Personally (and I'm not very bright so feel free to correct me) I'd define facism as heavy emphasis on the millatery, longing for a greatness of the past, one party state, no trade unions. Of course I've also just defined a millatery junta or any dictator with certain asperations, so really I'll leave this down to the smarter guys.Well, how do you define fascism? I could see a surviving Bonapartist regime ending up with a lot of fascist characteristics...
Well, how do you define fascism? I could see a surviving Bonapartist regime ending up with a lot of fascist characteristics...
I think it all comes down to national culture. I just dont see that the French have it in them to develop the type of facism as existed in Germany and Italy in the early to mid 20th century.
Personally (and I'm not very bright so feel free to correct me) I'd define facism as heavy emphasis on the millatery, longing for a greatness of the past, one party state, no trade unions. Of course I've also just defined a millatery junta or any dictator with certain asperations, so really I'll leave this down to the smarter guys.
A surviving what? On the contrary, since early 1860s the Empire was gradually liberalising, and at the beginning of the Franco-Prussian war France had a responsable government (sort of), basic workers rights to strike and to form unions, and had just ratified by plebiscite the constitutional reform turning it basically into a semi-parliamentary monarchy
I really wouldn't say that's socialist since socialism isn't nearly as coercive as the system described above. That's more authoritarian/pseudo-totalitarian.Fascism, at least at the time, would be militaristic, nationalistic, propagandist, corporatist, personality-cultist, and socialist.
-socialist - the government has the right, duty, and/or obligation to regulate as much of your individual life and choices as possible, from the foods you eat, to the schools you go to, the car you can drive, the appliances you can buy, to the health care options you can choose.
I agree with the Pasha here, along with the others who have pointed out how it is a mistake to say that France "didn't have it in them" to become fascist, and indeed had it in them to be just about anything. I mean, they almost did go fascist (or at least heavily, heavily right-wing) in 1934. It was really just a question of whether or not de La Rocque would throw in with the rioters/putschists which, thankfully, he did not.I'm not sure why people think the French didn't have it in them to be Fascist. What was Vichy?
Eh, even if La rocque had thrown his weight in 1934, so what? What does that accomplish?
I think it all comes down to national culture. I just dont see that the French have it in them to develop the type of facism as existed in Germany and Italy in the early to mid 20th century.
Given that OTL Vichy France was the only other WWII fascist regime with a strong homegrown power base and genuine popular following besides Germany, Italy, and Spain, I have to call that statement laughable. Heck, pre-WWI and interwar France was even rather more antisemite than Italy (until Mussolini decided to invent Italian antisemitism wholesale in 1938 to get best buddy with Hitler).
No No No. The French were developing Proto-fascism during Robespierre's Reign of Terror. Everything from Price Controls to obligatory military service to name to two characteristics of Fascism. It is my opinion that the French sort of invented the fascist school of thought. It is a direct off-shoot of their Enlightenment and Fascism would be a natural leap for them if they had lost WW1.
You forgot, Hungary and Romania in particular.
Hungary's regime under Adm. Horthy was certainly fascist.
Romania under the Brotherhood of the Archangel Michael was so anti-semitic and so fascist that Germany and Italy were jealous. Romania was facist for longer and arguably was more successful in that form of govt. than any other state. After WW2 and the rise of Cichescoo (sp? I spelled it phonetically) they just added Communism to their Fascism.
The outright overthrow (and possible murder if the Camelots du Roi get their hands on them) of the French government, which will cause problems to say the least, especially if, as maverick said, the Leftists go out and fight back.Eh, even if La rocque had thrown his weight in 1934, so what? What does that accomplish?