Two Rival Fascist Blocs in Europe

Strategos' Risk

What if two distinctly different strains of fascism emerged in post-World War I Europe? No, not Ian's Unionism. I'm just talking about a Latin/Mediterranean strain- Mussolini's corporatism mixed with Franco's clerical fascism, against Hitler's race-based sort. The former would be centered around the Mediterranean and be composed of Italy, Spain, and possibly Portugal, whereas the latter would be centered around Central and Eastern Europe, consisting of Germany, Austria, Romania, and Balkan states such as Croatia.
Could this work? Bonus points if you can incorporate a fascist France and/or Britain.
 

Berra

I like the idea. A bigger conflict over Austria is a POD that pops up but that might give a republican victory in Spain. Questions. What happens with France? Will Northern Fascists have a much better economy giving the victory either in a war or a 'cold war'? And will there be a clash in the Balkans? What will England do?
 

Strategos' Risk

I honestly don't know about France. This scenario could either use the nations in OTL that turned fascist, or have fascism diverge in other ways. Would France be more inclined to go fascist if influenced by the non-German Latin fascist nations?
 

Max Sinister

Banned
They'd certainly prefer it to the other choice, if it becomes apparent that they can't fight alone against everyone else in Europe.
 

MarkA

Nazism was of course very different to Fascism. I presume you mean that Hitler refuses to acknowledge his philsophical debt to Mussolini and the two are even more at loggerheads than they were in OTL.

The only thing that really 'united' the dictators was anti-bolshevism. Mussolini disliked Hitler intensly and it was apparently reciprocated. They both regarded Franco with contempt. Dictators can be very ego centric.
 

1940LaSalle

I could see not two, but possibly three brands of fascism arising: the third would be a northern/eastern brand, as embodied in such quasi-dictators as Poland's Pilsudski, Austria's Dollfuss, etc., which might have resulted in a loose association of nations to the east and north of the Third Reich that would be generally hostile to its ambitions. Operating on the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, that same loose association could have joined forces with the Mussolini-led corporatist brand of fascism, and thus effectively closed off the Third Reich in nearly all directions.

What might that have done to/for France? I don't believe the French had anyone remotely approaching Mussolini's charisma at the time (as John Gunther said in Inside Europe in 1937, "France is many people"--OK, likely that's a paraphrase but it's close), so I'd be inclined to rule out that option. That leaves either the rather volatile 3rd Republic, or a northern/eastern sort of fascism--perhaps led by Petain. The latter would be my guess.
 

Strategos' Risk

I knew that Mussolini scoffed at Hitler's beliefs in a "Jewish problem", though he went on with his grossly racist policies after becoming the latter's lackey. However, didn't Hitler admire Mussolini's corporatism and economic policies?

Fascism splitting three ways would just be crazy, but I guess it makes sense that the two blocs (North-east and South-west) would collaborate. I guess a Petainist-fascist France would be joining them, as well, against the Reich. The only issue is- would Germany then be left alone? Or are there any other fascists they could find? Low Countries? Scandinavia? Balkans?
 

ninebucks

Banned
I don't see how this is different to OTL... Fascism's defining feature is its national-specificness, so there are many more than two or three strains of fascism, there are as many strains of fascism as there are fascist nations.

Secondly, since when did all fascist countries form one cohesive bloc anyway? They each had quite different interests at heart, and the jingoistic stubborness to assure these were not challenged. Case in point, if there was one unifined fascist bloc, how come Spain and Portugal did not fight in WWII?
 

Kidblast

Strategos' Risk said:
I knew that Mussolini scoffed at Hitler's beliefs in a "Jewish problem", though he went on with his grossly racist policies after becoming the latter's lackey. However, didn't Hitler admire Mussolini's corporatism and economic policies?

Fascism splitting three ways would just be crazy, but I guess it makes sense that the two blocs (North-east and South-west) would collaborate. I guess a Petainist-fascist France would be joining them, as well, against the Reich. The only issue is- would Germany then be left alone? Or are there any other fascists they could find? Low Countries? Scandinavia? Balkans?
Click to expand...

Perhaps a Pan-Slavism of Eastern Europe encompassing Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Albania.

The Nordic Fascism of Germany, Austria, and Scandinavia.

Finally, the Mediterrean type corporatism of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece. (Albania too might be in this block. It depends who it turns to for protection.)

Perhaps something along these lines:

Olive: Fascism
Blue: Slavism
Grey: Norsefire

1939 (Europe) - Thande.GIF
 

Strategos' Risk

One- what would bind the "Slavic" fascist states of the post above together, other than the fact they're "hanging together" so that the Germans don't hang them separately?

