What about in a scenario where Nikolai Bukharin or Joseph Stalin instead took over the USSR when Lenin died? These two people formulated a theory entitled "Socialism in One Country" in contrast to Trotsky's ideal of "Permanent Revolution".
DBWI: Adolf Hitler was a Fascist
- Thread starter Scorpio Retindar
- Start date
That could be an interesting possibility. Would the rapid industrialization process in the USSR under Trotsky happen in a Stalin or Bukharin-led Soviet Union? Will communism be a longer-lasting ideology than OTL?
Theodor Morell was pretty competent, despite the 'relying on hard drugs to control Goering' thing. I don't quite know if I'd call him a fascist, though, per se.
Do you remember Volksgenosse!, where Streicher and Arthur Axmann got to power? The book and then film, by Richard Erlenmeyer?
Koba or however this insane man from Georgia was called? "Stalin" as a nickname is - as far as I remember - fictional. And... of course Koba or Kopa would have caused a World War, too!
No, I would say there wasn't.
See, the issue stems from why. OTL, Germany was still a significant player-they lost Danzig and Holstein, even most of the sudentland, but Poland, the Bohemian Republic, and even the Duchy of Holstein (before rejoining Denmark) used the Mark for several years and reduced inflation, and even got the northern half of the Belgian Kongo so they got kleinmittleafrika. President Wilson was a tad idealistic but his peace without victory really appealed to Germany and Britain.
I’m sorry but I don’t see a treaty brutal enough for Hitler to radicalise making it through the US senate, and with them the only ones in shape to fight if negotiations broke down, they held the bargaining
power
I’m sorry but I don’t see a treaty brutal enough for Hitler to radicalise making it through the US senate, and with them the only ones in shape to fight if negotiations broke down, they held the bargaining
power
Could this possibly happen when Eugene V. Debs is POTUS? Wouldn't he impose that sort of radical treaty?
I don’t think I recognise those two? Was it a TR/Wilson/Taft situation where someone split a party vote? Or are these two from Britain or France? Ya gotta remember, the early twentieth century was the cloudy period of the British sunlight, it wasn’t as strong as its become with control of the western Pacific, Persia or Ethiopia added to the empire-it was practically an American puppet Between American entrence to the Great War and Churchill’s election as our sole trade partner. Britain basically agreed to everything Wilson said and France was suppressing revolutions on all sides and in no position to enforce anything stronger.
Dispite this, the British were in a position to push onwards, They had a large army in were well exipiranced. It is just that they also did not want a harsh peace deal, in case of french domination of the containiate? Or is this what you were saying?
It is one person called Eugene Debs, an american. I am sure @Red Arturoist can tell us more?
That’s actually a slight misconception. Britain had the army on continent to push, but it wasn’t able to reinforce another three months, and India was beginning to cry out for further autonomy. Ultimately Britain could have crafted a draconian nightmare, but the men up top saw it would be really stupid.
Ah - sorry - yes it appears you are right.
The blockade could still be enforced though, and that was important to force Germany to the table. Still they were back to square one once the blockade was lifted as a condition of the armistice. (Or am I wrong again?)
You aren’t necessarily wrong, but France was getting so tired of fighting they were in a civil war with a theocratic catholic uprising that was primarily in by the south and had a good chunk of the French navy. Now this uprising eventually failed, but that was only because Britain signed the armistice with Germany and could focus its navy on restoring order to the Mediterranean while America quelled the land uprising. This is actually why Italy holds Algiers to this day-French colonies were still in notable revolt and Mussolini bought Algiers, even giving Muslims in the province legal equality (of course, not Africans, and the vast majority of Muslims were African)
Lets say then that that revolt never happens, for what ever reason. Then we would see France in a strong negotiatinting postion than the British or the Americans, and therefore a harsher peace agaist germany?
Oh yeah definitely. Especially since for it to never happen they would’ve already had to be doing better
Now as for effects of Hitler being a fascist, we likely would’ve seen a very quick conflict in Europe as a prelude to Trotsky. Chamberlain would’ve pro appeasing him, but Churchill’s so called Electoral Coup (as its called in the states, since he took the ministry in a complete shock-American policial analysts only gave a 17 percent chance of victory) would mean a swift end to that policy, because Hitler’s first move would certainly be going the Bohemian Republic, which Churchill was seriously invested in, having made a good friend of its President
Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk. This war would be a Britannic victory, and its early mobilisation would have seriously increased its economy, limiting the European Depression and had the empire more prepared for Trotsky, which would’ve lessened the bloodshed of the Second World War.
France would be hit worse than Germany. OTL, Hitler reestablished trade with France and Belgium. If he was fascist, he’d have promoted militant self sufficiency, and instead of helping rebuild the republic from The Crusader Rebellion I mentioned earlier, he might help reestablish The Crusader State of France as a puppet by funding the last bubbles of insurrection in Toulouse or Brittany. Worst of all would be the neigh inevitable genocide of Africans, Jews, Romani, and countless more.
Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk. This war would be a Britannic victory, and its early mobilisation would have seriously increased its economy, limiting the European Depression and had the empire more prepared for Trotsky, which would’ve lessened the bloodshed of the Second World War.
France would be hit worse than Germany. OTL, Hitler reestablished trade with France and Belgium. If he was fascist, he’d have promoted militant self sufficiency, and instead of helping rebuild the republic from The Crusader Rebellion I mentioned earlier, he might help reestablish The Crusader State of France as a puppet by funding the last bubbles of insurrection in Toulouse or Brittany. Worst of all would be the neigh inevitable genocide of Africans, Jews, Romani, and countless more.
TheNixonator
Donor
OTL Hitler disliked Christianity and denounced the Catholic Church. Fascism even less so.
I don’t see why he would do that
Legitimacy. A friendly regime is a friendly regime. They also wouldn’t even run as a theocracy, it would just be called that to keep the people calm
TheNixonator
Donor
Will look what Hitler did with Poland. The regime he put in there claimed to be democratic, and yet still arrested many priests pretending they were “Socialists”. That’s the main reason the regime would eventually dissolve