It goes without saying Hitler is possibly the most evil person in history, if not one of them.

He's mostly known for his Holocaust against the Jews, but what if he wasn't Anti-Semitic, for whatever reason.

I got it from a fascinating Alt-History video. I'm not too sure about the war scenario part, but it's an interesting scenario still.

But what do you think would happen if Hitler didn't hate Jews? What scenarios can you think of?

3153942
He wouldn't have come to power at all.
The only reason he came to power is because he used the jews as a scapegoat for all of germany's problems.

3153970
That's the most logical conclusion I came to, though it still leaves the power position open.

3153942
Hitler really isn't that evil. He's just autistic.

Barack Obama is the real Anti-Christ.

3153942
Seriously though, Hitler was just smart with his powers. Their are a lot more evil people that could have and have already done worse than what Hitler wished to do.

3154077
He happened to have the right stuff at the right place at the right time. It's a very unfortunate coincidence.

3154083

Yup yup.

3155151
THIS WAS THEIR PLAN
THE SHOAH WAS A FALSE FLAG
HITLER WAS IN ON THIS

3153942 Hitler needed the money from Jews. It was the only way to found the war. They were also very influential, so if he wanted that influence for himself, Jews had to go.

It's possible, that Hitler wasn't even anti-semitist, what he did was very calculated. I find it hard to believe that he made all those decisions purely on some petty emotion.

I actually think that had Hitler made France and Britain (especially France, since they were the ones who made the Versailles Treaty a worse deal for Germany) into political scapegoats he still might have been able to achieve chancellorship of Germany. Without the eugenics thinking there would be no need for Lebensraum thus no need to go eastwards beyond Poland.

The thing is, like the video said, the kindling of the nation's hatred towards France and Britain would alarm them. This would probably have ended up with a refusal on the Allies' part on signing the Munich Pact and would have led to a German-Czechoslovakian war. I'm willing to say that Germany would have had a difficult time breaking through the Maginot-style fortifications but eventually broken through and won the war by the end of 1938.

During this time, France and Britain would have started to gear up towards a war economy for an eventual conflict with Germany. It is possible that either France or Britain (or both) would have declared war on Germany at this time. With this, the Phony War would have begun a year early and the Germans would have been in a difficult position: go for Poland or west? With an army that has already been in a war, it is unlikely that it would have been at full strength let alone be prepared for two theaters of war in 1938.

Still it's entirely likely that the Germans would have gone to Poland with the USSR anyways and divided the country as per our timeline. What is uncertain is what would have happened during this. Would the BEF have been substantially larger than the one in our timeline? Would the French command structure have been revamped? Would Italy have joined in the war earlier? Who knows?

3154068
Dude, Not Funny.

3155672

It was supposed to hurt your feelings.

3155728
Happy, there is something I want to ask you.

3155329
So, Hitler and the Jews were in on this together? Where's this going?

3155151
3155329

Imagine if Hitler wasn't considered the evilest person in the world because people conveniently forget about Mao, Stalin, and hundreds of other tyrants, and they instead gave at least a modicum of respect to his devotion to his country and nationalist worldview? We'd be free of the Zionist agenda by now, comrades. If only they would listen.

3153942
Hitler wasn't Anti-Semetic. He was anti-everything-not-Protestant-Germanic-Aryan.

People seem to forget he was fighting a war of extermination against Slavs.

3155151
OY VEY SHUT UP MR. GOLDSRAUM THE GOYIM ARE LISTENING

THIS IS LIKE A SECOND SHOAH

3155151 3155329 3156080 3156433

3156743

3156743

3153942 It would only mean that the Jews would be less targeted by his atrocities.

3156743 That means "I'm outta here," right?

3156888

yep

3156763
Maybe is Hitler was just a little more cheery...

3156887
Down to about the same level as everyone else, I suppose. That also means Israel as a nation might not manifest.

3153942
Some problems:
1. Britain was not alone at this time. They were one nation which controlled a fucking Commonwealth. So you wouldn't just seen a small British Army fighting for Britain, but also Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, South Africans, Rhodesians, etc.
2. People tend to forget that Poland was in an alliance with France and England. If Germany wants to declare war on France and Britain, he has to either invade Poland first, or simultaneously with France. If simultaneously, which is far more likely, it's very possible that France could've stopped Germany.
3. According to the Sandline Wargames, Operation Sealion was impossible. It wouldn't have made it more than a few miles inland thanks to British CAS, rocky terrain, and the lack of dedicated German landing craft. Therefore, Fortress Britain would've remained, regardless of any other factors.
4. People also tend to forget how little of the US military actually was mobilized in WWII. Let me put it this way. In August 1944, the Americans had roughly 1,550,000 troops fighting in Europe. This was about a tenth of the possible strength the US Army could muster. That means that in this universe, the US could launch 15,500,000 troops to fight in Europe- which vastly outnumbers the Wehrmacht's peak of 6,000,000 personnel.

There's a reason the US actually, seriously considered running over the battered Soviets at the end of WWII- they had all-time high production, more men, a foothold, and The Bomb.

