Nature of jet aircraft development in World War II if Hitler had drowned in a river in 1894

A few years ago, I was told that Adolf Hitler almost drowned in a river in Austria in 1894 until a Catholic priest saved his life by pulling him out of the river. Of course, it may be paradoxical that even though the UK invented the jet engine, Nazi Germany built and flew the world's first jet aircraft in 1939, and when Hitler was rescued from the river by the priest in 1894, no one in Austria-Hungary or Germany ever expected him to become an anti-Semite and anti-Slav and hence ultimately a monstrous tyrant. Therefore, I am inviting you to express your take on what jet aircraft development in World War II would have been like if Hitler had drowned in the river in Austria in 1894:

1. 1. If the Nazis didn't come to power, would Great Britain have developed jet bombers to attack Italian military positions in North Africa?
   
2. 2. If Hitler had drowned in a river in 1894, would the US have developed a 12-engine jet bomber to bomb Japan directly from bases in the western US?
   
3. 3. If the Nazis didn't come to power, would Germany have churned out fewer jet aircraft designs than it did in World War II?
   
4. 4. Would the USSR have built American and British jet aircraft under license in World War II so that those aircraft could be used to bomb Japanese positions in China?
   

a reply to: Potlatch

Without Hitler, why would WWII ever occure.

You seem to have a lack of understanding of the butterfly affect.

originally posted by: beyondknowledge2
a reply to: Potlatch

Without Hitler, why would WWII ever occure.

You seem to have a lack of understanding of the butterfly affect.

Some historians consider the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and Benito Mussolini's conquest of Ethiopia to constitute the start of World War II because those acts of territorial aggression took place years before the Germans invaded Poland in September 1939. The Versailles Treaty may have been the long-term cause of Hitler' rise to power, but Italy had its own issues of unemployment shortly after the end of World War I despite having fought the Central Powers in the war, and this was why Benito Mussolini took power. Japan was also on the side of Britain and France in WW1, but it chose to conquer Manchuria because the effects of the global depression in the early 1930s meant that it had to find extra raw materials to serve its growing population. Hitler justified his support of Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia by saying that the invasion was necessary to provide more raw materials for Italy's burgeoning population in order to sustain the sky-high employment Mussolini presided over in the 1920s, and thus Hitler and Mussolini became allies.

As I just said, Japan and Italy would still have ignited the eventual bonfires of World War II even if Hitler had drowned in a river in Austria in 1894, and jet aircraft development in World War II would therefore have involved the Americans building large jet bombers to attack Japan directly from the mainland US, and British and Soviets building jet fighters and bombers to attack Italian and Japanese positions in East Asia and North Africa and stand up to Japanese and Italian fighters. Even so, the Japanese would have built jet engines of their own and fitted them to fighter planes so that those aircraft could attack American intercontinental jet bombers heading towards Japanese airspace.

originally posted by: Potlatch
A few years ago, I was told that Adolf Hitler almost drowned in a river in Austria in 1894 until a Catholic priest saved his life by pulling him out of the river. Of course, it may be paradoxical that even though the UK invented the jet engine, Nazi Germany built and flew the world's first jet aircraft in 1939, and when Hitler was rescued from the river by the priest in 1894, no one in Austria-Hungary or Germany ever expected him to become an anti-Semite and anti-Slav and hence ultimately a monstrous tyrant. Therefore, I am inviting you to express your take on what jet aircraft development in World War II would have been like if Hitler had drowned in the river in Austria in 1894:

1. 1. If the Nazis didn't come to power, would Great Britain have developed jet bombers to attack Italian military positions in North Africa?
   
2. 2. If Hitler had drowned in a river in 1894, would the US have developed a 12-engine jet bomber to bomb Japan directly from bases in the western US?
   
3. 3. If the Nazis didn't come to power, would Germany have churned out fewer jet aircraft designs than it did in World War II?
   
4. 4. Would the USSR have built American and British jet aircraft under license in World War II so that those aircraft could be used to bomb Japanese positions in China?
   

With no Hitler, Germany would probably have fallen to the communists in the 1930s, which mean little to no technical innovation.

Even in our timeline, the British were slow to support Whittle's jet engine and only did so out of fear of the superior axial flow design of the Germans. The soviets only flew the MIG-9 in 1946 using german BMW 003 jet designs. The soviets later licensed the British Rolls-Royce Nene jet engine.

Without Hitler, WW2 would have largely bypassed Europe; Spain with no support from a Nazi Germany would probably also have become communist.

With no competition from Hitler and little conflict in Europe, very little probability the British would have done anything with the jet engine. The Americans in our timeline were highly dependant on the jet engine designs the British gave them during the war and later on the German designers picked up as part of Operation paper clip.

No Hitler, no widespread jet engine usepossibly until the 1950s or even later, and nowhere near as advanced as in our timeline.