Two- just how would they be "Pan-Slavic"?

Three- How could you have pan-Slavism without Russia being involved?
 

HurganPL

Banned
Perhaps a Pan-Slavism of Eastern Europe encompassing Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Albania.
Click to expand...
Panslavism in Poland ? That's rather in ASB territory. Most Poles don't even feel "Slavic" and this idea is associated with Russification.
Oh and neither Romania nor Albania are countries of Slavic language groups.
In OTL anyway Poland had fascist groups that were far more closer to Franco and Mussolini, especially Franco.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Kidblast said:
Perhaps a Pan-Slavism of Eastern Europe encompassing Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, and Albania.

The Nordic Fascism of Germany, Austria, and Scandinavia.

Finally, the Mediterrean type corporatism of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece. (Albania too might be in this block. It depends who it turns to for protection.)

Perhaps something along these lines:

Olive: Fascism
Blue: Slavism
Grey: Norsefire
Click to expand...
-Hungary, romania and albania are not slavic.
-What would ''norse fire" be
-One might make a case for an emergent fascist russia if it never became communist. It's pan-slavism would be main ideology, and the drive to regain former lands, and would be direct enemy of germany.
 

Tizoc

1940LaSalle said:
I could see not two, but possibly three brands of fascism arising: the third would be a northern/eastern brand, as embodied in such quasi-dictators as Poland's Pilsudski, Austria's Dollfuss, etc., which might have resulted in a loose association of nations to the east and north of the Third Reich that would be generally hostile to its ambitions. Operating on the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, that same loose association could have joined forces with the Mussolini-led corporatist brand of fascism, and thus effectively closed off the Third Reich in nearly all directions.
Click to expand...
Y'know, there weren't fascist governments in Poland and Austria (or Yugoslavia, or Romania, or Latvia...) before WW2 - instead there were authoritarian regimes. It is a difference. After all Dolfuss and austrian nazis weren't friends at all...
 

Max Sinister

Banned
Dollfuss fought against the Austrian nazis, but his government was also called "Austrofascism". Remember, at the beginning even Hitler and Mussolini hadn't been friends.
 

Rockingham

Banned
Hungary isn't slavic either. It is finno-ugric(related to finnish, estonian(i think) and some other northern tribal languages.)

What about rather then russia becoming communist, it ends up fascist? It's main ideology basically being the same as germanies=rascist against all people except slavs(as opposed to germans), and it would attempt to wipe out non slavs(maybe excluding the "unfit land's" of central asia and other uninhabitable regions, whose inhaitants would be used as slaves) so as to create lebensraum for slavs. It would have quite a while to achieve this in it's own land as well.
It's territorial ambitions would be all former russian lands(maybe excluding alaska)as well as all majority slav lands, romania, hungary and constantinople, as the "rightful slavic lands"
 
Last edited:

HurganPL

Banned
It's main ideology basically being the same as germanies=rascist against all people except slavs(as opposed to germans), and it would attempt to wipe out non slavs(maybe excluding the "unfit land's" of central asia and other uninhabitable regions, whose inhaitants would be used as slaves) so as to create lebensraum for slavs. It would have quite a while to achieve this in it's own land as well.
It's territorial ambitions would be all former russian lands(maybe excluding alaska)as well as all majority slav lands, romania, hungary and constantinople, as the "rightful slavic lands"
Click to expand...

That was in OTL Slavophile movement. But it was different from goals you described.
Slavs were equall to Russians and had to be orthodox.
So all non-Russian Slavs were to be russified and all catholic Slavs converted to orthodoxy.
Poles were seen as traitors due to opposing being part of Russian Empire and being Catholic.
Slavophiles didn't really want "lebensraum" as Russia had enough of territory but purging all foreing influence in Russian Empire.
They were also very antisemitic and anti-catholic.
 
Hapsburg

Hapsburg

Banned
Emperor_of_Rockingham said:
-What would ''norse fire" be
Click to expand...
If you've ever read the V for Vendetta graphic novel or watched the movie, you'd know. :D
Basically, in the comic and film, it's the fascist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and Anglican authoritarian dictatorship in control of England and probably the rest of Britain.
The term in modern times is used to indicate any kind of race-based fascist society, with possibly clerical influence in government.
 

Strategos' Risk

I'm still not sure what would be the best alternative besides German Nazism and Latin corporatism- I guess the two contenders brought up so far would be Pan-slavism and a loose coalition of anti-German nations supporting military authoritarianism.
 

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy

Banned
The issues with the "Slavic" bloc have already been brought up. Norsefire is also problematic because the Low Countries and Scandinavia were very unfriendly to fascism. In fact the Scandinavians were often led by social democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top