Could fascism survive to the present without WW2?

[TerranGames]

I know that fascism is a nebulous term where the definition isn't entirely agreed upon, with debates over whether Franco was fascist or not, but just assume a more broad definition of the sort of right-wing nationalist dictatorships that popped up during the interwar years, like Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. Would it be possible for a large number them to survive all the way to the present day as authoritarian, corporatist, socially conservative states? And when I mean "survive" I don't mean as a tiny oddity, like fascist versions of North Korea, but as a significant, relatively wealthy power bloc, as well as being formally undemocratic, in the "one-party list" style elections, or "no elections" styles, not like more modern "competitive authoritarianisms." How far could fascism as an ideology expand?

I'm asking this question because on a lot of the other threads I've seen on something similar, they all assume that the fascist/nazi blocs would collapse or reform into democracies at some point in the 60s/70s onwards, like Francoist Spain or Portugal did. Is this really inevitable, or is this just bias from OTL?

(Disclaimer: I despise fascism, and authoritarianism, just for the record. I'm just interested in how this scenario could play out and the ramifications of it.)

Thanks!

 

[Evil Crusader]

Without WW2, a bloc of Fascist countries keeps existing and possibly becomes entrenched. Their existence and aggressive foreign policies are likely to bring a conflict that - unless it's an anti-Communist crusade where they get opportunistic help by the democratic Powers - is likely to drag them into the ground. If they do avoid said risk, hitting the 90s at least is definitely doable.

 

[Lalli]

Italian and Portuguese fascism certainly will fall when Portugal eventually loses its colonies and Italy loses Ethiopia.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I know that fascism is a nebulous term where the definition isn't entirely agreed upon, with debates over whether Franco was fascist or not, but just assume a more broad definition of the sort of right-wing nationalist dictatorships that popped up during the interwar years, like Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal etc. Would it be possible for a large number them to survive all the way to the present day as authoritarian, corporatist, socially conservative states? And when I mean "survive" I don't mean as a tiny oddity, like fascist versions of North Korea, but as a significant, relatively wealthy power bloc, as well as being formally undemocratic, in the "one-party list" style elections, or "no elections" styles, not like more modern "competitive authoritarianisms." How far could fascism as an ideology expand?

I don't think it would expand, the countries in which it happened were the ones more likely to become fascists, regarding the rich part, I doubt they would have a big economic growth from their starting position.

Italian and Portuguese fascism certainly will fall when Portugal eventually loses its colonies and Italy loses Ethiopia.

Without WW2 there is no de-colonization meaning that they would be able to control these colonies for longer because there would be no other African countries which help you, there is no USSR capable of supplying you and the other colonial powers would help Portugal since that could give ideas to their own colonies.

 

[Lalli]

Without WW2 there is no de-colonization meaning that they would be able to control these colonies for longer because there would be no other African countries which help you, there is no USSR capable of supplying you and the other colonial powers would help Portugal since that could give ideas to their own colonies.

True that de-colonisation would be slower process and some colonies would are held but saying no de-colonisation is completely wrong. There would be still some de-colonisation. Portugal might be able to deal with its colonies but not so sure if Italy is able to keep Ethiopia. Other African colonies and Albania are possible but I can't see Italy holding Ethiopia.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

True that de-colonisation would be slower process and some colonies would are held but saying no de-colonisation is completely wrong. There would be still some de-colonisation. Portugal might be able to deal with its colonies but not so sure if Italy is able to keep Ethiopia. Other African colonies and Albania are possible but I can't see Italy holding Ethiopia.

De-colonization in the sense of what happened where in the 50s most of Africa became independent is probably not going to happen, there probably would be a moment when some colonies will be given up but it depends on what exactly happens in the meantime.
I think that Italy can hold its colonies, without Nazi Germany it wouldn't have invaded Ethiopia and Albania was annexed in 1938.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

It depends on whether you consider militaristic and super-aggressive foreign policies to be essential components of fascism. Italy, Japan, and Romania had these, so it wasn't just Hitler or the Nazis. With regimes like Franco's, there is a serious debate on whether it was really fascist.

If you just mean a despotic political regimes that identifies with right-wing tropes and practices corporate economics, sure it will do fine, but that is because historically this describes most governments. Once you add in things like miltarism, cults of personality, and disregard of the rule of law, you get something more clearly defined as fascism, but these are also all elements of instability.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

The foreign policy, lebensraumy, aspect of fascist regimes will get them into trouble eventually. You can only promise glorious conquests to your populace and not deliver for so long. Eventually your support base will start to discount your words. Add in the economically ruinous rearmament efforts as well as the deplorable domestic policies, and your heading for a fiscal collapse eventually. The capitalist powers eventually sanction them to death.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Without WW2, a bloc of Fascist countries keeps existing and possibly becomes entrenched. Their existence and aggressive foreign policies are likely to bring a conflict that - unless it's an anti-Communist crusade where they get opportunistic help by the democratic Powers - is likely to drag them into the around. If they do avoid said risk, hitting the 90s at least is definitely doable.

