Italian Fasicm: a global leading force

It's difficult to say, but an interesting thought.

Even today most of the neo-Fascist/right-wing extremeists are Nazi-affiliated or at least white-power in some way.

Mussolini certainly was more accepted than Hitler ever could have been until he joined the Nazi and waged war on... earth. Again though, it's hard to say; the Italian people were rather quick to get rid of him when they had the chance. His fascism certainly wasn't popular in Italy.
 
Depends how successful the Italian Fascists are on their own. The reason that the Fascists in Germany caught everyone attention is that they were able to turn their country from the shattered shell it was into an industrial powerhouse.

Unless Mussolini gets some sort of victories(economical, political, millitary), then he and his party are just going to be seen a group of slightly loony political extremists.
 
Never stopped the Soviets.

Huh? That statement confuses me. Where do the Soviets come into Italian Fascism and its successes?

Unless Mussolini gets some sort of victories(economical, political, millitary), then he and his party are just going to be seen a group of slightly loony political extremists.

I see what you mean. Mussolini's successes were mostly due to Hitler's help/inspiration, so without Hitler can he do this on his own?
 
Well, Fascist Italy *could* have fared rather well and become a Major Power with a lot of influence, though "Global Leading" is a bit of an overstatement. It could just as easily self-destruct.

While Fascist Italy had a great worldwide rep in the 30s, a lot of this was from bluff. The military was a paper tiger. The illusion of Corporative Unity was undermined by continued regionalism, factionalism, and Mussie's encouragement of interservice and inter-underling rivalries as insurance for his own power. Italy's economy and industry were and remain limited despite the best efforts of the Liberal, Fascist, and Modern Republican governments. Italy simply lacks the necessary raw materials and agricultural potential. It is doomed to severe trade deficit unless something of value appears to offset this. Empire will help here. Libyan oil (very unlikely to be discovered before the 50s and will even then need US drilling expertise to get) will be a big factor. Ethiopian diamonds and coffee...and potential Somali oil can help too.

To live, Fascist Italy needs to survive WWII, which means it needs to avoid shackling itself to Germany. Neutrality or joining the Allies late in the war could be the ticket, assuming the war doesn't collapse the Italian economy and government anyway.

If they make it past WWII, they have hope by appealing to anti-communist sentiment or playing the superpowers off of each other, though the latter is a dangerous game. Italy also needs to avoid stupid foreign adventurism, which was Mussie's achilles heel from the start.

Now, with oil to offset the trade imbalance and tacit US support (the trade lifeline is doomed if the US Navy opposes them) they could conceivably be a second-tier power of some influence, but still far behind the US and USSR, a little behind the UK, quickly losing ground to Japan and possibly *NATO-side Germany, quickly supplanting dwindling France.

Without oil, they may become a Francoist Spain analog, holding on to a crumbling power base and bloated bureaucracy in relative stagnant isolation.

Or, the internal differences could quickly tear it apart into civil war as Fascist power wains post-war.

That said, in typical self-pimpin' GK style, read my Viva Balbo TL (follow first sig link to the "Technoyurt" for link to TL) for a developing more competent Fascist Italy under Italo Balbo. :D
 
Depends how successful the Italian Fascists are on their own. The reason that the Fascists in Germany caught everyone attention is that they were able to turn their country from the shattered shell it was into an industrial powerhouse.

Italy lacks germany's internal industrial potential and resources. However, Hitler's economic plan was unsustainable in the long run. He ran the economy nearly dry building up the military, then took the next "hit" of money from his conquests, then used that to fund the next war, and so on. Sort of a military-industrial Ponze scheme. Eventually the conquests wouldn't pay for the war used to make them.

Mussie was doing similarly with his wars. Merely paying for the yearly upkeep of Ethiopia was triple the Italian GDP at the time, for example.

Ironically, despite Corporative experiments Fascist Italy's economy was essentially Liberal Capitalism, rather than the Nazi plutocractic militarism in capitalist clothing. Assuming Italy doesn't bankrupt themselves in stupid wars and finds an offset for the trade imbalance (such as Libyan oil) they could fare well enough in the long run.

