AI Challenge: Fascist regime in post-war Europe (the Allies are victorious)

Kammada

Imagine the conditions under which some European country, save Spain and Portugal of course, remains or turn fascist even after the Allied victory.
Major conditions:
1. No POD earlier than the Operation Torch.
2. No major divergence from OTL in the course of the war itself (the Allies DO land in Normandy in mid-44, the Germans are NOT successfull in their Ardennes counter-offensive etc.)
Bonus if a non-fascist nation turns fascist.
My bet: Vichy France joins the allies in 1942 (Petain leaves for Algeria, Darlan isn't assassinated, De Gaulle doesn't manage to replace Giraud, who, btw, has left intact much of the Vichy policies including the anti-Semitic legislation and cult of Petain).
Is this perspective plausible enough? Any suggestions?
 

Tocomocho

Perhaps if Britain accepted the peace offers of Hungary before Barbarossa, then Horthy's Hungary would survive the war. But I'm not sure if it can be considered a proper fascist regime, or if the Soviets wouldn't try anything against a formal neutral nation. Stalin suggested the Allies to invade Switherland, after all...
 

Kammada

Max Sinister, mea culpa with the 1967 coup, although I am not sure about the fascist nature of the Colonels' regime (it was really nasty and right-wing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it was fascist save in a very broad sense).
Tocomocho, this removes the POD back to 1941, which is definitely not the case. Anyway, while very pro-German, Hungary formally joined the war when Barbarossa Plan was launched. Moreover, Britain was in no position to kick Hungary out of the war and impose a separate peace. Even if it was the case, the Germans would quickly replace Horthy with Szalasy (as they have done in OTL in 1944) to put Hungary 'back in line'. All the same, your question about Horthy's supposed fascism is right. Again, his rule was right-wing and authoritarian, but it was in fact contested by true Hungarian fascists - Szalasy's Arrow Cross Party.
 
Dan1988

Dan1988

IIRC, despite the brutality of the 1967 junta and like the 4th of August Régime its emphasis on utilising ancient Greece as an interpretation (going as far as using only kartheovousa in the Government), I don't think it would count as fascist, just like how the 4th of August Régime couldn't necessarily be called fascist (after all there's no anti-Semitism, no expansionist plan, and plus the Greek social security system dates from the 4th of August Régime).
 

KingIII

Dan1988 said:
IIRC, despite the brutality of the 1967 junta and like the 4th of August Régime its emphasis on utilising ancient Greece as an interpretation (going as far as using only kartheovousa in the Government), I don't think it would count as fascist, just like how the 4th of August Régime couldn't necessarily be called fascist (after all there's no anti-Semitism, no expansionist plan, and plus the Greek social security system dates from the 4th of August Régime).
Click to expand...

Anti-antisemitism isn't necessary in a fascist styled government, only Nazism.
 

Kammada

HueyLong said:
Italy didn't have anti-Semitism till after Hitler, and that was Fascism.
Click to expand...
That's the point. If you have to reduce the definition of fascism to some basic and common features, they seem to be as follows:
1. Nationalism (either expansionist as in Germany or isolationist as in Spain).
2. Corporatism in various forms. It has at least to be proclaimed as a goal.
3. Cult of the leader who is perceived as the incarnation of the nation itself (something like "Petain, c'est la France, la France, c'est Petain").
4. Hostility to both socialism and liberalism (in all senses).
5. Authoritarian or totalitarian character of the regime.
6. The State and the nation are viewed as something inseparable. The civil society is given a subordinate position, and that only within the frame of the State (Niente fuori lo Stato, as Mussolini put it). Although I'm not sure about that point.

An idea has just arrived to me: what about Draza Mihajlovic and his Cetniks in Yougoslavia? Unfortunately, I just know about them that they were Serb nationalists, often very hostile to Tito's Partisans, sometimes fighting against them. Their stance toward the Germans was complicated at best (I don't give much credit to the statements concerning their supposed collaborationism - looks like rewriting of history by the victors. But I can be wrong). Could they evolve into something fascist or fascisant in the case of their victory?
 

