Fascism without Nazism

Imagine a world where the Nazis came to power and World War II did not occur, yet the fascist regimes in Italy, Portugal, Romania, possibly Spain, Latin America, and so on still existed.

What would the legacy of fascism be? If instead of death camps and war it was marked by the buffoonery, yet unity forged by Mussolini, what would people think of fascism?
 

Sachyriel

Banned
Well, except for the sick fetish and right-wing hate groups that have grown up around it, many people would still see Nazism as a bunch of inflexible people trying to control everything. Everyone would tell them to pull the stick out of their asses.
 
I think it would be seen more or less as we see other far-rigth dicatorships these days: yet another repressive, nationalistic form of government - but not particularly more nasty that any of the others, either.
 
In Italy it would probably be seen, today, as Peronism in Argentina. Considering how fragmented is the 2,5% of italian neofascists, we would probsbly have at least 3 or 4 parties claiming to be the true heirs of Mussolini's policies.
 
Last edited:
A clear distinction needs to be made between fascist and ultra-conservative establishment regimes. Spain was the latter, with a light fascist veneer.
 
Spain had straight fascism, Italy had straight fascism, and Germany National
Socialism.

Thank you for that comment that had absolutely nothing to add to the discussion. :rolleyes:

Anyway, Germany would probably decline under fascism. The USSR, PRC, and Third Reich are the only fascist nations to have risen to power (and in the PRC's case still there). The Soviets and Chineases were communist, and the Third Reich was, obviously, Nazi. However, the oodles of other fascist states never really got anywhere until they collapsed or where overturned.

So Germany would probably slowly decline, and maybe start a suicidal war that would put a quick end to the fascist regime. Fascism will be viewed something that's bad, but not insanely bad like how we see Nazism today.
 
Spain had straight fascism, Italy had straight fascism, and Germany National Socialism.

Actually, according to Franco himself, Spain had the Falange which was not fascist (I wish I remembered the quote) because the Falange was Spanish, as compared to fascist Italy...

Bu anyways, I see fascism being remembered in the same light as the absolutist monarchies of pre-Revolution Europe: it was bad, but it could have been worse...
 

bard32

Banned
Thank you for that comment that had absolutely nothing to add to the discussion. :rolleyes:

Anyway, Germany would probably decline under fascism. The USSR, PRC, and Third Reich are the only fascist nations to have risen to power (and in the PRC's case still there). The Soviets and Chineases were communist, and the Third Reich was, obviously, Nazi. However, the oodles of other fascist states never really got anywhere until they collapsed or where overturned.

So Germany would probably slowly decline, and maybe start a suicidal war that would put a quick end to the fascist regime. Fascism will be viewed something that's bad, but not insanely bad like how we see Nazism today.

Translation: Fascism is fascism. You can't have Nazism without fascism.
 
I'd be tempted to say relatively little change. European states would probably call themselves democratic-fascists instead of democratic-socialists. Socialism would (in my view, more accurately) refer to what was occuring in the Communist world.

Without WW2 Fascism could easilly have lasted and would likely be considered in a positive light vs the economic insecurity in the 1930's. After all, most of the industrialised countries had undertaken fascist policies to one degree or another. Avoid WW2 and there wouldn't be the whole desire to call them something else. Infact skip WW2, which effectively amounted to Keynsian spending on a massive scale, especially in the USA, and you could easilly see 'fascism' being more or less universal as those who refuse government help for their industries fall ever more behind. Those who try to conform to some level of a free market continue to suffer from the depression, after all, another had hit in 1938.
 
No. Go and read about fascism. Spain was a right wing conservative Catholic nationalist establishment regime. Fascism is anti-establishment.

Maybe in theory, but not really in practice.

Or atleast Mussolini was pretty much incapable of really effecting those people who had power before his march on Rome.
 
Well no flipping duh! Do you have anything useful to add to this discussion?

Yeah those comments do not help anyone, and just makes you come off as a big jerk. So calm down.

I think the main issue is that we are still looking at the Fascist state through the filter of WWII. Prior to the war many nations saw it as a democratic regime, for say what one wants Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and Peron all had this image of representing the people's wishes. At best fascism would be seen as a controlled form of democracy, but not anywhere close to the level of communist repression.

