How different do you think World War II would've been if Hitler got into art school? Or do you think WW2 would've never even happened at all if Hitler got into art school?
| For me, WW2 would still probably happen, but it'll be considerably different if Hitler got into art school, like the Holocaust wouldn't have even happened in the first place, etc. |
 It's hard to win an argument against smart people, but impossible to win an argument against dumb ones. |
| Anime would never have been invented if not for WW2. |
 |
| Well, the thing is that in the run-up to WWII, all the pieces were in place in terms of the material circumstances for violent resentment from within the German populace due to mass economic disenfranchisement of the entire population through imposed WWI reparations and many other related issues (occupation of German towns by colonial French Senegalese troops with the demilitarization of the Rhineland, limitations imposed on armaments and size of the military in all branches, concerns over Slavicization/Polonization of German minority populations; the Volksdeutsche, etc.) And not just that, the material circumstances were such that any united (and newly reunited, politically speaking) Germany, Italy and Japan all were going to rebel against a world order imposed by the British Empire and French Empire they felt were fundamentally unjust and unfair. They were the revanchist and revolutionary powers arrayed against an established and quickly solidifying world order for a reason. Germany over the territorial, economic, prestige, etc. losses as a member of the defeated side of WWI. Italy and Japan were part of the Allied powers during WWI, but had other very serious grievances with the Franco-British side. Italy over being essentially duped and not given what it was owed pursuant to the Treaty of London as a victor on the Allied side for agreeing to join the war effort in the first place and suffer many casualties against Austria-Hungary in mountainous terrain on one of the most treacherous and bitter fronts of the entire war (the Alpine front). And Japan due to centuries of European colonial encroachment into East Asia and competition for influence and control in China, European racism, supremacy, and perceived double standards on naval armament limitations from the Anglo-American side and so on. Basically, because Germany lost and because Italy and Japan were technically on the winning side but felt they got cheated out of what that victory should have earned them and gone on to produce for their respective national futures makes some form of war almost inevitable. The difference is that the old guard Prussian militarists like Paul von Hindenburg were not national revolutionaries like Hitler, the NSDAP, etc. They were national conservatives and would be more limited and narrow in their thinking, maneuvering, and conducting of operations. A war may not have transpired in that exact timeframe in that manner (almost certainly wouldn't, actually), because the regular German general staff would be more timid and not prone to risky international gambits and brinkmanship in that period. Figures like Hindenburg and Ludendorff presided over defeat in the previous world war and would not have permitted this course of action if they still had final say and controlling influence in the last gasp of the Weimar Republic. Germany, the German Empire at the time, under this closed circle was effectively run as a military dictatorship in the final days of the Hohenzollern dynasty (before the German Revolution of 1918 - 1919). They also didn't have the enigmatic personalities, ambitions of grandeur, the oratory, the almost 20th century Alexander the Great or Caesarian persona, cult of personality, and image. If the general outline of events were similar, it's difficult to imagine a concession like Czechoslovakia ceding the Sudetenland would have been forced in a multilateral diplomatic agreement that came down to a lot of bravado and theatre. The French would have adopted a much more forceful and aggressive posture most likely. They at least would have pressed the Saarland offensive into western Germany if things got that far and created a lot of disruption for the German invasion of Poland - the western front could have collapsed speedily and the conservative generals sued for peace/armistice/ceasefire within days or weeks, but again in that scenario it's difficult to imagine a Germany going through with the invasion of Poland in the first place. At least within that same timeframe in that same manner. Even support for the unification with Austria came first from political populism and a political action plan (the Völkisch movement) than a strictly military plan. This tumultuous period was driven and dominated by an ideologue and visionary figure rather than the military brass and strategists. |
WatchTillTandavaFeb 19, 2022 10:51 AM
| According to Shin Devilman, it was a demon that tricked Hitler into becoming evil. The chapter is called "Late Spring in Vienna." |
| その目だれの目？ |
