Fascists vs. Fascists?

[zoomar]

Pretty much all the time. With the notable exception of Czechoslovakia, just about every country in central Europe and the Balkans during the late 1930's and 1940's were basically fascist (conservative, nationalistic, autocracies), perhaps with (like Italy) the pretense of being monarchies as well. While not all of them could be called doctrinaire fascist, they were all more ideologically aligned with fascism than either western democrarcy or Soviet communism. All of these nations were attacked by Germany and/or Italy, and they also fought with each other.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Originally Posted by d32123

*imagines Italian troops marching through the streets of Berlin*

I wonder if other nations would have joined in to take their piece of Germany?

The Czechs had disputes with the Germans over bits of Silesia.

The Poles could have used German aggression as a chance to deliver an ultimatum to Lithuania.

Stalin likely could have pressed the issue over East Prussia if he had wanted to, the man was by nature cautious, but the door is open for him to do it, and honestly I think a time where Germany gets into another war is an opportunity like no other for Soviet expansionism.

Originally Posted by Adûnakhôr

Really?
My understanding is that the Italian military was no where near the strength of the German military.....at any time.

In 1934 one side has an airforce and an army larger than 100,000 men.

And that side is Italy.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by EdT

Take a look at "A Greater Britain" (see sig)- that has a German/Italian conflict over Austria in 1938.

What section does the war start in?

[Cryptic]

Originally Posted by zoomar

While not all of them could be called doctrinaire fascist, they were all more ideologically aligned with fascism than either western democrarcy or Soviet communism. All of these nations were attacked by Germany and/or Italy, and they also fought with each other.

The German attack on Poland illustrates that well. Ironically, so does the German occupation of Vichy France.

[serbrcq]

Originally Posted by Cryptic

The German attack on Poland illustrates that well. Ironically, so does the German occupation of Vichy France.

As mentioned above, interwar Poland wasn't really fascist. Vichy France, however, was (complete with corporate economics and a cult of personality around Petain), and the German takeover would be a good answer to the OP if there had been a little more resistance.

Maybe a TL where the plans for British armament and support for the Vichy regime actually come to fruition somehow would result in a fascist-vs-fascist war.

[Rich Rostrom]

Originally Posted by Adûnakhôr

Really?
My understanding is that the Italian military was nowhere near the strength of the German military.....at any time.

The July Putsch in Austria was in 1934.

At that time there was no German air force, and the German army was still limited to 100,000 men, with no tanks.

The Italian Army was no great shakes, but it was far larger and better equipped.

[MerryPrankster]

Someone here theorized that if Mosley had somehow established a fascist Britain, they would have gone to war with the Nazis anyway. Britain's interests are still Britain's interests and fascist Britain would have no desire for a unified Europe capable of attacking them.

It's like how both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union craved Constantinople. Geography > ideology.

(As nationalist as fascism is, getting fascists to cooperate is probably fairly difficult. OTL saw the alliance between Hitler and Mussolini, but they had different objectives.)

[Tizoc]

Originally Posted by HeavyWeaponsGuy

The Poles could have used German aggression as a chance to deliver an ultimatum to Lithuania.

Yes, because it makes so much sense for Poland to bother with matter of tertiary importance instead of getting the rest of Upper Silesia & large swathes of East Prussia. Sure.

Originally Posted by HeavyWeaponsGuy

Stalin likely could have pressed the issue over East Prussia if he had wanted to, the man was by nature cautious, but the door is open for him to do it, and honestly I think a time where Germany gets into another war is an opportunity like no other for Soviet expansionism.

...you do realise that before WW2 USSR had no common border with Germany? Soviets would have to go through Poland or Baltic states to get to Prussia... Besides, as I mentioned above, it's more likely that Poland would have helped itself to it, with some part of Prussia ending in Lithuania.

[Fiver]

In OTL, Hitler grew so frustrated with Franco that he considered invading Spain. Mussolini initially opposed Hitler's actions, but the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was one of several things that helped convince Mussolini that no one else was willing to stand up to Hitler. A more united front between Britain, France, and Italy could lead to war between them and Germany.

[RPW@Cy]

Originally Posted by ctesiphon

The word "fascism" has a meaning, and it's not "random military junta".

This. Fascism is not National Socialism, nor is it conventional right wing authoritarianism. However, using the somewhat sloppier definition that this thread seems to be using - doesn't Nationalist China versus Imperial Japan fit the terms of the OP?

[MasterSanders]

Hitler v. Mussolini seems the most likely confrontation, although one could argue that National Socialism (Nazism) is more extreme than Italian Fascism.

One of Mussolini's major foreign policy goals was the protection of Austrian sovereignty. In fact, tension did exist between the two leaders over the fate of "OsterReich." (forgive my German)

I could easily invision a Nazi invasion of Austria provoking Italian intervention. However, Germany would likely crush the Italian military. I could then see Germany pushing into Tyrol and reaching the Adriatic, reclaiming parts claimed by the former Austrian Empire.

EdT's timeline on Oswald Mosley becoming a Labour PM explores this possibility. (By the way, it's one of the best timelines I have ever read. Check it out!)

[Cook]

Originally Posted by ctesiphon

The word "fascism" has a meaning, and it's not "random military junta".