If a set of fascist states survive World War 2, I think they’re inevitably going to support the United States against the Soviet Union.

It depends on whether you consider militaristic and super-aggressive foreign policies to be essential components of fascism. Italy, Japan, and Romania had these, so it wasn't just Hitler or the Nazis. With regimes like Franco's, there is a serious debate on whether it was really fascist.

If you just mean a despotic political regimes that identifies with right-wing tropes and practices corporate economics, sure it will do fine, but that is because historically this describes most governments. Once you add in things like miltarism, cults of personality, and disregard of the rule of law, you get something more clearly defined as fascism, but these are also all elements of instability.

Franco actually considered joining the war, but Hitler didn’t give him clearly defined territorial guarantees and he waited long enough to see that Britain was resolved to continue fighting.

The foreign policy, lebensraumy, aspect of fascist regimes will get them into trouble eventually. You can only promise glorious conquests to your populace and not deliver for so long. Eventually your support base will start to discount your words. Add in the economically ruinous rearmament efforts as well as the deplorable domestic policies, and your heading for a fiscal collapse eventually. The capitalist powers eventually sanction them to death.

I think that depends on how many risks they take. A lot of these regimes were led by opportunists. Fascism does have an economic theory, but they’re not as tethered to it as communist regimes. Franco saw significant growth post-WW2. As for domestic policies... I think that depends on the country, but how unpopular were they? They lived in much more conservative timed. Under what condition do you think they’d be sanctioned?

i don‘t think fascism dying is inevitable, but it really depends on what they do in the WW2 period. In you’re scenario, WW2 doesn’t happen, so I think it’s possible. What killed fascism OTL was that all of the large fascist countries were on the losing side of WW2 (whether a Japan was fascist or not is heavily debatable, but a lot of historians seem to think it was similar enough). These regimes were tied to some of the most atrocious crimes in history. This was also part of the reason that the regimes in Portugal and especially Spain collapsed after the War. Franco’s Axis sympathies left him somewhat isolated when the Allies won. Prevent WW2 or weed one away from the Axis and it stands a much better chance of surviving and a serious ideology.

 

[Lalli]

De-colonization in the sense of what happened where in the 50s most of Africa became independent is probably not going to happen, there probably would be a moment when some colonies will be given up but it depends on what exactly happens in the meantime.
I think that Italy can hold its colonies, without Nazi Germany it wouldn't have invaded Ethiopia and Albania was annexed in 1938.

Colonies were pretty much money pits for European nations and they wren't really profitable. And colonial subjects just not accept colonialism. It is not just due devastation of WW2 which led to decolonisation altough it hastened that greatly.

And I disagree with non-expansionist Italy. Mussolini had ideas to fix wrongs of history already before Hitler rose to power. Albania was already basically in Italian sphere and probably eventually taken. Italy too wanted avenge humiliation of First Italian-Abyssinian War and Mussolini was going to conquer that even without Hitler. And even if it is impossible to clearly define fascism one of its major part was aggressive foreign policy.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Colonies were pretty much money pits for European nations and they wren't really profitable. And colonial subjects just not accept colonialism. It is not just due devastation of WW2 which led to decolonisation altough it hastened that greatly.

But due to their pride they would take a long time to accept to give up on them and there would be more states who will manage to be very influencial in their ex-colonies just as France did IOTL.
Edit: And France could keep parts of their colonial empire.

And I disagree with non-expansionist Italy. Mussolini had ideas to fix wrongs of history already before Hitler rose to power. Albania was already basically in Italian sphere and probably eventually taken. Italy too wanted avenge humiliation of First Italian-Abyssinian War and Mussolini was going to conquer that even without Hitler. And even if it is impossible to clearly define fascism one of its major part was aggressive foreign policy.

Albania was in the Italian sphere but it doesn't mean he has to annex it though it isn't unlikely he does.
He wouldn't invade Ethiopia for the moment since that would anger France and GB who are his allies, he may do it but IMO he would be busy with the Spanish Civil War and will forget about Ethiopia.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

I think that depends on how many risks they take. A lot of these regimes were led by opportunists. Fascism does have an economic theory, but they’re not as tethered to it as communist regimes. Franco saw significant growth post-WW2. As for domestic policies... I think that depends on the country, but how unpopular were they? They lived in much more conservative timed. Under what condition do you think they’d be sanctioned?

