Re: Future of Yiddish Eastern Europe in no-WWII world

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:24:05 -0700 (PDT), jussi.jalonen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>On 11 heinä, 17:24, "Michele" <nospammiar...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> With a non-Hitler, you have a non-Nazi Germany, though you may
>> have a militaristic etc. dictator****p in Germany.
>
>Where do you get that idea? It's not as if Adolf Hitler was the only
>Nazi in existence, even if he was the fellow who eventually became the
>top honcho.

While true the NSDAP that we know was Hitler's creature. May as well
imagine Microsoft without Bill Gates or Apple without either Steve
Jobs or Steve Wozniak.

>Germany under Ernst Röhm, for example, would probably (by necessity)
>be more interested in the consolidation of the régime by domestic
>purges, and less intent on immediate outwards expansion.

>But it would still be a Nazi Germany, and in some ways, probably a
>more radical Nazi Germany than the historical one.

All three would exist BUT would be completely different organizations
from what we know.

Besides what does "more radical" mean? I'd argue a USSR with Lenin
living another 20 years would be a quite different place from OTL's
USSR while quite different again from a USSR where either Trotsky or
Zinoviev had come out on top.

In terms of party doctrine 'radical' does not necessarily mean 'out to
change the borders of Europe by force'. 

I'd argue Attlee's Labour Party was quite radical in how it changed
Britain though no one would have expected them to forcibly change
their boundaries though obviously they did just that on the Indian
subcontinent. (I'm reasonably sure Labourites were as appalled at the
resulting carnage which today we would call 'ethnic cleansing') But
certainly Attlee's regime was far more radical than say Ramsay
MacDonald's.

>> And there is a very close relation****p between Hitler and Nazism. The
two are
>> almost undetachable.

I don't think we know enough about Rohm or the Strassers to get a
really good idea of how they would have ruled Germany. Kind of a
working class DNVP it seems to me. Again - don't forget that a LOT of
the social programs we take for granted were originated by Bismarck
who would have been a strange invite to the Second International.

>Ironically enough, you seem to be echoing Hitler's own views of his
>im****tance as the Indispensable Leader and the Man of Destiny. Do you
>really want to advance this kind of an argument?

Hitler did - at the core that's what the Fuhrerprinzip was all about.
The opposite view of course is Tolstoy's best expressed in the
appendix to War and Peace.