WI a Fascist International?

EdT

Just thinking aloud really, so this might not make all that much sense...

OTL, Fascist internationalism cumulated in the December of 1934, when Fascists from 13 countries met in Montreux and tried to hammer out a common statement of principles. The "Action Committees for the Universality of Rome" wasn't a great success- it was ostentatiously boycotted by the Nazis and failed to reach agreement on much at all. After this the ascendency of Hitler meant that fascists tended to be more inclined to look towards Germany then Italy, and the idea of fascism as an organised international movement died something of a death.

Can this be changed? Hmmm.... Let's say that the internationalist fascists get their act together a little more quickly then OTL, and instead of meeting in 1934 they meet in 1929, just after the Wall St crash. With Italy that bit more dominant, the Nazis less prominent and the other fascist groups having had less time to organise themselves properly, the meeting is more succesful, and everyone's able to agree on a relatively vague formula for interntaional fascism and a common set of goals.When the congress is over a Fascist International is set up based in Montreux, aiming to coordinate the actions of fascist parties all over the world and give them monetary aid if possible. I'm thinking the organisation will be pretty much controlled by Mussolini, but it will be seen as representing fascists everywhere to a certain extent.

So, does this actually give us a particularly different ATL? The establishment of a Fascist International isn't going to cause fascism to sweep the world any more then it did OTL, and, it's certainly not going to avoid or change the victor of WW2. A few things might change though. This TL may see pre-war relations between Italy and Germany being that much more icy then OTL, as I can't see Hitler's relations with the Fascist International being particularly cordial. A war of words with the organisation around 1934 when German-Italian relations are in a nadir over Austria might cause ructions, even perhaps butterflying away Italian entry into the war. This would be on the low side of probability I expect, but would be interesting.

Which leads us to a possible knock-on effect- if the Fascist International is a constant critic of the Nazis and does not see them as part of the fascist 'family', does this rehabilitate the ideology in the post-war period? "I'm not a Nazi, I'm a fascist" and all that... fascists would point to their declaration of principles as not containing anything about anti-semitism, and Sternhell's argument that "Nazism cannot, as I see it, be treated as a mere variant of fascism: its emphasis on biological determinism rules out all efforts to deal with it as such" is going to be a pretty popular one. An ATL where Nazism is considered an abberant version of Fascism will be an interesting one.

Thoughts?
 

Ivan Druzhkov

I would expect this organization to act quite differently than Comintern. From what I've read, Comintern essentially was a network of communist parties/militias spread across the world, and controlled fairly firmly by Moscow (though areas Moscow didn't care about could generally do whatever the hell they wanted, as in Mao's case). This looks more like a conference just to establish some ideological guidelines as to what Fascism actually is (something that would've been pretty helpful for scholars, IMHO). You'd probably see some splits right off the bat, as there are bound to be a number of parties who aren't so much interested in the "corporative state and national pride" thing than they are in the "kill (ethnicity)!" part of it.

Maybe in thsi TL, we might not see the word "fascism" be abused to the point where putting up a sign saying EMPLOYEES MUST WASH HANDS in the men's room is seen as "fascist act". I realize this last point adds nothing to the discussion, but I just hate it when the words "Nazi" and "fascist" are doled out to for every "repressive" act as if they were Halloween candy. It's lazy thinking, and it just makes those words less powerful.
 

Chengar Qordath

I doubt international fascism would ever become to strong of a force, as fascism by its very nature is strongly nationalist. I would think that any international fascist group would end up having serious problems when the national interests of various nations were in conflict.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Chengar Qordath said:
I doubt international fascism would ever become to strong of a force, as fascism by its very nature is strongly nationalist. I would think that any international fascist group would end up having serious problems when the national interests of various nations were in conflict.
Click to expand...

You would think that, but some surprising things can come about (often owing to a perceived external threat or just plain realpolitick).

In more recent times, the British BNP and the French Fronte Nationale have had relatively cordial relations with each other, despite the fact that you'd think that the obvious targets of British and French fascist parties would be each others' countries.
 

