No Hitler = far right wank?

[Sardar]

It‘s actually kind of hard to imagine a modern world without Hitler if you think about it (at least for Europe and the west).

WW2 has basically become the founding mythos for the liberal world order, and Hitler is the black hole around which all political, social and cultural discourse ultimately revolves around. And the further away in time we move from the events of WW2, the more powerful this mythos becomes. I don‘t think it‘s an exaggeration to say that it has taken on quasi-religious characteristics by now, with Hitler as a satanic figure against which all of society has to be constantly on guard.

Hitler‘s shadow is so long that ideological opposition to his ideas serves as legitimization for nearly everything and everyone these days, even people on opposing sides: be it progressives or conservatives, Ukraine or Russia, Israel or Palestine – all of them accuse the other of being the heirs of Hitler. Antifascism is the legitimating ideology of the modern (western) world, and the inherent ‚goodness‘ or ‚badness‘ of any policy is judged by its ideological distance and opposition to Hitler, fascism, and everything connected to them.

So imagining a modern world without WW2 and Hitler is almost like imagining a world without Christianity, Islam or other world religions; it’s like painting in the dark. There are actually not many TLs that really take on this issue on a fundamental level; most just assume that the world would look more or less like ours, with similar values, but different borders.

I'd say the fall of the USSR is also very important to this "mythos", but liberal democracy in the West would likely prevail IMO. A purely absent Hitler TL might see someone else take the mantle of "evilest person" - Stalin and Mao are both very good candidates for this.

I do think that the "far-right" would be larger, but also more fractured. We have to remember the most extreme far-rightists are literally called "neo-nazis" and so without Hitler and the infamy of National Socialism across the West, you'd see the right and far right have more diversity IMO; that is of course barring another, similar person comes to power who fill the void Hitler left. IMO the same effect would occur on the left if Communism never came to Russia or China. A good TL that explores this is @Zulfurium 's A Day in July.

 

[Mark E.]

So imagining a modern world without WW2 and Hitler is almost like imagining a world without Christianity, Islam or other world religions; it’s like painting in the dark. There are actually not many TLs that really take on this issue on a fundamental level; most just assume that the world would look more or less like ours, with similar values, but different borders.

Change history at that point re-writes the rest of the century. Imagine there is no WW1 as we know it. Archduke Ferdinand is not assassinated. European tensions create skirmishes, but not a world war as we know it No Bolshevik revolution. American Congress outlaws distilled liquor in 1917 (for a time) and prohibition does not enter the Constitution. In 1920, voice radio emerges as in OTL. In 1923, the Second Reich still runs Germany without the Versailles constraints and there is no economic collapse. Austria-Hungary becomes unstable and Europe is divided along linguistic/ethnic lines. The Roaring Twenties are in progress on both sides of the Atlantic.

In 1929, the American stock market crash is less severe. There is no Smoot-Hawley act. But in the thirties, there is a grain shortage in the Ukraine that resulted in the Holodomor in OTL. The American dust bowl came along. These are weather related and do not change. What does desperation do? Do dictators arise? Mussolini in the twenties, maybe later? Franco?

You can extrapolate into the early thirties. What about the far east (Japan, China)? What about Vietnam and the Middle East? You have a whole new century.

 

[Fatt Shea]

It‘s actually kind of hard to imagine a modern world without Hitler if you think about it (at least for Europe and the west).

WW2 has basically become the founding mythos for the liberal world order, and Hitler is the black hole around which all political, social and cultural discourse ultimately revolves around. And the further away in time we move from the events of WW2, the more powerful this mythos becomes. I don‘t think it‘s an exaggeration to say that it has taken on quasi-religious characteristics by now, with Hitler as a satanic figure against which all of society has to be constantly on guard.

Hitler‘s shadow is so long that ideological opposition to his ideas serves as legitimization for nearly everything and everyone these days, even people on opposing sides: be it progressives or conservatives, Ukraine or Russia, Israel or Palestine – all of them accuse the other of being the heirs of Hitler. Antifascism is the legitimating ideology of the modern (western) world, and the inherent ‚goodness‘ or ‚badness‘ of any policy is judged by its ideological distance and opposition to Hitler, fascism, and everything connected to them.

So imagining a modern world without WW2 and Hitler is almost like imagining a world without Christianity, Islam or other world religions; it’s like painting in the dark. There are actually not many TLs that really take on this issue on a fundamental level; most just assume that the world would look more or less like ours, with similar values, but different borders.

