less them allied with the United States. With Singapore defended according to the operational requirements of ships planes and troops, it would not fall. It very nearly survived in OTL despite it being number three or four on the priority list (behind UK, North Africa, the Atlantic convoys and sometimes Burma).

 

[jolo]

jolo, even mainstream German democrats did not accept Poland's right to exist. I do not see how Poland would be accepted into any German initiated proto-EU. By the way the Soviet Union not only did accept Poland's right to exist it was prepared to join a collective security arrangement with France, Czechoslovakia and Poland to guarantee it.

No general European war and Japan would not have the capacity to fight the European powers in Asia, much less them allied with the United States. With Singapore defended according to the operational requirements of ships planes and troops, it would not fall. It very nearly survived in OTL despite it being number three or four on the priority list (behind UK, North Africa, the Atlantic convoys and sometimes Burma).

Mark,

Poland's right to exist was accepted by most Germans - even the Nazis created a polish puppet state after winning against Poland. Only the borders were a cause of unhappiness. Especially as some of the territory given to Poland was predominantly German or historically German for centuries. Also, the Germans didn't like having to give up the "Corridor" - the part connecting Eastern Prussia and the rest of Germany. Furthermore, during the Weimar Republik, there was a lot of cooperation between Germany and Poland. Poland also hated the SU more than Germany, despite Prussian dislike of Poland. I believe some kind of peaceful agreement would have been possible.

Japan didn't have the capacity to fight the European powers anyways. Even with Japan not entering the war against the US, it would probably been driven out of it's Asian possessions by the Allies after the war in Europe was finished - though in a slow process without regaining the colonies.

 

[Nicole]

so why is it expansionist if the USSR does the same thing to Finalnd?

Were the British planning to annex parts of Norway after invading it?

 

[Othniel]

US vs. Japan would happen at some point.

 

[Bulgaroktonos]

Without Hitler there would be no World War II. The conflict was as a direct result of his agressive warmongering.

What does all this expansionist USSR stuff come from? Do they still teach this Cold War propaganda as history?

EVERY SINGLE territorial acquisition by the SU from 1939 to 1941 was because of the threat posed by Nazi Germany against the USSR. The Treaty between Berlin and Moscow was signed because the western powers failed to act competently to secure a treaty with Stalin and to seriously negotiate a collective security agreement. Britain and France openly talked about about letting the USSR and Germany 'slog it out' while they stayed secure behind the Marginot Line and left their allies (not Russia's) in Poland and Czechoslovakia go to hell.

Eastern Poland was occupied by the Soviet Union when the state had already been defeated by the Nazis. The USSR did not attack Poland - the fighting had stopped. The Baltic States were absorbed by treaties between them and the Soviet Union - no Red Army troops invaded any Baltic State. Bessarabia and other territorial adjustments in the Balkans were negotiated and implemented by treaties not war.

....But don't fall for the United States sponsered rewriting of history designed to excuse post-war US interventions to prop up dictators and destroy democratic movements around the world by claiming the USSR was expansionist and needed to be contained.

I'm sorry, but that is total nonsense.

Hitler=War: Totally unclaimable. Political patterns throughout the world showed that totalitarianism and authoritarianism was on the rise through all of the "losers" in World War I. USSR, Italy, Germany, Austria, Hungary, etc. Italy lost hundreds of thousands for minimal gains, leaving a disillusioned populace seeking retribution. Germany was devastated. The USSR was just as bad. Many political theorists now believe that totalitarianism is simply a reaction of these "defeated" nations and their attempts to create militarily viable states. And they are empirically correct. Every single state I have named saw massive military build up and general militarization of society. Coincidence? Highly improbable. Thus, it is almost a certainty that if not Hitler, somebody else will come to power in an effort to do what Hitler has done. To do this, he will likely target Communists and maybe even Jews. He will call upon nationalism. Are we so quick to forget Ernst Rohm?

Poland not Attacked by Russia: Just plain wrong. It would be enough to point out that the Soviets invaded on the 17th of September. Warsaw fell under heavy resistence on the 28th of September having been under seige from the 13th. Lvov only fell on the 22nd. The biggest battle of hte entire campaign (The Bruza) ended on the 18th, and the 2nd largest lasted until the 20th. Perhaps you would like the Polish order of Battle that resisted the Soviet ATTACK on the 17th?

Brigades
Grodno 2 1 1
Polesie 3 1 1
Podole 4 3 1 1
Regiments (and accompanying battalions of Infantry, Cavalry, etc.)
Wilno 3 1
Głębokie 4 3
Wilejka 3 2 1
Wołożyn 2 1
Snów 3 2 1 1
Sarny 3 3
Zdołbunów 4 4 1
1st KOP Regiment 2
2nd KOP Regiment 2
Other units
KOP NCOs School 3 1
Total 38 21 1 2 6

So basically, your entire claim that Poland was not attacked by the Soviets, or that the fighting was over, is completely wrong.......

Treaties for the Baltics: Dishonest, ignorant, or outright Soviet apologist. Are you attempting to claim that the Estonians liked the Russians, and WANTED to be part of the Soviet Union? If that were the case, then how come the Estonians and Lithuanians were considered some of the most loyal people to the Germans? I have a friend from Estonia, and until he left, his entire family was despised for being half Russian. There is no way you can say that the Baltic Annexations were anything but blatant aggression on the Soviet part, in which the treaties stipulated that the Baltic states would have to allow the Soviet troops to occupy their country. Have you even read the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? I have trouble believing you have, as you seem to know nothing about it's provisions or what they mean and imply......

And what about good old Finland? What did Finland do to the Russians? It refused to be occupied like the Baltics had. So the Soviets faked an attack (much like the Germans did to instigate war with Russia, an act of aggression if there ever was one), and declared war on the Finns. Peaceful and friendly, my ass.

Furthermore, any Russian expert will tell you that it has always been Russian policy to expand. It goes back to the days of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great. Russian foreign policy's main stipulation is to keep the borders of the country as far away from Russia proper as possible. It goes back to the days of the Golden Horde, when Russian autonomy was destroyed. Thus, yes, the USSR was expansionist, just as the Czars were, and just as Putin is now. Why else to they have such a keen desire to re-aquire Belorussia, Ukraine, and Georgia at the very least?

And do you seriously believe that the Polish, Czechs, Bulgarians, Romanians, Hungarians, and all of the Bloc countries wanted Communism? Or was it forced upon them by an expansionist USSR? If you think they chose it, and that it was in no way forced, you are either ignorant, naive, or a serious Soviet apologist, and I don't throw around accusations lightly.

I certainly don't pin the blame for the Cold War on the Soviet Union, I tend to think it was more our fault for not understanding the Russian mentality, and playing two-level diplomacy over Eastern Europe that made him suspicious. But there is no denying, by any actual historians (not those idiots Williams, Alpervitz, and LaFeber) that the Soviets were expansionist.

 

[DuQuense]

Major changes for Australia and New Zealand. without the thousands of American Soldiers with their Swing and Jazz, and the American Waves /Wacs with theri womens Sufferage, they remain with their Edwardian attitudes in Curture and Society.

when the US puts a Boycott on in 1940 Britain and the Dutch Ignore it [No lend-lease carrot] Japan continues buying Oil from Indonesia, and Rubber from Indo China and starts buying Scrap metal from Britain, instead of the US. ? Is there any chance that Japan would have won in the end in China? By the mid 40's Japan has had enuff and pulls out of Southern China, settling for some Border adjustments in the North

Japan keeps It's pacific processions , along with Korea and Manchuria.