AHC: Cold War between a "good" Fascist state and an "evil" Democratic one

[spoonzandforkz]

Generally it is taken without assumption that in any alt-Cold War between a democratic and a fascist/totalitarian state it is always the democratic one that is on the side of "good", the forces of light, the lesser evil, etc - for rather understandable reasons given fascism and totalitarianism's generally more terrible record with human rights.


But democracies are hardly innocent either. America, France, the British Empire, etc have committed plenty of atrocities, if rather less than that of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.


In averting the common cliche, what would be a good match-up of countries and ideologies for a cold war between what is considered a "good" fascist/totalitarian state and an "evil" democratic one?


The totalitarian/fascist state need not be a paragon of human rights (one could argue, with a great deal of success, that the US during the Cold War was an "evil empire" as well) but it must be considered, by a wide swath of the world's population, and the general opinion of most historians to have been championing the nobler cause or to borrow a phrase, the "lesser Satan" to the democratic "Greater Satan"


For one exmaple: I'm thinking of a fascist anti-colonialist state, maybe a unified India or China leading a global bloc of generally authoritarian former colonies [1] against maybe a democratic-at-home but imperialist-overseas British Empire and it's other colonialist allies.



Any other ideas for other ideologies and countries?






[1] Think a more moderate fascism, of the Italian type, and with a slightly more genuine commitment to the equality of peoples than the Soviet Union, though hardly perfect.

 

[AltoRegnant]

Uh... maybe a White Russia or KMT china vs France or Britain? Panslavism could evolve into rhetoric about self determination, given time and reason. It wouldnt change Russia's own bloodied ledger but I think that would still make them the relative good. And both chinese factions were anti colonialism

Edit so this isnt just the second half of OP again: maybe instead of those four it could be Strausser germany (with soviet alliance) vs america? The US did have the second largest nazi party, but given much stronger democratic tradition I think just pulling the Overton window far enough right could get this

 

[Byz]

China, or a Japan that is not completely taken over by militarists and instead is a more balanced form of oligarchy vs western european imperialists could be a fun cold war that fulfills your parameters.

No idea what the US and Russians are doing during this, though. You'd think they'd get involved.

 

[Belisarius II]

What your talking about is impossible by definition.

Definition of fascism​

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Such a State cannot be good, by almost any ethical standards.

When you say a Democratic State, if your referring to a true Democracy there are no real modern examples. The Western Democracies have representative Governments, chosen in popular elections. Those nations have internal injustices, and their foreign policies are often morally questionable, but they generally accept the concept of individual human rights, and rule of law, which a Fascist State does not.

So while a Fascist State may be popular with the majority of it's population it's underpinnings are evil, because it's premise is the repression of the individual human being, and the exultation of the State. A "Democracy" may be plagued by injustice, but it's foundation is good, because it's based on respect for the dignity of mankind, and justice, under law.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

What your talking about is impossible by definition.

Not really. "Good" and "evil" are ultimately subjective concepts. A democratic society that, I don't know, is trying to violently spread its ideology in a world that is run by autocratic monarchies won't be seen as the 'good guys', and a monarchy can be a fascist dictatorship with full control of the state apparatus that is seen as 'good' by its people and international partners.

Imagine for a moment a west vs east scenario where the 'east' is dominated by the Kingdom of France, Empire of Germany, Tsardom of Russia, and Empire of China, and the west is dominated by the United States of America and some kind of ATL Brazilian Republic. Both Japan and Britain are the 'Cuba' for their respective sides of the world. Both alliances have nuclear weapons, and the US and Brazil are prone to toppling stable monarchies in Africa and Asia and trying to force happy populations to accept elections and choose from among their peers who should lead them. This results in partisan politics, civil wars, economic collapse and disparity in what were once stable countries, famine, disease, refugee crises, and so on, whereas the monarchies propped up by aid from the other side are flourishing and wealthy, even if they are ruled by kings and queens who tell the press what to write and quietly disappear any pro-democracy movements (not unlike how the OTL US and allies would "quietly disappear" local communists).