Viriato

Chengar Qordath said:
I doubt international fascism would ever become to strong of a force, as fascism by its very nature is strongly nationalist. I would think that any international fascist group would end up having serious problems when the national interests of various nations were in conflict.
Click to expand...

Fascism tends to be anti-cosmopolitan and really did not have any doctrine. Most fascist movements had basic similarities, but they also tend to be very nationalistic and in favour of irredentism. For instance how would Polish Fascists have reconciled themselves with the Nazis who wanted to take away Polish territory. Or how would Hungarian and Romanian fascists have cooperated when there was Transylvania to fight over. Also different fascist movements were really quasi-fascist just adopting the trappings of fascism but really being nothing more than conservative authoritarian regimes (Franco, Salazar, Dolfuss, etc.).

Communism in essence replaces nationalism with class and makes class much more important than race/ethnicity and their main by product nationalism which is sees as a bougeois concept to divide the proletariat and divert attention away from the greater struggle. Also Communism has a very narrow definition and well laid out ideology, therefore making it in theory at least as applicable to Cubans, Ethiopians, Russians or Mongolians.
 

LordKalvan

Viriato said:
Fascism tends to be anti-cosmopolitan and really did not have any doctrine. Most fascist movements had basic similarities, but they also tend to be very nationalistic and in favour of irredentism. For instance how would Polish Fascists have reconciled themselves with the Nazis who wanted to take away Polish territory. Or how would Hungarian and Romanian fascists have cooperated when there was Transylvania to fight over. Also different fascist movements were really quasi-fascist just adopting the trappings of fascism but really being nothing more than conservative authoritarian regimes (Franco, Salazar, Dolfuss, etc.).

Communism in essence replaces nationalism with class and makes class much more important than race/ethnicity and their main by product nationalism which is sees as a bougeois concept to divide the proletariat and divert attention away from the greater struggle. Also Communism has a very narrow definition and well laid out ideology, therefore making it in theory at least as applicable to Cubans, Ethiopians, Russians or Mongolians.
Click to expand...
Communism can be as nationalistic as fascism: the examples of Yugoslavia, Albania and Romania should convince everyone. Not to mention China (which, under the cloak of a "purest" communist doctrine effectively pursued nationalistic goals, to the limit of coming very close to a border war with URSS). The effectiveness of the communist international movement was mostly due to the equally effective and often ruthless control that URSS exerted on other communist party cadres, and to the nice friendly Soviet tanks ready to roll across Eastern Europe (remember Budapest, Prague, Berlin)

I find the POD premises intriguing: the Great Depression created a huge upheaval in Europe and in the USA. It is quite surprising that neither Fascist Italy nor communist Russia tried to get something out of it.

it is true that fascism is by definition anti-cosmopolitan and preaches a simpler and "purer" way of life in opposition to the decadent democracies.
OTOH, this ideology might have been attractive for poor farmers being foreclosed by banks during the depression, or for workers being laid off.
Maybe it was just a missed opportunity; certainly Mussolini had his own problems to cope with during the early thirties (even if the effective nationalisation of the heavy industry more or less was successful, and the impact on on the working class was attenuated). Maybe what was needed was the right guy (i'm thinking in terms of USA, obviously) to coalesce farmers workers and small businessmen behind something like America First.
Effectively I believe that USA was very lucky in having a republican incumbent in 1932. Since the governing party would have lost even if it were led by George Washington, :D , this opened the door for the Democrat landslide. And the democrats in their turn had Roosevelt as candidate (who might not have been the first choice of the democrat machine). So many ifs..
 

wkwillis

If the Fascist movement in France was stronger, then Italy might have sided with Vichy France in 1942 when Hitler invaded in response to the North African landings. A peace treaty and an alliance would have led to a different WWII at that time, whether Italy, Vichy France, Spain, and Portugal either went to war with Germany, or merely persuaded them not to invade France.
For that matter, southern Belgium and a lot of the Balkans had native fascist elements.
 

