What if Fascism rose in the United States in the 1930s?

Let's say the depression had the effect of destabilizing the united states government. A popular fascist party, similar to nazism, is able to compete with the other two parties (the Republican and democratic parties).

Would such a party have been able to gain enough support to alter the constitution or how laws are passed in this country? After all, when world War 2 started, the government was given an enormous amount of power and leeway. Including interning Japanese american civilians. America certainly had no shortage of racism or bigotry at the time. With the court packing plan and other such methods that became popular as a result of the economic woes of the great depression, perhaps a more authoritarian government may have been possible. Maybe even without formally changing the constitution or law.

Perhaps such a government would use similar economic tactics as Roosevelt combined with a similar military build up to Nazi Germany (the united states military had ~150,000 men at the time iirc. Smaller than Hungary or Bulgarian armed forces.)

Perhaps such a government may have instituted an expanded Manifest Destiny and provoked war with the British Empire or Mexico.

Is this a feasible time line or is it ASB?
 

Cook

Banned
It's certainly feasible to have a popular fascist movement, the potential was there, what was required was a charismatic leader. Take Charles Coughlin, have him born in the United States rather than Canada, and Presbyterian instead of Catholic, with the backing of Henry Ford and Charles Lindberg, and you're on your way.
 
Fascism for America (editorial in the *Paris Herald Tribune* later to become the *International Herald Tribune*)

"May 22, 1932--The hour has struck for a fascist party to be born in the United States. In the face of the most critical financial situation in the history of the country, Washington presents the amazing spectacle of more special groups seeking to get their fingers in the national treasury than ever before. From every section and from every layer of our economic life, the embattled lobbies have descended upon the capital. Bills to appropriate millions for the aid of special classes or industries are tossed into the House of Representatives, at the moment when federal finances are strained to the breaking point. Congress has one plain duty, to balance the budget, and to refuse every subtle appeal for money that is not foreseen by that budget. In the cities, where authorities confess themselves unable to cope with the sinister enterprise arrayed against them; in state capitals and county towns, where special privilege is bought and sold; wherever patronage is distributed and crime protected, there is the rumble of indignation among householders, the anger and disgust of taxpayers, which presage the gathering of moral forces into overt movement.

Someone will give the signal. It may be a mechanic, coming out of his engine-room, wiping his hands upon oily waste, in despair at the insecurity of his home; it may be a veteran teacher--like Peter the Hermit preaching a crusade --shocked to find the holy sepulchre of our national liberty in the hands of vandals. It may be the clean youth and imagination of a Charles Lindbergh, calling upon men of goodwill to join him in a party of law and order. It may be the sagacity and experience of a Henry Ford, summoning men to match the organization of the underworld with a still more potent organization. In every part of the country men are waiting for the call, and when it is heard, there will be a roar of assent from a million throats. The elements are assembled for the formation of this kind of fascism in the United States, composed of householders, heads of families and taxpayers. The stage is set."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/opinion/international/may-22-1932-fascism-for-america.html

(When I first read this, I was surprised that Lindbergh was mentioned so early as the possible leader of a fascist movement--AFAIK he had made no political speeches as yet. But then it occurred to me: Perhaps it was assumed that as a victim of a horrible crime--remember that the Lindbergh baby's body was found on May, 12, 1932 and this editorial was published ten days later--Lindbergh would naturally want to lead a party dedicated to "law and order."
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call them that fascist and if they were anywhere on a scale of fascism, they'd be at the far end from the Nazi Party, but the Technocratic Movement could end up fulfilling the role you want.

Let's say that Roosevelt gets killed by Giuseppe Zangara in 1933 and the government does infamously little to help those suffering due to the Great Depression. Whether or not the movement splits in two doesn't really matter if their membership is swelled by more and more people losing faith in the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Even though they were opposed to any revolutionary activity, I don't think mass protests would be out of the question for them and, seeing the response to the Bonus Army by the US government, I can't see that being accepted. This would galvanize Technocrat supporters into hardcore members and force the leadership to either radicalize or be replaced.

There would either be a civil war or the existing US government would resign after a certain amount of conflict. Either way, lets say the Technocrats manage to win and seize power.

