I also don't think Fascist France would somehow turn against England, they are very staunch allies at this point with minimal conflicting interest. France would not support Franco for Gibraltar, France has nothing to win from a conflict like that (but they could lose their navy and their colonies). However, Mosley might get some traction if Fascists gain power in France.
Fascists takes power in France in 1934
- Thread starter Supreme
- Start date
If Maurras and the Action Française end up in some nationalist front with groups like the Croix de Feu in a manner similar to the Spanish Civil War (right-left polarization and destabilization, contested election, sporadic violence spiraling into civil war) then I could see it. Action Française was not shy in forming links with movements on the more fascist end of the spectrum, and even a form of republican fascism could maybe reconcile itself with royalism if politically necessary (Mussolini for example).
France is going to break out in a general civil war if the small group of fascists in France in the 1930s tried to take power. The communists with its 300,000 members is not going to let the less than 100k member fascists take over without a say.
This reminds of what Hitler was supposed to have said, though I don’t recall a quote. Something about ‘why she’d we set up French Fascists to revive France when I can have Petain and Laval do anything I say?” Yah, i can see French Fascists being in support of keeping the Rhineland demilitarized and will push for it. The big question is American financial support and loans and if the Germans use this to claim further victimization, all the while their junker and rightist lead government does little better.
I agree with others that a fascist France properly means at least a brief civil war (although in a scenario where a bit like fascism in Germany they'd already made an agreement with the more reactionary and conservative elements so had a decent chunk of support of the military it might be quite a brief one), I also suspect during that Civil War you'd see Germany push back a bit on its post ww1 restrictions (Britain is not going to shoulder the burden alone the British won't work with the Soviets, the US is in isolation, Francis on fire)
Longer term fascist France and fascist Italy do seem like very much natural allies, while France and the Soviet Union while they are ideallogically completely opposed actually have an awful lot of mutual interests, and not much in the way of areas of competition.
France would want to stay broadly on Britain's good side (lack of competing interests and also the British Navy could make their lives hell), so if the Spanish Civil War happened I'd see some tacit support Franco but not too much unless he could be convinced to acknowledge British claims on Gibraltar in which case I could possibly see more active French support while offering that as a bribe to the British to turn a blind eye (I don't think this would actually work I suspect Franco would say no).
Longer term I expect this goes very bad for Germany, with an eventual Franco German war (likely triggered by Germany having crossed one of the post ww1 lines but with this being used by the French 80% as an excuse), with a French Italian and miscellaneous European allies group (UK likely staying out/just about friendly neutrality towards the French, beyond possibly enforcing the blockade to stop any German ships entering the channel as the brits increasingly find the French regime a bit hard to deal with), with a co-belligerence, or ally of convenience with the Soviets to carve up Germany (as in the way but it either ends up allowing Soviet forces through due to being a French ally or possibly gets effectively sold to the Soviets given fascism is generally fairly happy to sell out its allies for the bigger prize). France seems pretty likely to win this war given how isolated Germany would be (and this time not having the element of surprise for blitzkrieg), so you end up with a fascist France up to its 'natural borders' (minus Belgium to avoid antagonising Britain ) with a very active and brutal attempt at making those areas culturally unlikely ethnically French, Italy getting a degree of free rein in Austria/its own Mediterranean sphere of influence, and the Soviets carving out a client regime (possibly Prussia? In the East) with depending on how exactly the dice fall for who occupies what Germany carved into easily controllable and hideously exploited puppet states by the different parties.
After that I suspect it depends how effective the fascist French military is, longer term it seems likley a European fascist power is going to come to blows with the Soviets (and their behaviour domestically will make both the British and the Americans less comfortable with dealing with them), but each side are close enough matched its possible you see development of nuclear weapons before then likely by either the British/Commonwealth and/or the Americans, leading to some sort of MAD being possible.
