Which people or groups had a realistic chance of seizing power and committing great evils afterwards but failed to actually seize power?

Feb 2019
Churchill's attitude towards colonialism, while becoming outdated by 1945, wasn't particularly radical by interwar standards--was it?
If anything it was better than most other views, however his ideas for post-war Britain, while not brutal or terrible by any means were just not right given the situation.

Yep, very possible. Of course, they could have been relatively tame like the Yugoslav Communists, but I don't know if we can really know this for sure.
Were they especially brutal?
I'm not sure if they were too brutal, but as with the above communists and all others in this question we can only guess what can happen. They could've committed great atrocities and ruined France, which is likely but they could've also been great. In alternate history nothing is for sure.

Possibly, though you could also see him become a Soviet Deng Xiaoping.
See above, though I do think that he would've been bloody given his reputation under Stalin.
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist


Ad Honorem
Jul 2015
What did they want to do?
Nobody is entirely sure. The Anabaptists in Munster were some sort of religious "moment". As always many Dutch were involved. I am not sure about the claim, but our saying "je er met een Jantje van Leiden van afmaken" (meaning doing as little as possible, but still pass) seems to have come from one of the leaders John of Leyden.
Basically they had taken Munster over from the Lutherans and were a proto-born-again Christians. Everyone who didn't rebaptize was expelled and their stuff confiscated as well as some religious idiocy. In the end they were taken out and the revenge was really over the top. All in all similar to the Cathars and the reaction of the pope.

Münster rebellion - Wikipedia
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist