Constructing a French *Nazism

The last couple days, I've been idly wondering what a French version of National Socialism would look like.

Cribbing slightly from Wikipedia's list of the central features of Nazism, we get: Economics, Nationalism, Militarism, Racism and Religion.

Economics - State control of the economy, theoretically to benefit the community over the individual, is a given.

Nationalism - France's great cultural and scientific achievements clearly make it a superior nation, far better than its minor or backwards European neighbors, to say nothing of the rest of the world.

Militarism - Charlemagne (adopted as an exclusively French figure), Louis XIV, Napoleon I... All nice role models for *National-socialisme's cult of the army. The armed forces will be expanded tremendously, of course, and all sorts of new projects will be bankrolled.

Racism - The ancient Celts, forefathers of the French race, ruled most of Europe. Clearly, a pan-European empire is France's birthright. France's Mediterranean neighbors are a step down in the racial hierarchy, while the people of the Low Countries and the Rhineland are 'forgotten French' - most Germans are considered rowdy barbarians, no matter how you dress them up. Non-Europeans are children, fit only to obey, at best.

Religion - I see two possibilities here. Either directly copying the pagan elements in Nazism, except with an emphasis on the ancient Celts (specifically the Gauls), or else harking back to the Cult of the Supreme Being from Revolutionary France.

In terms of a POD, maybe a 1905 WWI that ends in French defeat. The (seen as) pro-German *Fourth Republic is either otherthrown by a nationalist/military coup, or the Hitler analogue follows the same path as his OTL counterpart. France's smaller demographic and industrial base makes conquering most of Europe more problematic like the Third Reich, doesn't it? Perhaps a divided Germany will allow Nazi-France to expand quickly; it gobbles up the western states and then joins forces with Russia (or the USSR) to conquer Prussia... hm.

Any thoughts or suggestions?
 

Krall

Banned
On the issue of racism, what would be their position on the:

-English?
-Scots?
-Irish?
-Welsh?
-Danes?

I could see the Danes being seen in the same light as the Germans, but, then again, they could be seen in the same light as the low countries.

The English probably won't be well liked, having Germanic ancestry and all, but they are significantly influenced by the various other ethnic groups in the area, the Gaels, the Brythons etc., which might put them on the same level as the Mediterraneans, above the pure Germanic peoples.

The Scots are a mix of the Angles, the Brythons, Gaels, Norse and Picts, I could see them being thought of as just below the Franks in the racial hierarchy, but they could also be seen as low as the Germanic barbarians.

The Welsh are a mix of Brythons, who were Celtic [or at least Celtic-speaking] and the Romans [who are mediterranean] so, I think either "lost Celts" or "lost Romans", depending on your view of them.

The Irish... well, I don't know.
 

Hendryk

Banned
Any thoughts or suggestions?
You may be interested in the works of Zeev Sternhell, who analyzed the endogenous elements of French fascism.

You have to take into account, among other things, that fascism is in essence counter-revolutionary, and nowhere else as much as in France, so this *Nazism of yours would be bitterly opposed to anything pertaining to the 1789 revolution, at least at the symbolic level. So that rules out any revival of the Cult of the Supreme Being.
 
You have to take into account, among other things, that fascism is in essence counter-revolutionary, and nowhere else as much as in France, so this *Nazism of yours would be bitterly opposed to anything pertaining to the 1789 revolution, at least at the symbolic level. So that rules out any revival of the Cult of the Supreme Being.

This depends, wouldn't it?

*Bonapartist* based fascism would be very different from Actione Francaise, no?
 
I wouldn't put in too many anti-germanic ideas into the French Nazism. France is after all named after a Germanic tribe, the Franks. Also the founder of the French state, Charlemagne, was a Frank.
 
I wouldn't put in too many anti-germanic ideas into the French Nazism. France is after all named after a Germanic tribe, the Franks. Also the founder of the French state, Charlemagne, was a Frank.

Since when has historical accuracy mattered to that type of group? In the early 1900s the french hated the Germans after the war of 1870 and were waiting for a chance to take back Alsace-Lorraine. If it was formed around 1905 it'd be very anti-german. I doubt though it would be formed without something like WWI. I doubt a simple defeat would do it. Maybe a stalemate where France "won" WWI but still failed to get back Alsace-Lorraine.
 

