AHC: Fascist France

Another avenue to power is through Marshall Petain. In the 30s Marshall Philippe Petain was always careful with his public statements, although he did let slip in an interview during the 1936 elections that he had considerable sympathy for the Croix de feu and their ideals. Petain's popularity was possibly overstated at various times since this interview didn't materially change the electoral result for the Popular Front, but perhaps if Petain decided to actively campaign for these far right movements he might give them more prestige. Marshall Lyautey was also a supporter of this movement, but whereas Petain was more careful and didn't actively assist them Lyautey's support was overt and very public. The other Marshall in this period, DÉsperey, also courted controversy by giving material and moral support to an anti-communist club in the Army whose name escapes me. Petain and a number of high ranking officers were aware of this movement (there were two, one militant and one limited to information sharing). It indicates that many senior officers in the Army were at least sympathetic to such ideas, even though most of them would not actually commit treason and stage a putsch. If they can win through the ballot box then that's different.

These movements were arguably not in the same mould of the German and Italian fascists. Petain, at least in the 30s, seemed to favour some kind of authoritarian republic. He was also at different points in heavy discussions with Pierre Laval who was always plotting some scheme. Laval seems to have wanted Petain to be a mere figurehead, something Petain wasn't keen on and went lukewarm on the proposals (above all he wanted to be called to service, not campaign for it).

Also the Croix de feu successor organisation was part of the French Resistance against German occupation. I'm not sure it's right to say the French far right were more anti-semitic than the Nazi's (is that possible?). Even prominent French anti-semites like Xavier Vallat favoured forced deportation and seperate zones not extermination. He even allowed several Jews to escape during the war because of this belief and was eventually dismissed by the Vichy regime because he didn't go far enough.
 
Last edited:
Propaganda can glorify the parts of him that support the Fascist government, like his massive empire, and cover up the parts of him that do not embody Fascist ideas.

I had though about Napoleon but his prospects as sort of the go-to figure seem a bit off. He is a recent phenomenon, his beliefs and his ideals are well-known to pretty much all Frenchmen. And an Enlightenment figure who rejected republicanism (of which fascism was often an associate) and espoused what were then considered liberal ideas has a lot of potential issues. Joan of Arc is a questionable choice of figures in a patriarchal fascist regime.

Someone on this thresas had the idea of Charlemagne, I think that is ideal. He fought the evil Saxons (read: these would be seen as Germans) and kept Europe safe from the evil Muslims in Spain. He was a medieval king from a time nobody has any connection to. He is malleable, a Frankish king with no conception of modern government of nationalism is someone nobody would object to.

Why not have Fascist Italy as France's second fiddle as it was to German IOTL?

I am sure, like any proper fascist nation, they would change it as the need arises.

Italy is a bit like Britain, it has enough of a history with France that it can be portrayed as our spiritual father or the backyard of great French empires, what it gets would depend on relations between the states.
 
Something that was mentioned in another thread about fascist france was Integralism which could both unite the various factions and serve as a more "natural" ideological background then simply copying italian fascism or national-socialism.
 
Yeah, Vichy France weren't they Fascist? Or are we walking a non-puppet thing?

There are fascist elements to point to. However, arguablly the more facistic a French leader was the less popular support he had. Petain & his fellows were never able to create a large popular organization like the Italian Black Shirts or the German SA, and they drew heavily on the Catholic church, which neither the Italian nor German Facists did.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Why not have Fascist Italy as France's second fiddle as it was to German IOTL?
Well, let's remember that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany didn't always get on. Mussolini threatened war over an Anschluss, after all.

Though I could see some "Latin Front" arising between Paris and Rome.
 
Last edited:
So assuming every thing else in the timeline is OTL then by 1939 we will have a Fascist France, Italy, Spain and Portugal and Nazi Germany
Yikes!:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

Still the UK can take them on and win.:D:D:D:D:cool:
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Really? The guy who got his ass kicked by the Greeks was threating war with Germany? :p
I know, right? That was when Mussolini was in his, "Hey Britain! Hey France! Wanna hang out? We're totally friends, right? Right? Say we're friends. SAY IT." stage.
 
Yeah but Napoleon was the Dictator of the Bougeoisie. He is the embodiment of the Enlightenment and French Revolutionary ideals. All of that is anathema to Fascism, especially in France where it tended to have a Clerical/Legitimist bent.

