Far right anti-colonialism

[Kiridifferent]

It goes without saying that the maintenance and/or expansion/acquisition of colonies are one of the policies of fascist movements. Italy's invasion of Ethiopia sank Fascism's appeal among the colonized peoples and only Japan which are arguably not as codified as Germany and Italy put out "Asia for Asians" propaganda, although in practice it was merely a Japanese empire. Arguably several post-colonial regimes had some facets of fascism(e.g. the Ba'ath Party or Soeharto's New Order), but historical fascism was pro-colonial.

So, how to achieve a far-right ideology in Europe that supports the struggles of native nationalisms against the colonial powers?

 

[galahad]

If you look at modern European far right they are against colonialism. Their ideology is about isolationism. They also support ethno-nationalism in countries abroad. The reason they outline is that they think colonialism is the ruling elites enriching themselves, while the working class fought and died in their endless wars for resources. Colonialism also led to multi-multiculturalism and migration of people from undesirable countries into the ethno-nationalists homeland. So all you have to do is to make modern far right beliefs arise earlier.

 

[mesonoxian]

If you look at modern European far right they are against colonialism. Their ideology is about isolationism. They also support ethno-nationalism in countries abroad. The reason they outline is that they think colonialism is the ruling elites enriching themselves, while the working class fought and died in their endless wars for resources. Colonialism also led to multi-multiculturalism and migration of people from undesirable countries into the ethno-nationalists homeland. So all you have to do is to make modern far right beliefs arise earlier.

Click to shrink...

They are against it because it is no longer something they can inflict without consequences on non-Europeans and use to hurt their proximate rivals. Far right anticolonialism is entirely about whining about the existence of people from former colonial holdings in their beloved ethnostate. There is no way that attitude would arise when they were still capable of using those people as resources in the squabble with their rivals.

It goes without saying that the maintenance and/or expansion/acquisition of colonies are one of the policies of fascist movements. Italy's invasion of Ethiopia sank Fascism's appeal among the colonized peoples and only Japan which are arguably not as codified as Germany and Italy put out "Asia for Asians" propaganda, although in practice it was merely a Japanese empire. Arguably several post-colonial regimes had some facets of fascism(e.g. the Ba'ath Party or Soeharto's New Order), but historical fascism was pro-colonial.

So, how to achieve a far-right ideology in Europe that supports the struggles of native nationalisms against the colonial powers?

Click to shrink...

Far right politics aren't built on a rational, principled basis. They support whatever works for the local elite in the moment. If you want an anti-colonialist far right, you need a far right that isn't well served by colonialism. About the only way that happens is if they can use it as a rallying cry against people trying to colonize them. Even those "anticolonialists" were perfectly happy to engage in colonial adventures that would leave them at the top, as Imperial Japan and Ba'athist Iraq demonstrate.

 

[Eliar]

The Nazis during WW2 were more than happy enough to support or try and support Anti British colonial movements and sentiments, both in the Middle East and Africa and Japan was more than happy to support Indian anti British movements.

The only "official" fascist powers that did not engage in some sort of anti-colonial speech were Italy, for which WW2 was supposed to be a colonial land grab against France and Britain and Spain for obvious reasons.

Ofc even the Nazis and Japanese were more than happy enough to demand colonial holdings in the event of their victory. The Japanese "Co-Prosperity Sphere" is well know, and Hitler demanded the old German colonial holdings the last days before the invasion of Poland. Hitler's plans about East Europe are even better known.

So, in short, fascism will tell whatever lie is convenient at the particular moment in order to get, hold or cling to power.

If you look at modern European far right they are against colonialism. Their ideology is about isolationism. They also support ethno-nationalism in countries abroad. The reason they outline is that they think colonialism is the ruling elites enriching themselves, while the working class fought and died in their endless wars for resources. Colonialism also led to multi-multiculturalism and migration of people from undesirable countries into the ethno-nationalists homeland. So all you have to do is to make modern far right beliefs arise earlier.

Click to shrink...

Historical and modern fascism did not shy away from the wholesale anihilation of the locals if they become too troublesome. Vanilla flavor colonialism is all about the exploitation of the conquered. Fascism on the other hand has no qualms genociding wholesale the locals and replacing them with the *master race* of choice.

 

[galahad]

They are against it because it is no longer something they can inflict without consequences on non-Europeans and use to hurt their proximate rivals. Far right anticolonialism is entirely about whining about the existence of people from former colonial holdings in their beloved ethnostate. There is no way that attitude would arise when they were still capable of using those people as resources in the squabble with their rivals.

Click to shrink...

Well look at isolationist foreign policy the US pursued in 19th century leading upto US involvement in WW 1, and how US for most part stayed out of colonialism. Something like that may be possible for an alternate timeline fascist movement in Europe.

