What happens in a world without Nazism but with Fascism?

[The Ranger]

POD-In 1917 Corporal Adolf Hitler takes a wrong turn in the German trenches whilst delivering a message from the German HQ and gets shot and killed by a sniper from the trenches opposite, and ends up as just another forgotten name on a German war grave. Without him, Anton Drexler still forms the Nazis, but without Hitler, at best ( best from a Nazi POV that is) they get two or three German MPs, at worst, (best from our POV) they fizzle out and disband in the late 1920s. Certainly they don't get to take power. Mussolini, however, survives WW1, forms the Fascist Party and takes power like in OTL but without Hitler pressuring him, refrains from passing anti-Semitic laws (historically, he only went anti-Semitic under pressure from Adolf Hitler from about 1937 onwards.) Obviously many Fascists would range from anti-Semitic to very anti-Semitic still, but not necessarily all of them in the way that all Nazis hated Jewish people.

Countries like Austria that went Fascist would still go Fascist in this timeline but what about Germany?

Would it

-stay democratic?
-go authoritarian but not Nazi or Fascist?
-go Fascist?
-Go Communist instead?

And would there be a WW2 in this timeline, and if there was, who would be the opposing sides and how long would it last? Would there still be a Holocaust in this timeline?
Historically, apart from Italian special forces like the frogmen who sunk at least one British battleship with limpet mines in WW2, and one or two well trained and armed Alpine Divisions, most of Mussolini's armed forces were rubbish, able only to take over Albania and Ethiopia on their own (in the latter case using poison gas.)

 

[Lalli]

Without Hitler German far-right wing would be pretty much in chaos and probably very divided. Germany probably will remain authotarian nation altough with some democracy. It is too possible that monarchy is restored in 1930's but it is not completely certain.

At least Germany is not going to start WW2. And no one else either. Forgot Stalin. He wasn't stupid man.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Would it

-stay democratic?
-go authoritarian but not Nazi or Fascist?
-go Fascist?
-Go Communist instead?

And would there be a WW2 in this timeline, and if there was, who would be the opposing sides and how long would it last? Would there still be a Holocaust in this timeline?
Historically, apart from Italian special forces like the frogmen who sunk at least one British battleship with limpet mines in WW2, and one or two well trained and armed Alpine Divisions, most of Mussolini's armed forces were rubbish, able only to take over Albania and Ethiopia on their own (in the latter case using poison gas.)

It's very difficult to predict, the communists without the Nazis would probably be the n.1 party in Germany but them coming to government is unlikely IMO.
If Weimar Germany remains then there will be a confused succession of governments just as before Hitler up until a government manages to put the economy back on the right track, it will take a while but in this scenario there is no WW2 nor major fascist movements.
The consequences of WW2 are:
No decolonization anytime soon and some colonies would last up until today.
Japan and China are still at war and that would last a while.
The USSR would be an international pariah
Etc.


If they go fascist then Germany is unlikely to do the same things as OTL since only a guy like Hitler would bluff every single time, I'm pretty sure there was a threat discussing that on this forum. Anyways Germany would take an anti-Versailles path but they won't try to annex Austria or Czechoslovakia or cause WW2 anytime soon.

Another authoritarian government is kind of a vague concept, I guess the military could end up couping the government if they feared the communists would take power, it would be similar to the fascists just less racist IMO.

Communist is certainly trough a civil war since reactionary snd anti-communist elements wouldn't allow that and I doubt they would be able to win.

 

[Don Corleone]

Fascism would be viewed less negatively. It's dickish but not genocidal, and they wouldn't be the enemy with no WW2.

Delayed civil rights in the US. That's a bad thing.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Delayed civil rights in the US. That's a bad thing.

I would be more worried about the fact that there is no de-colonization.

 

[Thon Taddeo]

I would be more worried about the fact that there is no de-colonization.

I think some sort of decolonization is probably going to happen. Most colonies were money pits and would be eventually let go, albeit later than in OTL. However, some of the smaller or more profitable ones might be kept. For example, Britain might keep colonies like Malta or Singapore.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I think some sort of decolonization is probably going to happen. Most colonies were money pits and would be eventually let go, albeit later than in OTL. However, some of the smaller or more profitable ones might be kept. For example, Britain might keep colonies like Malta or Singapore.

