WI: Fascist vs. Communist Cold War

[lerk]

inb4 "OTL"

The world being split between two extremes of the political spectrum who consider the other to be pure evil will certainly be a more interesting Cold War than the OTL one was. I'm not really interested in the *how*, though that is obviously important (the question of "do the far-right take control of their countries during the Cold War or before it?" being obviously the most important), of this question as I am in how the consequences of it will be. Obviously, we're going to see a lot less negotiations between the two (nothing like SALT or Detente, unless pragmatism manages to take control of both sides which seems like it needs a lot of luck to do so), a lot more proxy wars and military interventions, and chances of a nuclear war will increase. There is also the question of "Who wins?" Fascists unlike Communists won't embark on radical changes to their countries' economy, or any type of radical reform really, and thus can rely on maintaining some sort of support. Furthermore with their only real opponent being Communists, along with the lack of a Democratic bloc to support liberal movements, it allows them to suppress dissidents with the claim that they were Communists, not being as wrong as IOTL, and with this political suppression means that Communists can't really overthrow the governments of these fascist states. Soviet Communism obviously did have problems - which is why it collapsed - and it can reasonably be said that there is a chance of a Soviet collapse ITTL as well. But with the rising threat of Fascism looming I can imagine that there would be a lot more loyalty towards the Communist system than IOTL, which can probably do well in staving off a collapse for some time if not lasting until today. What is your take on this?

 

[Catalunya]

Who would these fascist and communist powers even be. I don’t an ideologically radical British Empire would be able to wage a Cold War, and Germany IMO was never strong enough

Is this some kind of fash USA vs SU than?

 

[Charles EP M.]

I think this inevitably leads to war by the early 60s when it's still a thing that won't kill everyone - you have more of an existential conflict, in that the other side wants you to stop existing at all, especially if you're a communist who isn't a white guy. There's far less chance of people saying "can we get along?" in public life and culture cos, well, no, you can't. Less chance a Kennedy and Kruschev will be thinking "they probably don't want war" at the crucial moment.

 

[Japhy]

Fascist regimes will never accept even a mutually assured destruction status quo. Any fascist regime with nuclear weapons will be a regime that uses their nuclear weapons. There is no cold war in such a situation, only the brief pause before the fascists get the arsenals they feel are necessary.

 

[Nyvis]

Fascist regimes will never accept even a mutually assured destruction status quo. Any fascist regime with nuclear weapons will be a regime that uses their nuclear weapons. There is no cold war in such a situation, only the brief pause before the fascists get the arsenals they feel are necessary.

I think this really depends on the fascists? I can see a Franco like fascist movement being fine with it as long as they can keep control at home. A Hitler like one is never going to accept it though, agreed. And a Mussolini one would probably bumble into escalation.


I think a scenario you could envisage is one that goes with an American revolution like Reds! but the in TL worry of alignment between Britain, France and Germany does happen, not just France and Germany. Japan too, of course. And the US might be a war machine but there's only so much they can do to save the soviet union from that (especially one led by Stalin). They probably still knock down Japan easily but war in Europe would go a lot more badly and the soviets end up having to evacuate Moscow. The French and British find a way to shackle Germany after Hitler overdose or something and they're more interested in securing control over their own block than poking at the nuclear armed comintern. Cue cold war over the Urals?

The main contrivance is having to remove Hitler because he wouldn't stop, even in the face of the first nukes.

Alternatively, he does get to ethnically cleanse all of Russia and the revolutionary US is forced to pull back to America, with the cold war being over both oceans, but that's a bit too grim for me.

 

[Catalunya]

Not to repeat what I said a few hours earlier, but could a Lindberghite / America First USA vs Soviet Union Cold War not work?

Let’s say the Americans elect the aviator in 1940, who defeats the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, but ignores Europe, which is liberated by the Soviets, and Cripps maybe?

@Mumby made a list similar to it I believe.

 

[Nyvis]

Not to repeat what I said a few hours earlier, but could a Lindberghite / America First USA vs Soviet Union Cold War not work?

Let’s say the Americans elect the aviator in 1940, who defeats the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, but ignores Europe, which is liberated by the Soviets, and Cripps maybe?

@Mumby made a list similar to it I believe.

Yeah that could work. The soviets definitely do a lot better than OTL. The western European countries might even partially liberate themselves as the soviets would be exhausted by the time they finish off Germany, which means they'll have more freedom to challenge for leadership of the comintern. Add to that the British coming in willingly and it should be a much more dynamic block than OTL.

Meanwhile the Americans would probably spend most of the cold war trying to extinguish fires in their backyards.

An interesting question is what happens to the colonial empires. Do the American fascists make a deal with reactionary European governments in exile to take them in their sphere? Which means even more fires to extinguish.

