On Jul 14, 4:46=A0am, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ha scritto nel
messaggionews:c7f9b54b-80f0-47ef-b38a-b=
982acec800d@[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
h=
ave
> > 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.
>
As I understand, you are saying that with Hitler in power the history
was totally 'deterministic'. I'm anything but sure that this was the
case. He was acting the way he did because he was emboldened by the
obvious weakness of the democratic West. With a greater resistance to
his actions on the initial stages he could became more cautious ("more
cautious" is not exactly the same as just "cautious").
> 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.
Just as between Stalin and communism but none of these two was a
creator of the movement even if both eventually shaped ideology to
suit their ideas.
>The two are almost
> undetachable. Nazism is Nazism because of Hitler's hates and ideas.
Any "-ism" was shaped by somebody's personality. I'm still not buying
an argument that Hitler's behavior would not be different (up to a
certain degree) under a different set of conditions. Especially, as
applicable to his foreign politics.
>You can
> have Hitler dying in 1938; then the question is how much Nazism remains
w=
hat
> it was and what it was going to be, or, conversely, whether it becomes
ju=
st
> another dictator****p - in which case it's no longer Hitlerism, in which
c=
ase
> 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?
Both Hitler and Stalin joined existing party (and ideology). Of
course, Hitler became Party leader faster than Stalin.
|