I think there could be other figures that people would compare peopl they don't like to. But I agree we won't see western liberal world order

 

[kham_coc]

I think there could be other figures that people would compare peopl they don't like to. But I agree we won't see western liberal world order

Well one way or another most of Europe, and consequently the "west" won't be liberals.
Most of Europe will be anti-communist right wing authoritarian Conservatives, and more and less fascist. More the fourth reich than the third reich, but something like that.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

A large chunk of Europe would be some brand of authoritarian conservativism/nationalism. Arguably the majority. This might butterfly away WW2, since Mussolini won't risk war with Britain or France without an ally. Japan is a question mark. I think they'd still invade China, but would they be willing to go to war with the Western Powers without a war in Europe?

 

[Joku_]

Well one way or another most of Europe, and consequently the "west" won't be liberals.
Most of Europe will be anti-communist right wing authoritarian Conservatives, and more and less fascist. More the fourth reich than the third reich, but something like that.

Does pre-WWII Britain or France count as "anti-communist right wing authoritarian Conservative"? 🤔

I mean, Spain, Italy and Germany were fascist countries by WWII, but most of Europe besides them wasn't. Besides Western Europe, Nordic countries weren't either.

 

[Fatt Shea]

Does pre-WWII Britain or France count as "anti-communist right wing authoritarian Conservative"? 🤔

I mean, Spain, Italy and Germany were fascist countries by WWII, but most of Europe besides them wasn't. Besides Western Europe, Nordic countries weren't either.

Portugal, all of eastern Europe and Balkans apart from Czechoslovakia and Finland as well as the ones you mentioned were authoritarian conservative/facsist. I provided map in my first post

 

[kham_coc]

Portugal, all of eastern Europe and Balkans apart from Czechoslovakia and Finland as well as the ones you mentioned were authoritarian conservative/facsist. I provided map in my first post

One way or another Czechoslovakia is a German puppet too.

 

[Joku_]

Portugal, all of eastern Europe and Balkans apart from Czechoslovakia and Finland as well as the ones you mentioned were authoritarian conservative/facsist. I provided map in my first post

I mean, was fascism really that prominent in Eastern Europe? I mean, they probably weren't stable democracies, but outright fascists?

 

[Fatt Shea]

I mean, was fascism really that prominent in Eastern Europe? I mean, they probably weren't stable democracies, but outright fascists?

I said authoritarian conservative or facsist you can read about it online, Yugoslavia was royal dictatorship, same as Romania and Bulgaria, Greece was ruled by Metaxas, a Right wing nationalist dictator who used Roman salute, Poland was a demoracy which had unfree elections and the leading party made laws inspired by the Nuremberg laws, Lithuania was ruled by a nationalist party who was backed and bought to power by the armed forces after the goverment signed treaty with USSR, in Latvia the prime minsiter suspended parilament and banned all politcal parties, in Estonia the leader made a one party state to suppress rivals, Hungary was ruled by regent Horthy with some limited democracy.
NOTE: this is just talking about countries that had authoritarian periods in 1930s and that is what my map shows also

 

[Joku_]

I said authoritarian conservative or facsist you can read about it online, Yugoslavia was royal dictatorship, same as Romania and Bulgaria, Greece was ruled by Metaxas, a Right wing nationalist dictator who used Roman salute, Poland was a demoracy which had unfree elections and the leading party made laws inspired by the Nuremberg laws, Lithuania was ruled by a nationalist party who was backed and bought to power by the armed forces after the goverment signed treaty with USSR, in Latvia the prime minsiter suspended parilament and banned all politcal parties, in Estonia the leader made a one party state to suppress rivals, Hungary was ruled by regent Horthy with some limited democracy.
NOTE: this is just talking about countries that had authoritarian periods in 1930s and that is what my map shows also

Hmm, I'm not really familiar with their history. But I guess such authoritarian periods or strongmanships probably weren't unusual given that they were quite new countries. I suppose that they might have eventually developed into democracies anyways, which would have been a better outcome than half a century of enforced authoritarianism?

