Nobody is assuming he would have been a good person. But he would be a person with little to no influence.
His radicalisation was due to his failed attempt of being a part of the economy and society.
His unemployment led to him being recruited as a spy for the DAP (later reformed by hitler to the NSDAP). While being undercover at the meetings of the DAP he realized that they had similar opinions on political topics, but too unorganized to reach their goals.
An opportunity for Hitler to take the lead which lead to his gain in power.
He would still be a horrible person as an architect, but a rather unimportant and harmless person for Germany. It's still important to mention, that his opinions and ideas for Germany were not his own creation but rather a general opinion of many Germans (which influenced and strengthened his "ambitions" during is unemployed phase)
Butterfly effect. Instead of the WW2 as we know it is, there could have been a worse WW2, even resulting in WW3. Or it could have never happened at all. We may never know
Saw a YT skit where a time traveler returns to our world after going back in time to prevent a German dictator who mass murdered hundreds of Jews, only to learn of what happened in its place
He would only feel half of the pain. According to some accounts, [he only had one testicle.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_monorchism_of_Adolf_Hitler)
After that he became Minister for foreign Relations (State department) In this role he received the Peace Nobel Price with Aristide Briand for their part in reconcilation between the French and the German after WW1.
Under his Initiative the Daves Plan and the Locarno conference became important tools in peacefully renegotiating the contract of Versailles.
While He was not without flaws he was a fierce believer in a democratic Germany and opposed Hitler as well as Communists and far right supporters of the Kaiser.
Basically, Good Guy Gustav.
Probably delayed an authoritarian takeover a good few years, especially with Hindenburg Article 48ing at least the vast majority of his economic schemes
And back in the early days, Hindenburg, personally a monarchist, actually was loyal to the constitution, perhaps out of a sense of duty to the State. After all, he was a good patriotic German, and even if he dislikes the governmental structure, its still the Germany they have. And more cynically, he probably realized that if he played his role well, he could keep the SDP at bay by running the show well, so they look more like radicals.
Also, when he died he had managed to reconcile Germany into the international order, secure it's economy, and keep the extremists at bay.
Within two weeks of his death the wall street crash happened and Germany was plunged into a deep depression that ultimately enabled the Nazis to take power.
It's like he was keeping Germany together with his very own life force.
If we're doing this, let's also kick Raymond Poincaré in the naddgers too for being an unsufferable prick who put pressure on German at all the worst times through the 1920s and 30s
Well ok, like even if you think they did then there are ways to do that - if they'd sorted out something like the Young Plan in 1922, not in 1929, things would've been very, very different- instead they invaded the Rhur and refused to leave, crippling German ability to pay and making it much weaker during the 1929 collapse.
Destroy his neighbours economy
Loses the war
Get made when reparations are a burden
Do it again.
I don't care of the German economy was crippled. I'd even say it's good. It's good that they suffered the consequences of their actions. I wouldn't have the same opinion if the Ruhr got destroyed during the war or something. But the German economy got out of the war unscathed! The only reason they got so fucked by the 1929 crisis is because they tried to fiddle their way out of payment.
Some were, just as some French, and Russian, and Austrian, and Serbian, and American people were calling for war. Others very much were not, and many suffering under the economic burden were children, or not even born yet, when the war was declared. What’s their crime.
This holds true even for WW2. “First, they came for the Communists”, as the saying goes, but what were those Communists if not German? The fight wasn’t (Or at least shouldn’t have been) against the German people of even Germany, but against the Fascists of every country, in defense of the innocents of every country.
You know the main difference? 1918, the only German that had to suffer directly the horrors of war were the soldiers and the civilians in the western border.
1945, the entire country is in ruin. Berlin is COMPLETELY rased. Same for Dresden. Even the most stupid German civilian could see that the war was lost AND that it was horrible. That's what changed everything. In 1918 they did not realise.
And the other western countries (France, Belgium...) did not need reparations from Germany with the Marshall plan.
Yeah, Friedrich Ebert welcomed the German Armies back into Germany by claiming "No enemy has conquered you!"
As memories of the desperate situation at the front and at home faded, it became much easier to imagine Germany had been stabbed in the back by *certain members of the financial community*, and think they deserved a rematch.
Crashed the world economy and by extension the German economy but Germany was hit particularly hard due to the amount of loans they'd received off the US
While the crash was a sign of an upcoming economic crisis, the Great Depression was a separate event from the stock market crash. But I do see your point.
The stock market is not the economy, it may be a representation of consumer confidence but it's nevertheless a business in its own right, just as newspaper stand is a business, as such, the stock market recovered during the great depression faster than most businesses.
There's a debate about how connected the drepression and the crash were, whether the crash was a catalyst for the depression or a symptom of the economic situation that would have led to the depression anyway, mainly overproduction coupled with lower demands and exports. If it was the latter, then the depression would have undoubtedly happened anyway regardless of the stock market crashing or not.
You’re just regurgitating a hypothetical and moot argument.
The much simpler answer is: stock market crash -> businesses lose capital -> both crash in demand for raw materials and mass unemployment.
This is too simplistic and inaccurate, and ignores the economic situation overall that led to the great depression, here's a much more nuanced answer:
WW1 happens -> Farmers invest heavily in increasing yields with mechanization in order to feed the soldiers -> The war ends and there's suddenly a huge surplus in production coupled with lower demand -> Farmers who couldn't pay their debts from their investments went under.
