Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial role (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson rather than under Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go into exile or something), would Hitler have still been able to come to power and do what he did? On the one hand, a parvenu such as Hitler would not have fit in very well in Hohenzollern high society; on the other hand, though, Hindenburg likewise strongly disliked Hitler and yet still appointed him Chancellor.

And would a German monarch with comparable powers to Italian King Victor Emmanuel III (so, not that much, but not nothing either) have been able to dismiss Hitler if Hitler's adventurism put Germany at risk of sparking another World War? If so, would he have aimed to do so immediately or waited until a significant setback would have actually occurred? And would he have been discouraged from doing this by any demand by the US for the "unconditional surrender" of Germany, which would presumably include putting the German Kaiser on trial in addition to putting Hitler and the Nazis on trial (especially considering that the Americans might view the Nazis as simply being a tool of Kaiserism and Prussian militarism--albeit perhaps a tool gone rogue)?

On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 6:12:24 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
> Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial role (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson rather than under Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go into exile or something), would Hitler have still been able to come to power and do what he did? On the one hand, a parvenu such as Hitler would not have fit in very well in Hohenzollern high society; on the other hand, though, Hindenburg likewise strongly disliked Hitler and yet still appointed him Chancellor.
>
> And would a German monarch with comparable powers to Italian King Victor Emmanuel III (so, not that much, but not nothing either) have been able to dismiss Hitler if Hitler's adventurism put Germany at risk of sparking another World War? If so, would he have aimed to do so immediately or waited until a significant setback would have actually occurred? And would he have been discouraged from doing this by any demand by the US for the "unconditional surrender" of Germany, which would presumably include putting the German Kaiser on trial in addition to putting Hitler and the Nazis on trial (especially considering that the Americans might view the Nazis as simply being a tool of Kaiserism and Prussian militarism--albeit perhaps a tool gone rogue)?

And what about the anti-Semitic discrimination and the Holocaust? What exactly is going to happen with that in this scenario? On the one hand, the Ottoman Empire had a figurehead Sultan and yet still committed the Armenian Genocide, but on the other hand, the Armenian Genocide was nowhere near as thorough as the Holocaust was.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 18:12:23 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial role (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson rather than under Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go into exile or something), would Hitler have still been able to come to power and do what he did? On the one hand, a parvenu such as Hitler would not have fit in very well in Hohenzollern high society; on the other hand, though, Hindenburg likewise strongly disliked Hitler and yet still appointed him Chancellor.
>
>And would a German monarch with comparable powers to Italian King Victor Emmanuel III (so, not that much, but not nothing either) have been able to dismiss Hitler if Hitler's adventurism put Germany at risk of sparking another World War? If so, would he have aimed to do so immediately or waited until a significant setback would have actually occurred? And would he have been discouraged from doing this by any demand by the US for the "unconditional surrender" of Germany, which would presumably include putting the German Kaiser on trial in addition to putting Hitler and the Nazis on trial (especially considering that the Americans might view the Nazis as simply being a tool of Kaiserism and Prussian militarism--albeit perhaps a tool gone rogue)?

A more interesting WI would have been if the German recruiting officer
in 1914 had said "hmmm - says here you're a Austrian citizen - you're
applying to join the wrong army!" (or worse flunks Hitler on his
physical)

After all Hitler did not become a German citizen till about a year
before he became Chancellor....

On 6/26/21 8:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial
> role (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson
> rather than under Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go
> into exile or something), would Hitler have still been able to come
> to power and do what he did?

Probably not,. If the monarchy was preserved, then so is the
aristocracy and the regional monarchies. Nazi radicalism would
have been at odds with those institutions. While the Nazis did
co-opt many German aristocrats, they did so after the aristocracy
had been disestablished - and I think largely after the takeover,
when the Nazi radical wing (the Sturmabteilung) had been suppressed.

I don't knwo very much about the Fascist takeover in Italy, or
how the Fascist goal of radical social transformation was
reconciled with continuation of the monarchy. Or whether the
same trick could be pulled in Germany.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 18:12:23 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear wrote:

> Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial role (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson rather than under Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go into exile or something), would Hitler have still been able to come to power and do what he did? On the one hand, a parvenu such as Hitler would not have fit in very well in Hohenzollern high society; on the other hand, though, Hindenburg likewise strongly disliked Hitler and yet still appointed him Chancellor.
>

As it was actualy majority that Hitler got and needed to come to power was
very small. What did it was a Catholic monarchist Franz von Papen. If the
monarchy was still in power, I doubt that Hitler would have got the
majority so *NO*.