Longer term if you did get a stable fascist French regime (no catastrophic Franco Soviet war), I think they've got better odds of surviving long term then Nazi Germany, the areas they want to expand into a likely a lot smaller so any brutal attempts in say formerly western Germany to francoize the population feel more practical (if potentially just as horrific) as the Nazi plans in the East. They would likely be extremely anti-decolonisation so probably see a situation a bit like Portugal where they spend a fortune on trying to maintain control over their colonies and it steadily becomes a bleeding wound of both resources and young men (and the French did not exactly have a high birthrate going in), so it's eventual fate would probably either be slow in forced liberalisation due to the state losing its ability to maintain one of its coercive elements due to not being able to afford to keep up colonial oppression (especially given both the USA and I suspect the Soviets, and possibly even the British, would be providing arms and generally causing hell in the colonies) but with fairly good odds that they keep their new continental holdings and the resulting democracy still sees its fascist period as legitimate government (and likely with the major right-wing political party a actual descendant of the fascist one), or possibly it manages to hold onto a moderated form of fascism in the long term but ends up as a military with a country (somewhat ironically) much poorer then its peers or for that matter france OTL where most of the economy is dedicated to keeping hold of its empire, a wide range of huge human rights abuses happen within its empire, but it's big enough to scare away any peers and by this point likely has its own nuclear arsenal, so a regional power and a bit of an international pariah.
This of course assumes it stays reasonably stable just as likely you'd see either a catastrophic war with the Soviets (which I suspect they lose one way or the other either due to the Soviets based on the field or it making the French get badly overextended), or jingoism going a step too far and then pushing into Belgium leading to Britain and likely the US getting involved in which case you see pretty much the rest of the world V France and eventually they get worn down and occupied,
Other random thoughts on monarchy I'd say 50-50 chance to bring a monarch back but there are likely to have that much power, although could see a situation where the King ended up with more authority if as I suspect you see that steady erosion of legitimacy from the colonies in which case you could either have something lower happened with Spain where the monarchy is a big proponent of ending fascism, alternatively a chance for reactionaries to effectively seize power and see a monarchy with more teeth (in that case presumably focusing on France for the French and cutting off the colonies as a waste of resources so using reactionary logic to permit withdrawing from the ruinous colonial wars)
One area I don't think it's a much tension is between Britain on it's actual empire. Germany is unquestionably the first target practically and ideologicaly, and by the time that's done the French have the Soviets very close to them and likely increasingly dealing with rather unpleasant colonial wars the plate is just too full for them to actively pick a fight with Britain, and a Britain without the Second World War and with likely still excellent relations with the USA, is probably reasonably likely to outcompete them economically and certainly internationally politically in the long term anyway.
Longer term fascist France and fascist Italy do seem like very much natural allies, while France and the Soviet Union while they are ideallogically completely opposed actually have an awful lot of mutual interests, and not much in the way of areas of competition.
France would want to stay broadly on Britain's good side (lack of competing interests and also the British Navy could make their lives hell), so if the Spanish Civil War happened I'd see some tacit support Franco but not too much unless he could be convinced to acknowledge British claims on Gibraltar in which case I could possibly see more active French support while offering that as a bribe to the British to turn a blind eye (I don't think this would actually work I suspect Franco would say no).
Longer term I expect this goes very bad for Germany, with an eventual Franco German war (likely triggered by Germany having crossed one of the post ww1 lines but with this being used by the French 80% as an excuse), with a French Italian and miscellaneous European allies group (UK likely staying out/just about friendly neutrality towards the French, beyond possibly enforcing the blockade to stop any German ships entering the channel as the brits increasingly find the French regime a bit hard to deal with), with a co-belligerence, or ally of convenience with the Soviets to carve up Germany (as in the way but it either ends up allowing Soviet forces through due to being a French ally or possibly gets effectively sold to the Soviets given fascism is generally fairly happy to sell out its allies for the bigger prize). France seems pretty likely to win this war given how isolated Germany would be (and this time not having the element of surprise for blitzkrieg), so you end up with a fascist France up to its 'natural borders' (minus Belgium to avoid antagonising Britain ) with a very active and brutal attempt at making those areas culturally unlikely ethnically French, Italy getting a degree of free rein in Austria/its own Mediterranean sphere of influence, and the Soviets carving out a client regime (possibly Prussia? In the East) with depending on how exactly the dice fall for who occupies what Germany carved into easily controllable and hideously exploited puppet states by the different parties.