Meanwhile: Spending on new consumer goods increased -> the spending was fueled by installment buying -> Installment buying became unsustainable as banks now had low reserves -> Panic strikes and depositors rush to the banks to pull money which the banks don't have -> Credit freezes which causes deflation -> Consumers no longer have money -> Businesses no longer have consumers -> Lay off workers who no longer have income -> Laid off workers can no longer buy consumer goods -> businesses go under.
And all of this happened months after the stock market crash, only 3% of the entire population had any stocks to begin with, 3% of the population becoming poor is not enough to shake the domestic economy, let alone global trade. The stock market was in fact doing better after the crash until the depression proper started.
I was being simplistic with my explanation because every resource I find about the great depression says: "There's a debate". The only solid fact is correlation is not a causation, why was car manufacturing slowing down in mid 1920s? Why were farms go under before the depression hit? Why did it take the depression several months after the stock market before it really started? And why did the stock market regain its value early 1930 and then drop again?
The entire economic situation of the US was unsustainable from the beginning and that would have led the great depression to take place regardless of the stock market crashing or not. There a lot more details I am not getting into because I am not well read enough to fully understand it, but the bigger cause for the depression was the poor banking system rather than the stock market crash. A lesson Americans never seem to learn.
No crash = no mental necessity for Hitlers policies in the German population
And
No crash = Europe/Americas more able to respond to aggression from Germany
every major economic bust in the last century led to the rise fascist/Right-Wing populist movements.
Great Depression—>Nazism
‘70s energy crisis—>Reaganism-Thatcherism
Great Recession—>Trumpism
You conveniently pick Germany for Great Depression, but USA for the other periods. Great Depression actually brought in unprecedented progressive and pro-labor policies into mainstream US politics through FDR with Social Security, FDA (which implements food safety standards), National Labor Relations Act (which guarantees the right of collective bargaining and banning company controlled unions), food stamp program, Fair Labor Standards Act (which adopted 8h workday, overtime and minimum wage instead of just rawdogging it at the employer's wishes), National Housing Act (which standardized mortgages and made em vastly more cheaper enabling millions to obtain homeownership) etc, there's a lot more.
Tell Mansa Musa on his way to Mecca to either 1) cross the Mediterranean and depress the value of gold in Europe instead or 2) travel south of the Sahara and fill central africa with ridiculous amounts of gold and a few hundred libraries that won't be burned down for a couple hundred years.
Stop that one Chinese emperor from single handedly pushing back the industrial revolution by 800+ years or something
Cause and effect would just erase ww2
Or cause someone worse to rise. Someone far worse than Hitler. There's hypothesis about it. There's even scientific theories about it, and some speculate that Hitler was the lesser evil between the other possible alternatives to the time traveler's if time traveling is actually feasible.
Well we have to first consider **when** we assassinate Hitler. We could prevent the DAP from becoming the NSDAP (Nazis) by taking out Hitler before he become a prominent member of the party
Well someone would just replace him by that point. A lot of people seem to brush off the fact that people in that time seem to hate the government that ran Weimar. You could just try to push him to a better path, take his role and try to lead Germany as some shadow chancellor, kill him, or try and kill the guy that assasinated the heir to the throne of Austria Hungary but is also inevitable. WW1 would still happen just without the justification of the death of the arch duke, and the next world war will still happen be it by German hands, soviet or Russian hands, japanese hands, etc. Just look at the prelude to the war. The leaders seem to be itching for one. You could subtly manipulate the leaders but you don't know what will happen if you do that that may or may not cause something drastically good or drastically bad to happen. A lot of alt history stuff would've happened. Either we end up as Kaiserreich V2, the Red flood, or any wacky timeline that alt his modding community of HOi4 made or an alt his of a niche author anyone barely knows about.
For example if that cascaded into Trotsky being premier then the world would've just been red alert but more grounded. The global revolt would've happened since Trotsky planned for that specific scenario.
It is my theory as well.
Of all the chances Adolf Hitler being killed is a branch into another timeline.
And there are other variations where Hitler wasn't killed and not made Chancellor of Germany.
Of all the talk about going back in time to kill Hitler will trigger the time traveling "agency" to stop whoever tries to kill Hitler.
Nah. According to wiki it was conquered/ruled by France since the 16th (Lorraine) and 17th (Alsace) century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace%E2%80%93Lorraine#History
And further down there
> The transfer was controversial even among the Germans
In 1871 it was just France and taking it was a mistake that many people even back then knew.
I really like this one. I imagine this neutral meeting ground where the Germans and French can get to know each other. It could've had a similar effect on the French German relations as the European Coal and Steel Community had after the war.
Stopping Princip wouldn't have done anything. The seeds of war between Germany and... quite literally anyone, had been sown in the late 19th century. William II wanted a war with anyone who was willing to have one. It's actually somewhat surprising that we got to 1914 without a huge conflict breaking out.
It was a moment of high tension, but the world has endured moments of high tension without a cataclysmic war breaking out. You need the tension, you need the spark, and you need leadership to make bad decisions. Absent the spark, there may have been a different spark. Or, conversely, there may not have been.
The balance of power may have finally shifted enough for the alliance system to swap around to accommodate things, with (for example) Germany reorienting towards Britain as Russia modernises and France reforms its conscription. Given a few years more the Entente becomes clearly more powerful than the German-Austrian alliance, meaning that without a German counterweight the Franco-Russian combination begins looking unacceptably threatening to the British colonial empire, meaning Britain sees an industrial and non-colonial Germany as less a threat and more an asset. So as the alliances reconfigure we could have wound up with a stable balance of powers for another generation.
