Could anything have been done to prevent the rise of Fascism, in your opinion?

[Stephen the Great]

The title explains itself - to an extent.

The NSDAP - German Nazis - rose to power in 1933 as the result of a series of events. Later on their leader, Adolf Hitler, embarked on a war of conquest. Was there anything that the world could have done to stop Hitler taking power or starting a rampage?

[Tryhard]

Harsh penalties and reparations enforced on Germany on the part of the Treaty of Versailles may have been a motivator for fueling feelings of desperation (not to mention the hyperinflation that occurred to their currency especially after the costs of the First World War, a war they didn't think they started or were responsible for) and an inclination to go with a fascist strongman in Germany.

Mussolini was placed in power in 1922 as well, also at a time of political turmoil.

Edited November 6, 2017 by Tryhard

[Moblin Major General]

Yes and no. Fascism was systemic from World War 1, with the 3 major axis countries having something go wrong for them. Germany was victimized by Versailles, causing currency to basically Zimbabwe, which led to Germany borrowing from the US, which caused an even greater crash for Germany during the Great Depression, which got the Nazis in power. Versailles was the cause. Treaties should never be punitive, as that just causes more resentment.

[Espinosa]

Millions of innocent people lost their lives because of the bigotry and Hitlerism that permeated Germany and other parts of the world. It was an obscene period in our nation’s history. No, not our nation’s. But in World War II, I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn’t live in this century. But in this century’s history. Because we did not have—as a matter of fact we fought—Hitlerism, which was a totalitarian form of government.

Seriously though, I've always held the belief that excessive tolerance leads to phenomena like Hitler appearing and going on a rampage. The force was unstoppable and it seems wrong to me whenever I hear too little was done. It was given the exact reaction and treatment it deserved. But for it to appear in the first place, there must have been an environment for going against common sense and twisting everything that'd to do with human nature. 

[Stephen the Great]

8 minutes ago, Espinosa said:

Millions of innocent people lost their lives because of the bigotry and Hitlerism that permeated Germany and other parts of the world. It was an obscene period in our nation’s history. No, not our nation’s. But in World War II, I mean, we all lived in this century. I didn’t live in this century. But in this century’s history. Because we did not have—as a matter of fact we fought—Hitlerism, which was a totalitarian form of government.

Were you quoting Mr. Bush Jr. by any chance? "It's clearly a quote, it's got a lot of words in it."

[Espinosa]

4 minutes ago, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

Were you quoting Mr. Bush Jr. by any chance? "It's clearly a quote, it's got a lot of words in it."

No, this genius. Close enough I guess.

[Stephen the Great]

So, in your opinions, if Versailles had been less punitive, matters would have been less problematic.

[ping]

My last history lessons are quite a while ago, but...

As far as I remember, the Weimar Republic did not have sufficient checks and balances against extremists from any side seizing power. The position of the president was way too powerful (it was basically built to be an "Ersatzkaiser", which I probably don't even have to translate) and the parliament could easily deside to take away its own power. There's also the fact that Hitler had been grossly underestimeated when he was elected Chancellor - the Zeit (a German weekly magazine) actually did an article about that some months ago. Basically, people thought that the Nazis would be the weakest part of their coalition with the conservative parties, and that Hitler would mellow out once he'd be in office. It certainly didn't help that the left was completely divided at the time - the social democrats didn't particularly mind when the Nazis went after the communists after the Reichstag burning and when the Enabling Act was passed, they were the only faction left to oppose it.

The Treaty of Versailles certainly was a powerful tool of propaganda, especially in conjecture with the "Dolchstoßlegende" (Stab-in-the-back-myth), but the Weimar Republic as a whole was just a house of carts.

[blah the Prussian]

42 minutes ago, ping said:

My last history lessons are quite a while ago, but...

As far as I remember, the Weimar Republic did not have sufficient checks and balances against extremists from any side seizing power. The position of the president was way too powerful (it was basically built to be an "Ersatzkaiser", which I probably don't even have to translate) and the parliament could easily deside to take away its own power. There's also the fact that Hitler had been grossly underestimeated when he was elected Chancellor - the Zeit (a German weekly magazine) actually did an article about that some months ago. Basically, people thought that the Nazis would be the weakest part of their coalition with the conservative parties, and that Hitler would mellow out once he'd be in office. It certainly didn't help that the left was completely divided at the time - the social democrats didn't particularly mind when the Nazis went after the communists after the Reichstag burning and when the Enabling Act was passed, they were the only faction left to oppose it.