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:18:27 AM UTC+1, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 18:12:23 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4j...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial role (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson rather than under Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go into exile or something), would Hitler have still been able to come to power and do what he did? On the one hand, a parvenu such as Hitler would not have fit in very well in Hohenzollern high society; on the other hand, though, Hindenburg likewise strongly disliked Hitler and yet still appointed him Chancellor.
> >
> >And would a German monarch with comparable powers to Italian King Victor Emmanuel III (so, not that much, but not nothing either) have been able to dismiss Hitler if Hitler's adventurism put Germany at risk of sparking another World War? If so, would he have aimed to do so immediately or waited until a significant setback would have actually occurred? And would he have been discouraged from doing this by any demand by the US for the "unconditional surrender" of Germany, which would presumably include putting the German Kaiser on trial in addition to putting Hitler and the Nazis on trial (especially considering that the Americans might view the Nazis as simply being a tool of Kaiserism and Prussian militarism--albeit perhaps a tool gone rogue)?
> A more interesting WI would have been if the German recruiting officer
> in 1914 had said "hmmm - says here you're a Austrian citizen - you're
> applying to join the wrong army!" (or worse flunks Hitler on his
> physical)
>
> After all Hitler did not become a German citizen till about a year
> before he became Chancellor....
>
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Adolf_Hitler#First_World_War

On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 18:13:38 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 6:12:24 PM UTC-7, WolfBear wrote:
>> Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial role (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson rather than under Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go into exile or something), would Hitler have still been able to come to power and do what he did? On the one hand, a parvenu such as Hitler would not have fit in very well in Hohenzollern high society; on the other hand, though, Hindenburg likewise strongly disliked Hitler and yet still appointed him Chancellor.

I'd say yes - what you describe is roughly the role of von Hindenburg
in his final days.
>> And would a German monarch with comparable powers to Italian King Victor Emmanuel III (so, not that much, but not nothing either) have been able to dismiss Hitler if Hitler's adventurism put Germany at risk of sparking another World War? If so, would he have aimed to do so immediately or waited until a significant setback would have actually occurred? And would he have been discouraged from doing this by any demand by the US for the "unconditional surrender" of Germany, which would presumably include putting the German Kaiser on trial in addition to putting Hitler and the Nazis on trial (especially considering that the Americans might view the Nazis as simply being a tool of Kaiserism and Prussian militarism--albeit perhaps a tool gone rogue)?

In my view that would trigger a pro-Nazi coup which given the role of
paramilitaries 1930-35 they'd probably win handily. (Their only
conceivable rival the Communists will have been nicely defanged as per
OTL)

>And what about the anti-Semitic discrimination and the Holocaust? What exactly is going to happen with that in this scenario? On the one hand, the Ottoman Empire had a figurehead Sultan and yet still committed the Armenian Genocide, but on the other hand, the Armenian Genocide was nowhere near as thorough as the Holocaust was.

And how many Germans professed not to know in 1945? I can't imagine
Hirohito was kept abreast of Japanese biological warfare experiments
involving Koreans, Chinese and POWs. Doesn't mean it didn't (or
wouldn't) happen!

Even if there was no Holocaust at all Dr Mengele with a completely
free hand would be pretty horrific

On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 18:41:59 +1000, SolomonW <SolomonW@citi.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 26 Jun 2021 18:12:23 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear wrote:
>
>> Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial role (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson rather than under Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go into exile or something), would Hitler have still been able to come to power and do what he did? On the one hand, a parvenu such as Hitler would not have fit in very well in Hohenzollern high society; on the other hand, though, Hindenburg likewise strongly disliked Hitler and yet still appointed him Chancellor.
>>
>
>As it was actualy majority that Hitler got and needed to come to power was
>very small. What did it was a Catholic monarchist Franz von Papen. If the
>monarchy was still in power, I doubt that Hitler would have got the
>majority so *NO*.
>
Why not? MOST interwar German governments were coalitions of the sort
that were extremely mainstream among European democracies of that era.
How is the election structure in Weimar Germany essentially all that
different from France, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria of that era?