Franco's Spain had a fascist undertone to it, but he himself stayed clear of such labels to ensure the various factions below him kept that sliver of hope their own monarchist, catholic, fascist, or colonialist views would come to power. Yet his use of propaganda, government style, and the various aspects he copied from Musolini and Hitler in controlled economy, military police, and education makes Franco fall into the Fascist camp more often then the simple ultra-conservative one.

Also if we speak of anti-establishment and fascism as the same thing then one really needs to look at the regimes in power. Mussolini for years kept the basic structure of Italy under 1925, and even then the only real change in the society in terms of what one could do, or what jobs they could get is due to a larger set of regulations for education, jobs, and social life. Prior to Mussolini taking power Italy had a rather upwardly mobile middle class, with an almost cemented in lower class. After mussolini came to power the same could be said of the system, the masses did not rise up and take over the reins of power, no they simply found the middle class holding power and feeling good about it. Same with Hitler who took out the "National Socalist Revolutionary" Rohm the first chance he had.
 
on one hand far right goverment, eugenics, and totalitarian state cults would be considered relativelly normall, even as a good and practicall oposition to comunism, and even do there would certainly be camps and crimes on massive scales, there would be no direct campain to exterminate or dehumanise any given part of the population on national or ethnic bases, so that these would be seen as necesary measures against comunists/terrorists/criminals or whichever name is given to the ones getting killed
these crimes would not be so videly known as there would be the standard cowerups, but also as these would newer reach the level of atrocity of the nazy camps, so there would be little fuss about them in the western world, and might even be emulated to a degree

in a period of economic instability and rise of and civil rights and workers movements, the ways of fashism and fashist ideology would be borrowed by manny western regimes and become relativelly aceptable

without public condemnation, chauvinism, militarism and all the other ways of thinking and doing politics that make the 1920-1930is right wing what it was would find in fashism its legitimation, a confirmation that they are right and that they do work, and would have even more influence than OTL

with no radically racist regime influencing most fashist politics, statism rather than racism would become the norm, with lojalty to the nation flag the party and the state being more important than blood sciences and ethnic identity


on the other hand fashist regimes would become increasingly absurd
buffoonery is really the right word
lets not ewen start on the whole sublimation of sexual frustration and dominance of phalic simbolism
alhough the transferance of sex drive into technological advancment and bloody colonial expansion, as was activelly endorsed by futurism, could of given some trully interesting results

the state controled economy would give security and stability for a while but soon the obvious problems of state controled economy that emfasises on military industry would start to show, and major economic recesion would be dificult to stop, althou there would probbably not be any real economic depression, especially with exploatation of colonies, and cheap east european labour, unless colonial expansion is halted by a european war, in wich case they are screwed

no real worker movement would result in low pay and poor working conditions, general economic conditions, wages and quality of products and service would deteriorate

after a couple decades the economy would lag far behind those of capitalist states, or even soviet economy
without constant conflict and war, the sistem most likely stagnates, economically, politically, and tehnologically, and becomes basically a large banana republic
therefore there would be the constant manuvering on the brink of war, stepping ower into limited conflicts and interventions, but alvais trying to awoid escalation, as ewen a marginal defeat in a major war would be enough to throw down a fashist regime

as such fashism would eventually become something seen as a last measure, something to be avoided, and ended as soon as possible, even if manny usefull tips and customs would be incorporated in how things are done in "democracies"

even with the soviet treath most fashist regimes would end as soon as the Soviet Union colapses, and would probbably go in a way similar to the romanian dictatorship, or a longer civil war
thats granted the soviets colapse if theres no WW2, if not the oposite might happen, fashist nations colapse, and become right-wing regimes

the olnly things that can save long term fashism is Germany turning fashist, with a strong centralised militarist dictatorship, but no nazy crazines
that would give european fashism the economic, and tehnologicall power it would othervise lack, as well as a good dose of germanic mentality
and/or the development of a economic model similar to OTL China in the last few decades, using relativelly cheap locall labour, concentrated in what is still labour intensive economy, to produce export goods, and atract forein investment

still a mayor question is how would a potentiall alternative WW2 go with a fashist party in power in Germany, meaning mostly military and demochristian figures in power, and possibly much more competent military comand that has a way of acepting actuall reality

given that a fashist Germany still makes part of the Axis and starts the second war in Europe, this might end after the capture of France and Scandinavia, with the partitioning of Balkans and east Europe, and important gains in Africa

ewen in a war with the soviet union, germany without nazis has a much bigger chance of marginall wictory or at least breaking even, but with no hitler the Third Reich and the Soviet Union are naturall economic allies and there might not be any war with Russia

if all these things happen fashism might do somewhat better economically, or after some administartie reforms make for a more efficient economy, and the cheap resources from colonial gains, there would be a period of prosperity and general growth
also fashism and comunism, or their derivates, could become the two dominant world ideologies

but none of this is possible without a fashist Germany, wich as already said is not a nazy germany, and definitley without people like Hitler and Goring making important decisions
 
Last edited:
What would happen with their economic views? You know, the whole 'Third Position' thing.

