AHC: Reactionary World

Your challenge if you choose to accept it is to have the world be as reactionary as possible with as many reactionary government in power. To clarify this would mean what we in OTL would consider reactionary such as monarchism, religion-dominated society, traditional gender roles and other traditional cultural practices should dominate. Things such as Republicanism, democracy, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Egalitarianism should be marginalized as much as possible.

You can use any series of PoDs as long as they are not before 1900. That gives over 100 years and two world wars to work with.
 
Well, I think the easiest move here is just to have the Axis win WWII on all fronts. That gives you everything from Portugal to the Pacific islands as reactionary, plus all the European colonies they'd gain by conquering the metropolitans.

And one hardly imagines that there would be much incentive to get rid of Jim Crow in the US, for example, if the global standard were being set by guys who make the Dixiecrats look like bleeding-heart liberals.
 
Have Germany win WW1 and have Tsarist Russia survive somehow. Lots of monarchies propped up by Germany before Tsarist Russia picks up steam and starts to become a super power.

With the exception of America, democracy could b found wanting in the face of the Kaiserreich + a world leading Tsarist Russia.
 
Have Germany win WW1 and have Tsarist Russia survive somehow. Lots of monarchies propped up by Germany before Tsarist Russia picks up steam and starts to become a super power.

With the exception of America, democracy could b found wanting in the face of the Kaiserreich + a world leading Tsarist Russia.

The problem is that, unlike Tsarist Russia which truly was anti-democratic to its foundations, the same can not be said about the Kaiserreich. Although the Kaiser continued to wield much power, the tradition of democracy at the local level was very much alive and well in Germany during that era. Most likely, a successful Germany liberalizes on that front even further as veterans return from the front and demand even greater say in affairs. The image of Germany as a bastion of Conservative authoritarianism stems from Allied propaganda and not fact.
 
Well, I think the easiest move here is just to have the Axis win WWII on all fronts. That gives you everything from Portugal to the Pacific islands as reactionary, plus all the European colonies they'd gain by conquering the metropolitans.

And one hardly imagines that there would be much incentive to get rid of Jim Crow in the US, for example, if the global standard were being set by guys who make the Dixiecrats look like bleeding-heart liberals.

Maybe, but as for the latter, I'm actually convinced that the U.S. would be rather more likely to throw a giant "fuck you" to the Axis powers by scuttlling Jim Crow earlier than IOTL; and only the staunchest Dixiecrats would put up more than a token fight-do remember, a not-insignificant part of the reason why so many conservatives hesitated to support Civil Rights(and why most of their Southern counterparts feared it!) was because of the fears of Communist manipulation(which were unfounded, of course, but still.....).

Have Germany win WW1 and have Tsarist Russia survive somehow. Lots of monarchies propped up by Germany before Tsarist Russia picks up steam and starts to become a super power.

With the exception of America, democracy could b found wanting in the face of the Kaiserreich + a world leading Tsarist Russia.

There *is* Britain, however, and their various associated states, such as Canada, etc.

The problem is that, unlike Tsarist Russia which truly was anti-democratic to its foundations, the same can not be said about the Kaiserreich. Although the Kaiser continued to wield much power, the tradition of democracy at the local level was very much alive and well in Germany during that era. Most likely, a successful Germany liberalizes on that front even further as veterans return from the front and demand even greater say in affairs. The image of Germany as a bastion of Conservative authoritarianism stems from Allied propaganda and not fact.

That seems to be pretty plausible, if you ask me. If a *Cold War develops, I don't believe it's too difficult to get a scenario where a moderating/liberalizing Germany might pull a move similar to what China did with the Soviet Union IOTL, and begin to drift away from Moscow, even if not necessarily *towards* London and/or Washington.
 
Central Powers eke out a win in WWI before American troops land in France. America goes fascist and ends up conquering the Pacific and Americas. Germany also drifts this route when it ends up in perpetual war in Russia.
 
Central Powers eke out a win in WWI before American troops land in France. America goes fascist and ends up conquering the Pacific and Americas. Germany also drifts this route when it ends up in perpetual war in Russia.

Germany was pretty democratic and advanced nation and probably would have change as British style constitutional monarchy. And I don't see any reason why USA would goes as Fascist. And can we fascism as reactionary ideology? Isn't that ratherly radical ideology? Leastly it is corrupt form of socialism.
 
