A What-if question

[mapuc]

yesterday I saw a documentary about the last day of Berlin. Later in the evening I saw the primetime news where they had an issue about North Korea.

That made me wonder What if

Nazi-Germany didn't became aggressive against other European countries, but became a European version of North Korea. A country where the Nazi parti runs an extreme form for dictatorship.

1. Would Germany been attacked by England, France and Perhaps Soviet, if they had stayed home and mind their own business ?

2. I haven't expand my what if to Japan. My thought is only about what if Germany......

Markus

[Platapus]

Several historians and some German Generals thought that Hitler started the war about 3-5 years too soon.

In retrospect, I think that if Germany just kept to their own borders that the rest of the world would have turned a blind eye at least for a few more years

Japan is another story as they needed the resources outside their country so they really did not have the option of "keeping to themselves"

[Eichhörnchen]

Desire for 'Lebensraum' meant that conflict was inevitable... Hitler would never have kept things at home. But if he'd not started by trying to make "home" bigger, and instead gone straight after Russia, then things would of course have been different. But could he have done so without first annexing Austria?

[mapuc]

Thank you for your answer. I know Hitler had a Lebensraum-desire

But my question was inside this What if-Germany didn't attack other countries but stayed home and developed an European version of North Korea. Where the Nazi Party run the country with extreme dictatorship.

Would Germany have been attacked by the Allied under any circumstances whether they had stayed home or not ?

I have read a lot of what if/alternative stories about Germany just before, under and after, I have not found any what if/alternative stories about a Germany that stayed home and who minded their own business after about June 1939. and forward.

Markus

[Skybird]

Is North Korea really that defensive as you imply? Or are they simply lacking the strength needed to strike beyond their borders?

And what about inner dynamics ? Can a regime turning paranoid really assumed to remain defensively when paranoia may lead it sooner or later to concuding that it must preemptively strike before the others do? Another inner dynamic may result from the desire of the regime to surivve in times of nation-wide economic and social collapse - by cretaing a strawman the masses can project their anger on. In Germany, that was the racist card being played: the Jews were the strawman.

Which leads to another perspective: could a regime, or state order, that brings racism and its own racial supremacy into the game, really be expected to stay passive?

England and France wanted to believe Hitler meant peace, everybody was eager to hope that the first world war would have been the first and last of its kind. The best symbol of this naivety, was Chamberlain's trip to Munich, and the euphoria the worthless piece of paper unleashed that he waved in his hand when he returned and left the plane. Yes, England and France would have stayed neutral on Germany if Germany would not have struck first. And England was not really best prepared for war with germany anyway. Thats why the Germans brought them close to the brink of defeat.

By equipment, Germany was not really best prepared as well, France initially had better and heavier tanks for example. But the Germans were determined, brave, and executed courageously new, unproven tactics and strategies that were still held in doubt, in England and France, at least had not convinced all commanders and generals.

[STEED]

Well within the question I would go with a cold war starting more early.