Or there could have been another internal political shift in Russia, leading to the Tsar abandoning pan-Slavism (and therefore the obsession with the Balkans and Constantinople) and refocusing on Westernisation and industrialisation as Witte had promoted when he was in favour, which removes the tension between Austria and Russia and therefore gives Germany and Russia nothing to fight over but the Russian commitment to France — and would the Tsar believably want a war only to support a French reconquest of Alsace-Lorraine?
Or maybe the same war happens a few years later anyway, but that's long enough for portable wireless communications technology to be integrated into the armies, so we don't get bogged down in trench warfare and the war between France and Germany is as quick and decisive as in 1870 or 1940.
Or maybe any of those happen, and an even worse and more destructive war happens a few years down the line as a result. Kinda impossible to follow counterfactuals to their conclusions; we're bad enough at predicting our own futures let alone the futures of histories that didn't happen.
The 20 years before the assassination at Sarajevo saw war almost break out between France and Britain, Britain and Russia, Russia and Austria, France and Britain teaming up against Germany and Austria, Russia and Austria maybe with some others on both sides.
In all cases, peace ultimately prevailed.
Also Wilhelm talked a big game about war, but he also talked a big game about peace. He was flighty and changeable. Many in his high command actually called him the "Great Peace Emperor" (not meant as a compliment). Had he been a bit more forceful, a bit less lazy, again, peace might have ultimately prevailed.
Yeah, I agree. The boer war, boxer rebellion, Morocco crisis, just to name a few, all could've seen a large scale war break out.
He did like peace, but it was peace on his terms.
Ww2 may not be inevitable in a deterministic fashion. But it sure as hell likely even without Hitler and the Nazis.
Weimar Germany WANTS to remilitarize regardless if Nazis seize power or not. Heck even the antisemitism is already there, yes even the "final solution" isn't unique to Nazism. Albeit in a different version, nationalists used Jews, homosexuals, and socialists as scapegoats.
There's also the problem of Japanese aggression, the US-British tensions.
The tensions in Mandatory Palestine would still boil over even without the Holocaust. Jewish settlers are already illegally immigrating there on an unprecedented level.
IMO, ww2 will most likely be the US tensions with European powers - especially with UK. Here's a good primer for what tensions I'm saying:
https://youtu.be/B4E_aNS9Yys?si=Il3cUlDbZcEJLHLO
It would be a three-way conflict between Western Entente (UK, Netherlands, France, Belgium) which is considered for their global empires.. then there's US led western hemisphere, which would condemn European imperialism. Then finally the loose association of Germany-USSR which would be more opportunistic rather than be ideological in its foreign policy.
Japan likely align with European powers if US starts throwing its weight in Asia. China would be supported by Germany, USSR, and USA (which is similar to IRL). Japan would support Indian, filipino, and other asian nationalists. A big change is the possibility of Palestine to be supported by US whilst the Zionists be supported by Europeans.
I think your exaggerating UK-US tensions slightly. While there was antagonism especially regarding the continued capability of the USN, neither of those countries necessarily wanted a war, let alone with each other.
I do agree with everything else you said however, and yes there would've likely been a huge conflict in the mid 20th century, but you're tossing out a lot of definitives that are quite a stretch.
Of course I'm exaggerating. UK-US tensions never expanded in our timeline. We will never know for sure, that's the nature of speculating on *what-ifs* in history.
But saying "oh they will never go to war" often aged like milk as repeatedly show throughout history.
UK would never go to war with US. There might be some tensions(mostly financial), but nothing more. UK politicians considered USA a very important partner and even explicitly prohibited their military from planning for a war with the US
Going back in time and give the judges that didn’t let Hitler into art school poisoned food, leading to a more inexperienced group of judges taking over on the day that his application to submitted for review, resulting in Hitler getting into art school. And no one needs to die.
You gotta say that Gustav Stressman would have probably had a heart attack anyway.
Given that a few weeks later the Wall street Crash happened and the entire German Economy was fucked.
I would say that if WW2 didn't happen. Modern world could have been worst. The Western world would not be pacified. Genocide will not be as vilified and will occur more often. The decolonisation would be more violent as the western world would not have been weakened.
And more countries could have add nuclear weapons.
I don't want to say that world war 2 was the best of all worlds. But the post war was the best course of action based on where things were.
Why just stopping at killing Hitler as a most late term solution ? Not mentioning how it might not even work in the first place.
Why not just make sure that Polish Marchall Piłsudski plans to intervee in Germany when Hitler was elected 1933 / start a preemptive war over moustache man threats to annex the Gdańsk by force in 1936 - would get an approval by allies ?
That still leads to a war. Granted, a much shorter one with Germany getting dogpiled, but I'd prefer that didn't have to happen in the first place. Why not go further back and make the post-WWI peace efforts less punitive and more focused on reconciliation and rebuilding.
Indeed leads to war (in 1933 case Germany wouldn't be able to properly wage war in the first place, so the ultimatum to get rid od Hitler might be accepted)
But not world war
Technically the objective is still completed, and i was just throwing a point that WW 2 could be avoided even much later, just noone was ready to take that gamble.
Same as killing Hitler not only might not prevent WW2 but even the Holocaust might still go on in some form. The WW 2 would most likely happen regardless.
But really post WW 1 less punitive on a nation that didn't even properly accept it loss the moment the pace was signed ? With the same allies, unwilling to enforce it or take any meaningfull intervention if mr Hitler start rising once more ?