While they are setting up their new government, they would need to have tightly consolidated power to actually bring about the changes they wish to. They also begin to reach out to the international community, but their image as a dictatorship by scientists and engineers that overthrew one of the longest living democratic states makes France and Britain estranged at best, and hostile at worst.

I could see such hostility really driving the Technocrats to align themselves more with Italian Fascism. They are not entirely on the same page as the Italian Fascists on a lot of things, but would have enough in common at this point that they could work together with them. They would be on the far side of Nazism from Italian Fascism and it's likely that they would have played a similar role as Spain during the Second World War, acting as a neutral country friendly to the Axis.

If this were to take place, then the Technocratic US would probably still oppose Japanese expansionism in the Pacific Ocean. If they have closer relations to Germany than Japan does (which I think they would because of Nazi racism, but then again there are major political differences) then you could end up with the Axis supporting KMT China against Japan. If an Axis-affiliated Technocratic US were to be dragged into a war with Japan that was already at war with an Axis-backed China, then you can say hello to an Axis declaration of war on Japan and might even see Japan working together with the Soviet Union and/or France and Britain, which would be quite interesting.
 
I wouldn't call them that fascist and if they were anywhere on a scale of fascism, they'd be at the far end from the Nazi Party, but the Technocratic Movement could end up fulfilling the role you want.

Let's say that Roosevelt gets killed by Giuseppe Zangara in 1933 and the government does infamously little to help those suffering due to the Great Depression. Whether or not the movement splits in two doesn't really matter if their membership is swelled by more and more people losing faith in the Republican and Democratic Parties.

Even though they were opposed to any revolutionary activity, I don't think mass protests would be out of the question for them and, seeing the response to the Bonus Army by the US government, I can't see that being accepted. This would galvanize Technocrat supporters into hardcore members and force the leadership to either radicalize or be replaced.

There would either be a civil war or the existing US government would resign after a certain amount of conflict. Either way, lets say the Technocrats manage to win and seize power.

While they are setting up their new government, they would need to have tightly consolidated power to actually bring about the changes they wish to. They also begin to reach out to the international community, but their image as a dictatorship by scientists and engineers that overthrew one of the longest living democratic states makes France and Britain estranged at best, and hostile at worst.

I could see such hostility really driving the Technocrats to align themselves more with Italian Fascism. They are not entirely on the same page as the Italian Fascists on a lot of things, but would have enough in common at this point that they could work together with them. They would be on the far side of Nazism from Italian Fascism and it's likely that they would have played a similar role as Spain during the Second World War, acting as a neutral country friendly to the Axis.

If this were to take place, then the Technocratic US would probably still oppose Japanese expansionism in the Pacific Ocean. If they have closer relations to Germany than Japan does (which I think they would because of Nazi racism, but then again there are major political differences) then you could end up with the Axis supporting KMT China against Japan. If an Axis-affiliated Technocratic US were to be dragged into a war with Japan that was already at war with an Axis-backed China, then you can say hello to an Axis declaration of war on Japan and might even see Japan working together with the Soviet Union and/or France and Britain, which would be quite interesting.


That's a very interesting response. I think that would cripple the Allied war effort. Would a technocratic USA support the German war effort in Russia?

If not, we could see a much more communist Europe
 

Thothian

Banned
I see the most likely path to this being some kind of butterflies leading to a GOP victory in 1932. So no FDR, no New Deal. A nationwide " let the banks and farms fail" attitude.

Unemployment gets way worse than in OTL, along with food and housing riots, maybe farmer's revolts in the midwest against foreclosures.

Eventually, if the GOP stays the course on unregulated capitalism, people being to cry out for "peace, work, and bread." A movement gels around a well-respected American like Lindbergh, Macarthur, Patton, or J Edgar Hoover ( or some alliance of these men.)

Unfettered capitalism has failed, and most Americans don't want godless communism, so along comes state capitalism/corporatism/fascism, or whatever you want to call it. Maybe a troika of Hoover/Patton/Macarthur as wire-pullers, with Lindbergh as the face of the American National Socialist Party.
 
Top