 

[Gabriel Silva]

A world without Hitler there would still be World War II because Germany wanted a revenge of the Great War and in 1929 Germany's economy would still be very devastated.
There would be no Holocaust but Anti-Semitism would still be very strong in Europe to the point of having strong mass deportations in the 1930s and would still have segregationist laws, this would strengthen a Jewish Nationalism and probably a stronger Zionism and a great migration of Jews from the Europe to Palestine.
Some far-right policies would be strong for a few more decades, for example the Segregation policy in the South could last another decade or two Oregan would have until the 1980s policies that restricted the migration of blacks and Asians Eugenia would be popular until at least 1980s or 1990s, White Australia policy would continue until the 1990s South Africa would have some degree of ethnic cleansing in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s but whites would still be a minority, Argentina, Chile and Uruguay would have practiced an intense ethnic cleansing and genocide against indigenous and black populations who would suffer the most would be the natives of Patagonia, France would practice a whitening of Algeria similar to what fascist Italy did in OTL with Libya, Libya could have become the fourth coast of the Italy.

 

[Fatt Shea]

A large chunk of Europe would be some brand of authoritarian conservativism/nationalism. Arguably the majority. This might butterfly away WW2, since Mussolini won't risk war with Britain or France without an ally. Japan is a question mark. I think they'd still invade China, but would they be willing to go to war with the Western Powers without a war in Europe?

Agreed Japan wouldn't go to war with Europe it would stay limited to Japan.

Hmm, I'm not really familiar with their history. But I guess such authoritarian periods or strongmanships probably weren't unusual given that they were quite new countries. I suppose that they might have eventually developed into democracies anyways, which would have been a better outcome than half a century of enforced authoritarianism?

Why would they devolop into democracies?

A world without Hitler there would still be World War II.

I agree with most of the rest but I think there wouldn't be WW2 due to appeasement policies. There could still be one but imagine there isn't for the sake of the question.

 

[Gukpard]

Yeah, it gonna stays for longer and it might not go completely away. These ideologies wouldn't have been discredited and stuff like salazarism, metaxism, Italian fascism would still elect people after the dictatorships end.

You can also have Kurt von Schleicher plan work and Germany go proto fascist.

 

[TheSwedishHistorian]

Very interesting thread. One thought is that the different ideologies or left and right would be a lot more unique to each country, whereas iot conservatism and liberalism has gradually turned into one thing regardless of the country in question with of course some differences. Part of this is because of ww2 which led to such extreme conquests back and forth and many countries falling and rising. Nazi Germany took over France and extended influence over Italy, Hungary and many others for example.

later on the axis of course fell but Stalin and the soviet union took over and actively let some communist movements that didn’t support Stalknism hang out to dry such as Republican spain, but also exemplified by the yugoslavian-Soviet split and the Sino-Soviet split.

I imagine a lot more local nationalism, and German and french language around the world. Slower and more partial decolonisation?

So not necessarily far right exactly in the way we would think of it today, both the far right and far left are as mentioned very heavily influenced by ww2, the nazis, and the soviets. A different flavor of far right

 

[Fatt Shea]

So not necessarily far right exactly in the way we would think of it today, both the far right and far left are as mentioned very heavily influenced by ww2, the nazis, and the soviets. A different flavor of far right

Agreed It will be a different kind of far right today, it may not be considered far right in the regions that are conservative dictatorship as it will be normalised therefore not seen as extreme. Far right could be viewed as facsist opposition to these regimes like how horthy had arrow cross opposition.

 

[brunohusker]

Without Hitler a lot of his pet causes don't become radioactive. For instance, eugenics probably stays popular, probably even the moderately coercive variety.

Among some right wing leaders, especially those non-religious or Protestant. I doubt catholic right wing leaders would go for it, or at least practicing catholic ones. Hitler by the way was only nominally Catholic. I don’t think he’d attended mass since he was about 12 . So he kind of doesn’t count. Even then, this might be the split in some countries.

 

[octoberman]

there is a grain shortage in the Ukraine that resulted in the Holodomor in OTL.

are denying Holodomor was forced starvation by soviet government and claiming it was a grain shortage?

 

[dino1x]

are denying Holodomor was forced starvation by soviet government and claiming it was a grain shortage?

I mean the holodomor was the result of a mix of a bunch of thins such as:

poor harvest because of bad weather and stupid agricultural policies

Poor transport infrastructure and soviet insistance on exporting and finally the forced starvation of certain people(whether for class or ethnic reasons).

There probably would of been a famine without the soviets but the death toll would of been more inline with the famines that happened in imperial russia rather than then massive one the holodomor had

 

[marathag]

i've similarly heard the supposition that World War II partly led to the Civil Rights Movement in the US in that the Soviets pointed out America's hypocrisy by still practicing institutional racism after just spending some five years fighting a white supremacist dictatorship (not that the Soviets were much better, really)

Much if that was because Southern Segregation policy didn't travel well outside of CONUS, especially the UK