Franco only saw growth because of the realpolitik of the cold war. Given the sorry state of the Spanish economy immediately after WW2, the victorious powers could've easily created a situation where his regime would've been forced to make political concessions. Lucky for him, the USSR posed a bigger priority at the time. Also I'd argue that Franco was more statist/monarchist than fascist given his proclivity to diminish the influence of the Falangists for the sake of overall political stability.

To your second point conservatism of the time definitely had it's limits. I think, if say the Nazis were left to their own devices regarding the minorities in their country (deporting them or putting them in concentration camps) even the most conservative political groups would protest internationally. I mean Roosevelt embargoed Japan over their treatment of the Chinese. It's safe to assume they'd do the same to Germany eventually.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

Franco only saw growth because of the realpolitik of the cold war. Given the sorry state of the Spanish economy immediately after WW2, the victorious powers could've easily created a situation where his regime would've been forced to make political concessions. Lucky for him, the USSR posed a bigger priority at the time. Also I'd argue that Franco was more statist/monarchist than fascist given his proclivity to diminish the influence of the Falangists for the sake of overall political stability.

To your second point conservatism of the time definitely had it's limits. I think, if say the Nazis were left to their own devices regarding the minorities in their country (deporting them or putting them in concentration camps) even the most conservative political groups would protest internationally. I mean Roosevelt embargoed Japan over their treatment of the Chinese. It's safe to assume they'd do the same to Germany eventually.

I’ve never really bought into the idea that Franco and Salazar weren’t fascists. Differences existed, but they were part of the same historical trend of a broader ideology. In any case, in this scenario, there are very few reasons to isolate him, because he didn’t give tacit support for the losing side in WW2.

The Nazis were a unique case, but racism was rampant at the time. Before Mussolini started cozying up to Hitler, Italian Jews were some of the most fervent fascists and he granted limited citizenship to the Libyans. Some of Franco’s fiercest supporters were Moroccans and they even had at least one Moroccan general during the Spanish Civil War. Genocidal racism isnKt necessarily part of the fascist program. Although racism did exist in both regimes of course. It wasn’t substantially worse than what you’d find in most countries at the time.

There were political reasons that the US opposed Japan beyond the humanitarian ones (although I acknowledge that was part of it). Like I said, fascism’s biggest problems as an ideology was that they were tied to horrific crimes and utterly destroyed in WW2. Weed one away from the Axis and have them not go beyond the pale with war crimes, and you’re likely to see fascism survive as a serious ideology. One backed by liberal powers to prevent the spread of communism.

 

[Garrison]

Arguably it did in the shape of any number of authoritarian regimes that just didn't use the word. Without WW2 it probably lumbers on in the way Communism did IOTL.

 

[ennobee]

The question is if a fascism that wouldn't end up in a war sooner or later would still be 'fascism' in the strictest sense of the word. After all, militarism and a perceived sense of the other nations having it in for you was overall almost as much a hallmark of Fascism as the concept of state/race identity and the longing for a long lost glorious past. The thread started by asking in how far Franco's Spain was fascist and not just hyper-autoritarian. So we could just turn it around and say that any fascist regime that somehow reorganizes and not start a WWII, or or WW. 1b, or WWIII would no longer be considered 'Fascist' in the true sense of the word.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

The question is if a fascism that wouldn't end up in a war sooner or later would still be 'fascism' in the strictest sense of the word. After all, militarism and a perceived sense of the other nations having it in for you was overall almost as much a hallmark of Fascism as the concept of state/race identity and the longing for a long lost glorious past. The thread started by asking in how far Franco's Spain was fascist and not just hyper-autoritarian. So we could just turn it around and say that any fascist regime that somehow reorganizes and not start a WWII, or or WW. 1b, or WWIII would no longer be considered 'Fascist' in the true sense of the word.

I really don’t see it. You can have militarism without starting a world war.

 

[ennobee]

I really don’t see it. You can have militarism without starting a world war.

Yes, but would autocratic militarism without actual fighting still be fascism or just .... autocratic militarism?

 

[Anarch King of Dipsodes]

Arguably it has. Ba'athism is in most respects equivalent to fascism, and rules to this day in Syria.

 

[anotherlurker]

Yes, but would autocratic militarism without actual fighting still be fascism or just .... autocratic militarism?

Salazars Portugal and Dollfuß's Austria didn't even have the militarism part.

 

[Lalli]

Salazars Portugal and Dollfuß's Austria didn't even have the militarism part.

Them hadn't really good direction for expansion or intrests. And Salazar was ready to keep Portuguese colonial empire not matter what it cost. He even trialed general who just gave up with Goa when saw defending that small colony as pointless.