Development European fascist regimes without Hitler and WW2?

The title rather sums it up. The Nazi regime was hardly inevitable... let's say Hitler get's shot in WW1 and nobody rises to fulfill the role he filled for the Nazi party... Weimar Germany continues to straggle on. Without Hitler or a similar militarist German regime, WW2 is essentially inconceivable.

Obviously this gives the Italy and other European fascist regimes good odds of continued survival until/unless they're brought down internally. The question thus is whether such internal revolts are inevitable. The demise of the Iberian, Greek, Asian Tiger and recently many Arab dictatorships would seem to suggest so, but of course that is in the context of American influence from which democratic memes ruthlessly permeated their societies. In the absence of this might fascist dictatorships remain viable?

Italy is naturally the central focus in this discussion. Even without Hitler, Mussolini is going to alienate the rest of the world with his imperialism thereby dragging Italy into the economic stagnation of autarchy. Coupled with his other disastrous economic policies, rising discontent is surely inevitable unless Mussolini or a successor shifts economic policy in a more sensible direction. But discontent needn't be harnessed by democratic movements, it could just as easily manifest as communists or another right-authoritarian movement. Then of course their's the colonies themselves- I personally see Mussolini and his successor/s holding an attitude similar to Salazar's in terms of determination to hold the colonies long after the British and French have given up on it. Unlike Salazarian Portugal however Italy probably has the strength to hold it's empire- even Portugal almost managed, after all. Though it could always be derailed by revolution in Italy itself, just as the Carnation revolution did Portugal's attempt.
 
I doubt Mussolini would bring the SAME hate.. there was Salazar by example, and nobody cared - no, in fact, occident liked him in WW2 and took his alliance.
 
I also doubt Mussolini would be terribly imperialistic sans-Hitler or some other major disruption in Europe. Not that he lacked imperial ambitions, but he's not going to try and take more than he thinks he can get away with.
 
Mussolini is going to invade Ethiopia eventually because he's trying to build and new Roman Empire and back the Nationalists against the Republicans which will hurt his relations with the Western power but they will forgive Italy eventually.
 
I also doubt Mussolini would be terribly imperialistic sans-Hitler or some other major disruption in Europe. Not that he lacked imperial ambitions, but he's not going to try and take more than he thinks he can get away with.

I think it was Hitler's successes who made him go bolder...

Agreed. He would still do the Abyssinia thing though, and maybe try to go for formal annexation of Albania at some later date. Wouldn't put it past him to take on Greece a second time at some point either... which would be a disaster for him, seeing as Greece basically won OTL and drove him out of much of Southern Albania until Hitler intervened to back Mussolini up. Perhaps if the Greeks had sustained those gains the humiliation might have led to Mussolini's overthrow by one of his generals...

Re the African Imperial territories....assuming no Carnation-eque revolution among Italians to end the occupation of African, does anybody think it impossible for Italy to sustain control of Libya and East Africa to present day? I'm thinking if China can hold Tibet and Russia can suppress Chechyna, then Italy can surely sustain it's empire... much smaller and weaker Portugal almost did after all.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't the Carnation Revolution the leftist-sided army revolt-revolution overthrowing Salazar's regime in Portugal, BTW?

Without WW2 or at least sans Nazis, Mussolini and his regime and plans would go on for a while. If this is a WW2 against commies Russia and all, oh yes. The allies would do like toward Salazar maybe, or at least Franco -looking away,

Hey, what of Franco btw? do he rise to power?
 
Taking Nazi Germany out of the picture would complicate things in Europe. Assuming the replacement for the Nazis is some kind of authoritarian paternalist Junker regime (Nazism without the doctrine - the Kaiserreich without the Kaiser) I can see it being very unstable and prone to left wing agitation.

Perversely France is in a similar position - without a threatening Germany on its borders (well, not too threatening anyway) its internal conflicts may be magnified.

I would suggests that the Spanish Civil War in this TL would have the potential to spark a General European insurrection, particularly if Mussolini screws up the intervention and the Nationalists don't win (or don't win quickly).

It could go a multitude of ways - Communist led governments in France and or Germany, a greater Fascist bloc stretching from Gibraltar to Poland or anywhere in between.

In the first case I could see Italian interventionism against either Germany and/or France, possibly supported by UK and opposed (indirectly) by USSR. If they won then Italian Fascism may be a price that UK (and by extension USA) is prepared to pay to keep the communists out of Western Europe. In which case the Italian Colonies are likely to go the same way as Algeria / Vietnam. Maybe the italians could hold on to them but I doubt they will be able to resist nationalist / communist backed independence movements.