The Treaty of Versailles certainly was a powerful tool of propaganda, especially in conjecture with the "Dolchstoßlegende" (Stab-in-the-back-myth), but the Weimar Republic as a whole was just a house of carts.

I'm inclined to agree overall. The Wiemar Republic was ultimately a failed state. Aside from the problems you mentioned, none of its institutions were loyal to it, so it was never really able to even attempt the reforms it needed. I'm inclined to go with Churchill and say that the Monarchy should have been kept under Wilhelm II's son as a figurehead, to increase institutional loyalty to the new government and give it some breathing room to reform. Also, whatever you do, don't base your entire economy off of loans from one country. Stressemann was quite overrated.

As for Italy, what you need is a government willing to enforce the law. Unlike Germany where Hitler was committed to legality, Fascism in Italy rose because Mussolini threatened violent Revolution and the King placed him in power rather than risk civil war. If you cracked down on the Fascists, it would be bloody but my bet would be on the Loyalists beating the Fascists and Communists. 

[Moblin Major General]

17 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

I'm inclined to agree overall. The Wiemar Republic was ultimately a failed state. Aside from the problems you mentioned, none of its institutions were loyal to it, so it was never really able to even attempt the reforms it needed. I'm inclined to go with Churchill and say that the Monarchy should have been kept under Wilhelm II's son as a figurehead, to increase institutional loyalty to the new government and give it some breathing room to reform. Also, whatever you do, don't base your entire economy off of loans from one country. Stressemann was quite overrated.

As for Italy, what you need is a government willing to enforce the law. Unlike Germany where Hitler was committed to legality, Fascism in Italy rose because Mussolini threatened violent Revolution and the King placed him in power rather than risk civil war. If you cracked down on the Fascists, it would be bloody but my bet would be on the Loyalists beating the Fascists and Communists. 

But what of Japan? Was Japan too steeped in its own mythos to avoid warmongering? Or was it because Japan felt too limited because of things like the Washington Naval Treaty and the anti-Japanese sentiment growing in Kuomintang China?

[Stephen the Great]

46 minutes ago, ping said:

The Treaty of Versailles certainly was a powerful tool of propaganda, especially in conjecture with the "Dolchstoßlegende" (Stab-in-the-back-myth), but the Weimar Republic as a whole was just a house of cards.

 

Genau! Das stimmt, mein Herr. Das stimmt. 

Not to mention that you didn't have to translate Ersatzkaiser at all.

[Stephen the Great]

@blah the Prussian: What are your sentiments on the Austrian Schussnigg and Dollfuss, or the Hungarian Horthy? Were they actually fascist?

[blah the Prussian]

8 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

But what of Japan? Was Japan too steeped in its own mythos to avoid warmongering? Or was it because Japan felt too limited because of things like the Washington Naval Treaty and the anti-Japanese sentiment growing in Kuomintang China?

I wouldn't call Japan Fascist, I'd call it a military dictatorship. But I'd say you basically need to have a more stable Taisho democracy, which could prevent the rise of militarism.

8 hours ago, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

@blah the Prussian: What are your sentiments on the Austrian Schussnigg and Dollfuss, or the Hungarian Horthy? Were they actually fascist?

They were part of a general right wing trend. I definitely wouldn't call Horthy Fascist, and I don't know about Dolfuss and Schussnig. If Franco was Fascist they're Fascist but I don't really think Franco was Fascist either.

[Stephen the Great]

2 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

I wouldn't call Japan Fascist, I'd call it a military dictatorship. But I'd say you basically need to have a more stable Taisho democracy, which could prevent the rise of militarism.

How would democracy have been stabilized?

[blah the Prussian]

7 hours ago, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

How would democracy have been stabilized?

Well, you had a bunch of political assassinations, specifically that of Hara Takashi, who was trying to reform Japan further, that made it hard to reform the government. 

[Stephen the Great]

Would the Kempeitai have been useful, or were they a creation of the military government?

