Fascism's emphasis on nationalism, militarism and the cult of the leader seem to me aspects that could easily make the ideology popular among third-world dictators. Fascism's conception of a national rebirth or recapturing past glories could make the ideology popular among the nationalist intelligentsia in the colonized areas. Indeed, some national libration movements in OTL seem close to fascism. Consider Pol Pot's murderous racism or his exaltation of the glories of Angkor and the necessity of retaking the Mekong from Vietnam. Or consider the cult of the Kim family in Korea, and North Korean rhetoric about "racial purity" and the superiority of the Korean people over other races.

So, in a timeline in which America and Britain are locked in a Cold War with Nazi Germany (like the AANW, except without the St. Patrick's Raids), could the Germans find strongmen and "national liberation" movements to support? Seeing how Germany fought America and Britian to a standstill, and with communism dead, could fascism become popular among anti-colonial movements?
 
could the Germans find strongmen and "national liberation" movements to support?
Yes
could fascism become popular among anti-colonial movements?
Depends on the age of the Anti-Colonial movements, Newer ones are the easiest for fascism to become the dominant or solo ideology . If the Germans end up backing older anti-colonial movement it is likely they will adopt some elements of fascism.
 
If Germany is willing to supply anti-colonial rebels, then they'll have no problem slipping into the role that the Soviet Union occupied in OTL, at least in some capacity. This arming will naturally include some ideological training, although almost certainly not on the same level as what opened historically with Communist rebels. There's also going to be a narrower range of rebels and strongmen that a victorious Reich can supply. For example, they're not going to give money and support to a militant ANC, as they're friendly with the Apartheid government, ditto with Rhodesia and the Portuguese colonies. But former British colonies and countries in the Middle East are totally fair game.
 
I would argue that some anti-colonial movements were kinda fascist anyway - Ba'athism is one example but many others were authoritarian, fiercely nationalist and kind of xenophobic.

Now people like Paxton think you need fascism to involve uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, otherwise it isn't fascism - it's something else. That said, Paxton argued fascism can be reduced to a style of governance marked by a fear of decline and threat, whereby the group must unify and purify itself (forcibly if necessary) and engage in violence to assert the groups' rightful place. That can easily fit with various types of nationalism.

I would argue that quasi-fascist or para-fascist movements could become popular amongst national liberation movements, yes. They might still be competing with different types of communism (which would still have adherents even without the USSR) but they could be around. And I imagine the Nazis wouldn't have an issue with supplying weapons to movements in colonies or pro-Allied nations that wanted to overthrow the current regime.
 

thaddeus

Donor
So, in a timeline in which America and Britain are locked in a Cold War with Nazi Germany (like the AANW, except without the St. Patrick's Raids), could the Germans find strongmen and "national liberation" movements to support? Seeing how Germany fought America and Britian to a standstill, and with communism dead, could fascism become popular among anti-colonial movements?

the obvious problem is that Nazi regime is allied or aligned with Fascist Italy, Spain, and to certain extent (more if they were winning) Portugal who all had colonial empires?

do think they could have gained quite an advantage among Arab Nationalists, assuming Italy remained neutral, and would have had no qualms supporting them.
 
the obvious problem is that Nazi regime is allied or aligned with Fascist Italy, Spain, and to certain extent (more if they were winning) Portugal who all had colonial empires?
If your doing an AANW type like in the OP. Italy doesn't have it's colonies. Spain and Portugal's colonial empire won't effect relations with any Black Nations that aren't Socialist or left-wing.
 
Paxton argued fascism can be reduced to a style of governance marked by a fear of decline and threat, whereby the group must unify and purify itself (forcibly if necessary) and engage in violence to assert the groups' rightful place.
If your using that definition, Everything from the Soviet Union to Pinochet's Chile to Ataturk are fascist.
 
"The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world-materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis. For the rest, since these peoples possessed qualities of their own which were superior to anything we could offer them, they have remained essentially unchanged. Where imposition by force was attempted, the results were even more disastrous, and common sense, realizing the futility of such measures, should preclude any recourse to their introduction. One solitary success must be conceded to the colonizers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred, a hatred that urges these peoples, awakened from their slumbers by us, to rise and drive us out. Indeed, it looks almost as though they had awakened solely and simply for that purpose! Can anyone assert that colonization has increased the number of Christians in the world? Where are those conversions en masse which mark the success of Islam? Here and there one finds isolated islets of Christians, Christians in name, that is, rather than by conviction; and that is the sum total of the successes of this magnificent Christian religion, the guardian of supreme Truth! Taking everything into consideration, Europe's policy of colonization has ended in a complete failure."