Face it - the kind of coalition that brought Hitler to power would be
considered entirely "mainstream" in any continental European country
from WW1 to the present day. The Nazi "seizure of power" was a myth
used by the Nazis - the truth is that it was entirely constitutional
going by the rules of the day. (What happened with the Enabling Act
and other legislation not so much)

On 6/27/21 12:31 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> Face it - the kind of coalition that brought Hitler to power would be
> considered entirely "mainstream" in any continental European country
> from WW1 to the present day.

Not exactly. The exclusion of the Nazis from government was extra-
constitutional, but the Nazis had placed extra-constitutional
conditions on entering government (only if Hitler was Chancellor).

> The Nazi "seizure of power" was a myth
> used by the Nazis - the truth is that it was entirely constitutional
> going by the rules of the day.

Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was constitutional - barely.
What happened later was not.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 21:44:05 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 6/27/21 12:31 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> Face it - the kind of coalition that brought Hitler to power would be
>> considered entirely "mainstream" in any continental European country
>> from WW1 to the present day.
>
>Not exactly. The exclusion of the Nazis from government was extra-
>constitutional, but the Nazis had placed extra-constitutional
>conditions on entering government (only if Hitler was Chancellor).
>
>> The Nazi "seizure of power" was a myth
>> used by the Nazis - the truth is that it was entirely constitutional
>> going by the rules of the day.
>
>Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was constitutional - barely.
>What happened later was not.

Didn't I say that specifically that concerning his accession to power
and then the latter referring to the Enabling Act ("entirely
constitutional .... what happened later not so much")

In other words I think we're on the same page. What happened 30 Jan
1933 (I'm talking his accession to power, not my father who was born
that same day but ironically had zero interest in history unlike his
son!) was entirely in line with how legislative coalitions were formed
in the western European democracies. Again there was plenty of stuff
particularly after the Reichstag fire that was anything but.

My point is Jan 30, 1933 really WASN'T a big news item as it was just
another accession to power of yet another German coalition. No one
thought at that time it meant war 6 1/2 years later.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 01:12:59 -0700
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 21:44:05 -0500, Rich Rostrom
><rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 6/27/21 12:31 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> Face it - the kind of coalition that brought Hitler to power would be
>>> considered entirely "mainstream" in any continental European country
>>> from WW1 to the present day.
>>
>>Not exactly. The exclusion of the Nazis from government was extra-
>>constitutional, but the Nazis had placed extra-constitutional
>>conditions on entering government (only if Hitler was Chancellor).
>>
>>> The Nazi "seizure of power" was a myth
>>> used by the Nazis - the truth is that it was entirely constitutional
>>> going by the rules of the day.
>>
>>Hitler's appointment as Chancellor was constitutional - barely.
>>What happened later was not.
>
>Didn't I say that specifically that concerning his accession to power
>and then the latter referring to the Enabling Act ("entirely
>constitutional .... what happened later not so much")
>
>In other words I think we're on the same page. What happened 30 Jan
>1933 (I'm talking his accession to power, not my father who was born
>that same day but ironically had zero interest in history unlike his
>son!) was entirely in line with how legislative coalitions were formed
>in the western European democracies. Again there was plenty of stuff
>particularly after the Reichstag fire that was anything but.
>
>My point is Jan 30, 1933 really WASN'T a big news item as it was just
>another accession to power of yet another German coalition. No one
>thought at that time it meant war 6 1/2 years later.

And that is a"metapoint": most history is observed in retrospect.
E.G., nobody had July 28, 1914 as "Start of World War One"
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 07:02:22 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>>My point is Jan 30, 1933 really WASN'T a big news item as it was just
>>another accession to power of yet another German coalition. No one
>>thought at that time it meant war 6 1/2 years later.
>
> And that is a"metapoint": most history is observed in retrospect.
>E.G., nobody had July 28, 1914 as "Start of World War One"

Well of course - but then at what point for the typical German after
30 Jan 1933 did war (1) cease to be unthinkable and (2) virtually
certain?

My late grandmother (who had grown up in Ireland and by 1939 was the
mother of a young Canadian child) first became convinced war was
inevitable after the German occupation of Prague.

She told me there was one extremely patriotic family in her home town
that never ever attended Armistice Day services. She learned later
they had lost a son on 10 November 1918.