If there is a Fascist bloc inspired by Mussolini across Europe then I could definitely see some of the smaller states (Greece, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia) being absorbed by one or more of the Fascist nations. I don't think the UK could intervene effectively (possible exception of Greece) by itself. In the long term though this bloc would almost inevitably come into conflict with USSR and WW2 would kick off again.
 
Wasn't the Carnation Revolution the leftist-sided army revolt-revolution overthrowing Salazar's regime in Portugal, BTW?
Carnation-esque I meant. Since it was motivated in large part by resentment over the conscription and death of Portuguese in the name of sustaining control of the African imperial territories. Such a revolution needn't be leftwing though, at least I don't think it need be.

f this is a WW2 against commies Russia and all, oh yes.
Unlikely I think, Stalin was careful to avoid such antagonizing the West into gang-banging him. Though then again he might not have a choice...the USSR
didn't have all that much popularity or legitimacy until it successfully pulled of a victory against the Nazis and the subsequent rebuilding effort, so foreign wars might be the only means to cause the population to rally behind him. It does make me wonder whether we might have seen the USSR's demise 4 decades earlier without WW2...


Hey, what of Franco btw? do he rise to power?
Italy would probably still support him, and other Westerners(except the Soviet Union of course) were neutral policywise but inclined to him more then any other Spanish faction, so I think so. Though I'm no expert on the matter so perhaps not... I certainly would prefer if the anarchists had won, an anarchist regime would be cool.
 
Carnation-esque I meant. Since it was motivated in large part by resentment over the conscription and death of Portuguese in the name of sustaining control of the African imperial territories. Such a revolution needn't be leftwing though, at least I don't think it need be.


Unlikely I think, Stalin was careful to avoid such antagonizing the West into gang-banging him. Though then again he might not have a choice...the USSR
didn't have all that much popularity or legitimacy until it successfully pulled of a victory against the Nazis and the subsequent rebuilding effort, so foreign wars might be the only means to cause the population to rally behind him. It does make me wonder whether we might have seen the USSR's demise 4 decades earlier without WW2...



Italy would probably still support him, and other Westerners(except the Soviet Union of course) were neutral policywise but inclined to him more then any other Spanish faction, so I think so. Though I'm no expert on the matter so perhaps not... I certainly would prefer if the anarchists had won, an anarchist regime would be cool.

Kinda inevitable. When a dictature is, and a revolution happens, it's kinda inevitable the revolution work the opposite side of the spectrum. Since it was a far right dictature...

Anti-communism is old, started with the Revolution. Cold dislike is certain, war maybe not, but a rabid dislike and early Maccarthism...

Anarchists had no chance, besicaly a two ways fight...
 
didn't have all that much popularity or legitimacy until it successfully pulled of a victory against the Nazis and the subsequent rebuilding effort, so foreign wars might be the only means to cause the population to rally behind him. It does make me wonder whether we might have seen the USSR's demise 4 decades earlier without WW2...

Bolshevik popular support wasnt near as good as they claimed but nor were they as unpopular as anti-commuinst historians would have you believe. If the Bolsheviks were so hated they simply wouldnt have won the Russian Civil War when every other major (and some minor) powers were backing the Whites or sepratist regimes against them...

If anything the U.S.S.R (in some form) is much more likely to exist today sans WW2. The war shattered Soviet society and set them back decades in terms of economic development and saddled them with rebellious puppet-states that were always leeching money and raw materials from Moscow to boot.

Without Hitler I'd see II Duce stirring up trouble in the Balkans, Benny was emboldened by Hitler. But he also was conscious of his own legacy, and as he got older he was more prone expansionist gambits.
 
Would that means the survival of a few eastern regimes, like Admiral Horty(?)'s and Marechal Pilduski(?)'s?

What in the Far East?
 
Horthy would rule until he dies and Pilduski died in the early 1930's. Still a junta could rule for quite a long time as per OTL.

In the Far-East I see Japan provoking a war with the Soviets at some point.
 
Agreed. He would still do the Abyssinia thing though, and maybe try to go for formal annexation of Albania at some later date. Wouldn't put it past him to take on Greece a second time at some point either... which would be a disaster for him, seeing as Greece basically won OTL and drove him out of much of Southern Albania until Hitler intervened to back Mussolini up. Perhaps if the Greeks had sustained those gains the humiliation might have led to Mussolini's overthrow by one of his generals...
I dont know, the butterfly effect might cause Italy to be better prepared for a war with Greece rather than their rl overconfidence.
 
Top