3 ms·

I've never really been one for time-travel hypotheticals. For one, I don't believe time travel is possible. But let's say it is, I imagine our current time woul

by jmyeet 2y ago

I've never really been one for time-travel hypotheticals. For one, I don't believe time travel is possible. But let's say it is, I imagine our current time would be unrecognizable if, say, Hitler had died young. I mean he was wounded in WWI. Death wasn't that far away. But here's the darker truth: Hitler won. I mean Germany didn't physically win the war, obviously. But fascism won. The US fundamnetally changed post-WW2. We immediately went into the Red Scare and the threat of nuclear annihilation that ultimately culminated in the complete destruction of worker solidarity and leftism in the US by the 1980s. We put literal Nazi generals in charge of NATO [1]. There are (IIRC) 65 coups or attempted coups the US has engaged in since WW2. What you have to remember about Hitler was that he was a product of material conditions. One can argue that if it wasn't Hitler who started WW2, it would've simply been a different German. The Spanish Flu, the Armistice, hyperinflation, the Great Depression, etc all aligned to foment a Hiter-like figure. How far back do you go? The seeds for WW2 were planted by WW1. WW1 is really a product of colonialism, of empires and of nationalism, particularly in the post-Napoleon era. I'm not saying history is inevitable but it's naive to think WW2 was simply a product of one man. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Heusinger

parineum 2y ago
Four paragraphs in response to a yes or no question.
orwin 2y ago
Fascism was declining in Germany (From a short majority of 36% to 32%) when Von Papen and Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor, despite Alfred Hugenberg owning most of the German newspapers (not directly owning, it was more of an owning AP kind of situation). Both were afraid of an agrarian reform from the 'left' (which was divided, mostly because the USSR would rather have fascists rather than liberal/republican socialists), because it would decrease their personal power immensely. Not that you're wrong overall, the tactics Nazi used were inspired from the colonisation era, from Gallieni mostly, a bit from Bouchot, but also from their own pre-WW1 colonies were the 'solution' was first implemented (but as no one cared and as the Mozambique tribes didn't wrote anything, the only story we have left are from South Africans who lived near the border.

by jmyeet 2y ago

parineum 2y ago

Four paragraphs in response to a yes or no question.

orwin 2y ago

Fascism was declining in Germany (From a short majority of 36% to 32%) when Von Papen and Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor, despite Alfred Hugenberg owning most of the German newspapers (not directly owning, it was more of an owning AP kind of situation). Both were afraid of an agrarian reform from the 'left' (which was divided, mostly because the USSR would rather have fascists rather than liberal/republican socialists), because it would decrease their personal power immensely. Not that you're wrong overall, the tactics Nazi used were inspired from the colonisation era, from Gallieni mostly, a bit from Bouchot, but also from their own pre-WW1 colonies were the 'solution' was first implemented (but as no one cared and as the Mozambique tribes didn't wrote anything, the only story we have left are from South Africans who lived near the border.