 

[Sabertooth]

If you look at modern European far right they are against colonialism. Their ideology is about isolationism. They also support ethno-nationalism in countries abroad. The reason they outline is that they think colonialism is the ruling elites enriching themselves, while the working class fought and died in their endless wars for resources. Colonialism also led to multi-multiculturalism and migration of people from undesirable countries into the ethno-nationalists homeland. So all you have to do is to make modern far right beliefs arise earlier.

Click to shrink...

Probably because most of the ex-colonies now can give them a bloody nose in a shooting match.

 

[mesonoxian]

Well look at isolationist foreign policy the US pursued in 19th century leading upto US involvement in WW 1, and how US for most part stayed out of colonialism. Something like that may be possible for an alternate timeline fascist movement in Europe.

Click to shrink...

Except the US engaged in plenty of colonialist adventures. The isolationists were opposed to involvement in Europe, and they were against the European powers extending their colonial influence, but the US happily interfered in the affairs of weaker western hemisphere states and outright annexed and colonized a lot of territory in the 19th century. The annexation of Hawaii, the Spanish-American War and the Mexican-American War, and so forth were not the acts of a country opposed to colonialism on principle. The US continued anti-colonial rhetoric while helping the UK interfere in Iran and the French in Indochina.

This is all an oversimplification, of course. There were people in the US who legitimately opposed colonialism, just like there were everywhere else, and the 19th century US was not universally dominated by right wing politics, but the idea of a fascism that values other nations is very hard to square with reality. A fascism that gives lip service to opposing colonialism when it suits its purposes is entirely feasible, but that'll last exactly until it ceases to coincide with whatever keeps the fascists wealthy and in power. To change that you'd have to change what fascism is. At its core, it is about the aggrandizement of "the right sorts" over everyone else in a zero sum game.

 

[Eliar]

Well look at isolationist foreign policy the US pursued in 19th century leading upto US involvement in WW 1, and how US for most part stayed out of colonialism. Something like that may be possible for an alternate timeline fascist movement in Europe.

Click to shrink...

I believe the people of South America and Asia would like a word with you about the whole "US staying out of colonialism" thing.

Other than that the only reason a modern fascist movement to be averse to colonialism would probably involve more the weakness and actual inability of modern european countries to actually invade and hold on to interesting pieces of real estate than any actual ideological reason.

After all all modern fascist movements in Europe are more than willing to bend over backwards and express their boundless admiration for Putin;s Russia, his manly manliness and use of all means available to reassert its control in its *traditional sphere of influence*.

 

[Reveen]

The far right is only salty about globalism and the interconnected world economy is that the already high disparity between the benefits to them vs the benefits to the non-white world aren't quite as skewed in their favour as they want. That is to say, they want the benefits overwhelmingly belong to them.

They also don't like the part where people from non-white countries can freely move to white countries, which feeds into the aforementioned saltiness because they resent any success or opportunity on the part of non-whites.

In order to convince fascism to commit fully to isolationism you'd need to reduce the economic and military power of the west to the point that a revival of empire is an out of the question impossibility.

 

[Arawn_Emrys]

Essentially it isn't possible. The fascist model, like the modern Right is all about ethnonationalism. It needs enemies. It may start isolationist, but inevitably it will either declare war when the pressure of all of its rhetoric against "the other" forces it to, or the regime will crumble because the people become angry that the government has allowed "the enemy" to continue to exist. When your entire platform is about blaming others, you eventually have to either finally attack them, or get kicked out for not solving the problem you claimed they caused.

 

[lotho]

Essentially it isn't possible. The fascist model, like the modern Right is all about ethnonationalism. It needs enemies. It may start isolationist, but inevitably it will either declare war when the pressure of all of its rhetoric against "the other" forces it to, or the regime will crumble because the people become angry that the government has allowed "the enemy" to continue to exist. When your entire platform is about blaming others, you eventually have to either finally attack them, or get kicked out for not solving the problem you claimed they caused.

Click to shrink...

Except you don't need to have enemies if just because of ethnonationalism. That's not what it's about.

 

[Reveen]

Except you don't need to have enemies if just because of ethnonationalism. That's not what it's about.

Click to shrink...

1. It's never just ethnonatonalism.

2. Ethnonationalists have gone without identifying an enemy ethnicity who should be crushed precisely never. The only variations are whether the enemy is internal or external.

 

[mesonoxian]

Except you don't need to have enemies if just because of ethnonationalism. That's not what it's about.

Click to shrink...

Nonsense. "Ethnonationalism" is fundamentally about the desire to "purify" the state of those who don't fit the white supremacist mold. The entire reason it appeals to the insecure and bigoted is it provides an emotionally satisfying "us and them" narrative. Nobody supports "ethnonationalism" because of some rational calculus, they support it because it gives them a heroic narrative to believe in instead of acknowledging their own failure and insignificance.

Today the hated other might be internal, but lacking internal targets, they'll look elsewhere, because fascism (and that's what it really is) has nothing to offer but the pomp and the costumes and the narrative. As soon as they stop being caught up in their "grand struggle" for racial dominance they are reminded they're a bunch of dopes LARPing and that's unbearable.