"Never, at any price, should we have put our money on France and against the peoples subjected to her yoke. On the contrary, we should have helped them to achieve their liberty and, if necessary, should have goaded them into doing so. There was nothing to stop us in 1940 from making a gesture of this sort in the Near East and in North Africa. In actual fact our diplomats instead set about the task of consolidating French power, not only in Syria, but in Tunis, in Algeria and Morocco as well. Our 'gentlemen' obviously preferred to maintain cordial relations with distinguished Frenchmen, rather than with a lot of hirsute revolutionaries, with a chorus of musical comedy officers, whose one idea was to cheat us, rather than with the Arabs, who would have been loyal partners for us."

"Our Italian ally has been a source of embarrassment to us everywhere. It was this alliance, for instance, which prevented us from pursuing a revolutionary policy in North Africa. In the nature of things, this territory was becoming an Italian preserve and it was as such that the Duce laid claim to it. Had we been on our own, we could have emancipated the Moslem countries dominated by France; and that would have had enormous repercussions in the Near East, dominated by Britain, and in Egypt. But with our fortunes linked to those of the Italians, the pursuit of such a policy was not possible. All Islam vibrated at the news of our victories. The Egyptians, the Irakis and the whole of the Near East were all ready to rise in revolt. Just think what we could have done to help them, even to incite them, as would have been both our duty and in our own interest! But the presence of the Italians at our side paralysed us; it created a feeling of malaise among our Islamic friends, who inevitably saw in us accomplices, willing or unwilling, of their oppressors. For the Italians in these parts of the world are more bitterly hated, of course, than either the British or the French. The memories of the barbarous, reprisals taken against the Senussi are still vivid. Then again the ridiculous pretensions of the Duce to be regarded as The Sword of Islam evokes the same sneering chuckle now as it did before the war. This title, which is fitting for Mahomed and a great conqueror like Omar, Mussolini caused to be conferred on himself by a few wretched brutes whom he had either bribed or terrorized into doing so. We had a great chance of pursuing a splendid policy with regard to Islam. But we missed the bus, as we missed it on several other occasions, thanks to our loyalty to the Italian alliance! In this theatre of operations, then, the Italians prevented us from playing our best card, the emancipation of the French subjects and the raising of the standard of revolt in the countries oppressed by the British. Such a policy would have aroused the enthusiasm of the whole of Islam. It is a characteristic of the Moslem world, from the shores of the Atlantic to those of the Pacific, that what affects one, for good or for evil, affects all."

All of the above are quotations by Adolf Hitler, albeit in February of 1945 when the end was quite clearly coming. In the event of a successful Nazi victory early in the war, it's hard to say where Hitler would've fallen on the matter as his interactions with Petain and Mussolini during the war show.
 
If your using that definition, Everything from the Soviet Union to Pinochet's Chile to Ataturk are fascist.

As I recall, Paxton also says that fascism needs to have some of the populist politics and revolutionary excitement that were commonly associated with Communism, which is why he excludes people like Salazar and Petain(conservative traditionalists who held their own nations' fascist parties in disdain) from the label.
 

thaddeus

Donor
the obvious problem is that Nazi regime is allied or aligned with Fascist Italy, Spain, and to certain extent (more if they were winning) Portugal who all had colonial empires?

do think they could have gained quite an advantage among Arab Nationalists, assuming Italy remained neutral, and would have had no qualms supporting them.

"Never, at any price, should we have put our money on France and against the peoples subjected to her yoke. On the contrary, we should have helped them to achieve their liberty and, if necessary, should have goaded them into doing so. There was nothing to stop us in 1940 from making a gesture of this sort in the Near East and in North Africa. In actual fact our diplomats instead set about the task of consolidating French power, not only in Syria, but in Tunis, in Algeria and Morocco as well."

"Our Italian ally has been a source of embarrassment to us everywhere. It was this alliance, for instance, which prevented us from pursuing a revolutionary policy in North Africa. Had we been on our own, we could have emancipated the Moslem countries dominated by France; and that would have had enormous repercussions in the Near East, dominated by Britain, and in Egypt. But with our fortunes linked to those of the Italians, the pursuit of such a policy was not possible."

All of the above are quotations by Adolf Hitler, albeit in February of 1945 when the end was quite clearly coming. In the event of a successful Nazi victory early in the war, it's hard to say where Hitler would've fallen on the matter as his interactions with Petain and Mussolini during the war show.

it is difficult to forecast what would happen across North Africa and Middle East if Nazi regime had pursued a revolutionary policy rather than ally with Italy and collaborate with Vichy France?

it might have the effect of driving Italy into neutral camp immediately, and a much earlier switch to Allied side for little gain as the various revolutions have same fate as Iraqi revolt in 1941? (worst case)

or perhaps they could have emancipated Syria (as it was League of Nations mandate anyway, not technically a French colony) and used it as a base (to agitate against British territories and airfields to strike USSR)
 
I’d expect a democratic Germany to become the best friend of the colonized people, even a better potential pusher for decolonization than the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was in fact a colonial power in all but name, while Weimar Germany had no colonies.

But just read Mein Kampf. I’d say Hitler’s laughable racial prejudice towards Russians, Indians, blacks, Chinese and even Japanese prevented a lot of meaningful cooperations.
 