Strategos' Risk

Kudos for the post that actually summarizes the ideology.

I think France is the best bet, but are there alternatives to Petain and Vichy? What if De Gaulle turned more authoritarian?
 

maverick

Banned
Two ideas:
1. Francois Darlan is not killed in late 1942, thus remaining as the leader of 'Free' French North Africa, as he was before being killed. Being more liked by the allies than deGaulle, he eventually becomes the leader of the FFF, becoming President of the more authoritarian and quasi-fascist Fourth Republic in 1945.
2. The French coup of 1958. In May of 1958 the army seized Algeria and Corsica and was threatening to take Paris if General deGaulle did not return to power. The invasion of Paris was to take place either if deGaulle was killed, left out of government or if a communist takeover seemed likely.
In one of my old timelines at another site, 'Operation Resurrection', I have deGaulle killed by communists, thus forcing the army into taking over continental France. The president is Raoul Salan, being succeeded by Challe and Aussaresses.
 

Norbert714

Kammada said:
That's the point. If you have to reduce the definition of fascism to some basic and common features, they seem to be as follows:
1. Nationalism (either expansionist as in Germany or isolationist as in Spain).
2. Corporatism in various forms. It has at least to be proclaimed as a goal.
3. Cult of the leader who is perceived as the incarnation of the nation itself (something like "Petain, c'est la France, la France, c'est Petain").
4. Hostility to both socialism and liberalism (in all senses).
5. Authoritarian or totalitarian character of the regime.
6. The State and the nation are viewed as something inseparable. The civil society is given a subordinate position, and that only within the frame of the State (Niente fuori lo Stato, as Mussolini put it). Although I'm not sure about that point.

snip question
Click to expand...

Speaking as a fascist, I can say: 1: very true, and one of the reasons people think you have to be a warlord to be fascist.
2: no argument there.
3: This depends, I would say it's possible, but honestly, the BUF could have gone on without Mosley.
4: If not outright violent hostility, than revulsion and distrust at the least.
5: I would say yes, but only because you including authoritarian: not all fascist regimes or theories are totalitarian, or even close.

6. You are correct sir.

So, I think ur batting a thousand. There are important distinctions between the Third Reich and other fascist movements, but they get turned over by people's fear of another Holocaust somewhere.
 

Norbert714

Cherico said:
have italy ether stay neutral or join the allies late in the war
Click to expand...

That, in fact, I have said, is the ONLY thing that would have preserved fascism. Simply put, when Mussolini, (and for a short period, the BUF) bought into, or at least tolerated, the doctrine of Aryan "superiority", the movement was screwed, most likely irreparably.
 

HueyLong

Banned
Leave it be guys, thats all I'm going to say.

And Kammada, I object on the same point as Norbert here. A cult of the leader is not needed. A cult of the state, yes, but fascism could easily have been done by collaboration between a number of leaders, not by one figure head.
 

Wozza

Norbert714 said:
Speaking as a fascist.
Click to expand...

Interesting.:rolleyes:

Although broadly I do agree with you, we hold SUCH a negative view of fascism (and right-wing authoritarianism more broadly) due to its decision to associate itself with Nazism.

The right wing authoritarian regimes that have emerged in the last sixty years have hardly covered themselves in glory, although neither have the left-wing ones, and we do tend to humour people who call themselves marxists.
 

Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy

Banned
Italy could have gone fascist if the troubles in the '60s and '70s got bad enough. It would have been a gradual thing, though. Russia could have become a fascist state after the fall of the Soviet Union if Zhirinovsky or someone like him came to power.

Does it count if Spain or Portugal experience fascist coups after the death of Franco or Salazar, respectively?

BTW, It's "AH Challenge", not "AI Challenge". I just call them challenges, it's clear enough what kind they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top