 

[YeahOkayCool]

Unlike the aforementioned poasters I'm not willing to write the idea off as impossible-- something can be logically possible whether or not there are examples of it IRL. But if such a thing were to exist IRL, it still wouldn't be welcome on SV.

 

[lotho]

1. It's never just ethnonatonalism.

2. Ethnonationalists have gone without identifying an enemy ethnicity who should be crushed precisely never. The only variations are whether the enemy is internal or external.

Click to shrink...

Not really most countries are based off of ethnonationalism. Not many nations are based off some kind of ideology where everyone just has to agree to it, and most people here would be against a theocratic state based off religious law. So then how do you decide what to base a country and government off of? What measure will you use to determine who is part of it, and where it's borders are? After all what seperates modern Germany and France for example. It's their culture, language, and history. They are both Republics where people elect their leaders and are both secular. So why shouldn't they unite into one nation and merge their economies, armies, etc. That would make them both stronger. But they don't want that, because they see themselves born as Frenchmen/ or Germans.

Nonsense. "Ethnonationalism" is fundamentally about the desire to "purify" the state of those who don't fit the white supremacist mold. The entire reason it appeals to the insecure and bigoted is it provides an emotionally satisfying "us and them" narrative. Nobody supports "ethnonationalism" because of some rational calculus, they support it because it gives them a heroic narrative to believe in instead of acknowledging their own failure and insignificance.

Today the hated other might be internal, but lacking internal targets, they'll look elsewhere, because fascism (and that's what it really is) has nothing to offer but the pomp and the costumes and the narrative. As soon as they stop being caught up in their "grand struggle" for racial dominance they are reminded they're a bunch of dopes LARPing and that's unbearable.

Click to shrink...

ethnonationalism has nothing to do with white supremacy, you can be black and a Hutu ethnonationalist for your people, you can be Japanese and an ethnonationalist, Korean, Chinese, etc. And it doesen't lead to hatred, except when there is fear of another nation harming yours and you are a smaller and in a weaker position. It's in extreme example but Japan durring the Sakoku under the Tokugawa Shogunate, while they did not call themselves ethnonationalist, they were certainly isolationist and the only thing that changed that, (and arguably made them expansionist imperialists) was when a foreign power made them open up to the outside world at gun point. Imagine how much more peaceful the 20th century would have been if Japan was allowed to remain a hermit nation in the 1800's. There is nothing stoping a nuclear power from doing something similar to sakoku in the modern day and it would be better because there would be nothing that could stop it (and cause a fuck up 100 years later).

 

[mesonoxian]

ethnonationalism has nothing to do with white supremacy, you can be black and a Hutu ethnonationalist for your people, you can be Japanese and an ethnonationalist, Korean, Chinese, etc. And it doesen't lead to hatred, except when there is fear of another nation harming yours and you are a smaller and in a weaker position. It's in extreme example but Japan durring the Sakoku under the Tokugawa Shogunate, while they did not call themselves ethnonationalist, they were certainly isolationist and the only thing that changed that, (and arguably made them expansionist imperialists) was when a foreign power made them open up to the outside world at gun point. Imagine how much more peaceful the 20th century would have been if Japan was allowed to remain a hermit nation in the 1800's. There is nothing stoping a nuclear power from doing something similar to sakoku in the modern day and it would be better because there would be nothing that could stop it (and cause a fuck up 100 years later).

Click to shrink...

Most nations are not "based off" ethnonationalism. The alternatives aren't a polity dominated by a single ethnicity or some ideological state. Plenty of states (like the US, France, Mexico among many others) are multi-ethnic and still not bound by any single ideology. Their national identity is civic, not ethnic. Some nations may be strongly tied to a certain culture and dominated by a single ethnic group, but anyone who calls themself an ethnonationalist is guaranteed to be an asshole.

We were specifically talking about analogues to Europe and the far right, so these "ethnonationalists" would most certainly be white supremacists. And invoking the Hutu nationalists right after saying it doesn't result in hatred is kind of undermining your point. Japan's status as a "hermit nation" during the Tokugawa is very much overstated. They limited interactions with Europeans for purely practical reasons, and maintained trade ties with the China, Korea, and the Dutch. Ethnonationalists might pretend to want a world of happy, independent states, but that is never the reality. For one thing, not state is homogeneous, so they are always screwing somebody over (like the Ainu in "homogeneous" Japan or the genocides against the native Americans and brutality against slaves in the US), for another, deciding your ethnic group needs political and military control is not a position that makes sense without a fundamental hostility towards other ethnicities.

It is an immoral and intellectually bankrupt position. It has an emotional appeal for people with nothing else going on, but it is a pretty sad political position for anyone in the 21st century.

Unlike the aforementioned poasters I'm not willing to write the idea off as impossible-- something can be logically possible whether or not there are examples of it IRL. But if such a thing were to exist IRL, it still wouldn't be welcome on SV.

Click to shrink...

Flying purple alligators are logically possible. It doesn't mean they are remotely plausible.

