France and Italy go Red post-war: Is Europe screwed?
- Thread starter EvolvedSaurian
- Start date
Tielhard
Banned
Turkey free in 1945, Turkey free in 2006 is a pretty dodgy proposition especially if you are Kurdish or want to wear a veil.
The Pyrenees? That would be the bit that has just gone Red or the bit where the fascist dictator Franco still has Republican prisoners in labour camps?
As for Scandiwegia. Most of Northern Norway would be Red along with much of Northern Sweden.
The Pyrenees? That would be the bit that has just gone Red or the bit where the fascist dictator Franco still has Republican prisoners in labour camps?
As for Scandiwegia. Most of Northern Norway would be Red along with much of Northern Sweden.
Wozza, you are correct. I feel great shame. I am low, yes, low and near the ground. Woe, I say, woe is me.
It is quite unfair to call Franco a fascist, he was a reactionary. Obviously, he was a dictator though.
I am not sure that communism has ever been big in any part of Norway though.
Teilhard, I knew that you where of the left, but a sympatiser of the red thugs...
And again, in France, the sympathies of the communists there where more on the 'heretic' branches wince the outcasting of Trotsky...
And again, in France, the sympathies of the communists there where more on the 'heretic' branches wince the outcasting of Trotsky...
Because he was not a fascist, and one should not go round trivualising fascism.
Also it is a matter of ensuring accurate historical commentary, Franco's regime was reactionary, vaguely religious and backward looking, and not particularly a developmental dictatorship.
Fascism has a big swig of Futurism in it, and big ideas about controlling people's lives. Franco's regime was not totalitarian.
Arguably not as the essence of National Socialism is racism, which does not really feature in fascism originally.
But Fascism and Nazism have a lot more in common with each other than they do with the authoritarian reactionaries
Hmm lets see....
As you can see France and Italy makes Europe a commie strong hold. I assume that this also gives us no Vietnam only a quick transition with French Communist assistance and Russian backing.
Here is an extreme example of what could happen. Austria falls under the hammer and sickle America has little to do to stop such a thing. The same can be said for Greece now that Italian, French, and Russian ships own the oceans. Algeria, Tunisia also join the Soviets, being former colonies under new Communist regimes. Spain and Turkey fall in with America needing some form of protection from Moscow.
Here is a more limited version of of French and Italian communism. It is a series of divided states, so the Soviets are spread out farther but a democratic presence is still there. While not all that bad it would cause problems in the future. For example a large area of troops needs to be in France, Germany, and possibly Italy.
As you can see France and Italy makes Europe a commie strong hold. I assume that this also gives us no Vietnam only a quick transition with French Communist assistance and Russian backing.
Here is an extreme example of what could happen. Austria falls under the hammer and sickle America has little to do to stop such a thing. The same can be said for Greece now that Italian, French, and Russian ships own the oceans. Algeria, Tunisia also join the Soviets, being former colonies under new Communist regimes. Spain and Turkey fall in with America needing some form of protection from Moscow.
Here is a more limited version of of French and Italian communism. It is a series of divided states, so the Soviets are spread out farther but a democratic presence is still there. While not all that bad it would cause problems in the future. For example a large area of troops needs to be in France, Germany, and possibly Italy.
That's certainly true, a communist France would quickly close all the German Baltic ports by....uh....osmosis?
Besides, you say yourself, "in the event of war". Europe was Russia's for the taking throughout the entire cold war, the only thing that stopped it was the US nuclear umbrella and the world's fear of same.
Even a doctrinaire Stalinist government in France and Italy wouldn't stay so for long. Think of three big Yugoslavias with great influence and prestige rather than one little country. Possible outcomes include no lron Curtain and maybe even no Cold War, with an earlier "fall" of communism, replaced by a Euro type Social Democracy over the whole area by the 1960's
Actually i never mentioned anything about the German ports on the Baltic sea,but you have to assume that the baltic sea would have been heavily mined by the russian navy and the ports themselves would be heavily bombed by the russian airforce.What i did say was that with france as a communist country even if they did not outright join in the fighting that there was a very good chance that they would deny the Americans and British access to their ports making resupplying and reinforcing their armies incredibly difficult.
As for the whole nuclear umbrella theory i don`t deny that the whole reason the soviets never invaded Western Europe was the threat of nuclear war.I just stated that with no chance to resupply their armies and defeat more than likely staring them in the face that America would either have to abandon europe to the Russians or go nuclear a lot earlier due to being unable to defeat the russsians in a conventional military battle.
Gremlin
Banned
Unless France is willing to grant Algeria its independence on the condition it goes red ( and as it was considered a metropole - can't see it happening ) than Algeria is more likely to be given a little US funding towards its struggle for freedom and turn benevolently blue upon acheivement.