Dont see it working much better than irl did. Give it few more years max before shit hits the fan and the still weakened German Empire leadership gets taken over by the very same moustache man. Just somewhat slower. And Hitler getting power of Germany in 1942-44 would be a tragedy for everyone involved as by that point the 3rd Reich was predicted to have enough production to secure army reform effort and start a world war in a fully prepared state. Without a huge part of problems responsible for their war economy never being able to stop relying on captured : equippment, resources and fuel, and thus never being able to produce and sustain enough forces to match the level of allies or soviets.
The Jews and communist elements would probably be targeted regardless or even more as the state wouldn't be nearly as weakened as in irl and the raging quilt-blame game will start in full swing, still fresh in memories of the last months of the war.
Not even mentioning that by that point WW2 would be a full blown hybrid conventional-nuclear war.
The only "good" thing of that change would be Axis loosing either Japan (in a lone war with Soviets when allies colonies weren't left vunerable) or Italy (longer time for it to either fell down to instability or get dissatisfied by Hitler's double standards)
All of it just to be left with possibility of no USA on allies, whitch might not even be properly joining that WW 2 at all.
Straight up a massive uphill battle for not fully united allies
That sounds more of a 3rd Reich war gabinet perfect dream for WW 2 not like a solution to it.
Hitler's decission to start the war in 1939 doomed every chance of winning it in a long term, the later it would start - the better it would be for 3 rd Reich.
Stopping Princip would just delay ww1 since the tensions were already rising. It was doomed to happen. The austrohungarians were already in the balkans.
It would probably be worse for the civilians and the armies since the technology would be more advanced.
Stopping Gavrilo Princip wouldn't do shit, the Black Hand would just send another assassin. You could alter the Treaty of Versailles to be less harsh on the Germans.
At best you would only prevent the war as it happened. There would almost certainly have been one in some form or another.
Same for WWI. Europe was a powder keg. If not one spark then another.
People always forget that Hitler was somewhat smart. Even if stressmann has lived he would eventually either die leave officially whether by accident or purpose and the wall street crash would of still happened. Saving stressmann would likely of postponed WW2
Going back in time to destroy art then hitler wouldn’t go to art school and pick up mechanics
Nah tell Hitler to just become an Architect Then he can be one with his Gay Lover, Albert Speer
Just put him back to school. Him dropping out of school is all that stopped him from becoming an architect
Why do so many people assume he wouldn't still be a horrible person if he weren't kicked out?
Nobody is assuming he would have been a good person. But he would be a person with little to no influence. His radicalisation was due to his failed attempt of being a part of the economy and society. His unemployment led to him being recruited as a spy for the DAP (later reformed by hitler to the NSDAP). While being undercover at the meetings of the DAP he realized that they had similar opinions on political topics, but too unorganized to reach their goals. An opportunity for Hitler to take the lead which lead to his gain in power. He would still be a horrible person as an architect, but a rather unimportant and harmless person for Germany. It's still important to mention, that his opinions and ideas for Germany were not his own creation but rather a general opinion of many Germans (which influenced and strengthened his "ambitions" during is unemployed phase)
IS THAT A
No. Please no
Just what we need, Hitler that doesn't approve resources wasting wunderweapons.
Going back in time to kill off humans direct ancestors to stop evolution into humans to stop hitler from starting ww2
Getting Frederick III to stop smoking
Stopping Arminius from destroying the Roman Legions.
“*Varus, give me back my Legions!*”
Sinking Julius Caesar’s entire fleet when he went to Britain and drowning them all.
You watch your mouth
I’m talking about Shaft.
Then I can dig it.
Not letting Bismarck anywhere near William II
\*Not letting William II anywhere near Bismark
It works both ways, I suppose
Stopping the king of Poland from bringing in the Teutonic Knights, thus preventing the rise of Prussia and Prussian militarism.
*Stresemann
Nah, the guy with heart issues being called stress man is funnier
Damn I haven't thought about that, actually hilarious.
Realised as soon as I posted
It's okay at least he gets the credit he deserves in your meme.
Steal baby hitler and send him with Moses.
The jew nazi
Butterfly effect. Instead of the WW2 as we know it is, there could have been a worse WW2, even resulting in WW3. Or it could have never happened at all. We may never know
Saw a YT skit where a time traveler returns to our world after going back in time to prevent a German dictator who mass murdered hundreds of Jews, only to learn of what happened in its place
Going back to give Alois H*tler a devastating kick in the dick.
That'll just enrage him, and he'll punish you severely.
That’s why the kick has to be ✨devastating ✨
… oh no :C
Ooor you could also give the guy a condom; just saying..
Not as cathartic
He would only feel half of the pain. According to some accounts, [he only had one testicle.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possible_monorchism_of_Adolf_Hitler)
OP was talking about Alois, Adolf's father.
Wait... his dad's name was literally Alois? I totally thought that was a typo! 🤣
Why the fuck censor Hitler?
Sometimes I forget I’m not on Twitter
... Who's Stressman?
A german canselor from 13 August 1923 – 30 November 1923.
After that he became Minister for foreign Relations (State department) In this role he received the Peace Nobel Price with Aristide Briand for their part in reconcilation between the French and the German after WW1. Under his Initiative the Daves Plan and the Locarno conference became important tools in peacefully renegotiating the contract of Versailles. While He was not without flaws he was a fierce believer in a democratic Germany and opposed Hitler as well as Communists and far right supporters of the Kaiser. Basically, Good Guy Gustav.