 

[lotho]

Most nations are not "based off" ethnonationalism. The alternatives aren't a polity dominated by a single ethnicity or some ideological state. Plenty of states (like the US, France, Mexico among many others) are multi-ethnic and still not bound by any single ideology. Their national identity is civic, not ethnic. Some nations may be strongly tied to a certain culture and dominated by a single ethnic group, but anyone who calls themself an ethnonationalist is guaranteed to be an asshole.

Click to shrink...

Umm America is an ideological state. Civic nationalism is an ideology you agree to follow the laws, and support the underlying foundation of the nation and you are considered a true whatever. In America's case it's the constitution support of freedom of speech, the right to own guns, free press, free religion, Pro democracy/Republicanism, anti monarchy etc. That's why going against all that stuff is called unamerican, an ideology is something anyone can be a part of, you just have to agree to it and want to be part of it. An ethnicity is diffrent you can't really "convert" to another ethnic group, I can never become a Jew, a Japanese, or a Kurd unless I was born into that culture. But an American can be anyone from anywhere in the world who moves here, and goes through the steps to get citizenship. And it's ok to have an ideological state, however if all nations were ideological nations there would not be almost 200 of them there aren't that many ideological belief's out there.

We were specifically talking about analogues to Europe and the far right, so these "ethnonationalists" would most certainly be white supremacists. And invoking the Hutu nationalists right after saying it doesn't result in hatred is kind of undermining your point. Japan's status as a "hermit nation" during the Tokugawa is very much overstated. They limited interactions with Europeans for purely practical reasons, and maintained trade ties with the China, Korea, and the Dutch. Ethnonationalists might pretend to want a world of happy, independent states, but that is never the reality. For one thing, not state is homogeneous, so they are always screwing somebody over (like the Ainu in "homogeneous" Japan or the genocides against the native Americans and brutality against slaves in the US), for another, deciding your ethnic group needs political and military control is not a position that makes sense without a fundamental hostility towards other ethnicities.

It is an immoral and intellectually bankrupt position. It has an emotional appeal for people with nothing else going on, but it is a pretty sad political position for anyone in the 21st century.

Click to shrink...

Also no again ethno nationalism has nothing to do with white nationalism. Even if an ethno nationalist is from Europe it does not mean he is pro white or anti black or whatever. A polish ethno nationalist won't be going out and hating on blacks or asians or even be interacting with them so he can't be racist against them. A polish nationalist would be worried about the very real threat of Russia and Germany both groups that have in the past gone after their nation and attacked them. They would not be hating on or oppressing black, brown, or other people. As for the example of the Hutu that's because I know very little about African tribes, I know there are quite a few of them, but I can only really name the Hutu, Tutsi, Zulu, Yoruba, and I think xosha though that last one I mispelled. Xhosa think that's it. And I know almost nothing of their cultures or such. And I don't need to I don't interact with them, and they don't interact with me. I'm pretty sure a common/average Yoruba person won't know about Czech people, or Hungarians, or Sami, or Ukranians. And they don't need to, since they won't interact with them. There are thousands of different unique ethnic groups in the world it would be impossible to know each and every one of them.

Also it's not an immoral or intellectually bankrupt position, it's very logical for people to want to have political and military control of lands where they are basically the sole inhabitants of, it's intellectually dishonest to stick your head in the sand and not pay attention to the outside world and notice that there are groups that would want to wipe out certain ethnicities and those ethnic groups have to be wary of it. For example it's not unreasonable for Polish people to see Germany in the 30's after Hitler was elected and start to worry, about someone who thinks they are subhuman and wants their land. That means they need to watch out and recognize that Germans are not friends to the Polish people, they were fucked also because Stalin was on the other side and also fucked over Poland for Russia's bennefit. So a Polish nationalist needs to see that Germany is not a friend to Poland and Russia is not a friend to Poland they both want Polish lands and resources and to dominate Poland.

 

[mesonoxian]

Umm America is an ideological state. Civic nationalism is an ideology you agree to follow the laws, and support the underlying foundation of the nation and you are considered a true whatever. In America's case it's the constitution support of freedom of speech, the right to own guns, free press, free religion, Pro democracy/Republicanism, anti monarchy etc. That's why going against all that stuff is called unamerican, an ideology is something anyone can be a part of, you just have to agree to it and want to be part of it. An ethnicity is diffrent you can't really "convert" to another ethnic group, I can never become a Jew, a Japanese, or a Kurd unless I was born into that culture. But an American can be anyone from anywhere in the world who moves here, and goes through the steps to get citizenship. And it's ok to have an ideological state, however if all nations were ideological nations there would not be almost 200 of them there aren't that many ideological belief's out there.


