-2
$\begingroup$

In this alternate timeline, Hitler was killed during the first great war. This prevented the Nazis from becoming a true force in Germany. The real threat came from communism in Russia under a man called Joseph Stalin, who wanted to spread its territory. This started the second world war, with Russia and its friends fighting against the allies power's.

Mussolini saw where the tide would turn and chose to support America. He fought with the allies against Russia along with Spain's Francisco Franco, the other fascist dictator of the day, and chose not to invade Ethiopia. When the war ended, he continued to remain useful to the allies by rooting out communist elements among his own people. He also received the backing of the pope and the Vatican, linking the church with his government.

Mussolini was a fairly popular dictator to the west before he joined uo with the Nazis. By avoiding Hitler and making these changes to his decision making, how long into the modern world could fascist Italy have survived? Could it have made into the modern world of today?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ well, the real world example is Spain and Franco: it's not fascism per se, but still an extrem-right dictatorship, friendly with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, but did not contribute to WW2, and survive way after it $\endgroup$ – Kepotx Jul 13 '18 at 10:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Kepotx It's not strictly true that Spain didn't contribute to WW2: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Division $\endgroup$ – nullpointer Jul 13 '18 at 12:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ One point you may need to consider in your worldbuilding. The Soviet Union didn't need to expand its territory, it was extending its influence into other countries which isn't exactly the same thing. Nazi Germany did want to expand its territory. There was nowhere else left to colonize, except by going East. An Allies versus Soviet Union WW II would have a different origin than territorial expansion. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jul 13 '18 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ @a4android: But the USSR DID expand its territory as a result of WWII, even if it mostly maintained the fiction that the Eastern European countries it occupied were independent. But it did incorporate Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and parts of Finland into the USSR. $\endgroup$ – jamesqf Jul 13 '18 at 18:44
  • $\begingroup$ @jamesqf But what the USSR did doesn't mean it would have done that without the benefit of WWII or gone to war to do so. You could have used a better example in Polish & other territory annexed by the USSR under the Ribenthrop-Moltov Pact. Arguing for Soviet expansion as a starter for an alternative WWII isn't sound enough. Certainly once the Balkan States were in the grip of the USSR they weren't letting go. See Hungary 1956 & the Prague Spring. $\endgroup$ – a4android Jul 14 '18 at 1:24
11
$\begingroup$

You are more or less describing the trajectory in history chosen by Francisco Franco in Spain and Salazar in Portugal: present yourself as a shield against communism, and the good old patrols of the free world will close an eye on small stuff like freedom of speech or how you deal with opposition and minorities.

On the same path of Franchism, it's likely that the regime would have survived until the late seventies, and then slowly transitioned to democracy.

However, considering that Italy had the strongest communist party among the western countries, and since you mention he would still oppose communism (from which I infer WWII didn't end with a clear winning side) it is also likely that the country would have become the Vietnam or Korea of Europe, split in a communist country and a fascist country, fighting each other.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also Portugal's Estado Novo under Antonio de Oliveira Salazar, who ruled Portugal nearly the same time than Franco did in Spain. Salazar's regime was (as usual in Portugal) rather anglophile and as such was not shunned by the Allies after WWII (Franco's Spain was quite isolated internationally in the 1945-1949 period). $\endgroup$ – SJuan76 Jul 13 '18 at 10:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, Mussolini had repressed Italy's Communist Party successfully during all his regime, so the idea that it would become as powerful as to challenge Mussolini's rule (specially with foreign aid from the USA/UK/France) seems somehow far fetched. There was a strong Communist Party in Italy after the end of Mussolini, but because the Communist Party capitalized its opposition to Mussolini. $\endgroup$ – SJuan76 Jul 13 '18 at 10:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SJuan76, communist party was strong also during and even before Mussolini's ruling. Gramsci died well before WWII, and the communist partisans were active before (and contributed to) his end. $\endgroup$ – L.Dutch Jul 13 '18 at 10:51
0
$\begingroup$

First I would not erase Italy expansion in Africa. For a long time it was a continent that was exploited by "the good guys" like France. And without Germany Allies would have little to no problem with Italy making it second leg there as long as it wouldn't clash with USA or England interest.

What would be more important for the existence of such government is close location to communist countries (without WII I assume Tito couldn't get his own country) so the "non-communist" countries of Adriatic would be strongly funded by USA to serve as bases.

$\endgroup$
-2
$\begingroup$

It could be argued that Fascism actually exists into the present day. The Fascist Corporate State was conceived as a mass political movement to harness the economic and industrial power of modern industry into the State, and using mass communications to organize the people and direct them to achieve the goals of the State.

Not only was Fascism adopted in Italy and Spain, but it served as the inspiration for FDR's "New Deal", and was extremely popular among intellectuals in the 1920's and 30's. H.G Wells gave a speech in the United States where he called for the development of a "Liberal Fascism" as a means of solving the problems of the day and of the future.

Many of the prescriptions of the Fascist Corporate State survived the passing of Mussolini and the actual political entity, and an examination of American politics shows that many of the programs of the "New Deal" still exist to this day in the United States (farmers can still be prosecuted for producing too much agricultural produce or selling below mandated prices, for example). Much of the leftist political program in both America and around the world also has many elements common to Fascism, stressing government intervention in the economy and organization of economic activity into government directed groupings. "Obamacare" and its forcing of the heath insurance industry into a cartel like group only able to offer three levels of insurance (and purchase of insurance through government exchanges) is an example of Fascist control of one sector of the economy.

So being "Correctly Political", Fascism still exists to this day.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm curious as to what fact the downvoter thinks is in dispute? $\endgroup$ – Thucydides Aug 15 '18 at 5:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.