| He got rejected because his landscapes lacked people. All he needed to do was pay more attention to that. Art school could have lead to him being a officer when WWI comes around. He could've gotten that Iron Cross that IRL his Jewish Commander got for ambushing a ton of Allied Soldiers instead of him lying about it when he became Leader (Hitler got an Iron Cross, but it wasn't for that). Would be similar to Rommel in that regard who was a WW1 officer and captured a ton of Allied troops. There is the alternate history biography ''La part de l'autre'' (The Alternate Hypothesis) by Eric Emmanuel Schmitt. The book theme is that very POD about Hitler being accepted. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1016600.La_Part_de_l_autre |
LoliAnchormanFeb 20, 2022 3:50 AM
| Die like you did by the lake on Naboo. |
| A BETTER question is What if Franco went to Art School? He would paint for long hours to relieve stress. Perhaps in contrast to Hitler, if Franco had attempted to enter art school instead of joining the military like most of his family, he would have succeeded and the brutal dictator would never have been. https://listverse.com/2013/02/24/10-brutal-dictators-with-a-secret-soft-side/ |
| Die like you did by the lake on Naboo. |
| Intresting with Selfproclaimed experts. I dont think it would have matter. Its to complex for the human mind to grasp. But by the sound of it some seem to able to tell if he wiped hes ass with hes left or right hand that day. |
 |
| WWII may have happened with a different German leader in same time period due to the material and ideological conditions of the time but hard to say. There may even have been Nazis without Hitler because Fascism and Pan Germanism and eugenics programs still would exist and that's where a lot of the ideology came from. But things also could have been completely different. |
| A world conflict was inevitable even if Hitler didn't came to power. There were enough world tensions between different parties in the world. In a world where Germany doesn't become nazi, it probably would have turned communist sooner or later like some other European countries due to Soviet influence. The conflict would have eventually erupted between URSS and Communist China on one side and US, UK, France, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan on the other side as anti-communist block. |
Ἄκουε δή, ἦ δ᾽ ὅς. φημὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον.  Listen—I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. |
-Valdemar- said: Intresting with Selfproclaimed experts. I dont think it would have matter. Its to complex for the human mind to grasp. But by the sound of it some seem to able to tell if he wiped hes ass with hes left or right hand that day. No one in this thread topic proclaimed themselves an expert, nor does it require an expert credential or status to be something interesting and worthy of discussion to speculate about for anyone interested in and at all knowledgeable about the history of the figure and the time period. You don't have to be an "expert" for that. All it takes is reading, an interest, an imagination, and inqusitive mind. |
WatchTillTandava said: -Valdemar- said: Intresting with Selfproclaimed experts. I dont think it would have matter. Its to complex for the human mind to grasp. But by the sound of it some seem to able to tell if he wiped hes ass with hes left or right hand that day. No one in this thread topic proclaimed themselves an expert, nor does it require an expert credential or status to be something interesting and worthy of discussion to speculate about for anyone interested in and at all knowledgeable about the history of the figure and the time period. You don't have to be an "expert" for that. All it takes is reading, an interest, an imagination, and inqusitive mind. No for sure, No one have ever said "Im a expert" i agree fully with you. dont think einstein did either, but i never looked into him so i cant say for sure. But who knows, he might have said it to that student number 10 he met in the hall on hes way home. But i cant say for sure. I only knows hes name was einstein. Or was it Albert.... hmm |
-Valdemar-Feb 20, 2022 8:38 AM
|
-Valdemar- said: No for sure, No one have ever said "Im a expert" i agree fully with you. dont think einstein did either, but i never looked into him so i cant say for sure. But who knows, he might have said it to that student number 10 he met in the hall on hes way home. But i cant say for sure. I only knows hes name was einstein. Or was it Albert.... hmm I genuinely don't really understand the meaning of this post other than it being generally sarcastic in tone. What's your point? |
| I give you a hint: The answer can be advanced or extremely simple. But it would require to go outside of this threads main topic. How different do you think World War II would've been if Hitler got into art school? Or do you think WW2 would've never even happened at all if Hitler got into art school? Even though that happen long time ago... Anyway, im Hungry |
|
| Yeah a 2 nd world war would have happened; Their was Cold War without Hitler and USSR was with Hitler till he betrayed Stalin. |
 |
| Maybe no holocaust but it's not like Hitler was the only driving force behind WW2. Maybe if Mussolini and Stalin got into art school as well xD |