Without WW2 people wouldn't find the need to stop having colonies, they had been unprofitable for a while so I don’t see the colonial powers giving up on them especially smaller colonial powers such as Italy, the Netherlands...

 

[Sekhmet_D]

Fascism would be viewed less negatively. It's dickish but not genocidal, and they wouldn't be the enemy with no WW2.

Instead of WW2, I think we are still likely to get 'The Great Pacific War' with Japan as bad guy. Would their atrocity-ridden conduct be enough for fascism to be viewed as more than just 'dickish'?

 

[Jürgen]

Removing Hitler leaves a vacuum and raise the question what fills that up? There will still be right wing thugs fighting the communist thugs in the streets.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Instead of WW2, I think we are still likely to get 'The Great Pacific War' with Japan as bad guy. Would their atrocity-ridden conduct be enough for fascism to be viewed as more than just 'dickish'?

Japan got embargoed once it invaded Indochina, meaning we probably won't have a US vs Japan for the moment (unless FDR decides to embargo them anyways)as the Japanese did everything they did OTL just to continue their war in China.
Also Japan isn't officially fascist and being racist against non-whites and Jews and anti-communist was a normal thing up until WW2.

 

[Wolf1965]

In the absence of Hitler I would see the DNVP German National People's Party as a possible replacement as it was fishing in the same voter's pool. From 1928 they were supported by Hugenberg, the Murdoch of his time in Germany.
And while it was nationalist and "völkisch" i.e racist it would probably not go down the same level of madness the NSDAP did.
The question is where do some of the other players of the NSDAP end up, like Goebbels.

And yes, the world would look very, very differently if that had happened.

 

[Don Corleone]

Instead of WW2, I think we are still likely to get 'The Great Pacific War' with Japan as bad guy. Would their atrocity-ridden conduct be enough for fascism to be viewed as more than just 'dickish'?

Their system might technically fit the OTL definition but they didn't have a Fascist party.

 

[THE KINGFISH]

Fascism would be viewed less negatively. It's dickish but not genocidal, and they wouldn't be the enemy with no WW2.

Delayed civil rights in the US. That's a bad thing.

But then again, suburbia car culture would also be delayed without World War II and no Cold War would mean no proxy meddling in Central America - thus little chances of a crack epidemic.

So when Black America finally does get civil rights ITTL, they wouldn't be screwed over by everyone with money fleeing to the suburbs and thus the cities becoming devastated as a result, while the lack of a crack epidemic or a War on Drugs would make it so the Black middle class is stronger and wealthier than OTL.

Not to mention television played a major role in the Civil Rights Movement since White America could no longer just ignore blatant injustice if it's shown on television. And yet television was delayed due to World War II.

Social mores would be behind OTL, but they wouldn't be frozen at 1938 levels because some Austrian guy got shot in a trench in 1917.

I would be more worried about the fact that there is no de-colonization.

Yes, there would still be colonies owned by European countries - but many of these would actually be smaller, nimbler ones like Cyprus or the Comoros or ones with prominent European populations like French Algeria or Italian Libya. I would reason that large, prominent colonies like India or the Congo (Léopoldville/Kinshasa) would be independent countries by the year 2000.

That said, a stronger Europe means that they could continue their influence in post-colonial Africa via a neocolonial system similar to France's influence in West and Central Africa.

 

[Don Corleone]

Social mores would be behind OTL, but they wouldn't be frozen at 1938 levels because some Austrian guy got shot in a trench in 1917.

I like the optimistic view.

I don't see us stuck in 1938, but progress is slower than OTL.

The other concern is that horrible ideologies like eugenics and scientific racism aren't discredited as quickly without Hitler. Hopefully the world doesn't end up with a !Hitler 20 years later, with better tech so he can operate more efficiently.

