OTL, Marxism was in vogue among colonial insurgents; TTL, could some see Fascism as the way to go to free their countries (see the Lebanese Phalangists)?
Yes, this is rarely explored, anti-colonialist fascism. The closest we came OTL was certain factions in Imperial Japan which were genuinely fascist (in the Italian sense) yet espoused "anti-colonialism" in the Imperial Japanese sense. This could be all over Africa and Asia with the right leaders. All you need is a major fascist revolutionary along the lines of Sun Yat-sen in impact. Considering these regions were mostly locked up by France and Britain, a fascist European power (especially Germany with the end of their African colonial empire after WWI) could build fascist movements there. What you need is for the Montreux Fascist conference to evolve into a "fascist international" and thus assistance for groups in Africa and Asia. Italy incidentally will hate this going by their rule in the Horn of Africa--possibly means fascism can't establish itself there. Independent Ethiopia might be a good place for a fascist regime to work. And the other independent African state, Liberia, might also be good for a fascist regime, if you could get some young, avant-garde thinking Afro-Liberians to overthrow the paternalist True Whig Party regime there and try and forge a Liberian identity with the exploited indigenous people--that's good material for any other Afrofascist regime to build upon. But overall, Asia and Africa could become fertile grounds for fascism. And for regions exploited by neocolonialism in this era, i.e. Latin America, expect a strengthening of groups like the regional Falangists, Brazilian Integralists, all the Argentine fascist groups, and the Chilean National Socialist Movement.
Hitler and the Nazis in large part helped killed any way to create a strong third-world fascist movement by making fascism the ultimate taboo. In reality, the appeal of fascism could have been extremely broad, especially in colonial regions, given that in many cases, the local communists, Marxists, socialists, what have you, were basically nationalists of some nature or another.
Would this be good for those countries? That's quite debateable. African Marxism fared horribly in the long run, even compared to other self-described communist countries, but I have no doubt that Afrofascism would latch itself onto the worst excesses of tribalism we saw and see nowadays in Africa. For Asia, I have less of a criticism, but Burma (formerly communist) is not a good country, and a fascist Burma would almost certainly not be prettier. I have also seen the main use of "Afrofascism" (unlike my own use of the term to describe hypothetical nationalist regimes against colonialism) be used to describe the regime in Rwanda during the genocide there. That's probably not a good sign, though I wouldn't call Rwanda at that point an Afrofascist state. So overall, that suggests that third-world fascism would probably be equivalent to how communism worked there--not too much worse, and not too much better, although to name an example, in Cambodia, a fascist version of Pol Pot who studied in Rome or Berlin might stop with "only" killing non-Cambodians (as Pol Pot also did) and non-fascist Cambodians who don't agree with him, instead of killing everyone, so we might assume that a fascist Cambodia would be better on the basis of a lower body count. A lot depends on who the fascist dictator is in these places, since fascism tends toward a style of personal rule, and Africa and Asia OTL have had some very notorious dictators with their cults of personality. Kim Il-sung, for instance, easily could've been a fascist and probably eagerly would've been a fascist had the circumstances not forced him to become a communist (his descendents even more so given by how extremely racist and Korean supremacist North Korea is). On the bright side, you might get some pretty solid leaders who genuinely care about nation building and development and aren't using it to enrich their tribalist clique or themselves and are only allied with the fascists because they hate their former colonial masters more than the fascists in Europe. In this scenario, a non-Hitler-ruled but still Nazi Germany would be huge in sponsering some of these weirdos throughout the Third World. If the United States managed to dig up some of the worst people OTL, I have no doubt that the Nazis could find even worse people to rule, all in the name of "anti-colonialism".