Also no again ethno nationalism has nothing to do with white nationalism. Even if an ethno nationalist is from Europe it does not mean he is pro white or anti black or whatever. A polish ethno nationalist won't be going out and hating on blacks or asians or even be interacting with them so he can't be racist against them. A polish nationalist would be worried about the very real threat of Russia and Germany both groups that have in the past gone after their nation and attacked them. They would not be hating on or oppressing black, brown, or other people. As for the example of the Hutu that's because I know very little about African tribes, I know there are quite a few of them, but I can only really name the Hutu, Tutsi, Zulu, Yoruba, and I think xosha though that last one I mispelled. Xhosa think that's it. And I know almost nothing of their cultures or such. And I don't need to I don't interact with them, and they don't interact with me. I'm pretty sure a common/average Yoruba person won't know about Czech people, or Hungarians, or Sami, or Ukranians. And they don't need to, since they won't interact with them. There are thousands of different unique ethnic groups in the world it would be impossible to know each and every one of them.

Also it's not an immoral or intellectually bankrupt position, it's very logical for people to want to have political and military control of lands where they are basically the sole inhabitants of, it's intellectually dishonest to stick your head in the sand and not pay attention to the outside world and notice that there are groups that would want to wipe out certain ethnicities and those ethnic groups have to be wary of it. For example it's not unreasonable for Polish people to see Germany in the 30's after Hitler was elected and start to worry, about someone who thinks they are subhuman and wants their land. That means they need to watch out and recognize that Germans are not friends to the Polish people, they were fucked also because Stalin was on the other side and also fucked over Poland for Russia's bennefit. So a Polish nationalist needs to see that Germany is not a friend to Poland and Russia is not a friend to Poland they both want Polish lands and resources and to dominate Poland.

Click to shrink...

Civic nations aren't built around ideology. Plenty of people in the US disagree with lots of the things on your list, and yet they are still Americans. Their citizenship is a legal fact, not a doctrine they hold to. No one sane thinks your citizenship should be based on your ideological adherence to gun rights or opposition to monarchs. "Ethnonationalists" do in fact think you aren't a real citizen unless you meet their definition of the approved ethnos.

Your second paragraph contains a whole lot of wrong. For one, you can most definitely hold racist attitudes toward people you don't interact with. Most fascist Italians probably had minimal interaction with Ethiopians, but they certainly considered them inferior enough to feel justified in murdering and colonizing them. Bringing up Hutu nationalists while being ignorant of the fact they are responsible for one of the most infamous genocides of the last half century is not a good look for someone who is trying to lecture others on the virtues of ethnic nationalism. Likewise, Polish homogeneity is a product of the Holocaust and Soviet ethnic cleansing to be rid of Polish minorities, so they are also a really, really bad example to bring up to laud the beauties of ethnic supremacy. Polish people most definitely can and do interact with African and Asian people. They also interact with the surviving populations of Jews and Romani, though to a much lesser extent than before old Adolph gave ethnonationalism a try.

Very few states are populated solely by any one ethnic group without having made it so by killing or deporting their minority populations, or being ethnically cleansed themselves. The people who think certain ethnicities need to be wiped out are just about all (wait for it) ethnonationalists. The idea that ethnonationalism is the solution to Russian and German aggression, rather than the cause of it is historically illiterate, and also suggests either a malice towards or total ignorance of the large minority populations that existed there in the thirties.

 

[Ranger]

The Nazis during WW2 were more than happy enough to support or try and support Anti British colonial movements and sentiments, both in the Middle East and Africa and Japan was more than happy to support Indian anti British movements.

The only "official" fascist powers that did not engage in some sort of anti-colonial speech were Italy, for which WW2 was supposed to be a colonial land grab against France and Britain and Spain for obvious reasons.

Click to shrink...

Ohh hey another thread where I can put the excessive amount of spare course blocks I put into Italy and 1900-1950 history studies in uni to work.

Sorry for dredging this post up a bit but Italy is a very strange case here. In another world where Mussolini hadn't done a drastic change in policy aroud 1930, Italy would have potentially gone a much more anti-colonial route then it did. As up till around then they were actively supporting anti-colonial movements throughout British and French territory (notably Italian money and weapons were funding a period of instability and conflict in British Iraq and Palestine for much of the 1920s. It was very unsuccessful but they were trying it.

And to the OPs questions

As it is a traditional fascist like ideology that supports anti-colonialism without going into raw isolationism isn't actually that hard to have happen, ish. The big thing that would effect it is how much the fascist state would want that territory themselves. If the state doesn't want it for themselves, the implementation of an aligned state in the region (which would be weaker then the people they just broke away from and would be likely reliant on the fascist state to help get its feet off the ground) is entirely in that states interests.

If they do want it for themselves then any anti-colonial efforts in the region would just be to weaken the opposition colonialist in advance of their own efforts to secure the region. (See Italian attempts to arm a nationalist Egyptian movement against the British)

And just on a more rambling thing regarding Italy and Ethiopia

The italian war in Ethiopia in general is just a weird thing. It was motivated by very different factors at various levels of the Italian nation. Mussolini wanted to do it because he thought it would look good to 'avenge' Italy's loss the last time they fought Ethiopia and that Italy needed to flex it's 'great power' muscles to be recognized by anyone, a chunk of the military commanders wanted it because they thought it'd be easy to earn promotions (the other chunk thought it was a stupid idea from the get go), the Ras/lower fascist officials thought they could pretty much carve their own small kingdoms out of it, and the common folk that did support it generally had a strange white man's burden thing going on. (Faccetta Nera is in my opinion one of the weirdest songs I've ever seen.)