After that I suspect it depends how effective the fascist French military is, longer term it seems likley a European fascist power is going to come to blows with the Soviets (and their behaviour domestically will make both the British and the Americans less comfortable with dealing with them), but each side are close enough matched its possible you see development of nuclear weapons before then likely by either the British/Commonwealth and/or the Americans, leading to some sort of MAD being possible.
Longer term if you did get a stable fascist French regime (no catastrophic Franco Soviet war), I think they've got better odds of surviving long term then Nazi Germany, the areas they want to expand into a likely a lot smaller so any brutal attempts in say formerly western Germany to francoize the population feel more practical (if potentially just as horrific) as the Nazi plans in the East. They would likely be extremely anti-decolonisation so probably see a situation a bit like Portugal where they spend a fortune on trying to maintain control over their colonies and it steadily becomes a bleeding wound of both resources and young men (and the French did not exactly have a high birthrate going in), so it's eventual fate would probably either be slow in forced liberalisation due to the state losing its ability to maintain one of its coercive elements due to not being able to afford to keep up colonial oppression (especially given both the USA and I suspect the Soviets, and possibly even the British, would be providing arms and generally causing hell in the colonies) but with fairly good odds that they keep their new continental holdings and the resulting democracy still sees its fascist period as legitimate government (and likely with the major right-wing political party a actual descendant of the fascist one), or possibly it manages to hold onto a moderated form of fascism in the long term but ends up as a military with a country (somewhat ironically) much poorer then its peers or for that matter france OTL where most of the economy is dedicated to keeping hold of its empire, a wide range of huge human rights abuses happen within its empire, but it's big enough to scare away any peers and by this point likely has its own nuclear arsenal, so a regional power and a bit of an international pariah.
This of course assumes it stays reasonably stable just as likely you'd see either a catastrophic war with the Soviets (which I suspect they lose one way or the other either due to the Soviets based on the field or it making the French get badly overextended), or jingoism going a step too far and then pushing into Belgium leading to Britain and likely the US getting involved in which case you see pretty much the rest of the world V France and eventually they get worn down and occupied,
Other random thoughts on monarchy I'd say 50-50 chance to bring a monarch back but there are likely to have that much power, although could see a situation where the King ended up with more authority if as I suspect you see that steady erosion of legitimacy from the colonies in which case you could either have something lower happened with Spain where the monarchy is a big proponent of ending fascism, alternatively a chance for reactionaries to effectively seize power and see a monarchy with more teeth (in that case presumably focusing on France for the French and cutting off the colonies as a waste of resources so using reactionary logic to permit withdrawing from the ruinous colonial wars)
One area I don't think it's a much tension is between Britain on it's actual empire. Germany is unquestionably the first target practically and ideologicaly, and by the time that's done the French have the Soviets very close to them and likely increasingly dealing with rather unpleasant colonial wars the plate is just too full for them to actively pick a fight with Britain, and a Britain without the Second World War and with likely still excellent relations with the USA, is probably reasonably likely to outcompete them economically and certainly internationally politically in the long term anyway.
Last edited:
France's historical ennemy was always Britain until Bismark unified the German states .Once Germany has been nutralised again I can't really see anything but friction between the old ennemies again.Britain would feel very threatened by a Latin Axis;the US ,at least initially , will be isolationist just as in OTL. WW2 could end up by being a Latin led Axis against the USSR with Poland and the smaller eastern states on the Latin side. How the Nazis would deal with all of this is interesting as they are still likely to get into power but quickly get their wings clipped.
