Adolf Hitler managed to get into Art School?

[CarlManvers2019]

Would the National Socialists still rise to power under another leader?

Would Germany go Socialist/Communist but maybe compete with Stalin? Or submit to him?

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

Would Germany go Socialist/Communist but maybe compete with Stalin? Or submit to him?

Germany did all three of those things.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Germany did all three of those things.

Which ends up being the most done thing?

 

[Lanmandragon]

The resistance the Eastern front is the largest war in history. Followed by socialism of various kinds. Then submission since he only got half.

 

[ShieldWife]

My fear would be that instead of having a National Socialist regime, that Germany ends up with a Marxist Socialist one - with a dictator who maintains a strong alliance with Stalin instead of attacking the USSR. If Germany and the USSR took on Western democracies, the results of the war might be even worse than they were historically.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

My fear would be that instead of having a National Socialist regime, that Germany ends up with a Marxist Socialist one - with a dictator who maintains a strong alliance with Stalin instead of attacking the USSR. If Germany and the USSR took on Western democracies, the results of the war might be even worse than they were historically.

I think that socialism/communism maybe more reviled though

 

[ShieldWife]

I think that socialism/communism maybe more reviled though

That’s hard to say. If all of Europe and Asia comes under communist domination, then we’d have a very different world today. If the entire system eventually collapsed under its own weight then maybe it would be more reviled, alternatively it might still be around.

 

[Scottty]

I think that without Crazy Adolf, the National Socialists would have remained a fringe party. Some other group would have come to power and brought order to the mess the Wiemar Republic was turning into, but they would likely be a more genuinely conservative faction.
Maybe they'd have brought back the Kaiser.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Maybe they'd have brought back the Kaiser.

Don't really know much on him, but I think people hated Kaiser Wilhelm II for losing

 

[gral]

Don't really know much on him, but I think people hated Kaiser Wilhelm II for losing

Oh, no one wanted Wilhelm II back. But there were people advocating for his son(Crown Prince Wilhelm), or one of his children being put on the throne of Germany.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Oh, no one wanted Wilhelm II back. But there were people advocating for his son(Crown Prince Wilhelm), or one of his children being put on the throne of Germany.

You know, I’ve heard the term Monarchists and have a vague idea of their ideology, I think Hitler may have been getting them wiped out

But what is it about the Monarchy that’s attractive?

 

[Scottty]

But what is it about the Monarchy that’s attractive?

It was the unquestioned default form of government in Europe for hundreds of years. So there's a strong nostalgia element to it.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

It was the unquestioned default form of government in Europe for hundreds of years. So there's a strong nostalgia element to it.

As if simply being born to power or related to it makes one a great ruler

 

[Lanmandragon]

As if simply being born to power or related to it makes one a great ruler

Gentic traits do effect how you act. So there's at least a little bit of truth to that.

 

[JagerIV]

As if simply being born to power or related to it makes one a great ruler

Well, assume you took the son of a brave, clever Knight who won many battles and had many successes, and trained his son in his image...

And then took the son of the town drunk, who trained his son in his image ...

Which one is more likely to be an effective leader? Or, take as given the normal distribution of traits on a spectrum, like IQ, as a given:

Now, if you had nothing but lineage to go off of, is the drunkards son most likely to be in that top 2%, or the Knights son? Even ignoring biological element of good breeding, just the cultural elements of good breeding. Now, part of why we invented things like the IQ test is so that we have something besides someone's lineage. But, a good leader is a wide variety of things, not just one easily tested and quantified thing like IQ. Eventually, you have to use very costly measurement attempts, or use very approximate rules of thumbs, like lineage.

Even if its a generally poor measure, its still something of an effective measurement: If someone's father is in the top 1% of leaders, even if the son's less impressive than his father, he's still probably in the top 10% of innate capability. Meanwhile, a random selection of the median is probably less likely to be in the top 10% than the son of someone in the 1%.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

@JagerIV
This looks to border on eugenics and trusting so much power to a single bloodline sounds risky as hell

It would be best if there were stuff in place to keep em from having absolute power

 

[Scottty]

@JagerIV
This looks to border on eugenics and trusting so much power to a single bloodline sounds risky as hell

It would be best if there were stuff in place to keep em from having absolute power

Generally, they didn't have absolute power. A medieval monarch was no Nebuchadnezzar.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Generally, they didn't have absolute power. A medieval monarch was no Nebuchadnezzar.

They had to deal with feudal lords who were their "subordinates" that just so happened to have their own personal armies through which they could do a bunch of Game-of-Thrones style rebellions or civil wars

 

[JagerIV]

@JagerIV
This looks to border on eugenics and trusting so much power to a single bloodline sounds risky as hell

It would be best if there were stuff in place to keep em from having absolute power

Eh, genes exist. Family culture exists. When you measure traditional aristocracies, such as Indian Bramin and European Nobles, they actually do outperform the general population on a variety of stats. Because they really do have better genes as long as they don't fuck it up with excessive internal breeding. Now, partially that's because these groups tend to be a bit more meritocratic than commonly understood (that brave knight might have been promoted to that position, or had started out as merely a knight, then gotten promoted to a Barron through good service).

But, if you have a class of society that promotes into itself the top, say, 0.1% of the population outside of it into it, and they do that for a 1,000 years, basic evolution suggest your going to have a class made out of authentically superior people. It actually makes perfect sense that the top leadership should come from some tiny slice of the population in a functional, established ruling class because a functional ruling class would have already taken the top 1% of families into itself, so new entrants only really come up as the product of random positive mutations.

Why we don't have quite as established a ruling class (though we have quite a narrow range of families in charge if you look into it) is that what makes someone "1%" has greatly varied and changed in the last 200 years: The fuedal order could retain a bit of stability for so long probably in part because what made a good noble (material skill) didn't all that radically change for about a 1,000 years.

The changing nature of warfare and the economy however changed what it took to be an elite, which created a disconnect between who was in power (decendents of aristocratic warrior castes) and who was the actual source of power (the "capitalists" for lack of a better word). Thus the various revolutions. Excessive interbreeding, especially at the very top, and the nobility getting less meritocratic (partially because they became less important: see France where the nobility went from the source of the Kings power in a knighthood that performed very well (outside some obvious hickups against the English) to something the Kind purposefully tried to sideline as an inconvenience) and thus less effective of course didn't help.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

My fear would be that instead of having a National Socialist regime, that Germany ends up with a Marxist Socialist one - with a dictator who maintains a strong alliance with Stalin instead of attacking the USSR. If Germany and the USSR took on Western democracies, the results of the war might be even worse than they were historically.

I consider a nuked europe to be a pretty based timeline I dunno.