WI not-nazi fascism in Germany.

What if regular fascism, without the racist policies and pseudo-philosophy of Nazism, takes hold in Germany in the 1930s?

I imagine German plans in an eventual WWII would would be far less ambitious, without Lbensraum for example, and with an emphasis on restoring Germany's 1914 borders but with Austria included.
 
What if regular fascism, without the racist policies and pseudo-philosophy of Nazism, takes hold in Germany in the 1930s?

I imagine German plans in an eventual WWII would would be far less ambitious, without Lbensraum for example, and with an emphasis on restoring Germany's 1914 borders but with Austria included.

Yes, that is a possibility. More Mussolini-stye than Hitler, though. Personally I have always thought that without Adolf communism would of prevailed in Deutschland, but I don't know a whole lot about the political situation of the time.
 
They would have eventually restored their borders, but only if they had patience. The Nazis had a serious lack of control and were too impulsive. Plus, their leadership was always all or nothing, everything had to be a struggle to the death, which is why they are all dead. Get a Fascists government capable of compromising, and they would be more dangerous than the self-destructive Nazis.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
They would have eventually restored their borders, but only if they had patience. The Nazis had a serious lack of control and were too impulsive. Plus, their leadership was always all or nothing, everything had to be a struggle to the death, which is why they are all dead. Get a Fascists government capable of compromising, and they would be more dangerous than the self-destructive Nazis.
Fascism is just as absolutist as Nazism is, if not more so. I'd actually say that Nazism is far more compromising than fascism seeing as how they were far more willing to negotiate with other political parties, leave the military by and large autonomous, had no economic system, etc. In fact, the Nazis cracked down on fascism in Germany by castrating the SA.

A fascist Germany would likely be a wreck and there could possibly be civil war. Unlike Nazism, fascism cannot tolerate an independent military; the military must be subservient to the Party.

Cronyism, graft, and all manner of corruption is likely to be more prevalent under a fascist regime since leading fascists tend to be little more than vaunted street thugs with little to no governing qualifications. Additionally, fascism has far more control over the economy than Nazism did, and I'd put big money on the fascists messing it up.

If the fascists go to war, they'll lose. Fascists don't win wars; they never have and their ideology precludes it. And using gas and destroying entire villages in Ethiopia doesn't count. (Just so I don't get jumped on for this statement, I do not consider Nazis to be fascists and the nationalists in the SCW ran the entire far-right political gamut; Franco wasn't a fascist, for example.)

The Junkers are going to be a huge problem since they're immensely influential and the SA hated them with a violent passion (fascists are very classist and viwed the Reichswehr command as a bunch of effete, aristocratic armchair generals who lost Germany the war) and probably would have gotten rid of any officials with so much as the word "von" in their name :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Wolfpaw

Banned
Without a strong Nazi party that probability of a weak socialist state, civil war, or communist take-over increase.
Why on earth do people think Germany will go Communist :confused:

From 1920-1932 the Communists averaged 11.25% of the vote. They never even passed the 20% mark in a single election. By '32 the Nazis commanded an entire one-third of the electorate. The idea that a political movement that could barely capture one-tenth of the German electorate could take over is absolutely ludicrous.

Do people actually believe that the Nazis were the only thing stopping the Communists from taking over Germany? That is literally buying into Nazi propaganda.
 
Last edited:

archaeogeek

Banned
14.6% at the 1932 Reichstag elections actually.
The Social Democrats did 21.4% though.

The Communists also had been consistently raising in the polls as well. A less ruthless, more Italian-like fascism would probably eventually contribute to the radicalization of the Social Democrats to a larger extent than OTL. In fact from numbers it seems like this is already the case, the KPD and the SPD cannibalized each other's votes a lot. But it takes a revolution, no way the dominant Junkers would give the same kind of helping hand they did to the nazis (unless we assume Schacht was not merely stupid but completely brain dead)
 
Last edited:
Personally I have always thought that without Adolf communism would of prevailed in Deutschland, but I don't know a whole lot about the political situation of the time.
Not likely. The Communists weren't, and wouldn't be, in a position to take over semi-legally, as opposed to the Nazis, and they had no chance of taking over by force.
A higher propability might be an authoritarian militarist regime effectively ruling by decree, although it depends on how one sees 'without Adolf' - if he is removed in, say, 1918, it is entirely possible that the altered circumstances could have helped the Weimar Republic to a 20s that set it up better for the 30s.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
14.6% at the 1932 Reichstag elections actually.The Communists also had been consistently raising in the polls as well.
And 11.25% on average over a 12-year period, whereas the Nazis averaged 21.41%. And even at their height they could barely nab one-sixth of the electorate. A Communist takeover of Germany is ridiculous.
A less ruthless, more Italian-like fascism would probably eventually contribute to the radicalization of the Social Democrats to a larger extent than OTL.
Why would fascists be any less ruthless than the Nazis? Nazis were willing to play by the rules more or less. Fascists went around beating and killing people they didn't like and destroying property whenever they felt like it. Who led Kristallnacht? Not the SS, but fascist SA militia. Who launched the Beer Hall putsch? Fascist street thugs (Bavarian and Austrian Nazism were far more similar to fascism than Nazism...if that makes sense :eek:).