The French fascistic leaning right also had some rather odd influences, from syndicalists to soldier cults, in many ways it was very much like the extreme right in Germany and Italy in the early 20s, but never made the kind of ideological shifts with the times that happened elsewhere
The issue with the French Right is it's disunity - you're not going to get Action Francaise to endorse Le Fasceuax, for example, or vice versa. Too many strands of petty differences, too many egos, and no real regional base or organizational capacity to match what the French Left could.
The issue with the French Right is it's disunity - you're not going to get Action Francaise to endorse Le Fasceuax, for example, or vice versa. Too many strands of petty differences, too many egos, and no real regional base or organizational capacity to match what the French Left could.
Hitler and the German administration across Europe was pretty wary of Fascists when conservative authoritarians were an option. They generally had more popular support, were less disruptive, less prone to internal infighting or scandals, and could provide opportunities for international back channel diplomacy as they tended to be seen as less illegitimate.
In Hungary, France,Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Italy, the Germans tended only very late in the game, once things had turned against them, to try to put in outright German sympathetic Fascists (in Italy, it tended to support the Duce rather than pushing for someone like, say, Farinacci, to take over). The French Fascist movement was more a nuisance than anything else for Hitler.
It was only in places like Norway and the Netherlands where you saw attempts to run things through domestic Fascists, mostly because the options were limited elsewhere in politics
I think a fascist France in the 1930s is certainly possible, even with the same World War I result, but its difficult to see how they get there. IOTL, there was a fascist French regime in the 1940s, but they needed the 1940 campaign to get there.
There seems to be a consensus that Fascist France would never co-operate with Nazi Germany. Again, in the early 1940s, there was an OTL fascist French regime, and they did co-operate with Nazi Germany. There were also no good strategic reasons for Japan and Romania to ally with Germany, and many arguments against it, and they both did. Strategically, Mussolini should have maintained neutrality, and again he enters the war to support the other fascist powers.
If France goes fascist in the later 1930s, as opposed to the early 1930s, the Versailles restrictions are even moot.
I can see France in this scenario joining the anti-Cominterm alliance, along with Italy, and pulling Romania and Poland into the anti-cominterm alliance with them. They sign a treaty with Germany waiving the remaining reparations claims and claims to the Saar in return for preferential access by French companies to the Saar and Germany renouncing any claims to Alsace-Lorraine. Its actually harder to reconcile German and Polish interests, and Hitler OTL tried to do this anyway. ITTL, France pulls the Little Entente, except the Czechs, into the anti-cominterm pact.
With France as an active ally, Hitler can attack Russia first. French military participation in a war with Russia is limited to an expeditionary force, like the Blue division or the Italian 8th Army, so they have effectively gained some prestige and removed the possibility of German attack for a limited cost. They also carve up Czechoslovakia beforehand, and since Chamberlain isn't getting French support ITTL and knows this, he doesn't fly to Bavaria and get involved diplomatically.
This could be a good alternative timeline. The USSR is pretty hosed in this scenario. The Finnish war hasn't uncovered the weaknesses of the Red Army, so they haven't been rectified yet. OTOH, the late 1930s German army was still fairly weak (they got really lucky in 1940), so Russia is facing the German, Polish, and Romanian armies, with token contributions from the French, Italians, and Poles, and maybe Japan.
The UK will be neutral, but the extent they should be sending aid to the USSR will be an issue in the 1940 general election, even more than their actions in the Spanish Civil War. Churchill will be in a complicated political position. FDR will want to do a version of lend lease to the USSR, but he faces more difficulty than in getting lend lease through to the UK, and greater opposition to a third term.
There seems to be a consensus that Fascist France would never co-operate with Nazi Germany. Again, in the early 1940s, there was an OTL fascist French regime, and they did co-operate with Nazi Germany. There were also no good strategic reasons for Japan and Romania to ally with Germany, and many arguments against it, and they both did. Strategically, Mussolini should have maintained neutrality, and again he enters the war to support the other fascist powers.