On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 1:05:48 AM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/26/21 8:12 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> > Had Germany kept its monarchy after 1918 but in a mostly ceremonial
> > role (probably under Kaiser Bill's eldest son or eldest grandson
> > rather than under Kaiser Bill himself, who might still have to go
> > into exile or something), would Hitler have still been able to come
> > to power and do what he did?
> Probably not,. If the monarchy was preserved, then so is the
> aristocracy and the regional monarchies. Nazi radicalism would
> have been at odds with those institutions. While the Nazis did
> co-opt many German aristocrats, they did so after the aristocracy
> had been disestablished - and I think largely after the takeover,
> when the Nazi radical wing (the Sturmabteilung) had been suppressed.
>
> I don't knwo very much about the Fascist takeover in Italy, or
> how the Fascist goal of radical social transformation was
> reconciled with continuation of the monarchy. Or whether the
> same trick could be pulled in Germany.
>
> --
> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

Was Italian Fascism not revolutionary? Were the Ottoman Empire's Young Turks and Three Pashas not revolutionary?

On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 8:15:47 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 07:02:22 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >>My point is Jan 30, 1933 really WASN'T a big news item as it was just
> >>another accession to power of yet another German coalition. No one
> >>thought at that time it meant war 6 1/2 years later.
> >
> > And that is a"metapoint": most history is observed in retrospect.
> >E.G., nobody had July 28, 1914 as "Start of World War One"
> Well of course - but then at what point for the typical German after
> 30 Jan 1933 did war (1) cease to be unthinkable and (2) virtually
> certain?
>
> My late grandmother (who had grown up in Ireland and by 1939 was the
> mother of a young Canadian child) first became convinced war was
> inevitable after the German occupation of Prague.
>
> She told me there was one extremely patriotic family in her home town
> that never ever attended Armistice Day services. She learned later
> they had lost a son on 10 November 1918.

To clarify: The family that lost a son on November 10, 1918 was Irish?

On 6/28/21 11:24 PM, WolfBear wrote:
> Was Italian Fascism not revolutionary?

Yes - and yet somehow it coexisted with the Italian
monarchy, and appealed to many reactionary aristocrats.

I'm not sure the same trick could have been managed in
Germany.
--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:15:43 -0700
typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 07:02:22 -0700, pyotr filipivich
><phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>My point is Jan 30, 1933 really WASN'T a big news item as it was just
>>>another accession to power of yet another German coalition. No one
>>>thought at that time it meant war 6 1/2 years later.
>>
>> And that is a"metapoint": most history is observed in retrospect.
>>E.G., nobody had July 28, 1914 as "Start of World War One"
>
>Well of course - but then at what point for the typical German after
>30 Jan 1933 did war (1) cease to be unthinkable and (2) virtually
>certain?

a) define "typisch Deutscher" B-)
b) how much of 'being German' involved restoring German Pride and
"lost territory"?
IMHO, Once Gobbels (and The Party) took control of the media, war
ceased to be "unthinkable". And as long as Hitler was successful at
low cost, alles gut. However, there were those who would say (early
on) that Hitler was a gambler who had been lucky so far, and one of
these days, his gamble will fail, "and then where will we be, nu?" How
many, and of what influence they might have had is pretty much a moot
question.

>My late grandmother (who had grown up in Ireland and by 1939 was the
>mother of a young Canadian child) first became convinced war was
>inevitable after the German occupation of Prague.

I suspect that various people / persons / Governments had the
perception that war was inevitable at different events. E.G.,
Churchill vs Chamberlain
>
>She told me there was one extremely patriotic family in her home town
>that never ever attended Armistice Day services. She learned later
>they had lost a son on 10 November 1918.

Something like that can really ruin things for you.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 21:25:24 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> My late grandmother (who had grown up in Ireland and by 1939 was the
>> mother of a young Canadian child) first became convinced war was
>> inevitable after the German occupation of Prague.
>>
>> She told me there was one extremely patriotic family in her home town
>> that never ever attended Armistice Day services. She learned later
>> they had lost a son on 10 November 1918.
>
>To clarify: The family that lost a son on November 10, 1918 was Irish?