Hendryk

Banned
*Bonapartist* based fascism would be very different from Actione Francaise, no?
I don't think you could really get an analog of Nazism by starting with the Bonapartist right wing--you could get something fairly close to Mussolini's regime, but that would be about it. In order to get *Nazism, you'd have to use the Legitimist right wing, once its crosses the line from anti-revolutionary to counter-revolutionary, a transition that took place at the turn of the 20th century.

However, the mystical elements of Nazism are difficult to duplicate; in Germany they were a byproduct of the whole romantic mythos, but French *Nazism wouldn't have that: there's on the one hand the rationalist/positivist heritage of the Enligthenment (which the Third Republic claimed in OTL), and on the other Catholic revivalism (which the Action Française drew from), but not enough space in between for something like a homegrown neo-paganism to develop.

In the racial department, I can see Gobineau and Drumont becoming key ideological references.
 
Since when has historical accuracy mattered to that type of group? In the early 1900s the french hated the Germans after the war of 1870 and were waiting for a chance to take back Alsace-Lorraine. If it was formed around 1905 it'd be very anti-german. I doubt though it would be formed without something like WWI. I doubt a simple defeat would do it. Maybe a stalemate where France "won" WWI but still failed to get back Alsace-Lorraine.
They would be most certainly anti-German, but not because of racial reasons. They would be anti-German because the Germans are the traditional Enemy, their rival or something like that. Not because they are Germanic.
 
I'd say we will see something like "Good Barbarians", "Bad Barbarians" and "subhumans" in the French Nazi myths, Good Barbarian being Celtic remnants West of La Belle France. Ireland, Wales, Scotland. Celtic peoples who did not get a chance to civilize, but would gladly do it under enlighted leadership of French. Bad Barbarians will be Germanic nations of England, Germany East of Rhine (Rhineland will be "forgotten French", as varyar said), Scandinavia, Austria. All kinds of the "racial contamination" references will be invoked, with Prussia being originally Slavic and Baltic and all that jazz. Bad barbarians, but ones who have enough good blood in them to be eventually civilized and to virtually ascend into glorious European Union under wise leadership of the Mother France. Slavs, Balts and Jews will be subhumans, much like in OTL. Also, taking into account French North Africa, I'd say French nazism will be much more South-directed, so to speak. Much emphasize will be put on bringing the Gaul enlightement to the dark savages of Algeria.
 
First, thanks for all the replies. Many things to mull over (after I watch some cheesy horror movie with Summer Glau - priorities!) Thinking about it, though, I wonder if a pre-1900 POD would work better. My new idea is that Napoleon, for whatever reason, doesn't invade Russia in 1812. After five or six more years of conflict, Russia, Britain and France are all exhausted. A long peace sets in during which Napoleon consolidates and Russia and Britain prepare for the inevitable next war. Somehow, European peace holds for most of the rest of the century (some peripheral conflicts aside); TTL's World War One counterpart happens in 1880 or so and falls somewhere between the ACW and WWI. When it ends, the Anglo-Russian coalition has (just barely) prevailed. France is driven back to its pre-Revolution borders. The loss of the 'arms' in north Germany and northwestern Italy is felt, but that's nothing compared to losing Belgium and the Rhineland (by now very well integrated into France, especially Belgium). Post-war France mirrors Weimar Germany to an extent, although it's probably a Bourbon monarchy instead of a republic. In the turmoil of the time, a very charismatic Rhenish Francophile, Sébastien Rémond, is elected Prime Minister. He soon pushes aside his coalition partners (an uneasy alliance of Bonapartist and republican conservatives) and begins to radicalize France in line with the party vision of Gloire et Honneur.

(All of this allows for a stronger France as a base, making it more likely to really mess up Europe like the Third Reich did)

Ideology to follow later...
 
Since when has historical accuracy mattered to that type of group? In the early 1900s the french hated the Germans after the war of 1870 and were waiting for a chance to take back Alsace-Lorraine. If it was formed around 1905 it'd be very anti-german. I doubt though it would be formed without something like WWI. I doubt a simple defeat would do it. Maybe a stalemate where France "won" WWI but still failed to get back Alsace-Lorraine.

Maybe they were on the verging of victory (in their mind) and lost "only" due to an unexpected massive mutiny of Maghrebi troops. Poignard dans le dos.
 

