If the nazis won the war, could Hitler pass as a decent guy?

speculative one: (apologies if there is a thread on this already)

“History is written by the victors” as the famous Churchill quote goes. Could this in any way be applicable on Hitler if he had been successful over the Allies (by peace treaty, non aggression pacts, or just complete victory ).

Is there any way that history would forgive/forget his crimes against humanity, and in worst case be regarded as a saviour/hero of sorts?


Btw…Are there historical examples when the “bad guys” wins a major conflict, yet recent history regards the aggressors with valor. (best example I could muster is the American-indian vs the european settlers sitution, which is not really that great of an example)

Depends on how they won. If they defeated the Russians and forced the Brits to surrender, then the US would still be out there, and I doubt Hitler et al could have spun things in such a way that the story of the Holocaust didn’t get out at all, or that it wouldn’t have been viewed negatively by ‘history’. Of course, a lot of folks have seemingly forgotten that Stalin actually slaughter more people during his reign than Hitler did, but then he was around longer, so it’s hard to say.

Unless Germany managed to conquer the entire world, though, I doubt that ‘history’ would have looked on his actions favorably. At best it would have been looked on in a similar light to those of most of the ‘stars’ of Ancients Acting Badly…


Possibly whoever replaced him would denounce him to some extent, as Krushchev did of Stalin. Of course, that depends on how nuts Adolf gets in his later years. Given the select-for-ruthlessness nature of the Nazi party, there’d be purges and arrests and disappearances at an increasing clip as Hitler roots out enemies, real or imagined.

And then, of course, there’s the inevitable economic collapse of fascism itself, what with driving out or killing the educated classes. I basically have no confidence that a stable government could emerge, and Hitler would be blamed sooner or later.

What’s with all these “Hitler might not be al that bad” threads all the sudden??

Nope, he’s bad no matter what.

As has been pointed out, economically Germany is a mess after the war. And there was no way to for the government to survive post-Hitler.

Ohh yeah, he murdered millions of Jews, gays, etc.

No matter what he’s a bad guy.


That’s not the question; the question is could he be spun as a good guy with enough time.

Among Germans I’m quite sure he could, revisionist historians there would have patriotism and national guilt avoidance going for them there. But barring a pretty much impossible world conquest scenario I don’t see the world in general being convinced on that.

Hitler wrote a little known sequel to Mein Kampf in 1928. It was never published but is known as Zweites Buch - Second Book. I’ll just quote some excerpts from the wiki page but it’s hard to believe his expansionist policies wouldn’t have lead him into conflict with the US and other countries. In fact he explicitly states that he expects a war with the US in about 1980. And I think he may have had a go at some African countries too - he was very jealous of Britain’s African possessions and wanted to retake former German colonies.

Is a fine film with Rutger Hauer exploring a world in which Hitler did get away with it. The official story, believed by almost everybody, is that the Nazi’s moved the Jews to an official settlement (I forget where) where they are living happily and semi-autonomously.

So the question, to me anyway, isn’t could they spin the Holocaust, but could they cover it up?

Lots thought Mao was just great, for a long time, some still do. And Stalin. And Hitler for that matter. So yes I’m sure the portrait would be more nuanced than we now appreciate.

Pass among who? Among how many? I remember reading that even as the Reich was collapsing, and the Allies were pouring across the borders, many Germans still belived in Hitler and blamed subordinates for the defeat.

The thing to bear in mind is that a “Hitler Winning WWII” timeline really precludes the Allies getting anywhere near Germany.

Realistically, you’d be looking at a situation where Germany steamrollers Europe (as happened up until 1940) and instead of Britain standing up to them and (cue patriotic music, Union Jack flapping in transparency, images of Spitfires and Lancasters roaring overhead as the soldiers of the entire Empire march towards inevitable victory over the forces of Nazism), Great Britain says “You know what? Bugger this. You stay over in Europe, we’ll focus on our Empire, and nod pleasantly at each other if we pass in the street”.

By the time the Allies were swarming ashore at Normandy, the only way Hitler was going to win was if Harry Turtledove was Game-Master and decided that Aliens should invade at that very point, giving Hitler access to Space Jetpacks and Laser Death Rays and unlocking the Nazi Super Science ability.

I dunno, many historical “victors” were and are regarded by most as monsters - think of Ghengis Khan, Tamerelane, Shih Huang-Ti. There certainly are many who admire their achievements, but most remember them as cruel.

And before that, it was a fine novel by Robert Harris.

But nobody (apart I guess from some Russian nationalists) thinks of Stalin as a hero, just as a less-bad-monster.

Not even then, since IIRC Hitler get’s blown away when the lizards nuke Berlin…plus, they eventually go to war with the aliens over Poland and get their asses (not tail stumps) kicked up around their ears…


Stalin (or Mao for that matter) haven’t gotten the same rap as Hitler though, even if they killed more people (well, Stalin did…not sure of the exact body count of Mao, but would be surprised if he wasn’t close to Hitler). People I talk to (especially apologists with a more communist bent) tend to emphasize the good aspects and down play the whole gulag thingy, or the summary executions, starvation and all the other downer type stuff. I figure that had Germany won it would have been a similar thing…Hitler would have probably been seen for what he was by most (non-German/non-Greater Germany) serious historians as what he was (though there would have been some that made excuses), while a lot of people would have some vague notions that he did bad things, but overall no really know the details. Stalin might have been the monster of the piece, and people might use his name to win cheap points on message boards instead.


Apparently, it’s not just a fringe opinion in Russia.

As to the OP, a lot depends on the means of German victory, with I think the two keys being how much of Germany and/or Europe is reduced to rubble in the process, and how long after victory Adolf hangs on. If Schicklegruber gets his KO or TKO before Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden et al. are leveled, then his positive reputation is relatively assured, although to attain “legendary” status he should croak soon enough after his Victory Parade that the inevitable subsequent infighting and chaos help to mask his crimes.

Other genocides have gotten away with it. But Hitler being Hitler, I don’t think there was an attainable point at which he would have said, “Enough land.” He would have kept going until his reach exceeded his grasp, & then things would have fallen apart. And considering what he did to his political opponents, I don’t think he ever intended to be seen as a nice guy, just a world conqueror.


If Hitler radically changed his own personality, it’s conceivable history would see him in a somewhat favourable light.
Genocides can be swept under the carpet (like this one). And if the market model of New Germany was like West Germany post-war, then the whole region could conceivably have benefitted.
But hitler being hitler what happens instead is endless war and genocide.

Actually, Mao killed more people than Hitler. Cite.