Well East Belfast - so definitely of the Orange persuasion. (My
grandmother emigrated in 1926)

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 07:33:42 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> on Mon, 28 Jun 2021 20:15:43 -0700
>typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 07:02:22 -0700, pyotr filipivich
>><phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>My point is Jan 30, 1933 really WASN'T a big news item as it was just
>>>>another accession to power of yet another German coalition. No one
>>>>thought at that time it meant war 6 1/2 years later.
>>>
>>> And that is a"metapoint": most history is observed in retrospect.
>>>E.G., nobody had July 28, 1914 as "Start of World War One"
>>
>>Well of course - but then at what point for the typical German after
>>30 Jan 1933 did war (1) cease to be unthinkable and (2) virtually
>>certain?
>
> a) define "typisch Deutscher" B-)

Agreed - there are many regional differences amongst Germans and I
strongly suspect that it was even more so 100 years ago.

> b) how much of 'being German' involved restoring German Pride and
>"lost territory"?

At that time wars often led to changes in territory - it was by no
means aa unthinkable as the United States annexing Nova Scotia would
be today.

Obviously your two points were a key part of the Nazi appeal. Equally
obviously they had support in 1933 they didn't have in 1925 or they
couldn't have done what they did.

> IMHO, Once Gobbels (and The Party) took control of the media, war
>ceased to be "unthinkable". And as long as Hitler was successful at
>low cost, alles gut. However, there were those who would say (early
>on) that Hitler was a gambler who had been lucky so far, and one of
>these days, his gamble will fail, "and then where will we be, nu?" How
>many, and of what influence they might have had is pretty much a moot
>question.

It's not as if after 1934 Germany was going to the polls any time
soon.

>
>>My late grandmother (who had grown up in Ireland and by 1939 was the
>>mother of a young Canadian child) first became convinced war was
>>inevitable after the German occupation of Prague.
>
> I suspect that various people / persons / Governments had the
>perception that war was inevitable at different events. E.G.,
>Churchill vs Chamberlain

One of the great mysteries to me is when Chamberlain got his cancer
diagnosis. Clearly AFTER Munich but before (and from his conduct of
the war up till then not far before) May 1940. He died before the end
of 1940 and I believe in May 1940 he knew he had at most a year to
live.
>>
>>She told me there was one extremely patriotic family in her home town
>>that never ever attended Armistice Day services. She learned later
>>they had lost a son on 10 November 1918.
>
> Something like that can really ruin things for you.

That works both ways - my firstborn was born 1 July 1987 which was
both our national day and the day of public release of our $ 1 coin.
I've told several customers I have no idea what day the $ 2 coin was
introduced since nothing important affecting my family happened that
day other than that it was later than the $ 1 coin....

My grandmother told me this as I was starting to get interested in
history and understood full well the significance of 11/11/1918. No
question it was a gutwrencher and I understood all too well the horror
of that date for the family concerned.

On 6/29/21 10:37 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> One of the great mysteries to me is when Chamberlain got his cancer
> diagnosis. Clearly AFTER Munich but before (and from his conduct of
> the war up till then not far before) May 1940. H

Wiki sez he was diagnosed at the end of July 1940; he went in
for a check-p because he had pains and other symptoms. Bear in
mind that after resigning as PM, he became Lord President of
the Council and a member of the War Cabinet, i.e. he kept
working.

Wiki also sez the cancer diagnosis was kept from him unti
September, when he became too ill to work.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On 6/29/21 9:33 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> And as long as Hitler was successful at
> low cost, alles gut. However, there were those who would say (early
> on) that Hitler was a gambler who had been lucky so far, and one of
> these days, his gamble will fail, "and then where will we be, nu?"

My understanding is that there was no enthusiasm for war in 1939.
Germans all knew what happened 25 years before, and how it ended.
Even after the victory over Poland, there was little confidence.
Then came the stunning victory over France. After that, Hitler
was the Magic Man, and could do no wrong.

Until after Stalingrad... And at that point, Germans were
committed to the war, and didn't want to think it was a mistake.
I recall seeing this summary of German popular thinking over
the course of the war:

1939 - We're going to win.
1940 - We won!
1941 - We are winning.
1942 - We must win.
1943 - We must not lose.

