Was there any realistic way for Poland to have a monarchy after WWI if the Entente/Allies win WWI?

[Futurist]

Oh wow! So, you think that the German SPD would have actually done all of this had they ever actually formed a majority in the German parliament? If so, was their main disagreement with the German Communists in 1918-1919 their support of democracy and their opposition to totalitarianism?

[wm]

Of course, they would have done it. Lots of people believed in such utopias, especially in the rule of wise men who magically would right every wrong (so, in the end, we had Il Duce and der Führer.)

The communists believed in violent means, the socialists (by that time) didn't.
For the communists everybody was an enemy (or a tool), whoever wasn't with them was against them.
The socialists were willing to cooperate sincerely.

[Futurist]

Of course, they would have done it. Lots of people believed in such utopias, especially in the rule of wise men who magically would right every wrong (so, in the end, we had Il Duce and der Führer.)

The communists believed in violent means, the socialists (by that time) didn't.
For the communists everybody was an enemy (or a tool), whoever wasn't with them was against them.
The socialists were willing to cooperate sincerely.

Quite interesting. Anyway, at least the socialists would support allowing the people to vote the socialists out in the event that the people believed that the socialists made a mistake in governing the country, correct?

[wm]

I don't know that. It's clear they believed properly educated people would vote for them, would support them, would think like them.

What would have happened if they didn't we don't know, but the Cristero War waged by the Mexican socialists against non-believers (in socialism) offers a few suggestions.

Cristeroscolgados.jpg

[Futurist]

If the German SPD was that bloodthirsty, though, why didn't it support the German Communists in 1918-1919?

[wm]

I don't think they were bloodthirsty but power corrupts and they needed absolute power to implement their ideas.

For the communists the SPD was the enemy, no cooperation in good faith was possible.

Social fascism was a theory supported by the Communist International (Comintern) and affiliated communist parties in the early 1930s that held that social democracy was a variant of fascism because it stood in the way of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Futurist]

Interesting.

As for the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", that's an oxymoron. Something cannot be both pro-proletariat and a dictatorship. It's similar to the Nazi slogan "Arbeit macht frei"--as in "Work makes you free"!

[wm]

Arbeit macht frei was massively used in the Weimar Republic and is of much earlier origin.

[Futurist]

Interesting.

[Futurist]

Well, all the European monarchies didn't make through the WW1, there were abolished or reduced to political decorations. It's hard to believe that a monarchy had any future in one of the most politically advanced countries in Europe.

Piłsudski's brother together with Lenin's brother took part in a plot to assassinate Alexander III of Russia in 1887. So it's obvious such far-left folks liked their kings dead.

wm, what makes you refer to France as one of the most politically advanced European countries in the late 19th century? Was it because concepts of liberty, equality, fraternity, and human rights were more respected there than they were elsewhere?

Also, off-topic, but do you think that there was any realistic way for interwar Poland to remain a democracy?

[gebhk]

As for the term "dictatorship of the proletariat", that's an oxymoron. Something cannot be both pro-proletariat and a dictatorship

I'm not sure I follow that argument. Why not?

On (slightly) another angle, in reality all representative democracies are in effect dictatorships on behalf of certain groups of people. I don't think that is a particularly revolutionary concept (favourite exam question in British Constitution [now that is an oxymoron] "Government in the UK: dictatorship by Parliament. Discuss"). The only thing that differentiates them from 'proper' dictatorships is that they (in theory*) can be removed from power every x years in the ballot box rather than on the point of a bayonet.

*Who said that if voting could really change anything it would be made illegal?

[wm]

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.

Also, off-topic, but do you think that there was any realistic way for interwar Poland to remain a democracy?

At the end of the thirties the ruling party (Sanacja) was slowly disintegrating and the opposition was growing stronger. Some even talked about an armed rebellion (with French support) against Sanacja.
That Sanacja would have survived long after 1939 was rather unlikely, they lacked charismatic leaders - but possible.

wm, what makes you refer to France as one of the most politically advanced European countries in the late 19th century? Was it because concepts of liberty, equality, fraternity, and human rights were more respected there than they were elsewhere?

France was the most advanced country in Europe, culturally and industrially. European elites admired France, spoke French, it wasn't just a language of diplomacy.
There was a reason for that, France was a better place than others.

[gebhk]

Industrially? Seems a bit far-fetched, but I am open to arguments.

[wm]

GDP per capita of both countries

france-germany.jpg

[Futurist]

France's per capita industrialization was less than Germany's in 1914, though--as evidenced by the last table here:

http://web.mit.edu/course/4/4.291/www/S ... les102.htm