Totalitarian Ideals

I am enjoying your mini-timeline and even more have really enjoyed the intellectual discussion on your subject. It really makes one think about their preconceptions of an ideology being "all good" or "all bad" like we usually think regarding Totalitarianism.

You know, an interesting discussion of a kind of prototype or cousin of your ideology in the USA is found in the thread here "Federal Republic of America" by General Finley. In it, the third-ish American revolution results in Andrew Jackson in charge for thirty years of a militaristic government that proto-nationalizes much of the economy and, while deeply anti-elite and pro-democratic involvement, has a very strong executive branch. Plus the country is constantly under perceived threat of British invasion, which adds that factor of constant fearmongering that is considered necessary for totalitarianism to take hold. You might want to skim some of the discussion in the thread on that.
 
I don't think it's possible to completely remove Totalitarianism from Fascism. It's possible to remove it from Stalinism, Junta Regimes and Hitler, but the Fascists actually invented the word.

A better PoD would be one in which America and Italy are on the same side in the next world war. There already was a surprising amount of empathy between the New Dealers and the Italian Fascists. In fact, the Italians had to issue an order to the Fascist press to stop comparing the New Deal to Fascism because it was damaging FDR's image at home. The Nazis did the same. There was this view that Mussolini was essentially dealing with the right problems (unregulated liberal capitalism and Communism) in basically the right-way (by using the state to regulate and improve society in a way that will decrease the power of plutocratic elites and irrational revolutionary ideologues), just in a violent way that befitted the far-away land of Southern Europe. Much like the view that a modernising Middle Eastern dictator is the best option when the alternative is Islamists and dysfunctional democracies.

An alliance between Italy and America is not as unlikely as you might think. FDR once had the misfortune to declare Mussolini America's best friend in Europe. Maintain the Stresa Front, and then when America joins the war against Nazi Germany and Japan (neither of whom Mussolini partially liked anyway) Mussolini becomes 'Uncle Benito.' When the war ends, Fascist sympathising will not suffer the same kind of backlash Communism did, because it does not directly threaten the American way of life in the same way. Fascism is something that happens over there. While it may not match the teachings of Thomas Jefferson exactly, as Ezra Pound raved in this rambling Jefferson and/or Mussolini, Fascism is the right thing for the Italians and who can say in the modern age that Jefferson would not approve of Mussolini? There's an authoritarian core to American Progressive thought that goes back to the tough taking politics of Theodore Roosevelt, an idea that America doesn't need the kind of liberty the Founding Fathers gave it anymore, instead it needs a strong government that will better suit the modern world. While this isn't the same thing as Fascism, there was a kind of affinity between the two schools of thought that was scattered by WWII.

Therefore, in the West you get a kind of Totalitarianism-lite. It doesn't intend to be as extreme as what is necessary in Italy and Spain, but it has similar solutions to similar problems.

Also, if you want Totalitarianism to become mainstream in Britain, I'd suggest you have Mosley win his way into Parliament on a New Party ticket, thus preventing his political self-destruction. Mosley really is the best candidate for this kind of ideology to spread. Much better than Churchill, who despite his pro-Fascist rumblings in the early days of the 1930s, was essentially an old school free trade Conservative and had very little grasp of what it was actually about other than anti-Socialism.
 
I don't think it's possible to completely remove Totalitarianism from Fascism. It's possible to remove it from Stalinism, Junta Regimes and Hitler, but the Fascists actually invented the word.

A better PoD would be one in which America and Italy are on the same side in the next world war. There already was a surprising amount of empathy between the New Dealers and the Italian Fascists. In fact, the Italians had to issue an order to the Fascist press to stop comparing the New Deal to Fascism because it was damaging FDR's image at home. The Nazis did the same. There was this view that Mussolini was essentially dealing with the right problems (unregulated liberal capitalism and Communism) in basically the right-way (by using the state to regulate and improve society in a way that will decrease the power of plutocratic elites and irrational revolutionary ideologues), just in a violent way that befitted the far-away land of Southern Europe. Much like the view that a modernising Middle Eastern dictator is the best option when the alternative is Islamists and dysfunctional democracies.

An alliance between Italy and America is not as unlikely as you might think. FDR once had the misfortune to declare Mussolini America's best friend in Europe. Maintain the Stresa Front, and then when America joins the war against Nazi Germany and Japan (neither of whom Mussolini partially liked anyway) Mussolini becomes 'Uncle Benito.' When the war ends, Fascist sympathising will not suffer the same kind of backlash Communism did, because it does not directly threaten the American way of life in the same way. Fascism is something that happens over there. While it may not match the teachings of Thomas Jefferson exactly, as Ezra Pound raved in this rambling Jefferson and/or Mussolini, Fascism is the right thing for the Italians and who can say in the modern age that Jefferson would not approve of Mussolini? There's an authoritarian core to American Progressive thought that goes back to the tough taking politics of Theodore Roosevelt, an idea that America doesn't need the kind of liberty the Founding Fathers gave it anymore, instead it needs a strong government that will better suit the modern world. While this isn't the same thing as Fascism, there was a kind of affinity between the two schools of thought that was scattered by WWII.

Therefore, in the West you get a kind of Totalitarianism-lite. It doesn't intend to be as extreme as what is necessary in Italy and Spain, but it has similar solutions to similar problems.

Also, if you want Totalitarianism to become mainstream in Britain, I'd suggest you have Mosley win his way into Parliament on a New Party ticket, thus preventing his political self-destruction. Mosley really is the best candidate for this kind of ideology to spread. Much better than Churchill, who despite his pro-Fascist rumblings in the early days of the 1930s, was essentially an old school free trade Conservative and had very little grasp of what it was actually about other than anti-Socialism.