If France goes fascist in the later 1930s, as opposed to the early 1930s, the Versailles restrictions are even moot.
I can see France in this scenario joining the anti-Cominterm alliance, along with Italy, and pulling Romania and Poland into the anti-cominterm alliance with them. They sign a treaty with Germany waiving the remaining reparations claims and claims to the Saar in return for preferential access by French companies to the Saar and Germany renouncing any claims to Alsace-Lorraine. Its actually harder to reconcile German and Polish interests, and Hitler OTL tried to do this anyway. ITTL, France pulls the Little Entente, except the Czechs, into the anti-cominterm pact.
With France as an active ally, Hitler can attack Russia first. French military participation in a war with Russia is limited to an expeditionary force, like the Blue division or the Italian 8th Army, so they have effectively gained some prestige and removed the possibility of German attack for a limited cost. They also carve up Czechoslovakia beforehand, and since Chamberlain isn't getting French support ITTL and knows this, he doesn't fly to Bavaria and get involved diplomatically.
This could be a good alternative timeline. The USSR is pretty hosed in this scenario. The Finnish war hasn't uncovered the weaknesses of the Red Army, so they haven't been rectified yet. OTOH, the late 1930s German army was still fairly weak (they got really lucky in 1940), so Russia is facing the German, Polish, and Romanian armies, with token contributions from the French, Italians, and Poles, and maybe Japan.
The UK will be neutral, but the extent they should be sending aid to the USSR will be an issue in the 1940 general election, even more than their actions in the Spanish Civil War. Churchill will be in a complicated political position. FDR will want to do a version of lend lease to the USSR, but he faces more difficulty than in getting lend lease through to the UK, and greater opposition to a third term.
And let me tell you, it did NOT work well in Norway. The Nasjonal Samling had maybe fifty thousand members tops during WWII and Vidkun Quisling had basically no power. He had the most meetings with Hitler out of any Axis or occupied country besides for Mussolini though, and had turned out to be right about Britain having invasion plans (which were discovered after the Germans invaded) so Rosenberg was able to bring it up at dinner to Hitler that Quisling was right and Hitler cheerful thought to throw him a bone. Though th biggest thing with Quisling was how he was a big reason why no one in the Norwegian government would support the Germans. I think that near the end of WWII main the Dutch collaborator ended up in Norway for a bit and the two of them complained to each other about a German who had authority over both of them at one time and how they weren’t given enough power. But yah, I suppose that is why it is a good example. Go for the local fascists when literally no one else will work for you.
1 I did consider musing about Poland but I thought the post was getting long enough! Overall suspicion it is not terribly important in the grand scheme of things, it's a minor power militarily, and to a degree geopolitically is a border between Germany and the soviets, which if the Soviets and France are busy partitioning Germany over, and either side cares too much about Polish sovereignty I suspect a deal would be made that stops it being an issue one way or the other whether that's effectively being forced into the Soviet sphere (possibly without an outright Soviet government/with more independence then OTL), being part of the carve up, or even being bribed with some additional land in return for access. My best guess would be either the Soviets would just marched through them ignoring their neutrality (not unlike the German attitude to Belgium in ww1), and Britain wouldn't be willing to go to war to protect Poland (unlike say when the channel ports are threatened )when this is in part been done to dismantle a resurgent Germany and pretty much all of Europe is on one side; or you have the right type of government in place in Poland, there bribed with enough land and French guarantees that they agree to take part in the partition of Germany (also some Polish politicians might quite enjoy taking part in the petition of one of the powers that was responsible for their own dissolution!) . Either way I suspect once the Soviets have entered are never going to entirely leave (and we Germany dismantled the polls don't really have a choice there very small fish next to a massive shark) , but I suspect the end result might be closer to Finland's fate post-World War II then OTL's Poland .
