World without Roosevelt, Churcill, Stalin, Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini

Rex Romanum

Banned
So...in an ATL where Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Winston Churcill, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Hideki Tojo, and Benito Mussolini were never existed, or died right after they're born, or whatever, what differences that would occur?

Assuming that nearly all of the OTL history up to 1920s is not affected, what butterflies that would most likely to show up in 1930s and 1940s? How the WWII looked like without those six figures? Will they simply be replaced by someone else with similar actions and decisions, or entirely different?
 

Falsetto

Banned
I don't know about most of these, but I'm pretty sure that without Stalin, the Soviet Union either wouldn't have formed (don't hold me to that, I don't know of Stalin's role in the Civil War), or would have formed fairly differently.
 

Derek Jackson

I think that the Soviet Union would still be a nasty dictatorship but would not murder on the industrial scale of otl

No Hitler I think means no Nazi rise to power, probably some more conventional reactionary government in Germany, maybe a Monarchy

I do not think no Tojo makes much difference, crazy aggressive (and in my view evil) Militarists would have a lot of sway

In a context of no Hitler no Churchill makes little difference to the UK except that there might be less resistence to Indian independence

Italy is probably chaotic- I do not know enough to say anything more


I am wondering who the Democrats would run for President? I ask American experts to comment on this
 

Julian

Falsetto said:
I don't know about most of these, but I'm pretty sure that without Stalin, the Soviet Union either wouldn't have formed (don't hold me to that, I don't know of Stalin's role in the Civil War), or would have formed fairly differently.
Click to expand...

Stalin played an important role in almost every part of the Bolshevik party before and after the revolution. Without him things would be vastly different in Russia even before 1917.
 
Plumber

Plumber

Churchill has the earliest butterflies - the Ottomans could remain neutral in WWI or join the Entente.
 

Julian

rule_them_all said:
Trotsky was ready to take over after Lenin's death, then Stalin showed up. It's really no mystery.
Click to expand...

Then Stalin showed up? Stalin and his allies Kamenev and Zinoviev had been major communist leaders for decades, and had far more influence and allies than Trotsky. Trotsky was complacent and unpopular.
 

Chengar Qordath

Julian said:
Then Stalin showed up? Stalin and his allies Kamenev and Zinoviev had been major communist leaders for decades, and had far more influence and allies than Trotsky. Trotsky was complacent and unpopular.
Click to expand...

Yes, this. The reason Trotsky got tossed out of the USSR and any chance of succession had little to do with Stalin, and everything to do with the fact that every other significant player among the Bolsheviks hated him.

I would second Derek Jackson on the likely outcomes in Germany in Japan. Germany was primed to go right-wing and revanchist even without Hitler around, although sans the Nazis we likely get something a bit more conventional, possibly a return to the monarchy.

The Japanese militarists were a large faction that didn't center around a single leader, so getting rid of Tojo wouldn't change much in the big picture. That's not to mention Tojo wasn't even the theoretical leader of the militarists until 1940, and even after he became PM, he had a lot of trouble keeping the militarists in line.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
Derek Jackson said:
I think that the Soviet Union would still be a nasty dictatorship but would not murder on the industrial scale of otl

No Hitler I think means no Nazi rise to power, probably some more conventional reactionary government in Germany, maybe a Monarchy

I do not think no Tojo makes much difference, crazy aggressive (and in my view evil) Militarists would have a lot of sway

In a context of no Hitler no Churchill makes little difference to the UK except that there might be less resistence to Indian independence

Italy is probably chaotic- I do not know enough to say anything more


I am wondering who the Democrats would run for President? I ask American experts to comment on this
Click to expand...

I believe the industrial-scale murder is more properly applied to the Nazis... the Soviets were all about just deporting troublesome people or groups to Siberia or Central Asia, more of a mass "we're putting you here so you don't collaborate with the people invading us" than mass murder. Except for Katyn, except for Katyn.

No Nazis could put a lot of different people in power, conservative right-wing dictatorship, communists, hell maybe even a surviving Weimar Republic (however unlikely), Germany will probably be a basket case but not a horrible basket case.

Japanese leadership is clique-based, it doesn't coalesce around one singular person like Hitler and the Nazis, I agree with you.

Yeah at that point we'll have changed things so much it's uncertain how Britain will be affected, colonials will in general have an easier time of it, without ol' Papa Churchill around to gas them if they rebel.

Italy... hell they were screwed up in the Depression, probably someone extremist, hopefully more efficient than Benny.

Dems have a lot of choices, Al Smith and John Nance Garner who both ran in 1932 OTL but lost to FDR are possible. Plenty of people can take up the mantle, I think Smith and Garner who were never keen on the New Deal or things like it wouldn't be as good at resolving the issue as FDR was though.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
Julian said:
Then Stalin showed up? Stalin and his allies Kamenev and Zinoviev had been major communist leaders for decades, and had far more influence and allies than Trotsky. Trotsky was complacent and unpopular.
Click to expand...

I get his point, it's just that Trotsky had been very, very close to Lenin as he died, he basically served as his voice when Lenin's strokes eventually rendered him mute and bedridden.

An intelligent leader could have had leadership of the Soviet Union waiting before him on a shining path, Trotsky did not know what to do with his advantages was the only problem, certainly he could have been stronger than he was.
 

Julian

HeavyWeaponsGuy said:
I get his point, it's just that Trotsky had been very, very close to Lenin as he died, he basically served as his voice when Lenin's strokes eventually rendered him mute and bedridden.

An intelligent leader could have had leadership of the Soviet Union waiting before him on a shining path, Trotsky did not know what to do with his advantages was the only problem, certainly he could have been stronger than he was.
Click to expand...

And Stalin was supposed to be denounced by Lenin's will in public. Because of his good allies that didn't happen. The goodwill of Lenin was worthless compared to actual political power.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
Julian said:
And Stalin was supposed to be denounced by Lenin's will in public. Because of his good allies that didn't happen. The goodwill of Lenin was worthless compared to actual political power.
Click to expand...

Well Stalin had Lenin's testament suppressed.

And yeah the whole point of my post was to state that Trotsky didn't know how to use what was good for him.
 

Killer300

Guys, you're assuming Stalin's allies will act the same way they did in OTL, which is unlikely without Stalin being born. Chances are, the left Communists like Trotsky are going to dominate.
 

HeavyWeaponsGuy

Banned
Killer300 said:
Guys, you're assuming Stalin's allies will act the same way they did in OTL, which is unlikely without Stalin being born. Chances are, the left Communists like Trotsky are going to dominate.
Click to expand...

Stalin not being born could, for all we known, cause the Reds to lose the Civil War.
 

Julian

Killer300 said:
Guys, you're assuming Stalin's allies will act the same way they did in OTL, which is unlikely without Stalin being born. Chances are, the left Communists like Trotsky are going to dominate.
Click to expand...

Please read what we just posted. Kamenev and Zinoviev were individually more powerful players than Trotsky without Stalin.

HeavyWeaponsGuy said:
Well Stalin had Lenin's testament suppressed.

And yeah the whole point of my post was to state that Trotsky didn't know how to use what was good for him.
Click to expand...

Stalin could only do that because his allies backed him up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top