As was Garibaldi the embodiment of the Masonic, revolutionary Italian enlightenment liberalism the Fascists aimed to destroy, but that didn't make any less a hero to the Fascist regime. All they have to say is "Napoleon would be a Fascist today", and most people would buy it if it's said often enough, with all the intellectuals who contradict it given a twice over by the boys in black. You see, the Fascist's weren't anti-rational reactionaries clinging to old beliefs, they were anti-Rational realists who believed they understood how the world really worked. The picture that is painted of Liberalism in the Doctrine of Fascism is not of something anathema, but of something unnecessary. Mussolini looked at history of Germany and Italy and said that national unification had not been achieved by Liberal activism but rather gained as a result of strong military leadership. This view of the world is drawn in part from Nietzsche, the arch anti-Liberal, who said the French Revolution was justified because it gave Europe Napoleon, a prototype of the Overman. Thus, great leaders aren't disqualified from the Fascist hall of fame greatness by the fact they may have been Liberals or pious Christians, because at the end of the day Fascists believe only in strength and struggle. They were fully aware Fascism didn't exist before the 20th century, and they didn't care.

Even Mosley, whose family had strong Cavalier heritage, put out in a good word for Cromwell's perceived anti-parliamentarianism.
 
Really? The guy who got his ass kicked by the Greeks was threating war with Germany? :p

A war in 1938 with Italy would actually not be entirely a guaranteed win for Germany. And really, if Italy gains any kind of momentum, the likelihood that the Anglo-French sphere will be drawn into the conflict as well becomes almost inevitable.

A war in 1934 over the failed Austrian Putsch would have been a guaranteed military disaster for Germany.
 
A war in 1938 with Italy would actually not be entirely a guaranteed win for Germany. And really, if Italy gains any kind of momentum, the likelihood that the Anglo-French sphere will be drawn into the conflict as well becomes almost inevitable.

A war in 1934 over the failed Austrian Putsch would have been a guaranteed military disaster for Germany.

There's also the issue of Hitler's motivation, by which I mean the lack thereof. A defeatist Hitler may be even more damaging than a unrealistically optimistic Hitler.
 
Well, let's remember that Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany didn't always get on. Mussolini threatened war over an Anschluss, after all.

Though I could see some "Latin Front" arising between Paris and Rome.

A Franco-Italian alliance would make sense to me, especially if Fascist France happened at some point prior to the Anschluss. A Fascist France would already see Germany as THE enemy so getting Fascist Italy on their side would make sense, they could easily justify it with some BS about the Nazis being an aberration, revanche, closet socialists, whatever works it's fascism so they can just make shit up!

Another possibility would be a kind of grudging unity between France, Germany, and Italy in opposition to Communism in Europe but with a lot of internal bickering and strife. I could see the members of the Pact of Steel trying to one-up the other, take them down a peg internationally, or do whatever else they could to keep the other guys down. It might even escalate to some border conflicts between the two a la the Sino-Soviet split.

Either way Britain's best plan in that situation is to retreat behind the Royal Navy and splendid isolation unless of course the French stab in the back myth has anything to say about, "perfidious Albion" or anything to that effect. Then things could get REALLY messy really fast. The Soviets, for their part, would probably respond to the fall of France to fascism with alarm and panic and start hunkering down for war. Depending on when things all come together it could have lots of interesting effects on the Soviet Union, Soviet foreign policy, and Stalin's regime when fascism is marching across Europe. No idea how Roosevelt would react, if Britain is able to stay out of the war I could see the US adopting a hemispheric defense posture and let Europe descend into madness unless of course the Pact of Steel decides to include Japan in the party.
 

Cook

Banned
, and they drew heavily on the Catholic church, which neither the Italian nor German Facists did.
The Italian Fascists did, as did the Spanish and Austrian fascist regimes, while the Iron Guard in Romania heavily promoted the Orthodox Church and Metaxas’s Fourth of August regime drew heavily on the Greek Orthodox. The Nazis seem to have been unique in their anti-religious atheism (or neo-Germanic paganism).

 
The Nazis seem to have been unique in their anti-religious atheism (or neo-Germanic paganism).


The Nazis were more than anything else opportunists when it came to the topic of religion. On one hand you had Heinrich Himmler and his crazier than shithouse rat pet guru Karla Willigut who preached some strange monotheistic creation of his called Irminism, on the other you had Positive Christianity which was, in a nutshell, Christianity stripped clean of Semitic influence (that sound is your brain screaming in rage at the logical and factual fail involved in that notion), to the Reichsconcordat negotiated between Hitler and the Catholic Church and Hitler's efforts to create the public image of being a churchgoing Catholic. The party didn't seem to have a solid consensus on the subject and Hitler doesn't seem to have been as worried about that as he was in destroying the USSR; just like a lot of his decisions during his rise to power Hitler's stance on religion was one largely shaped by what was most beneficial to the Nazi Party.

Taking that into consideration I'd give equal odds of the French fascists being ultra-Catholic out of genuine sentiment or opportunism. The Church in France has always been a powerful conservative institution; getting their support and that of their congregations would be huge for any fascist movement seeking power in France.
 
Perhaps if France became a fascist state a little earlier we might see a renaissance of the Anglo Japanese alliance (see where I'm going?) so maybe in the event of the Iron Alliance falling into war with Britain, Japan takes its chance and attacks French IndoChina.... no need for Pearl Harbour here.
 
Top