AHC: No ideological dictatorships in 20th century

At the beginning of the 20th century there was the widespread belief the century will belong to increased liberalism and progress. All of Europe had some form of democracy, and even Tsar Nicholas was granting the Duma more powers. Reforms were underway in the Ottoman Empire and revolutions were toppling even the most stubborn dictatorships. Instead the 20th century saw the bloodiest and most insane totalitarian regimes in himan history.

So your challenge is to prevent such ideological totalitarian regimes from emerging. So no fascism, communism, or anything like that. There will inevitably be brutal dictatorships, but they must not be backed by a revolutionary and totalitarian ideology. There will be new ideologies, but they must not devolve into totalitarian regimes.

Bonus, people like Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao are heroes of liberalism and democracy.
 
The Provisional Government pulls out of WWI, pre-empting the Bolsheviks on the "peace" issue (and presumably the "bread" issue, since transportation infrastructure will be freed up for civilian use). No Red October.

Alternatively, there's no Kornilov Affair or Kerensky accepts Kornilov's "help" rather than arming the Bolsheviks to fight him. Also no Red October.
 
For the bonus points, and to add to the post above, the Bolsheviks would probably run for some sort of office democratically in the early stages of the new Russian state. Let's say President Lenin knows he can't implement all of his radical reforms without the rest of the gov't and military breathing down his neck, so the Bolsheviks eventually moderate and evolve into a more democratic socialist position.

I know that's vague, but it's almost 12 here, I'm tired...
 
Problem with this is I think the rise of ideological dictatorships were caused somewhat, at least, by the fall of things like monarchy and the like(or power of I should say.)

Basically, dictatorships needed new justifications, so turned to ideologies like Communism and Fascism to provide them.
 
As for Germany, maybe keep them a monarchy, but the Kaiser becomes a mere figurehead? I know, unoriginal and cliche, but he'd probably try to dismiss any government that consolidates too much power, such as someone like Hitler, especially if said person is an Austrian peasant painter. The Nazis happened to catch the suspicious eyes of the German secret service during WWI, which is how Hitler found them in the first place, so they'd probably continue to remain suspicious, along with the communists.
 
As for Germany, maybe keep them a monarchy, but the Kaiser becomes a mere figurehead? I know, unoriginal and cliche, but he'd probably try to dismiss any government that consolidates too much power, such as someone like Hitler, especially if said person is an Austrian peasant painter. The Nazis happened to catch the suspicious eyes of the German secret service during WWI, which is how Hitler found them in the first place, so they'd probably continue to remain suspicious, along with the communists.

Not likely, with World War 1.

Speaking of, guys, you'd have to prevent World War 1, as the war itself discredited much of the establishment pre the conflict. Radical ideologies, and in OTL unfortunately, dictatorships based on them.

Really, you'd have better luck by trying making radical ideologies more democratic. World War 1 simply caused too much damage to the status quoe, making the rise of radical ideologies like Communism and Fascism inevitable, although not those in specific.
 
For the bonus points, and to add to the post above, the Bolsheviks would probably run for some sort of office democratically in the early stages of the new Russian state. Let's say President Lenin knows he can't implement all of his radical reforms without the rest of the gov't and military breathing down his neck, so the Bolsheviks eventually moderate and evolve into a more democratic socialist position.

I know that's vague, but it's almost 12 here, I'm tired...

That would'nt happen; not only were their existing social democratic and outright (non-Bolshevek aligned) socialist parties with support, but the very core of their form of Communism was that anyone to their relative right/did'nt support violent revolution and the establishment of their system was the enemy.
 
Not likely, with World War 1.

Speaking of, guys, you'd have to prevent World War 1, as the war itself discredited much of the establishment pre the conflict. Radical ideologies, and in OTL unfortunately, dictatorships based on them.

Really, you'd have better luck by trying making radical ideologies more democratic. World War 1 simply caused too much damage to the status quoe, making the rise of radical ideologies like Communism and Fascism inevitable, although not those in specific.
Wikipedia solution: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution)
Sergei Witte mantains the Tsar's confidence through the handling of the 900 million rubles loan and his reforms help ease unrest more than IOTL. He keeps his office for longer and the Duma doesn't get repeatedly dissolved by the Tsar. Constitutional monarchy still goes through rough spots with occasional pro-tsarist coups but without purges.

By the time Franz Ferdinand gets shot, Witte's counsel for Russia not to get involved is heeded, and the war with Serbia remains a regional conflict.

:D hey, i said it, it's just a wikipedia solution lol
 
Wikipedia solution: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_Russian_Revolution)
Sergei Witte mantains the Tsar's confidence through the handling of the 900 million rubles loan and his reforms help ease unrest more than IOTL. He keeps his office for longer and the Duma doesn't get repeatedly dissolved by the Tsar. Constitutional monarchy still goes through rough spots with occasional pro-tsarist coups but without purges.

By the time Franz Ferdinand gets shot, Witte's counsel for Russia not to get involved is heeded, and the war with Serbia remains a regional conflict.

:D hey, i said it, it's just a wikipedia solution lol

Could work... assuming France and the UK don't find a reason to get involved, which is not a given.
 
Top