Combine the last point with the common folk, Faccetta Nera (which was so wildly popular in Italy that the fascist government surpressed it eventually because it, for lack of a better way to describe it fetishized Ethiopia) and the fascist party taking half its ranks from the Ethiopian language and the like, and it paints a picture that Fascist Italy was pretty much some weird Yandere for Ethiopia on a National level.

There's alot more about Fascist Italy's foreign and internal policies (they were a very interesting mess at the best of times and near incomprehensible at the worst) I could go into (like Mussolini's attempt to establish Beta Israel as a semi-independent state to get the forces of Zionism on his side (it didn't work)) but rambled enough as it is.

 

[Eliar]

Ohh hey another thread where I can put the excessive amount of spare course blocks I put into Italy and 1900-1950 history studies in uni to work.

Sorry for dredging this post up a bit but Italy is a very strange case here. In another world where Mussolini hadn't done a drastic change in policy aroud 1930, Italy would have potentially gone a much more anti-colonial route then it did. As up till around then they were actively supporting anti-colonial movements throughout British and French territory (notably Italian money and weapons were funding a period of instability and conflict in British Iraq and Palestine for much of the 1920s. It was very unsuccessful but they were trying it.

And to the OPs questions

As it is a traditional fascist like ideology that supports anti-colonialism without going into raw isolationism isn't actually that hard to have happen, ish. The big thing that would effect it is how much the fascist state would want that territory themselves. If the state doesn't want it for themselves, the implementation of an aligned state in the region (which would be weaker then the people they just broke away from and would be likely reliant on the fascist state to help get its feet off the ground) is entirely in that states interests.

If they do want it for themselves then any anti-colonial efforts in the region would just be to weaken the opposition colonialist in advance of their own efforts to secure the region. (See Italian attempts to arm a nationalist Egyptian movement against the British)

And just on a more rambling thing regarding Italy and Ethiopia

The italian war in Ethiopia in general is just a weird thing. It was motivated by very different factors at various levels of the Italian nation. Mussolini wanted to do it because he thought it would look good to 'avenge' Italy's loss the last time they fought Ethiopia and that Italy needed to flex it's 'great power' muscles to be recognized by anyone, a chunk of the military commanders wanted it because they thought it'd be easy to earn promotions (the other chunk thought it was a stupid idea from the get go), the Ras/lower fascist officials thought they could pretty much carve their own small kingdoms out of it, and the common folk that did support it generally had a strange white man's burden thing going on. (Faccetta Nera is in my opinion one of the weirdest songs I've ever seen.)

Combine the last point with the common folk, Faccetta Nera (which was so wildly popular in Italy that the fascist government surpressed it eventually because it, for lack of a better way to describe it fetishized Ethiopia) and the fascist party taking half its ranks from the Ethiopian language and the like, and it paints a picture that Fascist Italy was pretty much some weird Yandere for Ethiopia on a National level.

There's alot more about Fascist Italy's foreign and internal policies (they were a very interesting mess at the best of times and near incomprehensible at the worst) I could go into (like Mussolini's attempt to establish Beta Israel as a semi-independent state to get the forces of Zionism on his side (it didn't work)) but rambled enough as it is.

Click to shrink...

Italy stirring up shit in the French and English colonies is stock great power behavior stirring up shit in rival territories hoping to get advantages and perhaps a land grab until the dust settles.

Italy was many things, anticolonial it was not as its behavior even before WW1 showed.

It is easy to blame Mussolini for everything but it was not Mussolini that invaded Libya or grabbed the Dodecanese. Nor was it Mussolini that demanded and got Erithrea or grabbed a concession in China.

 

[Ranger]

Italy stirring up shit in the French and English colonies is stock great power behavior stirring up shit in rival territories hoping to get advantages and perhaps a land grab until the dust settles.

Italy was many things, anticolonial it was not as its behavior even before WW1 showed.

It is easy to blame Mussolini for everything but it was not Mussolini that invaded Libya or grabbed the Dodecanese. Nor was it Mussolini that demanded and got Erithrea or grabbed a concession in China.

Click to shrink...

Ohh no that's true that Italy was colonialist well before Mussolini got anywhere near power, but what's also true is that Mussolini was stirring up those rebellions for Anti-Colonial reasons (in his own words and internal memos at least.) The Fascist Italian foreign policy during the early years of their state (about 1925-30, since before that they didn't really have a colonial policy, and post 1930 they started edging toward the war with Ethiopia) was at least 'officially' anti-colonialist outside of already existing Italian territories. The fascist government knew they couldn't take on Britain in a fight (and indeed, was switching up on if they actually wanted to fight the United Kingdom at all every other month depending on which faction was more prominent) and instead had the thought that they could create a faction of aligned fascist/nationalist Arab states instead.