Germany was pretty democratic and advanced nation and probably would have change as British style constitutional monarchy. And I don't see any reason why USA would goes as Fascist. And can we fascism as reactionary ideology? Isn't that ratherly radical ideology? Leastly it is corrupt form of socialism.

Yeah, Fascism isn't really reactionary. Fascism is more of a right-wing revolutionary ideology advocating major changes instead of just going back in time as a reactionary would want. Hitler never wanted to restore the German Empire or HRE but to create something that had never been seen before for example. In my opinion the best bet for reactionary expansion is in Tsarist Russia and would spread from there.
 
The problem is that, unlike Tsarist Russia which truly was anti-democratic to its foundations, the same can not be said about the Kaiserreich. Although the Kaiser continued to wield much power, the tradition of democracy at the local level was very much alive and well in Germany during that era. Most likely, a successful Germany liberalizes on that front even further as veterans return from the front and demand even greater say in affairs. The image of Germany as a bastion of Conservative authoritarianism stems from Allied propaganda and not fact.

I was under the impression that the tl wasn't suggesting democracy be forbidden, more that monarchism and the powers of reaction would be stronger.

And it isn't too far to say that Germany was more reactionary than its contemporaries of Britain and France. The Junker domination of German politics was not an invention of propaganda, nor the greater political executive powers of the Kaiser compared to the British model. I am also more inclined to believe a conservative path is more likely following a German victory in WW1, the right being far better organised and more effective in its propoganda when it had less of a leg to stand on, nevermind one where it somehow wins against Britain, France and Russia.
 
Well, I think the easiest move here is just to have the Axis win WWII on all fronts.

Except that Fascism is not reactionary. It appealed to some reactionaries, but it was at heart a radical movement intent on wholesale social reconstruction.

One should note the strong connection between Italian Fascism and the Futurist art movement; and the intense hostility of the Nazis to the traditional German aristocratic elite and to traditional Christian churches.

Fascism was technophilic, and in an odd way, egalitarian. I have read that the class division between officers and other ranks was much smaller in the Waffen-SS than in the German Army; and that the German aristocracy lost most of its remaining position and prestige during the Nazi period.

Fascist architecture was modernist.

This is a difficult challenge, because by 1900 reaction as a political force was deeply in decline and politically impotent almost everywhere.
 
Maybe, but as for the latter, I'm actually convinced that the U.S. would be rather more likely to throw a giant "fuck you" to the Axis powers by scuttlling Jim Crow earlier than IOTL; and only the staunchest Dixiecrats would put up more than a token fight-do remember, a not-insignificant part of the reason why so many conservatives hesitated to support Civil Rights(and why most of their Southern counterparts feared it!) was because of the fears of Communist manipulation(which were unfounded, of course, but still.....).

Going to have to disagree on that one. Fear of communism had as much to do with opposition to civil rights as states rights did with the Civil War. These are people, lest we forget, who wouldn't give water to a child who was dying in front of them because he was the wrong color

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...20140809_1_u-s-40-civil-rights-double-t-diner

They were seriously, deeply, twisted in their views and no amount of outside influence is going to cause them to call time on said views voluntarily, communism be damned.

As to the OP, we live in a pretty reactionary world right now. Not reactionary in the traditional sense, more in the faux futuristic fascist sense. Look at the re-emergence of torture, blanket surveillance, and imprisonment without trial, or the gutting of labour unions , the re-emergence of massive inequality, and the entrenchment of a new aristocracy (family wealth in America and Britain now being the biggest determinant of personal success). Or the rise of the far right in Europe and the tea party in America which believe, by and large, in religion-dominated society, traditional gender roles and other traditional cultural practices, if not monarchism.
 
Last edited:
Except that Fascism is not reactionary. It appealed to some reactionaries, but it was at heart a radical movement intent on wholesale social reconstruction.

One should note the strong connection between Italian Fascism and the Futurist art movement; and the intense hostility of the Nazis to the traditional German aristocratic elite and to traditional Christian churches.

Fascism was technophilic, and in an odd way, egalitarian. I have read that the class division between officers and other ranks was much smaller in the Waffen-SS than in the German Army; and that the German aristocracy lost most of its remaining position and prestige during the Nazi period.

Fascist architecture was modernist.