Wendell

LordKalvan said:
Communism can be as nationalistic as fascism: the examples of Yugoslavia, Albania and Romania should convince everyone. Not to mention China (which, under the cloak of a "purest" communist doctrine effectively pursued nationalistic goals, to the limit of coming very close to a border war with URSS). The effectiveness of the communist international movement was mostly due to the equally effective and often ruthless control that URSS exerted on other communist party cadres, and to the nice friendly Soviet tanks ready to roll across Eastern Europe (remember Budapest, Prague, Berlin)

I find the POD premises intriguing: the Great Depression created a huge upheaval in Europe and in the USA. It is quite surprising that neither Fascist Italy nor communist Russia tried to get something out of it.

it is true that fascism is by definition anti-cosmopolitan and preaches a simpler and "purer" way of life in opposition to the decadent democracies.
OTOH, this ideology might have been attractive for poor farmers being foreclosed by banks during the depression, or for workers being laid off.
Maybe it was just a missed opportunity; certainly Mussolini had his own problems to cope with during the early thirties (even if the effective nationalisation of the heavy industry more or less was successful, and the impact on on the working class was attenuated). Maybe what was needed was the right guy (i'm thinking in terms of USA, obviously) to coalesce farmers workers and small businessmen behind something like America First.
Effectively I believe that USA was very lucky in having a republican incumbent in 1932. Since the governing party would have lost even if it were led by George Washington, :D , this opened the door for the Democrat landslide. And the democrats in their turn had Roosevelt as candidate (who might not have been the first choice of the democrat machine). So many ifs..
Click to expand...
Huey Long?
 

Wendell

wkwillis said:
No, Huey Long was a liberal, not a fascist. Well, a thirties liberal. Kind of like LBJ without the Vietnam and Dominican Republic nuttiness.
Click to expand...
Doesn't it could end up going the fascist route down the line. Long was also a bit of a thug from what I understand. How about Burton K. Wheeler?
 

wkwillis

Wendell said:
Doesn't it could end up going the fascist route down the line. Long was also a bit of a thug from what I understand. How about Burton K. Wheeler?
Click to expand...
Don't know him.
As far as Long being a thug, was he, compared to the other guys?
 

LordKalvan

I do not know him either. And I cannot suggest a name, sorry. I had in mind someone from Midwest, either from the rural areas or from Toledo, Duluth, Pittsburgh, one of the cities mostly affected by recession. It would have to be a splinter of one of the major parties: either a Democrat populist (and btw this would likely negate FDR nomination, as a side effect) or a Republican, disaffected by the laissez faire policy of his administration during the depression time.
The message should be: let's go back to the values of our origin (farmers, pioneers, blah, blah) and clean America. The aristocrats of the East Coast and the decadent edonists of the West Coast must be put in their place. Toss in strong denunciation of the evil behavior of the banks, and of the acquiescence of the incumbent administration to big bucks.
Even if this guy looses in 1932, a less effective relief of depression effects would give him again a big chance in 1936.
What I have in mind is someone similar to William J. Bryan, but with more grasping of tactics and more ruthlessness
 

LordKalvan

Wheeler looks possibly the best bet, but:
- he is from a smallish state (Montana)
- broke early with Democrats, and then went back to the party after an unsuccessful trial with the Progressives
- I doubt he was well known enough to be a national figure by 1932.

What you would need, is Wheeler remaining democrat in 1924 and 1928, and starting to organise his own propaganda machine after 1929 and aiming to 1932. I would expect that another democrat hopeful based on populist ideas and federal schemes for relieving unemployment might scutter FDR nomination.

Now I see ver very well a ticket Wheeler/Long (or the other way around) as populist America First Party in 1936. The geographical balance of the ticket is not exceptional (Montana and Louisiana!), but these two guys look like dynamite put together (Long might still be shot, though. OTOH, if it happens after the campaign is started it should create a huge sympathy toward Wheeler)

La Follette sr. is too old, and his son is too young. Besides this, neither one looks to be a good choice for an American Mussolini
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top