Hendryk

Banned
My new idea is that Napoleon, for whatever reason, doesn't invade Russia in 1812.
That's rather an early POD. Europe changed so much during the course of the 19th century, both politically and culturally, that by the 1880s it may be virtually unrecognizable, making the development of an analog to Nazism a moot point. I don't think your POD ought to be before 1848 at the earliest, and preferably 1871.

Not that a TL in which Napoleon doesn't invade Russia wouldn't be uninteresting, of course.
 
The Irish... well, I don't know.

Going out on a limb here, they may be viewed as a special case: that is, an admixture of the Celts and long-lost French, considering the number of Norman French who crossed the Channel and then the Irish Sea. Consider the names (for example) Fitzpatrick, Fitzgerald, Fitzgibbons, Burke, Plunkett, and Barry: all are considered Irish today, yet all can trace ancestries back to the Norman French. It's said they invaded and, as the phrase goes, "became more Irish than the Irish".

On the flip side, the whole ides of French *Nazism would give the French just another excuse to hate (or at least be incredibly rude to) Americans. Well, if they feel that way, we'll declare a total embargo on Jerry Lewis productions...wait, why are we punishing ourselves? Instead, we'll DUMPeverything Jerry Lewis ever did on the docks in Le Havre and Marseilles. That'll teach them to mess with the US...:D
 
Going out on a limb here, they may be viewed as a special case: that is, an admixture of the Celts and long-lost French, considering the number of Norman French who crossed the Channel and then the Irish Sea. Consider the names (for example) Fitzpatrick, Fitzgerald, Fitzgibbons, Burke, Plunkett, and Barry: all are considered Irish today, yet all can trace ancestries back to the Norman French. It's said they invaded and, as the phrase goes, "became more Irish than the Irish".
we're a mix of brythonic celtic tribes and either a Gallic or Celtiberian tribe, the Goidels/Proto-Gaels, who eventually supplanted and absorbed the other tribes and languages.
And as you say, the normans integrated with the irish with ease. So, Celts with a french connection.

But, since france speaks a romance language, is it possible they would lean towards latin nationalism?
 
That's rather an early POD. Europe changed so much during the course of the 19th century, both politically and culturally, that by the 1880s it may be virtually unrecognizable, making the development of an analog to Nazism a moot point. I don't think your POD ought to be before 1848 at the earliest, and preferably 1871.

Not that a TL in which Napoleon doesn't invade Russia wouldn't be uninteresting, of course.

Fair enough. For TL purposes, I sorta want to create a situation where France is powerful enough to steamroll through western and central Europe, but it's not really required for creating French *Nazism, is it? Nothing says it needs to be a particularly successful or important philosophy. Rémond and his philosophy would work just as well if he comes to power in the Great Depression (instead of or in competition with Hitler).
 
France had a well-developed anti-Semitic vein in its society as the Dreyfus affair demonstrated. So any French Nazi (anybody got a good catchy name for this party?) group would parallel the German OTL lot in this.

If France is defeated but is offered an Armistice as Germany was in OTL, then the terms of the treaty would determine the development of the French Nazis. If all or most of its colonies are stripped away as one of the conditions or some of the homeland is expropriated then the options open to any dissident change. For example, if some colonies still exist they could afford a haven for opponents of the regime. A couple of sympathetic governors here and there could make a network of bolt holes when things got too hot in Paris. If some of continental France is incorporated into Germany or occupied, then internal opposition to the Nazis would probably be less.

It could also shape the French attitude on racial groups. If perfidious Albion took some of the colonies to prevent them falling into German hands (particularly North Africa and the former Ottoman possessions as well as the Pacific and Indian Ocean Islands) then the British, or more likely just the English, could be further down the list as a mongrel, degenerate race or some such. If they were consistent they would view the Irish, Welsh and Scots as oppressed minorities and develop all sorts of quasi-scientific reasons.

I think it must be emphasised that because OTL Nazi racial theories were such crap they could invent any theory to match any particular set of circumstances they wanted and any ATL French version could and would do the same. If it suited the French Nazis to be friendly to Britain they would come up with a theory that the two peoples were split from the same original stock and the same with Italy or Germany. Russia may be a little more difficult but perhaps something like the Celts originating from there but some tribes stayed behind so they are all related may work.