The Russian fleet is still going to be contained by Turkish control of Istanbul and Denmark via the baltic as well as RN and USN activity in the north, and by diverting the aid that would have gone to Italy and France to Britian than the UK government would be in a better position vis-a-vis France whilst maintaining it s stranglehold on the med (Gib and Suez) and therby the Italians.
The Russian fleet is still going to be contained by Turkish control of Istanbul and Denmark via the baltic as well as RN and USN activity in the north, and by diverting the aid that would have gone to Italy and France to Britian than the UK government would be in a better position vis-a-vis France whilst maintaining it s stranglehold on the med (Gib and Suez) and therby the Italians.
Not unfair, simply untrue. There is a regretable tendency on the part of the left to refer to everything right of center (and sometimes right of communist) as fascist when 1)they're wrong and 2)they actually mean National Socialist. Note the common references to GWB as fascist. Franco's regime had far more in common with your run of the mill Latin American dictatorship, uniting the landowning class, the military, and the church, against liberals, socialists, and of the course the communist bogeyman.
National-Socialism=far right. Never forget this. It may not be orthodox Fascism, it's Bad news still.
Fascism is hard to define on a right-left scale. It is socially authoritarian and has mixed economic views which could be described as 'the government cooperating with and coopting major corporations', which is neither left (Government bossing businesses around or replacing them) or right (Government leaving businesses alone or being coopted by business); it contains elements of both. "Corporatism", much as some supposed right-wingers might favor it, cuts both ways.
Technically, Franco was a Falangist, not a Fascist. Falangists were more closely connected with Christianity, in the case of Spain Catholicism. Neither was/is a racist ideology (although both are staunchly nationalist). Another form of Falangism is the Kataeb movement in Lebanon, they're the major 'radical Christians' who are diehard enemies of Hezbollah and other such groups. Kataeb has received backing from Israel, among others.
National Socialism is not only not quite fascist but it also had right and left wings. Rohm represented the hostile-to-business left wing; Hitler toyed with both and eventually favored the right in order to garner favor from 'anti-communist' types. Plus, remember that "NSDAP" is German for "National Socialist German Worker's Party", and was originally leftish but veered right to become a more viable anti-communist movement. Unlike standard fascism, Nazism is racist and combines race ("Aryans") with the nation ("Greater Germany"). Nazism also contains a somewhat anti-clerical element; some more radical Nazis even favored Odin and the other Norse gods over Christianity, especially Catholicism. This is opposed to Falangist's close association with Christianity, indeed it is opposed to the more clerical wing of Italian Fascism. I'd call Nazism in its complete form more of 'Hitler's wet dream ideology writ large' than anything else, right left or center.
Actually, a true 'pure' right or left government is an impossibility anyway. There's no way you can restrict all of one type of liberty (Economic or social) without some restrictions on the other. Communism is a left-dictatorial system but it isn't 'pure' by any means as it contains social restrictions. Likewise, any pure right-wing ideology would be impossible; no theocratic state could offer a pure lasseiz-faire capitalism.
Technically, Franco was a Falangist, not a Fascist. Falangists were more closely connected with Christianity, in the case of Spain Catholicism. Neither was/is a racist ideology (although both are staunchly nationalist). Another form of Falangism is the Kataeb movement in Lebanon, they're the major 'radical Christians' who are diehard enemies of Hezbollah and other such groups. Kataeb has received backing from Israel, among others.
National Socialism is not only not quite fascist but it also had right and left wings. Rohm represented the hostile-to-business left wing; Hitler toyed with both and eventually favored the right in order to garner favor from 'anti-communist' types. Plus, remember that "NSDAP" is German for "National Socialist German Worker's Party", and was originally leftish but veered right to become a more viable anti-communist movement. Unlike standard fascism, Nazism is racist and combines race ("Aryans") with the nation ("Greater Germany"). Nazism also contains a somewhat anti-clerical element; some more radical Nazis even favored Odin and the other Norse gods over Christianity, especially Catholicism. This is opposed to Falangist's close association with Christianity, indeed it is opposed to the more clerical wing of Italian Fascism. I'd call Nazism in its complete form more of 'Hitler's wet dream ideology writ large' than anything else, right left or center.
Actually, a true 'pure' right or left government is an impossibility anyway. There's no way you can restrict all of one type of liberty (Economic or social) without some restrictions on the other. Communism is a left-dictatorial system but it isn't 'pure' by any means as it contains social restrictions. Likewise, any pure right-wing ideology would be impossible; no theocratic state could offer a pure lasseiz-faire capitalism.
@fenwick at the end of WWII the Two Largest Navies in the world were the US Pacific Fleet and the US Atlantic Fleet with the Royal Navy in third place I do not think they will have problems with the combined fleets of the Communist countries as the US in Aug of 1945 was larger than all the other navies in the world combined.