Fascists were just as ruthless in their pursuit of power as Nazis were, they were just dumber about it.
 
Last edited:

archaeogeek

Banned
And 11.25% on average over a 12-year period, whereas the Nazis averaged 21.41%. And even at their height they could barely nab one-sixth of the electorate. A Communist takeover of Germany is ridiculous.

Why would fascists be any less ruthless than the Nazis? Nazis were willing to play by the rules more or less. Fascists went around beating and killing people they didn't like and destroying property. Who led Kristallnacht? Not the SS, but fascist SA militia. Who launched the Beer Hall putsch? Fascists street thugs (Bavarian and Austrian Nazism was far more similar to fascism than Nazism...if that makes sense :eek:).

Fascists were just as ruthless in their pursuit of power as Nazis were, they were just dumber about it.

That's what I meant; it's not so much less ruthless as less efficient: the nazis had both the propaganda and the thugs, fascists would just have the thugs. Also I feel you're overstating the SS/SA distinction: the SS were a branch of the SA.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
That's what I meant; it's not so much less ruthless as less efficient: the nazis had both the propaganda and the thugs, fascists would just have the thugs.
Ah. Then we're in perfect agreement.
Also I feel you're overstating the SS/SA distinction: the SS were a branch of the SA.
While the SS began as a branch of the SA, they were quickly established as an independent (and dominant) force. The Night of the Long Knives is what really drove that home; that was literally a slaughter of the SA and opposition leadership carried out by who? The SS.

The SS was not a bunch of street thugs, nor were they devoted so much to the concept of the nation as they were to the concept of race (which is perhaps the major ideological difference between fascism and Nazism, and a very important one at that).

The SS was a very efficient, very effective praetorian guard; the Nazis'
crème de la crème. The same cannot at all be said of the SA, which was basically downgraded to the position of domestic militia that were pretty much only used to run the Hitler Youth and march in parades, and even then the SS got pride of place. The police forces, the SS, Gestapo, the Party apparatus, and pretty much every other branch of the government had more influence, control and authority than the SA after 1934.

On the other hand, in fascist Italy the OVRA (the closest equivalent Italy had to the SS) was lower on the totem pole than Blackshirt squadristi thugs whose only qualifications were cracking the skulls of a few people who looked at them funny or didn't salute quickly enough.
 
Last edited:
Although I do not buy into the "bulwark against communism" theory that some here seem to have, if you remove nazism as a major force in the german political landscape in the 20's and 30's, then butterflies could lead to a stronger influence by the communists. This is not necessessarily a direct result of no nazism, but more like a side effect.

That being said, I believe that there is a good chance that in the absence of the nazi's and the charismatic austrian corporal, there is a very good chance of a pseudo-fascist movement which is very military centric and focuses on restoration of the kaiser, or some other form of monarch. A revanchist monarchist regime could just as easily use the "stab in the back" myth to their advantage, as well as channeling hatred at the entente for versailles. The up-side(for them anyway) is that such a movement isn't bound by the insanity that the Nazi party was, it could be antisemitic, but would not likely be genocidal or focus on racial ideology to anywhere near the degree that the nazi's were. This eliminates the atrocities which turned the populace of eastern europe against them, and more or less precluded peace with the west. this also gets rid of the idea of "jewish" science as well.

However any such movement may also be handicapped by the aristocracy being in its leadership roles and thus be less meritocratic. This could severely hamper any military operations due to the presence of incompetent officers that cannot be removed from command due to their family name.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Although I do not buy into the "bulwark against communism" theory that some here seem to have, if you remove nazism as a major force in the german political landscape in the 20's and 30's, then butterflies could lead to a stronger influence by the communists. This is not necessessarily a direct result of no nazism, but more like a side effect.
I'm kinda hesitant on this. We all know how polarizing communism was and how it alienated a lot of the German electorate, not to mention the populace. I'd actually argue that the KPD actually became more popular due to the Nazis since, as time went on, it became clear that they were the only ones willing to stand up to them, especially given the middling and unispiring natures of the SPD and the Centre Party.
 
Last edited:
Fascism is just as absolutist as Nazism is, if not more so. I'd actually Nazism is far more compromising than fascism seeing as how they were far more willing to negotiate with other political parties, leave the military by and large autonomous, had no economic system, etc. In fact, the Nazis cracked down on fascism in Germany in the form of the SA.

A fascist Germany would likely be a wreck and there could possibly be civil war. Unlike Nazism, fascism cannot tolerate an independent military; the military must be subservient to the Party.

Cronyism, graft, and all manner of corruption is likely to be more prevalent under a fascist regime since leading fascists tend to be little more than vaunted street thugs and the government will have more control over the economy than Nazism did, and I'd put big money on the fascists messing it up.