--
Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Tuesday, June 29, 2021 at 5:17:27 PM UTC-7, Rich Rostrom wrote:
> On 6/29/21 9:33 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> > And as long as Hitler was successful at
> > low cost, alles gut. However, there were those who would say (early
> > on) that Hitler was a gambler who had been lucky so far, and one of
> > these days, his gamble will fail, "and then where will we be, nu?"
> My understanding is that there was no enthusiasm for war in 1939.
> Germans all knew what happened 25 years before, and how it ended.
> Even after the victory over Poland, there was little confidence.
> Then came the stunning victory over France. After that, Hitler
> was the Magic Man, and could do no wrong.
>
> Until after Stalingrad... And at that point, Germans were
> committed to the war, and didn't want to think it was a mistake.
> I recall seeing this summary of German popular thinking over
> the course of the war:
>
> 1939 - We're going to win.
> 1940 - We won!
> 1941 - We are winning.
> 1942 - We must win.
> 1943 - We must not lose.
> --

1944: Wonder Weapons will save us!
1945: We lost.

> Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.
> --- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 21:24:24 -0700 (PDT), WolfBear <m4josh@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Was Italian Fascism not revolutionary? Were the Ottoman Empire's Young Turk=
>s and Three Pashas not revolutionary?

I'd say yes to both but no question Hitler came to power entirely
constutionally - and he was constantly engaging in revolutionary
rhetoric (though he seemed to tone it down at the end of 1932 thru
1934 or so at least temporarily presumably to get the industrialists
on side.

It's not like Hitler ever went to the beer hall and led choruses of
whatever the German answer to "solidarity forever' might have been.

Nor did he ever trail the KPD once his party got to 100+ seats in the
Reichstag.

(I could be wrong but I think I read somewhere that in East Germany
the folks that were most persecuted by the Soviets and Stasi were the
ex-Communists who had "gone brown" after 1933.)

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 03:12:49 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 6/28/21 11:24 PM, WolfBear wrote:
>> Was Italian Fascism not revolutionary?
>
>Yes - and yet somehow it coexisted with the Italian
>monarchy, and appealed to many reactionary aristocrats.
>
>I'm not sure the same trick could have been managed in
>Germany.

Yes but Mussolini played the "artistic revolutionary" - that's the
wrong term but I'm talking about the kind of mystique that in the
English speaking world was encapsulated by folks like Byron and
Shelley - not that Mussolini was much of a writer - not even up to
Hitler's rather low standard!

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:09:42 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 6/29/21 10:37 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> One of the great mysteries to me is when Chamberlain got his cancer
>> diagnosis. Clearly AFTER Munich but before (and from his conduct of
>> the war up till then not far before) May 1940. H
>
>Wiki sez he was diagnosed at the end of July 1940; he went in
>for a check-p because he had pains and other symptoms. Bear in
>mind that after resigning as PM, he became Lord President of
>the Council and a member of the War Cabinet, i.e. he kept
>working.
>
>Wiki also sez the cancer diagnosis was kept from him unti
>September, when he became too ill to work.

If Wiki's right then why did Chamberlain not fight harder to retain
his job in May 1940?

In his 6 volume history Churchill says it's because Attlee and other
top Labourites told him they wouldn't serve in a wartime coalition but
would under a different Conservative prime minister but given how
close Churchill was to the change of power I'm reluctant to take him
at face value on something as close to him as assuming the prime
ministership.

If there's ONE point he's likely to 'spin' surely it's this one and
WSC was a master spinner as we all know!

On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 19:17:25 -0500, Rich Rostrom
<rrostrom@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 6/29/21 9:33 AM, pyotr filipivich wrote:
>> And as long as Hitler was successful at
>> low cost, alles gut. However, there were those who would say (early
>> on) that Hitler was a gambler who had been lucky so far, and one of
>> these days, his gamble will fail, "and then where will we be, nu?"
>
>My understanding is that there was no enthusiasm for war in 1939.
>Germans all knew what happened 25 years before, and how it ended.
>Even after the victory over Poland, there was little confidence.
>Then came the stunning victory over France. After that, Hitler
>was the Magic Man, and could do no wrong.
>
>Until after Stalingrad... And at that point, Germans were
>committed to the war, and didn't want to think it was a mistake.
>I recall seeing this summary of German popular thinking over
>the course of the war:
>
>1939 - We're going to win.
>1940 - We won!
>1941 - We are winning.
>1942 - We must win.
>1943 - We must not lose.

Everything I've read aligns nicely with the way you put it (and not
just on the last part either!)