It was when that became quite obvious it wasn't going to happen, mostly because the fascists were terrible at picking people to support and usually most people they tried to support just took the money and rifles and ran, that they switched to the idea of directly trying to take Egypt and up into Transjordan. Even then Mussolini (but not his subordinates) was always very cold turkey about fighting Britain and France until they thought victory was going to be inevitable (like with the fall of france.) An example of this was Balbo almost invaded Egypt in 1936 without telling anybody else he was going to do it with his effectively personal Libyian militia armies, and it was only thanks to a message from one of Balbo's subordinates that got to Mussolini that caused it to get called off by the world's biggest chin himself. (Though he admittedly apparently sat on the idea for a short while before deciding to send the call off notice.)

As it is though you can argue this still isn't anti-colonialist because the Italians still intended to be an overlord to the independent Arab States they might have created, or at least have those states hopefully dependent on Italy, but it was still trying to support nationalist movements at the time with the intent to create independent native nationalist states in the middle east.

 

[lotho]

Civic nations aren't built around ideology. Plenty of people in the US disagree with lots of the things on your list, and yet they are still Americans. Their citizenship is a legal fact, not a doctrine they hold to. No one sane thinks your citizenship should be based on your ideological adherence to gun rights or opposition to monarchs. "Ethnonationalists" do in fact think you aren't a real citizen unless you meet their definition of the approved ethnos.

Your second paragraph contains a whole lot of wrong. For one, you can most definitely hold racist attitudes toward people you don't interact with. Most fascist Italians probably had minimal interaction with Ethiopians, but they certainly considered them inferior enough to feel justified in murdering and colonizing them. Bringing up Hutu nationalists while being ignorant of the fact they are responsible for one of the most infamous genocides of the last half century is not a good look for someone who is trying to lecture others on the virtues of ethnic nationalism. Likewise, Polish homogeneity is a product of the Holocaust and Soviet ethnic cleansing to be rid of Polish minorities, so they are also a really, really bad example to bring up to laud the beauties of ethnic supremacy. Polish people most definitely can and do interact with African and Asian people. They also interact with the surviving populations of Jews and Romani, though to a much lesser extent than before old Adolph gave ethnonationalism a try.

Very few states are populated solely by any one ethnic group without having made it so by killing or deporting their minority populations, or being ethnically cleansed themselves. The people who think certain ethnicities need to be wiped out are just about all (wait for it) ethnonationalists. The idea that ethnonationalism is the solution to Russian and German aggression, rather than the cause of it is historically illiterate, and also suggests either a malice towards or total ignorance of the large minority populations that existed there in the thirties.

Click to shrink...

Sorry that I'm responding so late, I'm just busy so this will also be rushed.
First off you are wrong about that first point civic nations like America ARE built around ideology, that's what makes things like modern day Trump so dangerous and toxic. It's just that it's practically not worth it for freedom to have an inquisition to hunt down citizens who believe in anti american things like Nazism, communism, monarchy, gun control, ending religious freedom, and free speech. But the proof of our nation being ideological is you just have to look at immigration questions they ask if you are or ever have been a member of the Nazi party, or the Communist party. Both of those are unamerican institutions, and if you answer yes to those questions you will be denied your citizenship if you are applying for it. So far that's what it has been limited to, but there is nothing stopping the nation from expanding it and banning those who are part of a pro monarch party from becoming citizens. Now as I said earlier because of practical issues where the cure is worse than the disease once you are a citizen you can join groups like the Communist party of America, or some Neo Nazi group. But if you were part of them beforehand you will never be a US citizen.

Secondly did you just say Fascist Italy did not have contact with Ethiopia while they were invading and occupying it? Are you for real? That's like saying the British or French did not have contact with Africans durring the 1800's and the scramble for Africa. As for the Polish thing, the holocaust had nothing to do with Polish nationalism they were also victims of Nazi German aggression so I'm not sure how it's relevant, that there used to be minorities in that area, when the group we are discussing about it, was not responsible for their removal.

 

[mesonoxian]

Sorry that I'm responding so late, I'm just busy so this will also be rushed.
First off you are wrong about that first point civic nations like America ARE built around ideology, that's what makes things like modern day Trump so dangerous and toxic. It's just that it's practically not worth it for freedom to have an inquisition to hunt down citizens who believe in anti american things like Nazism, communism, monarchy, gun control, ending religious freedom, and free speech. But the proof of our nation being ideological is you just have to look at immigration questions they ask if you are or ever have been a member of the Nazi party, or the Communist party. Both of those are unamerican institutions, and if you answer yes to those questions you will be denied your citizenship if you are applying for it. So far that's what it has been limited to, but there is nothing stopping the nation from expanding it and banning those who are part of a pro monarch party from becoming citizens. Now as I said earlier because of practical issues where the cure is worse than the disease once you are a citizen you can join groups like the Communist party of America, or some Neo Nazi group. But if you were part of them beforehand you will never be a US citizen.