Yes, and since we are talking about Poland in 1939, not 1928, the term ‘random military Junta’ has absolutely no validity, whereas the Polish Sanitation Movement had, as I said, very little to distinguish it from its fascist neighbours. The regime was radically nationalist, having marginalised the ethnic minorities in Poland it had ambitions of vastly increasing the size of Poland, first with an Anschluss with Lithuania and then with claims on Ukraine. It was stridently anti-Communist, anti-Socialist and rabidly anti-Semitic; much of Nazi Germany’s Jewish problem were refugees from Poland who preferred to remain in Germany rather than return to Poland, even after the Nuremburg Laws were introduced. And while Poland did still hold elections, they were heavily manipulated and could not be called ‘free and fair’ in any realistic sense. So yes, the 1939 invasion of Poland can be considered Fascist vs Fascist war.

[Wolfpaw]

Germany: Fascist state, did not tend to attack so much as set up fascist satellites.

Italy: Fascist state set up Fascist Croatia, attacked authoritarian (not fascist) Greece.

Austria: Austrian fascist movement divided between Pan-German National Socialists and Austrian Catholic authoritarians. The latter win out and takeover the Establishment under Dolfuss and Shuschnigg, but the Austrian Nazis seize control in the Anschluss.

Spain and Portugal: Authoritarian states whose power rested on a coalition that included (but was not dominated by) fascists. Fascist groups marginalized after 1943 in both countries.

Romania: Authoritarian reactionaries crushed attempted 1944 coup by fascist Legion of the Archangel Michael/Iron Guard. Authoritarian/conservative militarists rule until Soviet conquest.

Hungary: Government of Miklos Horthy standard conservative anti-communist authoritarian state. Replaced by fascist Arrow-Cross party in '44. Arrow-Cross serve as little more than Nazi proxies, wiped out by Soviets.

[Tizoc]

Originally Posted by Cook

Yes, and since we are talking about Poland in 1939, not 1928, the term ‘random military Junta’ has absolutely no validity, whereas the Polish Sanitation Movement had, as I said, very little to distinguish it from its fascist neighbours.

Yes, because being a multiparty state is obvious characteristic of a fascist state.

Originally Posted by Cook

The regime was radically nationalist,

It wasn't. Actually through most Sanacja period nationalism that put most importance to ethnicity was discouraged - it started changing after 1935 and even then there was strong opposition within Sanacja to it.

Originally Posted by Cook

having marginalised the ethnic minorities in Poland it had ambitions of vastly increasing the size of Poland, first with an Anschluss with Lithuania

Bullshit. Interwar Poland did not seek Lithuanian territory.

Originally Posted by Cook

and then with claims on Ukraine.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by Cook

It was stridently anti-Communist, anti-Socialist

It was so anti-socialist that Socialist Party was allowed to function and win local elections and conduct 1st May marches.

Originally Posted by Cook

and rabidly anti-Semitic; much of Nazi Germany’s Jewish problem were refugees from Poland who preferred to remain in Germany rather than return to Poland, even after the Nuremburg Laws were introduced.

Source please.

Originally Posted by Cook

And while Poland did still hold elections, they were heavily manipulated and could not be called ‘free and fair’ in any realistic sense.

If there are elcetions where there is more than ruling party then the state is NOT fascist.

Originally Posted by Cook

So yes, the 1939 invasion of Poland can be considered Fascist vs Fascist war.

Nope.

Do you even know what fascism is, anyway?

[Maponus]

Originally Posted by MerryPrankster

Someone here theorized that if Mosley had somehow established a fascist Britain, they would have gone to war with the Nazis anyway. Britain's interests are still Britain's interests and fascist Britain would have no desire for a unified Europe capable of attacking them.

It's like how both Czarist Russia and the Soviet Union craved Constantinople. Geography > ideology.

No chance of that. The whole point of Mosley's foreign policy was a complete rejection of the traditional idea that Britain's best interest lay in maintaining a balance of power in Europe. Mosley primary objective in politics was to prevent a world war and strengthen the Empire through state-socialist economic reforms. Everything else, Labour Party membership, Conservative Party membership, being an Independent, founding the New Party, dressing up in a blackshirt and Jew-baiting was all just means of achieving that goal. Mosley's primary motivation was to save the next generation of people from what his generation went through. Yet people on this broad seem to use Mosley as some kind of blank slate politician who can be put at the head of any British far-right regime (or in some cases far-left) with any number of bizarre policies he'd never have supported (like annexing Ireland or such nonsense). I can only assume they've picked up this habit from Turtledove's lazy and uninspired use of Mosley as a character in TL-191 and elsewhere.

Mosley being drawn into war with Hitler was one of the main things I found hard to swallow in EdT's Greater Britain, along with that unlikely friendship with Bose, though that was made bearable by the fact it was Mussolini who was drawing him in.

[basileus]

Originally Posted by Lycaon pictus

Has there ever been a TL in which two fascist states went to war with one another?

It seems like something that could happen pretty naturally. We've seen communist states fight each other (the USSR v. China, China v. Vietnam, etc.) in spite of their rhetoric of international brotherhood and solidarity. And fascism doesn't even have that rhetoric. Maybe a war between Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain?

Well, according to the Sex Pistols, the Falkland War was a prime example of inter-Fascist conflict