3153942
From the video, the holocaust would have still happened, except that it would not be jews, but british and french people. Hitler was filled with raise after WW1 because of what happened to Germany and he had a month to think about his hatred after being blinded by gas.
Hitler rose to power because he was popular with the people because of his hate, so Germany leaders thought they could use him, so they rose him above the ranks. But, they didn't expect Hitler to become so powerful that he would become a dictator. So, Hitler would have risen to power, even if he wasn't anti-semitism. All he needed was his hate. It would have been interesting to see if he wasn't filled with hate, because that would have drastically changed everything.

3160123
Perhaps, though he wasn't quite as popular as everyone thinks. Though he got to his position through somewhat democratic means, his party never achieved the full popular vote majority.

3156080
3156763
3157955
Ha! Mel Brooks, God love him

3160344

3160448
Worst part is? Without the french bank rolling the states way back when, we wouldn't be here, and yet, Mel brooks lampoons them in that movie

3160455
Yea, but Mel (like most good, honest comedians) is up for mocking pretty much anything.

3160490
Certainly better then bitter fucks like Carlin. Lewis Black manages it pretty well though

3160344
One of the best comedians and directors of all time.

3160490
Wisdom. Comedians that have to play it safe on certain subjects aren't good at all. It's why I like Gilbert Gottfried so damn much.

3160678 3160850
Exactly. If you're willing to poke fun at anything to make people laugh (provided you're actually good at mocking it) then that's what makes you a comedian. People like Gottfried, Chris Rock, Chappelle, Colbert, and Robin Williams. If you can make it smart-funny as well, it only makes things better.

If you ever want to know how South Park's made it to 20 seasons, this is probably why...

3186211
I feel like people forget Stalin and Mao because they just went out and mostly killed people who disagreed with them. Hitler blatantly sought to exterminate a group of people from the planet based on their religion/color/sex preferences and put forth concentrated efforts to round up and kill them off while the victims were picked out for no real logical reason besides pure hatred alone.

3186225
Stalin and Mao did basically do it at random, but again the reason people see Hitler was worse was because he purely hated those groups. Sure the master race thing was another objective, but the main reason was how much he personally hated them.

3189853
The problem is that there is no Chamberlain in this universe. There is no appeasement, no preparing at the last minute for war. Instead, you get a mobilized Britain and France who would've been able to assist the Poles (Who, having a culture very influenced by France, would be much more on edge and better-prepared, along with no pincer attack from the USSR,) who could have possible held on.

Likewise, the Maginot Line would've succeeded since Belgium, having a French-influenced culture, would be actually on-edge and prepare their defenses- which is what the Maginot Line depended on for success.

>England
>Close to falling
Go look up the Sandline Wargames. Sealion was pretty much impossible, barring a complete victory over the Royal Navy by the under-equipped, untested and undermanned Kriegsmarine.

3191231

Yet I've still heard Britain did nothing until Poland fell.

Maybe because of the fact that:
A. Poland built their entire defensive line on the idea they'd get relief soon.
B. The British hadn't mobilized their military thanks to Chamberlain. Without a pacifist in office as there's an actual threat, the British would'vehad a military to actually assist the Poles with beyond the Royal Navy
C. Chamberlain specifically delayed the said mobilization of British troops to avoid going into the war fully. Again, without someone like him in office, the Poles might have been able to hold on with reinforcements.

But it didn't because Belgium was both woefully unprepared as well as unable to counter Germany's new tactics, making the Maginot Line perfectly useless.

Ok, a brief summary of the Maginot Line and why it didn't work. The Maginot Line was not, as many entry-level textbooks tell you, completely static. It was designed as a forward defensive wall that would hold against a German assault from Germany herself. However, it did have a flexible rear echelon which could move and defend the Belgian border- given time.

The Belgians weren't mobilized. Period. The Germans in the real world were able to sweep over them because the Belgians weren't expecting them to attack. In this universe, Belgian culture (very close to French culture) would be the target of a propaganda campaign. Belgium would be forced to mobilize.

I'm talking about the English implementation of early warning radar stations; if Germany had payed attention to them, they wouldn't have suffered so many losses against the RaF and would have quite possibly reduced London to rubble.

Except the Germans didn't know they existed. Seriously, they had no idea how the British were actually finding their air fleets. The reason the radar stations ever came at risk was because of the large amount of bombing happening...on British military bases, where the radar was. Once the bombing switched over to the urban centers, most notably London, they were no longer at risk, period.

3194119 Question is, could nuclear armaments have altered the ultimate outcome? I don't think so.

3196230 I mean, nukes worked in Japan because they were already in a hopeless strategic position. When the enemy is steadily advancing, a nuclear strike would have only enraged them. It was suggested that nukes could intimidate local mayors from surrendering to the allies, but that's fairly questionable.

Things only changed in the Cold War when nations were able to stockpile enough wespons to be useful in the big picture.

3216806 Holy Necro, Batman!

3216923 true...true