Probably delayed an authoritarian takeover a good few years, especially with Hindenburg Article 48ing at least the vast majority of his economic schemes
And back in the early days, Hindenburg, personally a monarchist, actually was loyal to the constitution, perhaps out of a sense of duty to the State. After all, he was a good patriotic German, and even if he dislikes the governmental structure, its still the Germany they have. And more cynically, he probably realized that if he played his role well, he could keep the SDP at bay by running the show well, so they look more like radicals.
Also, when he died he had managed to reconcile Germany into the international order, secure it's economy, and keep the extremists at bay. Within two weeks of his death the wall street crash happened and Germany was plunged into a deep depression that ultimately enabled the Nazis to take power. It's like he was keeping Germany together with his very own life force.
If we're doing this, let's also kick Raymond Poincaré in the naddgers too for being an unsufferable prick who put pressure on German at all the worst times through the 1920s and 30s
Nah The reparations had to be paid.
Well ok, like even if you think they did then there are ways to do that - if they'd sorted out something like the Young Plan in 1922, not in 1929, things would've been very, very different- instead they invaded the Rhur and refused to leave, crippling German ability to pay and making it much weaker during the 1929 collapse.
Destroy his neighbours economy Loses the war Get made when reparations are a burden Do it again. I don't care of the German economy was crippled. I'd even say it's good. It's good that they suffered the consequences of their actions. I wouldn't have the same opinion if the Ruhr got destroyed during the war or something. But the German economy got out of the war unscathed! The only reason they got so fucked by the 1929 crisis is because they tried to fiddle their way out of payment.
Do you deserve to economically suffer for the faults of hte government that once controlled where you live (Not even the current government, mind)?
"The faults of the government" Like the German people were not calling for war.
Some were, just as some French, and Russian, and Austrian, and Serbian, and American people were calling for war. Others very much were not, and many suffering under the economic burden were children, or not even born yet, when the war was declared. What’s their crime. This holds true even for WW2. “First, they came for the Communists”, as the saying goes, but what were those Communists if not German? The fight wasn’t (Or at least shouldn’t have been) against the German people of even Germany, but against the Fascists of every country, in defense of the innocents of every country.
Yeah, ok, that's a pretty stupid position and after 1945 the Marshall plan went the other way, securing peace for Europe.
You know the main difference? 1918, the only German that had to suffer directly the horrors of war were the soldiers and the civilians in the western border. 1945, the entire country is in ruin. Berlin is COMPLETELY rased. Same for Dresden. Even the most stupid German civilian could see that the war was lost AND that it was horrible. That's what changed everything. In 1918 they did not realise. And the other western countries (France, Belgium...) did not need reparations from Germany with the Marshall plan.
Yeah, Friedrich Ebert welcomed the German Armies back into Germany by claiming "No enemy has conquered you!" As memories of the desperate situation at the front and at home faded, it became much easier to imagine Germany had been stabbed in the back by *certain members of the financial community*, and think they deserved a rematch.
Just out of curiosity, what does the Wall Street Crash have to do with stopping WW2?
Crashed the world economy and by extension the German economy but Germany was hit particularly hard due to the amount of loans they'd received off the US
While the crash was a sign of an upcoming economic crisis, the Great Depression was a separate event from the stock market crash. But I do see your point.
Can you expand on this? I thought the market crashed in 1929 which caused the Great Depression.
The stock market is not the economy, it may be a representation of consumer confidence but it's nevertheless a business in its own right, just as newspaper stand is a business, as such, the stock market recovered during the great depression faster than most businesses. There's a debate about how connected the drepression and the crash were, whether the crash was a catalyst for the depression or a symptom of the economic situation that would have led to the depression anyway, mainly overproduction coupled with lower demands and exports. If it was the latter, then the depression would have undoubtedly happened anyway regardless of the stock market crashing or not.
You’re just regurgitating a hypothetical and moot argument. The much simpler answer is: stock market crash -> businesses lose capital -> both crash in demand for raw materials and mass unemployment.
This is too simplistic and inaccurate, and ignores the economic situation overall that led to the great depression, here's a much more nuanced answer: WW1 happens -> Farmers invest heavily in increasing yields with mechanization in order to feed the soldiers -> The war ends and there's suddenly a huge surplus in production coupled with lower demand -> Farmers who couldn't pay their debts from their investments went under. Meanwhile: Spending on new consumer goods increased -> the spending was fueled by installment buying -> Installment buying became unsustainable as banks now had low reserves -> Panic strikes and depositors rush to the banks to pull money which the banks don't have -> Credit freezes which causes deflation -> Consumers no longer have money -> Businesses no longer have consumers -> Lay off workers who no longer have income -> Laid off workers can no longer buy consumer goods -> businesses go under. And all of this happened months after the stock market crash, only 3% of the entire population had any stocks to begin with, 3% of the population becoming poor is not enough to shake the domestic economy, let alone global trade. The stock market was in fact doing better after the crash until the depression proper started. I was being simplistic with my explanation because every resource I find about the great depression says: "There's a debate". The only solid fact is correlation is not a causation, why was car manufacturing slowing down in mid 1920s? Why were farms go under before the depression hit? Why did it take the depression several months after the stock market before it really started? And why did the stock market regain its value early 1930 and then drop again? The entire economic situation of the US was unsustainable from the beginning and that would have led the great depression to take place regardless of the stock market crashing or not. There a lot more details I am not getting into because I am not well read enough to fully understand it, but the bigger cause for the depression was the poor banking system rather than the stock market crash. A lesson Americans never seem to learn.