So we have a world where totalitarian monarchism (let's just assume that the aforementioned states are still absolutist, or at least "I get the final say" kind of monarchies) is seen to be working well whereas democracy is creating unstable, decentralised, messy republics prone to violence.

 

[Arkenfolm]

What your talking about is impossible by definition.

Definition of fascism​

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Such a State cannot be good, by almost any ethical standards.

When you say a Democratic State, if your referring to a true Democracy there are no real modern examples. The Western Democracies have representative Governments, chosen in popular elections. Those nations have internal injustices, and their foreign policies are often morally questionable, but they generally accept the concept of individual human rights, and rule of law, which a Fascist State does not.

So while a Fascist State may be popular with the majority of it's population it's underpinnings are evil, because it's premise is the repression of the individual human being, and the exultation of the State. A "Democracy" may be plagued by injustice, but it's foundation is good, because it's based on respect for the dignity of mankind, and justice, under law.

I disagree. The fascist state could be genuinely popular and came to power on the basis of overthrowing corrupt capitalists destroying the nation's soul and giving nothing back along with decadent aristocrats foresaking their nation's tradition. It need not be overtly antisemitic or particularly racist, although it's goal is building a strong nation united behind a single leader and ruling party. Because of the risk of foreign corrupt elements and remnants of the prior order, a police state is strictly enforced, but usually the only people falling victim to it are genuine criminals. Despite not being the wealthiest country, the cities are clean, crime is low, and numerous environmental protections exist. The average person is more prosperous than before and is eager to continue building up their nation under the rule of the dictator who helped liberate them from economic servitude.

A democracy could be evil on the basis that its culture and ideology is evil, where the political system offers a choice between one evil or the other. For instance, you can vote for the right-wing party who are all for the most rapacious of capitalists and industrialists and their rights to exploit workers and the environment (IRL example is various Gilded Age political factions in the US) or you can vote for the left-wing party which in actuality mostly protects business owners and is also extremely racist and xenophobic since non-natives and local minorities pose a threat to the working class's chances (IRL example would be certain Jim Crow-era Southern Democrats). All third parties (including those who represent minority groups) are small with minimal influence on policy because they're genuinely unpopular.

 

[Chief1905]

What your talking about is impossible by definition.

Definition of fascism​

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Such a State cannot be good, by almost any ethical standards.

When you say a Democratic State, if your referring to a true Democracy there are no real modern examples. The Western Democracies have representative Governments, chosen in popular elections. Those nations have internal injustices, and their foreign policies are often morally questionable, but they generally accept the concept of individual human rights, and rule of law, which a Fascist State does not.

So while a Fascist State may be popular with the majority of it's population it's underpinnings are evil, because it's premise is the repression of the individual human being, and the exultation of the State. A "Democracy" may be plagued by injustice, but it's foundation is good, because it's based on respect for the dignity of mankind, and justice, under law.

as well as the friend above me says concept of good or bad and subjective, For example the good western democracy countries,usa, UK, France, for many people they are the evil , For Many Peoples The American Concept of Society(Capitalism, the American dream, consumerism) Are Incompatible With Their Society and Values, Not only are they subjective, they are Mutable, For example, for a long time the Soviet Union was seen as good by many people. After the time that certain things were happening,the Soviets crushing Uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, The discovery of the holodomor,Katyn's massacre For example. many people's views were changing,With some communists turning anti-communists.

Other examples are the religious wars, Today we see which were unjustified, For the people of that time no

The question of good and bad depends on how The person was created, their moral values and their ideology

back to the question

well I think it's possible but it will be difficult, First, preventing Nazism would help a lot.

second would be Do a lot of propaganda, an example is the Soviet Union and the United States, Two states that have their faults,But for many people became model states

Third, these fascist states have to become world powers

 

[Belisarius II]

Not really. "Good" and "evil" are ultimately subjective concepts. A democratic society that, I don't know, is trying to violently spread its ideology in a world that is run by autocratic monarchies won't be seen as the 'good guys', and a monarchy can be a fascist dictatorship with full control of the state apparatus that is seen as 'good' by its people and international partners.

