What if instead of Hitler and the Nazi Party, a nationalist and anticommunist but not a anti-Semite had become the leader of Germany, forming some sort of a new German Empire? Could the world have been a better place?
Because here’s the way I see it: Such a dictator would largely work on trying to reverse Versailles and contain the Communists. However, assuming he has any strategic sense, he would realize the Communist threat needs to be contained. As a result he would have formed a grand anti-Communist alliance including countries like Poland and other former members of France’s Little Entente. With less ideological anti-Slavic racism, the dictator would certainly have encouraged anti-Communist and nationalist movements within the USSR as he launched his own Barabossa. Even in our own world, almost a million Russians fought against Stalin-in this world where the Germans are far less brutal the numbers would be enormously larger. Thus the Soviet threat would be crushed in the onset and thus avert the Cold War.
Fascists governments seem, to me, to not have had the same kind of drive for spreading their system of government to other countries that communism did. Hitler tried to spread his influence by directly dominating other countries, and succeeded with half of Europe. But once Hitler was gone, he was gone. His fascist control of these countries was over.
Well, it didn’t vanish magically once the wizard was dead you know. De-Nazification was a whole thing, as was the hunt for “collaborators” in Nazi-occupied countries. Had the reach of the Reich (pronounce that three times fast) lasted long enough for the Nazi apparatus to solidify and become the norm and law of the land, I doubt it would have been that easy to remove all traces of it.
I don’t really see the distinction your trying to make. Hitler directly dominated Germany. He wanted to directly dominate France, and Russia, and the UK, and the Netherlands, and Belgium, and pretty much everywhere else in Europe, too. He sent his army to other countries, to forcibly remove their government, and replace it with a fascist apparatus directly answerable to Berlin. In what sense is that not him wanting to spread his system of government to other countries?
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make, here. Yeah, when Hitler was dead, his fascist control of other countries was gone. And when Stalin was dead, his communist control of other countries was gone, too. The only difference is, when Hitler died, it was at the tail end of a concerted effort to destroy the Empire he had been trying to build. Had the Nazi government survived Hitler, there’s no telling how long it might have lasted. Possibly, every bit as long as communism did in Russia. Possibly longer.
Fascist governments in Europe, as I understand it, tended to be along the lines of “this is what is right for Italy/Spain/Germany/etc.” In other words it was tied in with nationalist movements. Communism was supposed to be a global philosophy. It wasn’t just about Russia. It was a sincere belief that all of Mankind needed to become communist to fulfill a utopian dream. I think this kind of belief system is more dangerous than fascism because it seems to be inherently based on world domination in a way that fascism was not. Communism left its mark all over Africa and Latin America in addition to infecting Eastern Europe…fascism never did any such thing.
You also need to consider the fact that Communist, often only notionally Communist, movements cropped up largely because of economic aid from the large communist nations of China and Russia. Fascists lacked any such national backing, yet Fascist movements still abounded worldwide.
Errr… joking aside Ghaddaffi is ostensibly a Commie leader, of sorts. As evidence by the full name of his country, “The Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya”. [URL=“Libya - Wikipedia”]He’s got nationalism in his communism ! Two great tastes that taste great together :D.
It’s very hard to see Poland letting the German Army in their country voluntarily; what would stop them from not leaving? Poland had been created from Germany and Russia at the end of WWI and there would still be friction over the volksdeutsche population in Poland. Equally, why would Hitler-lite be any more encouraging of nationalist movements in the USSR than the real Hitler? In both cases it would be and was a very cynical encouragement to serve their own ends. The idea that the number of Russians et. al. that would fight against Stalin would be greater than the million who historically did seems a bit fanciful. The Osttruppen weren’t motivated by a greater hatred of communism than of Nazism. They largely weren’t fighting Stalin but motivated by the greatest motivator of all: survival. Of close to 6 million Soviet prisoners taken by the Germans, somewhere between 2.8 and 3.5 million died in captivity through starvation and neglect. Joining the Germans meant not starving to death.
The war was already portrayed by German propaganda as the crusade against bolshevism and was successful in recruiting from occupied countries all over Europe, even unoccupied Spain which sent 45,000 volunteers.
By that logic, democracy is also worse than fascism - most proponents of democracy also feel that a democratic system leads to a more ideal society, and that democratic ideals ought to be be spread as widely as possible.
Meanwhile, global wars of domination started by a coalition of communist nations: 0
Global wars of domination started by a coalition of fascist nations: 1