Meanwhile, Nazi Germany, even victorious, could potentially drive themselves into a quick collapse unless Hitler is removed and a more stable mind takes over and implements a more sustainable economic plan.
 
A neutral Italy in WW2, or at least capable of exiting it discreetly (say, only taking a minor part in the carving of Yugoslavia to later say "sorry"), could build up an interesting Third Position axis after the war with Franco's Spain and Peròns Argentina. I coudl envision an Argentinean civil war with Italo-Spanish participation on Peròn's side in the mid-50s. That would be embarrassing to the West, and somewhat amusing to the Soviets.
 
What Fascism you mean? There are at least three kind of Fascism in Italy under Mussolini from 1919 to 1945.
The first Fascism, born in 1919 was a revolutionnary movement. Its program was: abolition of Monarchy, nationalization of industry, organization of workers in national sindicates, a plan of complete education (or re-education) of people. This program, if succesfull, could have transformed Italy in a totalitarian leftist State, not so far from the contemporary Soviet Union. This kind of regime could be very destabilizing and could not easily survive an international crisis. Its economic program was doomed from the beginning.
The second Fascism began in 1922, when king Vittorio Emanuele III co-opted Mussolini as Prime Minister, using him as a tool against communism. This kind of Fascism is much more moderate: no more republicanism, no more anti-clericalism, no more socialism. It became a dictatorship only after the "Leggi fascistissime" in 1925. Part of the social program was activated only in the 30s after the economic global crisis. Racial laws were not peculiar to Fascism in itself: they are applied only after the alliance with Germany in 1938. This kind of Fascism could survive the WW2, in case of neutrality. But I don't think Italy would be a leading world power in any case. After the discovery of oil in Libya, Italy could become an oil-rich country, but not necessary a leading one. Both Chavez Venezuela and Arabian Emirates are oil-rich country, but they are not leading powers. Usually an oil-rich country avoids reforms (it doesn't need them), it's much more vulnerable to stagnation. A Fascist Italy in the 50s and 60s could be more similar to actual Venezuela: authoritarian, oil-rich, with a revolutionary rethoric in World Affairs, but militarly weak. System makes the difference and an authoritarian/dirigist government is not really fitted for development.
The third Fascism began in 1943, after Nazi occupation of Northern and Central Italy. The Italian Social Republic founded by Mussolini applied all the ideologies of the first Fascism, plus anti-semitism. This totalitarian regime, very similar to Nazi, was doomed from the beginning. It was a closed system, very destabilizing in international relations and militarly dependent to Germany. I can't see a Social Republic surviving the 1945.
 
While Fascist Italy had a great worldwide rep in the 30s, a lot of this was from bluff. The military was a paper tiger.

I'm not sure I agree with this. It's more that its military modernised prematurely; its equipment was world-leading in the mid-30s, just obsolete by the time the actual war rolled around.
 
I'm not sure I agree with this. It's more that its military modernised prematurely; its equipment was world-leading in the mid-30s, just obsolete by the time the actual war rolled around.

That's true to a point, but there's more to the story. Despite certain technological accomplishments, the military still suffered from severe limitations in command (politically-minded generals), severe and near-crippling inter-service rivalries (encouraged by Mussolini to protect his own power), flat-out strategic misjudgements by the generals, and the limitations of Italy's industry to make up for combat attrition.

Though the aircraft (frex) were world-leading in the 30s there were never enough of them and never as many in serviceable order as the RA minister(s) claimed. Though the RA was supposed to be the RN's equalizing factor in a Med sea war, it was only when the possibility of war with the UK reared in the mid 30s that the RA began actually developing practical anti-ship doctrines...and even then lacked AP bombs and planned to use HE/frag against shipping.

While certainly an on-paper capable force, the doctrinal limitations of the confused and politicized power structure would have severely hampered any Fascist war effort.

If you can spare the six friggin' years to read it (or so it feels like sometimes), read Mussolini's Generals.
 
Top