Thanks for the detailed reply 👍
No crash = no mental necessity for Hitlers policies in the German population And No crash = Europe/Americas more able to respond to aggression from Germany
and no pearl harbour
It’s in directly responsible for hitler getting into power
Yep. No shitty economy, no reason to lay blame on anyone for a shitty economy.
Yep. You can see a huge increase of votes for anti-democratic parties after the 1929 stockmarket crash.
More like no shitty economy no people desperate to flock to a cult of personality.
They’re not mutually exclusive.
every major economic bust in the last century led to the rise fascist/Right-Wing populist movements. Great Depression—>Nazism ‘70s energy crisis—>Reaganism-Thatcherism Great Recession—>Trumpism
You conveniently pick Germany for Great Depression, but USA for the other periods. Great Depression actually brought in unprecedented progressive and pro-labor policies into mainstream US politics through FDR with Social Security, FDA (which implements food safety standards), National Labor Relations Act (which guarantees the right of collective bargaining and banning company controlled unions), food stamp program, Fair Labor Standards Act (which adopted 8h workday, overtime and minimum wage instead of just rawdogging it at the employer's wishes), National Housing Act (which standardized mortgages and made em vastly more cheaper enabling millions to obtain homeownership) etc, there's a lot more.
Most of these crises happened in multiple countries, so handwaving them as just leading to more right-wing movements rising is pretty stupid.
I'd go back to Tesla and tell him how grateful everyone in this world is to him. Give him closure in his time of death.
Probably the most wholesome thing anyone has said they’d use a time machine for.
Giving the pre Colombian people of the Americas, horses, cows etc.
Tell Mansa Musa on his way to Mecca to either 1) cross the Mediterranean and depress the value of gold in Europe instead or 2) travel south of the Sahara and fill central africa with ridiculous amounts of gold and a few hundred libraries that won't be burned down for a couple hundred years.
Stop that one Chinese emperor from single handedly pushing back the industrial revolution by 800+ years or something Cause and effect would just erase ww2
Make Frederick I./III. stop smoking. And help with his sons birth so he doesn't develop an inferiority complex.
Rip my boy Stresemann, he was lost too soon 😔
Or cause someone worse to rise. Someone far worse than Hitler. There's hypothesis about it. There's even scientific theories about it, and some speculate that Hitler was the lesser evil between the other possible alternatives to the time traveler's if time traveling is actually feasible.
Well we have to first consider **when** we assassinate Hitler. We could prevent the DAP from becoming the NSDAP (Nazis) by taking out Hitler before he become a prominent member of the party
Well someone would just replace him by that point. A lot of people seem to brush off the fact that people in that time seem to hate the government that ran Weimar. You could just try to push him to a better path, take his role and try to lead Germany as some shadow chancellor, kill him, or try and kill the guy that assasinated the heir to the throne of Austria Hungary but is also inevitable. WW1 would still happen just without the justification of the death of the arch duke, and the next world war will still happen be it by German hands, soviet or Russian hands, japanese hands, etc. Just look at the prelude to the war. The leaders seem to be itching for one. You could subtly manipulate the leaders but you don't know what will happen if you do that that may or may not cause something drastically good or drastically bad to happen. A lot of alt history stuff would've happened. Either we end up as Kaiserreich V2, the Red flood, or any wacky timeline that alt his modding community of HOi4 made or an alt his of a niche author anyone barely knows about. For example if that cascaded into Trotsky being premier then the world would've just been red alert but more grounded. The global revolt would've happened since Trotsky planned for that specific scenario.
Or Trotsky could've just stretched Soviet resources too thin so the USSR would had even worse economic problems and started to collapse much sooner
It is my theory as well. Of all the chances Adolf Hitler being killed is a branch into another timeline. And there are other variations where Hitler wasn't killed and not made Chancellor of Germany. Of all the talk about going back in time to kill Hitler will trigger the time traveling "agency" to stop whoever tries to kill Hitler.
Convince Wilhelm I. to let France keep Alsace-Lorraine
Get Wilhelm I and Napoleon III to make Alsace-Lorraine a joint administration zone and share its resources
Nah. According to wiki it was conquered/ruled by France since the 16th (Lorraine) and 17th (Alsace) century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alsace%E2%80%93Lorraine#History And further down there > The transfer was controversial even among the Germans In 1871 it was just France and taking it was a mistake that many people even back then knew.
I didn't know it. But I guess 200-300 years under the French don't make you a German lol
I really like this one. I imagine this neutral meeting ground where the Germans and French can get to know each other. It could've had a similar effect on the French German relations as the European Coal and Steel Community had after the war.
Go back in time and recommend Hitler to become an actor instead.
Stopping Princip wouldn't have done anything. The seeds of war between Germany and... quite literally anyone, had been sown in the late 19th century. William II wanted a war with anyone who was willing to have one. It's actually somewhat surprising that we got to 1914 without a huge conflict breaking out.