Imagine for a moment a west vs east scenario where the 'east' is dominated by the Kingdom of France, Empire of Germany, Tsardom of Russia, and Empire of China, and the west is dominated by the United States of America and some kind of ATL Brazilian Republic. Both Japan and Britain are the 'Cuba' for their respective sides of the world. Both alliances have nuclear weapons, and the US and Brazil are prone to toppling stable monarchies in Africa and Asia and trying to force happy populations to accept elections and choose from among their peers who should lead them. This results in partisan politics, civil wars, economic collapse and disparity in what were once stable countries, famine, disease, refugee crises, and so on, whereas the monarchies propped up by aid from the other side are flourishing and wealthy, even if they are ruled by kings and queens who tell the press what to write and quietly disappear any pro-democracy movements (not unlike how the OTL US and allies would "quietly disappear" local communists).

So we have a world where totalitarian monarchism (let's just assume that the aforementioned states are still absolutist, or at least "I get the final say" kind of monarchies) is seen to be working well whereas democracy is creating unstable, decentralised, messy republics prone to violence.

If you want to redefine what ideologies are you can create anything you want. Monarchies are not Fascist States, because they don't rule by popular rule, or express the will of the People, but if you want to redefine what a Monarchy is you can do that to. Yes democracies are often less stable then authoritarian systems, because the will of the people can change. At the same time a Fascist State can be unstable, because it's subject to the gyrations of an often megalomaniacal leader, or a small ruling body.

 

[Belisarius II]

as well as the friend above me says concept of good or bad and subjective, For example the good western democracy countries,usa, UK, France, for many people they are the evil , For Many Peoples The American Concept of Society(Capitalism, the American dream, consumerism) Are Incompatible With Their Society and Values, Not only are they subjective, they are Mutable, For example, for a long time the Soviet Union was seen as good by many people. After the time that certain things were happening,the Soviets crushing Uprisings in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, The discovery of the holodomor,Katyn's massacre For example. many people's views were changing,With some communists turning anti-communists.

Other examples are the religious wars, Today we see which were unjustified, For the people of that time no

The question of good and bad depends on how The person was created, their moral values and their ideology

back to the question

well I think it's possible but it will be difficult, First, preventing Nazism would help a lot.

second would be Do a lot of propaganda, an example is the Soviet Union and the United States, Two states that have their faults,But for many people became model states

Third, these fascist states have to become world powers

Your right. If you think a society that places the State at the moral, spiritual, and economic center of human life is good you can. No Nazism? Since a Fascist, or Communist State is all powerful how could you prevent it from crossing your moral boundaries? There are no Constitutional limits, rule of law, political parties, unions, or organized religious, or moral institutions to limit State Power. Only passive, or active popular resistance could have any influence on your rulers. Being at the mercy of a dictator, or revolutionary council sounds great to me. What could go wrong?

 

[Atterdag]

Generally it is taken without assumption that in any alt-Cold War between a democratic and a fascist/totalitarian state it is always the democratic one that is on the side of "good", the forces of light, the lesser evil, etc - for rather understandable reasons given fascism and totalitarianism's generally more terrible record with human rights.

This is 100% a question of perspective, the Nazis, Italian Fascists, Stalinist Soviets etc all believed themselves to be the good guys and often pointed to democratic countries less than clean records. The answer is thus simply: view history from these states perspective.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

The problem is that one of the key tenets of fascism is a belief that life is a continual, zero-sum struggle between racial groups, which in turn leads to oppression and compulsive warmongering. It is (to put it mildly) extremely difficult to have an oppressive, compulsively bellicose state be a net positive on the world stage, or even to be less negative than your average democracy.

The best you can probably have is for a fascist state to gradually shed its more fascist elements and become a generic right-wing dictatorship whilst still officially calling itself fascist. Such a state could conceivably be a better actor on the world stage than most democracies, depending on the attitude of the person or people in charge of it. It's debatable whether such a state would really be fascist in any meaningful sense, however.

 

[NedStark]

Well, it is already OTL, from the point of view of fascists.

