I don't think there's any guarantee that the Nazis would even come to power. They barely managed it in real life, another leader could've failed where Hitler was lucky to succeed.
Maybe in the absence of a successful Nazi Party a revanchist conservative Germany would've fought the Soviets in a similar WWII but yeah that's all speculation. Doubt a Hindenburg would go all exterminationist in that scenario though.
You know, you really are pushing the "Great Man Theory" of history bit here. I recommend not to do that. Neither the Nazi party organization, nor the contradictions of the Fascists in the parliamentary system are explained by one person.
The parliamentarians would've given any major party official the same rights as Hitler and even if they wouldn't have gotten the legality they would've taken the power. The only counter defense were leftists and those were killed and crushed by the reactionaries and social democratic elites.
Look at Italy in which Mussolini was just given the leadership of the country. There is little reason to believe that a "milder man" wouldn't have started an war of aggression, too. This was inevitable for many reasons, some are economic, some are to deliver on debt.
I don't want to talk any further, but really implore you to give us clear references for your opinions, who came to those conclusions, why and if you reference books, tell us the pages and paragraphs (which isn't possible tbh).
That is a bit vague and a lot speculation. The red army would've fought the Nazis anyhow. That much was inevitable.
I don't think there's any guarantee that the Nazis would even come to power. They barely managed it in real life, another leader could've failed where Hitler was lucky to succeed.
Maybe in the absence of a successful Nazi Party a revanchist conservative Germany would've fought the Soviets in a similar WWII but yeah that's all speculation. Doubt a Hindenburg would go all exterminationist in that scenario though.
You know, you really are pushing the "Great Man Theory" of history bit here. I recommend not to do that. Neither the Nazi party organization, nor the contradictions of the Fascists in the parliamentary system are explained by one person.
The parliamentarians would've given any major party official the same rights as Hitler and even if they wouldn't have gotten the legality they would've taken the power. The only counter defense were leftists and those were killed and crushed by the reactionaries and social democratic elites.
Look at Italy in which Mussolini was just given the leadership of the country. There is little reason to believe that a "milder man" wouldn't have started an war of aggression, too. This was inevitable for many reasons, some are economic, some are to deliver on debt.
I don't want to talk any further, but really implore you to give us clear references for your opinions, who came to those conclusions, why and if you reference books, tell us the pages and paragraphs (which isn't possible tbh).
Nah I'm not, Chapos are just over-inclusive of what counts as 'Great Man Theory'.
They're not the primary drivers of history as GMT claims, but individuals and their actions can still heavily influence history.
Hitler had nothing to do with Prussia and yet the Nazi police force kicked down the doors of my socialists grand grand parents.
Hitler was the Fuhrer of Prussia.
You are too historically illiterate to lead this discussion. Papen was the leader of Prussia during the Preußenschlag.
Not my fault you're being too vague about what you're talking about for me to respond properly, and I don't see how your point is relevant anyway?
No Hitler's public speaking ability did have a large effect on the success of the Nazi party.
deleted by creator