Perhaps an alliance with Iran under resa senior against ibn saud, and Faisal, could happen,
The grand mufti said that Germany as protector of dar Islam could have conquered the world.
 
Any economic policies ?

Again, going by a long-ago reading, I think Paxton regards fascist economics as populist, aimed at alleviating some of the harsher aspects of capitalism, but still stopping far short of genuine socialism. Basically, fascists say to the bourgeoisie "Okay, we're gonna throw some of your money to the mob, and regulate your businesses a bit more, and if you don't like it, just be glad we're not the commies."
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
Perhaps an alliance with Iran under resa senior against ibn saud, and Faisal, could happen,
The grand mufti said that Germany as protector of dar Islam could have conquered the world.
The Soviets and British invaded Iran the moment they felt that Reza was leaning pro-Axis.
 
"The white races did, of course, give some things to the natives, and they were the worst gifts that they could possibly have made, those plagues of our own modern world-materialism, fanaticism, alcoholism and syphilis. For the rest, since these peoples possessed qualities of their own which were superior to anything we could offer them, they have remained essentially unchanged. Where imposition by force was attempted, the results were even more disastrous, and common sense, realizing the futility of such measures, should preclude any recourse to their introduction. One solitary success must be conceded to the colonizers: everywhere they have succeeded in arousing hatred, a hatred that urges these peoples, awakened from their slumbers by us, to rise and drive us out. Indeed, it looks almost as though they had awakened solely and simply for that purpose! Can anyone assert that colonization has increased the number of Christians in the world? Where are those conversions en masse which mark the success of Islam? Here and there one finds isolated islets of Christians, Christians in name, that is, rather than by conviction; and that is the sum total of the successes of this magnificent Christian religion, the guardian of supreme Truth! Taking everything into consideration, Europe's policy of colonization has ended in a complete failure."

"Never, at any price, should we have put our money on France and against the peoples subjected to her yoke. On the contrary, we should have helped them to achieve their liberty and, if necessary, should have goaded them into doing so. There was nothing to stop us in 1940 from making a gesture of this sort in the Near East and in North Africa. In actual fact our diplomats instead set about the task of consolidating French power, not only in Syria, but in Tunis, in Algeria and Morocco as well. Our 'gentlemen' obviously preferred to maintain cordial relations with distinguished Frenchmen, rather than with a lot of hirsute revolutionaries, with a chorus of musical comedy officers, whose one idea was to cheat us, rather than with the Arabs, who would have been loyal partners for us."

"Our Italian ally has been a source of embarrassment to us everywhere. It was this alliance, for instance, which prevented us from pursuing a revolutionary policy in North Africa. In the nature of things, this territory was becoming an Italian preserve and it was as such that the Duce laid claim to it. Had we been on our own, we could have emancipated the Moslem countries dominated by France; and that would have had enormous repercussions in the Near East, dominated by Britain, and in Egypt. But with our fortunes linked to those of the Italians, the pursuit of such a policy was not possible. All Islam vibrated at the news of our victories. The Egyptians, the Irakis and the whole of the Near East were all ready to rise in revolt. Just think what we could have done to help them, even to incite them, as would have been both our duty and in our own interest! But the presence of the Italians at our side paralysed us; it created a feeling of malaise among our Islamic friends, who inevitably saw in us accomplices, willing or unwilling, of their oppressors. For the Italians in these parts of the world are more bitterly hated, of course, than either the British or the French. The memories of the barbarous, reprisals taken against the Senussi are still vivid. Then again the ridiculous pretensions of the Duce to be regarded as The Sword of Islam evokes the same sneering chuckle now as it did before the war. This title, which is fitting for Mahomed and a great conqueror like Omar, Mussolini caused to be conferred on himself by a few wretched brutes whom he had either bribed or terrorized into doing so. We had a great chance of pursuing a splendid policy with regard to Islam. But we missed the bus, as we missed it on several other occasions, thanks to our loyalty to the Italian alliance! In this theatre of operations, then, the Italians prevented us from playing our best card, the emancipation of the French subjects and the raising of the standard of revolt in the countries oppressed by the British. Such a policy would have aroused the enthusiasm of the whole of Islam. It is a characteristic of the Moslem world, from the shores of the Atlantic to those of the Pacific, that what affects one, for good or for evil, affects all."

All of the above are quotations by Adolf Hitler, albeit in February of 1945 when the end was quite clearly coming. In the event of a successful Nazi victory early in the war, it's hard to say where Hitler would've fallen on the matter as his interactions with Petain and Mussolini during the war show.
This quotation certainly represents an interesting shift in Hitler's views, assuming it's authentic. In earlier years he had referred to the Arabs as "lacquered half-apes anxious to experience the lash" and in 'Mein Kampf' he disparaged the very idea that Germany might rely on an uprising of colonized peoples in order to achieve its ends, comparing it to depending on "a coalition of cripples."
 
Top