What if someone like Pol Pot had led the German communists following World War One?

I thought it might be interesting to put perhaps the two greatest genocidal maniacs of the twentieth century in direct competition with each other in the Germany of the nineteen-twenties and thirties to see what would happen. Personally, I retain a certain soft spot in my heart for Pol Pot. I think he has been somewhat misjudged by history, that he was actually in an almost impossible position when he took power in Cambodia, and that his radicalism and genocides were a largely inevitable response to this. Pot Pot was an extremely talented, well educated and successful man, prior to coming to absolute power in Cambodia. Adolf Hitler, on the other hand, was mentally ill, bipolar lunatic who was suicidal his entire life, had little education, and had few skills other than public speaking. So, let's put someone very much like Pol Pot -- educated, skilled in guerrilla warfare, a brilliant politician and strategist -- at the head of the German communists just as Adolf Hitler is beginning his career. Pol Pot would probably reject the suggestions from Moscow for a direct attempt to overthrow the German government with a communist takeover along the lines of the October Revolution in 1917 in Russia -- he would know intuitively, as Josef Stalin did, as well, that it simply wouldn't work. So, no Spartacist uprising In Berlin in 1919. This is really quite significant for Germany, because, it was the failed communist Spartacist uprising that particularly brought about German nationalistic paranoia regarding the Soviet Union, and the German Jews like Rosa Luxemburg who led it that led to the massive resurgence of antisemitism so essential for Adolf Hitler's rise to power. So, with Pol Pot in charge of the communists in Germany, the conditions necessary for the rise to power of Hitler, and National Socialism, simply might never come into existence, at all. Instead, Pol Pot would see that the real route to power in Germany lies in attacking her true enemy -- the French imperialists occupying the German Rhineland. And, with his skill and love for guerrilla warfare, Pol Pot would organize and support effective sabotage and attacks on French forces in the Rhineland, with the support of Moscow and the German communist Party. Now, of course, the French aren't going to like this at all! Perhaps they will threaten to invade Germany and overthrow the Weimar Republic. But, it's unlikely that Britain or the world as a whole will tolerate this. Indeed, it's unclear the French would really have the military power to overwhelm and occupy the whole of Germany, in any case. Possibly, the Socialist government of Germany would attempt to capture and imprison Pol Pot, as the leader of the Communists, or even to suppress the communist Party, as the Nationalists did in China, but, Pol Pot could simply hide in the mountains or forests, since his anti-french actions would undoubtedly attract support from the German population as a whole. As Mao Zedong was able to gradually obtain support from the local population for his anti-imperialist policies, so Pol Pot would, as well, and he could always count on steady support from Moscow. So, eventually, his influence is likely to increase a great deal in Germany. In Russia, the expansion of communist power in Germany will bode well for Trotsky and his policy of international communist expansion, shared by Lenin, and will undermine the cautious Stalin. So, Trotsky may well retain power in the Russian Communist Party, and Stalin may have a more secondary, essentially bureaucratic role, as he did under Lenin. We can foresee a communist continental Europe, dominated by Leon Trotsky, and Pol Pot, as a real possibility. A truly glorious Internationale! So, here's to Pol Pot! Thoughts?

What if all governments were liberal democracies?

Plato didn't have a very high opinion of democratic government, of course. Athenian democracy was crushed by Spartan autocracy, because, ultimately, the autocracy was more rational in its goals than the democracy. Ordinary people aren't particularly rational or realistic in their goals, so, why should governments elected by them be expected to be competent? Winston Churchill described democracy as "The worst form of government, with the exception of all other forms of government." Was he right? Certainly, a great many Western historians attempt to make the case that all totalitarian, autocratic systems of government are terribly repressive and destructive. And, frequently they are, of course. On the other hand, a truly capable and reasonable dictator -- Julius Caesar, for example -- can frequently achieve more, and help people more than any elected, Parliamentary body is likely to be able to do. Of course, an incompetent dictator can do incredible damage, and, they often do. So, what if all governments were liberal democracies? What would the world be like, exactly? How would it differ from our own world?