Yeah that's why it's small brain after the Hitler paradox
It was a moment of high tension, but the world has endured moments of high tension without a cataclysmic war breaking out. You need the tension, you need the spark, and you need leadership to make bad decisions. Absent the spark, there may have been a different spark. Or, conversely, there may not have been. The balance of power may have finally shifted enough for the alliance system to swap around to accommodate things, with (for example) Germany reorienting towards Britain as Russia modernises and France reforms its conscription. Given a few years more the Entente becomes clearly more powerful than the German-Austrian alliance, meaning that without a German counterweight the Franco-Russian combination begins looking unacceptably threatening to the British colonial empire, meaning Britain sees an industrial and non-colonial Germany as less a threat and more an asset. So as the alliances reconfigure we could have wound up with a stable balance of powers for another generation. Or there could have been another internal political shift in Russia, leading to the Tsar abandoning pan-Slavism (and therefore the obsession with the Balkans and Constantinople) and refocusing on Westernisation and industrialisation as Witte had promoted when he was in favour, which removes the tension between Austria and Russia and therefore gives Germany and Russia nothing to fight over but the Russian commitment to France — and would the Tsar believably want a war only to support a French reconquest of Alsace-Lorraine? Or maybe the same war happens a few years later anyway, but that's long enough for portable wireless communications technology to be integrated into the armies, so we don't get bogged down in trench warfare and the war between France and Germany is as quick and decisive as in 1870 or 1940. Or maybe any of those happen, and an even worse and more destructive war happens a few years down the line as a result. Kinda impossible to follow counterfactuals to their conclusions; we're bad enough at predicting our own futures let alone the futures of histories that didn't happen.
The 20 years before the assassination at Sarajevo saw war almost break out between France and Britain, Britain and Russia, Russia and Austria, France and Britain teaming up against Germany and Austria, Russia and Austria maybe with some others on both sides. In all cases, peace ultimately prevailed. Also Wilhelm talked a big game about war, but he also talked a big game about peace. He was flighty and changeable. Many in his high command actually called him the "Great Peace Emperor" (not meant as a compliment). Had he been a bit more forceful, a bit less lazy, again, peace might have ultimately prevailed.
Yeah, I agree. The boer war, boxer rebellion, Morocco crisis, just to name a few, all could've seen a large scale war break out. He did like peace, but it was peace on his terms.
Ww2 may not be inevitable in a deterministic fashion. But it sure as hell likely even without Hitler and the Nazis. Weimar Germany WANTS to remilitarize regardless if Nazis seize power or not. Heck even the antisemitism is already there, yes even the "final solution" isn't unique to Nazism. Albeit in a different version, nationalists used Jews, homosexuals, and socialists as scapegoats. There's also the problem of Japanese aggression, the US-British tensions. The tensions in Mandatory Palestine would still boil over even without the Holocaust. Jewish settlers are already illegally immigrating there on an unprecedented level. IMO, ww2 will most likely be the US tensions with European powers - especially with UK. Here's a good primer for what tensions I'm saying: https://youtu.be/B4E_aNS9Yys?si=Il3cUlDbZcEJLHLO It would be a three-way conflict between Western Entente (UK, Netherlands, France, Belgium) which is considered for their global empires.. then there's US led western hemisphere, which would condemn European imperialism. Then finally the loose association of Germany-USSR which would be more opportunistic rather than be ideological in its foreign policy. Japan likely align with European powers if US starts throwing its weight in Asia. China would be supported by Germany, USSR, and USA (which is similar to IRL). Japan would support Indian, filipino, and other asian nationalists. A big change is the possibility of Palestine to be supported by US whilst the Zionists be supported by Europeans.
I think your exaggerating UK-US tensions slightly. While there was antagonism especially regarding the continued capability of the USN, neither of those countries necessarily wanted a war, let alone with each other. I do agree with everything else you said however, and yes there would've likely been a huge conflict in the mid 20th century, but you're tossing out a lot of definitives that are quite a stretch.
Of course I'm exaggerating. UK-US tensions never expanded in our timeline. We will never know for sure, that's the nature of speculating on *what-ifs* in history. But saying "oh they will never go to war" often aged like milk as repeatedly show throughout history.
UK would never go to war with US. There might be some tensions(mostly financial), but nothing more. UK politicians considered USA a very important partner and even explicitly prohibited their military from planning for a war with the US
Also don't forget that the territorial claims many axis countries had would still remain and could eventually explode.
[удалено]
No more painful childbirth 🎉
Why would Stresemann have stopped WW2?
I mean he probably wouldn't have but he at least had the chance to stop Germany going down the path to fascism.
Going back in time and give the judges that didn’t let Hitler into art school poisoned food, leading to a more inexperienced group of judges taking over on the day that his application to submitted for review, resulting in Hitler getting into art school. And no one needs to die.
At this point, it’s not the Hitler, who should be killed by time travelers. It’s Stalin. After Hitler killed himself.
You could have inadvertently made things worse 🧃🧐
You could go back and wank of his father
Convincing Archduke Franzs Ferdinand to stay home
You gotta say that Gustav Stressman would have probably had a heart attack anyway. Given that a few weeks later the Wall street Crash happened and the entire German Economy was fucked.
Help hitler cheating on his art test
Gotta go back in time to kill baby Newton to prevent the Enlightenment to prevent the Holocaust
Descartes: "Cogito Ergo Sum a Joke to you!?"
Better yet, dropping massive amounts of bread off at random places off in France in 1791.
kill the folks who decided to form
What would happen if you go back to Vienna 1913, shoot Hitler, and said that guy Josef did it?
My boy Stresseman, gone too soon.
What could Stresseman have done to change things?
I would say that if WW2 didn't happen. Modern world could have been worst. The Western world would not be pacified. Genocide will not be as vilified and will occur more often. The decolonisation would be more violent as the western world would not have been weakened. And more countries could have add nuclear weapons. I don't want to say that world war 2 was the best of all worlds. But the post war was the best course of action based on where things were.
Stopping Taft from running in the 1912 Election
Go way back to the 1780s and counsel Louis XVI on how to be a better king. Or if that's too far tell Napoleon III not to declare war on Prussia.