 

[NedStark]

t state to gradually shed its more fascist elements and become a generic right-wing dictatorship whilst still officially calling itself fascist. Such a state could conceivably be a better actor on the world stage than most democracies, depending on the attitude of the person or people in charge of it. It's debatable whether such a state would really be fascist in any meaningful sense, however

"Most" is rather dubious, since IOTL "most democracies" would comprise most if not all of the OECD. I just can't see a right-wing dictatorship being a better actor than the majority of the OECD.

 

[MernStahl]

I think this is effectively impossible without making the fascist state fascist in name only. However I don't think this is because of fascism being defined as evil (which I don't think makes much sense because most political regimes aren't defined by a moral standard but a descriptive, scientific one) but rather because the behaviour the OP proposes wouldn't make any sense for an actual fascist regime.

Some people have posited a fascist-based anti-colonial ideology (which I would argue a non-trivial number of anti-colonial regimes in OTL as times came closer than we'd like to admit) but the problem is that once the fascists have liberated their colony, they can't remain fascist if their foreign policy gives up any belligerence and conquest. They're fascists in name only.

So I guess if "anti-colonialism with some pseudo-fascist elements" counts as fascism I suppose that would work but I'm not convinced that's fascist.

The only other route would be to have the TL written from the point of view of fascists, such as that all the modern historians assessing it are fascists themselves.

 

[Wilhelm_Pieck_Vaillan]

I think a good match-up would be an Ernst Thalmann Germany + IRL Eastern Block and a Fascist France, U.K, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and The Netherlands.

 

[dandan_noodles]

One starting point would be the ends/ways of the two blocs; if the chief fascist state is essentially a satisfied, status quo power, and the democracies comparatively belligerent and revisionist, trying to compel neutrals to their side or roll back the brown bloc, it's quite possible they end up causing more flare ups with the attendant bloodshed.

 

[Elfwine]

The totalitarian/fascist state need not be a paragon of human rights (one could argue, with a great deal of success, that the US during the Cold War was an "evil empire" as well) but it must be considered, by a wide swath of the world's population, and the general opinion of most historians to have been championing the nobler cause or to borrow a phrase, the "lesser Satan" to the democratic "Greater Satan"

There are plenty of ways to have a democracy with a truly horrifying amount of blood on its hands (potentially beyond OTL examples even), but a totalitarian state in a world where "not a government of, for, and by the people" is held as a significant mark against their human rights record is going to have a hard time being both totalitarian or authoritarian and well regarded.

So something that changes that, where whether or not a country is authoritarian or democratic is not held as relevant to its human rights record, would be a good start.

 

[John_Smith12]

I think for me that if you can get a Singapore like authoritarian state, where it’s clearly a one party state and that power is held by the party with minimal opposition. But the party is highly efficient, meritocratic and works towards the good of the people rather than the good of the autocrats. That could be an example/model of the ‘good’ fascists, a state where the people are well looked after with bread and circuses while the government quietly chugs along competently.

As the bad democracy I think if we use the example of Rhodesia/Apartheid South Africa where democracy is allowed but for a select few which leads to inequalities and atrocities. Another example could be something like modern Belarus, where the democracy is subverted by gerrymandering, fake ballots and other methods

 

[Avalon]

Just OTL from the PoV of fascists. This isn't even a hard AHC. The way "the Greatest Stroy Never Told" frames Hitler and the Reich for example is that of a necessary just struggle against the world's evils.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

What your talking about is impossible by definition.

Definition of fascism​

1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

Such a State cannot be good, by almost any ethical standards.

When you say a Democratic State, if your referring to a true Democracy there are no real modern examples. The Western Democracies have representative Governments, chosen in popular elections. Those nations have internal injustices, and their foreign policies are often morally questionable, but they generally accept the concept of individual human rights, and rule of law, which a Fascist State does not.

So while a Fascist State may be popular with the majority of it's population it's underpinnings are evil, because it's premise is the repression of the individual human being, and the exultation of the State. A "Democracy" may be plagued by injustice, but it's foundation is good, because it's based on respect for the dignity of mankind, and justice, under law.

People might jump down my throat on this one, but I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with being nationalistic/patriotic. As long as you don’t take it too far. Bismarck was nationalistic and he played a major role in preserving the peace. At least in Europe.