 

[Catalunya]

Yeah that could work. The soviets definitely do a lot better than OTL. The western European countries might even partially liberate themselves as the soviets would be exhausted by the time they finish off Germany, which means they'll have more freedom to challenge for leadership of the comintern. Add to that the British coming in willingly and it should be a much more dynamic block than OTL.

Meanwhile the Americans would probably spend most of the cold war trying to extinguish fires in their backyards.

An interesting question is what happens to the colonial empires. Do the American fascists make a deal with reactionary European governments in exile to take them in their sphere? Which means even more fires to extinguish.

I think the likes of South Africa, and later on ORAS would go with the US. The Domininos would try to follow the UK at first, but if they go too red for their liking, they’ll also probably stick with the Americans.

 

[Nyvis]

I think the likes of South Africa, and later on ORAS would go with the US. The Domininos would try to follow the UK at first, but if they go too red for their liking, they’ll also probably stick with the Americans.

Yeah the US probably inherits the dominions gradually. Canada barely has a choice and Australia probably comes in willingly, which means NZ doesn't have a choice either. Even their left is likely to be less radical than a British one that turned to the soviets post liberation of Europe. In fact I could see the racist elements of Australian Labor working well into this?

India probably gets a gradual decolonization, while the administrations in the other colonies side with the dominions. The royals might also decide those look more attractive than a red Britain even if it's not revolutionary.

Could also see Brazil being a partner of the US, maybe?

This means the fascist block has a huge chunk of the world but large parts of it are under an enormous amount of duress and limited amount of forces to hold them.

 

[Catalunya]

Yeah the US probably inherits the dominions gradually. Canada barely has a choice and Australia probably comes in willingly, which means NZ doesn't have a choice either. Even their left is likely to be less radical than a British one that turned to the soviets post liberation of Europe. In fact I could see the racist elements of Australian Labor working well into this?

India probably gets a gradual decolonization, while the administrations in the other colonies side with the dominions. The royals might also decide those look more attractive than a red Britain even if it's not revolutionary.

Could also see Brazil being a partner of the US, maybe?

This means the fascist block has a huge chunk of the world but large parts of it are under an enormous amount of duress and limited amount of forces to hold them.

Yeah, you could have the entire new world + oceania, and Japan under the American boot, with South(east) Asia, and Africa being contested between the two superpowers. I wonder how the UK, and France would deal with decolonization though. Cripps would probably give the Indians almost everything they want, but what would he do in Africa. I can’t see the French left wanting to just depart from Africa quickly either, though a year or two extra under the Nazis would make it a more attractive prospect. The Soviets opinions on aligned colonial empires would also probably be quite different from OTL.

 

[Nyvis]

Yeah, you could have the entire new world + oceania, and Japan under the American boot, with South(east) Asia, and Africa being contested between the two superpowers. I wonder how the UK, and France would deal with decolonization though. Cripps would probably give the Indians almost everything they want, but what would he do in Africa. I can’t see the French left wanting to just depart from Africa quickly either, though a year or two extra under the Nazis would make it a more attractive prospect. The Soviets opinions on aligned colonial empires would also probably be quite different from OTL.

Well, my idea was that France would never really have to answer it because the resistance + soviet army rolling in would be quite cut off from the "free" french who hold onto the colonies. In the UK it's less clear because there's government continuity. They might try to slow roll it, it's early enough that most of the independence movements in Africa aren't hellbent on getting it instantly as long as they get it, and India could be seen as a proof of good will? Some of the worst colonial administrations might turn to South Africa rather than a red Britain, especially with the US trying to woo them in, so that's also something the British left can use: "controlled decolonization with us or American/South African takeover with them".

Israel might also happen and be soviet friendly considering the US is likely to be antisemitic.

Something to think about would be Spain and Portugal. Does the US manage to make ties with the fascist regimes there and prop them up? Comintern border at the Pyrenees? If so that's also a few colonies to think about.

 

[Charles EP M.]

I think this really depends on the fascists? I can see a Franco like fascist movement being fine with it as long as they can keep control at home. A Hitler like one is never going to accept it though, agreed. And a Mussolini one would probably bumble into escalation.

That's true, but then it means keeping the Cold War going means you'd be completely dependent on Ooops All Francos to keep everything stable (and the communist block to believe he won't fire at some point anyway), and the chances of all of the fascist block going that way and not dragging the rest in aren't good.

And I guess this raises if there's one big communist power and one being fascist power and everyone else often follows their line. You could end up with a Triple Entente & Triple Alliance situation, which increases the risk of someone kicking off.

 

[Nyvis]

That's true, but then it means keeping the Cold War going means you'd be completely dependent on Ooops All Francos to keep everything stable (and the communist block to believe he won't fire at some point anyway), and the chances of all of the fascist block going that way and not dragging the rest in aren't good.

