<am05@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:c7f9b54b-80f0-47ef-b38a-b982acec800d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Let's say that Hitler is satisfied with getting Austria and Czechia
> and not that obsessed with Danzig/Eastern Prussia issue (for example,
> there is an agreement on a connecting highway).
>
> - No, let's not say that. To have such a Hitler you basically have to
have
> a
> non-Hitler. With a non-Hitler, you have a non-Nazi Germany, though you
may
> have a militaristic etc. dictator****p in Germany.
>
Not necessarily. You may end up with a more cautious Hitler who was
just as nasty inside the country as his OTL version.
- But if Hitler is Hitler, then "his country" includes the Sudeten, much
of
Western Poland, Alsace-Lorraine, Memel... If Hitler is cautious, he's not
Hitler.
After all, rabid
bellicosity is not a necessary pre-requisite of a brutal regime.
- No, indeed. What I point out is that Hitler's regime was what it was
because Hitler wasn't just another brutal dictator. And there is a very
close relation****p between Hitler and Nazism. The two are almost
undetachable. Nazism is Nazism because of Hitler's hates and ideas. You
can
have Hitler dying in 1938; then the question is how much Nazism remains
what
it was and what it was going to be, or, conversely, whether it becomes
just
another dictator****p - in which case it's no longer Hitlerism, in which
case
its degree of anti-Semitism becomes more comparable to what was going on
in
other Eastern-European countries.
Stalin was much more cautious than Hitller but every bit as nasty
otherwise.
- You make my point, exactly. BTW, note how Stalin came to power into an
already existing ideology and party? Note how in 1941, after his biggest
mistake, he was virtually sure he could be replaced by the Politburo?
Of course, it is an open question if Hitler could continue his rule
without getting into the further conquests AND without bankrupting
Germany.
- He could, of course; he only had to follow Schacht's early 1939
suggestion
and slash military spending. Bankruptcy in 1940 is unavoidable if there
aren't further conquests _and_ the military spending goes on unabated. But
then... yes... he wouldn't be Hitler.
> Or, even better, he
> dies in 1939 (say, plane crash or some natural cause) and Goerring (or
> whoever would be his successor at this time) is considerably less
> bellicose.
>
> - That is a possibility, I agree. At this point you'd have Nazi Germany,
> but
> without Hitler. It remains to be seen how much Nazi does it remain,
> without
> Hitler, however...
>
'Flavor' could be different.
- No. That's the point. See below. It's not just flavor.
> Then, the German Jews are being persecuted but not the
> Polish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Rumanian and Hungarian ones.
>
> -...for instance, it remains to be seen what "persecuted" means in this
> case. If Hitler died, then Himmler doesn't remain around for long;
Goering
> highly dislikes him, and in a 1940 contest, Himmler isn't the stronger.
> Goering takes care of him. Therefore, Heydrich also goes. Now Goering
was
> anti-Semitic and he certainly wasn't against plucking their wealth off
the
> Jews, and the Nuremberg laws certainly remain. But the Wannsee
conference
> is
> never held... I guess.
I'm not sure that Goering was anti-Semitic in the same form and shape
as Hitler was. But he was definitely very eager to appropriate as much
of a Jewish wealth as was possible.
As for Himmler, SS would probably exist under any scenario and its
boss would be probably the nastiest person available.
- But as you yourself point out, one can be nasty without being mad about
Jews. Actually it would make him more effective at being nasty if he had
no
single maniacal bugbear in his mind. Only, this is not likely if the nasty
in chief is Himmler, that is why I point out that he would be removed by a
Goering in power.
Or at least will
behave as such (if parallels with Cheka/OGPU/NKVD/....../KGB work).
- And indeed, it is interesting to notice that at some time, the head of
such a comparable entity was a Jew. So if Himmler goes, he can be replaced
by someone who is anti-Semite in the usual average way of German nasties,
not going off the chart about it.
So
we are speculating about degree of a persecution and not about
persecution itself. Nurenberg Laws had been nasty enough and
'Aryanization' started in 1937-38.
- Well, yes. Note that many German Jews themselves thought they could live
through this.
|