This is a difficult challenge, because by 1900 reaction as a political force was deeply in decline and politically impotent almost everywhere.

That's all true, and I'll add that in old Nazi propaganda, the word "reactionary" is used as an insult.

However, going by the criteria outlined in the OP...

To clarify this would mean what we in OTL would consider reactionary such as monarchism, religion-dominated society, traditional gender roles and other traditional cultural practices should dominate. Things such as Republicanism, democracy, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Egalitarianism should be marginalized as much as possible.

A world where the Axis won World War II would more or less fit the scenario outlined above, though each country might not encompass all the traits in equal measure with the others. Salazar's Portugal would be more religion-dominated(and less technophiliac) than Nazi Germany, for example. And you might have some Axis-allied places that are at least nominally republican, though nothing is really coming to mind right now.
 

tenthring

Banned
Having either side win WWI in 1914/15 might help. What really did the damage to the old world was how long the war was rather then who won. Also, the war lasting long brings in the USA, and that causes a fundamental change in the USA's character.

Even then, I don't think it much matters. The forces that created the world today would be present no matter what. Economic growth = liberalizing tendencies. Also, just about anything worthy of the name "reactionary" was long dead by 1914. When people were marching around in the Vendee in revolutionary France with muskets chanting, "give us back our King and our Priests!" that was reactionary.

I think a better question is if we've already reached peak democracy/egalitarianism. Some people view these as ideas that won some philosophical contest, but I view them instead as results of political economy under certain economic and technological circumstances.

Namely, democracy rose at a time when mass conscription armies were militarily dominant and low skilled workers were in demand economically. That ended around the 70s/80s. It's no surprise then that people feel like something started going wrong in the democratic west since then. Moreover, the newest power to emerge on the world stage, China, has not felt any need to implement democracy and have built a modern economy without it.
 
Last edited:
Also, regarding the Nazis-while it is true that their brand of political organization may not have been quite traditional, nor where certain of their economic policies(which which more centrist than solidly rightist), they were still quite reactionary in every other meaningful sense of the word, especially in social matters above all(Kinde, Kuche, Kirche, anyone?).....whereas for Stalin, his own social policies, by and large, weren't exactly against traditionalism, but his regime was still revolutionary in most other aspects.

Going to have to disagree on that one. Fear of communism had as much to do with opposition to civil rights as states rights did with the Civil War. These are people, lest we forget, who wouldn't give water to a child who was dying in front of them because he was the wrong color

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...20140809_1_u-s-40-civil-rights-double-t-diner

They were seriously, deeply, twisted in their views and no amount of outside influence is going to cause them to call time on said views voluntarily, communism be damned.

I do honestly believe that the most reactionary Americans probably would not have changed much in a Nazi-Victory scenario-some might actually become even worse! But as for the public as a whole, however, I have long suspected that the horrors of Nazism would certainly have motivated many others to *try* to be a little socially conscious: in this scenario, it's really not that hard to imagine Civil Rights beginning to come to fruition in the middle or late '50s, instead of the middle '60s as in IOTL.
 
Fear of communism had as much to do with opposition to civil rights as states rights did with the Civil War. These are people, lest we forget, who wouldn't give water to a child who was dying in front of them...

This was true of the hard-core white supremacists...

But there was a significant body of other opinion which was deeply suspicious of the civil-rights movement because of Communist involvement in it. A stupid reaction, of course, but a real one. Robert Heinlein noted that Communists served as a sort of "litmus test" for genuine social problems; they were good at finding and exploiting real discontent.

So at the margin, if it is white supremacy rather than civil rights that is associatied with a hostile ideological movement and foreign enemies, that would accelerate the change.
 
And it isn't too far to say that Germany was more reactionary than its contemporaries of Britain and France. The Junker domination of German politics was not an invention of propaganda, nor the greater political executive powers of the Kaiser compared to the British model. I am also more inclined to believe a conservative path is more likely following a German victory in WW1, the right being far better organised and more effective in its propoganda when it had less of a leg to stand on, nevermind one where it somehow wins against Britain, France and Russia.

A conservative Germany after WWI? Look at the result of the 1912 Reichstag elections. Two parties were rising: SPD and Zentrum. Both adovated a parliamentary monarchy with minority and workers' rights. Germany had an universal voting right since 1871 and a quite free press.
 
Top