And I guess this raises if there's one big communist power and one being fascist power and everyone else often follows their line. You could end up with a Triple Entente & Triple Alliance situation, which increases the risk of someone kicking off.

The Francos of the fascist block have good reasons to want the Hitlers of it dead, if the alternative is getting blown up. If we assume the communist side gets the bomb first, they're probably going to act against the most insane people on their side if they can. Left to us is crafting a timeline where they have the means.

Fascist America is also a decent way to go there since there's always going to be a bit of an isolationist streak in them. As long as America itself is safe, they're less likely to pull the trigger for the sake of proxies.

But yes, this cold war would probably be more likely to go hot than ours.

 

[lerk]

I just realized that this is the most likely case for a "Reverse Cold War" TL if one rejects the childish notion that a Reverse Cold War must be an exact analogue of the OTL one. It makes more sense for a surviving Russian Empire to lead a bloc of traditionalist and authoritarian Catholic and Orthodox states in Eastern Europe against a growing tide of Red America-backed Communism in Western Europe than for Russia to just be a liberal democracy and lead similar liberal democracies in the East.

 

[Catalunya]

Well, my idea was that France would never really have to answer it because the resistance + soviet army rolling in would be quite cut off from the "free" french who hold onto the colonies. In the UK it's less clear because there's government continuity. They might try to slow roll it, it's early enough that most of the independence movements in Africa aren't hellbent on getting it instantly as long as they get it, and India could be seen as a proof of good will? Some of the worst colonial administrations might turn to South Africa rather than a red Britain, especially with the US trying to woo them in, so that's also something the British left can use: "controlled decolonization with us or American/South African takeover with them".

Israel might also happen and be soviet friendly considering the US is likely to be antisemitic.

Something to think about would be Spain and Portugal. Does the US manage to make ties with the fascist regimes there and prop them up? Comintern border at the Pyrenees? If so that's also a few colonies to think about.

Might Spain not just join the Axis in such a scenario? It could also offer an interesting alternative route for the liberation of Western Europe, though it might also just prove to be too much for the British.

I think the French would either way want to unite again. I can’t see the Free French going “fuck Paris, we’ll ally with the Americans, who didn’t help us at all”. Most likely the Soviets install a tripartite government to woo them back in before going all Czechoslovakia on the French, though they might not do the last bit, in order to keep the Britsh friendly.

That's true, but then it means keeping the Cold War going means you'd be completely dependent on Ooops All Francos to keep everything stable (and the communist block to believe he won't fire at some point anyway), and the chances of all of the fascist block going that way and not dragging the rest in aren't good.

And I guess this raises if there's one big communist power and one being fascist power and everyone else often follows their line. You could end up with a Triple Entente & Triple Alliance situation, which increases the risk of someone kicking off.

Franco keeping the balance certainly sounds interesting.

 

[Nyvis]

Might Spain not just join the Axis in such a scenario? It could also offer an interesting alternative route for the liberation of Western Europe, though it might also just prove to be too much for the British.

Hmm, Spain could do that but on the other hand, I could totally see Franco sitting it out and aligning with the US for security.

Spanish missile crisis?

I think the French would either way want to unite again. I can’t see the Free French going “fuck Paris, we’ll ally with the Americans, who didn’t help us at all”. Most likely the Soviets install a tripartite government to woo them back in before going all Czechoslovakia on the French, though they might not do the last bit, in order to keep the Britsh friendly.

Victory in Europe is likely to make soviet thinking unrecognizable. A lot of it OTL was them having a permanent inferiority complex and thinking they were always one disaster away from falling to the Americans.

Regarding the Free French, you might get a split? The London based ones will join in the liberation but a lot of the colonial administrators will refuse to follow what they see as a soviet puppet (rightly or wrongly, doesn't really matter).

 

[Ricardolindo]

Fascist regimes will never accept even a mutually assured destruction status quo. Any fascist regime with nuclear weapons will be a regime that uses their nuclear weapons. There is no cold war in such a situation, only the brief pause before the fascists get the arsenals they feel are necessary.

Why? I am sure fascists value their own lives.

 

[Charles EP M.]

Why? I am sure fascists value their own lives.

That'd be a reason the fascists would hit first: they value their lives and don't want those godless immoral communist babykillers to hit first & win & eat all the good volk babies.

 

[Japhy]

Why? I am sure fascists value their own lives.

Because fascism values things like the cult of action and race over their own lives.

 

[History Learner]

Fascist regimes will never accept even a mutually assured destruction status quo. Any fascist regime with nuclear weapons will be a regime that uses their nuclear weapons. There is no cold war in such a situation, only the brief pause before the fascists get the arsenals they feel are necessary.

Why didn't Hitler release the Tabun on the British or even the Soviets?