2 no ww2 makes decolonisation potentially a bit slower but I think it's still happening. Odds are the USSR and the USA are the biggest singular economic powers (especially once Britain loses India which is firmly on the cards post ww1), and both of them have their own reasons for interfering with the colonial empires and funding dissidents, improved communication and transport technologies make insurgencies more practical, and nationalist ideas are already rapidly spreading throughout the colonies in the period. Not to mention the fascist response to colonial uprisings is just the sort of brutal repression that tends to in turn encourage more uprisings so fascist France itself is probably going to put some fume on the decolonisation fire, I suspect you have to go all the way back to ww1 to have a chance to stop the trend in general , so in this scenario you still see it although granted may be a little less strongly then OTL (e.g. Britain could probably hold on some strategic colonies without too much effort and as noted I do hypothesise that fascist France could actually hold onto the bulk of its colonial assets if it was willing to spend the blood & men)
Garrison
Donor
A stronger response by France in 1936 probably derails the Nazi regime and means no WW2. Britain will support whoever is most likely to maintain the balance of power in Europe and if the Nazis fall and Stalin is tempted by what he perceives as western weakness to move against the Baltics and Finland you might actually see an anti-comintern pact emerging.
Supreme
Banned
I highly doubt it, Hitler failed in Austria at first and his regime didn't come close to faltering.
Unless the French launch total war and occupy all of Germany, Hitler will not fall.
Denmark was a bit different in that it was largely cooperationist, but resentfully so, with a mostly Social Democratic political scene and the Germans were not insistent on rocking the boat, but I imagine in the case of a victory for Nazi Germany that could change
The issue with Norway and the Netherlands were that there weren't many conservative authoritarians to choose from as the conservative forces in these places were parliamentary and constitutional monarchist, less anti-Semitism than in other parts of Europe, and did not have strong traditions of a menacing radical left that would drive an anti-democratic reaction, nor an indigenously relevant radical right movement. If they were in similarly non-strategic locations as Denmark (or at least easily militarily controlled), I would imagine the Germans would have forgone relying on political liabilities like Quisling and Mussert and would have followed a path similar to Denmark, at least prior to the Nazi regime stepping up it's procedural and rhetorical radicalism post Stalingrad
The Third Reich was not pragmatic out of choice when it demonstrated tendencies like that, but out of necessity and constraints of resources. A Nazi victory scenario changes all of these calculations, of course
Last edited:
The "was Vichy fascist?" debate is quite well worn but I think if there is anything of an agreement there, it is that the Vichy regime narrowed in popularity over time, and as it narrowed, it became more fascist leaning and incorporated more fascistic elements that previously had been marginalized when the regime had more prestige.
The same thing happened in Hungary and Romania, and for that matter, one could make the argument that it applies to Japan, in a political sense, not a social one, post Saipan
This is not to trivialize the crimes of Vichy, as ultimately, it did not matter if one was a reactionary monarchist, an opportunist, or a true believer in fascism, if they were rounding up Jews for deportation.
But the character of the Vichy regime was one that by late 1943 had very clearly changed from late 1940. The Milice was a more radical grouping than the previous public order forces, and there was more participation in ministerial posts by open radicals
A French Fascist regime that is not imposed by the circumstances of foreign conquest, is going to be a assertive one. It may join in with Germany on anti-Comintern matters, and even some territorial matters in the East, but it's not going to accept German hegemony over Europe, and depending on whose involved in running it, it may have revanchist "natural frontiers" ambitions or colonial ambitions which will run afoul of Italy and Belgium.
Last edited:
Garrison
Donor
In 1936 his grip on power was far weaker, his removal after a disastrous failure in the Rhineland is quite likely.
Poland is guaranteed by both France and Britain. They were willing to go to war over it OTL. If the Soviets were to decide to just march through, Poland would fight. Between the Soviets and the Poles, France and Britain will not choose the Soviets, especially since there is no Germany standing on the Channel to make a deal with the Devil feasible. On top of this, Fascist France is likely to have good relations with the very militaristic Poles. Stalin was also very cautious and would not go through with any such plan if there is a danger of a war with the former Entente.