Whats this to do with aircraft?

a reply to: Potlatch

I think the dynamics of WW2 would have changed. For starters, without Hitler, there would have been no organization of the MIC in Germany after WW1. Hence, there would have been no rapid development in France, England, to counter Hitler. Further, Russia would have still annexed Poland. Instead of Italy and Japan being a consideration for the start of WW2, Russia would have been the devil instead of Hitler. As a result, Russia more than likely would have eventually forced WW2 by taking countries in central and Eastern Europe, which would have forced France and England to Respond. If Germany had not started arming, due to the WW1 treaty, and a lack of strength. it might have more than likely been conquered by Russia. Hence, WW2 would have looked alot different, with Japan, at war with Russia in the East, while Europe at war with Russia in the West. The battleground would have been Eastern Europe, as England and France slowly liberated German, and pushing Russia back into Russia. The United States would have provided weapons through Lend/Lease and ironically would support the Japanese war effort in the East. As a result, Japan would have taken Siberia vs islands in the pacific. Centralized control of China, Mongolia, and pushed west. England would have landed in Crimea taking the port by sea, with the assistance of Italy. Eventually Russia would have been defeated. The question is though the advancements of rocket and nuclear power. Further, with a defeated Russia without the Warsaw Pact, the 50's, 60's, 70's would look different as you would have a Dominant Japan in the west with China and east asia under its control. A completely unified and free Europe, blocking communism. An Africa that more than likely would look different, as colonism would have continued. As well as India more than likely staying part of the British Empire as the fear of a looming Japanese Army, along with some abscense of war fatigue would have kept India as well as Australia in the Empire. The USA and Europe would probably aligned to form a new United Nations, and that would have Russia Abscent, as well as China. This would have ramifications in central Asia, as the reality is the only avenue for Communist expansion would have been in the middle east, where Russia would arm and fund regime change against england and colonism. This could change the scope of the Middle East as well as India, to Communist Nations. As far as Jet Development. Japan more than likely with their Carrier defense forces would probably be the most advanced. Additionally their Biological warfare would be advanced significantly fighting the Communist in China, as well as the muslims in China. Fast forward to the 90's and on. A robust European Economy would dwarf the US. Japan would still be looking to be isolated, however if Communism remained, The world would more than likely align to japan than Russia.

Yes WW2 would occur, millions and actually billions would probably have died, but the war would have been different with parties aligning differently to counter USSR vs Germany.

Thats my take anyway.

Camain

a reply to: Potlatch

Also, we may have never made it to the moon. Don’t forget “project paperclip” in which we shipped over the V-2 rockets, engineers and scientists which helped us launch us into the space age.

War tends to accelerate technological progress and societal change.

Without Hitler and WW2, the jet would still have happened, albeit slower. Same with inventions and advances in radar, communications, rocketry, medicine, computers, cryptology, and a whole pile of other things.

Without WW2, the world would be greatly different today, but simultaneously the same. We;'ll never know, but we would not have stood still.

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Whats this to do with aircraft?

The first native American jet engines to be designed were the Westinghouse J30 and Lockheed J37, the latter envisaged for the Lockheed L-133 jet fighter project of 1939.

a reply to: Potlatch

The British had the first running Jet Engine.

We gave the technology to The US as part of " Lend Lease "

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Potlatch

The British had the first running Jet Engine.

We gave the technology to The US as part of " Lend Lease "

American engineer Nathan C. Price began work on a jet engine as early as 1938, while Westinghouse initiated a proposal for a jet engine a few months before the first flight of the Gloster G.40 (aka E.28/39).

Link:
www.enginehistory.org...
airandspace.si.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Potlatch

American engineer Nathan C. Price began work on a jet engine as early as 1938.

1938 ? A bit late to the game.

Frank Whittle had the first patent for the Jet Engine in 1932, and had his first Jet Engine running in 1937

Sir Frank Whittle's jet aircraft engine was patented in 1932, and Power Jets, Ltd. formed in 1936. The Whittle Unit bench test engine first ran on April 12, 1937.

airandspace.si.edu...

The first native American jet engines to be designed were the Westinghouse J30 and Lockheed J37, the latter envisaged for the Lockheed L-133 jet fighter project of 1939.

Nothing a Google search wont find...

One basic rule of time travel. Don't change anything.

The real problem with "no Hitler" is that we know what happens with Hitler. There's a possibility that someone or something comes along that's actually worse than Hitler and the Nazis. But never got the chance because of them. Who's to say that a Russia without fighting Hitler wouldn't have tried taking Europe 5 or 10 years later? And would have succeeded because there were no NAZIs to fight first? Or some other nameless person in this timeline may have been the Hitler of the timeline without Hitler? And being smarter and healthier than Hitler means he wins.

Just a few changes here and there could have meant a Nazi win. England tapping out and signing a armistice in 40 or 41. Japan simply delaying the US attacks to 1942 could have caused that too. Or Hitler being a bit more conservative with his air power and keeping their attacks to the night and working over the English radar sites? Or just being aware that Enigma was compromised could have made a real difference. A few changes and Hitler wins the Battle of Britain. Then defeats Russia with all the extra divisions and supplies that were tied down in Western Europe. Europa under a German 3rd Reich leadership could have been reality. Simply put the Allies were hanging on by it's fingernails more than a few times there. They got lucky.

And the TV show "The Man in the High Castle" could have easily been a documentary of the 1960s. Not Fiction.