Secondly did you just say Fascist Italy did not have contact with Ethiopia while they were invading and occupying it? Are you for real? That's like saying the British or French did not have contact with Africans durring the 1800's and the scramble for Africa. As for the Polish thing, the holocaust had nothing to do with Polish nationalism they were also victims of Nazi German aggression so I'm not sure how it's relevant, that there used to be minorities in that area, when the group we are discussing about it, was not responsible for their removal.

Click to shrink...

Seriously? They ask you those questions because they don't want people to destabilize the state. It isn't because those things are somehow incompatible with the mystical essence of "America". They also didn't let people immigrate with certain communicable diseases, but I don't think that is proof that health is somehow a defining element of American identity. The questions ask specifically about those groups that would support the overthrow of the government, or the commission of violence or terrorism. Do you think only the US government cares to avoid being overthrown or inviting in terrorists? This is a really desperate attempt to create some notion of an ideological base for citizenship equivalent to the ethnonationalists racist approach, but it doesn't hold water. You know what they don't ask you about when you try to apply for entry or citizenship? Your feelings on gun rights, freedom of the press, the rights of the British monarch or any of the other stuff you claim is ideologically core to the US. Almost as if they are interested solely in the practical risks such individuals pose, and otherwise don't give a shit.

Your second paragraph involves such a profound misreading of my post, I am almost forced to think it is deliberate intellectual dishonesty. I said nothing about the contact "Fascist Italy" had. Read what you yourself quotes: "Most fascist Italians probably had minimal interaction with Ethiopians ". Do you think your average Italian decided whether to support the invasion on the basis of their close association with Ethiopians? If not, why bother with this response? What is the point of replying if you are going to so totally mischaracterize what you're responding too?

And now for "the Polish thing", as you put it. You brought up Poland as an example of a state where ethnonationalism was justifiable because it is largely homogeneous. The reason it is so homogeneous is that ethnonationalists murdered the minority population there in the millions. You claim Polish nationalism was the best possible response to Nazi and Soviet aggression. Polish nationaalists were just as anxious to target the ethnic minorities in Poland as the Nazis were. Especially the Jewish minority. Polish nationalists murdered Jews in waves of Pogroms. That you don't seem to consider this significant is troubling, because it implies you are either arguing for something which you are near totally ignorant of or that you find nothing problematic about their anti-Semitism.

Ethnonationalism was historically disastrous and anyone supporting these days is using it as a flimsy fig leaf for their support of fascism.

 

[bookwyrm]

@Ranger wait the same guys that put down the Senussi with gas and internment camps turned around and nearly went to war with the UK to liberate North Africa from its colonial oppressors ? That's uh... quite a leap...

 

[Ranger]

@Ranger wait the same guys that put down the Senussi with gas and internment camps turned around and nearly went to war with the UK to liberate North Africa from its colonial oppressors ? That's uh... quite a leap...

Click to shrink...

Yeah, Fascist Italy was a mess of conflicting 'policies.' Like how one day they'd be buttering up the UK and trying to get the British to support Italian claims to be the natural overlord of Austria and the Balkans (actually almost successfully,) and the next day they'd call the British ambassador an idiot and insult the United Kingdom because they thought it would cause the British to give them more concessions. Even with the Senussi rebels they gave them a 'surrender within the next month and turn in the leaders of the rebellion' notice that they (apparently) actually thought would work and end the rebellions and then when they hadn't received a response in a few days decided that such slow response time (not even considering if the message had actually gotten to anyone since the Senussi had to do everything by foot or camel) was an insult to the Italian state and as such the agreement was null and avoid and promptly bombed known rebel positions.

Like the Italian colonial efforts were not a place you wanted to live in if you were seen as an enemy of the state, or just in general because rampant corruption and general complete lack of oversight meant that whoever was incharge of an area could do whatever they wanted without restriction. But that didn't keep people in the upper echelons of it from attempting to do things that ran counter to how they acted in their own territory.

Also Balbo didn't intend to go to war with the UK to liberate the colonies, by the time they were considering it some of them (Balbo) wanted that territory for themselves (The actions before 1930 was the Italians trying to destroy the British Empire without having to actually fight the UK. The complete lack of success meant they stopped really considering local fascist/nationalist movements as a functional path forward for Italian expansion into the area) I was just pointing out with Balbo there that Mussolini at the time didn't want to actually fight the UK at all (he was still hoping that UK and France wouldn't step in regarding Ethiopia.) When the embargo came about after Ethiopia any Italian mindset toward Egypt and the Middle East was 'It should be ours and only we can rule it, not the British'

Edit: General Sum Up: Fascist Italy and Mussolini tended to change up the 'direction' of the country almost every other week which is why there's so much conflicting policies that happened under Fascist Italy, and why Traditional/Italian Fascism is such a hard ideology to pin down since it was pretty much being made on the fly.