Were it not for Hitler, who do you think would have been history's

Stalin

>>1859383

There probably wouldn't be a single one, absent some other figure who is generally blamed for starting a world war. You'd more likely get a larger cast of regional villains.

Gotta say Stalin

WW2 could easily have been against the USSR with Hitler as the good guy

>>1859395

>WW2 could easily have been against the USSR with Hitler as the good guy

Not likely. Stalin was far more cautious and opportunistic than Hitler was. Whatever his ultimate intentions, he's not likely to start wars he has even the remotest chance of losing. Look how careful he was before invading tiny nations like Finland and Poland and Romania. He wouldn't go anywhere before isolating them politically and massing at about 10:1 odds.

>>1859383

Napoleon Bonaparte.

You might say Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong, but when you take Hitler out of the equation too much changes in the 20th century.

>>1859441
>Napoleon
>villain

I want Britain to leave

>>1859449

Ask yourself why Hitler is the go-to history villain.

Genocidal will? Far from alone there.

Political ideology? Others had far worse.

Most recent and scary attempt to militarily subdue Europe? Ding ding ding.

It's not about what you do, it's about how far you get in the perceptions of others.

Had a Soviet leader attempted to push into Western Europe during the Cold War, it would probably be him we held as history's greatest villain. And Hitler's image probably would have been even rehabilitated a bit for it.

>>1859485
Heck, Hitler was even praised as an anti-communist crusader by the likes of Churchill before he became an international threat.
People seriously underestimate how concerned about marxism interwar governments were.

hitler is only a villain because he lost.