If the fascists go to war, they'll lose. Fascists don't win wars; they never have and their ideology precludes it. And using gas and destroying entire villages in Ethiopia doesn't count. (Just so I don't get jumped on for this statement, I do not consider Nazis to be fascists and the nationalists in the SCW ran the entire far-right political gamut; Franco wasn't a fascist, for example.)

The Junkers are going to be a huge problem since they're immensely influential and the SA hated them with a violent passion (fascists are very classist) and probably would have gotten rid of any officials with so much as the word "von" in their name :rolleyes:

Are you trying to tell me Fascists don't know how to negotiate and live-and-let-live? What about Franco? Bah, whatever. How about a different sort of authoritarian Germany?
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
What about Franco?
Franco wasn't a fascist. He was supported by fascists and incorporated fascists into his ruling coalition, but his regime would more properly be classified as a far-right authoritarian one. In fact, many Spanish fascists grumbled about how Franco never truly embraced their movement or their philosophy. In fact, the Falangists wound up with little to no authority in Spain after 1960 and had been in steady decline since the mid to late '40s.
How about a different sort of authoritarian Germany?
Now this is entirely doable. Just have the military take over. They weren't itching for the opportunity, but they weren't at all opposed to seizing power if they got too uncomfortable with how things were going.

In fact, you could have fascists take power in Germany. This would prompt the military to take swift action against them since they absolutely loathed the SA and other paramilitary organizations for their thuggishness, general incompetency, and their more or less avowed goal to gut the officer corps and replace it with (more likely than not unqualified) Party cronies. Once the fascists start trying to purge and exert direct Party control over the Reichswehr (which will probably be priority number 1), then the military is going to boot them out faster than you can say "canned tomatoes."

This is assuming the fascists get that far. Fascists are, by definition, anti-parliamentarian. They'll only come to power via a putsch or coercion. The second the military gets wind of this, they'll move to smash the fascists, which they will be able to do.

There's always talk about the military restoring the monarchy, but I've always found that to be rather dicey. The Germans weren't the Hohenzollerns' biggest fans after WWI. Perhaps crown prince Wilhelm could be restored, but Willy II isn't going to be offered the throne at all. In fact, the crown prince may not accept since he was utterly obedient to his father's wishes. The monarchists would probably have to settle for a relative of the Hohenzollerns. Wilhelm II's younger brother Heinrich would be a superb choice, but he died of throat cancer in 1929 and his eldest and youngest sons were hemophiliacs. His middle child, Sigismund, however, could be placed on the throne, though by this point the military might just want to install one of its own into the presidency rather than having to go through the hassle of sorting out dynastic legitimacy.
 
Last edited:

Now this is entirely doable. Just have the military take over. They weren't itching for the opportunity, but they weren't at all opposed to seizing power if they got too uncomfortable with how things were going.

Absolutely true.

And in particular, the more the communists gain power, the more uncomfortable the military would get. They could still rely on the old Junker elites and the bureaucracy, and they'd also can count on Catholics and liberals. And finally, even SPD was clearly anti-communist, and the communists saw the social democrats as triators. To conclude, there's no chance for communists to take over.
 
I honesty don't think that a millitary takeover is plausible, after all in the Kapp Putsch they showed to the whole of Germany that they weren't able to defeat the SPD and the communists.

I think that they were not nearly as credible as you some of you think
 
Knowing Through Emotion

They would have eventually restored their borders, but only if they had patience. The Nazis had a serious lack of control and were too impulsive. Plus, their leadership was always all or nothing, everything had to be a struggle to the death, which is why they are all dead. Get a Fascists government capable of compromising, and they would be more dangerous than the self-destructive Nazis.
Fascism encourages knowing through emotion. Not surprisingly when they formed a goverenment it was impulsive. Compromise is better suited to a democratic society that respects different ideas or Hagalian style lodgic were a dialectic is expected as in Communism.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
I honesty don't think that a millitary takeover is plausible, after all in the Kapp Putsch they showed to the whole of Germany that they weren't able to defeat the SPD and the communists.

I think that they were not nearly as credible as you some of you think
This is just wrong. The Kapp Putsch was orchestrated and carried out by Freikorps militia and one sympathetic Reichswehr general. The rest of the Reichswehr command made a flat out refusal to support either side or participate in the affair. Hell, the vast majority of Freikorps didn't support Kapp, much less the Reichswehr.

The majority of the Reichswehr command sympathized with the putschists mostly because the latter were demanding that Ebert stop troop reduction, and I'm sure there was some monarchical sympathies as well.

So no, you're just wrong. The Kapp Putsch didn't at all show that the Reichswehr was weak and ineffective, it showed that they weren't going to stop a political movement that was profoundly pro-military and that Germany's workers were able to stop a bunch of reactionary militiamen by crippling the economy with a General Strike.
 
Last edited:
Top