Interesting thoughts, too bad it's kind of late to implement it. However, in regards to removing totalitarianism from Fascism, that isn't quite what's happening here. After all, the Fascists are still totalitarian over in Italy. Rather, you had a part of the Fascist movement that broke off and went to the United States.

After all, Democratic Totalitarianism openly calls itself totalitarian, it's just playing with the word meaning. Which is the main thing I'm trying to do here really, play with the meaning of the word. This isn't quite totalitarianism-lite at times because of what they end up doing, and what they already done with the power they possess.
 
Modern Iran qualifies(unless you believe the most recent election was stolen). Israel is arguably quite close and could end up all the way there given the growing power of the far-right there.
 
Authoritarian? Definitely. Totalitarian? Depends. Remember, those are two very different things, as people can forget. Now, they tend to mix, among other things, but they aren't the same.
 
Dark Days Part 4

The war between the Soviet Union and United States would drag on for two years before finally being settled. It would cost millions of lives, and would cement the power of the Soviet Union. Most of all though, by the end of it, and World War 2 with it, Totalitarianism came to be a force to stay, even if a branch of it had been wiped out.

In 1944, the front in the Soviet Union had been going badly. The Soviet military had more experience, and was able to counter the tactics the United States was utilizing. In combination with fortifications, a good usage of the climate, and having only two fronts, the Soviets were able to rapidly beat US forces out of Siberia.

What kept the Democratic Totalitarians losing immense popularity from this defeat was the ability shift blame, and other military victories. Operation Downfall, implemented to defeat Japan, ended up being an immense success. Despite the tenacity of Japanese defenders, through strategic and tactical genius, along with air superiority, and naval dominance, they were able to take Japan in a period of six months. It did cost 100,000 men, however, these deaths had been made miniscule.

To shift the blame, the Democratic Totalitarians were able to blame the opposition for many of their failures. Claiming the conservatives were working with Fascists, and the Democratic Socialists with Communists to undermine the war effort, they were able to keep popular power. However, even with that, they knew they needed either a faster victory against the Soviet Union, or find a way to withdrawal.

To further distract from events, the United States, through Italy and through a naval invasion over British protests, liberated France. Charles De Gaul had become a quick convert to Democratic Totalitarianism, after the fall of traditional liberalism, in combination with his distrust of Blair's Democratic Socialism. Because of his importance in the French resistance, France would end up joining the Democratic Totalitarian block once again.

While all this occurred, England launched a successful invasion of Norway, working with Swedish military forces. Nazi Germany had been significantly militarily weakened, hence why this operation was even attempted. This was followed by operations in Denmark that had similar success. Nazi Germany had been incredibly weakened by the Soviet Union, and US forces pushing from both Italy and France. So they lacked the forces to stop UK forces in Norway, and later on, Denmark, or to protest Sweden joining the UK in the new Anti-Totalitarian alliance.

During this whole time, the UK was researching nuclear weapons, seeing as how the US had decided against it from it being a, "blue sky project," while the Soviet Union was able to, but research was slow going. The United Kingdom however, by 1945, had been able to get nuclear weapons. Germany was rapidly falling, but the US and the USSR were looking to fight each other now. More importantly, the Anti-Totalitarian alliance needed a bargaining chip in order to preserve themselves.

At the beginning of the year, a single strike would occur. Berlin was nuked, killing Hitler, and virtually the entire command staff of Nazi Germany. Immediately afterwards, the Soviet Union, the United States, and the Radical Socialist Alliance raced to take Germany. However, now all the sides knew nuclear bombs worked, and with it, all three factions were locked into a Cold War of sorts.

Germany would end up being split three ways, with Northern Germany going to the Radical Socialists, Eastern Germany to the Soviet Union, and Western Germany to the United States. Each one adopted that side's ideology, and in time, would come to have barriers built to prevent any faction from seeing the others. In 1946, the Soviet Union would get its first nuclear bomb. In 1947, the United States would follow. At that, the Cold War, which still continues to this day, was in full swing...
 
Last edited:
A Time of Ice Part 1

The Cold War, many agreed starting in 1947, would lead to the entire world being cut up between the three factions. It started in China, with the Chinese Communists prevailing, although Mao and Tukhachevsky had a relationship best described as icy. They were allies, but only because they had a world opposed to them. The Soviet Union had also seized Manchuria, much of mainland Asia, and Eastern Europe. It at the time, and still has, the 2nd largest power bloc.

The United States found itself having to give massive amounts of funding to rebuild Europe, and Japan. While both were using prison labor, they still needed massive funds to rebuild. Hence, the birth of the New World Plan. The American Century Plan had been abandoned, seeing as how the advent of nuclear bombs would make conventional force far less useful. Military spending was cut, and the funds were used to fund recovery in France, Western Germany, Italy, Spain, and most of all, Japan. The last had been destroyed on a level not seen even in Europe.

The recovery plan would end up costing 20 billion dollars, which today is about 2 trillion dollars. However, it was worth every penny, considering the massive economic growth Japan, Northern Germany, Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and France would become economic powerhouses. These countries, along with the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Mexico, and countries in Central America would form the world's largest power bloc, which it still is to this day.

Finally, the United Kingdom, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Northern Germany, and curiously, India, would form the Anti-Totalitarian Alliance, and be the smallest power bloc in the world. To this day, despite being the smallest power bloc in the world, it has grown to become the most influential politically, causing the other two to introduce reforms to counter its influence.
 
Top