WI: Anti-Colonialist Fascism?

This seems quite interesting - what would it take for the spread of this strain of Fascism throughout the Third World?

Hard to say: Italian-style Fascism, despite being the originator and overall the most ideologically flexible, would be heavily associated with the brutal occupations of Libya and Ethiopia, and probably turn off a lot of Africans on the concept just on that alone; Nazism is straight out, for obvious reasons; Spanish-style Falangism was attempted and came closest, but ultimately failed to get anywhere (the same would probably hold true with Polish-style Falangism); other strains of Fascism like Rexism or Legionarism (i.e. the Iron Guard) are probably too niche and specific to their source countries to be compatible to any African country...

That leaves French and British strains as possibilities, considering they are the major colonial players (Mosleyism might the most likely candidate), but Africa's antipathy against the French and British due to their long histories on the continent may prove to be too much of a roadblock for Fascism to become popular enough locally to evolve an anti-colonialist strain.

Though there is one other strain: Brazilian Integralism. Unlike most other strains, Brazilian Integralism did not have any sort of racist/anti-Semite component to it as first formulated by Plínio Salgado (Gustavo Barroso was the one responsible for creating the anti-Semitic faction, something that Salgado was not happy about). Being uncharacteristically heterogeneous and tolerant compared to other Fascist movements - while still being intensely anti-Marxist and nationalistic - could make it a viable candidate as the basis of an Afro-Fascism ideology.
 
Hard to say: Italian-style Fascism, despite being the originator and overall the most ideologically flexible, would be heavily associated with the brutal occupations of Libya and Ethiopia, and probably turn off a lot of Africans on the concept just on that alone; Nazism is straight out, for obvious reasons; Spanish-style Falangism was attempted and came closest, but ultimately failed to get anywhere (the same would probably hold true with Polish-style Falangism); other strains of Fascism like Rexism or Legionarism (i.e. the Iron Guard) are probably too niche and specific to their source countries to be compatible to any African country...

That leaves French and British strains as possibilities, considering they are the major colonial players (Mosleyism might the most likely candidate), but Africa's antipathy against the French and British due to their long histories on the continent may prove to be too much of a roadblock for Fascism to become popular enough locally to evolve an anti-colonialist strain.

Though there is one other strain: Brazilian Integralism. Unlike most other strains, Brazilian Integralism did not have any sort of racist/anti-Semite component to it as first formulated by Plínio Salgado (Gustavo Barroso was the one responsible for creating the anti-Semitic faction, something that Salgado was not happy about). Being uncharacteristically heterogeneous and tolerant compared to other Fascist movements - while still being intensely anti-Marxist and nationalistic - could make it a viable candidate as the basis of an Afro-Fascism ideology.
In regards to Ethiopia, I was actually thinking about seeing a Fascist Ethiopia rise in this scenario to facilitate the spread of Fascism in Africa as anti-colonial ideology.

This is probably true.

I actually think that Brazilian Integralism is one of the better (if not perfect) examples of what Afro-Fascism would look like.
 
I feel like if you expand your definition of Fascism in a reasonable way you get plenty of anti-colonial Fascist leaders, for example Leopoldo Galtieri and Saddam Hussein.
 
The Ethiopians would like to disagree.

In seriousness, fascism has at its core a need to colonise places to ensure the nation's superiority. It's why the Argentine government made such a big issue over the Falklands - the fascists over in Buenos Aires needed a victory to show the people how great Argentina was and why losing buggered their government up hugely.
 
The Ethiopians would like to disagree.

In seriousness, fascism has at its core a need to colonise places to ensure the nation's superiority. It's why the Argentine government made such a big issue over the Falklands - the fascists over in Buenos Aires needed a victory to show the people how great Argentina was and why losing buggered their government up hugely.
Of those Ethiopians, my grandparents would be particularly pissed at such an (Afro-Fascist) ideology existing lol.

With that case, that reminds me - could we see Ethiopia going Fascist in the aftermath of the Derg's fall and attempt to do the same with Eritrea?
 
In my opinion, no. But that's because I have a more narrow understanding of the term fascism than most modern people do (fascist really is the most overused word ever). I think there's more to fascism than "authoritarian militaristic xenophobic nationalism." Clearly, there were many other distinctive traits of fascist movements (I'm talking about the Italian fascists, Romanian Iron Guard, Spanish Falange, etc.)

I do not believe the political traits that uniquely define fascism are replicable in agrarian, developing, non-European societies during the age of decolonization.

That being said, there was at least one actual Fascist-aligned anti-colonial movements - Subra Chandra Bose in India, who was clearly not a fascist himself. Many Arab revolts took German funding. Hell, there was even one mostly-a-democracy aligned with the fascist bloc (Finland!).

Could fascist nations sponsor and fund anti-colonial movements that end up pretty authoritarian, militaristic, etc.? Of course. Could ideological fascism be widely adopted in Africa or the Middle East? I don't think so.
 
The Ethiopians would like to disagree.

In seriousness, fascism has at its core a need to colonise places to ensure the nation's superiority. It's why the Argentine government made such a big issue over the Falklands - the fascists over in Buenos Aires needed a victory to show the people how great Argentina was and why losing buggered their government up hugely.
Fascism =/= non-democracy or any random military junta, I don't think the Latin American dictatorships of the late Cold War are considered fascist. If anything, they're a throwback to the caudillos of the nineteenth century.
 
I think Oswald Mosely's ideology sort of tended in this direction at times.

Ba'athist Iraq also was pretty close to this.
 