[blah the Prussian]

8 minutes ago, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

Would the Kempeitai have been useful, or were they a creation of the military government?

Well, they were the military police, so would likely support the military. The silver bullet would be the Emperor opposing the military; they would not proceed if he explicitly opposed it. There were members of the Imperial Family who were actively opposed, such as Empress Dowager Teimei and Prince Nobuhito(these two tried to overthrow the military and negotiate peace in '44, but failed, and Nobuhito also used his influence to improve the treatment of POWs).

[SullyMcGully]

Didn't Woodrow Wilson develop some kind of seven-step plan for restoring Germany after WWI? I think it would have helped if France and Britain had listened.

[Moblin Major General]

30 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Didn't Woodrow Wilson develop some kind of seven-step plan for restoring Germany after WWI? I think it would have helped if France and Britain had listened.

>Wilson

Tread carefully, you don't want to accidentally wank blah's hate boner for Wilson.

[SullyMcGully]

Just now, Hylian Air Force said:

>Wilson

Tread carefully, you don't want to accidentally wank blah's hate boner for Wilson.

I was hoping to provoke blah to jog my memory. I haven't studied WWI in quite some time, and I need a refresher on... whatever Wilson did after the war.

[Rex Glacies]

24 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

Didn't Woodrow Wilson develop some kind of seven-step plan for restoring Germany after WWI? I think it would have helped if France and Britain had listened.

He also advocated to join the League of Nations, which the U.S. never did. Had we joined, that might have helped slow the rise, though it wouldn't have resulted in much difference.

The main factor in the rise of Hitler was the harsh punishments the victors of World War I placed on Germany. Germany rightfully felt injustice, and Hitler provided relief, hope, and a scapegoat for their troubles. So the clearest solution to stopping his rise would be to not impose the massive punishments on Germany.

But of course, there are other factors. If I recall correctly, World War I happened because of the effective cold war in Europe that was just waiting to be lit into full-scale conflict. This tension was caused by the unification of the various German and Italian states, which were unified due to the Napoleonic Wars, of which Napoleon rose because of the French Revolution, which happened partially due to the American Revolution, which was caused by taxation without representation, etc. So if one or more of those variables were changed, Fascism might not have risen as so.

[blah the Prussian]

8 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

>Wilson

Tread carefully, you don't want to accidentally wank blah's hate boner for Wilson.

Nah man, I've moved onto Enrico Dandolo. 1204 never forget

9 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

Didn't Woodrow Wilson develop some kind of seven-step plan for restoring Germany after WWI? I think it would have helped if France and Britain had listened.

The Fourteen Points were completely impractical and Wilson practiced biased self determination where only the people of Entente aligned nations got it. However, his plan for Germany was decent(although as I've detailed before disposing of the Monarchy was a boneheaded move) if completely unworkable because France was out for blood. It was all Lloyd George and Wilson could do to keep Clemenceau from demanding everything up to the Rhine. Anyway, ultimately it wouldn't have mattered, because, as I said before, the Nazis weren't shit until the Great Depression. If anything, a Germany grateful to the US for keeping it from harsher terms would have been more devastated because it would have been more tied to the US. Ultimately, the flat for the rise of the Nazis lies on the GERMAN leaders who decided it would be a good idea to take massive loans from a single country. Wiemar made its own bed, with the Entente at most bringing the bed into the room and leaving.

[Stephen the Great]

26 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Nah man, I've moved onto Enrico Dandolo. 1204 never forget

Another Dandolo hater!

 

27 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Tread carefully, you don't want to accidentally wank blah's hate boner for Wilson.

That is certainly an ... interesting way to put it.

[Moblin Major General]

21 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

Nah man, I've moved onto Enrico Dandolo. 1204 never forget.

>Venice

That's what you get when your title is Doge. You fuck over everywhere because you decided to remove Serb instead of kebab.

6 minutes ago, Sigismund of Luxemburg said:

That is certainly an ... interesting way to put it.

Blah used to despise Wilson, to the point he caused the US to go into another Civil War just to kill him in an undignified way while writing his (now defunct) alt-hist fic.

[eclipse]

This sounds more like a homework assignment than anything.  Since it's already assumed a position (Fascism = bad), I'm closing this.

Also, don't post twice in a row, that's bad.