[Tribbles]

Very interesting question. IMO what it boils down to is that the Italian fascists just couldn't get the average Italian to internalize fascist values of aggressiveness, state above all, and self sacrifice, especially in battle. There were too many other ingrained influences, of which the monarchy was far from the worst; the holy joes in the vatican etc were anything but natural allies.

Maybe that was not what the Italians wanted? Mussolini got popular due to the ideals of class-collaboration, welfare-state combined with traditionalism, stable leadership - these were ideals that he embodied up to the war. Then he abandoned corporatism, attacked fascist Greece, became racist, and stopped listening to his party-comrades, isolating himself from them instead. Also - according to Count Cianos war-diaries, be plotted against the Vatican and the king in this period.

Who cares about the state if it does not protect any values? As I said before: The Italian soldiers did the right thing when they ditched Mussolini-the-traitor, and allowed the British to capture them instead. (Fascism might not have that much of a future in a German-dominated Europe anyway, Hitler was planning to betray Franco and Salazar, "operation isabella" - if I remember correctly)

Il Duce had deserved a better faith though, the best thing had perhaps been if Italo Balbo didnt die, in which case the grand council would have elected him as the new leader, over that stupid Bagdoglio-dude (What a poor choice!) and that Mussolini had not been captured by the Germans. Mussolini could have been put in house-arrest, and fascism could have continued.

And all this brings me back to my previous point: Fascism is impossible when the Human material is so incredibly poor, specially among the leadership.

[Preston Cole]

Also - according to Count Cianos war-diaries, be plotted against the Vatican and the king in this period.

That wouldn't necessarily have been a bad thing. He later regretted not decapitating the monarchy while he had the chance. But I agree that the monarchy, especially in places where it actually means something and has a functional tradition, should be preserved for the sake of national integrity.

As I said before: The Italian soldiers did the right thing when they ditched Mussolini-the-traitor, and allowed the British to capture them instead.

How was Mussolini a traitor? The peninsula would have been invaded anyway, or at least pressured by the Allies to such a degree that keeping Fascism in place would have been almost impossible, with or without him. At least he managed to delay the country's total conquest for a few years by setting up that puppet regime up north.

(Fascism might not have that much of a future in a German-dominated Europe anyway, Hitler was planning to betray Franco and Salazar, "operation isabella" - if I remember correctly)

But it certainly would have been preferable to a liberal Europe. Franco and Salazar were ideological dinosaurs compared to Nazism and Fascism, so they were natural material for revision, and were in no way representative of what fascism truly meant and still means. Salazar was somewhat of an anti-fascist himself toward the Italians, not to mention the Germans, while Franco was head over heels in love with monarchism. It's a wonder Hitler even tolerated those two conservative clowns for as long as he did.

[Tribbles]

But if one strips away everything except the big man on top, and militarism (And even militarism will decline when the war is won, hopefully).... wont the fascist project become very poor and gray?

Mussolini enjoyed friendly relations with Britain by the way, so he could have kept out of the war if he wanted to.

[Far-Right Sage]

Italy couldn't have been kept from conflict long-term, as Fascism initially gained strength among the Italian population through strong feelings of revanchism which echo back to the British and French betrayal of the Treaty of London, much in the way they betrayed the Arabs through their agent, T.E. Lawrence, following WWI. Thus when Gabriele D'Annunzio occupied the city of Fiume, now the Croatian port city of Rijeka, then host to a large ethnic Italian population - This was one of the greatest spurs for the Fascist cause.

Italy's goal was ultimately to restore lost territories of the old Roman Empire within geopolitical reach, which included areas of Greece and the North African states. Morocco would have been likely left to Spanish control. Algeria would have been included following the collapse of the Vichy French regime, likely the same deal with Tunisia. Libya and Egypt were integral to a new Italian empire. Despite overtures from Pierre Laval and some measure of appeasement, the British and French ultimately created an atmosphere of hostility toward this plan's realization, following the League of Nations' stand against the Italian conquest of Ethiopia.

Who cares about the state if it does not protect any values? As I said before: The Italian soldiers did the right thing when they ditched Mussolini-the-traitor, and allowed the British to capture them instead.

I sincerely disagree. The Republic of Salo did certainly function as a bit of a German puppet state, but it remained true to Fascist ideals to the very end, and one can see this by simply reading into the charter of the Republican Fascist Party, and seeing the brave leadership of loyal men, such as Alessandro Pavolini.

(Fascism might not have that much of a future in a German-dominated Europe anyway, Hitler was planning to betray Franco and Salazar, "operation isabella" - if I remember correctly)

Germany had no plans for a long term occupation of either Spain or Portugal, and such a move would be highly undesirable.

The plan most considered was for Spanish and Portuguese cooperation and assistance in order to seize Gibraltar from the British (which would have been transferred to Spanish sovereignty), finalize the conquest of Malta, and establish a superior forward position for German and Italian forces, specifically the Regia Marina and the Kriegsmarine, in the Mediterranean and North Africa.

[Andropov]

This depends on whether you believe Hitler wanted world domination or merely dominance of the European continent (although the latter lends itself to the former quite easily; as Goebbles said, "Whoever dominates Europe will thereby assume the leadership of the world." The resources, manpower, and industry of Europe and its colonies would have made conquering Japan and the Western Hemisphere a child's game, especially with Argentine collaborationism).