 |
LoliAnchorman said: A BETTER question is What if Franco went to Art School? He would paint for long hours to relieve stress. Perhaps in contrast to Hitler, if Franco had attempted to enter art school instead of joining the military like most of his family, he would have succeeded and the brutal dictator would never have been. https://listverse.com/2013/02/24/10-brutal-dictators-with-a-secret-soft-side/ Do you think Franco's side would have won the civil war without him? Who would have ruled Spain in his place? |
| その目だれの目？ |
| Nothing much would have changed if Adolf-kun went to an art school... Except that in this AU free thinkers would claim the Horoscope never happened instead. |
 |
Mirai said: Maybe no holocaust but it's not like Hitler was the only driving force behind WW2. Maybe if Mussolini and Stalin got into art school as well xD Antisemitism was fairly common in Pan Germanism. Also Germany had already commited the Herero and Namaqua genocide. Also Germany was who started the war. Stalin only got involved to protect the part of Poland that was illegally anexed from Russia and to try to keep Hitler from attacking the USSR. Stalin requested military backup to stop Hitler but the British and French refused to get involved. |
traedFeb 20, 2022 9:59 PM
| Command and Conquer explores this in a more poignant fashion. It would have resulted in a much more severe war between the East and the West. Instead of the slow atrophying of the Soviet bloc. The West would have never inflicted the sheer carnage upon Soviet conscripts that whetted their appetite for war in the post war period that the SS did. World War II losses of the Soviet Union from all related causes were about 27,000,000 both civilian and military, although exact figures are disputed. A figure of 20 million was considered official during the Soviet era. The post-Soviet government of Russia puts the Soviet war losses at 26.6 million, Governments don't aktually make weapons to sit around collecting dust. |
SoverignFeb 20, 2022 10:56 PM
 |
traed said: WWII may have happened with a different German leader in same time period due to the material and ideological conditions of the time but hard to say. There may even have been Nazis without Hitler because Fascism and Pan Germanism and eugenics programs still would exist and that's where a lot of the ideology came from. But things also could have been completely different. Eugenics was in liberal and social democracies like Sweden, Denmark, Norway up until the 1980s, hardly related to warmongering. Germany was a Prussian-Protestant dominated state, it didn't naturally lean towards Pan-Germanism, because that would add in a competiting block of Catholic Austrians. What is likely is a Danzig dispute, every Liberal government had affirmed it was German territory. However, without the context of an aggressive expansionist authoritarian Germany, it's like to be negotiated or a local conflict. Antisemitism was fairly common in Pan Germanism. In an ethnocentric era, where every group is looking out for it's own interests, the ethnic, cultural, linguistic, regional, class, nobles, religious, denominational, ideological, well of course they are going to be "anti-" every other group. So pointing out antisemtism was part of pan-germanicism would be like pointing out antisemtism was part of drinking water and breathing air, whether it was German liberalism, French conservatism or Chinese communism, there was antisemtism. Also Germany had already commited the Herero and Namaqua genocide. Was retroactively considered a genocide 1985 onwards, so clearly politically motivated. Was more similar to British actions towards the Boers, where they were contained to prevent guerilla warfare. Also Germany was who started the war. Stalin only got involved to protect the part of Poland that was illegally anexed from Russia and to try to keep Hitler from attacking the USSR. Stalin requested military backup to stop Hitler but the British and French refused to get involved. Stalin had expanded into Finland, the Baltics and Romania, so clearly the Soviets were aggressively expanding. They took those territories because they were East Slavic, part of the core Soviet nation. Also pointing out that Poland illegally annexed those lands again is pointless, as everything was illegally annexed in the interwar years. |
RuneRemFeb 21, 2022 12:55 AM
RuneRem said: Stalin had expanded into Finland, the Baltics and Romania, so clearly the Soviets were aggressively expanding. They took those territories because they were East Slavic, part of the core Soviet nation. I agree with some of your other points, but those countries aren't East Slavic or really even Slavic at all. Romania is Latin and speaks a Romance language in the same linguistic family as Italian and Spanish. Finland has a Germanic minority (Swedes) and also an East Slavic (Russian) minority from the time when it was the Grand Duchy of Finland as an autonomous territory within the Russian Empire for over 100 years from the early 19th century to the early 20th century, but ethnic Finns themselves are Finno-Ugric and closer to Estonians and Hungarians. Estonians also speak a Finno-Ugric language. The Balts of the Baltic republics, including Estonia, are considered ethnically closer, but Balts are generally distinguished as predating Slavs as an identity group. Romania also had some territory annexed by the Soviet Union (Bessarabia and northern Bukovina), but Romania itself as a whole was never taken into the Soviet Union and made a constituent Soviet socialist republic (SSR). Communist Romania was considered quite maverick within the context of the Eastern Bloc and had some tensions with Moscow. |