Wasn't Mobutu, pretty much, a fascist?
Not really. He was a kleptocrat first and foremost. Fascism has a distinct social revolutionary component to it, normally, and is intensely nationalistic. Mobutu never really raised nationalism as part of his regime, and had no interest in class leveling. He had a weird period where he was some kind of Pan-Africanist in much of his rhetoric and appearance, but that was more bizarre than profound.
 
I think Oswald Mosely's ideology sort of tended in this direction at times.

Ba'athist Iraq also was pretty close to this.
Didn’t Mosely heavily support British Imperialism? He wanted a united and sufficient British Empire.

Seems like the opposite of what we’re looking for.
 
Didn’t Mosely heavily support British Imperialism? He wanted a united and sufficient British Empire.

Seems like the opposite of what we’re looking for.
He ranged wildly on imperial policy, from crossing the floor because of a dislike of the Irish partition policy to having some kind of common ground with Gandhi of all people. He very much hated the outsourcing of mainland UK industrial jobs to the colonies, and hated commonwealth immigration, advocating for forceful repatriation.

Perhaps he wasn't anti-colonialist, but his version of colonialism was different from what existed at the time. He did place particular emphasis on the white dominions, for example. He didn't like the sort of paternalistic colonialism in place in most of the African colonies.

In general, Mosley was hard to map. He was extremely nationalistic, and yet was in favor of Europe A Nation, in some ways, he was almost a neo-mercantalist, etc.
 
Last edited:
I think this is doable. Not easy, but doable. In something like a pre-Barbarossa Nazi victory one could very see fascists representing themselves as the champions of oppressed nations (on other continents).
 
Remember, that, Nazi Germany and the Italian Social Republic did recognize Azad Hind and some Azad Hind forces were trained by the Nazis.
 
In my opinion, no. But that's because I have a more narrow understanding of the term fascism than most modern people do (fascist really is the most overused word ever). I think there's more to fascism than "authoritarian militaristic xenophobic nationalism." Clearly, there were many other distinctive traits of fascist movements (I'm talking about the Italian fascists, Romanian Iron Guard, Spanish Falange, etc.)

I do not believe the political traits that uniquely define fascism are replicable in agrarian, developing, non-European societies during the age of decolonization.

I agree, although IOTL Baathism came pretty darn close (granted, it emerged in the partitioned remains of the Ottoman Empire, which was less agrarian in the early twentieth century than your average African colony).

If we exclude Baathism, however, other possibilities come to mind. Extremist Hindu nationalism could easily take upon explicitly fascist rhetoric and praxis in a world where the ideology was never discredited, and so fit the bill, more or less. I also think that the idea of a fascist-in-all-but-name regime taking hold in Ethiopia at some point following the Second Italo-Abyssinian War is an interesting one. Such a regime would combine anti-Marxism, totalitarian politics, and anti-imperialism, along with a rhetorical fixation upon Ethiopia as the rightful inheritor and defender of "African civilization", and as a "Christian nation" (the latter would keep the clergy quiet). This scenario is especially likely if Italy retains Eritrea and Somaliland as colonies after WWII.
 

SpookyBoy

Banned
There was a faction in the UK's National Front in the 1970s and 80s that was based around the idea of the "Political Soldier", which supported nationalism worldwide, including groups such as Gaddafists and the Nation of Islam. You can find quite a lot of overlap between European-style fascism and some Third World national liberation movements that put more of an emphasis on "national" than "liberation".

Or for something more obscure than that (I've actually had trouble finding stuff on these people), try the Griot Movement in mid-20th century Haiti:

The Griots were named for the traditional poets, story-tellers and magicians of Africa and they supported the contention of the racist Arthur de Gobineau that some races were biologically superior to others — except they argued that it was Black race that had superior physical and spiritual strength. Just as Norman Cohn noted in his study of the bogus ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, Warrant for Genocide, that the rationalist Napoleonic invasion of Germany led to a backlash of folkloric nationalism that created the Nazis, so the US invasion of Haiti created the ultimate extension of Price Mars’ ethnographic movement, the Griots. They were unequivocal in affirming anti-rational, authoritarian political principles, claiming them as traditionally African. They desired dictatorship,

"reason and will allied to force in the service of the nation.... Authority is a sacred thing. Let us establish the mystique of authority. Force remains a beautiful thing, to be respected even when it crushes us."

If these sentiments sound familiar — and not particularly African — it’s because of Griot affinity for Italian fascism which, strangely, was seen as a counterpoint to British and French imperialism prior to the invasion of Ethiopia. Even faced with the invasion of the one nation that had stayed free of European domination during the scramble for Africa and with whom Haiti had had good diplomatic relations since the Nord presidency in 1904, the Griots chose to side with Ethiopia only because it was Black rather than because they opposed fascist imperialism. Given the role of the Black generalissimo as an avenue of advancement and in representing Black interests (though actually usually principly their own), the appeal of an indigenous fascism to the Griots is understandable, if still inexcusable.
 
I also think that the idea of a fascist-in-all-but-name regime taking hold in Ethiopia at some point following the Second Italo-Abyssinian War is an interesting one. Such a regime would combine anti-Marxism, totalitarian politics, and anti-imperialism, along with a rhetorical fixation upon Ethiopia as the rightful inheritor and defender of "African civilization", and as a "Christian nation" (the latter would keep the clergy quiet). This scenario is especially likely if Italy retains Eritrea and Somaliland as colonies after WWII.
I can see this happening if either the Hoare-Laval Pact goes through without behind leaked to the press - but I doubt that Ethiopia wouldn’t taken the chance to annex Eritrea during World War 2.

Your description of Ethiopian Fascism seems to be fairly accurate and makes me wonder what a Fascist Ethiopia would look like.
 
Top