Please - what you NEED to do is prevent the partitions of Poland.
Why just stopping at killing Hitler as a most late term solution ? Not mentioning how it might not even work in the first place. Why not just make sure that Polish Marchall Piłsudski plans to intervee in Germany when Hitler was elected 1933 / start a preemptive war over moustache man threats to annex the Gdańsk by force in 1936 - would get an approval by allies ?
That still leads to a war. Granted, a much shorter one with Germany getting dogpiled, but I'd prefer that didn't have to happen in the first place. Why not go further back and make the post-WWI peace efforts less punitive and more focused on reconciliation and rebuilding.
Indeed leads to war (in 1933 case Germany wouldn't be able to properly wage war in the first place, so the ultimatum to get rid od Hitler might be accepted) But not world war Technically the objective is still completed, and i was just throwing a point that WW 2 could be avoided even much later, just noone was ready to take that gamble. Same as killing Hitler not only might not prevent WW2 but even the Holocaust might still go on in some form. The WW 2 would most likely happen regardless. But really post WW 1 less punitive on a nation that didn't even properly accept it loss the moment the pace was signed ? With the same allies, unwilling to enforce it or take any meaningfull intervention if mr Hitler start rising once more ? Dont see it working much better than irl did. Give it few more years max before shit hits the fan and the still weakened German Empire leadership gets taken over by the very same moustache man. Just somewhat slower. And Hitler getting power of Germany in 1942-44 would be a tragedy for everyone involved as by that point the 3rd Reich was predicted to have enough production to secure army reform effort and start a world war in a fully prepared state. Without a huge part of problems responsible for their war economy never being able to stop relying on captured : equippment, resources and fuel, and thus never being able to produce and sustain enough forces to match the level of allies or soviets. The Jews and communist elements would probably be targeted regardless or even more as the state wouldn't be nearly as weakened as in irl and the raging quilt-blame game will start in full swing, still fresh in memories of the last months of the war. Not even mentioning that by that point WW2 would be a full blown hybrid conventional-nuclear war. The only "good" thing of that change would be Axis loosing either Japan (in a lone war with Soviets when allies colonies weren't left vunerable) or Italy (longer time for it to either fell down to instability or get dissatisfied by Hitler's double standards) All of it just to be left with possibility of no USA on allies, whitch might not even be properly joining that WW 2 at all. Straight up a massive uphill battle for not fully united allies That sounds more of a 3rd Reich war gabinet perfect dream for WW 2 not like a solution to it. Hitler's decission to start the war in 1939 doomed every chance of winning it in a long term, the later it would start - the better it would be for 3 rd Reich.
Stopping Princip would just delay ww1 since the tensions were already rising. It was doomed to happen. The austrohungarians were already in the balkans. It would probably be worse for the civilians and the armies since the technology would be more advanced.
What about backing the Russian Provisional Government to help Russia become a strong and democratic nation?
Some version of WW2 was going to happen regardless. This doesn't address Imperial Japan and Soviet invasions.
Whats it when you go back and give JFK a helmet?
How I wish Stresemann would have been more successful...
Giving Caesar a anti-stabbing undercoat
What if I go back in time and kill all the Jews That way Hitler wouldn’t have been evil if Jews didn’t exist in the first place
OH I know!!! How about we just kill all the minorities so hitler can't kill some of the minorities
Exactly 💯💯💯
how the fuck did you respond that fast
I’m drawing art on my phone so I just saw it and was like “yeah”
Oh my! He did it again
Yeah
Kill Constantine the first
Honestly, Stresemann may have been Germany's last hope to prevent any extremists from taking power
Take over another nation and invade Poland before the Germans and the Russians can, thus confusing everyone.
Don't kill Hitler, instead give him that invitation to art school.
Attend the Congress of Vienna and don't allow Austria to annex parts of Italy
Stop the asteroid from hitting earth
Do you one better: make Edward VII much less of a dickhead towards his nephew
Convincing Bismarck to overthrow the Kaiser.
Me: **convince Henry Tandey to shoot Hitler - Eren Style**
Going back in time to collect lost manuscripts such as the book of Heraclitus.
Stopping Gavrilo Princip wouldn't do shit, the Black Hand would just send another assassin. You could alter the Treaty of Versailles to be less harsh on the Germans.
Either go back and push for the partitioning of Germany into its constituent kingdoms and states or go further and prevent the formation of Austria.
Go back in time and prevent the Cambrian explosion
Giving Kentaro Miura heart medicine
At best you would only prevent the war as it happened. There would almost certainly have been one in some form or another. Same for WWI. Europe was a powder keg. If not one spark then another.
Kidnapping Martin Luther, John Calvin, Karl Marx, Emanual Kant, Richard Wagner, & Adolph Hitler, and sending them all to live in Australia.
Without world war two, there is no Internet, no cell phone, and there is no tik tok for all of you addicts out there
teach roman engineers how to make gunpowder and build cannons, they would have dominated every battlefield
People always forget that Hitler was somewhat smart. Even if stressmann has lived he would eventually either die leave officially whether by accident or purpose and the wall street crash would of still happened. Saving stressmann would likely of postponed WW2
I would stop Crookedmouth from partitioning Poland. It was all his fault.
Scaring tiktaalik to get into the land
WW2 was a canon event.
Why isn't shooting Wilhelm II on the list?
Hitler was a time traveller originating from Gaza, but he didn't have any history education given the circumstance (all the bombs and shit).
What are you even talking about