Bah,nothing important. "Third Position" was essentially State dirigism, with neocorporatist pratices over wages and workers' rights. Socialization, if ever implemented, would have looked quite similar to German co-decision. Next step would have been keynesianism, and economic liberalization as soon as the regime was hit by economic crisis. Today, we would probably have:

1) A "National Socialist" Party -in the original sense of the term- Party, advocating State protectionism, anti-Bank measures and a Socialdemocratic economic policy

2) An Evolian Party, calling for Liberism

3) A Fascist / Catholic Party, rooted into Social Market Economy

as the main successors to National Fascist Party. If Mussolini eventually proclaimed the Republic, there would probably be a monarchist / conservative party, once led by the Aosta and now by the Savoia- Carignano, and a monarchist / democratic party, once led by the Savoia Carignano and now by the Aosta.:D

In the end, I guess Italy wouldn't be that different from now, from the economical side. The Christian Democracy followed a similar economic policy after WW2: State Capitalism with heavy political influence.
 
I think the main issue is that we are still looking at the Fascist state through the filter of WWII. Prior to the war many nations saw it as a democratic regime, for say what one wants Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, and Peron all had this image of representing the people's wishes. At best fascism would be seen as a controlled form of democracy, but not anywhere close to the level of communist repression.

Wasn't Salazar pretty popular? As were all of the "American fascist" types people love to throw into dystopias- Lindbergh, Coughlin, Long, etc.

Still, fascism today brings images of jackboots, death camps, and totalitarian police states, not the popular authoritarianism of the Latin/Catholic regimes. I wonder what would be the political epithet of choice if the Nazis and WWII never happened.

2) An Evolian Party, calling for Liberism

Is that Tradition, and all of the weird occult stuff?

In the end, I guess Italy wouldn't be that different from now, from the economical side. The Christian Democracy followed a similar economic policy after WW2: State Capitalism with heavy political influence.

I think you might be thinking of just regular liberal democratic capitalism, not state capitalism.
 
Well, unless fascism turns into an internationalist ideaology, after the commies are beat in WW2 we'd have a completely different (and suei generis) second half of the 20th century.
Thank you for that comment that had absolutely nothing to add to the discussion. :rolleyes:

Anyway, Germany would probably decline under fascism. The USSR, PRC, and Third Reich are the only fascist nations to have risen to power (and in the PRC's case still there). The Soviets and Chineases were communist, and the Third Reich was, obviously, Nazi. However, the oodles of other fascist states never really got anywhere until they collapsed or where overturned.

So Germany would probably slowly decline, and maybe start a suicidal war that would put a quick end to the fascist regime. Fascism will be viewed something that's bad, but not insanely bad like how we see Nazism today.

I can't agree with you calling the Soviet Union and PRC "fascist". It is simply not what they are. Sure, the minority which participated in the horrible crimes comitted there did it out of a fascist nature, but neither the ideology nor the population was fascist. Socialism imposed a sense of inclusive unity and shared effort, sympathy and egalitarianism. Fascism imposes a sense of exclusive unity and condescent, power and digust. This was never truly the case in China, and definetly not in Russia.
 
Well, unless fascism turns into an internationalist ideaology, after the commies are beat in WW2 we'd have a completely different (and suei generis) second half of the 20th century.

I can't agree with you calling the Soviet Union and PRC "fascist". It is simply not what they are. Sure, the minority which participated in the horrible crimes comitted there did it out of a fascist nature, but neither the ideology nor the population was fascist. Socialism imposed a sense of inclusive unity and shared effort, sympathy and egalitarianism. Fascism imposes a sense of exclusive unity and condescent, power and digust. This was never truly the case in China, and definetly not in Russia.

To the first bolded sentence: I think you can hardly say that Stalin's USSR or Mao's PRC are examplses of sympathy and egalitarianism, can you? To the second bolded sentence: condescent power and disgust pretty much define Mao's China and Stalin's SU, don't they?
 
Top