Could continued scientific racism and Darwinism without WW1 lead to a anti-Christian Europe

Without World War I, a largely secularized, technocratic Europe is possible, but it won't be overtly anti-Christian as most of the continent is likely to remain nominally under Christian monarchies linked to whatever faith is privileged in the realm.
Could those monarchs face some serious trouble those. No world war 1 could lead to a other 1848 type of revolutions again across Europe. Also the growing militaries could easily come into conflict with the monarch and be overthrown. Monarchs are often overthrown or influenced to step done when the country has a large military. I see the British monarch staying similar to OTL but not the Continental ones. I think the Russian, Italian, Habsburg, and few other monarchs are likely to fail and be removed
 
Could those monarchs face some serious trouble those. No world war 1 could lead to a other 1848 type of revolutions again across Europe. Also the growing militaries could easily come into conflict with the monarch and be overthrown. Monarchs are often overthrown or influenced to step done when the country has a large military. I see the British monarch staying similar to OTL but not the Continental ones. I think the Russian, Italian, Habsburg, and few other monarchs are likely to fail and be removed
Co-option of the monarchy by a militarist or fascistic clique seems likelier.
 
Might be hard to pull off the "Christianity has Jewish and Middle Eastern origins" claim because Christianity was too embedded in European culture by the POD.

Scientific racism would need to demonize Christianity strictly on beliefs - Christian doctrine holds that we are all children of God made in His image, and there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (that last part is from today's second reading).

Scientific racism would say that anyone who values all human life is "ignorant" and "superstitious" and "backwards". If you're "enlightened" you take a utilitarian view of human value, with the disabled being unworthy of life and politically disfavored groups being properly relegated to the bottom rung of society, good only for the most menial of labor or for medical experimentation.
 
Co-option of the monarchy by a militarist or fascistic clique seems likelier.
Those elements did not always get along with traditionalist or conservatives. The military also can be meritocratic in nature which can lead lead to dislike towards the royalty by many of them. They often helped them because they hated and feared the left more and saw the monarch as a check to that. If the military thinks the monarchy isn’t doing enough to keep peace, order, or stop radicals they might try to overthrow it. The Middle East monarchs often got deposed by their militaries. This is why Britain is probably good. They don’t have a large standing military at home, has a stable political institution, and lack the troubles of mainland Europe
 
Those elements did not always get along with traditionalist or conservatives. The military also can be meritocratic in nature which can lead lead to dislike towards the royalty by many of them. They often helped them because they hated and feared the left more and saw the monarch as a check to that. If the military thinks the monarchy isn’t doing enough to keep peace, order, or stop radicals they might try to overthrow it. The Middle East monarchs often got deposed by their militaries. This is why Britain is probably good. They don’t have a large standing military at home, has a stable political institution, and lack the troubles of mainland Europe
But look at interwar Europe.

Bulgaria: Fascists kept monarchy
Romania: Fascists kept monarchy
Greece: Metaxas regime kept monarchy
Hungary: conservatives and fascists kept nominal monarchy (albeit with a vacant throne)
Italy: monarchy kept by fascists
Spain: anti-republican fascists build a "state" with monarchist trappings.
 
But look at interwar Europe.

Bulgaria: Fascists kept monarchy
Romania: Fascists kept monarchy
Greece: Metaxas regime kept monarchy
Hungary: conservatives and fascists kept nominal monarchy (albeit with a vacant throne)
Italy: monarchy kept by fascists
Spain: anti-republican fascists build a "state" with monarchist trappings.
Yes, but would that be the same dynamic without the red scare and fears of socialism and communism in those countries. Fascist don’t have the failure of war or as scary of a left(Soviets and Marxist) to play off of. They might use the failures of the country and economy to blame the monarchy and traditionalist elements. Fascist have revolutionary elements. They can build up support among the military and even young by targeting the monarch, nobles, and church while so being the same in most other regards. The targeting of religion those will depend on the country those
 
I don't see how "Scientific Racism" could survive that much longer. The more and more we learned about genetics the more and more ridiculous it looked. There is no real way of stopping that process.

Ideology is a powerful pair of tinted glasses...

I’d also add that Europe is now one of the least Christian parts of the world, especially in terms of any kind of observant practice.
 
I think without a much earlier POD that this is unfortunately ASB. Even the Nazis who people are pointing to as an example didn't really fit, there were anti-christian trends in Nazi Germany but they wre far from the norm or yet an ultimate arbitrater of Nazi policy towards Christianity (with "reforming" Christianity being far greater a trend that dwarfed calls to abolish Christianity).

I think perhaps a later apocalyptic nuclear exchange could cause something similar. Christendom having the negative connotations of having led people to blwoing the shit out of eachother.
 
Yes, but would that be the same dynamic without the red scare and fears of socialism and communism in those countries. Fascist don’t have the failure of war or as scary of a left(Soviets and Marxist) to play off of. They might use the failures of the country and economy to blame the monarchy and traditionalist elements. Fascist have revolutionary elements. They can build up support among the military and even young by targeting the monarch, nobles, and church while so being the same in most other regards. The targeting of religion those will depend on the country those
Without those same leftist regimes, there is less impetus to start with. You cannot have an 1848 without first having a Napoleon.
 
Without those same leftist regimes, there is less impetus to start with. You cannot have an 1848 without first having a Napoleon.
The reason I think a other 1848 revolutions like event could happen is because I could see Europe keep progressing technologically and a bit economically but lagging behind socially and politically without the world wars to the point of people getting really upset by the lack of change they eventually revolt.
 
The reason I think a other 1848 revolutions like event could happen is because I could see Europe keep progressing technologically and a bit economically but lagging behind socially and politically without the world wars to the point of people getting really upset by the lack of change they eventually revolt.
I think a slow evolution of institutions and buying off the masses with public services, both of which happened in the German Empire is at least as likely. In some places at least. Austria-Hungary may be doomed, but I don't see a successful radical departure emerging from its wreckage.
 
Top