In any event, any Nazi France would be stomped on much more easily than Germany was in OTL. It was just across the Channel and Britain would not and could not ignore it to the same degree it did with Germany. Similarly, Germany would still have all the advantages over France that it had in WWI including demographics and industrial output.
 

Glen

Moderator
The last couple days, I've been idly wondering what a French version of National Socialism would look like.

Cribbing slightly from Wikipedia's list of the central features of Nazism, we get: Economics, Nationalism, Militarism, Racism and Religion.

Economics - State control of the economy, theoretically to benefit the community over the individual, is a given.

Nationalism - France's great cultural and scientific achievements clearly make it a superior nation, far better than its minor or backwards European neighbors, to say nothing of the rest of the world.

Militarism - Charlemagne (adopted as an exclusively French figure), Louis XIV, Napoleon I... All nice role models for *National-socialisme's cult of the army. The armed forces will be expanded tremendously, of course, and all sorts of new projects will be bankrolled.

Racism - The ancient Celts, forefathers of the French race, ruled most of Europe. Clearly, a pan-European empire is France's birthright. France's Mediterranean neighbors are a step down in the racial hierarchy, while the people of the Low Countries and the Rhineland are 'forgotten French' - most Germans are considered rowdy barbarians, no matter how you dress them up. Non-Europeans are children, fit only to obey, at best.

Religion - I see two possibilities here. Either directly copying the pagan elements in Nazism, except with an emphasis on the ancient Celts (specifically the Gauls), or else harking back to the Cult of the Supreme Being from Revolutionary France.

In terms of a POD, maybe a 1905 WWI that ends in French defeat. The (seen as) pro-German *Fourth Republic is either otherthrown by a nationalist/military coup, or the Hitler analogue follows the same path as his OTL counterpart. France's smaller demographic and industrial base makes conquering most of Europe more problematic like the Third Reich, doesn't it? Perhaps a divided Germany will allow Nazi-France to expand quickly; it gobbles up the western states and then joins forces with Russia (or the USSR) to conquer Prussia... hm.

Any thoughts or suggestions?


Don't have to have a defeat. Italy fell to Fascism without losing any wars.

I suggest you look at Pierre Laval....
 
However, the mystical elements of Nazism are difficult to duplicate; in Germany they were a byproduct of the whole romantic mythos, but French *Nazism wouldn't have that: there's on the one hand the rationalist/positivist heritage of the Enligthenment (which the Third Republic claimed in OTL),
I can't see a *Nazism based on the Enlightenment. Fascism is inherently anti-rationalist, preferring to substitute 'gut' for empirical reason. Fascism prides action over thought.
 
Great, now a TL is emerging... sigh.

Anyway, some more thoughts on various elements of French *Nazism (aka the Mouvement Gaulois):

I - Economics: State control of the economy to benefit the community over the individual. An emphasis on agrarianism (the Peasant Policies) and small 'personalized' business was idealized, while in practice, especially after 1935's Military Budget, corporations and mass production were supported.
II - Nationalism: Glorification of the French people and their achievements. Blurring of the lines between nation and state.
III - Militarism: The nation in arms was the essential guarantee of the Gallic way of life. Charlemagne, Louis XIV and Napoleon I as the examplars of the French tradition of war.
IV - Racism: "Gallo-Celtic" French as the summit of a racial hierarchy and repudiation of the nominally egalitarian ideology of the Third Republic. French as a racial instead of cultural concept.
V - Religion: Establishment of neo-Celtic cults and a revived Church of the Supreme Being as indigenous religions instead of "Judeo-Christianism."

In terms of a racial hierarchy:

Native French are naturally at the summit. Just below them are Northern Italians, Dutch, Belgians and Rhinelanders ("Forgotten French" corrupted by German and Latin culture), the British (Gallic twice over from their Celtic ancestry and then the Norman influence that shaped medieval England; the last few centuries of German influence have twisted them around, but they can be salvaged by returning to their Gallic roots) and then the Kabyle and other Berber tribes ("African Celts" in Rémond's racial vision). The next step consists of the Southern Italians, Spanish, Portuguese, etc., who are kindred people, but definitely below Gauls in the racial hierarchy as seen by their decline in world power terms over the last few centuries. The Germans (including Scandinavians) and Slavs are white barbarians, barely a step above everyone else in the world.
 
I saw the title and imagined a challange where we should make a less nazistic nazism after WWII for some reason.
 
Top