Why were democratic regimes under threat in Europe following WW1?

[Boyar Son]

Title says it all.

EDIT: Matter of fact, why was the 20th century filled with a worldwide conflict between royalists, communists, fascists, socialists? Even Brazil had a dictator that almost allied with the axis powers.

Also, who were the best soldier in all history? (I joke, mods).

[rusina]

Also, who were the best soldier in all history? (I joke, mods).

[Boyar Son]

i think it is america becas america if fought the romans the americans would win becas of guns

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Grossly simplified answer: Complete loss of faith in democracy and capitalism due to the WWI Allies' raping of the world.

More appropriate answer: In Italy, the Brits and French broke a treaty they had about dividing Europe after WWII. The introduction of PR caused a large number of successive extremely weak governments that failed quickly. There was also a large number of problems like rampant government corruption, huge unemployment, very powerful organised crime gangs. Mussolini built himself a small private army that and demanded that the governement "solve Italy's problems or let the fascists do so".

In Germany the government was extremely unpopular. Their first act had been to sign the treaty of versailles, which basically blamed Germany for WWI and then raped them up the ass. They had to pay billions (in 1932 money, think about that) in compensation. To pay, their government started printing money, and caused hyperinflation. I assume I don't have to tell you about 1920s German hyperinflation? A loaf of bread cost a few millions. Again, with complete loss of confidence in the government, the people looked to another agent to solve the country's problems. That agent was the national socialist german workers part.

^ repeat that story for each country, ensuring to end with "the people lost confidence in their government and supported someone who could solve their problems", and you have your reasons.

[Dr. Croccer]

Most Europeans didn't like Democracy to start with. The bulk of the population was either Conservative or Socialist. Just before the war ended, especially in Germany and Russia, many people gave up hope in the ineffective government and looked for food and protection from Far Right Soldiers' Councils (Soldatenraete) or from Far Left Workers' Councils (Soviets). The latter already existed before the war and both became infinitely stronger and more supported during the war. By the time peace was declared large militant paramilitaries from both sides were waiting to start a revolution and install a government of their choice. Usually the Lefties would start (Bavarian revolution, Spartakist revolution, Hungarian revolution, Spanish revolution, etc), which was often followed by a counter-attack by reactionaries. In the wake of WWI these two conflicted in Eastern, Central and Southern Europe. These were regions that were either badly hit by the war, by the recession, already very backwards and troubled or a combination of the three.

As I said before, most Europeans didn't like democracy to start. Most were either old-fashioned conservatives, or part of socialist groups, neither of which wanted a liberal republic. The situation of most democracies didn't help either. The Kerensky government in Russia was basically a more pathetic incarnation of the Czarist regime; during the Interbellum there were dozens of French governments that collapsed shortly after eachother, again because of the antagonism between extreme left and right wing groups; the Weimar government was very bland and unpopular because of it's little effects, etc, etc. The war, the recession shortly after it and then the Depression meant that people started to look for alternatives in the exremists on both sides. Pre-existing social and economic tensions were only enlargened. Many people became Socialist and Communists as a result, which became even more militant. As a result of the growth of left-radical groups, many others became Reactionaries, and later, Fascists. In many countries political wars were being planned and democracies could do nothing to prevent it, in fact, only making it worse. The rise of Fascism was due to the fact that most people wanted something that worked.

[Ulf]

@OP, Read Mussolini by R.J.B. Bosworth. If you're American, you might not be used to the formality in his writing, but it is perhaps the most complete and worthwhile read on Mussolini you could ever find. It contains fascinating insights into what happened in Italy after WWI and should help to answer your question in a detailed sense, and like irelandeb said

^ repeat that story for each country, ensuring to end with "the people lost confidence in their government and supported someone who could solve their problems", and you have your reasons.

plus, on half.com there, a hard cover copy of the book is less than $6.00.
EDIT: $3.20 for paperback!

[Heathen Hammer]

Mostly due to inability of democratic countries of that time to satisfy the needs of the working class, and their lack of skills to run a state in general.

[bushbush]

just got back from zimbabwe today.

there is no better or worse political system by default. A particular system is legitimate (means it has the support of majority of the people) because it can deliver certain expectations of the population. Democracy today in many countries is solid because it delivers wealth, stability, security and accountability in a timely and fair manner to majority of population; it is in ruins in many other countries because it could not deliver. Similarly during the interwar period, especially in countries like germany, the humiliating post-war settlement and economic crisis meant their democracy could not either protect their perceived national interest and dignity, nor deliver social service and security to the population. It is no wonder that many people in that era gave up on democracy and opted for strongman authoritarianism. Hitler the dictator at one point might be the most popular leader on earth.

[dogukan]

after WW1 people lost their belief in liberalism..and thus their ideas became more radical. Either left radical or right radical but they were radical. Certain charismatic leaders used this situation and took absolute power.
It was a time when capitalism had proved itself worthless and weak and a time when voice of revolution was coming from everywhere btw...it is also when Stalin, the guy I hate, screwed the oppurtunity with his stupid policies and left the new world to the hands of fascists and whats left of bourguise. And then came the war.
And after the war, liberalism, with it's economical system capitalism re-entered the scene there was a 30 years of fake growth.

[Boyar Son]

Thanks for the help everyone

[Lysimachos11]

You could add to the above that democracy in Europe was still something novel after 1919. Most countries had been ruled by kings and emperors for centuries before, like Germany and the nations spawning from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They had democracy more or less forced upon them like the Iraqi's do now. Americans believed they could shape Europe into democracies (again, like they still think they can shape Iraq into a democracy now) but there's actually little to show for this can really work. Post-WW2 destruction and misery, coupled with fear for a Communist takeover made democracy far more appealing after WW2 than it did after WW1.

Naturally democracy, when it failed to work and even decreased the standard of living after WW1, being something very new, was easily conceived of as being a failure. Adding to that, Communism sees capitalist democracies as basically archaic forms of government that have not yet made the transition to socialist governments run by a single party. There was also a move towards a European "New Order" led by Germany. Germany was seeking not just to expel Jews but also to build a strong and united Europe, removing weak democracies and replacing them with strong Fascist states. Both Fascism and Communism were more appealing than democracy, and the prevailing mood was that democracies would soon be replaced everywhere soon.