WatchTillTandavaFeb 21, 2022 2:00 AM
RuneRem said: traed said: WWII may have happened with a different German leader in same time period due to the material and ideological conditions of the time but hard to say. There may even have been Nazis without Hitler because Fascism and Pan Germanism and eugenics programs still would exist and that's where a lot of the ideology came from. But things also could have been completely different. Eugenics was in liberal and social democracies like Sweden, Denmark, Norway up until the 1980s, hardly related to warmongering. Germany was a Prussian-Protestant dominated state, it didn't naturally lean towards Pan-Germanism, because that would add in a competiting block of Catholic Austrians. What is likely is a Danzig dispute, every Liberal government had affirmed it was German territory. However, without the context of an aggressive expansionist authoritarian Germany, it's like to be negotiated or a local conflict. Antisemitism was fairly common in Pan Germanism. In an ethnocentric era, where every group is looking out for it's own interests, the ethnic, cultural, linguistic, regional, class, nobles, religious, denominational, ideological, well of course they are going to be "anti-" every other group. So pointing out antisemtism was part of pan-germanicism would be like pointing out antisemtism was part of drinking water and breathing air, whether it was German liberalism, French conservatism or Chinese communism, there was antisemtism. Also Germany had already commited the Herero and Namaqua genocide. Was retroactively considered a genocide 1985 onwards, so clearly politically motivated. Was more similar to British actions towards the Boers, where they were contained to prevent guerilla warfare. Also Germany was who started the war. Stalin only got involved to protect the part of Poland that was illegally anexed from Russia and to try to keep Hitler from attacking the USSR. Stalin requested military backup to stop Hitler but the British and French refused to get involved. Stalin had expanded into Finland, the Baltics and Romania, so clearly the Soviets were aggressively expanding. They took those territories because they were East Slavic, part of the core Soviet nation. Also pointing out that Poland illegally annexed those lands again is pointless, as everything was illegally annexed in the interwar years. Hitler took his genocide inspiration from America's forced sterilization programs lead by conservative politicians and from it's past actions against Native Americans not the progressive eugenics groups which only was focused on self opted mate selection for reproduction because trying to improve health of the people was seen as progress. I havent looked into the Scandinavian programs but they likely are like the progressive American ones at the time. Don't pretend negative eugenics such as genocide is same as positive eugenics. So it's just a matter of if another German would have taken it same direction Hitler did. It may not have happened without Hitler just Im saying the sources still existed. Also reminder, Hitler before changing his mind thought it would be good to euthanize mentally and physically disabled children and had a program to do so for a while. Germany didn't lean toward a Nazi ideology either but Hitler won anyway from his political trickery. I just threw Pan Germanism in there because it's closest to an ideology Nazis take root in along with Facism so I was saying the Nazi party in theory could have been created under someone other than Hitler. Whether they would win or not without him is another question. I'm not debating pointless hypotheticals. Points I have been making on what is possible over something far more difficult to predict, what would happen. "Ethno centric era" Over simplified way topput it. I mean Stalin a Georgian was leader of USSR which was primarily Russian. Hitler was an Austrian leader of Germany. Also are you forgetting Hitler was a Catholic so clearly religion wasnt that big a dividing force?