[Far-Right Sage]

Germany wanted to achieve superpower status, as Britain had enjoyed for some time.

The offer of allowing British control of the seas and the maintenance of a British empire and presence in India and its other colonies (excluding the ones wrested away by the Japanese) seems to support the validity of this.

If the war was won in Europe, I couldn't see Germany even bothering support a strong Japanese invasion of the Raj.

[RhetoricThug]

This is fantastic! I think the Germans would immediately throw Japan into submission, or they would be fighting proxy resistance wars throughout the 20th century. Either way, the mighty German war machine would subdue the world and hippies would have never existed.

Meanwhile, a global underground force communicates silently, seeking- or plotting to dismantle their oppressors

[starman2003]

The resources, manpower, and industry of Europe and its colonies would have made conquering Japan and the Western Hemisphere a child's game,

The former, possibly, the latter, no way.

[pugsville]

The Nazis were a bunch bright idiotic thugs, they were busy running the whole continent into the ground. Under Hitler there would always be the next gamble they were incapable of any rational policy or finishing things.A hitlerian victory would be war until there was nothing left maybe the army would eventually revolt, the German officer core was always lacking in strategic ability. Nazi rule in euroasia would have made stalin look good. It was policy to starve most of the eastern populations. I'd hope that somewhere revolt would start.

[starman2003]

the German officer core

Core? Corps.

Nazi rule in euroasia would have made stalin look good.

People endlessly slam Stalin when the alternative would've been 10 times worse.

[Michael-Hugh McKean]

It would have lasted at least until the 21st century, Germany would have won the space race. They even had V2 rockets in World War 2

[starman2003]

It would have lasted at least until the 21st century, Germany would have won the space race. They even had V2 rockets in World War 2

Hard to say. Sure, they were ahead in that area, at least, in WWII. And a great advantage of dictatorship is its ability to emphasize national goals, like space, in sharp contrast to our democracy, where 4X more is spent on tobacco alone. But longterm the reich, like the USSR, almost certainly would've suffered from a technical lag; in fact Shirer noted ample evidence for technical issues even within its short actual life.

[Zenno]

The Soviet Union and United States didn't set out to conquer the world. They only set out to establish client states in pursuit of a balance of power.

In modern times, that is the only way of conquering the World. Nobody (with the possible exception of the Chinese) has the manpower to physically occupy the World. It can only be done by means of client states. Today's US is the closest thing we will get to Empire.

[Potemkin]

In modern times, that is the only way of conquering the World. Nobody (with the possible exception of the Chinese) has the manpower to physically occupy the World. It can only be done by means of client states. Today's US is the closest thing we will get to Empire.

Britain always lacked the manpower to occupy its colonies. Instead, we got our colonies to occupy themselves. They were even nice enough to pay for the privilege too.

[starman2003]

In modern times, that is the only way of conquering the World. Nobody (with the possible exception of the Chinese) has the manpower to physically occupy the World. It can only be done by means of client states.

Rome initially had client states but gradually took them over. Just because a single state may not have enough manpower doesn't preclude direct rule. Foreigners can be given citizenship or otherwise recruited without giving their homelands much autonomy. All kinds of provincials served in the Roman army.

Today's US is the closest thing we will get to Empire.

Na, we could do much better under a better government.

[Figlio di Moros]

Dave's theory, as has been stated, has seemed the most plausible for post-Hitler Germany. One of the issues people seem to run into is placing ideology into the fore-front of fascist nations, while pragmatic aggressiveness was far more important. If Germany ruled to the Urals, and [/i]if[/i] Japan won in the Pacific Basin, Britain would still likely have nearly all its colonial possessions, Malaysia and Egypt excluded, while Italy held a number of North African states(assuming Vichy's collapse). There's have been no common frontier, as pointed out, with central Asia and Siberia seperating German and Japanese territories, while a variety of colonial possessions still fracturing the European power structure.

A real picture would likely be a new balance of power, akin to what was seen between the Napoleonic wars and WWI- small conflicts, "great games", but no large scale wars. Particularly as every power, especially the new ones, would have to subdue and maintain the possessions they already had. Only in the instance of a specific shift in such a balance, such as the rise of the German and collapse of the Austrian and Ottoman Empires, would a new total war engage.

Fascism might not have that much of a future in a German-dominated Europe anyway, Hitler was planning to betray Franco and Salazar, "operation isabella" - if I remember correctly

Apparently, Hitler was a huge fan of the book How to Repeat the Mistakes of Napoleonic France

[Potemkin]

Apparently, Hitler was a huge fan of the book How to Repeat the Mistakes of Napoleonic France

Napoleon should have listened to Talleyrand.

[Figlio di Moros]

He shouldn't have squandered his Navy on Egypt, or on the waffering expedition to Martineque.

However, Hitler should've learned the lessons of the Swedish Empire, Louis the XIV, and Napoleon- Trying to conquer too much of the continent at once will end up with some English-speaking prick hopping across the water and shoving his boot up your ass.

[Rich]

Trying to conquer too much of the continent at once will end up with some English-speaking prick hopping across the water and shoving his boot up your ass.

Its always a pleasure!

[starman2003]

He shouldn't have squandered his Navy on Egypt,

And much of his army.

or on the waffering expedition to Martineque.

And Haiti.