 

[Histor32]

It's very difficult to predict, the communists without the Nazis would probably be the n.1 party in Germany but them coming to government is unlikely IMO.
If Weimar Germany remains then there will be a confused succession of governments just as before Hitler up until a government manages to put the economy back on the right track, it will take a while but in this scenario there is no WW2 nor major fascist movements.
The consequences of WW2 are:
No decolonization anytime soon and some colonies would last up until today.
Japan and China are still at war and that would last a while.
The USSR would be an international pariah
Etc.


If they go fascist then Germany is unlikely to do the same things as OTL since only a guy like Hitler would bluff every single time, I'm pretty sure there was a threat discussing that on this forum. Anyways Germany would take an anti-Versailles path but they won't try to annex Austria or Czechoslovakia or cause WW2 anytime soon.

Another authoritarian government is kind of a vague concept, I guess the military could end up couping the government if they feared the communists would take power, it would be similar to the fascists just less racist IMO.

Communist is certainly trough a civil war since reactionary snd anti-communist elements wouldn't allow that and I doubt they would be able to win.

Depending on factors of course I could see Germany and Austria merging into one nation. Potential restoration of the monarchy in a qusi constitutional manner.

If this Germany is not as hell bent on revanchism and plunging Europe into war, then some sort of peace is made with Poland and France who were both quasi fascist in their own way. Communism is the real enemy of the day so maybe that unites the disparate nations into mutual defence against the soviets.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Yes, there would still be colonies owned by European countries - but many of these would actually be smaller, nimbler ones like Cyprus or the Comoros or ones with prominent European populations like French Algeria or Italian Libya. I would reason that large, prominent colonies like India or the Congo (Léopoldville/Kinshasa) would be independent countries by the year 2000.

That said, a stronger Europe means that they could continue their influence in post-colonial Africa via a neocolonial system similar to France's influence in West and Central Africa

Other colonial powers than France and GB are unlikely to be able to hold that much influence they would have a little bit but they can't organize coups and send troops in the same way France does.
Anyways I think France is not unlikely to keep all of their colonies, Fascist Italy would certainly keep them all, just as Portugal and Spain if their regimes survive.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Depending on factors of course I could see Germany and Austria merging into one nation.

Unlikely IMO, nobody except Hitler would be willing to gamble everything to destroy Versailles meaning that re-militarization of the Rhineland and the annexation of Austria would be made over a longer period of time and that WW2 is unlikely to happen.

 

[tus3]

I think some sort of decolonization is probably going to happen.

The independence of India was already inevitable before WWII happened.
I'm pretty sure that India will be followed by the other British colonies. As you'd still have the children of native elite going to universities in Britain where they are told how great democracy and freedom is and so on. Then television is invented and everybody can see the police beating up peaceful protestors on the other side of the ocean live on his own living room; explain such a thing to your own children...
Then the colonies of the other empires will follow; they already have their examples.

Fascist Italy would certainly keep them all, just as Portugal and Spain if their regimes survive.

You do realise that trying to keep their colonies by force was what caused the Portuguese dictatorship to fall in the first place?

 

[Histor32]

Unlikely IMO, nobody except Hitler would be willing to gamble everything to destroy Versailles meaning that re-militarization of the Rhineland and the annexation of Austria would be made over a longer period of time and that WW2 is unlikely to happen.

If you have a fascist Germany not bent on wars of conquest then why not?

Austria was more than willing to join Germany. Austrians looked as themselves as German .. ost dutchen ...yes, but German. Since the end of WW1 Austria lost its empire and was but a shell of itself. Many and most austrians including the political elite were advocating for German unification. Again, say it's a Germany that excepts Poland, potentially finds some form of peace with France that is mutually digestible...

Everyone was willing to look the other way on the treaty if there was advantages.

Again, depending on circumstances, why not. France is busy being imperialis, Poland is all in on nationalism, Hungarians want greater Hungary back. It's not a far stretch to see everyone getting a bit of what they want and keeping the one thing that scared them all at bay, communism.

 

[Samsonov]

I know Stalin wants to avoid conflict with the capitalist powers but does there reach a point in the late 40s or early 50s where he is ready to spread communism militarily? What is his end goal if there are no other militarily significant nations on the continent except France who is very far away?