(though his own version of it).. Yes antisemitism was relatively common in many countries I just was speaking of Pan Germanism since it's ideology is in line with what is required for Germany to expand in the direction it attempted to under Hitler. Hitler also got some of his ideas from occult groups in Germany though he did take his own interpretation so it is harder to argue someone else could be in Hitler's exact place. That's a moot point of semantics even if that were true. It's still killing people en mass including the unarmed women and children. It matters in that even if without Germany IF the USSR went into Poland it likely would have been limited expansion back to previous territory or just Poland at most if any not result in an alternate WWII because Britain and France obviously had no care for what happened in Poland. But I havent seen documentation suggesting it was planned before Hitler's plan to invade so without Germany involved the USSR may not have went into Poland at least not them. Germany being involved is crutial to it leading to WWII. The other places was all strategic military locations against the Nazi forces preventing themselves from being surrounded. Hitler planned to kill the Slavs so it's not comparable to what Hitler did in his expansion for domination while Stalin was going for setting up defenses against Hitler's advances. It's highly questionable they would have done any expansion outside of diplomacy without direct military threat at least for the time period. The Sinno Japanese war still would have occured without Germany. However because Churchill's lie about Germany planning to invade the US is a big part of what got the US involved in WWII it's somewhat questionable if the US would have still blockaded Japan leading to Japan bombing Pearl Harbor and the US going to war against Japan as result and killing millions. On top of that without the US involved Korea never would have been split up by the US installing a dictator in the South, though at this point things get real complicated because the US involvement and defeat of Japan in WWII and demands of them after is what withdrew Japan out of Korean occupation so perhaps Korea would have remained Japanese occupied and may have lead to some later conflict in Korea if they tried to fight off the Japanese but maybe not and we would have had a larger more powerful Japan. Im less familiar with stuff beyond this scope on all the stuff in China for example, how that may have changed or not changed. But at least it would be known without Germany the scientists who worked on trying to develop nuclear weapons would likely have been focused on some other nuclear application so US under no threat would have not had nukes to drop on Japan even if it were still to intervene in the sinno Japanese war in which case Japan still basically lost before the nukes were dropped but at least there wouldnt be so many civilian deaths as in this timeline we are in. |
| Hitler and his stupid mustache, using Jews as an excuse to complain about how unfair the world is. When it was only unfair towards him and he was frustrated at that prospect. WW2 would have occurred with or without him. The only difference is we had a person to call a villain and feel better. How pathetic would we seem if we didn't have anyone to pin the whole blame on. It's in our nature to seek conflict, nobody is willing to be honest about it though. |
 |
WatchTillTandava said: RuneRem said: Stalin had expanded into Finland, the Baltics and Romania, so clearly the Soviets were aggressively expanding. They took those territories because they were East Slavic, part of the core Soviet nation. I agree with some of your other points, but those countries aren't East Slavic or really even Slavic at all. Romania is Latin and speaks a Romance language in the same linguistic family as Italian and Spanish. Finland has a Germanic minority (Swedes) and also an East Slavic (Russian) minority from the time when it was the Grand Duchy of Finland as an autonomous territory within the Russian Empire for over 100 years from the early 19th century to the early 20th century, but ethnic Finns themselves are Finno-Ugric and closer to Estonians and Hungarians. Estonians also speak a Finno-Ugric language. The Balts of the Baltic republics, including Estonia, are considered ethnically closer, but Balts are generally distinguished as predating Slavs as an identity group. Romania also had some territory annexed by the Soviet Union (Bessarabia and northern Bukovina), but Romania itself as a whole was never taken into the Soviet Union and made a constituent Soviet socialist republic (SSR). Communist Romania was considered quite maverick within the context of the Eastern Bloc and had some tensions with Moscow. Sorry to waste your time, but I meant eastern poland was East Slavic, as in small Russian and white Russian, or more commonly known as Ukrainian and Belarusian. |
RuneRem said: Sorry to waste your time, but I meant eastern poland was East Slavic, as in small Russian and white Russian, or more commonly known as Ukrainian and Belarusian. Ah, I see. No problem and thanks for the clarification. |
More topics from this board
» Have you ever thought about giving up youtube?Thy-Veseveia - 6 hours ago |
14 |
by Daviljoe193
»»
1 minute ago |
|
» 2024 Olympics ThreadHitagi__Furude - 33 minutes ago |
2 |
by deg
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » online paranoiadeg - 5 hours ago |
7 |
by Daviljoe193
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» How good are you at organizing your life?RobertBobert - Yesterday |
10 |
by deg
»»
18 minutes ago |
|
» Have you ever safely met a person from the Internet?DesuMaiden - Jul 21 |
46 |
by zsxa
»»
26 minutes ago |